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.
It will be much like the Ferrari and McLaren Spiders.
A “true” convertible with nothing rising above the belt line except the windshield is prob not possible for a Hi performance “supercar”. It’s not a boulevard cruiser. ; )
Hmm, the difference isn't just whether it's a cruiser of supercar. The "problem" if someone wants to call it that, is some recall a "true convertible" and like it better. If someone wanted to they could call an EV car, a car with a powerful engine. Technically, it isn't wrong, depending on the output level. Plus, when one "pops the hood" there is a different look, for sure, just as there is with a supercar convertible or a more traditional cruiser variation.
The convertible hardtops have been running around all year. To address the inevitable question - since the virtual mirror will be useless in direct sunlight, the rear view camera will fold away with the top, and the conventional mirror will be used. (because it's a requirement).
I expect the roof system to look like the Ferrari 458/488. My order is in.
Hmm, the difference isn't just whether it's a cruiser of supercar. The "problem" if someone wants to call it that, is some recall a "true convertible" and like it better. If someone wanted to they could call an EV car, a car with a powerful engine. Technically, it isn't wrong, depending on the output level. Plus, when one "pops the hood" there is a different look, for sure, just as there is with a supercar convertible or a more traditional cruiser variation.
All true... we are the only ones using the HT convertible or VERT names. GM has not even publicly acknowledged the existence of the car let alone the convertible version.
We "know" nothing...
Last edited by firstvettesoon; 12-27-2018 at 08:14 PM.
Agreed. It's really tough making a mid-engine car look good IMO and that doesn't look good to me. Why is there such fascination with a mid engine Corvette is beyond me. GM has proven that the front engine RWD platform can perform just as good or out-perform a mid engine setup for years now. Why change it at all.
In 1968 GM made a Corvette coupe and a Corvette convertible. When I took the tops off my 69 coupe and removed the vertical rear window glass the car looked just like the rendering of the so-called convertible rendered above.
It was in no way the same as the 1969 Convertible that was offered.
You are correct — it wasn’t (as we all know cap’n obvious), but you must have missed the fact that your targa band ran all the way across the back (just like the new Miata Coupe) while the C8 Spyder we’re conjecturing about is nothing at all like it. It is a convertible with fairings. If you don’t like the fairings just say so!
Last edited by Rapid Fred; 12-28-2018 at 06:56 PM.
Yes, though only as a hard top convertible. Maybe GM will call it a “Spyder” are the euro-exotics call their removable hard top ‘verts. Rendering thanks to FVS.
That's the best looking render I've seen yet. If it looks like that... my child's college fund is going to be getting very nervous.
Agreed. It's really tough making a mid-engine car look good IMO and that doesn't look good to me. Why is there such fascination with a mid engine Corvette is beyond me. GM has proven that the front engine RWD platform can perform just as good or out-perform a mid engine setup for years now. Why change it at all.
The Corvette chief engineer does not agree with you. He is on record saying they have reached the limit of front engine rear drive performance.
I'm beginning to wonder if this ME shift is an example of the tail wagging the dog. The vast majority of Corvettes never see a race course not do their owners other than 2 days at SM. So, if the FE design has reached a limit in terms of racing, does it really matter? If Corvette Racing folds and a new FE car hits the streets will Corvette sales tank? What say you?
GM certainly does not want Corvette racing to fold. Racing generates a ton of product exposure/marketing. There's a reason so many manufacturers are active in auto racing (besides the technology development/transfer aspects). Conversely, if Corvette racing tanks and GM pulls the plug, that may signal the end of the Corvette. BTW, Corvette sales have already tanked.
The Corvette chief engineer does not agree with you. He is on record saying they have reached the limit of front engine rear drive performance.
Then I'd find another engineer. It's all about weight distribution and you can get 50/50 weight distribution with front engine/rear wheel drive. Anyway, if you think about it current Corvettes (an even my C3) could be considered mid engined as the engine is behind the front axle. Just turn that configuration around and put the engine behind the driver and you have the traditional mid-engine configuration.
Mid Engine - Engine in front of rear axle, barely:
C7 Corvette - Front engine behind the front axle - barely (+ the trans is part of the rear axle so that helps with weight distribution.
Turn both the above seating positions around and you have almost the same configuration.
It's all about marketing. "Front" engine Corvettes have been kicking *** for a long time and will continue to do so.
But if you want to buy a "mid-engine" Corvette at twice the price you pay for a Corvette today be my guest. They've got you hook, line and sinker on a marketing ploy.
This is just my opinion of course and I'm not trying to start an internet argument. I just don't buy into the hype of mid-engine.
The concept that 50/50 weight distribution is perfect five decades old, “old wives tale.” It was candidly used extensively by Corvette in the 1960’s as they were progressively improving the car by approaching 50/50 weight distribution, and after further progression over a couple of more years, the Corvette ads noted that they had finally achieved the perfect 50/50 weight distribution.
if you look at the best sports cars right now, most of them average right around 58% rear wheel weight distribution. It is only the great expertise of Doug Fehan and the Corvette race team, that the C5.R, C6.R and the C7.R has been doing so well with front engine configuration.
It's all about marketing. "Front" engine Corvettes have been kicking *** for a long time and will continue to do so.
But if you want to buy a "mid-engine" Corvette at twice the price you pay for a Corvette today be my guest. They've got you hook, line and sinker on a marketing ploy.
This is just my opinion of course and I'm not trying to start an internet argument. I just don't buy into the hype of mid-engine.
You might want to study up on "polar moment of inertia". Simply put, you want to keep weight as close to the cars center of gravity as possible. 50-50 weight distribution is not ideal. Mid-rear engine configuration does that better than mid-front.
Also, I do not believe that the ME Corvette will be twice the price of the C7 on an equivalent model basis (base to base, etc.). I'm anticipating about 10% higher base price.
12-27-2018, 07:18 PM
The "problem" if someone wants to call it that, is some recall a "true convertible" and like it better. If someone wanted to they could call an EV car, a car with a powerful engine. Technically, it isn't wrong, depending on the output level. Plus, when one "pops the hood" there is a different look, for sure, just as there is with a supercar convertible or a more traditional cruiser variation.
