ME Engine Musings and other Whispers
03-25-2018, 12:24 PM
#81
I'm guessing a production run eventually will lead to 1500 cadillac twin turbo v8s with wild styling and ultra lavish interiors for those that lean towards luxury at every detail.
Not for profit but rather brand halo effect.
I see this a possibility down the road.
Super soft touch, world class leading tech inside as well. Over the top interior luxury to differentiate from the c8 . Slightly higher weight and slightly softer ride. I would anticipate a torque converter 10 speed automatic tramsmission.
Not for profit but rather brand halo effect.
I see this a possibility down the road.
Super soft touch, world class leading tech inside as well. Over the top interior luxury to differentiate from the c8 . Slightly higher weight and slightly softer ride. I would anticipate a torque converter 10 speed automatic tramsmission.
03-25-2018, 12:57 PM
#82
Team Owner
IMO, lots of accuracy there. I do disagree with this one sentence of yours however:
With the ME allowing the engine to be at least 3” inches closer to the pavement (vastly better CG) and the motor right above the rear wheels (better launch acceleration), it will be the ME which will be the superior performer over time — though it is acknowledged the roughly 500-600 HP, 1st year ME will not be able to out do the 755 HP ZR1 (but that too will pass when the 800 HP year 2 or 3 ZORA arrives).
With the ME allowing the engine to be at least 3” inches closer to the pavement (vastly better CG) and the motor right above the rear wheels (better launch acceleration), it will be the ME which will be the superior performer over time — though it is acknowledged the roughly 500-600 HP, 1st year ME will not be able to out do the 755 HP ZR1 (but that too will pass when the 800 HP year 2 or 3 ZORA arrives).
03-25-2018, 04:02 PM
#83
Corvette Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Troy & Dearborn, Michigan
Posts: 5,340
Received 918 Likes
on
611 Posts
Originally Posted by JoesC5
What is special about a mid engine car design that allows the engine to be "at least" 3" closer to the pavement?
In a front engine, even an FMR like a C7 they lift the engine slightly to not be the sacrifice point of the lowest part of the car.
There are usually design rules at each OEM which dictate the details. The C7 has a low engine, but design wise it could be even lower.
The following users liked this post:
SBC_and_a_stick (04-05-2018)
03-25-2018, 04:22 PM
#84
Team Owner
Since your behind the fuselage and before the rear axle the space is typically very wide. You can drop the engine lower because it's not "the first point of contact."
In a front engine, even an FMR like a C7 they lift the engine slightly to not be the sacrifice point of the lowest part of the car.
There are usually design rules at each OEM which dictate the details. The C7 has a low engine, but design wise it could be even lower.
In a front engine, even an FMR like a C7 they lift the engine slightly to not be the sacrifice point of the lowest part of the car.
There are usually design rules at each OEM which dictate the details. The C7 has a low engine, but design wise it could be even lower.
Width of the engine compartment has nothing to do with how low the engine sits. Since the C4, the Corvette has had the engine assembled to the frame from below, and the distance between the front frame rails is all that matters(to clear the exhaust manifolds).
03-25-2018, 07:07 PM
#85
Corvette Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Troy & Dearborn, Michigan
Posts: 5,340
Received 918 Likes
on
611 Posts
Chevrolet V8's have used a 14" flywheel since 1955. That is the controlling item that limits how low the engine sits in the frame, not whether the engine is located in front of the driver or behind the driver. If you want to lower the engine by 3 inches and still maintain the same ground clearance, then the flywheel has to be reduced in diameter, and that can be done whether the engine in is front or behind. It only takes redesigning the engine/starter.
Width of the engine compartment has nothing to do with how low the engine sits. Since the C4, the Corvette has had the engine assembled to the frame from below, and the distance between the front frame rails is all that matters(to clear the exhaust manifolds).
Width of the engine compartment has nothing to do with how low the engine sits. Since the C4, the Corvette has had the engine assembled to the frame from below, and the distance between the front frame rails is all that matters(to clear the exhaust manifolds).
You're not at all taking into account a ground clearance factor. I could for example put the bottom of an engine (whichever part is the lowest part of it, that bit of details really inconsequential) right on the pavement. As in have zero clearance so that if the car bottoms out it bottoms out only on the engine. This is not possible depending on frame width, but you are right that's a tangential issue, but is needed to allow for the block to be placed on the ground.
When I say sacrificial part of the car, take a look at the bottom of your car, you'll notice on any car the components in the front "ride" at a certain height above this "invisible" ground clearance line. Once you are passed the passenger fuselage (which FYI is THE lowest point on most cars) you don't have to worry about forward ground impacts. This is because anything behind that point will be safe as any height issues will impact the fuselage and cause the car to stop before reaching the back half.
I know a lot about this because EPS motors in RWD cars in front of the engine, and in fact we can't rotate the electric motor in some downward positions because it would then become the "lowest struck item" and that's not a good thing to have be the lowest. You want a control arm, sub-frame, or some other "sturdy" component be the item which will take an impact from a ground object before any other "soft" target like an EPS motor or an Engine Oil Pan.
Sometimes you get so hung up on an argument you forget to remove yourself from the situation and actually clearly think about the possibilities of the situation.
The following 2 users liked this post by LT1 Z51:
SBC_and_a_stick (04-05-2018),
skank (04-02-2018)
03-25-2018, 08:20 PM
#86
Racer
A diffrent approach
I note that we're all guessing what the C8 will bring. Most of the posts want more power and performance. That's not my highest priority. I'm an engineer who has a C5 and a Lamborghini. The C5 has been a fix-of-the month car and my Lambo is an expensive toy. I'm all in for dual cams and a DCT, but it first needs to be reliable. I drive I5 across the desert and if the car breaks down, the location of the engine and all the technology will not do me any good if it is not 100% reliable.
03-25-2018, 08:30 PM
#87
Team Owner
While valid points, none of that is entirely correct for this discussion.
You're not at all taking into account a ground clearance factor. I could for example put the bottom of an engine (whichever part is the lowest part of it, that bit of details really inconsequential) right on the pavement. As in have zero clearance so that if the car bottoms out it bottoms out only on the engine. This is not possible depending on frame width, but you are right that's a tangential issue, but is needed to allow for the block to be placed on the ground.
When I say sacrificial part of the car, take a look at the bottom of your car, you'll notice on any car the components in the front "ride" at a certain height above this "invisible" ground clearance line. Once you are passed the passenger fuselage (which FYI is THE lowest point on most cars) you don't have to worry about forward ground impacts. This is because anything behind that point will be safe as any height issues will impact the fuselage and cause the car to stop before reaching the back half.
I know a lot about this because EPS motors in RWD cars in front of the engine, and in fact we can't rotate the electric motor in some downward positions because it would then become the "lowest struck item" and that's not a good thing to have be the lowest. You want a control arm, sub-frame, or some other "sturdy" component be the item which will take an impact from a ground object before any other "soft" target like an EPS motor or an Engine Oil Pan.
Sometimes you get so hung up on an argument you forget to remove yourself from the situation and actually clearly think about the possibilities of the situation.
You're not at all taking into account a ground clearance factor. I could for example put the bottom of an engine (whichever part is the lowest part of it, that bit of details really inconsequential) right on the pavement. As in have zero clearance so that if the car bottoms out it bottoms out only on the engine. This is not possible depending on frame width, but you are right that's a tangential issue, but is needed to allow for the block to be placed on the ground.
When I say sacrificial part of the car, take a look at the bottom of your car, you'll notice on any car the components in the front "ride" at a certain height above this "invisible" ground clearance line. Once you are passed the passenger fuselage (which FYI is THE lowest point on most cars) you don't have to worry about forward ground impacts. This is because anything behind that point will be safe as any height issues will impact the fuselage and cause the car to stop before reaching the back half.
I know a lot about this because EPS motors in RWD cars in front of the engine, and in fact we can't rotate the electric motor in some downward positions because it would then become the "lowest struck item" and that's not a good thing to have be the lowest. You want a control arm, sub-frame, or some other "sturdy" component be the item which will take an impact from a ground object before any other "soft" target like an EPS motor or an Engine Oil Pan.
Sometimes you get so hung up on an argument you forget to remove yourself from the situation and actually clearly think about the possibilities of the situation.
The determining factor of how low the engine can sit and still maintain the same distance from the bottom of the engine to the ground is the diameter of the flywheel
You want to lower the engine 3 inches then you have to reduce the radius of the flywheel by three inches. In the case of the existing engine in the Corvette that would mean a flywheel with a 8 inch diameter. Of course the depth of the oil pan would also have to be reduced by 3 inches and the length of the oil filter would have to be reduced by 3 inches.
The reduction in the depth of the oil pan can be resolved by redesigning the first stage savaging of the dry sump and the oil filter can be resolved by relocating the oil filter, but you still have the problem with an extremely small diameter flywheel and it's ability to function as a flywheel being only 8 inches in diameter.
You lower the engine 3 inches and you will have practically no ground clearance as the flywheel bell housing will only be less than 2 inches off the ground.
Do you actually own a Corvette? If so, go measure the distance between the bottom of the oil pan and the ground. I just measured my C6 Z06 and it has exactly 4 1/2 inches clearance. The bottom of my rocker panel just behind the front wheel opening measures 4 1/4 inches to the ground. If I were to lower my engine 3 inches I would only have 1 1/2 inches ground clearance. My bell housing(to cover my 14 inch diameter flywheel, is the same distance from the ground as is the distance from the ground as my oil pan. If I were to cut the sump off the bottom of my oil pan, and relocate my oil filter, then I would still have the bell housing and the 14 inch flywheel hanging down just 1 1/2 inches above the ground.
Again, it as nothing to do with the width of the engine compartment.
Last edited by JoesC5; 03-25-2018 at 08:40 PM.
03-25-2018, 10:40 PM
#88
Team Owner
Member Since: Oct 2013
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 25,356
Received 7,752 Likes
on
4,181 Posts
CORVETTE TODAY Host
St. Jude Donor'15
People, let me tell you something......
If you all can't make your points and debate LIKE ADULTS, you will be banned from CorvetteForum until you can act like the adult you're supposed to be.
I've got a feeling there won't be a lot of you left if some of you don't learn to play on the playground NICELY with others.....immediately.
It's absolute BS reading some of the things that are written here.....personal things against other members.
Grow up, people.....grow up and get a grip. It's a car enthusiast website.
.
If you all can't make your points and debate LIKE ADULTS, you will be banned from CorvetteForum until you can act like the adult you're supposed to be.
I've got a feeling there won't be a lot of you left if some of you don't learn to play on the playground NICELY with others.....immediately.
It's absolute BS reading some of the things that are written here.....personal things against other members.
Grow up, people.....grow up and get a grip. It's a car enthusiast website.
.
The following users liked this post:
Bandit1 (04-06-2018)
03-25-2018, 11:41 PM
#89
Le Mans Master
!? ;)
Bunch of BS.
The determining factor of how low the engine can sit and still maintain the same distance from the bottom of the engine to the ground is the diameter of the flywheel
You want to lower the engine 3 inches then you have to reduce the radius of the flywheel by three inches. In the case of the existing engine in the Corvette that would mean a flywheel with a 8 inch diameter. Of course the depth of the oil pan would also have to be reduced by 3 inches and the length of the oil filter would have to be reduced by 3 inches.
The reduction in the depth of the oil pan can be resolved by redesigning the first stage savaging of the dry sump and the oil filter can be resolved by relocating the oil filter, but you still have the problem with an extremely small diameter flywheel and it's ability to function as a flywheel being only 8 inches in diameter.
You lower the engine 3 inches and you will have practically no ground clearance as the flywheel bell housing will only be less than 2 inches off the ground.
Do you actually own a Corvette? If so, go measure the distance between the bottom of the oil pan and the ground. I just measured my C6 Z06 and it has exactly 4 1/2 inches clearance. The bottom of my rocker panel just behind the front wheel opening measures 4 1/4 inches to the ground. If I were to lower my engine 3 inches I would only have 1 1/2 inches ground clearance. My bell housing(to cover my 14 inch diameter flywheel, is the same distance from the ground as is the distance from the ground as my oil pan. If I were to cut the sump off the bottom of my oil pan, and relocate my oil filter, then I would still have the bell housing and the 14 inch flywheel hanging down just 1 1/2 inches above the ground.
Again, it as nothing to do with the width of the engine compartment.
The determining factor of how low the engine can sit and still maintain the same distance from the bottom of the engine to the ground is the diameter of the flywheel
You want to lower the engine 3 inches then you have to reduce the radius of the flywheel by three inches. In the case of the existing engine in the Corvette that would mean a flywheel with a 8 inch diameter. Of course the depth of the oil pan would also have to be reduced by 3 inches and the length of the oil filter would have to be reduced by 3 inches.
The reduction in the depth of the oil pan can be resolved by redesigning the first stage savaging of the dry sump and the oil filter can be resolved by relocating the oil filter, but you still have the problem with an extremely small diameter flywheel and it's ability to function as a flywheel being only 8 inches in diameter.
You lower the engine 3 inches and you will have practically no ground clearance as the flywheel bell housing will only be less than 2 inches off the ground.
Do you actually own a Corvette? If so, go measure the distance between the bottom of the oil pan and the ground. I just measured my C6 Z06 and it has exactly 4 1/2 inches clearance. The bottom of my rocker panel just behind the front wheel opening measures 4 1/4 inches to the ground. If I were to lower my engine 3 inches I would only have 1 1/2 inches ground clearance. My bell housing(to cover my 14 inch diameter flywheel, is the same distance from the ground as is the distance from the ground as my oil pan. If I were to cut the sump off the bottom of my oil pan, and relocate my oil filter, then I would still have the bell housing and the 14 inch flywheel hanging down just 1 1/2 inches above the ground.
Again, it as nothing to do with the width of the engine compartment.
03-26-2018, 08:21 AM
#90
Team Owner
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA
Posts: 46,103
Received 2,481 Likes
on
1,944 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
"In honor of jpee"
Bunch of BS.
The determining factor of how low the engine can sit and still maintain the same distance from the bottom of the engine to the ground is the diameter of the flywheel
You want to lower the engine 3 inches then you have to reduce the radius of the flywheel by three inches. In the case of the existing engine in the Corvette that would mean a flywheel with a 8 inch diameter. Of course the depth of the oil pan would also have to be reduced by 3 inches and the length of the oil filter would have to be reduced by 3 inches.
The reduction in the depth of the oil pan can be resolved by redesigning the first stage savaging of the dry sump and the oil filter can be resolved by relocating the oil filter, but you still have the problem with an extremely small diameter flywheel and it's ability to function as a flywheel being only 8 inches in diameter.
You lower the engine 3 inches and you will have practically no ground clearance as the flywheel bell housing will only be less than 2 inches off the ground.
Do you actually own a Corvette? If so, go measure the distance between the bottom of the oil pan and the ground. I just measured my C6 Z06 and it has exactly 4 1/2 inches clearance. The bottom of my rocker panel just behind the front wheel opening measures 4 1/4 inches to the ground. If I were to lower my engine 3 inches I would only have 1 1/2 inches ground clearance. My bell housing(to cover my 14 inch diameter flywheel, is the same distance from the ground as is the distance from the ground as my oil pan. If I were to cut the sump off the bottom of my oil pan, and relocate my oil filter, then I would still have the bell housing and the 14 inch flywheel hanging down just 1 1/2 inches above the ground.
Again, it as nothing to do with the width of the engine compartment.
The determining factor of how low the engine can sit and still maintain the same distance from the bottom of the engine to the ground is the diameter of the flywheel
You want to lower the engine 3 inches then you have to reduce the radius of the flywheel by three inches. In the case of the existing engine in the Corvette that would mean a flywheel with a 8 inch diameter. Of course the depth of the oil pan would also have to be reduced by 3 inches and the length of the oil filter would have to be reduced by 3 inches.
The reduction in the depth of the oil pan can be resolved by redesigning the first stage savaging of the dry sump and the oil filter can be resolved by relocating the oil filter, but you still have the problem with an extremely small diameter flywheel and it's ability to function as a flywheel being only 8 inches in diameter.
You lower the engine 3 inches and you will have practically no ground clearance as the flywheel bell housing will only be less than 2 inches off the ground.
Do you actually own a Corvette? If so, go measure the distance between the bottom of the oil pan and the ground. I just measured my C6 Z06 and it has exactly 4 1/2 inches clearance. The bottom of my rocker panel just behind the front wheel opening measures 4 1/4 inches to the ground. If I were to lower my engine 3 inches I would only have 1 1/2 inches ground clearance. My bell housing(to cover my 14 inch diameter flywheel, is the same distance from the ground as is the distance from the ground as my oil pan. If I were to cut the sump off the bottom of my oil pan, and relocate my oil filter, then I would still have the bell housing and the 14 inch flywheel hanging down just 1 1/2 inches above the ground.
Again, it as nothing to do with the width of the engine compartment.
03-26-2018, 08:56 AM
#91
Le Mans Master
But it's a better race car!
http://automotivethinker.com/chassis/stop-and-weight-a-5050-weight-distribution-is-not-optimal/
YOU THINK IT'S A CADILLAC!
THE CAMARO'S DOING A SUB7 AT THE RING!
'AND THE CORVETTE IS FINALLY OBSOLETE!'
YOU THINK IT'S A CADILLAC!
THE CAMARO'S DOING A SUB7 AT THE RING!
'AND THE CORVETTE IS FINALLY OBSOLETE!'
Last edited by johnglenntwo; 03-26-2018 at 09:28 AM.
04-02-2018, 10:44 AM
#93
Le Mans Master
You missed the post he deleted! ;)
One guy very eloquently spieled off on one of us Corvette Trolls. He did a really great job of defining his reason for being here!
If their Bozo's it's easy enough to attack their concepts, safe too! Take the misery somewhere else!
If their Bozo's it's easy enough to attack their concepts, safe too! Take the misery somewhere else!
Last edited by johnglenntwo; 04-05-2018 at 06:55 PM.
04-05-2018, 01:33 PM
#94
Safety Car
I note that we're all guessing what the C8 will bring. Most of the posts want more power and performance. That's not my highest priority. I'm an engineer who has a C5 and a Lamborghini. The C5 has been a fix-of-the month car and my Lambo is an expensive toy. I'm all in for dual cams and a DCT, but it first needs to be reliable. I drive I5 across the desert and if the car breaks down, the location of the engine and all the technology will not do me any good if it is not 100% reliable. This guy gets right at it. I didn't walk away from a C7 because of where the engine was sitting. It just wasn't reliable. The only way I'd get into a 'vette again would be to have it as a street toy not a real racer. 
I'll be waiting for "LT1 will transition to N/A Dohc!"
