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.
If you look at Ferrari they don't charge more for their front engine cars than rear unless it's a higher performing variant it seems like the f12 or 812 etc. Perhaps Chevy will do the same, base the price more so on the performance variant and less on the engine configuration. There will probably be some premium for a ME but I don't think the "base" ME will cost as much or more than a Z06 for example if it has a NA LT1. It may cost in between a GS and Z06 though.
*edit* Here's a link to the images. I saved them this morning as soon as I saw them.
*edit again* GM must really not want this stuff online. My imgur album was deleted by someone other than me. Nice try GM, but I have the originals I downloaded from the OP.
These are straight up CAD images from the mid-engine car. This is your C8, people.
Somebody is gonna get so fired over this. Give it 2 hours, this will be all over Jalopnik, Autoblog, and others.
From the images:
-Coil springs (FINALLY).
-Magshocks (or spool valve, either way, fancy shocks).
-Upper front arms look to be similar to C5/6/7 with trunions.
-Lower front arms look to be similar to C5/6/7 with camber eccentrics.
-Rear subframe is HUGE and is a very strange mix of cast parts and welded tube. Can't tell if it's welded or bolted together in the middle.
-Engine is an LT1.
-Looks like factory shorty headers instead of cast manifolds.
-Engine has alternator relocated.
-Not sure what the upper-right accessory pulley is for. Upper left is water pump, lower right is AC.
-Oil filter looks easy to get to.
-Oil cooler clearly shown above filter.
-Half-shafts look to be the "bolt on flange" style (no draining trans to remove shafts).
-That transaxle is BEEFY. Like, dear god. Can't tell if it's auto or manual. If I had to wager, that's the automatic (guessing from shape of bottom of trans and what looks to be coolers hanging around it).
-Giant flat space above transaxle is more than likely for intake box/filter.
-No turbos shown.
-Frame looks to be similar to C5/6/7 with giant hydroformed rails (probably still aluminum). Disappointing. I was hoping for proper unibody. Hopefully with a fixed roof it'll be stiffer.
-Brake rotors are 1 piece. Calipers are MASSIVE.
-Side skirts are mechanically fastened just like C5/6/7. Still going to be horrendously expensive to fix if damaged.
-Brake ducts clearly shown on front.
Guarantee that Tadge is fighting some fires right now.
Can't wait to see this thing released.
It's an LT5. It's also a hallow cast sub-frame. Uses a Honeycomb design. The "cab" is supposedly the same as the FMR "base" C8. This is how the C8 is both Mid and Front-Mid designs. The extrusions for the frames are removable. The C7 has it designed in but it was never used.
No I don't believe that they expanded the factory doubling it's size to simple build less cars.
I believe that the front engine platform will continue on past the C7.
I don't think GM will risk losing the traditional Corvette GT buyer.
look at the production and 1/3 of all Corvette built the past 3 year were Z06 model.
Prior to this year and the Hugh discounts on a 5 year old platform there were many Z06 buyers already spending in excess of 100k.
Look at production and very few 1lt Z06 were sold.
in fact 3lt sold the majority of Z06 and that was very close if not more than 100k.
My 2016 Z06 /Z07 was 110k before the Callaway package.
Do you think you can actually buy a ZR1 for 120k.
No way no one is ordering a stripped out 120k sports car.
No different than very few Stingray actually were build and sold at 55k.
I would be willing to bet the average Corvette prior to the discout is closer to 80k that it is 60k.
My 2014 Z51 WAS 75K .
IF WE WANT WORLD CLASS CORVETTE WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.
Even at 150k it's way less expensive that Ferrari or Lamborghini.
My 2015 458 MSRP 276k I think a 700 hp mid engine Vett at 150k is a bargin
Not only did GM increase the size of Bowling Green by 450,000 square feet(size of three Walmart supercenters) they also entered into a contract with the state of Kentucky for millions of dollars of tax incentives by agreeing to increase the employees at Bowling Green by 28%.
You don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars for new bricks and mortar and new equipment and then add approximately 270 new hires in order to build fewer cars with little or no increase in selling price(as some on this forum believe is going to happen).
^^ Exactly
This mid-engine car will be another model.. separate from the C7 and its successor. Technically not the C8 that it's being labeled.. Z1 would be more fitting.
Not only did GM increase the size of Bowling Green by 450,000 square feet(size of three Walmart supercenters) they also entered into a contract with the state of Kentucky for millions of dollars of tax incentives by agreeing to increase the employees at Bowling Green by 28%.
You don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars for new bricks and mortar and new equipment and then add approximately 270 new hires in order to build fewer cars with little or no increase in selling price(as some on this forum believe is going to happen).
It was hundreds of MILLIONS, not BILLIONS. Furthermore, that cost is capitalized and depreciated over 20 years (for the facility, equipment would vary). Only the depreciation hits GM's Profit and Loss Statement.
So, to simplify, let's assume that of the $440 million spent on the upgrade the average useful life is 15 years. And let's assume that they build 30,000 cars per year in the facility. The depreciation would amount to $977 per vehicle. Even if you said 25,000 vehicles per year and the average useful life is only 10 years, it only amounts to $1,760 per vehicle.
^^ Exactly
This mid-engine car will be another model.. separate from the C7 and its successor. Technically not the C8 that it's being labeled.. Z1 would be more fitting.
BTW, I did say a few weeks ago it was getting tubular headers. You can see those clearly.
Now that I look at the picture again, that could be the DOHC engine. Which is 6.2L like the LT1. Or it could be what I call "the full CAD" where they take all the engines and options and "turn them on" at once so you get an overlay (good for packaging components near engines) since they are different sizes and shapes.
BTW, I did say a few weeks ago it was getting tubular headers. You can see those clearly.
Now that I look at the picture again, that could be the DOHC engine. Which is 6.2L like the LT1. Or it could be what I call "the full CAD" where they take all the engines and options and "turn them on" at once so you get an overlay (good for packaging components near engines) since they are different sizes and shapes.
i read that the 6.2 would be naturally aspirated and the 4.2 and 5.5 dohc and twin turboed, which seems logical to me.
Can we keep it about the CAD images and not the “mid engine is going to cost $1,000,000 and compete with koenigsegg”
lol
This is why we can't have nice things. People are so busy spamming up this thread with irrelevant drivel, the third ZERV post has gone virtually unnoticed.
This is why we can't have nice things. People are so busy spamming up this thread with irrelevant drivel, the third ZERV post has gone virtually unnoticed.
I'm enjoying reading what everyone "knows" about the C8 or whatever. It's worse than reading people debate the ending to Game of Thrones. But in the end...
Not only did GM increase the size of Bowling Green by 450,000 square feet(size of three Walmart supercenters) they also entered into a contract with the state of Kentucky for millions of dollars of tax incentives by agreeing to increase the employees at Bowling Green by 28%.
You don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars for new bricks and mortar and new equipment and then add approximately 270 new hires in order to build fewer cars with little or no increase in selling price(as some on this forum believe is going to happen).
Joe I agree. I think that the front engine GT Wil continue on past the life of the C7.
I believe that the front engine will be the entry level Corvette and that the Z06/ ZR1 will be replaced by a high performance rear mid engine design.
It does not make sense to have a front engine GT and a Rear mid engine with both at entry level pricing.
I could be wrong and GM will offer both at a 60k entry level but that makes no business sence.
The only reason GM is going to rear mid engine design is because the Front mid engine design is maxed out.
I don't under stand why folks get upset at the idea that Corvette could move up market and offer a higher quality product with the latest in engine and transmission and possibly hybrid with higher quality material inside and out but then think it can be offered for at the same price point as the current C7?
I would like the option of buying a world class super car made by GM with the latest technology and best materials and I am relistic enough to know I will have to pay a premium over the C7 to purchase such a car.
I could be dead wrong but if GM offer a entry prices front mid GT why are guys on here upset that some of us are hoping GM offers us a world class super car and are OK with the idea that we are going to pay more than what the old technology C7 ZR1 currently cost. If a loaded up 2019 ZR1 is 140k which it is.
Whyy is it unreasonable to think that the rear mid engine with latest transmission and engine combination if priced at 150k is still a barging in the super car world.
If the mid engine is being bench marked against the 911 Turbo that means GM is bench marking a 190k Porsche.
So would GM be unreasonable to ask us to pay 150k for a car that performs on part with a 190k Porsche or a 275k Lamborghini or a 350k Ferrari 488?
Again give us a world class car with the refinement of one of these super cars and performance on par and I gladly pay 150k and feel good about it.
Joe I know you know Corvette stats better than anyone on this forum.
What would you day the average selling price of a Corvette was prior to the discount listed in mid 2017. We all know by year 4 or 5 every Corvette of all generation can see big discount as the platform is aged.
I wonder for 2016 what the average retail price was for all Corvette sold? My guess is 80k on average.
For those that want GM to build front GT for 55k and rear mid super car for 60k I say good luck.
You get what you pay for. Why would GM keep the C7 around if the C8 is the same price point?
This is why we can't have nice things. People are so busy spamming up this thread with irrelevant drivel, the third ZERV post has gone virtually unnoticed.
Seriously, did anyone re-post the new picture of the engine CAD Zerv posted?
Last edited by NewYuriCity; 12-19-2017 at 04:37 PM.
Seconding an above post, can we please limit this thread to the the new ZERV drawings, conversations and questions relating directly to them, and what we have learned from the drawings?
Joe I agree. I think that the front engine GT Wil continue on past the life of the C7.
I believe that the front engine will be the entry level Corvette and that the Z06/ ZR1 will be replaced by a high performance rear mid engine design.
It does not make sense to have a front engine GT and a Rear mid engine with both at entry level pricing.
I could be wrong and GM will offer both at a 60k entry level but that makes no business sence.
The only reason GM is going to rear mid engine design is because the Front mid engine design is maxed out.
I don't under stand why folks get upset at the idea that Corvette could move up market and offer a higher quality product with the latest in engine and transmission and possibly hybrid with higher quality material inside and out but then think it can be offered for at the same price point as the current C7?
I would like the option of buying a world class super car made by GM with the latest technology and best materials and I am relistic enough to know I will have to pay a premium over the C7 to purchase such a car.
I could be dead wrong but if GM offer a entry prices front mid GT why are guys on here upset that some of us are hoping GM offers us a world class super car and are OK with the idea that we are going to pay more than what the old technology C7 ZR1 currently cost. If a loaded up 2019 ZR1 is 140k which it is.
Whyy is it unreasonable to think that the rear mid engine with latest transmission and engine combination if priced at 150k is still a barging in the super car world.
If the mid engine is being bench marked against the 911 Turbo that means GM is bench marking a 190k Porsche.
So would GM be unreasonable to ask us to pay 150k for a car that performs on part with a 190k Porsche or a 275k Lamborghini or a 350k Ferrari 488?
Again give us a world class car with the refinement of one of these super cars and performance on par and I gladly pay 150k and feel good about it.
Joe I know you know Corvette stats better than anyone on this forum.
What would you day the average selling price of a Corvette was prior to the discount listed in mid 2017. We all know by year 4 or 5 every Corvette of all generation can see big discount as the platform is aged.
I wonder for 2016 what the average retail price was for all Corvette sold? My guess is 80k on average.
For those that want GM to build front GT for 55k and rear mid super car for 60k I say good luck.
You get what you pay for. Why would GM keep the C7 around if the C8 is the same price point?
Back on Feb 23, 2013, Josh Holden, program engineering manager, said in an interview....
"We evaluate engine placement as not ALL Corvettes necessarily need to be front-engine cars. Front engine still remains the best balance, best optimization of what we feel the car needs to be."
He used the world "all" and not "the". I take that to mean that in a future Corvette offering, that not every Corvette will be front-engine configuration, or that every Corvette will be a mid engine configuration, but that there will be multiple engine placements available to chose from.
That's one reason I'm inclined to believe that a front engine and a mid engine Corvette will be offered at the same time, as two distinct models.
Also, if both front engine and mid engine models are offered side by side at the same price, GM will be in competition with itself for customers. They have a better chance of bringing new customers into the fold if they offer two different models at different pricing structures.
Can we keep it about the CAD images and not the “mid engine is going to cost $1,000,000 and compete with koenigsegg”
lol
Originally Posted by CSC5
This is why we can't have nice things. People are so busy spamming up this thread with irrelevant drivel, the third ZERV post has gone virtually unnoticed.
Originally Posted by elegant
Seconding an above post, can we please limit this thread to the the new ZERV drawings, conversations and questions relating directly to them, and what we have learned from the drawings?
Guys, let's get this thread back on track, please.
It's an LT5. It's also a hallow cast sub-frame. Uses a Honeycomb design. The "cab" is supposedly the same as the FMR "base" C8. This is how the C8 is both Mid and Front-Mid designs. The extrusions for the frames are removable. The C7 has it designed in but it was never used.
As was discussed back on 08/16/2014 @ 08:49am in another thread by me about the adaptability of both a front and rear engine placed Corvette using the modifiable C7 Frame.
MOTOR TREND: "The C8 ZR1 or “Zora” would be the second model in the Corvette model range. This will be the mid-engine car, which will ride on an all-new platform separate from that of the C7 Corvette. Motor Trend points out it is possible to do a front and mid-engine car on the same platform, but it would be difficult and “freakishly expensive.” The Zora Corvette will get the most powerful engines on offer, possibly with an output north of 750 horsepower. All-wheel drive is a possibility, but that brings us back to the topic of staying true to Corvette tradition. A hybrid drivetrain may also be on offer, an idea which seems very likely to happen given the recent trend towards hybrid super sports cars."
CRABBYJ: “From the above excerpt from post #33 in this thread, I'm not so sure about "freakishly expensive". It looks like the C7 AL frame could easily be modified in front and back keeping the center section basicly unchanged. Lots of posibilites there for...? I always wondered about that significant change in construction from the C5/C6 basic frame design. Other than the AL, a whole lot of complexity/welding to save a little weight IMO.”
It's an LT5. It's also a hallow cast sub-frame. Uses a Honeycomb design. The "cab" is supposedly the same as the FMR "base" C8. This is how the C8 is both Mid and Front-Mid designs. The extrusions for the frames are removable. The C7 has it designed in but it was never used.
I see all OEMs trying to get modularity out of their platforms. However, I think this constitutes a huge step back in performance. Modularity is how you end up with a car that's larger and heavier than needs to be. To make it proper GM should design the platform from scratch.
The base engine should be LT1. It will drastically cut costs for the base model while not hampering the high end versions since it can easily fit in the hole a 4.2 DOHC turbo would take
12-19-2017, 09:11 AM
This is why we can't have nice things. People are so busy spamming up this thread with irrelevant drivel, the third ZERV post has gone virtually unnoticed.
But in the end...
