When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Deja vue all over again. They talked about this in the 80's. Too expensive for one. Cooling & maintainance is another problem. Plus Chevrolet wants to keep the price accessible for an average person to buy. If I'm wrong I'll switch to lite beer.
From: When all is said and done... there is a hell of a lot more said than done. Riverside,Texas
St. Jude Donor '05 thru '26
The handling of a mid-engined car is not so forgiving as the current design. The "average Joe" could get into some serious trouble pretty quickly. I don't think you'll ever see it in the "standard" vette.
Dave Hill told me they would never do this, in part, for the reasons given above. Of course, he is retired now and the new thinkers may be a bit less conservative... Who would ever guess that GM would consider a $100,000 sports car?????
The two major undisputed advantages are: (1) better traction on accleration, and (2) better braking. A third advantage is improved cornering due to greater traction at the rear wheels, allowing for earlier application of power. The issue that the handling is not as safe at the limit needs to be addressed. Most of the bad handling at the limit (think 911s before the 996 model) is directly traced to improper rear suspension geometry allowing for toe-out during lift throttle. Toe-out induces loss of traction and "over steer." I think that proper rear suspension design (think double A-arm suspension like the C5/C6) would solve that problem.
Race cars since the early 1960's have demonstrated the advantages of rear mid-engine/rear wheel drive. You don't see ANY front engine/real wheel drive purpose-designed race cars. The disadvantages for street cars with rear mid-engine/rear wheel drive are: (1) the car is usually limited to 2-seats only (not a problem for Corvetttes), and (2) more limited luggage space. The limitation on luggage space is, I think, the only real disadvantage for Corvette owners.
Last edited by Silverton; Aug 24, 2007 at 03:53 PM.
I do not think the cost would be prohibitive, the Acura NSX only cost 90,000, with out dealer mark ups, I would imagine the corvette would much less to manufacture than the nsx with its hand welded aluminum body.
I know this would has been debated a bit, so no use in speculating.
I picture in my mind an NSX with vette power and price of admission, I would buy it in a heart beat.
Deja Vue...."Pontiac Fiero"... I don't think they'll go that way, however, if you think about it....transaxle on the C5/C6.....1963 Pontiac Tempest. What goes around comes around!
If GM does go for a 'limited production' mid-motored Corvette, it's just anothe example of GM brass following another companies lead. Do you think that the Camero would be coming if Ford had not re-made the retro Mustang? No. A mid-motored Vette is nothing but GM's answer to the GT500. I'm short on time here, but most of GM's new designe are proceded by either Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, or some other company doing it first. If I ran GM, I'd fire their complete design team, and hire some people with some brains and original design ideas. Not a bunch of copycats!