Mid-engine delivers the driving experience in a way that is demonstrably different than any of the other engine location designs, and the difference is fundamentally a "more sporting" experience.

Not advocating, only looking at the range of possibilities.

 

I think GM may very well rebadge the 2014 corvette and try to market it as a car with that is like a 100k+ high end car with out the 100k+ price. They may even make the corvette it's own brand under GM to show just how much of a leap this car is into the high end.

 

Old topic and 99% (if not 100%) on here agree that will never happen.

 

I know, but odder thing's have happened.

 

Which would run completely counter to the original intent of the Corvette. Not going to happen thankfully.

 

I said badge, not manufacturing brand. The prestige problem isn't because Corvette's a Chevy; it's because Corvette is relatively inexpensive and common. Corvette is a strong brand, it just doesn't have snob appeal. Invent a new brand for a new mid-engined car if you want prestige money, and leave Corvette to own its present segment.

Or, make Corvette a brand, give the present car a legitimate model name, and give the new car a different model name. This is harder and riskier, though.

 

 

I haven't said much about mid-engine because I have little interest in the topic and believe it is unlikely to happen.

That said, I will say this...if I had to pick one single thing that would really negatively affect the image that Corvette has as one of the top front-engined supercars, it would be a mid-engine configuration. That would completely change the Corvette design and drive sales away vs an AWD option or separate model. Just my opinion but it is also backed up by Tom Peters, the Chief Designer for the C6/Z06 in this interview from sometime in the 06-07 timeframe...

 

That makes sense.
But now, he does also seem to stress the importance of that very desirable 'near 50/50' (it's actually closer to 51/49 depending on which C6 model we're looking at) weight distribution in that article.
Certainly adding AWD would also throw that balance off if using a platform similar to/the same as what we currently have (I know some have mentioned an increase in wheel base to offset that added frontal weight).

 

Of course, any AWD system GM might do would have to take that into account. It could be offset/balanced in a wide variety of ways.

Tom is now the GM Performance Design Director for GM...here is a little project he has been working on lately...funny how that hood venting looks similar to the Jalopnik C7 rendering hood and even the smaller rear fender vents.
http://www.lsxtv.com/news/videozl1-w...or-tom-peters/

 

There is nothing magic about a 50/50 static weight distribution. As a matter of fact, a low polar moment of inertia and a rear weight bias contribute to improved handling, traction, and balance under braking.

 

I thoroughly agree. I didn't actually imply that it was ideal/perfect, Tom Peters did.
And certainly adding more weight (via an AWD system) to the very front of a car with 50%/50% or 51%/49% F/R weight distribution can drive that balance even further into that 'less than ideal' (53/47? 54/46?) territory.
I personally would much rather have a 46/54 or even a 44/56 F/R weight distribution but I think many suspension/handling/braking engineers are often afraid to do that in a street car.
A mid-engine RWD layout could certainly deliver that rear weight bias and all of the benefits that comes with it but I think it's quite clear that the Corvette team is not exploring that at this juncture.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

Which is the reason why I am against an AWD Vette.

 

Right, I already agreed to that. What I'm waiting for from you is any evidence that this "more sporting" experience is the overriding, major reason for why people choose mid-engined supercars. Bear in mind that the vast majority of supercar buyers nowadays are laywers, doctors, bankers, hedgefund managers, oil tycoons, pro ballers, playboys, etc. These are not first and foremost sportscar buyers or "enthusiasts" as we know them, even though the cars themselves offer a more sporting experience.
It can be argued that a manual transmission offers a "fundamentally more sporting experience" in terms of driver involvement, yet look at the low take rate of manual transmissions on the F430, something like 1% (Ferrari had previously thought 20% would choose manual). Now they've made the DCT the default transmission.
A mid-engined supercar grabs attention for all kinds of reasons. Image/looks. Rarity. Exotic nature of build. General impracticality as regards to cost, space, reliability, etc. Some of these points are probably there for the reasons I'm citing as to why a mid-engined Corvette won't necessarily increase sales beyond a front-engined one: At the Corvette's price point, practicality is a bigger issue than it is for someone willing to drop nearly $300k on a 458 (or Porsche competitor to the 458). They won't necessarily give up that practicality for a more sporting experience.

To further reinforce that quote from Tom Peters, here's a journalist from Pistonheads who visited the Wixom engine plant and talked to Corvette team members working on the C7:
"Juechter dismisses the speculation about a switch to a mid-engine layout by saying Corvettes have always been practical, and the switch away from a front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout would significantly dent that."

AWD as an option allows that basic front-engined, RWD layout to exist.

It is interesting to consider that GM might consider a mid-engined version of a Corvette, but I think such a model would only be supplement to the front-engined model.

 

A BMW 528i xDrive is only marginally worse than the RWD model: 50.1/49.9 vs 49.4/50.6

While I agree that more weight over the rear axle is ideal, arguably the sharpest-handling, most balanced front-engined cars on the market, the FRS/BRZ duo, have a claimed 53/47 weight distribution (55/45 as measured by the mags).

 

Good point.
But then again those are 2700/2800 pound cars that are also being touted for their extremely low center of gravity too. Not sure if that matters at all or not but perhaps one needs to also consider total weight when determing an 'ideal' weight distribution and it's effects (if any) and not simply taking the F/R percentage splits alone.
Just not sure on that one.

 

It appears that you are associating "supercar" with a different trait than I am; you "price" and me "performance" (both objective and subjective performance). A mid-engine Vette does not have to be supercar priced.

 

Once you have driven a mid-engine car, it is hard to imagine dreaming about owning anything else. I did not understand this until I drove a Boxster and an f430. But what is done is done, and the only contingent plans at GM are for the c8. The Corvette minus its engine placement is already a thing to behold; a pirouette of clever, yet simple engineering that makes the Germans look dumb. Many people, even youngsters realize this, yet a mid-engine Ferrari is still the dream for technical geeks and style oriented people alike, and it all comes down to angular mass; it is such an easy and formulaic stepping stone into becoming a true "supercar", and now with the camaro trouncing dangerously close to corvette territory, on top of the impending release of an ever better version, I think the time has never been better to justify a mid-engine vette. Oh and one more thing, there are tons of mid-engine cars that can fit two gold-bags. take a look at the evora/mp4-12c(rear shelf)/boxster as a few examples. I mean, the extra luggage argument is just nonsense, and that leaves us with heritage/cost. The ONLY way it would cost more is if GM couldn't reach the economies of scale due to the redesign; this is indeed a risk. Then again, who not buy a Vette is it was mid-engine and had comparable luggage space.... If you wouldn't because you cant fit all your lifes baggage, then you need to reconsider why you own a Vette in the first place (Do not make me embed the True Lies clip). Given how few Corvettes GM sells anyway, the dent to the bottom line would be far less than if they decided to give the Malibu a lukewarm redo (oh wait they did). It is time for the Corvette to stop being a compromise machine--that is what the Camaro is for.

 

The Corvette a compromise machine.

Too bad the Z06 and ZR1 DESTROY your F430 in every way(outside of looks and sound) possible. Would I love to have an F car? Sure, but for the status, nothing else. If I want to go beat up on other fast cars, I'm taking the Corvette. If I want to be seen by everyone, and use the exhaust note as my stereo, I'd take the exotic.

 

Many people don't believe this is true in terms of subjective assessments.