|
Is there demand for a mid-engine Corvette?
Just curious if this is just an evolution of the Corvette or if in fact there is a bunch up pent up demand for a mid engine version of the car? The idea of a more affordable Ferrari, Audi R8, etc. sounds enticing but I just wonder how much of the Corvette community actually wanted such a design? Is it something the Corvette designers wanted to build for a long time but just never did so?
|
Yes to all of the above. :thumbs:
|
^^^^^^^
This... |
Every Corvette engineer has said that we're reaching the limits of the front engine car for performance and handling. Zora wanted to build one decades ago. How can ANYBODY be surprised that it is finally a reality? The new ZR1 is a graphic demonstration that the capabilities of the drivetrain exceed the capabilities of the vehicle.
|
To me, as a 26 year old who can actually afford it, I love the idea of a mid engine Vette. I have always loved Vettes but they have kind of always been perceived as an "old man" car, or at least the base model has.
The ability to have an American v8 with radical mid engine looks, I think will appeal to a newer audience of younger people like me who want something new and fresh. |
Originally Posted by marknagy13
(Post 1598243227)
To me, as a 26 year old who can actually afford it, I love the idea of a mid engine Vette. I have always loved Vettes but they have kind of always been perceived as an "old man" car, or at least the base model has.
The ability to have an American v8 with radical mid engine looks, I think will appeal to a newer audience of younger people like me who want something new and fresh. |
Dave McLellan, former chief engineer of Corvette: "High level interest from the press definitely helped stimulate the marketplace. But what has surprised me over the years, when experimental mid-engine cars have been displayed at gatherings such as Mid America’s Corvette Funfest, was Corvette owners’ lack of interest in moving from the traditional layout."
Meanwhile one year ago, the C7 was named one of the most popular cars on the market: Corvette has just been selected as one of the 10 most satisfying vehicles by Consumer Reports. CR surveyed owners of more than 500,000 vehicles, asking subscribers the ultimate question: If they had it to do all over again, would they definitely buy or lease the same model? Owners also rated their cars in six categories: driving experience, comfort, value, styling, audio, and climate systems. Corvette ranked third overall in the survey behind only the Tesla Model S and Porsche 911. So is Mary Barra really going to dump the most popular car GM makes? Seems doubtful. |
Originally Posted by marknagy13
(Post 1598243227)
To me, as a 26 year old who can actually afford it, I love the idea of a mid engine Vette. I have always loved Vettes but they have kind of always been perceived as an "old man" car, or at least the base model has.
The ability to have an American v8 with radical mid engine looks, I think will appeal to a newer audience of younger people like me who want something new and fresh. |
Originally Posted by loyalsince72
(Post 1598243211)
How can ANYBODY be surprised that it is finally a reality?
1. Corvette has almost been canceled more than once. 2. DECADES of mid engine rumors that don't become reality. 3. GM appears to be a company that is shy of taking risks. 4. GM appears to often not understand what the consumer wants (4 cylinder Camaro, FWD Olds Cutlas 442, Aztec, etc.) For those reasons I am not surprised, but rather SHOCKED that GM is finally doing this. Lets hope GM gets it right and is rewarded well. |
GM wants a car that can beat any Porsche at the track. The Zora will do that at half the price of a Porsche.
Not all that surprising given how important racing wins are, especially internationally where Zora will be a big player. |
Originally Posted by PCMIII
(Post 1598243343)
Dave McLellan, former chief engineer of Corvette: "High level interest from the press definitely helped stimulate the marketplace. But what has surprised me over the years, when experimental mid-engine cars have been displayed at gatherings such as Mid America’s Corvette Funfest, was Corvette owners’ lack of interest in moving from the traditional layout."
Meanwhile one year ago, the C7 was named one of the most popular cars on the market: Corvette has just been selected as one of the 10 most satisfying vehicles by Consumer Reports. CR surveyed owners of more than 500,000 vehicles, asking subscribers the ultimate question: If they had it to do all over again, would they definitely buy or lease the same model? Owners also rated their cars in six categories: driving experience, comfort, value, styling, audio, and climate systems. Corvette ranked third overall in the survey behind only the Tesla Model S and Porsche 911. So is Mary Barra really going to dump the most popular car GM makes? Seems doubtful. |
Originally Posted by Tom73
(Post 1598243917)
Justification for keeping a FE along side of the ME? The FE's mission is to sell the most sports cars of any auto maker on the planet, which it will do if the price is affordable and it offers outstanding performance, style and features superior to the competition in the price range. Corvette obviously has a loyal following that is very satisfied with the FE. The completely new ME will have many problems initially so abandoning the FE would be suicide. |
To give an opinion on OP's question, maybe there really IS a pent up demand for an ME Corvette. If the ME comes into being soon, we'll find out, and not just the usual first-year sales.
But, while GM and Corvette have been in/on/thru hard times several times during its 60+ years, it hasn't always been bad times. Which makes one really wonder: over the decades, the money was there for Corvette to build an ME---but did the GM market feasibility staff know something about what the market wants even as the ME was being touted by engineers salespersons, biz execs, etc.? Are they betting the brand now on the wishes of a "younger" demographic or cohort which may sometimes have fleeting wants and wishes? And surely, to answer an unasked question of those who are younger than the publicized age of new Corvette buyers, what will happen if the ME becomes an older Corvette buyer's car to buy---just like the FE Corvettes? Will the younger gen abandon all desire for the ME Corvette? It could be---because perception is sometimes stronger than reality. Wait a few months, we will see who buys, who likes it, and if the ME becomes all the predictions made on these electronic pages! |
IMO, yes. It needs to be obviously a Corvette and not some carbon copy of another ME, but if they can pull off the WOW factor at a good price I believe it will open the floodgates for new and old buyers alike.
|
Originally Posted by mschuyler
(Post 1598244484)
IMO, yes. It needs to be obviously a Corvette and not some carbon copy of another ME, but if they can pull off the WOW factor at a good price I believe it will open the floodgates for new and old buyers alike.
|
I think the engineers have stated that the C7 is about as far as you can put the limits of a Front Engine car. So, to take the next step it has to be mid engine or you are just going no where better than before.
Given a step up in performance vs no improvement in performance at all, the C8 will be more in demand than if they did nothing. Is there really pent up demand for a mid engine Corvette? Maybe. But more than what they've produced before? I doubt it. A lot has to do with the MSRP. |
Originally Posted by Sin City
(Post 1598245002)
I think the engineers have stated that the C7 is about as far as you can put the limits of a Front Engine car. So, to take the next step it has to be mid engine or you are just going no where better than before.
Given a step up in performance vs no improvement in performance at all, the C8 will be more in demand than if they did nothing. Is there really pent up demand for a mid engine Corvette? Maybe. But more than what they've produced before? I doubt it. A lot has to do with the MSRP. |
Originally Posted by marknagy13
(Post 1598243227)
To me, as a 26 year old who can actually afford it, I love the idea of a mid engine Vette. I have always loved Vettes but they have kind of always been perceived as an "old man" car, or at least the base model has.
The ability to have an American v8 with radical mid engine looks, I think will appeal to a newer audience of younger people like me who want something new and fresh. |
As long as it performs with low cost and carries two sets of golf clubs I'm in.
|
I agree that the strategy here is to attract an entirely new pool of Corvette buyers, who never seriously considered it before. The Corvette demographic is old and will be dying off quickly over the next decade. Sure, there will be "traditionalists" who won't like it, but I think they will more than be replaced by new buyers if GM gets it right and prices it under anything else comparable, as they've always done.
|
Originally Posted by Foosh
(Post 1598246708)
I agree that the strategy here is to attract an entirely new pool of Corvette buyers, who never seriously considered it before. The Corvette demographic is old and will be dying off quickly over the next decade. Sure, there will be "traditionalists" who won't like it, but I think they will more than be replaced by new buyers if GM gets it right and prices it under anything else comparable, as they've always done.
|
The C7 is probably the last Corvette for this generation of buyers and they will look at a ME but will never buy one. If the new generation of buyers want a sports car they will buy one that has a proven track record that has been engineered over many years and not a first year unproven introductory model. It will be interesting to see a ME for under a $100K and to do this the GM bean counters will have a lot of work ahead of them.
|
Bigger Younger World Wide Market
I believe Corvette has a bigger and younger worldwide market in mind for the C8. Just look where ZORA is trademarked.
https://www.corvetteblogger.com/2018...cluding-china/
Originally Posted by falcon5619
(Post 1598242681)
Just curious if this is just an evolution of the Corvette or if in fact there is a bunch up pent up demand for a mid engine version of the car? The idea of a more affordable Ferrari, Audi R8, etc. sounds enticing but I just wonder how much of the Corvette community actually wanted such a design? Is it something the Corvette designers wanted to build for a long time but just never did so?
|
As long as GM can keep the price in line with the current generation then I'm all for a ME Corvette but don't expect me to pay a premium just because it's a "ME".
|
Originally Posted by marknagy13
(Post 1598243227)
To me, as a 26 year old who can actually afford it, I love the idea of a mid engine Vette. I have always loved Vettes but they have kind of always been perceived as an "old man" car, or at least the base model has.
The ability to have an American v8 with radical mid engine looks, I think will appeal to a newer audience of younger people like me who want something new and fresh. |
Originally Posted by Atomic Fred
(Post 1598242948)
^^^^^^^
This... |
Originally Posted by Foosh
(Post 1598246708)
The Corvette demographic is old and will be dying off quickly over the next decade.
|
Originally Posted by F4 Phantom
(Post 1598250464)
Dying off quickly? WTF are you talking about? I'm 73, go to the gym almost every day and train hard, drive the hell out of my C7 vert, and plan on driving Vettes another 20 years, minimum.:cool::thumbs:
A couple of glasses of red wine ...And a Corvette in the garage is the secret to a long healthy life. God bless |
I don't think any of it will matter, in the end if it looks good, performs good, and is priced appropriately then people of all demographics will buy it.
|
Originally Posted by blb078
(Post 1598251564)
I don't think any of it will matter, in the end if it looks good, performs good, and is priced appropriately then people of all demographics will buy it.
|
Originally Posted by F4 Phantom
(Post 1598250464)
Dying off quickly? WTF are you talking about? I'm 73, go to the gym almost every day and train hard, drive the hell out of my C7 vert, and plan on driving Vettes another 20 years, minimum.:cool::thumbs:
Sure, new 50-somethings are being created every day, but there are just not as many of them as there used to be. That's why it's important for any product to appeal to the broadest possible age demographic. |
Good points Foosh. For everyone one who is super physically fit in the retirement group (and count me in that category), there are many who are the oppsosite, have bad backs so they no longer can get in or out of sports cars or much worse, but even wishing them all medical health for many more decades, there is a compounding demographic of greatly reduced income for most once they retire. In my Corvette club, the number who are buying new Corvettes keeps sinking as more and more are retiring — and can no longer afford one. The mid engine is going to compensate for this demographic by attracking tons of new, brand-conquest, upper middle class folks in far younger age groups than the C5, the C6, and even the C7 did. |
Originally Posted by elegant
(Post 1598267438)
Good points Foosh. For everyone one who is super physically fit in the retirement group (and count me in that category), there are many who are the oppsosite, have bad backs so they no longer can get in or out of sports cars or much worse, but even wishing them all medical health for many more decades, there is a compounding demographic of greatly reduced income for most once they retire. In my Corvette club, the number who are buying new Corvettes keeps sinking as more and more are retiring — and can no longer afford one. The mid engine is going to compensate for this demographic by attracking tons of new, brand-conquest, upper middle class folks in far younger age groups than the C5, the C6, and even the C7 did. |
Originally Posted by Foosh
(Post 1598246708)
The Corvette demographic is old and will be dying off quickly over the next decade.
|
Originally Posted by elegant
(Post 1598267438)
The mid engine is going to compensate for this demographic by attracking tons of new, brand-conquest, upper middle class folks in far younger age groups than the C5, the C6, and even the C7 did.
|
Originally Posted by elegant
(Post 1598267438)
Good points Foosh. For everyone one who is super physically fit in the retirement group (and count me in that category), there are many who are the oppsosite, have bad backs so they no longer can get in or out of sports cars or much worse, but even wishing them all medical health for many more decades, there is a compounding demographic of greatly reduced income for most once they retire. In my Corvette club, the number who are buying new Corvettes keeps sinking as more and more are retiring — and can no longer afford one.
|
Today tahoes and escalades cost about the same as corvettes if not more. usually its the compromises and fear of not having four seats and four doors that people think they have to have that is slowing down sales of two seat sports cars.. corvettes are relatively inexpensive considering what they offer from a performance perspective so they sell in relatively higher unit volume. many of us learned decades ago the benefits of two seaters and the fact we can not carry more than one passenger is a huge plus in getting out of family transport crap... i learned that from my dad who has been gone for 29 years and was a 2 seat sports car owner his whole life. half the american public thinks they have to have four door cuv s to survive the zoombie apocalypse. i suggest two seat sports cars are the best way to avoid having to deal with any and all zombies (j/k) that may come across in your life. as a side note...if you dont want to almost double your cost for a corvette...be smart and get the options that you as a person place as a priority... dont check off every box on the option list... if you made a good living your whole life and you lived a sensible life...following that same path should put a c8 in your garage without too much of an issue. im planning a c8 z51with dct npp and mrc... i dont expect it to cost too much more than todays c7 with the same features or options..add five grand over todays similiarly equipped car and call it a day... if my butt or back needs a massage ill have my girl do it when i get home...if i need heat or some cooling ill have her either light my ass on fire or blow..(kidding) my opinion use a balanced common sense approach on the option list... most corvette owners pay in full with cash but if anyone is stressing out you can with todays low interest rates always take out a loan. Rmember corvettes have pretty decent residuals...its the option list that dreciates at 100percent right away with the exception of performance items on high performance sports cars like corvette.... In my experience and opinion the value retention on z51 corvettes with light luxury options hold their values the best and they sell the fastest on resale... for those worried about retirement income etc...consider the purchase as a comparative ownership cost experience for a period of time if you are aging out of the sports car market in general to to lack of dexterity coming sooner rather than later... life truly is about the experiences we have rather than the “things “ we own when we pass on. Im one year away from the age my never sick dad passed on 29 years ago so in my opinion this balanced perspective has some merit to consider for enjoying the chosen priorities of life. one trip one journey.... |
Originally Posted by PurpleLion
(Post 1598270612)
And, as one who has just recently retired, it is a financial bitch! You need to be saving those acorns people, retirement age comes much faster than one thinks, i.e. tempus fugit!
I currently have a C6. the C7 was very much considered and my wife and I like it but there has just been something stopping us. I guess life has just been too busy and we are very happy with the C6. Also I'm more interested in a new family sized vehicle right now and in my truck hotrod project. Personally I find the C7 hardtop to be ugly, but the convertable top is perfect looking. Something about the roof line on the hardtop just doesn't look right. If the C8 can fit a couple of suit cases for a two week road trip, has comfortable seating, attractive smooth styling, a convertable top, at least 300 hp/ft-lbs, cost around 66k base, and has milage that avoids the gas guzzlers tax then I'll be in consideration. |
I retired about 15 years ago...lifes good .(for young people in their thirties i suggest reading a simple book by Andrew Bach, the automatic millionaire)..the c7 as great as it was, was evolutionary in many aspects where as the c8 is a revolutionary change.that warrants a purchase... i believe c5, c6 and c7 corvette owners will get off the sidelines to own and experience the totally new driving experience from a handling standpoint. Not that the c7 wasnt an amazing handling and performance machine....same for the c6 and c5... its more along the lines of experiencing a low polar movement of inertia (terms slightly off as its early in the day).. the driving experience tearing into a corner with that tight immediate turn in is a little more addictive even in street driving just for fun... that driving feature will pull a lot of c5, c6 and c7 owners into buying c8 s....and it will also in my opinion pull a lot of foreign car customers into the corvette as as well. buy early as demand will have gm raising the msrp of the c8 every year in a slightly more dramatic fashion than we have seen with the c5, c6 and c7. I don't expect discounts on msrp by even the third year of c8 production as we have seen in the last three generations and in fact expect mrsp to be held tight without discounts throughout the production run. i expect msrp escalation over the production run instead...(not obscenely but it will be opposite to previous and recent generations pricing strategy... gm philosphy on boutique like specialty products are no longer recieving subsidized incentives and those dollars are being devoted to higher volume mainstream products like four door sedans which have taken a nose dive in unit sales... so much so ford motor company announced its ending production of four door sedans and will bring out only the mustang and new cuvs and trucks. staying on point....i would NOT expect the usual 5 or 10 percent incentive on third year c8 s...as we have seen with c5, c6 s or c7...but rather the opposite rise in prices |
Originally Posted by JerriVette
(Post 1598270727)
Today tahoes and escalades cost about the same as corvettes if not more.
usually its the compromises and fear of not having four seats and four doors that people think they have to have that is slowing down sales of two seat sports cars.. |
Both JerriV. and LISting. make good points above esp. the possibility of price reductions and how utilitarian the Corvette is for most owners who work. Good points, gentlemen! :cheers:
|
Good discussion. I think the initial demand for the C8 will be quite high if it is priced in that 60-70k range simply because nothing else would come close in price. Audi R8, Porsche 911s, Lambos, Ferraris all start over $100k. |
no,, GM is just building it because their bored
|
I love Vettes old and new and look forward to the C8. Issue I see is the traditional stereotypical Vette enthusiast want front engine, V8 pushrod power. GM doesn't get it however they may have seen the light when they did the C7 ZO6 in convertible and automatics. I see more A8s then M7s out there. They should be looking at V6 twin turbo and turbo diesel packages that will make the Vette lighter and better balanced |
Originally Posted by dmaxx3500
(Post 1598270986)
no,, GM is just building it because their bored
|
A better question would be "is there demand for a Corvette?" The C7's success proves there is.
Engine location is simply one feature of the C8 Corvette. When the Corvette's transmission was moved to the rear, did anyone ask if there was demand for a rear tranny Corvette? |
Originally Posted by Vega$Vette
(Post 1598271060)
I love Vettes old and new and look forward to the C8. Issue I see is the traditional stereotypical Vette enthusiast want front engine, V8 pushrod power. GM doesn't get it however they may have seen the light when they did the C7 ZO6 in convertible and automatics. I see more A8s then M7s out there. They should be looking at V6 twin turbo and turbo diesel packages that will make the Vette lighter and better balanced I don't think people are necessarily too concerned about where the engine is placed, we all know that for performance the mid engine layout is the best for chassis dynamics, it is literal science. I think the biggest gripe from the stereotypical buyers is cargo space and tail light shape. That said any deviation from the V8 would be met with pitchforks and violence, and I would be right there with them. I recognize the performance of the Ford GT, but I could care less about it due to it's crappy EcoTec V6. Exotics need to feel exotic in every aspect in my book, and that V6 has a grating engine note that is an embarrassment among the great exotics with V8's, V10's, and V12's. Sure it is sold out, but I feel like it is being hoarded as a potential collectors car in hopes that they can get a decent ROI. |
Originally Posted by falcon5619
(Post 1598242681)
Just curious if this is just an evolution of the Corvette or if in fact there is a bunch up pent up demand for a mid engine version of the car? ....Is it something the Corvette designers wanted to build for a long time but just never did so?
Yep as Zora said even Dr- Ing. Ferdinand Porsche knew the right place for an engine was in the middle! German race cars in the 1930’s had the engine in the middle. When he built the “people’s car” it had to be cheap and a rear air cooled engine fit the bill! His first sports car was based on that design because it was what they could afford! IMO there is a “Need” for a ME but it’s GMs! The days of large cid pushrods V8’s is ending. To gain more efficiency a smaller DOHC engine where the intake and exhaust can be individually varied is needed. Turbocharging is a way to get the needed power from a small cid engine when your foot is on the floor but decent mpg when cruising. It recovers some of the 30% wasted heat going out the exhaust instead of using more energy as does a supercharger! Those engines are wide and high with all the “stuff” needed to make them work. Fitting in a front engine car is not viable. Yep the low polar moment of inertia will make great marketing material but GM’s “need” for higher corporate overall mpg is the driver, IMO. Just look at the current Ford GT, DOHC, twin turbo 3.5 liter V6 producing 647 hp! Whatever the reasons- it’s coming! Oh ya, so will Start/Stop and hopfully KERS as they have in F1! Yep love to have ~160 hp available for 10 to 20 seconds coming from a motor/generator attached to the tranxaxile! In F1 the system with battery weights ~60 pounds! Useful on every takeoff, even if just casually leaving a red light. That is where a lot of energy is used. Then we could also use some of the wasted energy braking! On average, about a 1/3 of the energy that does get to the rear wheels is wasted when braking! Why not recover some of it? Just my $0.02! |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598271955)
I have a different view of the “need for a ME.” Yep as Zora said even Dr- Ing. Ferdinand Porsche knew the right place for an engine was in the middle! German race cars in the 1930’s had the engine in the middle. When he built the “people’s car” it had to be cheap and a rear air cooled engine fit the bill! His first sports car was based on that design because it was what they could afford! IMO there is a “Need” for a ME but it’s GMs! The days of large cid pushrods V8’s is ending. To gain more efficiency a smaller DOHC engine where the intake and exhaust can be individually varied is needed. Turbocharging is a way to get the needed power from a small cid engine when your foot is on the floor but decent mpg when cruising. It recovers some of the 30% wasted heat going out the exhaust instead of using more energy as does a supercharger! Those engines are wide and high with all the “stuff” needed to make them work. Fitting in a front engine car is not viable. Yep the low polar moment of inertia will make great marketing material but GM’s “need” for higher corporate overall mpg is the driver, IMO. Just look at the current Ford GT, DOHC, twin turbo 3.5 liter V6 producing 647 hp! Whatever the reasons- it’s coming! Oh ya, so will Start/Stop and hopfully KERS as they have in F1! Yep love to have ~160 hp available for 10 to 20 seconds coming from a motor/generator attached to the tranxaxile! In F1 the system with battery weights ~60 pounds! Useful on every takeoff, even if just casually leaving a red light. That is where a lot of energy is used. Then we could also use some of the wasted energy braking! On average, about a 1/3 of the energy that does get to the rear wheels is wasted when braking! Why not recover some of it? Just my $0.02! |
Originally Posted by Supermassive
(Post 1598271605)
I feel like people are so stuck on the weirdest things about the Corvette. The OHV LT small block Chevy engine in it's most modern interpretation is just as advanced at all the DOHC setups but provides more torque, less mass, lower center of gravity, less complexity, and better power per dollar than the competition. DOHC allows for higher revving engines, but you lose out on bottom end torque, which is one of the biggest draws of the Corvette, off idle grunt.
I don't think people are necessarily too concerned about where the engine is placed, we all know that for performance the mid engine layout is the best for chassis dynamics, it is literal science. I think the biggest gripe from the stereotypical buyers is cargo space and tail light shape. That said any deviation from the V8 would be met with pitchforks and violence, and I would be right there with them. I recognize the performance of the Ford GT, but I could care less about it due to it's crappy EcoTec V6. Exotics need to feel exotic in every aspect in my book, and that V6 has a grating engine note that is an embarrassment among the great exotics with V8's, V10's, and V12's. Sure it is sold out, but I feel like it is being hoarded as a potential collectors car in hopes that they can get a decent ROI. |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598271955)
I have a different view of the “need for a ME.” Yep as Zora said even Dr- Ing. Ferdinand Porsche knew the right place for an engine was in the middle! German race cars in the 1930’s had the engine in the middle. When he built the “people’s car” it had to be cheap and a rear air cooled engine fit the bill! His first sports car was based on that design because it was what they could afford! IMO there is a “Need” for a ME but it’s GMs! The days of large cid pushrods V8’s is ending. To gain more efficiency a smaller DOHC engine where the intake and exhaust can be individually varied is needed. Turbocharging is a way to get the needed power from a small cid engine when your foot is on the floor but decent mpg when cruising. It recovers some of the 30% wasted heat going out the exhaust instead of using more energy as does a supercharger! Those engines are wide and high with all the “stuff” needed to make them work. Fitting in a front engine car is not viable. Yep the low polar moment of inertia will make great marketing material but GM’s “need” for higher corporate overall mpg is the driver, IMO. Just look at the current Ford GT, DOHC, twin turbo 3.5 liter V6 producing 647 hp! Whatever the reasons- it’s coming! Oh ya, so will Start/Stop and hopfully KERS as they have in F1! Yep love to have ~160 hp available for 10 to 20 seconds coming from a motor/generator attached to the tranxaxile! In F1 the system with battery weights ~60 pounds! Useful on every takeoff, even if just casually leaving a red light. That is where a lot of energy is used. Then we could also use some of the wasted energy braking! On average, about a 1/3 of the energy that does get to the rear wheels is wasted when braking! Why not recover some of it? Just my $0.02! |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598271955)
I have a different view of the “need for a ME.” Yep as Zora said even Dr- Ing. Ferdinand Porsche knew the right place for an engine was in the middle! German race cars in the 1930’s had the engine in the middle. When he built the “people’s car” it had to be cheap and a rear air cooled engine fit the bill! His first sports car was based on that design because it was what they could afford! IMO there is a “Need” for a ME but it’s GMs! The days of large cid pushrods V8’s is ending. To gain more efficiency a smaller DOHC engine where the intake and exhaust can be individually varied is needed. Turbocharging is a way to get the needed power from a small cid engine when your foot is on the floor but decent mpg when cruising. It recovers some of the 30% wasted heat going out the exhaust instead of using more energy as does a supercharger! Those engines are wide and high with all the “stuff” needed to make them work. Fitting in a front engine car is not viable. Yep the low polar moment of inertia will make great marketing material but GM’s “need” for higher corporate overall mpg is the driver, IMO. Just look at the current Ford GT, DOHC, twin turbo 3.5 liter V6 producing 647 hp! Whatever the reasons- it’s coming! Oh ya, so will Start/Stop and hopfully KERS as they have in F1! Yep love to have ~160 hp available for 10 to 20 seconds coming from a motor/generator attached to the tranxaxile! In F1 the system with battery weights ~60 pounds! Useful on every takeoff, even if just casually leaving a red light. That is where a lot of energy is used. Then we could also use some of the wasted energy braking! On average, about a 1/3 of the energy that does get to the rear wheels is wasted when braking! Why not recover some of it? Just my $0.02! Current F1 race cars use pneumatic valves and my favorite mad scientist Christian Von Koenigsegg is working on Freevalve, so the writing is on the wall. |
Originally Posted by Supermassive
(Post 1598272176)
I want pneumatic valves, screw ancient technology with cams and what not.
Why not forget valve springs altogether and use cams to open and close the valves! Mercedes did it in 1954 with Desmodromic valve operation! :lol: |
Originally Posted by Supermassive
(Post 1598271605)
I feel like people are so stuck on the weirdest things about the Corvette. The OHV LT small block Chevy engine in it's most modern interpretation is just as advanced at all the DOHC setups but provides more torque, less mass, lower center of gravity, less complexity, and better power per dollar than the competition. DOHC allows for higher revving engines, but you lose out on bottom end torque, which is one of the biggest draws of the Corvette, off idle grunt.
. In fact built an Olds engine from parts in 1959 when 17 and had the block bored 1/8 inches to fit ‘55 Olds piston to get 324 icd! With a “3/4 race cam” (as they were called in-the-day) and 4 barrel I modified, my ‘41 Ford coupe was very fast! Loved the 265 cid small block V8 in my 1956 Chevy. And I agree GM has done a heck of an engineering job getting 460 NA net hp from the 376 cid LT1. Zora be would proud as getting 1 gross hp/cubic inch was his early goal. However only about 15% of the energy in gasoline gets to the rear wheels. Of that about 1/3 on average goes into heat from braking! We can do better. Smaller cid engines with turbochargers can get the same power (or more) when needed and have less friction when cruising. With a pushrod single cam V8 can’t vary the intake and exhaust separately to get optimum efficiency at low and high rpm. A turbo uses some of the ~30% heat (energy) that goes out the exhaust to increase power. Sure a supercharger can increase power but it takes power to turn it! Although I will miss a stanadard shift (the C8 will be my first DD in ~60 years without one) that dual clutch computer controlled spur gear Tremic trans will keep the C8 engine rpm in the optimum/rpm range. Perhaps I’ll need to use the paddles but hoping GM will offer a fly by wire “shifter” control to let me pick what gear I want when. BTW have a 502 cid BB Chevy in my 1934 ProStreet Rod so if I want stump pulling torque can always take it out! However the way it’s geared it only gets ~10 mpg! :lol: |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598271955)
Whatever the reasons- it’s coming! Oh ya, so will Start/Stop
Just my $0.02! I can't stand it to the point that I won't buy a car that doesn't have an off switch for it. And as far as saving money - it seems not to: I know many people who have it and at least around urban NYC, where the thing cycles maybe 10-20x per hour in traffic, the starter seem to last no more than 35,000 miles and costs about $450-650 to be replaced, which is significantly more than the claimed 10% better fuel economy would put in your pocket. |
Without a doubt there is a demand. I hope that GM does things a bit different with it though by releasing the beast aka ZR1/Zora or whatever they want to call it first and then the lesser models later.
|
I would say that there is a demand, maybe a large demand depending on the price...If the ME is 100k or more, way less demand than if the entry price was say 65k
|
Originally Posted by Supermassive
(Post 1598272176)
I want pneumatic valves, screw ancient technology with cams and what not. Give me the ability to change between 4 stroke, 2 stroke, Atkinson, or Diesel on a whim!
Current F1 race cars use pneumatic valves and my favorite mad scientist Christian Von Koenigsegg is working on Freevalve, so the writing is on the wall. |
Originally Posted by Supermassive
(Post 1598271605)
I feel like people are so stuck on the weirdest things about the Corvette. The OHV LT small block Chevy engine in it's most modern interpretation is just as advanced at all the DOHC setups but provides more torque, less mass, lower center of gravity, less complexity, and better power per dollar than the competition. DOHC allows for higher revving engines, but you lose out on bottom end torque, which is one of the biggest draws of the Corvette, off idle grunt.
I don't think people are necessarily too concerned about where the engine is placed, we all know that for performance the mid engine layout is the best for chassis dynamics, it is literal science. I think the biggest gripe from the stereotypical buyers is cargo space and tail light shape. That said any deviation from the V8 would be met with pitchforks and violence, and I would be right there with them. I recognize the performance of the Ford GT, but I could care less about it due to it's crappy EcoTec V6. Exotics need to feel exotic in every aspect in my book, and that V6 has a grating engine note that is an embarrassment among the great exotics with V8's, V10's, and V12's. Sure it is sold out, but I feel like it is being hoarded as a potential collectors car in hopes that they can get a decent ROI. In town, my Mercedes gets better gas mileage. On the highway, my Z06 gets better gas mileage. |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598271955)
I have a different view of the “need for a ME.” Yep as Zora said even Dr- Ing. Ferdinand Porsche knew the right place for an engine was in the middle! German race cars in the 1930’s had the engine in the middle. When he built the “people’s car” it had to be cheap and a rear air cooled engine fit the bill! His first sports car was based on that design because it was what they could afford! IMO there is a “Need” for a ME but it’s GMs! The days of large cid pushrods V8’s is ending. To gain more efficiency a smaller DOHC engine where the intake and exhaust can be individually varied is needed. Turbocharging is a way to get the needed power from a small cid engine when your foot is on the floor but decent mpg when cruising. It recovers some of the 30% wasted heat going out the exhaust instead of using more energy as does a supercharger! Those engines are wide and high with all the “stuff” needed to make them work. Fitting in a front engine car is not viable. Yep the low polar moment of inertia will make great marketing material but GM’s “need” for higher corporate overall mpg is the driver, IMO. Just look at the current Ford GT, DOHC, twin turbo 3.5 liter V6 producing 647 hp! Whatever the reasons- it’s coming! Oh ya, so will Start/Stop and hopfully KERS as they have in F1! Yep love to have ~160 hp available for 10 to 20 seconds coming from a motor/generator attached to the tranxaxile! In F1 the system with battery weights ~60 pounds! Useful on every takeoff, even if just casually leaving a red light. That is where a lot of energy is used. Then we could also use some of the wasted energy braking! On average, about a 1/3 of the energy that does get to the rear wheels is wasted when braking! Why not recover some of it? Just my $0.02! I'm looking at maybe getting a 2019 Audi A7. It is not a "hot rod" but does have a turbo 3.0L V6 with 340 HP and 369 TQ with a 7 speed DCT. None of that horsepower is supplied by an electric motor. It does have a 48 volt primary electrical system and has regenerative braking using a belt alternator starter. |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598272976)
However only about 15% of the energy in gasoline gets to the rear wheels. Of that about 1/3 on average goes into heat from braking! We can do better. Smaller cid engines with turbochargers can get the same power (or more) when needed and have less friction when cruising. With a pushrod single cam V8 can’t vary the intake and exhaust separately to get optimum efficiency at low and high rpm. A turbo uses some of the ~30% heat (energy) that goes out the exhaust to increase power. Sure a supercharger can increase power but it takes power to turn it! Although I will miss a stanadard shift (the C8 will be my first DD in ~60 years without one) that dual clutch computer controlled spur gear Tremic trans will keep the C8 engine rpm in the optimum/rpm range. Perhaps I’ll need to use the paddles but hoping GM will offer a fly by wire “shifter” control to let me pick what gear I want when. Mercedes F1 team's latest 1.6-litre V6 turbo hybrid produces over 900 bhp and achieves more than 45 percent thermal efficiency. It can even harness heat energy in the exhaust downstream by sophisticated waste heat recovery system, thus achieving more than 50 percent efficiency!!! Toyota's new 2,8-litre diesel engine 1GD-FTV achieved an efficiency of 44%. This is considered to be the highest in the world. Class 8 tractors trailers are close to that. Diesel Electric locomotives even more. The General Electric 7HA and 9HA turbine combined cycle electrical plants are rated at over 61% efficiency. At the end of the 2014 NASCAR Cup series season, the engines from one major NASCAR engine manufacturer were producing in the neighborhood of 880 HP at about 9000 RPM, and they operate at a max race rpm in the vicinity of 9400 rpm. By regulation, CUP engines have a maximum displacement of 358 CI (5.87 L). They must use a cast-iron 90° V8 block with a 4.500 inch bore spacing and a 90° steel crankshaft. The cylinder heads are purpose-designed and highly-developed, limited to two valves per cylinder, specific valve angles, specific port floor heights, etc.. The valves are operated by a single, block-mounted, flat-tappet camshaft (that's right, still no rollers as of 2014; switching to roller cam followers for the 2015 season) and a pushrod / rocker-arm / coil-spring valvetrain. It is further hobbled by the requirement for a single four-barrel carburetor (until 2011) The fact that, to produce 880 HP at 9000 RPM, requires 513 lb-ft of torque, for a peak-power BMEP of nearly 216 PSI (14.92 bar, torque ratio of 1.43). Peak torque for that same engine was typically about 535 lb-ft at 7800 RPM, for a peak BMEP of over 226 psi (15.6 bar, torque ratio of 1.50). Nothing is even close to that. |
Originally Posted by LIStingray
(Post 1598275508)
Do you have any experience with start-stop?
I can't stand it to the point that I won't buy a car that doesn't have an off switch for it. And as far as saving money - it seems not to: I know many people who have it and at least around urban NYC, where the thing cycles maybe 10-20x per hour in traffic, the starter seem to last no more than 35,000 miles and costs about $450-650 to be replaced, which is significantly more than the claimed 10% better fuel economy would put in your pocket. |
Originally Posted by LIStingray
(Post 1598275508)
Do you have any experience with start-stop?
I can't stand it to the point that I won't buy a car that doesn't have an off switch for it. And as far as saving money - it seems not to: I know many people who have it and at least around urban NYC, where the thing cycles maybe 10-20x per hour in traffic, the starter seem to last no more than 35,000 miles and costs about $450-650 to be replaced, which is significantly more than the claimed 10% better fuel economy would put in your pocket. On average, ~15% of the energy in gasoline is wasted idling! A real waste. The BMW does one other easy to do thing to help recover braking energy, another major waste of energy. They only energize the altenator when coasting or braking. A simple form of energy recovery. They have a dash gauge showing when it’s charging and recovering otherwise wasted energy. Once you go to electric steering and electric water pump (needed for start stop) that is easy to do as well. It does have a large AGM battery in the system. See if you can find a friend with a quality BMW and ask them! No need to waste more gas than needed. |
Originally Posted by Shaka
(Post 1598275845)
Heat from braking???? Spur gear Tremek???? Fly by wire shifter???? Optimum RPM range???? Jees. Anyway, I don't know why I bother, but formula I engines are the most thermally efficient IC engines if you don't count gas turbines.. The efficiency of an engine is linked to the actual work it is able to do with a specific amount of fuel.
At the end of the 2014 NASCAR Cup series season, the engines from one major NASCAR engine manufacturer were producing in the neighborhood of 880 HP at about 9000 RPM, and they operate at a max race rpm in the vicinity of 9400 rpm. By regulation, CUP engines have a maximum displacement of 358 CI (5.87 L). They must use a cast-iron 90° V8 block with a 4.500 inch bore spacing and a 90° steel crankshaft. The cylinder heads are purpose-designed and highly-developed, limited to two valves per cylinder, specific valve angles, specific port floor heights, etc.. The valves are operated by a single, block-mounted, flat-tappet camshaft (that's right, still no rollers as of 2014; switching to roller cam followers for the 2015 season) and a pushrod / rocker-arm / coil-spring valvetrain. It is further hobbled by the requirement for a single four-barrel carburetor (until 2011) The fact that, to produce 880 HP at 9000 RPM, requires 513 lb-ft of torque, for a peak-power BMEP of nearly 216 PSI (14.92 bar, torque ratio of 1.43). Peak torque for that same engine was typically about 535 lb-ft at 7800 RPM, for a peak BMEP of over 226 psi (15.6 bar, torque ratio of 1.50). Nothing is even close to that. Was a sponsor for the Petty Team when they were in Level Cross. Spent time in their engine room but although powerful they are not that efficient. Still have many pit stops to refuel. IMO you missed the highest technology NA engines, those in ProStock Drag Racing. ~1500 hp NA and they were achieving that with two 4 barrels until recently where fuel injustion was allowed (NASCAR will no doubt get there.). They are now limited to 10,500 rpm by regs were they were spinning the 500 cid engines over 12,000. All on gasoline. Yep The current mfg of the C7 M7 Tremec will be supplying the C8 with an efficient spur gear Dual Clutch trasaxile. And yep of the ~15% of energy in gasoline the gets to power the rear wheels on average a 1/3 goes back to heat as braking! We can recover some of that as KERS does in F1. 160 hp for a short time charging the battery during braking! All for about 60 lbs. |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598276628)
And yep of the ~15% of energy in gasoline the gets to power the rear wheels on average a 1/3 goes back to heat as braking!
Modern F1 motors are approaching 50% thermal efficiency based on HP (near 1000) and gasoline (105Kg) which is over 50% more efficient than the NA engines that preceded them. THis would imply that those NA engines were in the 33%-odd thermal efficiency range, in agreement with my very old books, So, your statement was that only 15% of the energy content of gasoline gets to the rear wheels. I must ask where do you think it all went? We alude that there is a 15% loss going through the transmission and differential when w talk dyno stuff. But we don't really know what the 15%-odd number is. We get <say> 28% TE out of the motor at the flywheel. Loose 15% in the driveline; this puts us at :: 28%*(1-15%) = 23.8% thermal efficiency. So given the above, where is the rest of the energy going? |
I have several friends that have a BMW...none with a quality one...sad but true.
|
Originally Posted by Shaka
(Post 1598275845)
Heat from braking???? Spur gear Tremek???? Fly by wire shifter???? Optimum RPM range???? Jees. Anyway, I don't know why I bother, but formula I engines are the most thermally efficient IC engines if you don't count gas turbines.. The efficiency of an engine is linked to the actual work it is able to do with a specific amount of fuel. Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) is the yardstick for comparing the performance of an engine of a given type to another, and for evaluating the reasonableness of performance claims or requirements.
Mercedes F1 team's latest 1.6-litre V6 turbo hybrid produces over 900 bhp and achieves more than 45 percent thermal efficiency. It can even harness heat energy in the exhaust downstream by sophisticated waste heat recovery system, thus achieving more than 50 percent efficiency!!! Toyota's new 2,8-litre diesel engine 1GD-FTV achieved an efficiency of 44%. This is considered to be the highest in the world. Class 8 tractors trailers are close to that. Diesel Electric locomotives even more. The General Electric 7HA and 9HA turbine combined cycle electrical plants are rated at over 61% efficiency. At the end of the 2014 NASCAR Cup series season, the engines from one major NASCAR engine manufacturer were producing in the neighborhood of 880 HP at about 9000 RPM, and they operate at a max race rpm in the vicinity of 9400 rpm. By regulation, CUP engines have a maximum displacement of 358 CI (5.87 L). They must use a cast-iron 90° V8 block with a 4.500 inch bore spacing and a 90° steel crankshaft. The cylinder heads are purpose-designed and highly-developed, limited to two valves per cylinder, specific valve angles, specific port floor heights, etc.. The valves are operated by a single, block-mounted, flat-tappet camshaft (that's right, still no rollers as of 2014; switching to roller cam followers for the 2015 season) and a pushrod / rocker-arm / coil-spring valvetrain. It is further hobbled by the requirement for a single four-barrel carburetor (until 2011) The fact that, to produce 880 HP at 9000 RPM, requires 513 lb-ft of torque, for a peak-power BMEP of nearly 216 PSI (14.92 bar, torque ratio of 1.43). Peak torque for that same engine was typically about 535 lb-ft at 7800 RPM, for a peak BMEP of over 226 psi (15.6 bar, torque ratio of 1.50). Nothing is even close to that. They use a much stronger compacted graphite iron block, which is also used in many diesel engines. |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598276432)
Yep have had in my wife’s two BMW SUVs! Can be done very well as in her car! First, it starts when your foot comes off the brake! No wasted time. Second BMW does it right, at least in her X5. As some compainies have done, they shut the engine off at TDC when a cylinder has just ignited. Keeps combustion pressure in the cylinder until ready to start! I never hear the starter motor. Sure I have the Sport switch but never use it to shut off Start/Stop. I’m reminded of the WWII airplane engine starting option that used a blank gun shell to start the engine. Have asked the BMW tech service folks and they said they have not replaced a starter. Appears no extra wear and tear on the starter and/or they put one it that does not fail! In fact I laugh at this starter issue as the 8.2 Liter high compression BB in my ProStreet Rod has a gear driven starter where the starter motor is actually small. Just need to spin it at higher rpm. They can build starter motors that will outlast the car! That is not rocket science! Heck the Tesla electric motor powered their sports car to 60 mph faster than a Z06! On average, ~15% of the energy in gasoline is wasted idling! A real waste. The BMW does one other easy to do thing to help recover braking energy, another major waste of energy. They only energize the altenator when coasting or braking. A simple form of energy recovery. They have a dash gauge showing when it’s charging and recovering otherwise wasted energy. Once you go to electric steering and electric water pump (needed for start stop) that is easy to do as well. It does have a large AGM battery in the system. See if you can find a friend with a quality BMW and ask them! No need to waste more gas than needed. It's 48 volt primary electrical system also helps. Additionally, the Audi A7 will coast with the engine off between 34 and 99 MPH, to save on gas, in addition to it's regenerative braking to save on fuel. |
Originally Posted by MitchAlsup
(Post 1598277215)
So, your statement was that only 15% of the energy content of gasoline gets to the rear wheels. I must ask where do you think it all went?
We alude that there is a 15% loss going through the transmission and differential when w talk dyno stuff. But we don't really know what the 15%-odd number is. We get <say> 28% TE out of the motor at the flywheel. Loose 15% in the driveline; this puts us at :: 28%*(1-15%) = 23.8% thermal efficiency. So given the above, where is the rest of the energy going? It was also for none turbo cars which do reduce the wasted exhaust heat. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...a4a426a06.jpeg |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598277698)
This graph was made from EPA data. They actually show on average it’s 13% that gets to the rear wheels! Granted it’s an average and obviously city versus highway driving makes a difference. It was also for none turbo cars which do reduce the wasted exhaust heat. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...a4a426a06.jpeg |
Originally Posted by Sub Driver
(Post 1598277759)
Pay attention to the picture. It says 17% wasted idling. If you are moving, you are not idling so it would be up at 30%.
In our SUV the AC compressor shuts down but the cabin fan continues to blow air over the cold evaporator. In most cases for a normal red light no difference in cabin temp. When it is >95 outside it may not shut off. Yep, if I put it in Sport mode it doesn’t activate but have not done that for that reason in the ~5 years the wife has had X5 SUVs. Not sure she even knows it has a Sport mode, or cares! |
Originally Posted by falcon5619
(Post 1598242681)
Just curious if this is just an evolution of the Corvette or if in fact there is a bunch up pent up demand for a mid engine version of the car? The idea of a more affordable Ferrari, Audi R8, etc. sounds enticing but I just wonder how much of the Corvette community actually wanted such a design? Is it something the Corvette designers wanted to build for a long time but just never did so?
At the top end, you're not going to compete with the likes of Ferrari or Lamborghini, even McLaren cant make headway and they may be one of the most iconic racing brands out there. I think normal Corvette buyers would be put off by the lack of space and price increase. Exotic buyers sont even consider it as it's still made by the same people that make the Cruze. There is a lot of hype demand. A lot of people on the internet who dont have to put their money down to buy the car. But that's all fake, those people dont actually buy cars, look at the Toyota 86 for proof of that. And let's be real, the choice between a new mid engine Chevy, or a used Ferrari or lambo, NOBODY chooses the chevy! The real scary thing is, if it fails, then what? Go back to what worked and bury the evidence? Kill the brand? There is no exit strategy that works. It is an INSANELY risky proposition. It would either reinvent the brand, or kill it. Not a risk you want to take with one of your few profit streams in cars. |
Originally Posted by FAUEE
(Post 1598279256)
Truthfully, probably not. Mid engine is a tough market, look at NSX, they came in cheap and got trounced, despite having a legendary name and offering "what people want". Audi has the r8, which is basically a huracan and has a tough time selling. Porsche sells Cayman and boxster to people who cant afford a 911. Alfa tried to do something u ique woth the 4c and got stomped.
At the top end, you're not going to compete with the likes of Ferrari or Lamborghini, even McLaren cant make headway and they may be one of the most iconic racing brands out there. I think normal Corvette buyers would be put off by the lack of space and price increase. Exotic buyers sont even consider it as it's still made by the same people that make the Cruze. There is a lot of hype demand. A lot of people on the internet who dont have to put their money down to buy the car. But that's all fake, those people dont actually buy cars, look at the Toyota 86 for proof of that. And let's be real, the choice between a new mid engine Chevy, or a used Ferrari or lambo, NOBODY chooses the chevy! The real scary thing is, if it fails, then what? Go back to what worked and bury the evidence? Kill the brand? There is no exit strategy that works. It is an INSANELY risky proposition. It would either reinvent the brand, or kill it. Not a risk you want to take with one of your few profit streams in cars. |
Originally Posted by FAUEE
(Post 1598279256)
And let's be real, the choice between a new mid engine Chevy, or a used Ferrari or lambo, NOBODY chooses the chevy!
People will absolutely buy a great domestic. There are people actually choosing Ford GT's over McLarens. From everything I've read and seen that's nuts! But Ford is selling them, and apparently has decided to increase the initial planned model run. A truly great Zora at "only" $150K will sell very well and will poach some high-end Porsches as well as lower-end Italian exotics (but they still had better be selling a C7.5 if they go that route). I cannot wait to see what the GM gang have actually decided to do with the C8. They made the strategic decisions re price, models, content, target market(s) etc. quite some time ago. And we still anxiously wait... |
Originally Posted by Atomic Fred
(Post 1598279451)
If the price is the same, I'd argue that (statistically speaking) NOBODY chooses the exotic -- simply because the cost of ownership is so much beyond the mere purchase price.
You could argue the operating costs for the exotic may be higher, no warranty, etc. But I think new car depreciation will cover that, and the intangible of owning an actual exotic car is also something to consider. The C7Z already struggles compared to its price range, despite killing the performance part. People expect some image that Chevy cannot provide at that price point. Forever every person that bought a 100k C7 Z06, there are 3 who bought a used 911 Turbo instead. The Ford gt ia HYPER limited production. Like less than 1000 total. And people aren't choosing it over the competition, they're invited to buy it, and/or choose it as an additional car. And the previous GT had a big upside, so many are buying them as an investment. Plus they have all sorts of rules about the cars (you cant sell them, etc). Comparing to Ford GT just cant be done. |
I am one of the old guys that have owned Corvettes for almost fifty years. I bought my first one when I got home from my 1st tour in Vietnam and have owned them in the good and bad years. I have three today C6Z06, C6GrandSport and a C5 track toy and do not plan on buying a new one until GM addresses quality issues that cause reliability issues. It has become even more difficult as GM has stopped supplying replacement parts. As a systems engineer for thirty years on aerospace programs I worked with reliability and maintainability as a part of product development which did give us a better product. I don't see anything about GM trying to improve the car and even on this forum I didn't read anything about a better car, just different. When GM improves the car and not just new part numbers and telling me the Kool-Aid taste great I will keep my money. KISS needs to be understood by GM designers and management as todays cars cannot be maintained by the dealerships.
|
Originally Posted by FAUEE
(Post 1598279256)
Truthfully, probably not. Mid engine is a tough market, look at NSX, they came in cheap and got trounced, despite having a legendary name and offering "what people want". Audi has the r8, which is basically a huracan and has a tough time selling. Porsche sells Cayman and boxster to people who cant afford a 911. Alfa tried to do something u ique woth the 4c and got stomped.
At the top end, you're not going to compete with the likes of Ferrari or Lamborghini, even McLaren cant make headway and they may be one of the most iconic racing brands out there. I think normal Corvette buyers would be put off by the lack of space and price increase. Exotic buyers sont even consider it as it's still made by the same people that make the Cruze. There is a lot of hype demand. A lot of people on the internet who dont have to put their money down to buy the car. But that's all fake, those people dont actually buy cars, look at the Toyota 86 for proof of that. And let's be real, the choice between a new mid engine Chevy, or a used Ferrari or lambo, NOBODY chooses the chevy! The real scary thing is, if it fails, then what? Go back to what worked and bury the evidence? Kill the brand? There is no exit strategy that works. It is an INSANELY risky proposition. It would either reinvent the brand, or kill it. Not a risk you want to take with one of your few profit streams in cars. 1. Cargo capacity. Lutz claims they've solved the mid engine cargo problem. If it can transport as much gear as a C7 then it's no problem. Otherwise it affects sales. 2. Price. For decades the essence of the Corvette has been it's ability to perform on par with exotics at an attainable price. Insiders say the C8 will adhere to this formula. If Chevy doesn't then I feel confident in predicting the C8 will fail spectacularly for exactly the reasons you state. We also shouldn't underestimate the coolness factor of a mid engine Corvette. It's a rare configuration that instantly sets the Corvette apart from Detroit "pony cars" and I believe it will drive some amount of demand. How much is anyone's guess. |
Originally Posted by JoesC5
(Post 1598277370)
NASCAR doesn't use a plain jane cast iron block like is used in a 6L Chevy HD2500 pickup truck.
They use a much stronger compacted graphite iron block, which is also used in many diesel engines. Originally Posted by JerryU https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...s/viewpost.gif However only about 15% of the energy in gasoline gets to the rear wheels. Of that about 1/3 on average goes into heat from braking! We can do better. Smaller cid engines with turbochargers can get the same power (or more) when needed and have less friction when cruising. With a pushrod single cam V8 can’t vary the intake and exhaust separately to get optimum efficiency at low and high rpm. A turbo uses some of the ~30% heat (energy) that goes out the exhaust to increase power. Sure a supercharger can increase power but it takes power to turn it! Although I will miss a stanadard shift (the C8 will be my first DD in ~60 years without one) that dual clutch computer controlled spur gear Tremic trans will keep the C8 engine rpm in the optimum/rpm range. Perhaps I’ll need to use the paddles but hoping GM will offer a fly by wire “shifter” control to let me pick what gear I want when. |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598277698)
This graph was made from EPA data. They actually show on average it’s 13% that gets to the rear wheels! Granted it’s an average and obviously city versus highway driving makes a difference. It was also for none turbo cars which do reduce the wasted exhaust heat. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...a4a426a06.jpeg |
Originally Posted by Zaro Tundov
(Post 1598280870)
Agreed that there is some risk, but it's dependent upon two factors:
1. Cargo capacity. Lutz claims they've solved the mid engine cargo problem. If it can transport as much gear as a C7 then it's no problem. Otherwise it affects sales. 2. Price. For decades the essence of the Corvette has been it's ability to perform on par with exotics at an attainable price. Insiders say the C8 will adhere to this formula. If Chevy doesn't then I feel confident in predicting the C8 will fail spectacularly for exactly the reasons you state. We also shouldn't underestimate the coolness factor of a mid engine Corvette. It's a rare configuration that instantly sets the Corvette apart from Detroit "pony cars" and I believe it will drive some amount of demand. How much is anyone's guess. Competitive pricing is open to interpretation. If they say that the 488 is their competition and it's a bargain at 170k base, they're not lying but the car fails. They wont ne able to price it in line with the c6 due to massive research and production investments, the c7 was fundamentally a c6, which was fundamentally a c5. The savings from building off an existing platform cannot be overstated. GM has to recoup its investments, and I'm sure they know a midengine car will sell less than the previous car so they have to recoup that money over fewer units... more money. I cant see it starting at less than 100k unless it's a loss leader, and there is no reason to do something like that. I dont think a midengine Corvette Carrie's any additional coolness factor. Midengine cara arent non existant, you can buy an mr2 for nothing. Porsche sells a lot of boosters anand caimans. Lotus struggles to sell their mid engine cars. To 99% of people, mid engine means nothing, and adds no coolness. |
Originally Posted by exracer28
(Post 1598279697)
I am one of the old guys that have owned Corvettes for almost fifty years. I bought my first one when I got home from my 1st tour in Vietnam and have owned them in the good and bad years. I have three today C6Z06, C6GrandSport and a C5 track toy and do not plan on buying a new one until GM addresses quality issues that cause reliability issues. It has become even more difficult as GM has stopped supplying replacement parts. As a systems engineer for thirty years on aerospace programs I worked with reliability and maintainability as a part of product development which did give us a better product. I don't see anything about GM trying to improve the car and even on this forum I didn't read anything about a better car, just different. When GM improves the car and not just new part numbers and telling me the Kool-Aid taste great I will keep my money. KISS needs to be understood by GM designers and management as todays cars cannot be maintained by the dealerships.
|
Originally Posted by Shaka
(Post 1598281247)
Another brilliant sensationalist post.
|
Originally Posted by FAUEE
(Post 1598281610)
The cargo thing, I dunno. They may do something similar to Cayman and have a rear cargo area above the engine, but that's still not as much room (though with a front storage boot and a rear cargo hatch itd better than most. Will it fit golf clubs? Maybe. Will it fit a weekend beach trips worth of stuff including a big ass cooler? Probably not.
Competitive pricing is open to interpretation. If they say that the 488 is their competition and it's a bargain at 170k base, they're not lying but the car fails. They wont ne able to price it in line with the c6 due to massive research and production investments, the c7 was fundamentally a c6, which was fundamentally a c5. The savings from building off an existing platform cannot be overstated. GM has to recoup its investments, and I'm sure they know a midengine car will sell less than the previous car so they have to recoup that money over fewer units... more money. I cant see it starting at less than 100k unless it's a loss leader, and there is no reason to do something like that. I dont think a midengine Corvette Carrie's any additional coolness factor. Midengine cara arent non existant, you can buy an mr2 for nothing. Porsche sells a lot of boosters anand caimans. Lotus struggles to sell their mid engine cars. To 99% of people, mid engine means nothing, and adds no coolness. As for cargo space, we'll just have to wait and see. Those who know have been upbeat but they won't spill the beans. I guess if a Porsche seems mundane to you then the C8 will just be another boring car. Ultimately they're all just manufactured contraptions that take you from point A to point B. |
I'm a young guy and what drew me Corvettes is that they dominated FIA GT for so long with their "archaic" technology-- the fact that they WEREN'T mid engines with DOHCs. I will miss the rowdy FR cars but I'm glad we got three great ones C5-7 and will look forward to owning and building a few as I get older. I'm not really interested in a mid engine high tech car but I understand that's where the world is now.
|
Originally Posted by FAUEE
(Post 1598281610)
The cargo thing, I dunno. They may do something similar to Cayman and have a rear cargo area above the engine, but that's still not as much room (though with a front storage boot and a rear cargo hatch itd better than most. Will it fit golf clubs? Maybe. Will it fit a weekend beach trips worth of stuff including a big ass cooler? Probably not.
Competitive pricing is open to interpretation. If they say that the 488 is their competition and it's a bargain at 170k base, they're not lying but the car fails. They wont ne able to price it in line with the c6 due to massive research and production investments, the c7 was fundamentally a c6, which was fundamentally a c5. The savings from building off an existing platform cannot be overstated. GM has to recoup its investments, and I'm sure they know a midengine car will sell less than the previous car so they have to recoup that money over fewer units... more money. I cant see it starting at less than 100k unless it's a loss leader, and there is no reason to do something like that. I dont think a midengine Corvette Carrie's any additional coolness factor. Midengine cara arent non existant, you can buy an mr2 for nothing. Porsche sells a lot of boosters anand caimans. Lotus struggles to sell their mid engine cars. To 99% of people, mid engine means nothing, and adds no coolness. |
Has Lotus ever sold large #s of anything out here, not sure on that one.
ME will sell like crazy, GMs going after a different crowd that doesnt complain as much imo. Til they dumb down these electronic systems a LOT dont plan on less issues, for some reason Corvettes have always been a high maintenance car no matter what they year. Love hate thing for em. |
Originally Posted by cuisinartvette
(Post 1598291108)
Has Lotus ever sold large #s of anything out here, not sure on that one.
ME will sell like crazy, GMs going after a different crowd that doesnt complain as much imo. Til they dumb down these electronic systems a LOT dont plan on less issues, for some reason Corvettes have always been a high maintenance car no matter what they year. Love hate thing for em. |
Originally Posted by JoesC5
(Post 1598291170)
I wonder why Toyota and BMW decided to share a common front engine platform for their respective new sports car offerings, and not mid-engine since they have started from scratch in their designs?
|
Here is my .02, I understand that since the C2 there have been talks about “mid engine this” and “supercar that”. look at the track record. Chevrolet has not been very successful in any of their attempts to create a mid engine car. If it isnt broken why fix it? This European look needs to go too. The ZR1 has been capable of 755hp since its C6 re-introduction and it has set un disclosed records at Nurburgring. But Due to a “gentlemans agreement” they were black balled into cutting back the power and restrict the car from doing whatever it was designed to do. Top European manufacures couldnt believe that American Muscle at 1/3 the price was able to beat thier “super cars”. I dont believe for one minute that the FR setup is close to its peak, change the transverse springs give it a coilover set up make the car wider just my opinion. The car still has plenty and I mean plenty of room to grow. To top all that off here is a scenario: so picture this, you head to a chevrolet dealer and one of these Mid Engine “corvettes” are staring back at you. You decide to buy it, drive it home and park it in the garage. Ohh well now its time for an oil change. You head back to the dealer you bought it from turn the keys over and head into the “waiting room”. I dont know about you but have you seen the waiting rooms? I personally wouldn’t want to hang out in a shitty waiting room watching soap operas listening to bubba talk about his lifted Silverado and the buck he killed last night. If i spend $160-170k on a car, it isn’t going to share interior parts with a Fiero, Cruze, Volt, HHR, or Malibu. |
First, you DON'T have to do oil changes and services at the Chevy dealership if it's not up to your standards. Secondly, who said it ain't broken? Look at all the recent reviews about the C7 both Z06 and ZR1, ZR1 makes all the power it needs, but it's too nose heavy and can't put the power down properly, the Z06 had plenty of overheating issues, since GM was lazy enough to put 200 hp more than base model, yet leave the base model bumper with barely any opening in it. It's simple, if you don't like it, don't buy it. But to say that it ain't "broken" is wrong. ZR1 got it's ass handed to it by MotorTrend. C7 has never been a really good chassis for a lot of power.
P.S. The Corvette NEEDS a different and more exotic look. |
Originally Posted by MitchAlsup
(Post 1598291325)
Because its GT cars not a sports cars.
|
Originally Posted by Dj_or_dj
(Post 1598291363)
To top all that off here is a scenario: so picture this, you head to a chevrolet dealer and one of these Mid Engine “corvettes” are staring back at you. You decide to buy it, drive it home and park it in the garage. Ohh well now its time for an oil change. You head back to the dealer you bought it from turn the keys over and head into the “waiting room”. I dont know about you but have you seen the waiting rooms? I personally wouldn’t want to hang out in a shitty waiting room watching soap operas listening to bubba talk about his lifted Silverado and the buck he killed last night. If i spend $160-170k on a car, it isn’t going to share interior parts with a Fiero, Cruze, Volt, HHR, or Malibu. |
Originally Posted by joesc5
(Post 1598294468)
is my front engine c6 z06 a gt car or a sports car?
|
Originally Posted by JoesC5
(Post 1598294468)
Is my front engine C6 Z06 a GT car or a sports car?
|
Originally Posted by Dj_or_dj
(Post 1598291363)
To top all that off here is a scenario: so picture this, you head to a chevrolet dealer and one of these Mid Engine “corvettes” are staring back at you. You decide to buy it, drive it home and park it in the garage. Ohh well now its time for an oil change. You head back to the dealer you bought it from turn the keys over and head into the “waiting room”. I dont know about you but have you seen the waiting rooms? I personally wouldn’t want to hang out in a shitty waiting room watching soap operas listening to bubba talk about his lifted Silverado and the buck he killed last night. If i spend $160-170k on a car, it isn’t going to share interior parts with a Fiero, Cruze, Volt, HHR, or Malibu. Now I admit when the wife had a Porsche Cayenne that wating room was very nice. Since the bill for an oil change was ~$250 it should have been. And frankly I’d rather talk to Bubby, whose 4 door diesel truck with every available option cost more than the Grand Sport than the snob in the Porsche waiting room who thought his new 911 still had an air cooled engine! :lol: |
I agree with you. I bought my c7 last year at 43, and my buddies asked why I bought an old man car. Wanted to know if I was having a crisis. If you don't bring new enthusiasts to the table, the old ones die off and so does the product. It's past time for this. I would personally like to see corvette used like Cadillac and have multiple vehicles. Then they could really chase the big boys and remain relevant. I don't think many share my thoughts, but I'd like to see the current stingray stay, have a mid engine, a performance crossover, etc. |
Originally Posted by JerryU
(Post 1598295579)
Hmm, all Chevy dealers aren’t the same! The large Chevy, BMW, Mercedes Dealer in town has a large nice Chevy waiting room. Granted when I bring the wife’s BMW in for service in that wating room I get to pick the type of coffee and from a selection of snacks where the Chevy waiting room just has standard coffee! However I do all my own oil changes because it’s quicker and I know it’s done right. If in for something else as I was for my free alignment at ~400 miles on the Grand Sport my MO is to stand by the open service bay door and watch! Let the tech know there will be a tip if done right! Now I admit when the wife had a Porsche Cayenne that wating room was very nice. Since the bill for an oil change was ~$250 it should have been. And frankly I’d rather talk to Bubby, whose 4 door diesel truck with every available option cost more than the Grand Sport than the snob in the Porsche waiting room who thought his new 911 still had an air cooled engine! :lol: |
Originally Posted by JoesC5
(Post 1598294468)
Is my front engine C6 Z06 a GT car or a sports car?
They will be less extreme. “Sporty” if you will. You are near the limit of usable front-mid performance; they will be short of that. ME could be GT but more biased to sport, at least historically... |
Originally Posted by Atomic Fred
(Post 1598300771)
both... They will be less extreme. “Sporty” if you will. You are near the limit of usable front-mid performance; they will be short of that. ME could be GT but more biased to sport, at least historically... My C6 Z06 is nowhere near it's usable front-mid performance limit, and neither the supercharger or the coilovers will decrease it's excellent highway gas mileage, or decrease it's great cargo capacity, when I'm on a two week road trip, all over the USA.. |
Originally Posted by JoesC5
(Post 1598291170)
I wonder why Toyota and BMW decided to share a common front engine platform for their respective new sports car offerings, and not mid-engine since they have started from scratch in their designs?
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands