[Carol and Bill]

Have a look at August 2007 edition of Automobile Magazine, page 64, under the Corvette Super Sport article. In the second last sentence, it says "Plan on spending $100,000 for the last hurrah before the C7 Corvette arrives in mid-engine configuration". No speculation, just fact, in the way they said it!

Have a look at page 72 of the same mag. The F460 and the C7 just might be the same sort of car. After all, the first iteration of the 599 looked very similar to the C6. Could a carbon fibre, mid-engine corvette be on the horizon? Pratt and Miller might like that! Me too if it still looks like a 'Vette and has decent luggage space!

It's going to take a lot for me to trade my C6 in on a C7. Hmmmm.........

 

[blk05coupe]

since the Corvette almost has a 50-50 weight distribution now I don’t know why they would.

 

[Patrick]

As usual, the magazines are smoking crack.

I also heard that Paris Hilton will personally place her sex tape in each glove box.

 

[blk05coupe]

I also heard that Paris Hilton will personally place her sex tape in each glove box.

OK.....now i'm sold, i'll take two.

 

[Schuyler]

It already is mid-engined!:bang

 

[tar heels]

the only mag that gets their predictions right is car & driver--it is the only one worth reading--automobile mag and motortrend are garbage--seems as if those magazines are written by 16 year olds on crack

 

[Larry D1000]

the only mag that gets their predictions right is car & driver

For the most part at least.

 

[jimmyb]

since the Corvette almost has a 50-50 weight distribution now I don’t know why they would.

Mid engine cars (IMHO) have the engine behind the driver and NONE have anything close to 50/50 weight distribution. Most are 40/60 or thereabouts. This is why they are not as traction limited and stop better than a typical front engine/rear drive car.

Jimmy

 

[04C5Dave]

Mid engine?

Name just one successful mass produced mid engined car!

Corvette is as much history and tradition as it is a showcase for GM. No question a ME version makes a better track car, but what of packaging for daily driving?

For the moment, let's forget that it won't have a lot of luggage space and the convenience of the current cars. How about not being able to recline the seats due to the bulkhead/firewall behind you? Fuel has to move forward for weight distribution, which is its own "problem" for crash worthiness in either the frontal or frontal offset scenarios. Most mid-engined cars still have longish front clips for aerodynamic reasons, so there's not going to be a marked advantage in wheelbase or overhang while still providing legroom for two people to at least 6'5".

If the current front mid engine and rear transaxle can provide 45-55 F/R or 50-50, the truly hard core can find ways to shave weight off the current design unless they are prepared to PAY for a boutique, limited production thing that the dealer gougers will be happy to sell you.

 

[dean_smits]

Name just one successful mass produced mid engined car!

Corvette is as much history and tradition as it is a showcase for GM. No question a ME version makes a better track car, but what of packaging for daily driving?

For the moment, let's forget that it won't have a lot of luggage space and the convenience of the current cars. How about not being able to recline the seats due to the bulkhead/firewall behind you? Fuel has to move forward for weight distribution, which is its own "problem" for crash worthiness in either the frontal or frontal offset scenarios. Most mid-engined cars still have longish front clips for aerodynamic reasons, so there's not going to be a marked advantage in wheelbase or overhang while still providing legroom for two people to at least 6'5".

If the current front mid engine and rear transaxle can provide 45-55 F/R or 50-50, the truly hard core can find ways to shave weight off the current design unless they are prepared to PAY for a boutique, limited production thing that the dealer gougers will be happy to sell you.

Well said. I forgot how limited luggage space is mid/rear engine sports cars. Also, seems a lot simpler to keep it front engined.

 

[sixpeedreams]

Mid engine cars (IMHO) have the engine behind the driver and NONE have anything close to 50/50 weight distribution. Most are 40/60 or thereabouts. This is why they are not as traction limited and stop better than a typical front engine/rear drive car.
Jimmy

:agree: At over 400hp Corvette does need more rearward weight distribution, say 45/55, to improve traction off the line and breaking. BUT I want to see Chevy do it while retaining the current front-mid engine layout. I like at least a little leg room and luggage space. If people want a rear-mid car there's already a bunch of overpriced exotics that aren't useful for much outside of a racetrack and for posing. F--k rear mid layout. :down:

 

[SCharger]

It already is mid-engined!:bang

Not so much. Sure, the majority of the mass of the engine is behind the front wheels, but, as far as i'm concerned, it's also way too far forward to be considered mid-engine. However, since there is no international panel determining the definition of engine placement names, like there is for weights and measures (International Committee of Weights and Measures), there's also no reason for me to bust a vein in my forehead arguing with you about it It's a front engine, rear-wheel drive car.

 

[Unsprung]

I don't believe this news. If the C7 is a mid-engined layout, this will tell us that:

1. GM has failed to understand and build upon the deep roots of the Corvette brand (ten years richer than the Porsche 911 brand, mind you)

2. GM has failed to define the distinct roles of Corvette and Cadillac within its larger portfolio (any thoughts of a full-on exotic arguably belong to the latter)

3. GM has chosen to invest in a high-risk gambit rather than taking the logical route of improving Corvette cabin aesthetics, drivetrain efficiency, exterior design, and handling

4. GM is prepared to abandon Corvette leadership in practicality -- in areas such as cabin room, luggage capacity, serviceability, and targa-top simplicity -- to embrace a decidedly elitist formula defined by other manufacturers

I believe that GM should take calculated risks that sell more Corvettes, especially to first-time buyers abroad. However, I don't believe that GM should, or would, be so reckless as to tick the boxes on the points above.

:thumbsup:

 

[04C5Dave]

Wholeheartedly agree...and then some...

I don't believe this news. If the C7 is a mid-engined layout, this will tell us that:

1. GM has failed to understand and build upon the deep roots of the Corvette brand (ten years richer than the Porsche 911 brand, mind you)

2. GM has failed to define the distinct roles of Corvette and Cadillac within its larger portfolio (any thoughts of a full-on exotic arguably belong to the latter)

3. GM has chosen to invest in a high-risk gambit rather than taking the logical route of improving Corvette cabin aesthetics, drivetrain efficiency, exterior design, and handling

4. GM is prepared to abandon Corvette leadership in practicality -- in areas such as cabin room, luggage capacity, serviceability, and targa-top simplicity -- to embrace a decidedly elitist formula defined by other manufacturers

I believe that GM should take calculated risks that sell more Corvettes, especially to first-time buyers abroad. However, I don't believe that GM should, or would, be so reckless as to tick the boxes on the points above.

Good points all!

Curiously though I think I digress from point 2, in terms of market positioning, perhaps a new "Uber-car" needs to have its own brand? Cadillac has never been known for an ultra sport car.

Point 4 is good too, though really the "targa" (Porsche, anyone?) top design is a bit clumsy, robs room from the large trunk, and the weather and wind sealing, especially over the frameless side glass, is not as good as it could be for a car that now exceeds $50,000 routinely.

Corvette is still a car which must be sold at a price point under that of cars that are less compromised. Engineers and planners have to come up with a vehicle which honors its rich history yet keeps it relevant both as a daily driver and something which can be used for track days, and that's a tough couple of divergent missions to accomplish.

As an example, when Porsche abandoned (rightly) the torsion bar suspension system, they lost a huge amount of trunk space up front. They gained suspension travel and compliance, obviously they're better on a track now, but they have evolved ever more into playthings for the near wealthy.

Corvette still uses the transverse fiberglass leaf spring in the rear, largely for the same reasons. I've noted that most tests of the car indicate that it could stand to be better suspended in the rear, less skitterish over bumpy turns, yet the compromise continues to be made because we value that nice, flat, wide load space for taking trips in the things, unimpeded by suspension towers.

I think the car still continues to sell well as it's "everyman's dream car," something which you can drive really hard and satisfyingly for the most part, while still retaining that easy serviceability and daily use that endears it to us.

 

[sixpeedreams]

Corvette still uses the transverse fiberglass leaf spring...the compromise continues to be made because we value that nice, flat, wide load space for taking trips in the things, unimpeded by suspension towers.

Coil overs don't take any more space than leafs. You can add them to C5/C6's without modifying the cargo space or wheel wells--which is what Patrick did with the DCZ. The only sportscar I would by is a Corvette but leaf springs suck IMO.

 

[Unsprung]

Curiously though I think I digress from point 2, in terms of market positioning, perhaps a new "Uber-car" needs to have its own brand? Cadillac has never been known for an ultra sport car.

Point 4 is good too, though really the "targa" (Porsche, anyone?) top design is a bit clumsy, robs room from the large trunk, and the weather and wind sealing, especially over the frameless side glass, is not as good as it could be for a car that now exceeds $50,000 routinely.

If GM decides that there is a business case for producing a mid-engined exotic, this should be something like the Cadillac Cien. This would compete very well in the "practical exotic" segment that is now being defined by the likes of the Audi R8 and the soon-to-be-launched Lexus LF-A.

Cadillac possesses the brand values to tap into this segment. Moreover, since the recent rebirth of Cadillac, a mid-engined exotic would be no less consistent in the Cadillac range than a luxury SUV or a luxury hard-top convertible roadster (both of which were new vehicle formats, but not new brand principles, for the reborn Cadillac).

Corvette is at a watershed moment in its history. Should it become a stand-alone brand it its own right? Or should it remain a vestigial appendage of Chevrolet?

For Europe, GM has chosen the former: Corvette is not marketed there as a Chevrolet product; it is sold as a stand-alone entity in purpose-built dealerships that are labeled as Cadillac and Corvette. But in the US, a brand history based on the everyman, as well as internal GM politics, will probably prevent this.

The removable top as used on the current C6 is the most simple, weight-reducing, and space-saving way of providing an open-air motoring experience. It is also least costly. And when fitted atop the car, it preserves the clean lines of the C6 as a kind of hard-topped coupe.

My C6 is a year old next month, and I have driven it more than 12,000 miles, including in bouts of rain and snow. I have no idea if my experience is typical, but my removable top remains silent and with no leaks.

 

[04C5Dave]

C6 is different from my old C5

For Europe, GM has chosen the former: Corvette is not marketed there as a Chevrolet product; it is sold as a stand-alone entity in purpose-built dealerships that are labeled as Cadillac and Corvette. But in the US, a brand history based on the everyman, as well as internal GM politics, will probably prevent this.

The removable top as used on the current C6 is the most simple, weight-reducing, and space-saving way of providing an open-air motoring experience. It is also least costly. And when fitted atop the car, it preserves the clean lines of the C6 as a kind of hard-topped coupe.

My C6 is a year old next month, and I have driven it more than 12,000 miles, including in bouts of rain and snow. I have no idea if my experience is typical, but my removable top remains silent and with no leaks.


Well:

In Europe, GM hardly sells cars. They have their own plants there to build cars for that market. Our American cars are too big for their dimunitive roads, and there are confiscatory tariffs and quotas in place as well. It makes sense for the Vette to be sold that way, and it isn't just internal politics that keeps it under the Chevrolet banner here. It always has been, it has always used Chevy drivetrains for the most part, and if GM wants to market some kind of supercar, to use your example, why not do so under its own marquee?

Galpin Ford in Los Angeles sells Saleens, including their mid engined impractical ultra car, and, of course, the GT-40. One simply takes on another franchise, though if it has a derivative of the LS-6, and there are GM part numbers all over it, what is the point? Halo cars can sit on the same showroom floor as the Focus.

Toyotas are built to the exact same "quality" standard as their Lexus offspring, the latter simply has more features, comfort items, and higher priced materials in their cabins. Common platform engineering is something GM gets castigated for, but I think mainly because the products are uninspiring. Lexus is simply a brand, and its successful because not only is it typically well-executed, it is also clear in its vision.

What is the "vision" of a mid engined "Corvette?"

My car has seen 25,000 miles of use this past year, and when it rains, it has water leaks over the driver's side window, plus wind leaks at speeds over 75mph. Not too dissimilar from my late '01 Camaro SS.

We should quit worrying about a car which is highly unlikely to be built, and if it is is going to be in such small boutique numbers and at such a high price it will be largely irrelevant how well it works on the track. GM needs to spend its capital on making their cars not only true to their conceptual underpinnings but also as good as they can be within the constraints of MSRP.

 

[jimmyb]

Name just one successful mass produced mid engined car!

Corvette is as much history and tradition as it is a showcase for GM. No question a ME version makes a better track car, but what of packaging for daily driving?

For the moment, let's forget that it won't have a lot of luggage space and the convenience of the current cars. How about not being able to recline the seats due to the bulkhead/firewall behind you? Fuel has to move forward for weight distribution, which is its own "problem" for crash worthiness in either the frontal or frontal offset scenarios. Most mid-engined cars still have longish front clips for aerodynamic reasons, so there's not going to be a marked advantage in wheelbase or overhang while still providing legroom for two people to at least 6'5".

If the current front mid engine and rear transaxle can provide 45-55 F/R or 50-50, the truly hard core can find ways to shave weight off the current design unless they are prepared to PAY for a boutique, limited production thing that the dealer gougers will be happy to sell you.

There is one successful mid engine car (engine behind driver): the Porsche Boxster/Cayman. And these cars actually have pretty good storage space. So it (mid engine) can be done and at a price point that is affordable.

That said, I would like to see the corvette retain it's current layout with some tweaking of weight distribution (I'm sure this is the reason the Z06 battery is in the trunk!). While I'm wishing, how about losing the leaf spring setup and going to a proper coilover suspension. I feel this would cure the mid corner nervousness that the C6 has when hitting a bump.

Jimmy

 

[04C5Dave]

Hadn't forgotten the Boxster

There is one successful mid engine car (engine behind driver): the Porsche Boxster/Cayman. And these cars actually have pretty good storage space. So it (mid engine) can be done and at a price point that is affordable.

That said, I would like to see the corvette retain it's current layout with some tweaking of weight distribution (I'm sure this is the reason the Z06 battery is in the trunk!). While I'm wishing, how about losing the leaf spring setup and going to a proper coilover suspension. I feel this would cure the mid corner nervousness that the C6 has when hitting a bump.

Jimmy

The only thing is that those small "trunklets" are really only usable for soft bags especially in front. They've probably built 50,000 to 100,000 Boxsters total, roughly 2 years production for the Vette though they've been around since 1999, and they sell for almost as much as a Z06 if you load one up.

Look at all the others - Ferrari 308/328 probably the most recognizable, the 914, the X1/9, the MR-2, and of course exotica as in the Miura, Countach, Murcielago, Carrera GT, one either has the low end or very high end price structure and marketing in play. NONE are practical.

I'm about to take a business trip and do a bit of camping and shooting (cameras and firearms) on the side. None of the aforementioned would work over the 1000 miles or so I'm going to rack up. None will hold the gear.

Also, I'd have a hard time believing that as the fuel load lessens that the handling would be as good as a conventional front engine/rear drive car in a street mid engined car, not a pure racer with saddle tanks?

 

[bruzler]

I'm not sure if I like the idea or not of a mid engine Vette, but I'll buy one when it comes out regardless...from pretty reliable sources here in Detroit, its a done deal, the C7 will definitely be mid engine car.