Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year - Page 4

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

  1. #46
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) VS Ute 5Litre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wagga NSW
    Posts
    11,778
    Thanks
    507
    Thanked 1,950 Times in 1,268 Posts
    My Ride
    MY16 Holden Colorado LS-X Man

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by sfbreh View Post
    You can "technically" be a mid-engine layout when the most widely used reference for mid-engine is RMR, but you're FMR. Most people, here and elsewhere, would not consider the Stingray a mid-engine car.

    Stingray is FMR. It is TECHNICALLY mid-engine. Read a book. Or a wiki.

    technically |ˈteknik(ə)lē|
    adverb
    1 [ usu. sentence adverb ] according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly: technically, a nut is a single-seeded fruit.
    Then its not Mid Engine technically or otherwise it's a Front Mid Engine layout like I said
    Who the hell approved this abomination? Hidden Content

    I bet it was some dumbarse in Detroit Hidden Content

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #47
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) VS Ute 5Litre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wagga NSW
    Posts
    11,778
    Thanks
    507
    Thanked 1,950 Times in 1,268 Posts
    My Ride
    MY16 Holden Colorado LS-X Man
    Who the hell approved this abomination? Hidden Content

    I bet it was some dumbarse in Detroit Hidden Content

  4. #48
    5.3 Liter Vortec V8 maxaccel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    great white north
    Posts
    1,255
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 283 Times in 204 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Imo GM should make two Corvettes one front and one mid engine..
    2008 Silverado long box,2wd ,cool white ,4.8 v8, air,locker,..126.000km

  5. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  6. #49
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    6,713
    Thanks
    302
    Thanked 814 Times in 572 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by VS Ute 5Litre View Post
    This makes no sense whatsoever

    It's either Front engine , rear engine , Mid Engine or front mid/ rear mid

    You cant "technically" be a mid engine layout when the engine is in the front of the damn car
    This is not correct. The passenger cabin IS the middle of the car. Being a mid-engined car means the engine is close to the middle. That means it can be in front of or behind the passenger compartment AND it's between the axles. The Corvette meets both of those criteria.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to spd98 For This Useful Post:

    posaune (02-26-2016)

  8. #50
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) VS Ute 5Litre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wagga NSW
    Posts
    11,778
    Thanks
    507
    Thanked 1,950 Times in 1,268 Posts
    My Ride
    MY16 Holden Colorado LS-X Man

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    This is not correct. The passenger cabin IS the middle of the car. Being a mid-engined car means the engine is close to the middle. That means it can be in front of or behind the passenger compartment AND it's between the axles. The Corvette meets both of those criteria.
    Which then makes it a Mid front engine layout not a mid engine layout technically or otherwise
    Who the hell approved this abomination? Hidden Content

    I bet it was some dumbarse in Detroit Hidden Content

  9. #51
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    6,713
    Thanks
    302
    Thanked 814 Times in 572 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by MonaroSS View Post
    You don't need any more than a 3.0 V6 to make all the power you need. And inline such a V6 is quite a bit shorter than a SBC V8.

    That means you don't need a trans-axle that hangs out behind the differential as is used with most V8 and V12 rear mid-engine cars. You can place the engine behind the passengers with clutch and gearbox behind that and then differential last.

    But unlike the front mid-engine layout of the C7, which also puts all the mass between the axles, the rear mid-engine layout puts more of it over the rear wheels for better rear traction for better hook-up and acceleration - the weakness of the C7.

    I just assumed everyone knew putting more weight over the rear wheels was how the rear mid-engine "advantage" works. I was just adding the further benefit of low polar moment that a V6 can allow for the additional "advantage" of more nimble changes in vectoring on the move - but without the nasty pendulum effect that can send unwitting drivers off the road backwards...




    It's also substantially wider and taller, by taller I mean it's like a skyscraper compared to the LT, that is NOT good for packaging in a performance car. It's also important to note that neutral mass splits are better for handling and front is better for breaking, it's all about tradeoffs. The C7 has rear bias.
    Last edited by spd98; 02-29-2016 at 06:01 AM.

  10. #52
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    6,713
    Thanks
    302
    Thanked 814 Times in 572 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by VS Ute 5Litre View Post
    Which then makes it a Mid front engine layout not a mid engine layout technically or otherwise
    No it's still a mid engine layout.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to spd98 For This Useful Post:

    sfbreh (02-29-2016)

  12. #53
    R2-D2 Astromech Droid sfbreh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    19,202
    Thanks
    7,596
    Thanked 8,701 Times in 5,617 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by VS Ute 5Litre View Post
    Then its not Mid Engine technically or otherwise it's a Front Mid Engine layout like I said
    Quote Originally Posted by VS Ute 5Litre View Post
    Which then makes it a Mid front engine layout not a mid engine layout technically or otherwise
    ????

    >front mid
    >rear mid
    >both mid
    >technically mid

    As in both qualify as mid engine layouts, except the engine is behind the front vs the more iconic rear axle look, but it's still TECHNICALLY a mid engine design.

    What you qualify as mid engine makes no difference. You could tell me that the sky is technically blue, but I say "no, it's a sky blue and that's not a real blue which I only see as royal blue," but it wouldn't make me right.

    It would only make me an a-hole.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to sfbreh For This Useful Post:

    spd98 (02-29-2016)

  14. #54
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    6,713
    Thanks
    302
    Thanked 814 Times in 572 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by sfbreh View Post
    ????

    >front mid
    >rear mid
    >both mid
    >technically mid

    As in both qualify as mid engine layouts, except the engine is behind the front vs the more iconic rear axle look, but it's still TECHNICALLY a mid engine design.

    What you qualify as mid engine makes no difference. You could tell me that the sky is technically blue, but I say "no, it's a sky blue and that's not a real blue which I only see as royal blue," but it wouldn't make me right.

    It would only make me an a-hole.
    Or he could basically just deem you incorrect...

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to spd98 For This Useful Post:

    sfbreh (02-29-2016)

  16. #55
    GMI Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,887
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,425 Times in 1,474 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    It's also substantially wider and taller, by taller I mean it's like a skyscraper compared to the LT, that is NOT good for packaging in a performance car. It's also important to note that neutral mass splits are better for handling and front is better for breaking, it's all about tradeoffs. The C7 has rear bias.
    Positioned behind the passenger compartment length is the only critical measurement. Width does not matter as it has the full width of the car to spread across and indeed with a turbo on each side will spread quite wide. Height is always a concern if weight is carried high in the engine - which OHC engines do - as a lower center of gravity helps in many ways with handling. But height is not a packaging issue - not given the worst it does is block rearward vision. But new digital rear view mirrors like in CT6 overcome that now.

    As to 'neutral mass splits I'm not 100% sure what you mean but will guess 50:50 weight distribution between front and rear wheels is what you mean. As to your comment about "front is better for braking" If you mean more weight on the front wheels is better for braking - that is wrong.

    Most race cars are built with from 54-65% weight on the rear wheels, which not only puts the weight on the rear wheels more for acceleration, but under braking, when the weight shifts to the front wheels as braking torque takes effect, you distribute braking loads more evenly between all wheels.

    Most 50:50 weighted cars are less capable in extreme braking as the rear wheels are unloaded of weight under braking and thus can't contribute as well as they should. They can't compete in acceleration as they can't get enough weight on the rear tires. They also are usually less responsive at turning into a corner and slower to power out of a corner. So it is no wonder Corvette needs to consider mid-engine to further improve it's performance envelope.

    The C7 BTW is not front mid-engine if you take that to mean the engine is positioned behind the front axle line. It needs another 6 or more inches to be behind the front axle line.





  17. #56
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) VS Ute 5Litre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wagga NSW
    Posts
    11,778
    Thanks
    507
    Thanked 1,950 Times in 1,268 Posts
    My Ride
    MY16 Holden Colorado LS-X Man

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by sfbreh View Post
    ????

    >front mid
    >rear mid
    >both mid
    >technically mid

    As in both qualify as mid engine layouts, except the engine is behind the front vs the more iconic rear axle look, but it's still TECHNICALLY a mid engine design.

    What you qualify as mid engine makes no difference. You could tell me that the sky is technically blue, but I say "no, it's a sky blue and that's not a real blue which I only see as royal blue," but it wouldn't make me right.

    It would only make me an a-hole.
    I'm done arguing with you

    All this technically mid engine stuff is just pissing me orrfff :P

    It used to be (back in the day) very simple

    Front


    rear


    Mid


    Now all this grey area BS and technically this or that

    It's just manufacturers trying to one up each other
    Who the hell approved this abomination? Hidden Content

    I bet it was some dumbarse in Detroit Hidden Content

  18. #57
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    6,713
    Thanks
    302
    Thanked 814 Times in 572 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by MonaroSS View Post
    Positioned behind the passenger compartment length is the only critical measurement. Width does not matter as it has the full width of the car to spread across and indeed with a turbo on each side will spread quite wide. Height is always a concern if weight is carried high in the engine - which OHC engines do - as a lower center of gravity helps in many ways with handling. But height is not a packaging issue - not given the worst it does is block rearward vision. But new digital rear view mirrors like in CT6 overcome that now.

    As to 'neutral mass splits I'm not 100% sure what you mean but will guess 50:50 weight distribution between front and rear wheels is what you mean. As to your comment about "front is better for braking" If you mean more weight on the front wheels is better for braking - that is wrong.



    Most race cars are built with from 54-65% weight on the rear wheels, which not only puts the weight on the rear wheels more for acceleration, but under braking, when the weight shifts to the front wheels as braking torque takes effect, you distribute braking loads more evenly between all wheels.

    Most 50:50 weighted cars are less capable in extreme braking as the rear wheels are unloaded of weight under braking and thus can't contribute as well as they should. They can't compete in acceleration as they can't get enough weight on the rear tires. They also are usually less responsive at turning into a corner and slower to power out of a corner. So it is no wonder Corvette needs to consider mid-engine to further improve it's performance envelope.

    The C7 BTW is not front mid-engine if you take that to mean the engine is positioned behind the front axle line. It needs another 6 or more inches to be behind the front axle line.




    Length is not even close to the only critical measurement. Height and width are both critical. Height controls your center of mass and rear visibility and width can massively affect aero.

    More weight up front is better for breaking as it reduces the amount of time for weight transfer. Again only within reason.

  19. #58
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8 JimmyDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,796
    Thanks
    1,633
    Thanked 1,765 Times in 1,053 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by sfbreh View Post
    You could tell me that the sky is technically blue, but I say "no, it's a sky blue and that's not a real blue which I only see as royal blue," but it wouldn't make me right.

    It would only make me an a-hole.

    Well, technically, it's only blue because we are told that color is blue, doesn't actually mean it's blue...


    ...you can raise a child to think this is blue if you want:




  20. #59
    GMI Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,887
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,425 Times in 1,474 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    Length is not even close to the only critical measurement. Height and width are both critical. Height controls your center of mass and rear visibility and width can massively affect aero.
    You just quoted what I said. Height of OHC engines v OHV engines can be debated so lets just for argument's sake use the SBC derived push-rod EcoTec3 4.3 V6 and Twin Turbo it for the mid-engine Corvette. It has the same height and with as the Corvette V8 - but is still critically shorter. Problem solved.

    But I'm not seeing width effecting Aero. We are talking a road car, not a single seat F1 racecar

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    More weight up front is better for breaking as it reduces the amount of time for weight transfer. Again only within reason.
    This one is 100% wrong. Time for weight transfer is dependent on body structure flex and flex in suspension bushings. Weight at the front is bad for braking. Weight at the back is good for it.

    http://automotivethinker.com/chassis...s-not-optimal/

    There seems to be more confusion over weight distribution than any other concept of automotive performance. Much of this confusion centers around the marketing hype manufacturers use to sell their cars. For the longest time, companies like BMW advertised that they have a perfect 50/50 weight distribution. This leads a lot of people into believing that this is optimal as far as weight distribution is concerned. I guess this would raise the question: Optimal for what?

    The answer to that question would be driving in perfect circles. But as we all know, we don’t drive in perfect circles. If you look at any purpose built race car from the late 1950’s onward, you will find none that have a 50/50 distribution. Virtually all modern road race cars have somewhere between 55-65 of their mass over the rear wheel. So, having a 50/50 distribution is not ideal as far as performance is concerned, but why?

    It should be noted that this information applies only to rear or 4wd cars. Front drive cars do gain some advantages having a forward weight distribution, but their handling dynamics suffer…

    I think the part about weight distribution that is generally not understood is how it is just one factor in a cars overall handling and performance. I have explained this in the comments to this post:



    The big confusion about a 50-50 weight distribution is that it does not necessarily mean the car is going to have a well balanced feel. There are old muscle cars set up for road racing that have much more weight over the front axle, but if you drove one, you would swear that it handles better than a 50/50 Miata. The difference is, is how the suspension is tuned. Having a good weight distribution to begin with is the foundation for a fast car. But, how that car actually feels in your hands, and how it behaves around corner, is the result of tuning the suspension. With few exceptions, street cars are generally tuned to have understeer regardless of their weight distribution – they are just safer that way. When people tell you a car handles well, they may actually be referring to the tune of the suspension. It doesn’t really have that much to do with the weight distribution or how fast (lap times) the car is.



    Let me stress this point again – a balanced feel to the driver doesn’t mean the car can pull high G’s. It just means that the car responds well to drive input and has good dynamic properties; all of which can achieved through suspension tuning regardless of where the weight is in the car.

    Racecars actually spend a very little amount of their time in corners; in fact, most of their time is spent accelerating and braking between them. Having a greater rearward mass helps the car do those tasks better. Generally speaking, you always want to keep the weight in a car as far back and as low as possible. Here are some of the benefits of having a rear weight bias:

    Better braking.
    Better acceleration.
    Better corner entry.
    Better corner exit.
    The reason for these benefits is as follows:

    Better braking: The Porsche 911 (just an example, could be a GT40 or Ferrari) has always been known for its great braking ability. Many people think its because of their brake technology; but lets think about that for just a moment: Do Porsche calipers pinch Porsche rotors any differently than say Corvette rotors pinch theirs? Probably not. What Porsche does have is their massive rearward weight distribution at around 60%. Having this weight in the back naturally uses all of the tires more efficiently during braking, instead of overloading the front tires which is what tends to happen in a front biased car. Needless to say, the rear brakes do more work on a car that has a greater rear weight distribution.

    Better acceleration: With more weight over the rear axle, its obvious that there is going to be more traction. Thus, the car can put down more power without spinning the tires.

    Better corner entry: Cars with a rear weight bias will steer quicker and have a natural tendency to oversteer. A slight tendency to oversteer is required for proper corner execution.

    Better corner exit: For the same reason given for better acceleration. A car with a rear weight bias can put the power down sooner when coming out of a corner.

    Of course, it is possible to have too much rearward weight distribution which causes inefficient use of the tires and bad handling characteristics. For a long time, Porsche was criticized for having ‘bite your head off’ handling. But in those days, look at the tires and suspensions they were working with. The original 911 had skinny equal sized tires on all four corners and a suspension that wasn’t tuned as well as today’s cars. The early 911’s also lacked any type of rear wing or spoiler; the combination of of these three things – heavy rear distribution, skinny rear tires, and lift inducing rear bodywork conspired to give the car the reputation of being a handful. Surely, pushing the car through a high speed sweeper at racing speeds must have taken a substantial amount of skill and courage.

    So now you might ask, “Why don’t more cars have a better weight distribution?”, well, in the real world; its hard to make an everyday car like this because it requires moving the engine very far back. This makes for very long front ends and small cockpits with cramped foot wells. This may be ok for a sports car, but is not suitable for an every day car. The other alternative is to have a mid or rear-engine. But those setups also don’t lend themselves to practicality either; and in the case of a rear-engine configuration, engine choices are generally limited to lighter weight engines. I know the readers of the blog really don’t car about practicality, but car manufactures do. Because in reality, they don’t sell many sports cars compared to their other models. They would sell even less if they were even more impractical. I mean, who would buy a car that you couldn’t even fit a golf bag into!



  21. #60
    GMI Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,887
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,425 Times in 1,474 Posts

    Re: Report: Mid-Engined Corvette to be Confirmed This Year

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDiablo View Post
    Well, technically, it's only blue because we are told that color is blue, doesn't actually mean it's blue...


    ...you can raise a child to think this is blue if you want:



    Of course technically color does not exist in reality - it is a construct of the human brain...

    https://www.quora.com/Colors-vision/...side-our-brain

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14421303




  22. The Following User Says Thank You to MonaroSS For This Useful Post:

    JimmyDiablo (02-29-2016)

  23. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2