Yenko Corvette Unveiled -- 800 bhp
 

http://www.motortrend.com/news/800-h...jackson-debut/

Very interesting...

I find the 2.9 whipple unit the most interesting fact of all... They (whipple) need to release it and stop playing games with us!

Interesting and it makes me wonder why we need a mid engine. They achieved a boost of HP and Torque while keeping equal weight on all four corners. Weight reduction could be achieved with use of more Carbon Fiber. Maybe an all wheel drive would dictate mid engine but the Yenko goes where the Z06 has not been.

Moving to a ME is not about gaining more power.
It's primarily about placing more weight over the rear wheels to aid traction, which is a current weakness of the Z06.

Pretty cool. I like that they do a full forged rotating assembly in the LT1.

That's cool.

LOL. No.

People been crying for a mid-engine since the 80s ... Wouldn't hold your breath. Enjoy what's supplied or go buy a Porsche.

More pics and info in the following pdf file. :thumbs:

http://specialtyvehicleengineering.c...brochure_4.pdf

On topic, this is sweet... As stated where is the 2.9L twin screw blower !!

Thanks for playing.

Great find.:cool:

Cool car. Hopefully it's 800 to the wheels. Otherwise, that's way too much money

At first I was amazed that they could do this and offer a full factory warranty on the powertrain even though they kept the stock trans/diff, etc...

But upon further inspection they only make mention of warranty on the engine/supercharger and then NON-powertrain warranty items.

From the PDF:
"• 3 year/36,000 mile (60,000 kilometer) engine and
supercharger assembly limited warranty
• 3 year/36,000 mile (60,000 kilometer) non-powertrain
component limited warranty"

Am I reading things wrong?

Curious to hear more on your thoughts of traction being the primary benefit of a mid-engine layout due to weight bias. That's a complex solution to a rather simple problem, don't you think? If this were true, then wouldn't a rear-engine setup be more advantageous? What about the mid-engine cars with weight distribution closer to 50/50...does that just defeat the purpose?

To actually address the topic, no...a mid-engine layout is not just for traction, although it's an ancillary benefit. The primary benefit has to do with polar moment of inertia which can not be measured or calculated easily like weight. Ideally for performance, you want as much of a car's mass centered around its vertical axis of rotation as possible. This reduces the amount of force necessary for the car to change direction.

The real reason Chevy has delayed a mid-engine car until now? The average unsophisticated Corvette buyer does not comprehend this.

Appears to be some variant of the Whipple 2.9L twin screw using what appears to be factory hood on an LT motor platform vette.........let that sink in for a minute

Yeah, Chevy puts weight on each end to get 50/50 instead of centralizing, but here we are off topic again.

doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of the GS?

I.E. An NA car, not over powered, for road tacks and street use?

I will remind everyone that the Corvette has been mid-engine starting with the C4. The engine is forward of the cab rather than behind it like say the Ferrari, but it is mid-engine nonetheless.

I will remind Racer X that we all know this. And to correct you, the Corvette C4-C7 are technically "Front Mid-engine Rear Wheel" drive cars. In general speaking terms, when folk talk of a "Mid Engine", they are referring to Rear Mid-engine, like found on a Mclaren F1 or Ford GT. The term "Mid Engine" is generally accepted for discussion purposes to refer to these types of vehicles, and that is OK.

I suppose they started with a GS instead of Z06 because there is no reason to take the SC off and throw it in a box. Your pretty much ending up with a Z06 with a 150 HP more. I don't think that defeats the purpose of a C7.