MR Corvette C8 - General Discussion

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 1,295 comments
  • 125,370 views
Slash
Unless there is more than one order form
Click to expand...
I'd say the one you posted is probably from a completely different car. It doesn't look photoshopped to me so it's definitely a car that has a transverse V6.

Plus, ain't nobody going to buy an XFE Corvette, are you kidding? That trim level stands for "eXtra Fuel Economy". :lol:

I wouldn't doubt this is from the Blazer, since it has the V6, is fwd-based, and is pedestrian enough to have both economy and sport trim levels.
 
I'd be more concerned about ticking the XFQ wheel/tyre option with it's 10inch fronts and 20inch rears! :eek:
 
:lol:

I completely missed the "245/35R10". That's a 16.75" tall tire, where classic Mini rubber had a 19" diameter.

That brings about another source of confusion for me...why would anything equipped with a V6 and the 6T50--even if it's midengined--be running 305 rears? Maybe a homebuilt track day special where obscene grip is desired, but surely nothing production. What does the Evora use in back?
 
Joey D
The Toyota U660 transmission that's used with the 2GR-FE engine.
Click to expand...
My apologies for any ambiguity there, but the thought process revolved around tires.

Edit: It was also rhetorical, as I can easily let my thumbs do the walking for such information. Even without, I imagine something along the lines of a 265 section tire.

Still, I take every bit of the blame for any confusion there.

Second edit: Wow...285/30R20. Definitely taller than I would have expected, with 18" being likely and 20" being possible. Wheels are getting too big in relation to sidewall for my tastes.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
My apologies for any ambiguity there, but the thought process revolved around tires.

Edit: It was also rhetorical, as I can easily let my thumbs do the walking for such information. Even without, I imagine something along the lines of a 265 section tire.

Still, I take every bit of the blame for any confusion there.

Second edit: Wow...285/30R20. Definitely taller than I would have expected, with 18" being likely and 20" being possible. Wheels are getting too big in relation to sidewall for my tastes.
Click to expand...

My punily-powered 200hp/181tq Boxster has 255 section rear tires, stock. I think, in an MR application, it's less about providing a wide enough tire for traction, and more about ensuring you have a lot of rear grip reserve to mitigate lift-off oversteer. Also, there is no way a 30 profile tire is going on any sort of utility vehicle, so I'd still wager this is a, legit; and b, for an MR vehicle.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
My punily-powered 200hp/181tq Boxster has 255 section rear tires, stock. I think, in an MR application, it's less about providing a wide enough tire for traction, and more about ensuring you have a lot of rear grip reserve to mitigate lift-off oversteer.
Click to expand...
Sure, and that's where staggered section widths come into play. Having a rear tire that's wider than the front decreases the likelihood that the car's going to swap ends. My first Beetle had 195s front and rear (60 and 65 respectively) and its steering, particularly under braking, was a lot more lively than my second with 145s in front and 205s in the rear. The latter understeered horribly, but then some of that can also be attributed to rear suspension which was better suited to aiding weight transfer. Heck, my daughter had a friend in high school with a Smart ForTwo and even it had wider rear tires; though they were considerably more diminutive as a whole.

My comment wasn't so much about the rears being wider than the front as it was about the rears being 305s specifically--that is just a massive piece of rubber.
 
TexRex
Sure, and that's where staggered section widths come into play. Having a rear tire that's wider than the front decreases the likelihood that the car's going to swap ends. My first Beetle had 195s front and rear (60 and 65 respectively) and its steering, particularly under braking, was a lot more lively than my second with 145s in front and 205s in the rear. The latter understeered horribly, but then some of that can also be attributed to rear suspension which was better suited to aiding weight transfer. Heck, my daughter had a friend in high school with a Smart ForTwo and even it had wider rear tires; though they were considerably more diminutive as a whole.

My comment wasn't so much about the rears being wider than the front as it was about the rears being 305s specifically--that is just a massive piece of rubber.
Click to expand...

Maybe they designed a snappy, oversteering mess (it's their first try since the Fiero, no?) and the only remedy was to stagger the tires enormously to create a dull, understeering mess? :lol:

GM is also known to put huge tires on their sporting offerings so they go around race tracks very fast, which always looks great on the cover of General Motors Trend. It's the company that put 305s on the front of a Camaro, remember.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Maybe they designed a snappy, oversteering mess (it's their first try since the Fiero, no?) and the only remedy was to stagger the tires enormously to create a dull, understeering mess? :lol:

GM is also known to put huge tires on their sporting offerings so they go around race tracks very fast, which always looks great on the cover of General Motors Trend. It's the company that put 305s on the front of a Camaro, remember.
Click to expand...
:lol:

The elephant in the room for me is still the 6T50, a gearbox that I've recently discovered is rated to a mere 260hp and 258lb-ft.

I wonder if the sheet may actually be a bit of a smoke screen, with us overthinking it precisely as was intended.
 
TexRex
:lol:

The elephant in the room for me is still the 6T50, a gearbox that I've recently discovered is rated to a mere 260hp and 258lb-ft.

I wonder if the sheet may actually be a bit of a smoke screen, with us overthinking it precisely as was intended.
Click to expand...

I've got it!

In order to achieve economies of scale, this platform isn't going to be used exclusively for the Corvette. In fact, GM is using it to re-launch all of it's defunct brands, each with an MR halo model:

Pontiac Fiero
Saturn Sky
Oldsmobile Aerotech V
Opel GT
Hummer (??!) H4
 
203.gif
 
TexRex
:lol:

I completely missed the "245/35R10". That's a 16.75" tall tire, where classic Mini rubber had a 19" diameter.

That brings about another source of confusion for me...why would anything equipped with a V6 and the 6T50--even if it's midengined--be running 305 rears? Maybe a homebuilt track day special where obscene grip is desired, but surely nothing production. What does the Evora use in back?
Click to expand...

If there's going to be a much hotter version somewhere down the line, which is a given, you can't really put narrower rubber on the cooking model. On cars where they have considerable differences in output across the range, the hotter versions tend to have wider extended arches to accommodate wider rubber. But with middies, the rear track is already relatively wide to leave room for all the engine/gearbox/exhaust/cooling/suspension etc, so you either make do with oversized rubber on something that doesn't require it or you put on something narrower and more suitable and use spacers which aren't ideal or have rears which don't fill the arches, which the design and marketing departments aren't going to let fly.

Most average cars these days are specified with oversized wheels because punters prefer how they look, even though they don't require the extra grip they afford and they generally make the ride quality harsher.
 
Let's not forget that the Corvette was very mch intended to become a Mid-Engine layout decades ago, but they didn't push it forward due to costs, I mean the idea of the Corvette as a whole is for it to be a reasonably affordable/accessable high performance spors car.

GM have made many various experimental examples, not just mere concepts.


chevrolet_corvette_xp-882_concept_car.jpg

13vette-slides-slide-NVPU-superJumbo.jpg

page41_2.jpg

page55_2.jpg
 
Eunos_Cosmo
GM is also known to put huge tires on their sporting offerings so they go around race tracks very fast, which always looks great on the cover of General Motors Trend. It's the company that put 305s on the front of a Camaro, remember.
Click to expand...
They also originally designed the C4, the most triumphant example ever made of "goes around the track fast but shame about the other stuff", for 10 inch wide wheels (with plans for 295s, I'm guessing?) on all four corners even though it was only 1983.


It's why the ZR-1 rear wheels just fit on the front.

TexRex
The elephant in the room for me is still the 6T50, a gearbox that I've recently discovered is rated to a mere 260hp and 258lb-ft.
Click to expand...
They want to remind people of supercharged W-Bodies.
 
Last edited:
The new design is getting trashed all over the web, personally I really don't care. Every generation of Corvettes get bashed by the diehard fan & owners for decades. The C7 is an amazing car but I'm not fan of the taillights. I remember when the C5 was released some hated it because the rear taillights were oval & not perfectly round like its predecessor, the early C4. To each their own.
 
What do people hate about the styling? The worst I can say is that it looks like someone tried to make a late Gallardo look like a Corvette, which isn't really a bad thing...
 
bremics
What do people hate about the styling? The worst I can say is that it looks like someone tried to make a late Gallardo look like a Corvette, which isn't really a bad thing...
Click to expand...
Personally I think it looks a bit generic, but that's probably due to the camo hiding any detail that could be there. It'll certainly be interesting to see it properly in July.
 
Well, it's GM's first crack at a mass produced MR Corvette since ever, so I'll give the design a pass.

I expect the gen 2 or gen 1 face lift to be better looking.
 
Wait. They are using the 3.6? My car has the 306hp version of that engine and it does not like being abused. It also hates cold, low grade fuel and tends to build carbon deposits. I'm not sure about the 330hp version, but I know mine kinda sucks at the lower range. Other than in highway pulls, the car feels 'meh' in the city. Also, they are using a weaker transmission, when they could've used the 6t70 instead, or a manual?
 
HuskyGT
Wait. They are using the 3.6? My car has the 306hp version of that engine and it does not like being abused. It also hates cold, low grade fuel and tends to build carbon deposits. I'm not sure about the 330hp version, but I know mine kinda sucks at the lower range. Other than in highway pulls, the car feels 'meh' in the city. Also, they are using a weaker transmission, when they could've used the 6t70 instead, or a manual?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Chances are the base car will use a 6.2L V8 similar to the one that's in the current Vette. I think the 3.6L will probably go into the Cadillac version that @dice1998 mentioned.
 
I still have a hard time believing any existing 'box is being used on this platform regardless of branding or engine option, let alone one derived from that series.

Maybe a Cadillac version (still not convinced that exists, despite 'the fob') gets a V6, but that's if it's to be supported by a hybrid system and chosen for quieter operation, and I'd still expect it to be of a longitudinal layout.

Frankly, in the event of a Cadillac based on this architecture, I'd expect it to be propelled by that hot-vee, double-tee 'Blackwing'.
 

Latest Posts

Back