Your self-contradictory post, or GMs lack of marketing or not. It is a mid-engined car.

Public belief does not change facts. Public belief will not make a Porsche 911 a mid-engined car either.

 

Radically changing the layout versus components is a major difference in investment. I see a continuation in the volume of Corvette, not a shift to a pair of radically different layouts. I see that approach only radically increasing the price of both.

There are also many challengers and other issues with an engine behind the cockpit. There are also many negatives as well. Right now the C6 is a sub-50" high vehicle with the best room and cargo capacity in its class, second to none. I don't want this changed. I think Corvette should focus on component, performance and styling changes.

Heck, the C6 really is a balance of great proportions. When I talk to people about the C6, they are wholly unaware of the evolution of the Corvette. After talking to them, they want one like never before, and even more so if they weren't interested in a Corvette prior. I think such word-of-mouth marketing by owners is far more helpful than looking at radical layout changes that could challenge the brand altogether.

Corvette has been a winning formula for nearly six (6) decades. The C6 has changed perceptions (especially in Europe). Continuing to hammer that with better styling and better performance is the best way forward. Cockpit before engine will just present more challenges.

If anything, GM should just let 3rd parties prove a cockpit before engine design. This has been done before. If one is good enough, the base frame/layout could be leveraged for the C8. But until GM sees that, they won't change the formula.

 

Who says you can't have a trunk that fits a golf bag?

 

Rear-mid engine sports cars are exciting, but honestly, if you have to have one, why not buy one of the ones that are already built?

Porsche builds a really nice one -- so nice it's all they can do to keep it from embarassing its big brother. If you believe lighter is better, there's the Lotus Elise. Need 400hp? Audi has your number. Win the lottery? Ferrari awaits.

"Corvette should be rear-mid-engined" -- why?

Honestly, if you want a rear-mid engined sports car, go buy one. If you think none of the ones already built meet your criteria, do you really believe that a beleaguered GM can do better? Is it really about ultimate performance, or something else, like brand/national bragging rights, or getting your supercar fix on a middle-management salary?

A rear-mid engined Corvette looks like a lot of risk for little reward, a fool's errand to satisfy a customer that can't be satisfied.

The current car is plenty exotic, a fact you may forget once you've owned one for a while -- let a friend drive it one day for a reminder. It's lower, wider, quicker, faster, cooler-sounding, better-handling, and despite its age and lack of updates still has features that are not found on ordinary cars. It's not as practical as a sedan or a sedan-based coupe, but it gets groceries and takes extended road trips without involving UPS. And like the Porsche 911 and the mid-engined Ferrari, it's true to its decades-long heritage, an easily-recognizable icon.

The day may come when Corvette needs to revise its traditional package, but it ain't today. Its greatness needs refinement, not reinvention.

 

I love the talk about a new design, but can you imagine how many years it would take to get out all the bugs out of a complete new engine design (and everything that goes with it). Today's engineers are incredible and I know they would be up to task, but even with a simply designed family car they tell you to never buy a first year model until all the bugs are worked out. I think we would have to wait until 2015 to 2020 for the first great new Corvette to come out as perfect as we want if they started designing it today.....I think.

 

Front engine.
But not because of the boring traditionalism of not doing any change on the lay out.

 

Mid engine cars are awesome !

 

I agree with owning a mid engine. I had a Ferrari 308 GTS 1985 wish I would have never sold at the time money was tight I over reacted. It also had room for two golf bags.

 

Quoted for truth

 

A mid engine behind the cockpit would require an end to the LS series engine that has led the Vette to become the supreme American sports car. I am not willing to endorse dropping the proven powerhouse and generations of GM research.

 

The LS is an incredible engine, but I think fuel efficiency standards may kill the LS series anyway. I just hope the next engine has 8 cylinders.

Ever since I saw the Aerovette at the GM Design Center, I have lusted over a mid-engined Corvette.

Michael

 

For a street car, I have yet to see the benefits of going to a midengine layout. Keep it the way it is.

Someone forgot to tell the ZR1 that all of these midengine Ferrarri's and Lambo's are faster.

 

I think the continued problem is not mid-engine, but OHC v. push-rod.

A) Too many locales penalize engine block displacement, which has lead to ...
B) The assumption that OHC is better, with the associated assumptions that push-rod is not just less powerful, but less fuel efficient

I won't deny that OHC lets you have higher revs, and that could mean even another 20mph in the top gear. But I think the continued and clear "tax bias" against engine block displacement, instead of total displacement/complexity -- let alone assumed fuel economy -- is the biggest issue with push-rod. And they are not any "real" issues with push-rod itself.

So I think OHC is more of a consideration than a mid-engine design. Then again I don't see the why Corvette should go OHC -- especially not with the current LS design's clearly superior fuel economy, torque and overall size compared to the best, "commodity supercar" (i.e., sub-$300K vehicle) OHC engines out there.

Am I wrong?

 

This part may be. Top Speed is a function of horsepower, drag, and friction losses, and gearing. Engine speed is not a factor unless the gearing is not optimal for top speed. If the gearing is too short so that the speed is not limited by power but by engine RPM, then this may be the cases. However that should not be the case for a properly engineered driveline.

 

Understood. I figured 20mph is a stretch in the great majority of cases. I was only stating the "best case" scenario for OHC, to appease those who think pushrod is dated. In many cases the top torque is often not near redline, OHC or pushrod, and the point is moot anyway.

Just a bit curious if OHC version of the LS3 and LS7, with their same output at their current peak, they might get another 5-10mph at the same 5th gear ratios thanx to another 1-2Krpm? Or maybe not. I guess speculation doesn't matter, as the design would be difference anyway.

In any case, pushrod does over 190 and even 200mph, in a darn reliable engine design, and gives 30mpg at highway speeds.

 

Why? The Mosler MT900 has been using an LSx engine behind the cockpit for years.

 

This debate seems to never end, I can hear the old timers of the 50's,"if they put a V8 in it it won't be keeping with tradition".

So let's change V8 with, popup headlights, no popup headlights, back hatch, no hatch and on and on and on......

Sometimes you have to change, no sometimes you NEED to change.

 

New European crash standards have caused a number or changes to the internal structures and designs of all new designs in sold in Europe. It affects all the hard points under the skin. It affects the ability to use pop-ups. It affects the length of overhangs, nose shapes, etc..

New standards for emmissions, fuel mileage, crash standards, will affect every design and engineering decision. Sometimes tradition has to change as a result.

 

I prefer the front-mid location that the car currently has.