Antarctico

Seriously, seeing how the front of the engine/transmission assembly of a C4 is basically flush with centerline of the front wheels, and the rear face of the C8 engine/transaxle is basically flush with the centerline of the rear wheels, aside from the convention that mid-engined means motor behind and not in front of you, how is a C4 not considered a mid-engined car?

Recently, I had my '96 get a little slide-ways under braking at a surprise stop sign hidden at the end of a tight turn. The back end didn't come out so much as my car pivoted (gently) around an imaginary point over my lap. It was the weirdest thing. It sure didn't feel like any other rear wheel drive vehicle I had get a little loose on me. 😆

JoeNova

Oh god. Here we go. More C4 owners trying to justify why their car is every bit as modern, relevant, and advanced as every new car that comes out.

kgh06688

My two cents. The C4 has the engine and transmission mounted in front. The C5, C6, and C7 have the engine in front and the transmission in the rear for better weight distribution. Both have everything between the axles. However, it's all sort of spread out. In the C8, and other "mid engine" cars, they crammed everything as close to the center of the car as possible, so the engine is actually more in the middle so . . . mid engine.

FAUEE

Technically, the cutoff is of the majority of the weight is over one of the axles. So the c4 through c7 are front mid, and the c8 will be rear mid.

That said, most performance cars have adopted this strategy. Its pretty typical.

FAUEE

Really, the C8 is just taking the engine and throwing it far back, with a much shorter torque tube.

Rear mid cars are MUCH more twitchy. With a front midengine, you can get 20, 30 degrees of rotation and still get the car back in most cases. Rear mid, it's a LOT less. I expect to see a lot of the old guys who buy the C8 putting them into ditches, curbs, walls, etc.

vader86

pologreen1

The C4 engine is OFF center in every direction. There is nothing mid about a c4 engine either IMO.

A Fiero with a vette engine is as close as you can get.

84 4+3

Some people are a little... out there. Its relatively modern compared to the average sedan but... yea, 30 years of technology makes a pretty massive difference performance wise. It was the pilot car for a lot of the tech we have now though.

C4 is front mid technically. C5 is front rear mid because of the trans location technically... it gets muddied. Late C4 to C5 the weight distribution is about the same but having the saddle tanks on the C5 keeps the rear from being twitchy, plus fuel level doesnt effect performance as much because the tanks are around the middle moment of rotation of the car.

RIC96

Who peed in your Cheerios? This is the C4 section!

Antarctico

I think you might be reading too much into the question! To rephrase your point, I like to think my C4 is still relatively advanced, for a 30-year-old platform, in comparison to modern cars. Plus we do have the new C8 beaten in one important performance category: Grocery capacity! 😆

Gibbles

I dunno... the c8 has a pretty large golf club storage compartment...
+ the fronk!

Antarctico

Buy a C8 and get fronked? 🤣

GREGGPENN

Here how I think this subject should be addressed:

Years ago, when I first joined this forum, some topic came up where I pointed out the C4 was front-heavy. Might have had something to do with "guest drivers" throwing the rear so easily when driving my car. IDK. The point is I was quickly challenged. IIRC, they corrected me -- pointing out the weight ratio is: what? 48:52 IIRC. Even if that's wrong, it's close. So the question is this....

Since prior generations of Corvettes were already nearing the 50:50 equilibrium point AND since so many have been opposed to converting a Vette to rear engine, fewer cylinders, and whatever else, why shouldn't the first thought be...what are they really getting from the conversion? Obviously, the VW set a trend in snow performance having the engine in the back but we aren't talking snow. And, I didn't think having more weight in the rear was an advantage on the track (or even in town). So, is the conclusion that "It's pretty typical to adopt this strategy" as much about chasing the Joneses?

Was I jumped on too quickly years ago? Why wouldn't having more weight in the rear help with acceleration during cornering? Obviously, I could Google this but I'm guessing it's really the thought behind this thread?

racerxl83

Moving the engine behind the driver put more weight over the rear. It allows for better launches and getting on the throttle earlier and harder exiting corners. Also rotates better in the corner. No amount of computer controls could do that. That said, GMs stability controls, when used, will keep novice drivers out of ditches and tame the inherent twitchiness of the true mid engine design. Tad himself said with the ZR1 the C7 reached the pinnacle of what they could achieve with the FME layout.

84 4+3

And yet there were faster FMEs. Tadge at the end of the day just wants to make himself look good like the rest of us.

FAUEE

Tadge lied. The c7 zr1 has the track lap record to prove it. About the only car out there faster around the track is the GT2RS. At like 200k more and on cheater tires.

Show me cars the zr1 isnt beating..

Red86Z51

With that little load, you must be a skinny fella!

Y-bodluvr

Just a guess but but it must have something to do with when I’m sitting in the drivers seat of a C4 and the hood open I can basically see the whole engine right in FRONT of me whereas in the C8 you see nothing but the FRUNK

Y-bodluvr

Well they’re pretty much equal apparently “The combination of the frunk and the trunk make up a total of 13 cubic feet of storage space, says Chevy”

I believe a C4 coupe is also 13 cu ft however you can’t obstruct your view storing in a C8 like you can in a C4 so I’m betting you can store more in a C8 and still safely drive also a C8 definitely has more cargo area than a C4 Vert

Antarctico

LOL -- I am on the lean side!🤣