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.
Get ready-I'm about to drop some SCIENCE on y'all...
Okay, so there's a lot of YOU here who thinks that by moving the engine behind the passenger, that the car is going to automagically be significantly faster in 0-60 time.
It won't.
I've done some digging around, and this is by no means super scientific, as I only have about 17 datapoints. But the data points to that 0-60 time is more associated with power to weight ratio, NOT where the engine is located.
Cas in point.
Sorry if this is a little hard to read, I tried my best to lay the data out in excel but frankly, excel is not my strong suit. The grey line is a general trend of power to weight ratio vs. 0-60 time, the x-axis is the lbs/hp, and the y axis is the published 0-60 time. So dots ABOVE the grey line means they're punching above their weight limit (i.e. way faster than what their weight to power should indicate for a 0-60 time) and under the grey line they're under performing (that their weight to power SHOULD get them a better 0-60). As you get closer to the tip of the theoretical faster 0-60, the deviation DECREASES from the grey line, although you still get some outliers (the Ford GT SHOULD be a lot faster given its power to weight ratio).
But here's the thing. Red/oranges are the mid and rear engine, rear wheel drive cars. The blue ones are front engined, rear wheel drive cars. As you can see, there's no general trend that rear engined cars have a distinct advantage to 0-60 time. NONE. There are nearly equal number of rear engine cars (3) that punch above its pay grade vs. front engine ones that punch above(3). Likewise, when you under perform, there are the same numbers of cars that under perform front vs mid engine.
The "myth" that says by moving the engine behind the driver, the C8, even with the same output as the LT1, should be faster in 0-60? Big resounding NO. The higher horse power output of the LT2 will be the reason why the 0-60 is better. As to WHAT causes one car to perform better than another, a clear trend is BMWs tend to perform much better than their weight to power ratio should indicate, while Corvettes tend to fall right in line with the trend. Is there a trend that we can infer that as you get near sub 3 second 0-60, that MR layout tend to punch above the weight line? No, the Ford GT should have been significantly below 3 seconds given its weight to power ratio. But it didn't. Mclaren and the two Ferraris falls right in range or just a hair above the trend line, while the two American cars (Ford GT and ZR1) that made it under 3 seconds required a lot more power to the weight to get there.
This isn't to say that mid engine rear wheel drive isn't superior dynamically compared to front engined, rear drive. Far from it. This is a single data point regarding 0-60. In a vehicle dynamics application, when the weight shift is in one axis only (going backwards, as in forward thrust), the engine location isn't nearly as important as we all think here. Where the mid engine chassis will SHINE, is when you apply the force vector in 2 axis (x and y), as you accelerating WHILE turning. The additional weight over the rear axle while lateral forces are applied, gives it more grip to handle the lateral forces.
But unless the C8's HP is significantly bumped, or weight is significantly reduced, don't expect the base C8 to have more than 0.2 second faster 0-60 time compared to the C7. A 3,375 lbs, 500hp C8 can reasonably expect a 0-60 time at 3.6 seconds, if that trend line prediction regarding 0-60 time being tied nearly entirely to weight to power implies.
Okay, so there's a lot of YOU here who thinks that by moving the engine behind the passenger, that the car is going to automagically be significantly faster in 0-60 time.
Where did you get this from? I have never heard anyone make that claim.
Okay, so there's a lot of YOU here who thinks that by moving the engine behind the passenger, that the car is going to automagically be significantly faster in 0-60 time.
Where did you get this from? I have never heard anyone make that claim.
There maybe be a few people who have said that, but the majority of folks on here that know cars all point to better handling characteristics which leads to better "track" times.
But unless the C8's HP is significantly bumped, or weight is significantly reduced, don't expect the base C8 to have more than 0.2 second faster 0-60 time compared to the C7. A 3,375 lbs, 500hp C8 can reasonably expect a 0-60 time at 3.6 seconds, if that trend line prediction regarding 0-60 time being tied nearly entirely to weight to power implies.
A C7 Grand Sport already goes 0-60 in 3.6 seconds with 465 hp. and weighing 3,428 lbs.
Where did you get this from? I have never heard anyone make that claim.
Sarcasm doesn't come through on the forum unless you put a couple of smileys on it.
ALL of the threads here in the C8 forum speculating about the potential power and performance of the C8 compared to the C7 claims that. There are even a few that thinks that sub 3.5 second is to be expected of the base C8.
Based on the trend line on the graph, IF the C8 remain the same weight as the C7, it's going to have to make 550+ hp to drop below 3.5 seconds. Or weight about 3,100 lbs.
A C7 Grand Sport already goes 0-60 in 3.6 seconds with 465 hp. and weighing 3,428 lbs.
There are outliers in the trend line. Some cars perform better, some not so much. As you get closer and closer to 3 seconds, the deviation gets smaller and smaller.
Numbers don't lie. It took the ZR1 a massive 4.74 lbs per hp to get to 2.9. And that's with sticky Michelin Cup 2 tires. I suspect the Grand Sport probably took the same route with a Z07 package to get to 0-60 in 3.6 (stickier tires, minimized tire spin).
There are outliers in the trend line. Some cars perform better, some not so much. As you get closer and closer to 3 seconds, the deviation gets smaller and smaller.
Numbers don't lie. It took the ZR1 a massive 4.74 lbs per hp to get to 2.9. And that's with sticky Michelin Cup 2 tires. I suspect the Grand Sport probably took the same route with a Z07 package to get to 0-60 in 3.6 (stickier tires, minimized tire spin).
A C7 Z51 went 0-60 in 3.7 with narrower tires than the GS. Those would certainly not have been Michelin Cup 2s.
Okay, so there's a lot of YOU here who thinks that by moving the engine behind the passenger, that the car is going to automagically be significantly faster in 0-60 time.
It won't.
I've done some digging around, and this is by no means super scientific, as I only have about 17 datapoints. But the data points to that 0-60 time is more associated with power to weight ratio, NOT where the engine is located.
Cas in point.
Sorry if this is a little hard to read, I tried my best to lay the data out in excel but frankly, excel is not my strong suit. The grey line is a general trend of power to weight ratio vs. 0-60 time, the x-axis is the lbs/hp, and the y axis is the published 0-60 time. So dots ABOVE the grey line means they're punching above their weight limit (i.e. way faster than what their weight to power should indicate for a 0-60 time) and under the grey line they're under performing (that their weight to power SHOULD get them a better 0-60). As you get closer to the tip of the theoretical faster 0-60, the deviation DECREASES from the grey line, although you still get some outliers (the Ford GT SHOULD be a lot faster given its power to weight ratio).
But here's the thing. Red/oranges are the mid and rear engine, rear wheel drive cars. The blue ones are front engined, rear wheel drive cars. As you can see, there's no general trend that rear engined cars have a distinct advantage to 0-60 time. NONE. There are nearly equal number of rear engine cars (3) that punch above its pay grade vs. front engine ones that punch above(3). Likewise, when you under perform, there are the same numbers of cars that under perform front vs mid engine.
The "myth" that says by moving the engine behind the driver, the C8, even with the same output as the LT1, should be faster in 0-60? Big resounding NO. The higher horse power output of the LT2 will be the reason why the 0-60 is better. As to WHAT causes one car to perform better than another, a clear trend is BMWs tend to perform much better than their weight to power ratio should indicate, while Corvettes tend to fall right in line with the trend. Is there a trend that we can infer that as you get near sub 3 second 0-60, that MR layout tend to punch above the weight line? No, the Ford GT should have been significantly below 3 seconds given its weight to power ratio. But it didn't. Mclaren and the two Ferraris falls right in range or just a hair above the trend line, while the two American cars (Ford GT and ZR1) that made it under 3 seconds required a lot more power to the weight to get there.
This isn't to say that mid engine rear wheel drive isn't superior dynamically compared to front engined, rear drive. Far from it. This is a single data point regarding 0-60. In a vehicle dynamics application, when the weight shift is in one axis only (going backwards, as in forward thrust), the engine location isn't nearly as important as we all think here. Where the mid engine chassis will SHINE, is when you apply the force vector in 2 axis (x and y), as you accelerating WHILE turning. The additional weight over the rear axle while lateral forces are applied, gives it more grip to handle the lateral forces.
But unless the C8's HP is significantly bumped, or weight is significantly reduced, don't expect the base C8 to have more than 0.2 second faster 0-60 time compared to the C7. A 3,375 lbs, 500hp C8 can reasonably expect a 0-60 time at 3.6 seconds, if that trend line prediction regarding 0-60 time being tied nearly entirely to weight to power implies.
Well y'all, the point you make about turning pretty much say's it all...and that's the point.
A C7 Z51 went 0-60 in 3.7 with narrower tires than the GS. Those would certainly not have been Michelin Cup 2s.
I'm not sure you understand what the graph represents?
There's like only a handful of cars that fall within that predicted trend line. Every thing else has a small amount of deviation from it. So every car, based on a variety of factors, can be faster than their weight to power would indicate, or slower. The Ford GT is slower. The ZR1 is slower. The C7 Z06 and the base Stingray is on the trend line.
The general factor here, is MOST cars fall within that trend, that power to weight dictates the actual 0-60 time. But, unlike numbers on a spreadsheet, it is NEVER the sole predictor of results. But based on the limited number of cars I can find in a short period of time, it seems to fall within that logical line, so the suggestion here is that it's entirely possible that weight/power ratio IS the biggest indicator of actual 0-60 performance, not where the engine is placed.
Now, if you take a look at the graph again, a lot of cars don't fall exactly where it SHOULD. But they're close. So cars like BMW's M5, M2, and 440i, they all "punch above." Meaning the M5, given its weight to power, SHOULD have been nearly 3/10th of a second slower to 60 (because it is so damn heavy). So OTHER factors affect actual 0-60 time. Maybe some manufacturers under report actual HP figures (BMW has long been rumored to do that). Maybe some has grippier tires. Maybe some has less drivetrain loss. Who knows. If all the cars fall on the trend line, then we don't even need to argue what car does what in 0-60, the line would basically PREDICT 0-60 based on HP to weight.
This is to show that on a REAR wheel drive car, where the engine is placed, statistically, does not affect the actual 0-60 time. It's primarily dictated by weight to power, with some variations based on factors UNKNOWN. If you're going to continue to ricer math and say "hey get this HACK. The Z51 did it in 3.7. The GS did it in 3.6. Therefore a 500hp, mid engined C8 WILL do it in less than 3.5?"
That's not how it works. That's now how ANY of this works.
Not saying it won't. It still might. But it's not a predictor. Based on the trend line, the C8 will have to punch way above to hit 3.5. It can happen, but it likely won't be because the engine is placed behind the driver. If it does 3.5 or better, it is likely because it's got a much favorable HP to weight ratio, among other things (like, say, oh an AWD system, or a magical magneticrheological shock fluid and suspension tuning that can manage weight transfer quickly by softening the shocks in less than a millisecond...)
If y'all MUST take something away from the graph? Take away this. Engine placement matters little if the drive wheel remains the same. And as time gets closer and closer to 3 seconds, the deviations get smaller and smaller. And as you get closer and closer to that magical 3 second mark, it gets harder and harder to extract every 1/10th of a second.
Well y'all, the point you make about turning pretty much say's it all...and that's the point.
Well, yes, and NO.
Let's say the new C8 comes in weighing the same as the C7 base. Roughly right under 3,400 lbs. Let's also assume that some of the numbers bandied about are close. Let's just say, the LT2 pumps out 520hp if I am being generous.
If the trend is correct, a 3,400 lbs rwd car that puts out about 520hp is likely capable of 0-60 in 3.6s. Imagine the uproar at CorvetteForums and from Corvette Fanboiz world wide. "the C7 Grand Sport can already do 0-60 in 3.6 seconds! And it's HEAVIER! with LESS POWER?! With the exotic engine behind the driver??!"
Not saying it would. But if it does...those of us running the ricer math is going to be very disappointed. I personally don't think the C8 is going to light it up on 0-60. And I personally don't think the C8 is going to light the world on fire breaking every track record. At least not in the base trim. In race trim? Where weight is reduced and aero can be customized to increase grip on either end? There are huge advantages to moving the engine back there (especially considering what you can do from an aero perspective when there's no engine block to contend with in the front of the car).
But for all the metrics your average consumer is going to care about? The 0-60s? It's going to be a tough sell. That's my opinion. It happens to run counter to most on this forum, and that's fine with me.
Okay, so there's a lot of YOU here who thinks that by moving the engine behind the passenger, that the car is going to automagically be significantly faster in 0-60 time.
It won't.
I've done some digging around, and this is by no means super scientific, as I only have about 17 datapoints. But the data points to that 0-60 time is more associated with power to weight ratio, NOT where the engine is located.
Cas in point.
Sorry if this is a little hard to read, I tried my best to lay the data out in excel but frankly, excel is not my strong suit. The grey line is a general trend of power to weight ratio vs. 0-60 time, the x-axis is the lbs/hp, and the y axis is the published 0-60 time. So dots ABOVE the grey line means they're punching above their weight limit (i.e. way faster than what their weight to power should indicate for a 0-60 time) and under the grey line they're under performing (that their weight to power SHOULD get them a better 0-60). As you get closer to the tip of the theoretical faster 0-60, the deviation DECREASES from the grey line, although you still get some outliers (the Ford GT SHOULD be a lot faster given its power to weight ratio).
>>> so to sum it up power to weight and the ability to hook it will be the large determining factor Nice graph though.
But here's the thing. Red/oranges are the mid and rear engine, rear wheel drive cars. The blue ones are front engined, rear wheel drive cars. As you can see, there's no general trend that rear engined cars have a distinct advantage to 0-60 time. NONE.
>>> BS As you said those cars are punching above their weight. It takes a ZR-1 with 755 hp to keep up with the McLaren's Look at the MPH in the quarter mile as a good indicator of what the car is putting to the ground and the ET as a good measure of 60 ft times and 0-30 to show how effectively the car launches. Like the 4 wd porsche that comes out of the hole like a bull out of the shoot, it's AWD which is also a big determining factor.
There are nearly equal number of rear engine cars (3) that punch above its pay grade vs. front engine ones that punch above(3). Likewise, when you under perform, there are the same numbers of cars that under perform front vs mid engine.
The "myth" that says by moving the engine behind the driver, the C8, even with the same output as the LT1, should be faster in 0-60? Big resounding NO.
>>> again, wrong and incorrect based on your excel spreadsheet. take a look at the performance data once the car comes out. I'll let you compare C7 performance to C8 performance and we'll see who wins.
The higher horse power output of the LT2 will be the reason why the 0-60 is better.
>>> only if the car is lighter, might not be but at this HP level suspension, tires, and tranny efficiency enter into it too. It's not ALL about power to weight See S4 audi vs GT 350 mustang 400 hp and awd with similar power to weight, guess who wins. Even with the big revs and hp advantage the fancy tranny + AWD and broad torq wins.
As to WHAT causes one car to perform better than another, a clear trend is BMWs tend to perform much better than their weight to power ratio hould indicate, while Corvettes tend to fall right in line with the trend. Is there a trend that we can infer that as you get near sub 3 second 0-60, that MR layout tend to punch above the weight line? No, the Ford GT should have been significantly below 3 seconds given its weight to power ratio. But it didn't.
>>>Jeez my friend you ignore SOOOO much. The ford is geared to run 219 mph with very tall first gears and BIG turbos that go ka bam after the car moves a bit.
Mclaren and the two Ferraris falls right in range or just a hair above the trend line, while the two American cars (Ford GT and ZR1) that made it under 3 seconds required a lot more power to the weight to get there.
>>> back to traction, the ferraris and mclaren that just "happen" to be rear engine hook and scoot while the bodacious torq of the ZR-1 is like taming a lion. Maybe you should drive more and put less useless data into excel. but again, cool spreadsheet bro!!
This isn't to say that mid engine rear wheel drive isn't superior dynamically compared to front engined, rear drive. Far from it. This is a single data point regarding 0-60. In a vehicle dynamics application, when the weight shift is in one axis only (going backwards, as in forward thrust), the engine location isn't nearly as important as we all think here. Where the mid engine chassis will SHINE, is when you apply the force vector in 2 axis (x and y), as you accelerating WHILE turning. The additional weight over the rear axle while lateral forces are applied, gives it more grip to handle the lateral forces.
>>> see engineering 101 polar moment of inertia briefing. Vehicle dynamics have quite a bit more to consider than what you are presenting and yes it IS more important than you think it is. Not sure why you are trying to argue the physics that make a ME car a better way to go unless your objective is golf clubs and groceries. So you are trying to say the current FE car will be better? the weight and ability to put power down both going THROUGH and out of the corners will be better.
But unless the C8's HP is significantly bumped, or weight is significantly reduced, don't expect the base C8 to have more than 0.2 second faster 0-60 time compared to the C7. A 3,375 lbs, 500hp C8 can reasonably expect a 0-60 time at 3.6 seconds, if that trend line prediction regarding 0-60 time being tied nearly entirely to weight to power implies.
>>> bring lots of money, I'll cover that bet and then you can enter that into your financial planning spreadsheet. the .2 will be covered How much money did you say you have again??? Your math is void of many other things, gearing, loss of drivetrain parasitic loss (power that makes it to the wheels might be important huh??). I don't mean to go on and sound to be arrogant but performance has so many more things to consider and yes it really does matter. So again, you seem to be trying to prove ME isn't WORTH IT, yes IT IS. I'm done.
0-60 is just one way of many to measure performance. I think it was more relevant in the 80's when cars were waaaaay underpowered. Now we are splitting hairs by comparison. Maybe we need an updated measure, say 0-120?
There are outliers in the trend line. Some cars perform better, some not so much. As you get closer and closer to 3 seconds, the deviation gets smaller and smaller.
Numbers don't lie. It took the ZR1 a massive 4.74 lbs per hp to get to 2.9. And that's with sticky Michelin Cup 2 tires. I suspect the Grand Sport probably took the same route with a Z07 package to get to 0-60 in 3.6 (stickier tires, minimized tire spin).
I think one aspect that may be overlooked is repeatability. I feel I can launch my Boxster more consistently than I can my Stingray. Obviously other factors like tires come into play too. But I think the main benefit of mid engine is in the curves, not necessarily in a straight line.
THE LT2 will produce around 530hp. And the DCT transmission will reduce the 0-60 time substantially. Then around 730hp with the Z06. And around 830hp with the ZR1. The C8 will be plenty fast.
05-13-2019, 05:38 PM
Get ready-I'm about to drop some SCIENCE on y'all...
Unless I am mistaken 
