Mid-engine Corvette?

[MX793]

Not taking that away from GM at all; the Corvette is a world class underdog sports car and a legit 911 alternative at half the price. I just think from a business perspective going after the GT, rather than playing in the 911 price range, is a huge mistake. They can let it go up to 200K+, but I think they should start it at just where the C7 currently ends price wise, if not a little lower. I just don't think there is a profitable market for half million dollar Corvettes... HELOCs don't go that high

1.  As others have said, I don't think this is a successor to the C7.  So Joe HELOC will still have his attainable Corvette.

2.  It's entirely possible this will be an ultra limited Halo car like the Ford GT.  You know, the one that's nearly half a million and every example was spoken for before the first one left the production line?

3.  Saleen, a company that also catered to the Joe HELOC crowd with their pricy, upgraded Mustangs, managed to sell their S7 Supercar for roughly half a million back in 2006.  I think GM will be able to move a few of these mid engine Ubervettes even at 250k+, provided the performance is there.

[CaminoRacer]

I think the GT is a performance benchmark but not a price benchmark

[12,000 RPM]

I think the GT is a performance benchmark but not a price benchmark

Hopefully.

And MX 2006 was a very long time ago. B.I. (before Iphone). It's a new era.

[Rich]

If they don't keep around some kind of RWD front engine V8 with a big rear trunk it's not a smart business decision.

Most corvettes are about the road trip/weekend trips away. There's a huge following there for that kind of driving. If it's only mid engine the trunk space will be tiny

[68_427]

Yeah, most 488s are in the $300k+ now.

$400k out the door is pretty typical for a 488 nowadays.

[Raza]

$400k out the door is pretty typical for a 488 nowadays.

That's fucking crazy. For an entry level Ferrari?

[68_427]

That's fucking crazy. For an entry level Ferrari?

The California T and now Portofino are the entry level models

[Raza]

The California T and now Portofino are the entry level models

Portofino? I haven't even heard of that. Outside of the IWC model.

[MX793]

Portofino? I haven't even heard of that. Outside of the IWC model.

The California name is being retired and replaced by Portofino.

[Raza]

The California name is being retired and replaced by Portofino.

Oh.

[MrH]

The Portofino actually looks really really good too.  And if the last version of the California is anything to go off of, it'll probably be really good to drive too.

[Raza]

The Portofino actually looks really really good too.  And if the last version of the California is anything to go off of, it'll probably be really good to drive too.

I think the California T looks better, but it does look pretty good. Maybe Ferrari just forgot how to style their more expensive cars?

[MrH]

I like their styling direction a lot.  Portofino, 488, and 812 all look great IMO.  Much better than the 599 and California.

[Raza]

I like their styling direction a lot.  Portofino, 488, and 812 all look great IMO.  Much better than the 599 and California.

The 812 looks a bit awkward, but it's not downright ugly like a lot of what Ferrari has put out lately. The 488, though, will not win me over. The last good looking mid-engined car Ferrari put out was the 430.

[12,000 RPM]

The 812 was a step back from the F12 IMO, and the 488 was a step back from the 458, which was a step back from the F430. But other than that I have no complaints about Ferrari's current designs; the cars look good.

[MrH]

F12 had a better front end, but the 812 has a much better booty.  Either way, both are a big step up from that ugly 599.

F430 is a classic, but I don't find the 488 or 458 bad looking at all.

[Raza]

F12 had a better front end, but the 812 has a much better booty.  Either way, both are a big step up from that ugly 599.

F430 is a classic, but I don't find the 488 or 458 bad looking at all.

458 was probably the worst looking Ferrari in 30 years.

[12,000 RPM]

458 has good details but bad proportions. Too low and wide. Speciale is still their best production berlinetta though.

[2o6]

I think you're all crazy; if any Ferrari is the worst looking it's the California.

[SVT_Power]

I don't think Ferrari has made an unattractive car since maybe the 456.

Their sports car offerings since have been great, some better than others but nothing ugly - 348/355/360/430/458/488

In their GT lineup, I still think the 575M is the best looking one they've made in a while but nothing ugly in that line up either. I initially thought the 599 was grotesque but I've grown to like the design quite a bit. The 612 and FF aren't particularly to my taste but I don't think they're ugly by any measure.

And of course the F40/50/Enzo/FXX/LaFerrari cars are so special they're hard to criticize too much anyway.

[12,000 RPM]

I don't mind the 599, though I do view the 599:F12 like I do the C5:C6. 599 was a bit chunkier than a Ferrari should be.

Problem is context.... design wise, Ferrari did peak in the late 80s through early 90s. Nothing comes close to the F40, Testarossa, F355 etc design wise and I think they have rested on their laurels in that regard. But the current crop of Ferraris are much better cars, which is more important.

[CaminoRacer]

I'd like a more modern model that is more refined than those 80s models, but without the electronics. It'd be slower than the current cars, but more pure

[12,000 RPM]

You would want more torque on the street too. Both the F430 and 458 I drove had "DOHC VTEC syndrome"

[CaminoRacer]

You would want more torque on the street too. Both the F430 and 458 I drove had "DOHC VTEC syndrome"

I'd want the modern engine (possibly detuned a bit) with a good 6 speed. Multidisc clutch to handle the power without being a workout. Fat modern tires, low weight. It'll have to have airbags of course, but no need for millions of computer settings or traction control modes. On or off.

No backup cameras, tire pressure monitoring, power seats, etc. No touch screens. No active aero.

[12,000 RPM]

None of those things would take away from the driving experience though....

I think techy can be done right if it enhances the driving experience.

[Payman]

GM has the Riley-Miller Corvettes and the Wayne Taylor Racing Cadillacs. I don't think they're going after the Ford GT with this car. If Chevy does the right thing... reliable and inexpensive LS engine, keep the rest of the car light and simple, and price it as a Ferrari beater at less than half the price, I'll be pretty damn excited. If they do some kind of hybrid mashup, or a boosted V6, and price it as a Ferrari... 

[CaminoRacer]

None of those things would take away from the driving experience though....

I think techy can be done right if it enhances the driving experience.

Sure they do. It makes it less reliable, heavier, and more complicated. And more expensive.

[12,000 RPM]

Sure they do. It makes it less reliable, heavier, and more complicated. And more expensive.

Active aero and power seats.... sure. Everything else, no. At least in terms of weight. And while they are more complex, again they are not complex in a way that affects driving. You can turn the screen off. Rear view camera only comes on.... in reverse. Even if TPMS fails it's just an annoying light. Tech that saps the fun out of driving sucks but all tech isn't bad.

[Raza]

Parallel parking my brother's S4 as much as I do, I see why modern cars need backup cameras. 

[MrH]

Parallol