When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Providing the mid-engine car isn't just hype, hope GM puts a better automatic transmission in it.
Additionally hoping the design isn't based on the C7. While the C7 is a great looking car as a front engine, all the conceptual art I've seen using it just isn't pleasing to my eye. It looks like a hack job, bloated and just out of whack.
Realizing many car companies use existing models as test beds (which I hope is the case w/ the spy shots we've seen). GM has an opportunity to create something very special. Hope they hit a home run w/ design and mechanics while keeping the car affordable for its core buyer base.
Just trolling, but technically the Corvette has been "mid-engine" for quite some time. Font-mid-engine to be exact. I just don't understand why everyone is so excited about the engine being in the rear. Really I don't.
Before a discussion can begin, we have to determine which wheels are being powered: AWD, FWD, RWD.
For the maximum amount of traction, the majority of a car's weight should be nearest the wheels being.
50/50 weight distribution for AWD.
60/40 weight distribution for FWD.
40/60 weight distribution for RWD.
Ever wonder why guys with pickup trucks throw a bunch of wood, etc., in the bed of their trucks in the wintertime?
Just trolling, but technically the Corvette has been "mid-engine" for quite some time. Font-mid-engine to be exact. I just don't understand why everyone is so excited about the engine being in the rear. Really I don't.
Your looking at static weight. Do some reading on the dynamic ( active ) weight transfer of a mid engine car, and you will see why most current race cars are midengined.
Your looking at static weight. Do some reading on the dynamic ( active ) weight transfer of a mid engine car, and you will see why most current race cars are midengined.
Not to mention better front end visibility, lower CD, packaging of a somewhat taller motor (😉, lower CG, etc etc.
Your looking at static weight. Do some reading on the dynamic ( active ) weight transfer of a mid engine car, and you will see why most current race cars are midengined.
Not really following this logic... Dynamic weight transfer doesn't care where the engine is, just where the weight is distributed. All that dynamic weight transfer means is the changing of weight from wheel to wheel while the car is moving (dynamic conditions). I would like to see references for what you're trying to say, so I can try and understand it.
Again, aerodynamics in general are better on most rear engine cars (for high down-force), but it always depends on the particular design. Some (actually most) of the lowest drag cars are front engine. Just look at what Nissan was able to accomplish with the GTR. It's always a balancing act, but it just doesn't seem worth it in this case.
Obsessive compulsive engineering aside, I think it would be a terrible move for GM to go with a rear-mid-engine design because of COST and heritage. It just seems extremely excessive to make the affordable-ever-man's american sports car, into an unattainable super-car. Maybe a special mid-rear engine option to go alongside the standard front engine Corvette, but if it's only rear engine... I think it's going to **** off a lot of Corvette enthusiasts.
Not really following this logic... Dynamic weight transfer doesn't care where the engine is, just where the weight is distributed. All that dynamic weight transfer means is the changing of weight from wheel to wheel while the car is moving (dynamic conditions). I would like to see references for what you're trying to say, so I can try and understand it.
Again, aerodynamics in general are better on most rear engine cars (for high down-force), but it always depends on the particular design. Some (actually most) of the lowest drag cars are front engine. Just look at what Nissan was able to accomplish with the GTR. It's always a balancing act, but it just doesn't seem worth it in this case.
Obsessive compulsive engineering aside, I think it would be a terrible move for GM to go with a rear-mid-engine design because of COST and heritage. It just seems extremely excessive to make the affordable-ever-man's american sports car, into an unattainable super-car. Maybe a special mid-rear engine option to go alongside the standard front engine Corvette, but if it's only rear engine... I think it's going to **** off a lot of Corvette enthusiasts.
1. You're assuming that there won't be a front engine platform.
2. Ford, Honda, Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, Porsche, MB, BMW, AM all have or are in development of mid engine supercars...and there are lots of reasons for this.
3. Brand needs to appeal to wider audience than aging enthusiasts.
4. The chassis of the current platform isn't in the same league as any of the mid engine rivals.
For those who think MEs are no big deal, I encourage them to go out and drive one in anger.
Although there are many others, here is a great place to do it: http://www.exoticsracing.com/
I always attend the first day of Indy qualifying in the 70s and 80s. Jim had faith in the Mallard. He was a much better driver than an engineer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hurtubise
That phone call is going to be hard to make, Herk died in 1989
Originally Posted by JeffInDFW
Call Jim Hertabise and ask him why a mid engine is better than front.
1. You're assuming that there won't be a front engine platform.
2. Ford, Honda, Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, Porsche, MB, BMW, AM all have or are in development of mid engine supercars...and there are lots of reasons for this.
3. Brand needs to appeal to wider audience than aging enthusiasts.
4. The chassis of the current platform isn't in the same league as any of the mid engine rivals.
Not really following this logic... Dynamic weight transfer doesn't care where the engine is, just where the weight is distributed. All that dynamic weight transfer means is the changing of weight from wheel to wheel while the car is moving (dynamic conditions). I would like to see references for what you're trying to say, so I can try and understand it.
Again, aerodynamics in general are better on most rear engine cars (for high down-force), but it always depends on the particular design. Some (actually most) of the lowest drag cars are front engine. Just look at what Nissan was able to accomplish with the GTR. It's always a balancing act, but it just doesn't seem worth it in this case.
Obsessive compulsive engineering aside, I think it would be a terrible move for GM to go with a rear-mid-engine design because of COST and heritage. It just seems extremely excessive to make the affordable-ever-man's american sports car, into an unattainable super-car. Maybe a special mid-rear engine option to go alongside the standard front engine Corvette, but if it's only rear engine... I think it's going to **** off a lot of Corvette enthusiasts.
Wikipedia is your friend, also google. I have owned and raced 7 midengined cars. You can believe what you want about front engines, but look at the high end race cars,most all are mid engined. Also, aero can be set up for front or midengined cars. The wind tunnel tells the engineers what is needed.
07-24-2017, 10:22 AM
Mid-engine news (sort-of) from Automotive News.
