Patrick McDaniel

Sunday at the Orange County Convention Center (Orlando) Central Florida Auto Show.

I was talking to the GM rep when he said they have reach the limit on front engine cars with this Z06 and that the replacement to the Z06 would have a mid-engine. He said he could not offer any more info than that.

I have absolutely no idea if he really knew what he was talking about with the mid-engine talk but he reallly did know Corvette and the Z06.

fhturner

I think you were fed some

What limit? The primary advantage of a mid-engined car is better handling due to even front/rear weight distribution. Hell, we're right at or very close to 50/50 now. The additional complexity and packaging dilemmas, not to mention loss of cargo room, pretty well make a mid-engine direction for the Corvette a moot point.

Patrick McDaniel

I'm on your side. There is also the tradition of front engine rear wheel drive.

There is an advantage to mid-rear engine on launch. The weight starts out over the drive wheels so it hooks up better.

You never know if someone really knows something or is trying to impress.

StickShiftCorvette

Mid engine cars generally CAN handle better because of their lower polar moment of interia that aids transitional turning and rearward weight bias for better traction to the rear drive wheels for 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance.

A mid engined car compared to a front engine rear drive car is like a dumbell compared to a cannon ball: the cannon ball can can be quickly and easily spun on its vertial axis compared to a dumbell (laying on its weights). Even if they weigh the same it is much easier to turn the cannon ball. The "dumbell" car can have 50-50 weight distribution, but that weight being far from the center of gravity is hard to turn.

Remember, early C3 Corvettes had 48% front/52% rear weight distribution and these don't outhandle C5's or C6s...

Don Juan

Roush already has a 700 HP mustang.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/10/...t-for-mustang/

Ford tuner Roush has put together three new kits for Mustang GT500, offering as much as 700 horsepower for owners of the popular muscle car. The simplest upgrade is the addition of a Cold Air Kit with new calibration which nets 45 horsepower.

The next step is including the 2.3L blower in a package which adds 120 horsepower and 88 lb.-ft. torque while keeping a 3-year/36,000 mile warranty. This warranty will not void any offered by the factory. This kit includes the ROUSHcharger, a 78mm non-removable pulley and new calibration.

For those living on the wild side, a non-warranty version will also be offered, and this version is anticipated to push the GT500 engine to 700 horsepower — 200 more than the stock engine. Customers will have to purchase a 72mm or 76mm pulley separately, and this version does not include an upgraded calibration. Pricing has not yet been announced.

1969Vette383

Considering that since 1963 the Corvette has been considered a front-mid layout, there's no reason to build a true mid-engine car. The centerline of the foremost pistons does not cross over the centerline of the front axle. C2, C3, and C4 all had the engine and transmission mated together. Starting with C5 GM mated the transmission to the axle to give even better weight bias characteristics.

bernrex

C7Z .... perhaps

davidwp97

My uncle's cousin-in-law is a janitor at GM and has a camera disguised as a broom. He took this picture of the actual mid-engine Corvette:



David

Onyasix

Rather edgy, looks more like a Caddy with C5 badges.

Onyasix

Hasn't GM gone through the mid engine concept several times in the past and has of course, stayed with the front engine for several reasons? Storage space for one. The front engine and Corvette are similar to the V8 engine and Corvette, without either it just ain't a Vette. O.K. those '53's, 54's and few '55's were in the learning curve and don't count.

midnite902

I do not think you will see a rear-mid engined Corvette. The liability laws in this country would make it expensive to make a mid engined car as safe as the current Corvette.

Personally having owned mid-engine and rear engined cars, I think our current layout is superior in inclimate conditions. Lose the tail on your Corvette and you have a chance to save it and regain control. Lose the tail on a rear engine car and it is gone. I think we have the superior platform for all but all out racing.

EuroRod

I personally spoke with two Corvette engineers at the C6 Bash this past Spring. They also said that a mid-engine car was being highly considered for the C-8. The C-7 will be an evolution of the C-6, but after that............?

StickShiftCorvette

I disagree with your idea that liability laws have anything to do with this decision.

GM was able to engineer the Fiero and it was not expensive. Toyota made MR2s that were inexpensive as well.

In bad weather mid engine (NOT REAR engined) have better traction than front "mid engined" cars and with lower polar moments, require LESS traction to recover from spins and slides.

If you run faster with a mid engined car because it is more capable, there is a point where the laws of physics catch up with you. It's why more 4WD trucks get stuck in snow than 2WD cars - OVERCONFIDENCE!!

LTC Z06

For all the advantages that rear mid-engine cars have on the track it is a fact that it is easier for amateurs to drive quickly with a front mid-engine car. The advantages of rear mid-engine can only be taken advantage of by highly skilled drivers. Also there is the luggage space issue. Modern design for rear mid-engine cars does not leave much room for luggage.

1969Vette383

Since the Corvette, in its current configuration, is very close to a 50:50 weight bias, why doesn't GM cornerweight the car from the factory?

Front to rear weight bias is great, but in terms of road racing cornerweighting holds a certain advantage.

Cornerweighting is the act of making the weights of LF+RR = RF+LR. Ideally a 3000 pound car would have 750 pounds over each tire, but that's in a perfect world. [Shift corner weight and overall mass around accordingly to fit your car.]

Cornerweighting is attained through raising (+weight) and lowering (-weight) corners of the vehicle. While I haven't had the opportunity to drive a car that has been cornerweighted, I do hear that it is advantageous over a car that has not been cornerweighted.

petefias

It is a nobel idea, but what would be the target weight for the driver? It would certainly affect the outcome.

petefias

I thougth the C6 was an evolution of the C5, so the C7 will be a rebodied C6? Not that anything is wrong with that, but this is another indicator how much (money) trouble GM is having.

midnite902

I owned a mid engine Ferrari and there was a warning in the owner's manual about driving it in snow and ice. My Lotus Europa handled awesome in dry weather but was just ordinary when the roads were wet.

As for liability, in a high speed frontal crash mid engine cars must absorb the impact without the help of the engine mass and must have a passenger compartment isolated from the possibility of the motor comprising the integrity of passenger area.

Both the Fiero and the MR2 incurred insurance penalties because of crash safety concerns.

1969Vette383

You bring up a valid point for sure. I'd have to say that the industry would have to stick to the standard 180 pound occupant and fill the gas tank halfway.

When you look at a car's GVW, for every seat that has a seatbelt the manufacturer has added an imaginary 180 pound person. To get a more accurate weight of the empty car, subtract 180 pounds for every seat. For the Corvette, subtract 360 pounds, for a 4 seater (Camaro/Firebird for example) subtract 720 pounds.

StickShiftCorvette

The warning you site is likely driven by the high performance summer tires that came with the Lotus.

The Fiero and MR2 passed ALL the same federal standards as any other US sold car (OK, the new Elise has a waiver!). Do rear and mid Porsches have a similar insurance penalty? Don't forget, insurance companies use almost ANY excuse they can think of to raise rates and charge extra or excess premiums!!!