Movie Muscle

Toyota did the MR2 for 13 years from 1984 - 2007 in multiple countries. With production of over 300000 cars. That is likely one of the best examples of a price point mid engine car. Gm doing the Fiero shows that is was doable.

Bill Dearborn

From what has been reported over the last couple of years is when the mid engine car hits the market a front engine car will be carried on for a year or two afterward. The mid engine car will be the bread and butter car with the different pricing categories while the front engine car will be a high option high priced goodbye car.

They have to go mid engine to be competitive in the market they are in. They are not in the Mustang/Camaro market place, they are competing with top level sports cars from Europe and Asia. The things driving them toward a mid engine car are fuel economy restrictions, tighter emissions restrictions, and raw performance. Getting all of those things means producing a car that turns better, has lower weight, better traction, and eventually smaller engines. Racing gives us an idea where things are going. We all ready know the GTLM class has engine size restricted to 5.5L Vs the street 6.2L engines and it is highly likely those sizes may be reduced again over the next couple of years.

If your marketing philosophy is the race engine is a street engine then the street engine better resemble the race engine. Not be like Toyota's NASCAR engine that doesn't relate to any street engine they build.

The final goal could be to finally start moving to a total electric drivetrain if battery technology progresses far enough.

We are only 8 years away from the 2025 models that have some pretty strict requirements on them. A 2019 Mid Engine car is only 6 years away from that point. They need to have the basic architecture worked out as they head into that time period. Maybe the Trump Administration will reduce those requirements but the rest of the world will still have their requirements so GM and other auto makers will be emphasizing the tighter set of rules and focusing on the cars that will sell in the future not the ones that sold in the past. Even the Customer set will be different as most of the current owners will be sleeping 6 ft under by then.

Bill

torquetube

I don't think it would. It's all the same parts, minus the driveshaft. Like a FWD car.

I think the advantage of going to a rear mid-engined layout has never been less, though. Engines are lighter now (especially per unit power) while cars (sports cars, anyway) are much heavier. So relocating the engine has a proportionally lesser effect on mass distribution than in the old days.

And it's not like front-engine sports cars aren't spectacular performers (F12, ZR1, Z06, Viper, GT-R, LFA, SLS). There are more interesting areas to improve a car in my opinion.

village idiot

I can't imagine it costing more. heck it might cost less because there is no torque tube.
What it will cost us is almost completely unrelated to cost of manufacturing though

service on mid engine cars blows though.

torquetube

Was that a mistake? They had a single platform on a single assembly line that could be configured a bunch of different ways, depending on what customers wanted. I doubt that having fewer choices would have made the C6 more popular.

JoesC5

^^^ I agree. GM could easily mix their different products on their single assembly line.

JoesC5

Correct that the costly carbon fiber torque tube(Z06) and carbon fiber prop shaft(Z06) would be eliminated, but the current transaxle would have to be replaced with a much more costly one that relocates the transmission to behind the differential.

Spasetrucker

Admittedly I don't know much about production cost, but I keep remembering the first "world car" that was debuted back in the forties. Apparently the Germans believed they could mass produce that rear-engine Volkswagen Beetle at an economical price.

village idiot

in fact, they do. They often make different cars on the assembly line. A few different drivetrain packages isn't a big deal.

JerriVette

I believe the mid engine corvettes only more expensive build item will just be the transaxle that will need to be purchased outside GM..

I would think an extra five grand i price would do the trick.

I do like the huge trunk out back in the present corvette but I'd be willing to compromise that fact..

At first I was disappointed for a mid engine corvette with a discussed price of around 150 grand...

I'm not spending 150 grand on any car and I'm glad to hear a more normal corvette pricing for the mid engine corvette.

Imagine Porsche charges an extra 4 grand for its world renowned PDk....so I don't see why GM wouldn't charge less as they always do..

That's about the only added cost for a mid rear engine corvette...

Now I'm interested to see what's going to be offered....

I'm ready for something different for my next sports car....so it could be a 650 hp c7 z06 or a new mid rear engine 500 hp model with DCT...maybe vw can convince Porsche to sell its PDk to GM for four grand a piece for the new corvette.

God knows the vw group could use the money these days..

Of course the maintaince and repair costs make have present corvette owners go into cardiac arrest ....so who knows..maybe A10 is being engineered for the new c8...

It's possible....

Boiler_81

The material cost of a mid engine is not significantly different than the front engine. Price, as exhibited by the Italian mid engines is not necessarily a reflection of the cost to manufacture.

jimmyb

Let's face it: WE'VE talked ourselves into the mid-engine car being expensive! Tadge said he could make a mid-engine Corvette for $5,000 more than a front engine car....and he said that YEARS ago.
The Cayman/Boxster twins prove it can be done. And Porsche is the most profitable car maker on the planet so clearly these cars aren't loss leaders.

Jimmy

redzone

Nothing in your first post mentioned the new FGT. That's what I was referring to. Thanks for the clarification in your edit. All 05-06 FGT's were fitted with a Ricardo 6-speed manual.

NORTY

With a total production run of only 4,000 cars, you didn't know this?

Here's a hint for ya. When the Corvette mid comes out and they make 300,000 of 'em, it'll be worth what your C5 is...

JoesC5

Back in 2008 GM let it be known that the ZR1 would be a limited run car and the price would reflect it. And it did.

4,684 C6 ZR1's built and look at what they are worth today.

Sure glad I didn't go out and buy a bunch of ZR1's and stored them waiting to make a killing today.

Cliff notes: I don't have a crystal ball that will tell which cars will go over a side of a cliff and which ones will climb to the top of the mountain.

PS- I traded my 10.5 year old C5 ,back in 2008(for my 2009 Z06), and I got 44.9% of what I paid for it new in 1997. That's not bad. The dealer sold it for 53.8% of what I paid for it when new.

I didn't buy a single new car over the past 53 years(I purchased my first new car in 1964) with the expectation that it would increase in value when I decided to sell it., and I'm not going to start now.

formulaWA

I should have been a little more specific. I was as some folks sumized referring to the Pontiac Fiero. Version 1.0 was the 84-87 Fiero. In 1987 GM was developing the 2nd generation Fiero. It was to have a completely new Pontiac designed mid engine sport suspension with the Quad 4 as the base engine and the turbocharged Buick grandnational V6 as the optional engine. In preparation for this GM took the 1st generation FIero spent $75 million in 2days dollars to lift the car up, scrap the 1st generation chevette/xcar suspension, design and implement a completely new midengine suspension designed for a performance sports car and put it in the 88 Fiero. The difference between versions 1.0 and 2.0 was dramatic and for it's time it was a solid performer. Sigh trying to get parts for version 2.0 is difficult. The point I am making here is even version 2.0 was priced very competitively and even with a new midengine suspension it sold for half the price of the corvette of the era

If your interested in how an unpopular sports car idea was maneuvered around a GM bean counting bureaucracy. I was reading a best selling business book called enterpenuring. Been around for a while but big corporations still buy It (Boeing has bought 10,000 copies, required reading 4 managers there). This is a book on business studies of the most ambitious and successful internal corporate innovators and what they accomplished as visionaries for other companies to emulate.

flickr.com/phot...62@N07/shares/01MBk2

Larry/car

Yes, and if we look back to the late fifties, a total redesign was implimated as nothing was available, with the exception of the VW Bug. GM' s version was not even close to the Bug design. The Corvair sold for more than a thousand dollars less than the Impala(?). Though the profit was less than the full sized Chevy.

DAFFYDRUNK

I think they could make the existing transaxle work. I thought saw some car show where they built a mid engine kit car and used a Porsche transaxle flipped around with some mod kit that made it work with an LS. If that's possible, then I'm sure GM could engineer something up with the existing transaxle without breaking the bank.

See vid:

jimmyb

Exactly^^^^^^

This obsession (by some members) with engineering a mid-engine transaxle (and how much it will cost) is silly. PLENTY of experience/knowledge exists on HOW to do it, not just within GM but from outside suppliers. Not like a mid-engine mounted transaxle is brand new, cutting edge tech. To suggest that THIS will break the bank is flat incorrect. Porsche figured it out on the Cayman/Boxster....

vetteLT193

Mid engine cars are 2 seaters... This means there is limited market for them no matter what so they aren't going to be used in a wide range of cars. For whatever reason the Fiero has gone down in history as a mistake for GM... however they sold over 370k cars in a 5 year production run. They absolutely smoked the competition (MR2) in sales numbers. The fire issue was heavily overstated. By 1988 when the kinks were worked out they were actually good cars but the fire issue made GM kill it off.

So with that said: GM can make a good mid engine car. They have proved they can make it affordable. There has been enough time between the Fiero and now to do it again.