C8 may kill Corvette
01-18-2019, 07:10 AM
#41
Burning Brakes
lol. The only front engine Corvette after 2019 will be the Camaro. But yes the formula has worked for years and won’t change: cheap priced sports car with top tier performance, this time with the engine in the back.
The following users liked this post:
PurpleLion (01-18-2019)
01-18-2019, 07:13 AM
#42
Burning Brakes
I think we should be a bit careful before calling someone's response "really dumb" when the rest of your post wasn't too intelligent to begin with. Let's examine the quoted text:
Technically, that's a correct statement. The phrase "mid-engine" doesn't mean what you're implying it means. It simply means: "Engine is between the axles". And, the Corvettes since C4 (and perhaps further back) have been that. It's part of why they're so well balanced in the handling department for the most part. What you're implying by your statement is a rear-mid. So if you want to pull someone's statement apart, make sure you do it carefully. Certainly, rear-mids provide a lower polar moment of inertia (which is good and bad!) and they generally give more mass where it's needed: over the driving wheels. Further, they usually put less stress on the front brakes, which can help with slowing at the track.
But, again, technically Corvettes have been ME for a while. The engine has just been in front of the driver instead of behind it.
Technically, that's a correct statement. The phrase "mid-engine" doesn't mean what you're implying it means. It simply means: "Engine is between the axles". And, the Corvettes since C4 (and perhaps further back) have been that. It's part of why they're so well balanced in the handling department for the most part. What you're implying by your statement is a rear-mid. So if you want to pull someone's statement apart, make sure you do it carefully. Certainly, rear-mids provide a lower polar moment of inertia (which is good and bad!) and they generally give more mass where it's needed: over the driving wheels. Further, they usually put less stress on the front brakes, which can help with slowing at the track.
But, again, technically Corvettes have been ME for a while. The engine has just been in front of the driver instead of behind it.
01-18-2019, 07:15 AM
#43
The Corvette has evolved from Chevrolet’s early attempt in 1953 to market an American sports car, to the C7 which is a large heavy, and extremely powerful GT racer. This “mid-engine” iteration should survive nicely. It may even appeal to a broader and younger market, provided it remains the value leader it is today. It will most likely see any number of revisions, even the addition of electric motors, before the first op-ed on the C9 Forum in 5-6 years.
01-18-2019, 07:18 AM
#44
Burning Brakes
Tell that to Sears, Blockbuster, Kodak... the formula that "worked" may not be the exact same formula the will continue to work. The evolution of the Corvette into a ME car will simply keep it relevant and allow GM to push performance even further. They can keep the parts of the formula in place to ensure they keep selling 30K+ units. In my view, the only thing that will kill them is a hideous design (it won't be) or a crazy price (it won't be).
The following 4 users liked this post by FringbirdAloha:
01-18-2019, 07:30 AM
#45
Melting Slicks
I bought my first Vette last August for a lot of reasons but in the end it was simply because the C7 is a fantastic sports car. I doubt it will be the first and last one I ever own and as such believe the new car has every chance to elevate the platform to new levels and keep the Corvette moving on into the future.
01-18-2019, 08:04 AM
#46
Melting Slicks
Some people will bitch and moan about some benign design thing that they just can't live with and pass up the C8 over it. Some will continue their boycott of tail lights that aren't round and wax poetic about flip up head lights. Some will not buy because there is no manual. In the end we May lose a few buyers changing to a mid engine platform, but we will likely gain quite a few more that want in on a sports car layout that has been exclusively the domain of supercars for decades (with the exception of a few underwhelming examples like the MR2 Spyder).
The following 3 users liked this post by LIStingray:
01-18-2019, 09:33 AM
#47
Team Owner
Tell that to Sears, Blockbuster, Kodak... the formula that "worked" may not be the exact same formula the will continue to work. The evolution of the Corvette into a ME car will simply keep it relevant and allow GM to push performance even further. They can keep the parts of the formula in place to ensure they keep selling 30K+ units. In my view, the only thing that will kill them is a hideous design (it won't be) or a crazy price (it won't be).
I understand... I'm suggesting they will find a way to keep a lot of that and still evolve the car. Just my bet that GM knows what their customers want (all of their customers) and will make it work. If they don't on the C8 then I believe they will keep a FE car.
P.S. When you say the benefit of a ME design is lost on the majority, that's a sad statement to me. A sports car is about performance at its core... otherwise, it's a glorified grocery getter and there are better options. That's just my view.
P.S. When you say the benefit of a ME design is lost on the majority, that's a sad statement to me. A sports car is about performance at its core... otherwise, it's a glorified grocery getter and there are better options. That's just my view.
Last edited by jschindler; 01-18-2019 at 09:38 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Art17 (01-18-2019)
01-18-2019, 09:39 AM
#48
Safety Car
Yes to both. I’ve been arounf an awfully ling time and I see it all the time. I’m like you, I’m into performance. We are not by a long shot the typical buyer. You just have to look at the issues philosophically. All this old guys who buy them as a middle (or later) life crisis cars is the reason the car is so affordable. It’s a $100,000 plus car if they only sell 5,000 a year. And by that, I mean any Corvette. BTW, I am an old guy now I think. I just turned 66, am now retired and on Medicare. But I’m not “right”. The Ducati in my avatar is one of three fast bikes I have. And yes, they get ridden fast
PC
01-18-2019, 10:20 AM
#49
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,089
Received 3,844 Likes
on
1,158 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
01-18-2019, 10:32 AM
#50
Instructor
The real issue will be how good the new Corvette is and most of all will be the cost. The best way to kill the Corvette is to make it so expensive that the ordinary buyer will not be able to afford it or will buy something else.
The following users liked this post:
427bob (03-27-2020)
01-18-2019, 10:56 AM
#52
Racer
Yep. The corvette sells well because it's affordable in terms of purchase and maintenance costs. A somewhat higher purchase price will be tolerated to an extent as long as its performance is acceptable and comparable because the maintenance costs are lower than more "exotic" sports cars. However I do think there needs to be an affordable, higher volume base model. That's what pays the bills and allows for the higher priced low volume variants to be made. If the C8 price goes to viper or nsx levels right off the bat, the vette could suffer their same fate.
Last edited by C6ness; 01-18-2019 at 10:59 AM.
01-18-2019, 11:12 AM
#53
Melting Slicks
Apples and oranges comparison IMHO. Chevy limits the number, and to me, the ZR1 is a kinda "half pregnant" car that finds itself stuck between a "plain old Corvette" and a "supercar". I think that is a real reason they went wilder on the styling (yes, there are legitimate benefits of the aero but most will never use it), simply to try and differentiate it from the "lesser Corvettes".
A bit of an unfair comparison though.
C4 production was 12 years.
C6 production was 8 years.
By average, yes the C4 was higher, but not by a huge number. And I like C4s, so this isn't a "hate on C4s" post.
With all these doom and gloom predictions. remember Bowling Green has many employees that GM needs to pay and keep working, so reducing the number of units produced and increasing the price will furlow those/those employees. GM knows that and needs high production numbers to keep those people employed and still make a profit.
Price will be inline with the current model and production numbers will still be 30-40 units a year
Price will be inline with the current model and production numbers will still be 30-40 units a year
I think the whole "luggage space" thing is way overplayed. My wife and I took a 67 vert (loaned to me by a customer) on our honeymoon in late winter. Even with our heavier winter clothes, everything fit in the back of that with no problem. Hell, we even came back with the top down. People need to learn they don't need to take their house with them when they travel.
Last edited by vndkshn; 01-18-2019 at 11:14 AM.
01-18-2019, 11:21 AM
#54
Safety Car
I think we should be a bit careful before calling someone's response "really dumb" when the rest of your post wasn't too intelligent to begin with. Let's examine the quoted text:
Technically, that's a correct statement. The phrase "mid-engine" doesn't mean what you're implying it means. It simply means: "Engine is between the axles". And, the Corvettes since C4 (and perhaps further back) have been that. It's part of why they're so well balanced in the handling department for the most part. What you're implying by your statement is a rear-mid. So if you want to pull someone's statement apart, make sure you do it carefully. Certainly, rear-mids provide a lower polar moment of inertia (which is good and bad!) and they generally give more mass where it's needed: over the driving wheels. Further, they usually put less stress on the front brakes, which can help with slowing at the track.
But, again, technically Corvettes have been ME for a while. The engine has just been in front of the driver instead of behind it.
Technically, that's a correct statement. The phrase "mid-engine" doesn't mean what you're implying it means. It simply means: "Engine is between the axles". And, the Corvettes since C4 (and perhaps further back) have been that. It's part of why they're so well balanced in the handling department for the most part. What you're implying by your statement is a rear-mid. So if you want to pull someone's statement apart, make sure you do it carefully. Certainly, rear-mids provide a lower polar moment of inertia (which is good and bad!) and they generally give more mass where it's needed: over the driving wheels. Further, they usually put less stress on the front brakes, which can help with slowing at the track.
But, again, technically Corvettes have been ME for a while. The engine has just been in front of the driver instead of behind it.
01-18-2019, 11:22 AM
#55
Well, what you posted was true but also not true. It's kinda like how the public calls lights that are placed in the ceiling of a house, recessed lighting but contractors call them can lights. They are the same thing. It is completely true that the original definition of mid-engine was any placement of an engine between the axles. Definitions change. Blonde hair was, and arguably still is, any shade of yellow which is whiter and brighter than a post-it note. But today we have 'dirty blonde', 'strawberry blonde', etc, when in fact none of them are blonde. Once you add another color to blonde, it becames a shade of the other color instead, so 'dirty blonde' is really just light brown (something like 90% of the world has brown or black hair) but the person wants to think they are blonde so they claim it regardless and now it is the norm. Engine placement is much the same. Most cars through history have had the engine in front of the driver and most of those engines have been above or behind the front axle. Yet they are still referred to commonly as front engine. The DMV does it, the manufacturer does it, and the public does it. So, at some point the paper definition starts to have little meaning and begins to change as useage changes. Probably the last mid-engine car where the driver was behind the engine was built in the 30s when the seating area was over the rear wheels and the engine was in the literal middle of the car. In modern accepted verbiage, mid-engine is therefore when the engine is behind the cab, unless it's a Porsche, then we just pretend that they are still rear engine even though the engine has been creeping forward for decades.
Last edited by Atari_Prime; 01-18-2019 at 11:24 AM.
The following 2 users liked this post by Atari_Prime:
PurpleLion (01-18-2019),
Rapid Fred (01-18-2019)
01-18-2019, 11:24 AM
#57
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,089
Received 3,844 Likes
on
1,158 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
01-18-2019, 11:37 AM
#58
Read my followup post. Maybe you will understand.
For the record, a mid engine sports car is a car with the engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle with approximately 55-60% of its weight on the rear wheels. This has been the definition of a mid engine car for a long time. Benefits, better traction when accelerating, weight transfer to the front when braking and low polar moment of inertia.
These benefits are conveyed due to the laws of physics.
The fictitious front mid classification receives none of these benefits!
For the record, a mid engine sports car is a car with the engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle with approximately 55-60% of its weight on the rear wheels. This has been the definition of a mid engine car for a long time. Benefits, better traction when accelerating, weight transfer to the front when braking and low polar moment of inertia.
These benefits are conveyed due to the laws of physics.
The fictitious front mid classification receives none of these benefits!
01-18-2019, 11:41 AM
#59
Le Mans Master
The following 2 users liked this post by Shaka:
427bob (03-27-2020),
Atari_Prime (01-18-2019)