According to Motor Trend, none other than Maximum Bob Lutz (or his mouth, which is independently operated) was behind plans to convert the C7 Corvette to a mid-engined layout. And from certain perspectives (albeit not the traditional one) such a move would have made a lot of sense. Besides putting Ferrari on notice, a mid-engined ‘vette would be easier to convert to a fuel-saving cylinder shutoff system, since the current front-engine, rear-transaxle layout necessitates a seperate clutch to disengage cylinders. The extra weight of a mid-engine cowl and the complication of reeingineering the entire platform has killed plans for a mid-engined Corvette, and GM has pushed the C7 model release back to 2014. In other words, unless GM seriously gets its shit together ASAP, the current ‘vette could be the last model ever made. In any case, the C6 will likely be the last V8-only Corvette, since CAFE standards will likely necessitate a V6 base engine. And you thought a mid-engined Corvette was sacrilege…
Find Reviews by Make:
I wonder how much more efficient a V6 can really be. I mean doesn’t the Vette already get Camry V6 gas mileage. Turn it into a hybrid.
MT strikes again. The whole “needing a second clutch for cylinder de-activation” is BS. Hello; the RWD GM trucks all use it just fine! Cylinder de-activation means some of the cylinders aren’t firing, (like the tech editor at MT), but the engine is still putting out power to the drive shaft and rear wheels.
Anyway, the whole mid-engine ‘Vette idea was bad, considering front-engine RWD has made a big come-back, with Ferrari, Maserati, Aston, etc.
Busted! That’ll teach me to take MT at their word.
I think the point stands though, that converting the Corvette to mid-engine would cost more money than GM has to budget for it. The marginal performance gains would be hard to justify, considering the performance value the ‘vette already is in its current form.
Cliches aside, what in the hell was Lutz thinking?
I believe we can safely assume by this point that Bob Lutz does not actually think.
“In other words, unless GM seriously gets its shit together ASAP, the current ‘vette could be the last model ever made.”
Really? Even if GM dives headfirst toward the crapper, they’ll likely sell off anything that isn’t nailed down, and that includes the Corvette. As a stand-alone brand (which it already is; who buys a Corvette because it’s a Chevy?) it could survive the post-GM auto market. I suppose I agree that the current ‘vette will be the last model GM ever made, but not the last ‘vette full stop.
Love the line about Lutz’s mouth being an independently operated subsidiary (it makes so much sense).
Mid-engine Corvette rumors have been circulating since the early 1960s. Arkus-Duntov came as close as anybody has in the mid-seventies, but after the corporation vetoed that, its real likelihood fell to around zero. It didn’t happen when GM was flush, it ain’t gonna happen now. The mid-engine Vette is like the Loch Ness Monster, the elusive Yeti, or the Jaguar F-type.
I’ll tell you what Lutz was thinking, though, because it’s pretty simple. Every single time the mid-engine ‘Vette rumors float to the surface, at least one, if not all of the major car magazines jumps at the bait and runs a cover story on “REVEALED: THE NEXT VETTE!!” If you had a dying corporation trolling desperately for cash, and you could get some free publicity (especially free publicity that implies that you actually have a long-term product plan) just by running your mouth, wouldn’t you?
Hell, MT being MT (or Edmunds being Edmunds, for that matter), there’s a fair chance they would not only give it a feature story, they might run a hypothetical comparison in which the mid-engine ZR-1 successor beats the stuffing out of the Nissan GT-R.
How long before GM puts the whole Corvette program up for sale, like Chrysler did with the Viper?
So the bodystyle of my C6 is going to remain current for another 6 years? And CAFE/emissions concerns are going to mean that the performance of a 400hp/3200lb car isn’t likely to be surpassed by many cars in the near future? I guess I won’t have to upgrade for a while…
Forgive me for my ignorance, but how would a mid-engined vette be superior to the current ones? They seem to be quite balanced already, handle better than cars above their price range, etc. Since they’ve already gotten close to perfect with the current setup, why should they start from scratch with a mid-engine layout?
You guys are making me feel young again. In the Year of our Lord 1970 I was eight years old and read every issue of Motor Trend, Car and Driver and Road and Track I could get me little hands on. I was an advanced reader for my age. The hot story of the day … GM displayed the mid-engined XP-895 Corvette prototype at the New York auto show!
Plans at the time envisioned a four rotor version of GM’s Wankel engine powering this futuristic beast. Later that year, GM chairman Gerstenberg told Zora Arkus-Duntov to forget about it … the present Corvette was selling well and the corporation had no interest in investing more money into the project. By 1974 the GM rotary engine was officially “delayed”, and was never heard from again. The renamed Aerovette mid-engine concept car continued bouncing around the show car circuit through the mid 70s, but with a V-8 engine installed. In ’75, Arkus-Duntov quit.
http://www.corvettemuseum.com/library-archives/timeline/1970.shtml
It wouldn’t be a vette if it was mid engined.
If Lutz really has brass ones, he could make a mid engined corvair though.
“In other words, unless GM seriously gets its shit together ASAP, the current ‘vette could be the last model ever made.”
Quite possible. As far as spinning off Corvette, it could happen and the the vette would die a slow painful death. Corvette needs access to a major manufacturer for parts and engineering – how could it possibly survive without a GM based engine. BMW/Corvette? Toyota/Corvette? Nope.
If GM somehow survives and an independent Corvette somehow survived, it would end up being priced way out of its traditional niche.
I don’t know how Corvette could be sold as an independent car line, as I’m sure that in spite of being made in a dedicated plant, they’re still heavily dependant upon “traditional” GM suppliers…
A “mid-engined” Corvette would likely meet the same fate as the Fiero, because its one nod to practicality (the hatch providing usable luggage space) would be gone.
Paul Niedermeyer : MT strikes again. The whole “needing a second clutch for cylinder de-activation” is BS. Hello; the RWD GM trucks all use it just fine! Cylinder de-activation means some of the cylinders aren’t firing, (like the tech editor at MT), but the engine is still putting out power to the drive shaft and rear wheels.
From what little I’ve read on DoD, a torque convertor (electronically controlled lock up, etc) is needed. Which means DoD only works on automatic powertrains…and I don’t think I’ve seen a manual tranny with Honda/GM/Chrysler DoD systems to boot.
So maybe it does need a torque convertor bolted to the back of the engine to make it happen, but I’m doubtful. There’s still a torque tube between the front and rear of the Corvette, and the automatic models have a convertor…it doesn’t add up.
Not like it needs DoD, I recently drove a double-overdrive’d C5 on the interstate and got 32mpg.
Sajeev, Good point; they’re all slushboxes. Probably, the torque converter unlocks briefly at the moment of activation/deactivation to cushion the transition, or something like that.
Anyway, as the commentators have well put their finger on it: rumors of rear-engine ‘Vettes go back almost forever; its a perpetual PR ploy by GM.
@John Horner, it goes back further, to the CERV-1, which was mid-engined back in ’63(?).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2098/2203710734_95fc547ca5.jpg?v=0
MT keeps hawking a mid-engine Vette whenever they have nothing else to talk about. They talked about it back in the 80s.
Unless they do some radical aerodynamic surfacing to the exterior, I don’t see how much better the gas mileage will be seeing as how the base C6 already gets great mileage ratings (God forbid they ever get the idea of sticking the turbo 2.0 under the hood).
In any case, the C6 will likely be the last V8-only Corvette, since CAFE standards will likely necessitate a V6 base engine.
Oh God, no. You’re kidding me, right?
2014! Christ that is a long time for an update. The C6 came out in 2005, 9 years is a rediculous amount of time. I think it would be tough for them to sell the brand but they might try peddling it around 1211 at the rate they are going. It looks like they stopped being able to afford R&D for just about everything except the Volt which isn’t going to pump money back into R&D since it has no profit attached to it.
Technically, the Z06 is already mid-engined; front-mid is still mid.
I wonder how much more efficient a V6 can really be. I mean doesn’t the Vette already get Camry V6 gas mileage. Turn it into a hybrid.
The Corvette doesn’t really get better mileage than a V6 Camry unless you drive it like a grannyhypermiler. It’s a four-hundred-horsepower car, it’s going to use a lot of gas any time you dip into the throttle. The reason it gets the EPA numbers it does is that GM has been incredibly adroit in tuning the Vette to the peculiarities of the EPA cycle.
I don’t know if a hybrid Corvette is a good idea. It might be, but the Corvette’s huge advantages over it’s competition are low weight and low complexity, both which would be somewhat compromised by hybrid power.
I think cylinder deactivation and idle-stop might be good additions, at least in the base model. Heck, GM’s BAS hybrid system might work here as it’s fairly simple and nonintrusive.
a 6-cylinder Vette would not be sacrilege.
It would be in line (get it?) with the original Harley Earl car powered by the “Blue Flame” 235ci I6.
They will bring out a mid-engined Corvette, then bean count it to death and it will come out as an under-developed car. Then they will badge engineer it to Pontiac and call it a …. Fiero. Then come out with a Cadillac version and call it Cien.
All this, if they survive and if they get to retool their factories with that $25B bailout.
Why does a V8 have to be 5.7 or 6 litres? Why can’t they be 4.5 or 4 litres?
I like that line…”mouth, which is independently operated”. Kinda like my brain sometimes.
The Corvette doesn’t really get better mileage than a V6 Camry unless you drive it like a grannyhypermiler. It’s a four-hundred-horsepower car, it’s going to use a lot of gas any time you dip into the throttle. The reason it gets the EPA numbers it does is that GM has been incredibly adroit in tuning the Vette to the peculiarities of the EPA cycle.
Would you mind sharing the basis for your assertion that GM tuned the Vette to the EPA cycle to any greater extent than any other manufacturer does any of their vehicles?
The Corvette doesn’t really get better mileage than a V6 Camry unless you drive it like a grannyhypermiler. It’s a four-hundred-horsepower car, it’s going to use a lot of gas any time you dip into the throttle. The reason it gets the EPA numbers it does is that GM has been incredibly adroit in tuning the Vette to the peculiarities of the EPA cycle.
Would you mind sharing the basis for your assertion that GM tuned the Vette to the EPA cycle to any greater extent than any other manufacturer does any of their vehicles?
They thought about mid-engine for the C5, too. I saw some great sketches of what it could look like. Very ‘vette, but with a subtle NSX about it…go figure. The C5 was such a technological leap beyond C4, though, they had plenty on the table already.
Would you mind sharing the basis for your assertion that GM tuned the Vette to the EPA cycle to any greater extent than any other manufacturer does any of their vehicles?
Skip shift. ‘Nuff said.
Also, the Corvette Museum has a very nice looking mid-engined Corvette concept that was in the running to be the C5 IIRC. I believe it had the DOHC V8 used in the 90s ZR-1.
“If GM somehow survives and an independent Corvette somehow survived, it would end up being priced way out of its traditional niche.”
Avanti.
“Why does a V8 have to be 5.7 or 6 litres? Why can’t they be 4.5 or 4 litres?”
Because it’s a half-strangled pushrod? The ill-fated Buick aluminum V8 that debuted in the “senior compacts” for 1961 was a 3.5L engine, and the Chevy small-block started out at 4.3L and didn’t get over 5 liters until the mid-1960s.
Why mid-engine cars are better than front-engine/rear-drive cars (in certain respects): polar moment of inertia. One of the factors in how maneuverable a car is (particularly in terms of turn-in sharpness) is its polar moment of inertia — its resistance to changes in angular velocity (i.e., turning). Polar moment of inertia is mostly determined by how close a car’s major masses are to its longitudinal center of gravity. Putting the engine and transmission within the wheelbase dramatically reduces polar moment of inertia, because those masses are a lot closer to the CG.
This is not the same as weight distribution. A car can have perfect 50/50 weight distribution and an undesirably high polar moment of inertia. (If you want a really fine example of how that can be bad for handling, drive a ’56 Thunderbird — with the heavy engine hung out ahead of the front wheels and the bulky Continental kit on the end of the rear bumper, it has close to 50/50 weight distribution, but it handles like a drunken shopping cart.)
Low polar moment of inertia is good for handling and maneuverability for skilled drivers, which is why mid-engine race cars have been very common since the early 1960s. It’s not necessarily desirable for street cars, since it can also mean a lack of directional stability and an alarming propensity to get sideways, not always on purpose.
Rear-mid-engine configurations are lousy for just about everything besides polar moment of inertia and weight distribution. They’re disastrous for packaging efficiency, finding a place for the radiator is a hassle (not to mention the frequent necessity of running coolant lines through the cabin), sufficient sound and heat insulation is problematic, and, if the engine is relatively large, it can present problems for rear visibility.
V6 would not make any sense, the current vette already gets excellent gas milage, the same or in some cases better then a lot of other lighter weight V6 and 4 cly powered cars, including GMs own 4 cyl solstice GXP and the BMW Z4. I think the key would to simply make the vette a little lighter (maybe minus 50-75 pounds) and a little more aerodynamic while keeping power about the same, there would be no reason why the vette wouldnt get better gas milage along with improved performance.
Hmmmm
I hate to say this but this is old news TTAC.
http://www.vintagevettesoftheozarks.com/an_autoextremist_exclusive.htm
Peter M. De Lorenzo already mentioned the fate of the next Vette being a mid engined vehicle.. as being a failure — MONTHS AGO.
But.. it was at the absolute point that they knew it would take too much to develop it.
To take a front engined car.. and make it rear, is extremely expensive. To put together a VVTI system in an engine is one thing, but to pair it with a rear drive car and make it run efficiently is pretty much impossible.
At this point, and at every point like this one since the car’s inception from 54, it was always an option.. about doing mid engined.
It simply costs too much money to re engineer this car. Besides knowing GM and Ford, theyd charge ya more for TRYING TO BE efficient.
If it was slightly possible before.. even when it was near impossible THEN.. its even beyond absolutely impossible now.
The money isnt there.
The interest isnt there.
And it actually takes.. some real engineering to rework a frame / hydroformed frame to build this car.
On top of..
The XLR / Eldorado.. what role would this POS play?
Ya already have everything a Vette should be.
The luxury that it represents.. is foolish. The Vette should be a sports car.. not a ride for a yahoo.
Would you mind sharing the basis for your assertion that GM tuned the Vette to the EPA cycle to any greater extent than any other manufacturer does any of their vehicles?
CAGS, or the 1-4 skip-shift, is the big one. If you’re driving per EPA spec, the car skips three gears, turning a 1-2 upshift into a 1-4. This is done precisely to keep grocery-getter mileage acceptable, at the expense of bogging the engine every damn time.
Drive the Corvette hard, or disable CAGS as most owners are wont to do, and it’s mileage plummets. Which is ok, because it’s a four-hundred-horsepower car.
It’s funny because in order to get past the 1-4 skip shift in traffic, you have to rev the engine up pretty high in 1st so you can shift directly to second, which completely contradicts the point of the skip shift in the first place.
Thankfully you can eliminate the skip-shift for less than $20
“Thankfully you can eliminate the skip-shift for less than $20”
Or you could have just bought a proper manual in the first place instead of getting a sports car with a slushbox.
JEC:
Or you could have just bought a proper manual in the first place instead of getting a sports car with a slushbox.
But skip shift is on the manual transmission car. It’s not a slushbox thing. The computer just locks you out of shifting into second or third around town.
As thetopdog says, you can just buy an easily installed part that cancels the skip shift mechanism.
“Or you could have just bought a proper manual in the first place instead of getting a sports car with a slushbox.”
It’s funny because this comment pretty much epitomizes the manual-nazi crowd and how mis-informed/uninformed they are about contemporary transmissions in general.
MANUAL tranny Vettes have the skip shift. You would have to pay the 20 bucks to remove it no matter what transmission you have. It locks out the 2nd and 3rd gears forcing you to go straight to 4th. And btw it’s the year 2008 guys, transmissions (both manual and automatic) have changed a lot; move out of the 1980’s and give em a try.
Edit* Looks like Berkowitz beat me to it. But I thought automatic Vettes have skip shift too? Am I wrong?
Qusus: To the best of my knowledge, only the manual cars have a skip-shift. Although I’m sure the automatic cars upshift pretty quickly if you’re not aggressive with the throttle
Edit* Looks like Berkowitz beat me to it. But I thought automatic Vettes have skip shift too? Am I wrong?
Automatic cars have and effective skip shift (they reach for the sky under light throttle), but it’s all controller trickery and not a mechanical lockout.
Popular Mechanics had a good post on the future of the Corvette.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4278611.html