Oh, you didn't. But you did claim "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."

Now that comment is implying the Corvette coupe is too heavy.

In my opinion, your schtick is getting stale. No one has ever posted some change is not good for the Corvette. I'll keep my comments to what I have posted; my opinions.

You have never, ever seen me post I am against change in the form of improvements in the Corvette. I have posted that I am satisfied with the Goodyear tires. I have posted that I am satisfied with the seats. I have posted that the radio meets MY needs for a sports car’s radio. I have posted that I do not want the nav/infotainment system. I have posted that I would enjoy DCT, but that is not crucial I have posted that GM, as with all car manufacturers should continue to improve their product. I have posted that the Corvette is not a large, overweight sports car as some stated. I have posted that GM has no need whatsoever to turn our Corvette into something it is not! I have posted that if you want AWD, go buy an available AWD car. I have posted similar sentiments (go buy brand ‘P’) if you want a ritzy interior, rear or mid-engine, etc.

And finally I have posted that our Corvette is a great performing sports car that is relatively inexpensive to buy, maintain and insure. A plus is that it returns great gas mileage. Finally, the 436 HP in the base car provides more performance than most buyers can begin to safely use and handle. What else do we need?

 

I don't believe the transverse shaft would work in the current chassis design of the Vette. The only way to use a transverse shaft in the Vette is to push the engine forward to make room for the mechanicals that are attached behind the transmission, and pushing the engine forward impacts polar moment and weight distribution; all negatives. If GM wants to add AWD, they are going to have to redesign the car. Going with mid-engine instead requires minimal changes as the V8 can easily sit behind the driver in basketball court...uhhhh...luggage area currently behind the driver.

Long enough to know there isn't a legroom issue.

I think the question that should be asked is "does GM need to advance the Vette's design to increase market share". If the answer is "yes" then the only two solid design options available are either AWD or mid-engine (or both of course, since adding AWD to a mid-engine platform isn't going to require any chassis redesign). Of the two options, I believe there is way more benefit going with the mid-engine.

 

I believe the Vette is large relative to most of the other sports cars that are available, in both interior and exterior terms, and here's why; I believe the Vette drives "larger" than most other sports cars out there, and I believe that if the total volume contained in the space defined by the exterior of the Vette were calculated, it would be larger than most sports cars out there today.

 

Notch, this is pure bovine deification! Get real.

Large is length, width, and weight. Period.

You and Guibo twist and turn more than I have EVER seen or heard during my lifetime.

Where did volume come from? And I've never heard of "driving larger." WTF is that? Oh yes, a Notchism.

Get a life.

 

BS. I never implied that. That would be like me saying that Usain Bolt is slow on the basis that he is slower while carrying a 10-lb backpack. Nevermind the fact that he'd still be faster than 99.99% of the runners on the planet!
The fact is, the coupe is already carrying around extra weight that it does not need. This is for the benefit of the convertible model, which not everyone buys.
Obviously, you are satisfied with the car. The debate is not about what you need, but what options can be made available to make the car appeal to a wider audience.

 

Not sure the mechanicals behind the transmission have much effect, as the Corvette has a transaxle (where the Panamera does not). Whether that transverse shaft passes through the rear of the engine or nearer to the front is not determined by the mechanicals behind the transmission IMO. A return shaft like that used on the GT-R could be employed, combined with the through-the-block approach of the Panamera, in which case engine height is not affected.

Going to mid-engined, you'd have the space/practicality issues, plus you'd have to redesign both the front and rear crash structures. You'd also need to redesign the cooling system (a huge hurdle in Ford GT development) and pray to god you don't have engine fire issues as in other mid-engined designs. There would be additional work in terms of aerodyamics. With an FF-type system, you'd need to do none of this.

Until you do a long trip, or extended trips in stop-and-go in a car with 3 pedals, you can't know the 458 will be just as comfortable as a Corvette (or any of the front-engined Ferrari GTs, which Ferrari says are more likely to be used as daily drivers than the 458).

 

You absolutely state the Corvette coupe is too heavy!!! Are you that unaware of what you are typing? See your post. Read it. Comprehend exactly what you are saying.

No matter, the fact is that "extra weight" is miniscule, for one, and your ignorance of business realities is showing. It is more economical for coupes and converts to share one platform, than to have separate platforms.

If you honestly believe shedding a few pounds on the coupe, and adding the cost of serving up two distinct platforms, will make the car appeal to a wider audience, you are wrong. Go present that argument to a group at Wharton or Kellogg and watch their amused expressions.

See my prior post. Yes, I am.

Room for improvement? Sure. Just keep the car at the current price point, and leave the configuration alone.

 

You think that simply because you don't understand the concept.

Length, width, and height define volume in a rectangular object. The larger the volume the larger the car.

Weight doesn't contribute to large. The Hindenburg was large, but it didn't weigh much.

Probably because you don't hang with the right people or have never made assessments that lead to "drives large" conclusions.

 

Doesn't the GT-R's return shaft run under the engine?


Like I said, it's a sports car. If an increase in market share is the goal, then more "sports car" is IMO the answer.

Sure I can.

 

Yes, I'm fully aware of what I'm saying, within the context of your b1tching:
"The base Corvette is still one of the lightest sports cars in its class on the road."

That the base Corvette is carrying around some more weight has no bearing on whether it's not one of the lightest sports cars in its class (barring the unlikelihood that that weight is hundreds of pounds). Nor does it mean that the Corvette is too heavy in the absolute sense you're making it. Is it carrying around extra weight that it doesn't necessarily need, no matter how miniscule? Would appear to be so.

Secondly, I never said anything about the need to have two separate platforms, one for coupe and one for convertible. I am merely saying that the coupe is already heavier than it otherwise might be. Got it?

I never said I believe that, but true to form, you concluded that it had to be entertained. You wouldn't need two "distinct platforms" anyway, as many convertible platforms use the existing coupe as a base. Bogus argument.

 

You state as fact that all GM has to do is extend the wheelbase to go with AWD, yet you have no idea how much? 1 inch? 5 inches? 10 inches? Get real, you don't have a clue as to the engineering that has to be done. What is the distance from the number one spark plug to the front axle's centerline on the C6? How much will a FF type AWD add to the front of the engine?

 

Yes, it does. Because Nissan didn't devise a through-the-crankcase design like Porsche did. Theirs was a more conventional AWD approach, merely combined with the transaxle principle.

The 911 didn't become more "sports car" to expand its marketshare. Neither did any of the BMW M vehicles, many of which are now luxury-laden, AWD turbocharged behemoths. The X6M is said to be the strongest seller within the lineup. BMW's M brand manager during the E92 period said M3 buyers were primarily looking for the top-of-the line model of a benchmark series; few see it as a product derived of traditional motorsport heritage. Look how poorly the Viper ACR sold; brand new ones are still stagnating on some dealer lots. People nowadays seem to want all of their toys to go with them. By and large, the market for mid-engined sports cars is still relatively tiny.

 

What a crock of **** Notch. Short and sweet.

To correct your immediate error, volume is not a measurement of a rectangular object. Volume applies to a three dimensional body. For a car, that would be more accurately defined as a cube.

And how in God's name the Hindenburg got brought into this is beyond me. Oh yes, another Notchism.

I recently posted a "game, set, match" comment about the "smaller" Porsche's owner scraping the nose of his $100,000 off the front wall of my Corvette's parking spot because it wouldn't fit. Do you understand that concept?

As far as your assumption that I don't hang with the right people; you know what they say about assuming.

You are not worth it Notch.

 

10" would be pretty unrealistic, considering the FF, which has a V12 engine and seating for 4 is already about 10" longer in wheelbase than the Corvette. With 2 fewer inline cylinders and subtracting the rear passenger requirement, the Corvette wouldn't need to be anywhere near 10" longer to accomodate the hardware.
Considering not a single person here has even peered inside the engine bay of the C7, why do we need to have facts for what a C8 might have? We have some measurements based on the FF, which is 40mm longer in wheelbase, and only 5mm longer in overall length from the 612 which it replaced.

 

That is basically what the current Corvette uses; one basic platform. So the coupe 'penalty', if any, is really miniscule. Keep in mind the targa top needs the rigidity also.

 

That's why I asked you the dimension of a C6 which has been in production for 9 years. If you don't know the dimensions of a C6 how do you know how much the wheelbase would need to be extended on a C7 to accommodate AWD?

 

It was just a guess. Why don't you tell me the distance from the C6's axle line to the #1 cylinder spark plug. I don't even know that figure for the FF, but I don't see how that's too relevant.

 

Reading this thread is like watching a multi-sided tennis match where the contestants use baseball bats to hit hand grenades over the net.

 

It is entertaining if you don't get too PO'd at a couple of guys.

 

Yes, I agree.

I've learned to divert my irritation into something more productive than name-calling and personal insults. However, I fully understand that others may not prefer this approach. I suppose it comes under the general heading of "civility".