Originally Posted by Sub Driver

The C8 will outperform the C7. The second sports car you opined about is called the Camaro.

Originally Posted by mpdugas

Ferrari build both designs (both 'mid-mounted, front-engined' and 'mid-mounted, rear-engined') concurrently. Some drivers like front-engine cars, some like rear engine cars. Those sorts of drivers are not necessarily interchangeable. That's GM's fundamental thinking error.

Originally Posted by mpdugas

Camaro has a similar problem set, very much like the C7. Both could use chassis dynamics changes, like 4WD-S, to correct their designs' inherent traction problems.

This issue is the primary reason why the C8 will likely perform better, but it doesn't mean that the basic C7 design (mid-mounted, front-engined) should have been dropped after decades of being in use.

The examples of chassis tech from that I used from the Lusso are supported by industry comments that Ferrari probably has the best chassis design engineers extant just now:

Motor Trend "Call it Zen and the art of chassis tuning. Right now, Ferrari might just have the best bunch of chassis engineers in the business. Yes, the GTC4Lusso is that good." is found in this article: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ferr...-drive-review/

Ferrari build both designs (both 'mid-mounted, front-engined' and 'mid-mounted, rear-engined') concurrently. Some drivers like front-engine cars, some like rear engine cars. Those sorts of drivers are not necessarily interchangeable. That's GM's fundamental thinking error.

GM is much larger than Ferrari. Paraphrasing Joni Mitchell, "You (GM) could have been more Than a name on the door On the thirty-third floor in the air".

Originally Posted by Elk

Perhaps, but if the front engine types were prone to move to the Camaro they would have already done so - if nothing else because it is cheaper.

Originally Posted by mpdugas

I wrote not one word of complaint about the C8, not one; my entire comment had little-to-nothing to do about the C8.
This is just a simple lament that GM unnecessarily abandoned a design before it was mature. It doesn't have to be a choice between the two; I mentioned that, too. Read, don't project, that's the adult choice.

Originally Posted by mpdugas

I wrote not one word of complaint about the C8, not one; my entire comment had little-to-nothing to do about the C8.
This is just a simple lament that GM unnecessarily abandoned a design before it was mature. It doesn't have to be a choice between the two; I mentioned that, too. Read, don't project, that's the adult choice.

Originally Posted by roadbike56

OP, you're missing the point. The C7 isn't selling. There's plenty of evidence that at one time GM intended to provide both platforms, ME and FE. But when the C7 reached a dealer inventory of 10K cars, it was clear, the C7 had it's run. Personally, I hate it and wanted to see the C7 or another FE Corvette soldier on, but when sales fell, I knew it was the end of the C7.
The reason GM is going to the ME is to attract new, younger buyers. GM made that clear with the C7 and the hard lines and controversial rear end. They know the Boomer generation is retiring and won't be buying new Corvettes so new buyers are needed. Corvette won't get them with the FE car that's seen as an older generation's car. It's clear, GM had to come out with an ME if Corvette is to survive.

Originally Posted by SkyView

I think GM went to mid engine for one reason Cost Cutting. This design is simply a front wheel drive layout mounted behind the seats. Its even more simple than that because the wheels dont have to steer. They are getting rid of the whole torque tube and it’s vibrating issues with the now GM mandated AFM etc. Cabin heat that everyone complains about will also be gone all the heat producers will now behind your back. This car is going to be less expensive for them to produce in the long run and mechanically more simple. That equals what? higher profits for GM.

Originally Posted by mpdugas

The missing generation:

General Motors, moving with glacial speed and in massive indecision, has finally decided to transform the Corvette from one of the best, front-mounted, mid-engined cars, into a traditional rear-mounted, mid-engine car, to compete head-to-head with some of Europe’s best designs, automobiles whose design companies firm grasp of such technology is rooted in deep racing experience and vast amounts of public exposure by way of large (relatively) retail sales of such car designs.

It is as if Ferrari decided that they should not produce more than one sports car at a time. Thank goodness that Ferrari has better sense than GM.

Where is the final evolution of the C7? Where is the chassis design which finally controls and cures that tail-wagging propensity that pins (aided and abetted by driver incompetence) the nose of the car against the nearest obstacle on the side of the road? GM was but one step away from producing the definitive C7, just one design element short of making the Corvette into the best and most affordable of such front-engined sports cars.

What step did they leave untrod? The change from rear-wheel drive alone to something like the Lusso’s 4WD with four-wheel steering. That would have finally, like the F12tdf, GTR and the Superfast, (some of the best examples of front-mounted, mid-engined cars) which would finally have tamed the tail-wagging-prone beast into a traction monster, saving the beautiful nose of the car from ill-conceived forays onto the side of the road, looking for something to hit.

Ferrari licensed GM’s Magnetorheological damper technology from Delphi, before GM so unwisely sold the technology to China; why would GM hesitate to license Ferrari’s 4RM-S technology, or derive something like it, for the Corvette? There’s but 11 inches difference in the Lusso’s and the C7 wheelbases, a design stretch (or something like it) that literally would have placed the otherwise wonderful chassis of the C7 into design heaven.

I oft reminded people that the modern versions of the Corvette are no longer nose-heavy slugs, with their perfect 50/50 balance ratio, but I failed to realize that GM needed to move that fulcrum forward a bit; it seems that something more like a 53-47 or 54-46 R/F ratio is more appropriate to give this design type good traction from its motor placement up-front.

After years of shying away from the rear-engine design, GM decided to throw its best chassis design out without that last tweak that would have transformed a great design into a magnificent one. It is simply inconceivable that GM cannot design, manufacture and sell two sports carts at the same time. If nothing else, this would have allowed GM to hedge its design bet while the mid-engine C8 found its way.

To argue that selling two sports cars at the same time is too risky, all the while discarding the best-but-penultimate chassis design in favor of an unproven one, simply beggar’s belief. Choice is nice; choice is better than gambling. Mary is betting the (sportscar) farm on successfully competing with a plentitude of similar European designs that have already proven their worth.

Originally Posted by JoesC5

Before you lecture us on the Corvette, you should bone up on it.

The 1963 "nose-heavy slug" has a 47/53 F/R weight distribution and a 16.5 inch Center of Gravity, vs your wonderful "modern" C7 with it's 51/49 F/R weight distribution and it's 17.5 inch Center of Gravity.

Originally Posted by roadbike56

OP, you're missing the point. The C7 isn't selling. There's plenty of evidence that at one time GM intended to provide both platforms, ME and FE. But when the C7 reached a dealer inventory of 10K cars, it was clear, the C7 had it's run. Personally, I hate it and wanted to see the C7 or another FE Corvette soldier on, but when sales fell, I knew it was the end of the C7.
The reason GM is going to the ME is to attract new, younger buyers. GM made that clear with the C7 and the hard lines and controversial rear end. They know the Boomer generation is retiring and won't be buying new Corvettes so new buyers are needed. Corvette won't get them with the FE car that's seen as an older generation's car. It's clear, GM had to come out with an ME if Corvette is to survive.

Originally Posted by mpdugas

However, I have often wondered where those "new Corvette buyers" are coming from. Certainly not the majority of Millennials, who prefer autonomous, electric cars to doing the driving themselves. The same folks who aren't marrying, the same people who eschew home ownership.

Originally Posted by born2beS12

And so does Chevrolet.

Originally Posted by mpdugas

If you will openly acknowledge and accept the Dodge Charger/Challenger four-door series, and the Mustang, as the sports car equivalents of the Corvette, then I shall accept the improbability of the Camaro-as-sports-car. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Your move.

Originally Posted by Bill Dearborn

They have matured the front mid engine design since 1963. The first small block Stingrays had a slight rearward weight bias while the big block versions had a slight forward weight bias. As soon as the driver was in the car they were all rear biased. The C5-C7 version is the ultimate maturation of that concept. It gives a very close to 50/50 weight distribution which used to be the theoretical ideal. However, that ideal is decades old and the current ideal is a rear weight bias.

They are looking at tighter fuel consumption standards world wide, the future need for smaller displacement engines to meet fuel consumption requirements, future need for smaller displacement engines in the racing classes they participate in and the need for more cornering capability. The front mid engine design doesn't get them there. The front mid engine design distributes the car's weight into two main points separated by about 4 feet and to achieve the performance they are trying to achieve they need those two weight centers brought closer together. Can't do that if the occupants of the vehicle are in the way. Front wheel drive and front weight bias doesn't get them there either so that leaves rear mid engine as the choice.

The only way a front mid engine design starts to come close to those goals is if the engine suddenly loses 60% of it's weight. Not something that is going to happen any time soon. Even then the weight is still distributed the wrong way.

Bill