RapidC84B

Marketing.

Low polar moment of inertia makes for quick rotation but at the expense of high speed stability. A mid-rear does some things better, but the current layout is rock solid at high speed. A Corvette can take a really fast sweeper on track better than a Porsche.

The real benefit of mid-rear is weight over the drive wheels, packaging space for turbos, and room for electric AWD up front.

ShahulX

Mid engine, center the weight and gravity.. human and engine in the center.. although I agree that a front mid engine works as well ..engine behind the front suspension.. low in the chassis and driver right behind

rear engine is just dumb.. I love a 911 GT3, but there is a reason their IMSA GT3 911 cars have went more mid engine vs the dumb rear engine

PurpleLion

I am not sure what car you are talking about, but the Corvette engine is NOT behind the front suspension!

Also, for the umpteenth time, a 1908 Ford Model T is a FRONT MID car as well as 80% of all front engine cars ever made! The term front-mid is meaningless crap invented by an advertising agency. You display your ignorance when you use the term, unless you are actually describing a car where the engine is located in front of the driver, but close to the center of the wheelbase. Not many exist, Panoz race cars, Indy roadsters, etc...

RapidC84B

You are incorrrect... C5/6/7 have no part of the motor ahead of front axle centerline.

Apocolipse

Oh look the new mid engine corvette...oh wait



Audi R8 (same as Lambo):



The Corvette is 50/50 which at a physics standpoint is the best for handling.

Yes, having 60% or more in the rear is better for straight line acceleration as well as braking performance. However without electronics to control your handling, all wheel steer, etc to make up for the fact that the rear is heavier than the front then you will be lost against a balanced 50/50 car.

This is why so many cars today can fly around a course with the heavy rear - expensive electronics and bandaids.

ShahulX

thanks for calling me ignorant.. relax man

thank you

JoesC5

Nor did the C2, the C3 and the C4.

After the V8 was installed in the C1, I believe that the engine was also behind the front axle centerline. If it wasn't so cold in my garage, I would go measure my 56 C1 and my 64 C2.

Here is a photo of a C1 with the V8 and you can see that the engine sits well back in the frame.




And

JoesC5

In an in depth SAE paper about the 1963 Corvette Duntov said a 47/53 to 40/60 was the best weight distribution for a sports car(that was designed to corner as well as accelerate in a straight line).

The front engine 1963 Corvette C2 has a 47/53 distribution as does the front engine 2017 AMG GT R. The GT R gets around the Ring in 7:10 and I bet the upcoming GT R Black Series will better that time with a little more horsepower(vs it's current 577 HP) and a little less weight.

PurpleLion

The statement did not mention the axle center-line. The statement was "engine behind the front suspension" which it is not. To be behind the front suspension, it would have to be behind the wishbones, which it is not. Re the axle center-line, to my eye, the engine appears to be at the center-line, but not behind it.

Apparently some past Corvettes seem to have the engine placed further back in the chassis, which is, of course, better. But regardless, if a term, like front-mid applies to 80% of all front engine cars ever produced, does it really mean anything?

PurpleLion

Sorry, I did not mean to insult you. I did not mean "you" literally as much as any person that uses the term.

And, yes, it is a pet peeve of mine. As far as I know, the phrase "front mid" was invented by an advertising agency to describe the new 1993 Mazda RX7. There are currently multiple definitions for the term. One is "engine behind the front axle centerline" another is "engine center of mass behind the axle centerline".

The term would actually mean something if the definition was engine center of mass within 12 inches of the center of the wheelbase, but in front of the driver.

JoesC5

I'm old school and I believe that less is better, especially in descriptions. The KISS principle.

I'll stick with(in a RWD vehicle) front engine with the engine in front of the driver, mid engine, with the engine behind the driver but in front of the rear axle, and rear engine, with the engine behind the driver and behind the rear axle.

Those three descriptions cover it. No need to break it down into a million sub-descriptions that just confuse the issue.

RedLS6

Quick garage pic; center of mass of the engine lines up roughly with the trailing edge of the front tire, which is close to the LCA attachment point.

RedLS6

Interesting comparison between the RE GT-3 and the ME Cayman, and the article considers, and provides info for, the polar moment of both cars and the weight distribution. It's not apples-to-apples between the two Porsches, and it's not apples-to-apples for a ME versus FE Vette, but it does generally show some of the tradeoffs.....especially weight distribution versus handling, where a "less optimal", but refined, car comes out on top in many cases. I'd like to see this test with the tires evened out.

http://www.porsche-mania.com/porsche...t3/2011/06/22/


~

OnPoint

I think the reason some folk in this forum use the front/mid description is history has shown just saying mid-engine in here will draw out pedantics who will argue the vette currently is mid-engine b/c of its current engine placement.

Thus, in here, IMO it gets used as a way of avoiding needless nitpicking arguments when everybody knows what is being talked about. Now we get needless, nitpicking arguments on front/mid, when again, everybody knows what is being discussed.

PurpleLion

Between these two car, the operative difference would be polar moment of inertia which is much better on the Cayman. Polar moment of inertia is one of the deal killers for RE cars and also of course, FE cars. However, at least with a FE car, you end up with a car that is less responsive to steering inputs and also understeers at the limit. Both of these traits are desirable in a GT car, which makes the idea of GM keeping the FE car in the line up a very good thing for someone that wants a good all around car and is not concerned with ultimate performance.

RedLS6

Point was, the RE car won 4 of the 5 handling tests in the article. ME By Itself does not guarantee superior performance against established and refined platforms, although it does pave the way for certain improvements, when everything else is equal. And, a couple of things may get worse on the ME (corner exit on-throttle push..... stability and spin recovery, in very general terms). Overall, it should be a better handling platform.

Also, probably about 0.1% of drivers could actually exploit the added cornering performance to its limit.

OnPoint

^^That was a good article. Equalizing tires would be interesting.

JerriVette

The smaller wheels and tires on some of the spy shotsof the c8 (not inclusive of the snow winter testing) lead credence to the idea of a a full range of c8 models...

Just a guess..

I'd prefer rear mid engine with an LT1 engine and costing about the same as today's models...

I don't see the reason why rear mid engine vehicles need to cost more than front mid engine models ...?

There is no reason for added costs...

The turn in on rear mid engine cars is sweet and worth the change. As a sporting driver from 5/10 s upward even on the street.

I have no doubt the performance will continue to edge forward as well.

The corvette team always does that and really it's been that the base model tends to equal the performance of the previous generation z51 and very close to the z06.

The z06 type model tends to match the zr1 of the previous generation...

So this should give us an indication of the overall performance values the c8 will hold.

For the street? Really the c7 stable of models is unbelievable as it is...the added performance is pretty much more than most of us can utilize on the street...

But for those with the driving skills the c8 will be even more amazing.

The turn in improvement will be noticeable to even novices.. and holding the c8 to the limit will be more manageable for average drivers..

If GM did decide to keep the front engine version of the c7 the only reason I'd be disappointed is not that I don't admire the c7 but rather would be disappointed that the c8 starts only at the upper range of the c7 lineup...

NY09C6

I agree. Based on the brakes alone there is a good chance this is the next c8 (in base trim) and not some high dollar super car.

Interesting article from yesterday:

http://www.lsxmag.com/news/cadillac-...r-gen-vi-lt-v8

ShahulX

no worries..

I was just thinking about the engine bays Ive seen in a Honda S2000 and AMG GT series cars.. engines are way back in there with the long hoods.. which I assume must help with the weight distribution and cornering

Honestly I love mid engines.. I tracked a Exige S and a Boxster spyder... i love the v8 mid engine ferrari lines (360/430/458)

I hoping for a true mid engine with a high revving V8 and a H pattern 3 pedal manual... but not 100% sure we are getting that..

admittedly despite not being a mid engine, my C7 grand sport is amazing on track..