[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mid Engine Corvette (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 1/30/2017 8:21:13 PM EDT
|
It's been rumored for as long as I can remember.
Can't help but ask why is this needed?? http://www.motortrend.com/news/spied-mid-engine-chevrolet-corvette-caught-winter-testing-zr1/?sm_id=organic_tw_social_MT_170130_sf53496452#sf53496452 |
|
Quoted:
It's been rumored for as long as I can remember. Can't help but ask why is this needed?? http://www.motortrend.com/news/spied-mid-engine-chevrolet-corvette-caught-winter-testing-zr1/?sm_id=organic_tw_social_MT_170130_sf53496452#sf53496452 Because mid engine sports car > front engine rwd sports car in terms of balance, and handling. I think a MR Corvette is badass. |
|
Quoted:
Because mid engine sports car > front engine rwd sports car in terms of balance, and handling. I think a MR Corvette is badass. Very true, but wouldn't a buyer who is seriously concerned with those aspects buy a Porsche Boxster instead? I mean, I like variety, and I think it's cool, too. I'm just surprised that Chevy found a market for it. |
|
Quoted:
Because mid engine sports car > front engine rwd sports car in terms of balance, and handling. I think a MR Corvette is badass. I think they have been putting it off to keep the corvette a more practical\convenient daily driver. |
|
Quoted:
Very true, but wouldn't a buyer who is seriously concerned with those aspects buy a Porsche Boxster instead? I mean, I like variety, and I think it's cool, too. I'm just surprised that Chevy found a market for it. I have been a Porsche fanboy at various times in my life, but the higher end Corvettes are significantly higher performance cars than any Boxster, and this proposed mid-engined variant will be even more so. |
|
Quoted:
It's been rumored for as long as I can remember. Can't help but ask why is this needed?? http://www.motortrend.com/news/spied-mid-engine-chevrolet-corvette-caught-winter-testing-zr1/?sm_id=organic_tw_social_MT_170130_sf53496452#sf53496452 Trying to appeal to a younger buyer? |
|
Quoted:
I have been a Porsche fanboy at various times in my life, but the higher end Corvettes are significantly higher performance car than any Boxster, and this proposed mid-engined variant will be even more so. Problem is the price will creep up to Porsche pricing (base, god knows options kill you.) Case in point is the Ford GT. |
|
Quoted:
Problem is the price will creep up to Porsche pricing (base, god knows options kill you.) Case in point is the Ford GT. The Ford is specifically and intentionally limited in number to increase the price and make it exclusive. The lower model corvettes are made in whatever quantity they think they can sell. Huge difference. |
|
Quoted:
I thought the Corvette already had like 50/50 weight distribution? If you put almost all the weight in front of each axle with a 50/50 weight distribution or you put almost all the weight behind each axle with 50/50 weight distribution which would handle better? |
|
Quoted:
I have been a Porsche fanboy at various times in my life, but the higher end Corvettes are significantly higher performance car than any Boxster, and this proposed mid-engined variant will be even more so. The only reason anyone buys a Boxster is because they can't afford a 911 |
|
Quoted:
Because mid engine sports car > front engine rwd sports car in terms of balance, and handling. I think a MR Corvette is badass. Quoted:
Quoted:
It's been rumored for as long as I can remember. Can't help but ask why is this needed?? http://www.motortrend.com/news/spied-mid-engine-chevrolet-corvette-caught-winter-testing-zr1/?sm_id=organic_tw_social_MT_170130_sf53496452#sf53496452 Because mid engine sports car > front engine rwd sports car in terms of balance, and handling. I think a MR Corvette is badass. 
|
|
Quoted:
If you put almost all the weight in front of each axle with a 50/50 weight distribution or you put almost all the weight behind each axle with 50/50 weight distribution which would handle better? Exactly. Polar moment of inertia. Just think of a rod with a 1lb ball attached at each end and balanced in the middle. Now picture a rod with a 2lb ball mounted in the center. Both are the same weight and both have 50/50 weight distribution, but it takes less effort to make the latter spin on its axis. That's why mid-engine cars tend to handle better than front engined cars. |
|
Quoted:
Because mid engine sports car > front engine rwd sports car in terms of balance, and handling. front engine > mid engine in terms of fun. If you are chasing lap times, mid engine will hold an edge, all things equal. If you want to feel like the car is actively trying to murder you, and the adrenaline that comes with that, front engine all day long. |
|
Quoted:
Very true, but wouldn't a buyer who is seriously concerned with those aspects buy a Porsche Boxster instead? I mean, I like variety, and I think it's cool, too. I'm just surprised that Chevy found a market for it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Because mid engine sports car > front engine rwd sports car in terms of balance, and handling. I think a MR Corvette is badass. Very true, but wouldn't a buyer who is seriously concerned with those aspects buy a Porsche Boxster instead? I mean, I like variety, and I think it's cool, too. I'm just surprised that Chevy found a market for it. 
They actually have decent performance now. Still boring to me (though the last I drove was a 2014 Stingray) but they're attracting a much wider audience. |
|
Quoted:
Who cares? The Corvette quit being a real Corvette a long time ago. I may regret this, but I have to know what your definition of a "real Corvette" encompasses. To me, it's the quintessential two-seat, American sports car. Always has been. (Late 70/early 80's don't count because all American cars sucked in that era.) |
|
Quoted:
I think it's a very good looking car, and with some performance upgrades it can be interesting. But yes, from the factory the Boxster isn't a high performance car. Quoted:
Quoted:
The only reason anyone buys a Boxster is because they can't afford a 911 I think it's a very good looking car, and with some performance upgrades it can be interesting. But yes, from the factory the Boxster isn't a high performance car. What are you guys talking about? The base Boxster with pdk trans is 0-60 in 4 seconds flat, and the S model does it in 3.6 seconds. |
|
Quoted:
If you put almost all the weight in front of each axle with a 50/50 weight distribution or you put almost all the weight behind each axle with 50/50 weight distribution which would handle better? Bingo, plus 50/50 is rarely what you want in a race car. Best handling cars are usually around 55% of weight on rear tires, with the weight as close to center of the vehicle as you can. Think of a figure skater when they spin, when they start their legs are out and the spin is slow, when they tighten up they start spinning faster. Goal is to get the car to rotate as quickly as possible, so you can get back on the loud pedal before the other guy. |
|
Quoted:
Remind me to take you for a spin in one sometime. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think it's a very good looking car, and with some performance upgrades it can be interesting. But yes, from the factory the Boxster isn't a high performance car. Remind me to take you for a spin in one sometime. I've test driven a Boxster, it's a very nice car and I like it very much. Quicker than 9 out of 10 cars on the road. However, at what .... 375 hp for the top end car, that's just no longer at the extreme end of performance for what's on the roads today. You really need something closer to 500 hp to make that claim in 2017. Don't get me wrong, I like the car very much and it's faster than I personally want to drive anymore, it's just that you can buy cars from the factory with significantly more horsepower. It's kinda crazy what you can stroll into a dealership and drive off with these days. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/81153/Screenshot-2017-01-30-18-20-55-136968.JPG What are you guys talking about? The base Boxster with pdk trans is 0-60 in 4 seconds flat, and the S model does it in 3.6 seconds. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only reason anyone buys a Boxster is because they can't afford a 911 I think it's a very good looking car, and with some performance upgrades it can be interesting. But yes, from the factory the Boxster isn't a high performance car. What are you guys talking about? The base Boxster with pdk trans is 0-60 in 4 seconds flat, and the S model does it in 3.6 seconds. Ok, I admit it. I'm misinformed. The Boxster has moved on since I test drove one 10 years ago. You guys are right. |
|
Quoted:
I've test driven a Boxster, it's a very nice car and I like it very much. Quicker than 9 out of 10 cars on the road. However, at what .... 375 hp for the top end car, that's just no longer at the extreme end of performance for what's on the roads today. You really need something closer to 500 hp to make that claim in 2017. Don't get me wrong, I like the car very much and it's faster than I personally want to drive anymore, it's just that you can buy cars from the factory with significantly more horsepower. It's kinda crazy what you can stroll into a dealership and drive off with these days. The Boxster isn't about horsepower. It's a track car you can drive on the road, not a muscle car. 375hp in a small car with a nimble chassis is a lot of fun. In it's price range, it's just about the most fun you can have on a twisty road. |
|
Quoted:
Exactly. Polar moment of inertia. Just think of a rod with a 1lb ball attached at each end and balanced in the middle. Now picture a rod with a 2lb ball mounted in the center. Both are the same weight and both have 50/50 weight distribution, but it takes less effort to make the latter spin on its axis. That's why mid-engine cars tend to handle better than front engined cars. That's a good description. I've heard Chevrolet's taken the performance of the front-engine Vette as far as they can take it, whatever that means. |