Why does the next Corvette have to be mid-engined??

Official reason: the current car is nearly traction-limited with respect to speed and handling. A mid-engine design is needed to effectively continue to push the performance envelope.

More likely reason: Chevrolet really, really wants a car that will win over Porsche, Ferrari and etc owners.

In the real world they will fail to attract this buyer. Almost any guy who can buy a 911 turbo will never, ever, under any circumstances buy a Chevrolet. Doesn't mean he's not a good guy, but he has a completely different set of expectations about the ownership/service experience and perceived quality.

I respect the high-end manufacturers and their products and am certainly not casting aspersions at owners of their marques. If you've been to a Lexus dealership you immediately see the difference compared to a Toyota showroom: there is no popcorn popper, a Coke or bottled water is complimentary instead of available from the vending machine, there is deep carpet and soft light in the waiting area instead of a play section for little ones and fluorescents, and so on. Moreover, the buyer of a new Porsche/Ferrari views expensive or arcane service requirements as part of the ownership experience and is completely unfazed. It's like having horses or private aircraft: exceedingly costly but ineffably satisfying to their owners.

GM will never, ever, no matter how good the product, swing this buyer into their showroom. Acura's experience with the NSX and Nissan's with the GTR largely reflect the same experience with potential customers who want a little pedigree in their garage. Here's hoping GM re-thinks this plan; if they bring an expensive mid-engine car to market it will end up without buyers because it's not the right car for most Euro marque buyers and too costly for most Corvette traditionalists. If they continue to try to push Corvette upmarket they will likely end up able to capture a market segment so small the car will be an epic money loser.

I could be completely wrong about all of this and Chevy may end up putting out an updated, affordable MR2 on steroids but based on how they've learned to option and price the Z06 and last-generation ZR1 I'm not betting on it.

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

I disagree. In practical terms there is typically a significant difference in engine placement between "rear engine" and (rear) "mid engine", as it has traditionally been more of an all-or-nothing proposition. The same does not hold true for differentiating "front engine" and "front mid engine", where one inch can often be the only difference.

Also note that technically differentiating "rear" and (rear) "mid" layout logically uses the engine center of mass location...Where as "front mid" is randomly based on the front edge of the engine. As would be dictated by a marketing team trying to differentiate their product from the competition, "Front mid engine" ranks just a little better than "the ideal" 50/50 weight distribution.

In reply to conesare2seconds:

So if GM really wants to go after Ferrari, Porsche, etc. it would be more effective to build a mid engined super Cadillac?

Cause that's what I would like to see.

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

SAE, the people who define the language used for cars, have something to say about front engine, mid engine, and rear engine. Front is the engine ahead of the seats, mid is the engine behind the cabin but within the wheelbase, rear is behind the wheelbase.

I'd imagine, then, that a Previa still is a front engined vehicle since the engine is not behind the seats. It's just in a really, really, really bad place If anything, it proves that any definition will have a hard to define outlier. Put the engine three feet further back and... is it now considered mid engine even though it is still ahead of SOME of the cabin while behind the driver, or do you still consider it front engine because the "front" is the accessories up by the radiator driven by a jackshaft?

Corvette has to be mid engined because the media and regular people who don't know E36 M3 about cars get excited about it.

BlueInGreen44 wrote: In reply to conesare2seconds: So if GM really wants to go after Ferrari, Porsche, etc. it would be more effective to build a mid engined super Cadillac? Cause that's what I would like to see.

I would agree with this. It would make way more sense for Cadillac to have a supercar than Chevrolet.

Ford can get away with the GT because it's a modern version of the GT40. But the Corvette is always going to be a Corvette.

My whole point to this thread is wondering why GM is so destined to make a mid-engined Corvette. Cadillac can make something from scratch and it be an actual supercar, but my worry would be that they would not use stuff like Carbon Fiber and load it up with unnecessary crap and it would be worthless.

As someone already said, if they sold the standard Corvette and sold the mid-engined Vette as a seperate vehicle, that would make more sense. The current Corvette sells really well and I think if they change the configuration, the price will go up significantly and they may lose an entire customer base.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:

BlueInGreen44 wrote: In reply to conesare2seconds: So if GM really wants to go after Ferrari, Porsche, etc. it would be more effective to build a mid engined super Cadillac? Cause that's what I would like to see.

I would agree with this. It would make way more sense for Cadillac to have a supercar than Chevrolet. Ford can get away with the GT because it's a modern version of the GT40. But the Corvette is always going to be a Corvette. My whole point to this thread is wondering why GM is so destined to make a mid-engined Corvette. Cadillac can make something from scratch and it be an actual supercar, but my worry would be that they would not use stuff like Carbon Fiber and load it up with unnecessary crap and it would be worthless. As someone already said, if they sold the standard Corvette and sold the mid-engined Vette as a seperate vehicle, that would make more sense. The current Corvette sells really well and I think if they change the configuration, the price will go up significantly and they may lose an entire customer base.

Yup, the entire purpose of the Corvette is that it's an attainable car.

Cadillac has proven itself over the last few years as being serious about performance cars. Seems only natural to have the supercar as the vehicle with top V billing.

I'd say that a mid-engine Corvette would be a big mistake. Chevy has a proven, successful format. Going mid-engined is like changing the formula in Coke, putting inline 4s in Harleys, or having restrained, tasteful superbowl halftimes. It simply isn't done! Cadillac OTOH is trying real hard to be the American version of BMW or Mercedes. A mid-engined car would fit in with their plan for world domination, and you could have friendly, inter-departmental competition. They can stick a Northstar, or whatever OHC V-8 Cadillac is running these days into it and leave Chevy to run their remarkably competitive pushrod engine with direct lineage to the American Hot-rodding tradition.To me this one is a no-brainer. Dumping their front-engined layout is like the 49ers dumping the most successful coach that they've had since the 80s. Total moron move.

kanaric wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:

BlueInGreen44 wrote: In reply to conesare2seconds: So if GM really wants to go after Ferrari, Porsche, etc. it would be more effective to build a mid engined super Cadillac? Cause that's what I would like to see.

I would agree with this. It would make way more sense for Cadillac to have a supercar than Chevrolet. Ford can get away with the GT because it's a modern version of the GT40. But the Corvette is always going to be a Corvette. My whole point to this thread is wondering why GM is so destined to make a mid-engined Corvette. Cadillac can make something from scratch and it be an actual supercar, but my worry would be that they would not use stuff like Carbon Fiber and load it up with unnecessary crap and it would be worthless. As someone already said, if they sold the standard Corvette and sold the mid-engined Vette as a seperate vehicle, that would make more sense. The current Corvette sells really well and I think if they change the configuration, the price will go up significantly and they may lose an entire customer base.

Yup, the entire purpose of the Corvette is that it's an attainable car.

Agreed. To me, the cool thing about the Corvette is that it has a simple blue-collar vibe and the performance to mix it up with the exotics.

But auto manufacturers obviously don't think the way I do. If my opinion mattered everyone would be making rwd turbo 6 speed station wagons.

BlueInGreen44 wrote: If my opinion mattered everyone would be making rwd turbo 6 speed station wagons.

So, did BMW make a 335i wagon with manual?

I am assuming that a CTS-V wagon isn't turboey enough, what with being supercharged.

Knurled wrote:

BlueInGreen44 wrote: If my opinion mattered everyone would be making rwd turbo 6 speed station wagons.

So, did BMW make a 335i wagon with manual? I am assuming that a CTS-V wagon isn't turboey enough, what with being supercharged.

And the V wagon doesn't really exist now The fact that it did is awesome though. The CTS V is going to be remembered as one of the great cars of this era.

I think it will be called the Zora. Why can't Chevy have a halo car? Is it bad that Ford is going to build a new GT? berkeley no, it's awesome! They get a car to put on posters, brochures, commercials etc. They get a lot more benefit than just the sales dollars. They're not going after the Ferrari buyers, they're going to get the guy that will spend $100k on a Camaro restoration. They'll get buyers that buy cars at Barrett-Jackson. They'll sell every single unit they produce before they even hit the dealers.

Why? Lots of technical reasons but the most effective way to show anyone asking this question is to have them find a V8 powered Fiero to test drive.

To me, a mid engined Zora would be as much of a Corvette as the Ford GT is a mid engined Mustang.

I too have heard of the 2 chassis plan. ( 1 front engine, and a ZR1 mid engine)

conesare2seconds wrote: More likely reason: Chevrolet really, really wants a car that will win over Porsche, Ferrari and etc owners. In the real world they will fail to attract this buyer. Almost any guy who can buy a 911 turbo will never, ever, under any circumstances buy a Chevrolet. Doesn't mean he's not a good guy, but he has a completely different set of expectations about the ownership/service experience and perceived quality. GM will never, ever, no matter how good the product, swing this buyer into their showroom. Acura's experience with the NSX and Nissan's with the GTR largely reflect the same experience with potential customers who want a little pedigree in their garage. Here's hoping GM re-thinks this plan; if they bring an expensive mid-engine car to market it will end up without buyers because it's not the right car for most Euro marque buyers and too costly for most Corvette traditionalists. If they continue to try to push Corvette upmarket they will likely end up able to capture a market segment so small the car will be an epic money loser. I could be completely wrong about all of this and Chevy may end up putting out an updated, affordable MR2 on steroids but based on how they've learned to option and price the Z06 and last-generation ZR1 I'm not betting on it.

This makes no sense. I've been around plenty of wealthy people that own Ferraris, Porsches, and Corvettes right along side them. Sure there are the single mark fanbois, but there are also plenty of wealthy enthusiasts that buy cool cars simple because that's what they are. Hell, recently I've been cross shopping vipers, amg Mercedes, 911 Turbos, ZR1 and Z06 vettes, Ferrari 348/355/360s, etc. Not every one with the means to buy a highend car is as closed minded as you're implying.

Gearheadotaku wrote: I too have heard of the 2 chassis plan. ( 1 front engine, and a ZR1 mid engine)

Knowing GM, they'd probably try to make it modular - both cars might share the same suspension and possibly even the passenger cabin, with the front and rear thirds of the car being separately designed bits.

Knurled wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: I too have heard of the 2 chassis plan. ( 1 front engine, and a ZR1 mid engine)

Knowing GM, they'd probably try to make it modular - both cars might share the same suspension and possibly even the passenger cabin, with the front and rear thirds of the car being separately designed bits.

There isn't anything bad about that you know. The corvette is a competent car right now. The ability to re-use engineering makes a lot of sense and could well lower unit cost on both cars.

In reply to Cotton:

Meh; I see this reaction a lot in reader comments under opinion articles, but exceptions don't invalidate the rule.

I was careful not to make sweeping generalizations, acknowledged exceptions and avoided ad hominem attacks (closed minded?) regarding people's preferences.

And to be clear, it's not just Europhiles who have strong opinions about Corvette. I had lunch last week with a prospective employer who it turned out races spec Miata in TX. His take on my choice of a Corvette for autocross: "But they're so unbalanced!" There are weaknesses in the C4 platform of course, but I wouldn't characterize it as unbalanced - unless by unbalanced you mean "capable of throttle-induced oversteer", something he may not be acquainted with on a firsthand basis (easy there, said with a wink and smile). Because the offer of a job was not a done deal, I just said "different strokes" and took another bite of taco.

[Note: I edited this post after Cotton hit reply but before his post appeared. After reading what I'd said I thought it seemed confrontational, which was not intended. I regret the tone of the original post and apologize for it. I know a couple of guys with Corvette/Ferrari and Corvette/Porsche garages too, but personally have sound them to be exceptions. It sounds like Cotton has some very cool friends and I respect his perspective.]

conesare2seconds wrote: In reply to Cotton: Meh; I see this reaction a lot in reader comments under opinion articles, but exceptions don't invalidate the rule. I was careful not to make sweeping generalizations, acknowledged exceptions and avoided ad hominem attacks (closed minded?) regarding people's preferences. If you really think I'm wrong though, take a Corvette to a PCA or BMWCA autocross and test my theory, lol. And to be clear, it's not just Europhiles who have strong opinions about Corvette. I had lunch last week with a prospective employer who it turned out races spec Miata in TX. His take on my choice of a Corvette for autocross: "They're so unbalanced, really." There are weaknesses in the C4 platform of course, but I wouldn't characterize it as unbalanced - unless by unbalanced you mean "capable of throttle-induced oversteer", something he may not be acquainted with on a firsthand basis (easy there, said with a wink and smile). Because the offer of a job was not a done deal, I just said "different strokes" and took another bite of taco.

I wore my Trans Am shirt to one of the last PCA events I attended. I guess next time I'll take it a step further and take my 78 T/A. My feeling is there will be the usual few that stick their nose in the air for anything non-Porsche, but the rest will be cool about it and want to check the car out. Most of my PCA friends have other makes as well and aren't single marque snobs, thank goodness.

mazdeuce wrote:

Knurled wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: I too have heard of the 2 chassis plan. ( 1 front engine, and a ZR1 mid engine)

Knowing GM, they'd probably try to make it modular - both cars might share the same suspension and possibly even the passenger cabin, with the front and rear thirds of the car being separately designed bits.

There isn't anything bad about that you know. The corvette is a competent car right now. The ability to re-use engineering makes a lot of sense and could well lower unit cost on both cars.

I'm not disagreeing that it can be a good idea. VW used the hell out of modularity.

wspohn wrote: Why? Lots of technical reasons but the most effective way to show anyone asking this question is to have them find a V8 powered Fiero to test drive.

I had a V8 Fiero. It was awesome. But it was awesome not because of the performance (which was actually pretty decent) but because no one ever suspected a Fiero to sound like that.

Because race car....

I say that to be Internet ironic but also to point out it is in line with the talking points the Corvette racers have been saying for years, "greatest transfer of racing technology to the street."

I think they've had this plan for a long while.

In reply to BradLTL:

Hot damn those Corvette racecars are a nice color!