2020 Vette with Leno

**machinedrummer** · July 24th, 2019, 11:28 AM

I rarely see a 25-40 year old driving them around here. It’s mainly the 50-70 crowd with their trophy seat cover on the passenger seat. The car is the cheapest part of that deal.

**Bangswitch** · July 24th, 2019, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by RaleighReloader

That said, I think that this rear engined Corvette is amazing. The architecture of the Corvette has changed extensively over the years, and that hasn't diminished the badge one bit. Admittedly, there were good years and bad years and some of the generations aged better than others ... but I don't know that there's anything written in stone that says that the Corvette has to have a front engine. And stone breaks when it's hit hard enough ... so even if that was a "rule," it seems like a great time to break it.

Mike

I agree, it’s certainly an excellent car in its own right and if I could fit, it would be on my wish list for Santa. The Corvette isn’t just a cool car, it’s a sum of 65 years of lineage. Those who are Corvette guys first and car guys second will be the ones who wail and nash their teeth. If the engineers would have made the switch when technology first made the mid-engine viable the tradition would have been to stay on the cutting edge, but 65 years of a front engine rwd 2door roadster exists. Honestly it’s of no consequence to me I’ll never own any of them front or rear engine, but I will always admire them as beautiful and I’m sure fun cars.

**Coyote5.0** · July 24th, 2019, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Bangswitch

Another break with tradition. I don’t know how I feel about a ‘mid-engine Corvette’ maybe it should be its own car in its own right and retire the monicker ‘Corvette’ it’s probably the best/baddest Vette ever designed but I’m just a little unsure if it’s really a ‘Vette.’

But the Vette at inception was designed to compete with the Italian cars. With that in mind it’s a wonder we are just now seeing the change.

I decided Vettes weren’t for me years ago when I set the seat as low as it would go and couldn’t get my noggin below the roof line.

Everything evolves. Mustang live axle >>>IRS was controversial. I love the IRS on my stang. It handles curves much better than the live axle cars.

***340six*** · July 24th, 2019, 07:44 PM

Funny thing is ii have no interest in new Camaros Stangs or Challengers or the silly 4 door Charger. I would get nice old iron with that money. Toss fuel injection and an overdrive trans in it.
If it had to be new or newer newer Vett or Viper no more so would have to be used mint one.

**KDerekT83** · July 24th, 2019, 09:45 PM

Corvettes arent all they're cracked up to be. My toy is a damn Honda Civic, and I've found that unless its boosted, I usually dont waste my time racing them. Its more or less a supercar. I shouldnt be able to pull up on one and have to let off in 4th so he can catch up to me with a damn 4banger... Lol.

**Bangswitch** · July 25th, 2019, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Coyote5.0

Everything evolves. Mustang live axle >>>IRS was controversial. I love the IRS on my stang. It handles curves much better than the live axle cars.

I was never a Mustang guy but I had a 5th Gen Camaro and I wholeheartedly agree IRS in a sports car is not a dirty word. In curves the faster I pushed the better it handled. I made horseshoe turns at 50mph in that thing. And the mid-engine is a move forward in design. But this couldn’t be the first time the engineers for the Corvette said, ‘hey mid-engines handle better.’ It wasn’t an epiphany it was a decided break with tradition, I’m not crying in my beer over it, but that’s not a ‘Vette’ it’s a modern supercar. If I was 6 inches shorter and had 60-70k to blow it would be considered I’m sure.

**Bangswitch** · July 25th, 2019, 09:32 AM

It’s not a fair comparison but when GM bastardized the GTO name with an Australian retread and a big motor it wasn’t really a GTO.

And Dodge did the same with the Charger. If the current incarnation of the Charger was made in the 70’s with 70’s tech it would be a souped up Diplomat.

**swampfoxx** · July 25th, 2019, 11:03 AM

I've had three, '84, '01, '03. The '84 was like a go cart, hard suspension and you could feel every pebble in the road, but you could also feel when it was going to drift and compensate for it. The '01 and '03 were like a fast Cadillac. They were fine cars, but the suspension was softer, and you could get into trouble before you could feel it. The '01 had a 6 speed manual and got 30+ MPG on the freeway in 6th gear. I had to sell them because I have a bad back and could no longer get out of them.

BTW - There were several mid engine concept Corvettes: 1964 - CERV II, 1968 - Astro II, 1972 - Reynolds Aluminum Corvette, 1976 - Aerovette, 1986 - Corvette Indy, 1990 - CERV III, 1992 - Sting Ray III. Unfortunately, none were approved for production.

**RaleighReloader** · July 25th, 2019, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Bangswitch

It’s not a fair comparison but when GM bastardized the GTO name with an Australian retread and a big motor it wasn’t really a GTO.

Actually, I'm not sure that what GM did with the GTO is all that different. The Holden platform was fantastic and that 6.0 went like a bat out of hell. People bot hot and bothered because it wasn't as "retro styled" as the old GTO's of yore, but it sure was a fun car to drive (at least, the two that I've driven were). And it wasn't as novel as the new Corvette, but I think they knew that the buying audience for the GTO was much smaller and it didn't warrant a full redesign.

For whatever reason, it reminded me a bit of the Monte Carlo GTX: a sleeper car that would dust everyone at the grand prix du stoplight ...

Mike

**Bangswitch** · July 25th, 2019, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by RaleighReloader

Actually, I'm not sure that what GM did with the GTO is all that different. The Holden platform was fantastic and that 6.0 went like a bat out of hell. People bot hot and bothered because it wasn't as "retro styled" as the old GTO's of yore, but it sure was a fun car to drive (at least, the two that I've driven were). And it wasn't as novel as the new Corvette, but I think they knew that the buying audience for the GTO was much smaller and it didn't warrant a full redesign.

For whatever reason, it reminded me a bit of the Monte Carlo GTX: a sleeper car that would dust everyone at the grand prix du stoplight ...

Mike

It definitely wasn’t true to tradition of the GTO and I 100% agree it always reminded me of a Monte Carlo. I always felt like they took name with a built-in demographic and took a half decent platform and rebranded it a GTO. That’s not to say they never flopped on a GTO body style prior the the last incarnation either. But they were relying on the legend to sell automobiles that didn’t really fit.

I know there is a bit of subjective judgment and bias, based on what I think a GTO should look like. I do suppose it’s actually pretty true to original form. The first gen GTO was actually a sport package of another car if memory serves me. Of course in my mind every GTO should resemble the second gen’s. God those cars were sweet.