i say the vette should remain front-engine, rwd.
but if the brass is so insistant on entering the exotic market with this
mid-engine vette...than make two, two versions.



one should be the vette as its configuration is now.

and one should be a limited production, 'exotic' version, mid-engine
configuration, more horses, track-tuned suspension, chasis, and an improved
interior - all at a premium price...for the american exotic-seekers


by the way, americans suck at trying to be exotic...just look at their last
attempt, with the ford gt (lol)







"ACAR" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Oct 27, 8:35 pm, "Lawrence Lugar" > wrote:
>> lol - i think you have evolutionary and revolutionary confused with each
>> other - based on your sentence composition.
>>
>> if the vette is to remain front-engine, rwd...then that'd be
>> revolutionary;
>> to be evolutionary...it'd need to be mid-engine
>>
> No, a revolutionary design would require a radical change, like mid-
> engine. Evolution is more like the way the 911 has changed (or not
> changed) over time. I think you are mixing up mutation (abrupt change
> in form) with evolution (gradual, progressive change).
>
> Whatever words are chosen, the Corvette is likely to retain its
> current configuration if only to keep cost down. I can't see GM
> investing in another sports car platform until they can regain some
> market share and profitability.
>
> But a mid-engined Corvette would shake the industry if GM could pull
> it off at a low price point. Let the old farts put their golf clubs
> into a Camaro, I say.
>
>
>