daixloxbmw

I agree that MR won't make a difference on the street or notice track drivers but I wasn't referring to either of those scenarios. I specifically said "likely plateaued performance-wise with the FMR layout", which means extracting that last ounce of performance out of the Corvette so even marginally improving the polar moment of inertia makes a difference when going 10/10ths. Yes, wheelbase makes a difference and I know the Corvette already has the engine within the axles, hence my very intentional description of it being FMR, rather than the more common description of FR. Lastly, I do agree that for most, the feel is where MR would be mostly noticed since most drivers won't ever get anywhere near 10/10ths. Having said all that, none of what I said previously is inaccurate, you can argue about the significance of what "marginally improved" means but my point about the improvement is still valid in the context that phileaglesfan said there's no point of MR since the Corvette already has 50/50 weight distribution and you are in agreement with me that it marginally improves the polar moment of inertia.

LT1 Z51

I guess my argument is the marginal improvement isn't worth the design and interior space trade offs. In a race car, sure, on a road car it's dumb.

I'm in the camp that all MR road cars are pointless and inferior as a total package to FMR GT style cars.

daixloxbmw

Sure, I agree with you that the marginal improvements aren't worth the added cost and other compromises. I'll also be perfectly happy to keep the Corvette in its current FMR layout, it's DD-ability and affordability. My original point was just countering phileaglesfan's suggestion that it is pointless due to the fact that the Corvette already achieved 50/50 weight distribution. Whether or not we believe it is worth it, is another discussion.

However, by that logic, all supercars are not worth it either but that's besides the the point because people who can afford them want it because of what the car can potentially do, not that they have half the skill to actually do it.

pdiddy972

A flaw in this analogy is the rotation isn't being performed (in the car) from the middle. All turning is performed at the wheels. So the torque of the turn is magnified as in a lever, by the distance from the wheels to the center of mass. And, as others have already pointed out, the movement of mass going from the current FMR layout to ME isn't so dramatic - it's just moving it behind the driver instead of in front of him.

daixloxbmw

Agreed, my analogy is less applicable to the Corvette which already has most of its mass centralized. However, less applicable still means my point is completely valid in the context that counters the idea that "it does nothing for a car that already has 50/50 weight distribution".

For the last time, I'm not saying that this is a game changing improvement for the Corvette, just purely pointing out that it does make a difference despite already having a 50/50 weight distribution. Whether or not we believe this improvement is worthwhile is irrelevant. The fact that you and LT1 Z51 have stated that it is a "marginal" and "isn't so dramatic" improvement proves that you agree with me that it IS an improvement, just not significant, which I also agree with.

JerriVette

I can't wait for the rear mid engine corvette ...it's going to be a world automotive event!

lostsoul

only 8 months away from ordering. Should be able to save up for a bigger deposit.

A10 might not fit in a c7 but will in the c8.

JoesC5

I agree. While 95% will never have their Corvette on a track, most of those remaining 5% are not capable of driving the Corvette at it's limit's.

If you are one of the 5% and you are not getting 100% of the present front engine car's capabilities, why is it important to increase the car's capabilities if you are not driver enough to take advantage of that increased capability?

I don't see any worthwhile benefits to a mid engine Corvette based on what the 95% would have to give up just to relocate the engine from in front of the driver to behind the driver.

\Boost Monkey/

But by this logic, why buy any sports/super car when one is not capable of even taking a higher performing luxury coupe to its limits, either.

Why not buy a BMW 335i, or 650i etc versus the Vette? A high performing luxury coupe will give you the power you want for straight lines.

Or hell, why not just get a Camaro SS or Mustang... you likely can’t take either of those to their limits either, yet will give you same/similar Power to a Vette.

Point is, you can’t be hypocritical when criticizing technological advancement in a high performance sports car. RMR is an advancement for the Corvette, period. The rest of the debate is irrelevant as the BMW guy above has pointed out.

VETTE-NV

You have made an intelligent, logical point. It is completely wasted on the person it was directed to.

OnPoint

One of the main attractions to RMR with its rear weight bias is the ability to put the power to ground with its increased traction. I would suggest that while this can be helpful on track, that the folks who would benefit most from this improvement over the current platform are folks who don't track their cars. The current vette has reached the point of its limits of being able to put power to ground with current OEM tires. Whether pulling hard from a standing start, or power shifting into second, or feathering throttle on mid-turn, keeping the rear hooked up would benefit all.

Thus, from a performance standpoint, I don't agree the hardcore track hounds would be the only ones who would realize the benefit of a RMR architecture. The single biggest drawback of the RMR is the difficulty in maintaining utility (i.e. storage). That is not a big issue to me, but I can readily understand how it is for some. For those in the latter camp on that issue, judge the RMR Corvette when it unveils on that score - as we don't have any idea how GM plans to mitigate that, or whether they'll be successful on that score.

Zymurgy

Let's not forget that the Corvette "R" (C8R?) car cannot go to a mid-rear layout unless GM builds a street version. The Corvette race teams definitely want a MR layout.

I want a MR Corvette so I can have an extremely capable true exotic for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the current exotics, not because I will drive it to it's limits, but just because I want one.

VETTE-NV

If all engineers thought like you, there would never be any progress. "Let's not make it better because only 5% will use it." Brilliant.

There's also a little thing called "competition," in which cars are tested by magazines and websites. When one car performs better than another, it becomes more desirable to those who care about such things. People who buy performance cars usually do. Whether or not they choose to use it to it's full potential is up to them.

Car tests are for comparison, done mostly in optimum environments by talented drivers. It helps the buyer gauge what he's buying. Some people buy for bragging rights, some buy to actually push the limits of themselves and the car.

To ignore the possibilities of improving the breed simply because few will actually use what they have is about as stupid as it gets. And of course there are those who cling to what they have hoping that the latest and greatest doesn't make them feel bad about how dated their "Precious" has become.

Supersonic 427

In other words 100% of us don't need a more capable Corvette!

LT1 Z51

I think the discussion point here is MR versus FMR.

For racing you need MR, but not at the expense of the FMR road car.

I don't think GM is dumb enough obviously to throw away FMR. MR is an addition not a replacement.

Regarding Hypercars being MR. Absolutely dumb, but those cars don't make sense because the people who buy them as status symbols not as actual driving cars.

\Boost Monkey/

This is all subjective.


I could give a **** about trunk space or interior cabin storage etc. I didn't buy the Vette to go on road trips or be a grand touring car, or go grocery shopping in. That's what my DD is for and my wife's SUV.


Not everybody cares about the same things and many are very willing to sacrifice storage space to get a reasonably priced RMR car (assuming it's not a halo model).


I, for one, am anxious to see if Corvette can deliver us one for a reasonable price. I disagree that this would not be a game changer at the level of price and performance the Corvette operates at.

LT1 Z51

It's not subjective if you consider the type of buyer. As you just stated, you have 3 cars in your household.

A person who is a one or two car household is very very likely to care about things like storage and interior volume. I'm single, and so I'm an a-typical two car household, but even I care about those things because I want to drive my Corvette daily.

If you do a study of cars like the Corvette, I bet many of them are bought by people who are one or two car households. MR cars are not, they are typically a 4th or 5th car in a household, a 3rd car would be I think the absolute minimum. So the demographic is different.

The question becomes, who are you selling to? I think the one or two car household is a larger segment, and therefore you'd never ever design and sell a mass market car as an MR car.

Look at the economical ones like a 4C, they don't sell. Even if the MR car was $60k, many many current Corvette people would not buy it. Those lost sales would not be offset by those who do. MR is outside of racing, and outside of a plaything for upper middle class or rich people a dumb idea for any car.

Sports cars, including GT's are a tough sell already. Just look at the Viper.

JoesC5

I'm single and have 4 cars in my household. I drive my 4 door sedan mainly running boring errands around town and road trips to kinfolks in Arkansas(away from civilization and I need a back seat).

I drive my C6 Z06 on long road trips and the large cargo space is more than welcome. I don't want to drive a boring 4 door sedan while hitting all the national parks, etc. Driving roads like the Pig Trail and Tail of the Dragon, Iron mountain Road, Million Dollar Highway, etc, are for Corvettes, not sedans and SUV's.

JoesC5

A good engineer/business manager doesn't design/market his product to suit 5% of his potential customers while giving the finger to the remaining 95%.

The 95% pay the bills, not the 5%.

You should get out more and look at how most people use their Corvettes. From the 1957 Corvette onward, when a high performance engine/suspension/brakes etc were available as extra cost options, the majority of Corvette owners opted for the lower performing base car. I suggest you look at the production stats for the past 60 years.

A good friend bought a new 1958 Corvette(and he still has it and it's 99% original) with the Fuel Injection option. I doubt that you are even aware that there were two optional Fuel Injection engine options in 1958. Both were the same price($484.20) and he purchased the 250 HP version instead of the 290 HP version. He could have saved money and had an even higher horsepower engine (270 HP) for $182.95. Just goes to show that not everyone wants the "highest" performing Corvette available, even when the highest horsepower engine is no more expensive.

Why are you not driving a Z06 with the Z07 option, since having the highest performing Corvette available is so important to you? I'm not interested in having the latest "bad ***" version but my Corvette is higher performing than yours. I bought the Z06 and not the ZR1 as I'm not on an "ego trip". I wasn't interested in paying another $76,000 just so I could claim to have the fastest Corvette available. I'm one of the 95%er's, and there are a bunch of us around.

Zymurgy

I hope to buy a MR Corvette, and it would be the 2nd car in the household, not the 3rd absolute minimum (replacing my current C7 which is a daily driver).

When you have a MR exotic at a Corvette type price point, the market dynamics change. The Corvette chief engineer has already stated that a MR could be built for $5K more than the current C7.