The Panamera sidestepped the engine-raising issue entirely, didn't it?
You would not necessarily have to shift the engine to the rear. In a typical evolutionary change between model generations, you could shift the front axle placement forward. The FF has improved interior space compared to its 612 predecessor even with the AWD hardware. By moving the front axle forward, you can also minimize the front/rear weight bias, which a typical AWD application would upset (shifting it forward). For the car built on the same platform (but not having the AWD hardware), its weight bias is effectively shifted rearward, thus placing more weight over the driven wheels, compared to a platform that did not have its wheelbase lengthened. There can be some loss in agility but as discussed elsewhere, the tradeoff can be more stability and a better ride. I don't think anyone laments the wheelbase increases in the C5/C6 vs the C4.

chaase makes a good point about interior space compromises for a mid-engined design. Look inside just about any mid-engined car, even the Ford GT which was designed for big Americans in mind, and you'll see cramped footwell space that can greatly diminish long-distance touring comfort. After driving through the worst of stop-and-go traffic, it's nice to be able to extend your clutch leg. In most of the mid-engined designs I've seen, there isn't enough space to allow for that. Factor in the additional costs for further safety R&D, and a wholesale change in the Corvette's iconic design layout (a revolutionary change which I don't think any other model has ever experienced), and my guess is that there will be a lower take rate of a mid-engined Corvette vs a front-engined Corvette.

Check the footwell space of the Pantera, GT, and Corvette.
http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/s...a-Interior.png
http://autopia.org/gallery/data/500/...T_interior.jpg
http://www.zorly.com/images_corvette...20interior.jpg

 

You tell me if you think it's a good idea to lengthen the polar moment of inertia, how much forward the engine would have to be moved in the Vette to accommodate the drive unit on the back of the transmission, and where the traverse drive shaft would go if GM took the Porsche Panamera approach on an existing flow design (the Vette). Not only would the forward engine movement be a negative in terms of polar moment, it would also be a negative in terms of static weight distribution.

Panamera front drive engineering...




It's a sports car for heavens sake, not a luxo-barge or a truck.

Leg room:

Ferrari 458 = 45.0"
Cayman = 43.0"
Carrera GT = 45.5"
Vette = 43.0"

All of these cars have dead pedals.

 

I disagree.

AWD Vette = no. Mid-engine Vette = yes (the improvement in the driving experience the mid-engine would bring far out weighs the minimal improvements AWD brings to the game).

 

And would GM have to place that transverse shaft in exactly the same location as Porsche has chosen for the Panamera? Perhaps GM has enough creative minds that they wouldn't need to copy it outright.

It's a sports car, yet many people do buy it to use as a luxo-barge. Notice the very small take rate on stripper Corvettes, and relatively high take rates of automatics + convertibles + 3LT/4LT options, where available. Never undestimate the aesthetic drawing power of a sports car.

Having a dead pedal tells you nothing about where the plane of the dead pedal is, and whether it's canted inward toward the car's center line, as it is in many mid-engined cars. For example, that 458 has better on-paper specs for legroom than the Corvette, but does that mean it's actually roomier? Not according to the pictures that show the relationship of the pedals to other parts of the car. For example, this one is a RHD car but the basic principles remain the same for a LHD car, in which the driver's left leg would be forced toward the centerline:
http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/site...ri-458-1_0.jpg
It would be downright uncomfortable to use that triangulated section of carpeted footwell as a deadpedal for long distances, even though it is directly in line with the driver's hip.

No such concerns in the Corvette (note how its dead pedal plane lines up with the other pedals, unlike in the Ford GT):
http://images.thecarconnection.com/l...00322467_l.jpg

The Carrera GT does have good footwell space, but it's also 3" wider than a base C6. The Cayman's is good too, but it doesn't have the tire and wheel sizes expected of a car designed to reign in 638 hp. Its deadpedal is also positioned inward with respect to the Corvette's.

This raises question about those on-paper specs that you cite: Is that for legroom with respect to the gas pedal, or for the deadpedal? In a mid-engined car, those two are rarely one and the same. A Murcielago officially has more legroom than a C6, at 43.3". What that figure does not tell you is that not just the pedals, but the steering wheel itself is skewed toward the centerline of the car, creating an awkward driving position. Plus the deadpedal is positioned a bit closer to the driver than the other pedals. The Aventador is said to be a little better, but is still noted for some awkwardness in reviews; but that's how super Lambo reviews always seem to go, isn't it? "This driving position is better than the last..."

The hugely unofficial poll here suggests something like an 18% take rate for AWD. And this is for a crowd which, in discussions here, seems very conservative (perhaps moreso than the rest of the Corvette-buying public that does not participate in online forums). This suggests 18% on top of the 25-30k Corvettes that would likely be sold purely in RWD format. You are quite sure the Corvette can sustain sales of 35k mid-engined cars, which will almost definitely cost more to develop, which will be less practical in terms of space, and which does away with a huge part of the emotional appeal of the Corvette (its long-nose, short rear deck design in classic GT proportions)? I'm not so sure.

 

Porsche's transverse shaft design is as efficient, compact, and lightweight as can reasonably be designed given it's objective.

And the transverse shaft is the lesser concern (although still a major concern) of the three problems (polar/weight distribution/transverse).

I've diriven the 458, and legroom is not an issue for me (I'm a bit over 6'2").

 

How can you draw the conclusion that since 18% said they would buy a AWD C7 that that would increase the sales of C7's 18%. Some, if not most, would come from the ranks of purchasers of RWD C7's(if the AWD option was not available) and the sales of AWD C7's would mean that the sales of a RWD C7 would decrease by the like amount.

From the poll I saw, only 6% said they would ONLY buy an AWD C7. That means everyone else that would buy a C7 would buy one if the AWD was not an option.

Look at the sales figures of base C'6 when the Grand Sport became available. The GS sales were not on top of the base C6 sales, as many, if not most, of the GS buyers came from the base C6 ranks. GS sales went up, and the base C6 sales went down.

 

The location of that transverse shaft will be an important determinant in the polar moment and weight distribution. Being a 4-door with seating for 4, its design objective may be more constrained with respect to cabin space than the Corvette's. But as I said, an FF approach sidesteps many of the problems raised. The point being, that a company with as many talented engineers as GM should be able to find a solution that does not raise the engine.
You've driven the 458 for very long trips? Legroom might not be an issue in a car with only 2 pedals. It could be an issue for one with 3 pedals.

Fair enough on the 6%. But like I said, it was a highly unofficial poll, of a demographic that has shown to be conservative in their approach to the Corvette.
You would not know necessarily that sales of the RWD C7 would decrease by the like amount. The year that the GS became available, the Corvette production numbers tanked a further 28% from their already downward trend. By that time, the base car had been in production for half a decade, a scenario for fresh metal that would not be played out if an AWD model were introduced concurrently (or even just after) the RWD model.
For a C8, there could be new customers to the brand due to people on the fence about other marques, and that applies to AWD and RWD models alike. People who admire the Corvette's value proposition, its classic GT looks, its practicality, now combined with Audi-levels of interior quality (and AWD versatility, for those who want it). If GM can't expand the marketshare beyond the current customer base, that would be a real problem. One which they've explicitly said they're trying to avoid with the direction they're taking the C7.

 

The idea is to increase sales by selling to NEW owners who don't presently own a Corvette. It is to compete with others to steal market share from them.

The new Cadillac XLS/ATS and their present Olympic marketing push is aimed directly at the BMW/Audi crowd by offering performance and quality with an AWD option. Think they would be doing that if they just listened to old Cadillac owners?

And if people switched from RWD to an AWD Corvette, what do you care? Do you really care if people switch from manual to automatic transmissions? Besides, if RWD is so great as many here are maintaining, what is there to worry about?

 

Why don't you just go buy an AWD mid engined car that's already on the market, instead of trying to tell us Corvette owners what we should be buying. The reason I own three Corvettes is because I like the Corvette. If I wanted an AWD mid-engined car I would go with another car. I sure as hell don't hang out at FerrariChat.com and dictate to them that a Ferrari should be like a Corvette.

 

I'm not sure anyone here is advocating an AWD mid-engined car. The genesis of these threads seems to stem from the idea that some would have mid-engined before they'd ever touch an AWD Corvette.
Who is telling Corvette owners what they should be buying? Not everyone wants to buy a Ferrari. People on FerrariChat.com debate all manner of things all the time, AWD included. It does not follow that one side is "dictating" anything to the other. We are merely discussing the pros/cons of various features. When you tell people they should go buy something else, it sounds like you can no longer rationally defend a position. You've run out of ideas, just like schoolkids who say "If you like it so much, why don't you marry it?!"

 

Have you heard of BlueOx?

 

Yes. This is the same guy who says that AWD should only be an option, right? Said so in this post.
How does arguing for an option mean that he is dictating what other Corvette owners should be buying?

 

Should the remainder of us Corvette owners(the majority) that are not interested in a AWD option have to bear ANY of the expense of a complete redesign of the Corvette so it can have an AWD option. If the AWD option can't be added to the existing design then the car will have to be re-designed, raising the cost of the car, with or without me buying the AWD option. As for the mid-engine design, there is no way the existing Corvette can be designed for a mid engine placement. That means it will not be an option and I won't have a choice between a front engine Corvette or a mid engine Corvette.

Better re-read BlueOx's posts. All he talks about is changing the Corvette design away from it's traditional design that the majority of us are very happy with.

 

AWD appears to be out for the C7, but lengthening the wheelbase to accomodate an FF-style setup for a C8 should be a very minor extra expense. The reality is Corvette coupe buyers are already driving around in a compromised platform; it's carrying the extra weight in the structure that makes the convertible possible with little modification.
I'm not arguing for a mid-engined design, and your concern is exactly my point: a mid-engined design removes the iconic long-hood, short-deck GT proportions of the Corvette, and it removes it for everyone.

I've just pointed to a post by BlueOx showing that he supports AWD as an option, leaving your beloved RWD version largely unscathed. That is not changing it away from the traditional design that the majority of your are very happy with. It is entirely two different things to see the benefits of an option vs "telling Corvette owners what they should be buying." I could argue for a dual-clutch transmission option on some car; that doesn't mean I'm telling those car owners what they should be buying.

 

How much do you think the wheelbase would have to be extended for a FF style AWD?

 

Sheesh, how much longer can it go LOL, it's already quite a damn long wheelbase for a two seat sports car!
Please leave the ultra long wheelbases for LeMans cars and limousines LOL.






That's likely true but the added weight might not be to quite the extent that one may think...the coupe's wide open/removable top already mandates much of that 'extra structure' anyway, whatever extra that's build into it is probably only to make up for the convertible's lack of a hoop/halo. The coupe also has a wide open hatch area that the 'vert doesn't have as well, it's probably a series of gives and takes there.

 

God, thank you! Some of this is getting damned old.

Rear mid-engined and/or AWD cars are available. I, and others, have posted before to those wailing for these layouts to go buy an existing car. The Corvette is the Corvette.

Of course I, and others, have been called names for stating that opinion. Screw it, I have a thick skin!

 

Glibo, I happen to agree with Joe. The Corvette is and has been the Corvette, America's sports car, for 60 years.

 

What an idiotic post. The base Corvette is still one of the lightest sports cars in its class on the road. But noooooo, you add some dumb twist to try and make yourself sound all-knowing.

 

That would sort of depend on what kind of wheelbase extension we'll be seeing with the C7. From the mule pictures, it already looks to have an extended wheelbase. If this was for the purpose of moving weight rearward anyway (as I've suggested), there might not be any need to extend the wheelbase further by the time the C8 arrives. The FF increases by 40mm compared to the 612, but it's not clear how much (if any) of that was due to the AWD hardware or if it was for the change between generations anyway, for more interior space. In any case, that's 1.57". The C5's wheelbase jumped 6.8" from the C4 with no AWD added.

A wheelbase increase of 1.57" (assuming that's what it takes to go from C7 to AWD-enabled C8) hardly knocks the Corvette into the "ultra long" category of Le Mans cars.
I'm not talking about the structure in the hoop/halo area. The weight difference from the convertible due to a wide open hatch area isn't particularly relevant here. We are not debating the magnitude of the differences in weight, but we seem to be both in agreement that the base coupe is carrying out extra weight it otherwise would not.

Where did I say the Corvette wasn't one of the lightest sports car in its class?? Look whose post is idiotic...