By on March 13, 2019

2019 Corvette ZR1

Chevrolet was expected to debut its new, mid-engine C8 Corvette sometime over the winter, but a series of delays meant the only glimpses we’ve had of the thing are of the spy shot variety. And boy, are there a lot of those. That thing gets around more than Wendy in Breaking Bad.

While a report late last year pointed to electrical issues as the reason for the delay, a new report points not only to this, but a structural problem, too.

According to sources who spoke to , General Motors is having trouble with its new Global B electrical architecture, of which the C8 is a recipient. The cloud-based system, first promised by then-GM product chief Mark Reuss in 2015, would allow the over-the-air downloading of various features.

No one wants an American supercar with a British temperament, so it’s imperative that GM work out the bugs before the system finds its way into a production vehicle, be it a C8 or family crossover.

Just as worrisome — and time consuming — is an issue with the vehicle’s aluminum spaceframe, which reportedly flexes too much when paired with GM’s upcoming LT6 and LT8 twin-turbocharged DOHC V8s, which are rumored to fall within the 900-1,000 horsepower range. The distortion is apparently serious enough to break the glass engine cover.

Base C8s will not receive these monster engines, however. An LT2 V8 (essentially an LT1 with more athletic valves) is expected to serve as the base powerplant, Hagerty claims, providing the mid-engine Vette with an attractive starting price and upwards of 500 horsepower. No C8 is expected to receive a manual transmission; managing the power output of all C8 flavors is a Tremec seven-speed dual clutch automatic.

If alleged electrical and chassis issues weren’t enough, another source claims a third problem afflicts the model’s development. This one, however, remains cloaked in mystery, described only as a disagreement between designers and engineers. What could bring the two groups to loggerheads is anyone’s guess.

With a New York Auto Show debut looking very unlikely, Hagerty posits that we might see the C8 bow this August at the National Corvette Museum’s 25th birthday bash in Bowling Green, Kentucky, not far from the C7 and C8’s home.

[Image: General Motors]

Recommended

89 Comments on “Report: Mid-engine Corvette Prone to Getting Bent Out of Shape...”


  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    God it sounds like 1983 all over again…

    (No 1983 Vette… Took a year to work out the assembly and engineering kinks.)

    • 0 avatar
      Featherston

      Re: the flexing, my inference is that the designers had planned on a T-top for the C8, only to have the higher-ups step in at the 11th hour and dictate a targa top. ;-)

      I don’t have the link handy, but I seem to recall from a C&D video with Tadge Juechter that there actually was some truth to that rumor re: the C4. Prior to that, I had always thought that sounded like an urban legend, albeit a plausible one.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        It’s real, and it’s spectacular:
        https://www.corvettemuseum.org/learn/about-corvette/corvette-specs/1983-corvette-specs/

      • 0 avatar
        EGSE

        To your point, a TL:DR reply…

        When I trained to be an EMT for the local VFD the instructor covered some basic vehicular extraction techniques. One was a special technique covering T-top Camaros and Firebirds (they used a variant of the old hybrid stub-frame/unibody X-body Chevy Nova).

        According to him, field experience showed that those T-top cars could bend at the trailing end of the stub-frame if they were the meat in a sandwich, i.e., #2 in a 1-2-3 crash. The part of the roof not cut away would move forward, bending the transverse bow holding the top of the windshield while the floorpan would also bend into a shallow “V” shape, resulting in the driver being trapped between the steering wheel and the seatback.

        The extrication method was as follows:

        1.) Using the hydraulic spreader (the reverse of the “Jaws”), pop open the doors at the latch end.

        2.) Remove the windshield if still attached.

        3.) Using the Jaws or if not equipped, use hacksaws to cut through the bottom of the “A” pillars. We tried that on junkers (not X-bodies) and you can saw through an A pillar in a minute or two at most.

        4.) Using an airbag shoved under the car at the front seat (a large and very rugged inflatable bag that can be filled from an SCBA bottle), fill the bag and the car will “unbend” at the end of the stub-frame thus pulling the steering wheel away from the driver. If no airbag or no room for one, use the spreader to *carefully* lift the car until wood cribbing could be put underneath to stabilize it.

        5.) Immobilize and extricate patient and transport.

        Several of those steps can run concurrently. I never rolled on a call where that was needed but did talk to a few responders that had done that. Being a gearhead I found it very interesting.

        Trivia fact: The “Jaws of Life” aka “Hurst Tool” is made by Hurst Performance, the shifter company.

        • 0 avatar
          Dilrod

          Wow, interesting! I never thought about the process for actually using the Jaws of Life.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          EGSE, this is the coolest thing I will read this week – thanks!

          Dan, I wasn’t arguing with you – correct no 1983 Corvette. Was referencing Featherston’s ‘urban legend’ comment. Breathe….

        • 0 avatar
          Featherston

          Agreed, excellent info, EGSE.

          I like your “if still attached” qualifier on #2. Based on my (probably unfair and possibly inaccurate) memory of the era, the T-top passenger would’ve had one or two bare feet up on the dashboard. This probably would’ve popped the windshield at least part way out during the crash.

    • 0 avatar
      redgolf

      1983 new car and a new plant to build them in (Bowling Green, Ky) with a totally relocated work force until late 84 when a second shift of locals and other transferred GM workers was added because sales were taking off, for awhile anyway ( 18 months) I think this must be the only GM plant that has run basically on one shift for 35 years, Halo car!

  • avatar

    GM needs to spend more time with practical engineering, and less time with autonomous and EV technology. I say master the basics first.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      akear,

      The torque of the new powertrains is not ‘basic’ – it is relatively leading edge. Aluminum space-frames are not ‘basic’ at GM. The engine torque tries to twist the frame – more than before.

      When there are changes/innovations there are going to be issues/growing pains/problem-solving opportunities.

      Kind of like if you invented a new car company, electric powertrain and dealer model from scratch…

  • avatar
    EGSE

    I was going to rag on GM not getting the structural rigidity right, then I remembered how Boeing had to redesign the 787 wing root due to insufficient safety margin.

    IMHO more worrisome is the dispute between designers and engineers. Someone won’t get what they want and given how important design (“style” I’m assuming) is in the auto world, I’m worried engineering could give up something significant.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      EGSE,

      My understanding is that historically Styling would do their work, throw it over the wall, and Engineering/Manufacturing/Rest-of-the-World just had to deal with it as best they could. If the ‘designers’ and engineers really are ‘at loggerheads,’ it could be a sign of progress.

      • 0 avatar
        EGSE

        I have a colleague who worked in the electronics end of automotive; last auto job was on the radar part of radar cruise at a Tier 1. We had dinner about 2 months ago and he basically said what you said, styling rules and everyone else had to devise workarounds while not impacting recurring cost.

        Following that thought thread, if the engineers are pushing back it leads me to think it isn’t a minor issue that’s motivating them. I agree that growing a backbone is a good sign; my concern is what decision is made and what is affected by it. If the tiff made it into the press it leads me to think engineering thought it important enough to go to war over it.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        You forgot about the beancounters, who reign supreme on any sub-$100K car. “Oh, that quarter-panel window looks sleek, but this is a subcompact. Let’s just stick a matte piece of plastic there instead. Saves $3 per car.” (see current Hyundai Accent).

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          Hi Kyree,

          In my experience, a lot of decisions attributed to ‘beancounters’ actually come right from the executives. Sometimes the very top executives. Sometimes a line drawn through a specific item. Let’s say, hypothetically, 4-door Blazer (Roger Smith), or roller lifters for the S-10 (Rick Wagoner).

          Anyway, cost is one of the constraints you have to consider in engineering. I don’t hear people blaming ‘the white lab coats’ for wind resistance or dissimilar metals corrosion.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Style rules the day. Humpf!

          No wonder, then, that rearview mirrors whose shapes resemble the facial expressions of demonic clowns are spreading through the industry like a cancer. And no wonder that the latest Prius generation ever saw the light of day! (And that each subsequent generation of Toyota vehicles seem to get uglier and uglier in front!)

          Stylists and beancounters = ugly, cheap blandmobiles on stilts!

          Yup — sounds about right!

    • 0 avatar
      wooootles

      From what I read over time, I wouldn’t worry about it… The Vette’s shape seems to be function over form for the most part (all ‘speed holes’ are actually functional, the aero bits do work etc).

      This is not the Type-R team we’re talking about here

      • 0 avatar
        EGSE

        “This is not the Type-R team we’re talking about here”

        A Civic Type R is a ridiculous comic book car to me. I’m on my second Civic and appreciate their solid value but Honda grandly screwed the pooch on that one. The present gen ‘Vette I find to be quite handsome.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      EGSE,
      Boeing has another wing issue to fix. The Max 8 and 9.

      The engine needs to move forward to maintain CoG and eliminate the alpha of the nose. The current software fix to trim the aircraft with a nose down is playing havoc.

      The original engine for the Max was to have 61″ fan blades, Boeing shoehorned a larger heavier engine with 69″ blades. The outcome was a six inch extension on the nose strut.

      The problem in moving the engine forward is the additional stress on the forward spar and the additional weight and aero losses. This equates to higher fuel consumption.

      The Max has been selling on its superior FE over the Airbus Neo, by a very small margin. Looks like the Max will reduce in sales against the Neo without even considering the current safety issues.

      The FCCs can make an aircraft fly straight and level, but poor engineering and design sooner or later surfaces. Computers can’t fix all.

      • 0 avatar
        EGSE

        I know much more about this than you think. Most of what you stated is not true.

        • 0 avatar
          James Charles

          Boeing man.

        • 0 avatar
          James Charles

          EGSE,
          I forgot to add. The Max has a basic design flaw. Its flying nose up (alpha). The FCCs are trimming the nose down.

          I’ve read some were blaming the AoA probes, but this I cant believe. They are a simple analogue unit that sends the signal to the data con.

          I spent my life in aviation and I’m a fast jet flight control SME.

          We’ll soon see if I’m correct. This will hit the media, if it already hadn’t.

          • 0 avatar
            EGSE

            WOW! James, why the rude and belligerent post? This is the first time we’ve interacted and you start right off snotty and belittling. Besides being off-topic it appears to be an attempt to set up a p!ss1ng match for ego-stroking self-aggrandizement. I’m not taking the bait to serve your ill-conceived agenda.

            I came here because the commenters are intelligent, knowledgeable and welcoming. I am eager to engage them in constructive conversation; that included you. Unfortunately you consciously made the choice to be offensive for no good reason and it diminishes the good TTAC experience. You slammed the door on yourself by doing so.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            It’s almost if the guy’s from…Oz.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            EGSE,
            Belligerence no, challenging yes. Youar statement and your claim of knowledge forced me to ask if you are indeed apart of Boeing. Then reason is I work alongside Boeing.

            Last night I was talking to my friend who is an aero eng on the Next Gen 737s (he works projects, programs for Boeing) and they have heard nothing about the Max situation.

            So I wanted more knowledge on how you gained this information. Reading your other comments you appear well connected and have much insight into a number of engineering issues.

            Myself a flight control specialist do have insight into the problems. As I stated this issue arose because of poor design by shoe horning the larger CFM engine into the airframe. The only fix has to be a software patch.

            I do apologise if you are offended by my writing style. In the future expand a little when making claims to give your argument credibility.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            New name, Same old $#!+bird

  • avatar
    Goatshadow

    Doesn’t matter how good the rest of a car is. Cloud-based utterly ruins it.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      Goat,

      Imagine how dreadful Information Technology in general could be at a 110-year-old company (or 10 years, depending on how you count). Now take that organization and go compete with a Silicon valley startup, head to head. They will start with a clean sheet of paper, we will not. Go!

      • 0 avatar
        Goatshadow

        The (relative) startups are pretty bad too.

        https://.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376

        If your car (or other device) depends on the cloud for anything, consider it disposable.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Wondering if the C7 will stick around for a while when the C8 is introduced. From what I have read over the (many!) years of mid engine plans it would be called Zora while the front engine model is for the Vette traditionalists.

  • avatar
    2drsedanman

    “No C8 is expected to receive a manual transmission.”

    That just seems wrong. Although I’m not sure what the current take rate is on manual Corvettes, could be there is no demand for manual here either. Sad.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Very sad indeed.

      The manual take rates on the 2014 C7 (like mine) were 40%
      I haven’t checked the other years. But as everyone will tell you the automatic is technically faster… but the fun is much lower. Also the A8 is know for having issues, so it turns out those who got the manual have no worries. Plus dropping down a gear with the rev match is awesome.

      Seems moving to mid-engine is looking like a big challenge for the Corvette team.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        JMII I also have a M7 2014. Take rates dropped for the manual in subsequent years but still is well over 20%. Can’t imagine owning a car like this with an automatic

      • 0 avatar
        NeilM

        Oh the irony of JMII criticizing an automatic for being less fun, then gushing over the automated rev match feature on his “manual” version.

        • 0 avatar
          JMII

          The joy of the M7 rev match mostly comes from the sound you get from it. The automatic doesn’t rev match so the car sounds different and that takes away from the fun factor of selecting the gear you desire. If your a purist you can heel-toe all day long with rev match off. I can do that just fine on the street, but sadly don’t manage it as well on track due to the high effort required.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    Cloud, ugh, don’t want my car talking to the internet. As for the design/engineering issue, it’s likely to do with cooling. Frame flex? Aluminum doesn’t spring-back like steel, they might have to up the gauge in a couple locations, or add a patch with structural adhesives.

  • avatar
    scott25

    Hey, they closed Oshawa but at least GM has their priorities straight, creating a mid-engined Corvette no one asked for.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      In fairness, the execs at GM are probably trying to make sure the Corvette nameplate survives the next generation of buyers. As it is, professionals in my generation (mid-20s) who can afford a Corvette probably find it stodgy, and would rather pay a lot more for a Porsche or Jaguar. I’m sure the car’s current demographic skews quite a bit toward “baby boomer”…and that’s not a recipe for future success.

      GM would like those people’s money. There’s a lot of profit in cars like this.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Sample set of one, but I’m early 30s and would way rather GM keep the front-engine design.

        People that are currently biased against the Corvette name aren’t going to suddenly drop all that baggage just because GM made it a bigger PITA to own, even if it performs equal to a McLaren P1. This is the same mistake GM makes with Cadillac.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          Again, also true. I think they’d have done better to just create a new product line, alongside the Corvette. But that’s my armchair opinion.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Plus let’s be honest, GM is generally so hamfisted that they tend to do these things in a way that they look like they are pi$$ing all over their heritage.

            They want all the good things from the old “Motors Liquidation Corp” but none of the baggage. Sorry Mary B., life doesn’t work that way.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I agree. I think the best plan is to freeze the C7 in amber and continue to offer that as *THE CORVETTE* and then release the mid-engine car under a totally different name with zero Corvette association in its marketing. Then adjust the future plans based on the relative success of each.

            The concern with the mid-engine car being the only Corvette is that it will price out some of the market, turn off some of the traditional market, but the Euro-lovers will still go “LOL, Corvette” and buy something else. So basically you’re just selling to a lower volume of die-hards.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            It’s funny how perceptions of value distort this.

            The 2005-06 Ford GT was (I believe) the first time a regular American nameplate crossed $100K, and was a big sales failure. The second one has an invitation only sales policy and a huge waiting list at triple the price.

            I wonder if this Corvette will be like that. Obviously we don’t know the pricing yet. But is it possible that people would reject the 900 hp Zora at $150K, but jump all over it at $300K? Would it make a difference if it’s branded a Cadillac, which I think it should be? Even if you lose a few sales, is the perception that “OMG GM can make a credible $300K car!11!!!” worth more than maintaining the relative affordability of the nameplate?

            Supposedly the base C8 will be $60K, which gives me hope, but also makes me wonder what was sacrificed vs a C7 at $55k. I too think the C7 should stick around as long as it’s profitable to build. For a car that relies on traditional buyers as much as the Corvette, I can’t see the sense in going away from them entirely.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “But is it possible that people would reject the 900 hp Zora at $150K, but jump all over it at $300K?”

            I think one of the strengths of the Corvette is its relative affordability. If this Zora is intended to be just the opposite so be it, but I can’t see it recouping development costs.

            “Would it make a difference if it’s branded a Cadillac”

            Corvette has far more brand equity at this point than Cadillac.

        • 0 avatar
          bts

          I don’t think there’s enough space in the market, especially considering how volumes are changing o suvs and crossovers to justify keeping 3 sports cars, the front engine vette, Camaro, and mid engined new vette.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          Isn’t part of what’s pushing Corvette to a mid-engine platform the fact that they feel they’ve hit the practical performance limit of a front engined vehicle? They’re to the point where they can keep throwing power at it and it doesn’t get any faster-at least that seems to be my recollection. Corvette wants to continue to compete at the top of motorsport – it makes sense to me that they change platforms now if that’s all true.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            They can claim this but it is basically bunk. LeMans, Sebring, and Daytona have all had diversity in GT-class winners over the past decade. Heck, the big boat M8 GTE won Daytona this year. If anything is hurting the Corvette racing team it is continuing to use a naturally-aspirated pushrod engine against the current displacement rules. IMSA and FIA aren’t going to let them run a 1000hp car anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      What does closing an assembly plant that builds models not in demand have to do with designing an iconic halo car built somewhere else?

      You think it would be better if they wasted money keeping a plant open, only to lose money on the products it builds?

      I have no doubt that GM could have built the Blazer or some other product there, but the legacy costs associated with the plant are considerable. I dont like it any more than you do, but business is business and car companies arent in business to lose money.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Apparently, nobody wants the C7 Corvette, either, since there are 7 months’ worth of inventory sitting around:

      https://www.autoblog.com/2019/02/20/chevy-corvette-unsold-seven-months-supply/

      So the C8 Corvette can afford some delay.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        I believe there are 3 factors at work here:

        #1) People are waiting for the C8. Nobody wants to buy C7 today only to have the C8 appear next month. Its like finding out your date to the promo only went with you because nobody else asked. Most of these vehicles are Cars & Coffee bragging pieces. The C7 is played out, nobody is drooling over them these days. But show up in a C8 and you’ll be a star.

        #2) Dealerships are trying to ensure their allotment of C8s. Apparently GM grants C8 orders based on previous C7 sales. Since the car is considered “sold” when the dealer buys it from GM many dealers are ordering C7s in mass in an effort to get more C8s lined up. Since its rumored the C8 will sell at a premium, the insane over MSRP add on charges that will occur this strategy will likely pay off.

        #3) Its winter and the C7 comes with summer only tires. So I assume C7 sales are traditionally terrible as long as snow is on the ground in half the country.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          Reasons #1 and #2 make sense, but not #3.

          It hasn’t been snowing since August. GM is perennially bad at throttling production volume, and now the dealers are stuck offloading Corvettes at a discount. How humiliating.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        An interesting question is why did dealers order all those extra cars? After all, sports car sales sag in winter weather, and this model is five years old. One consideration is sales allocations. When the C7 was enjoying its hot first year, those dealers who had picked up a lot of last year’s stale C6s had the allocations to order those C7s which sold at sticker or $5K ADM. Perhaps they are looking toward the same thing with the C8.

    • 0 avatar
      Lightspeed

      I didnt like the idea of a mid-engine ‘Vette, but I’ve come around. They appear to have chosen the thermonuclear option of up to 1,000HP, which they pretty much had to. But an option I’d have preferred would be a front engine Corvette shrunk down to a bit bigger than a Toyota 86 and with a 3.0L V8 turboed up to 700HP and a mid-engine car with 400hp V6 called the ‘Monza’ or some-such.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        It had to happen. Both the mid-engine and no manual. A front engine Corvette only makes sense if they have to share Camaro and fullsize pickup drivetrains, like during most of the Corvette’s life.

        GM has never fixed the Corvette’s twitchy handling at or near its limits. Increasing power only exacerbates it, but a mid-engine will more than likely fix that. And trust me once you’ve driven a mid-engine sports car, you won’t want anything else.

        But there’s to many ways consumers can destroy the clutch (under warranty) on a 1,000 HP car or other components, while an automatic can certainly soften the blow, override bad decisions, mistakes, etc.

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    So much cynicism in some of the replies, but what I’m reading is “this car is a monster and we’re doing a lot of testing, and the tests are finding things, so we’re fixing them…”

    Isn’t this exactly what we’re hoping for?

    As far as a manual, at some point things happen just to quick to make a manual as much fun anymore. Plus, even with my pretty buff left leg- I hate to think of the clutch effort on a mid engined 1000hp car on a bad traffic day.

    • 0 avatar
      EGSE

      Sometime back there was a problem with the Brembo brake rotors not being balanced. The “fix” was to zero out the imbalance with weights on the wheels. So if you swapped a wheel the problem returned. This angered a lot of Corvette owners who found out what was done later. My concern is whatever they find will be half-a$$ed away in a similar manner.

      • 0 avatar
        MrIcky

        @EGSE, if that happens they deserve all the wrath. I’m only saying that so far the things I’m hearing are good. Holding past the planned release because you aren’t happy with your product yet and you want to fix it is a good thing.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      No, I’m hoping for a budget conscious sports car that has an OHV V8 with a manual transmission and a familiar layout. Not a maclaren, If I wanted a Maclaren I would buy one, not a corvette copycat.

      Same thing with Cadillac, if I wanted a crappy 2.0T small car with performance handling I would buy a BMW, not. Cadillac.

      What’s a Corvette buyer suppose to buy now? Not a make believe Maclaren.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        Hummer,

        Automotive companies pay big bucks to a company called GfK for their “Purchase Funnel” data. On the sports segment page of that report, the purchase funnel graph for the Chevrolet Corvette forms a big fat wide crayon (thicker is better, some competitors look more like a hypodermic needle).

        OEM’s need to be *real* careful tampering with the formula for a vehicle that has that much ink on that particular page.

    • 0 avatar
      brettucks

      I agree that finding issues now is how it is supposed to happen – dont let the consumers ‘beta’test after the sale.

      I also agree on the clutch- its got to get stiffer, or your leg must magically grow longer to keep pedal effort down as power goes up- and in traffic it can kill a driving experience.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Drive a M6 SS sedan back to back with a 2.5L M6 Mazda 3. I about put the clutch through the floor in my SS first time I pushed to crank it.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        @ brettucks – with a double or triple disc clutch and hydraulic assist you can have fairly light clutch effort even with 1,000 horsepower.

        When it came time for a replacement clutch in my old 09 GT500 I went with a McLeod RXT rated for 1,000 horsepower in my heavy as heal GT500 (over 4,000 pounds with me in it). It was a larger diameter unit (11.0 vs 8.5 IIRC) and required much less pedal pressure compared to the stock unit. The factory clutch and replacement clutch were both dual disc units.

        I’ve said it with the upcoming GT500 but I suspect a DCT or any automated trans and clutch array is less about lightning shifts and more about keeping the driver from going splat against a wall. They are another layer of torque management. Ford has said the DCT in the GT500 takes transmission integration a step forward over previous efforts (and the reason I think its there to “flatter” average drivers).

        Lightning fast shifts are just an easy sell in a world obsessed with bench racing and living vicariously through ding dongs on YouTube posting their street racing exploits.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      MrIcky for what it is worth the clutch effort in C7s is rather light considering the torque of the engine. A “rock crusher” Muncie this is not

      • 0 avatar
        MrIcky

        golden2husky, I’m not surprised actually. But a manual meant to survive with a 1000hp with 7 feet of linkage may be different. I’m sure you can boost it hydraulicly or put in an electric motor and a “clutch by wire” system – but it’s going to be stout without serious assistance.

        Either way- unless you had super tall gearing I’m not sure how much you’d get to enjoy the experience of shifting.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          The present clutch setup is in fact a hydraulic unit. So I guess that’s why it feels light.

          • 0 avatar
            JMII

            But aren’t all modern clutches hydraulic units? My ’89 Prelude Si had one!

            I can tell you the C7 is way lighter then my Nissan 350Z’s clutch which was also hydraulic. The lightest clutch I have ever experienced was my wife’s Volvo C30. Its like they engineered that car to work with women’s heels – the pedals were tiny and effort required was laughably low.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            The clutch effort in a 645 hp Viper is also remarkably low.

  • avatar
    Lockstops

    So you’re saying that Corvette drivers might have a problem with having enough stiffness?

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      As a reminder:
      – Real cars have V8’s
      – Real cars have normally aspirated V8’s
      – Real cars have normally aspirated V8’s with pushrods
      – Real cars are made of steel and only steel

      If you guys would just stop with your fiberglass bodies and composite leaf springs and balsa wood composite sandwich floors and hydroformed frame rails and turbo this and aluminum block that and innovate here and change the other, we wouldn’t be having these problems!

      Signed,
      TTAC Luddites (TM)

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Lol, I see what you did there

  • avatar
    bts

    Now that the Corvette is moving upmarket and the Camaro is taking its place, the Camaro should receive some of the Corvettes old features like being a proper hatchback with the cargo space to match.

    In coupe models, the Camaro provides 9.1 cubic feet of trunk space. Convertible models provide 7.3 cubic feet.

    Corvette coupes have a 15-cubic-foot trunk, which is huge by luxury sports car standards. Corvette convertibles have 10 cubic feet of trunk space, none of which is taken up by the top when it’s folded down.

  • avatar
    JMII

    This car can’t fail. For years the Corvette was the “cheap” answer to the exotics. However the non-believers always pointed to the front engine/rear drive configuration along with the crappy GM interior as the reasons the ‘Vette was not worthy. Well with the C7 they finally fixed the interior. With the C8 they are fixing the layout. Thus all the excuses will be used up. If the C8 doesn’t cause all the car review guys to cream themselves GM will have done massive damage to the Corvette brand.

    So I agree… its a good thing they are working out the issues. However the problem is all these set backs are public knowledge which is just increasing the pressure. I know they can’t keep everything hidden, but having the dirty laundry out there is becoming embarrassing.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “If the C8 doesn’t cause all the car review guys to cream themselves GM will have done massive damage to the Corvette brand.”

      I’m leaning toward a massive attack on the brand.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        We already saw a preview of this blow back with the whole round tail controversy. GM admitted as an effort to gain new eyeballs they purposely ditched the round tail lights. The traditional Corvette world flipped on its head. The car was ugly, GM was stupid… and so on. However as time went by everyone came back down to earth. These days nobody complaints about the silly tail lights anymore.

        Regardless for many the current C7 will be the last “real” Corvette.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      Many exotics use the front engine rear drive layout just fine like many cars from Ferrari, so I wouldn’t say they are fixing the layout.

      What I think lacking in the Corvette is all wheel drive. Lamborghini, Audi, Bugatti all embraced it and it certainly wouldn’t hurt to have, especially since Corvette buyers are probably more likely to drive their car more throughout the year.

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        I disagree.

        Ferrari, McLaren, and Porsche GT cars have all remained RWD and are generally considered the best “driver’s cars” available.

        No one in the snow belt is taking a 900 hp car out in winter time, AWD or not. It might help with 0-60 times, but otherwise there’s no real advantage to AWD in a car like this.

        • 0 avatar
          bts

          http://www.thedrive.com/news/26454/snow-loving-hero-daily-drives-his-235000-lamborghini-huracan-in-the-dead-of-winter

          Same story in other Canadian cities like Calgary on some of the worst winter days there are.

          I’m not sure that the Corvette has ever been about being the best drivers car that it could be. It’s about being brash and having good performance at a bargain. It’s compared more against the Porsche turbo and GT-R than probably anything else.

          The Corvette is considered more of an every man’s car so having the ability to use it more of the year is definitely a good idea.

          If anything awd will heal with safety considering this car is meant more for general use.

  • avatar
    jatz

    I remember Corvettes. Yes, I’m that old.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    ‘Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products,’ he said in a tweet. ‘Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity creates danger.’

    … POTUS is a TTAC Luddite(TM)!!!

    Sorry, I’m not supposed to discuss politics – lol.

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    Even with almost all mid engine sports cars having an AWD option, the C8 will only be RWD only.

  • avatar
    zipper69

    Is it possible that the rear engine will lend itself to the insertion of a transfer box and AWD down the road a ways ?

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    Is it that hard to get GM to go out and buy a Tesla for the cloud downloading over the air function and a Mclaren for the superframe? Afterward, GM engineer put the car back together and sell it! GM might loose 20% of the cost of the cars! but look at the savings in R&D costs and testing time.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • redapple: Hatch struts still work? W T Fudge? My sawed off broomstick handle was always in the back.
  • kosmo: “How’s that Ranger Raptor coming, Ford? Oh, it isn’t? I see. Thanks for the mobility scooter,...
  • dividebytube: When I’m down south I’m taken aback by the number of decent looking old trucks and even G...
  • redapple: RED…. Great catch. Love it.
  • teddyc73: What an ugly rear end.

New Car Research

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
доставка питьевой воды киев

https://citroen.niko.ua

https://bestseller-sales.com/best-sellers-books/best-biography-and-history-books/