A new report has provided more information on the reasoning behind the delay of the mid-engine Corvette C8.
Similar to our previous exclusive report on the matter, Hagerty alleges that a complicated new electrical architecture is one of the reasons behind the delays. This next-generation electrical system, which will feature a number of computers that will talk to each other via Local Area Network (LAN), is posing a number of problems for engineers. The electrical architecture will not only appear on the mid-engine Corvette, but on a number of other upcoming General Motors vehicles as well.
Additionally, the Corvette team has apparently hit a roadblock with regards to the C8 Corvette’s chassis stiffness. Hagerty says that one prototype equipped with a particularly powerful, 900-1,000 hp version of the supercar’s new twin-turbocharged V8 engine experienced “structural distortion of the aluminum spaceframe,” upon acceleration which even broke the rear engine compartment glass. This has sent Chevy back to the drawing board for the new MR platform, although it’s not clear if this problem has been solved yet.
The third and final reason for the delay, per Hagerty’s source, is an unknown disagreement between the designers and the development engineers. The publication didn’t specify what the issue was, so it could be with regards to interior ergonomics or outward visibility, among a host of other potential problems.
Despite these delays, GMÂ and Chevy are still expected to debut the C8 Corvette sometime later this year. It’s not clear when or where the highly anticipated supercar may be unveiled, but considering the importance behind the Corvette name and the hype behind this project, it definitely justifies its own reveal event.
Subscribe to GM Authority (for free) for the latest Corvette news, Corvette C8 news and mid-engine Corvette news.
Source:Â Hagerty
Comments
These have been bouncing around and even a cooling issue has been stated. To be honest I am not sure anything much other than the electrical issue is true as most MFGs are struggling with the new electronic systems today on most cars.
The structural issue is not anything that would delay the car as the higher power is not do for a while and they have time to address that.
Got a link to the cooling issue?
The frame issue would indeed delay all the model variants. If they have to re-engineer the frame for the ZO6 then that will entail validating every single variant again, and no, they will not use a different frame for each model, that would be too expensive. Higher power models may use extra bracing but the basic frame will be the same.
Scott is right. There are no frame issues or cooling issues. It has been electrical can-bus items.
The mid-engine car will not just change the location of the engine, but it will also introduce GM’s next-generation internal comms system that will be used across many other vehicles. They’re trying not to make a derivative of the system to rush the ME to market, but instead get the system right from the get-go so it can be used across many other vehicle lines. There is a bigger picture situation here… and many aren’t grasping it.
I rather see it delayed to eleminate all problems. This is one of GM’s most important products so they can’t afford to misstep. Of course GM needs to take that attitude with everything they do. Half right or almost as good is never good enough.
I agree. The last thing we need is GM releasing half-vaked vehicles the same way Ford releases half-***ed engines.
I’ve owned many Ford’s and every one of those engines had weird flaws that shouldn’t have made it out of the design room. They managed to have a ton of problems with the 2.7 Ecoboost and the Gen 3 Coyote. I’m amazed at how many new 5.0’s have had to be replaced under warranty.
Introduce it to the public as scheduled. If any problems show up in real customer use, then GM can take the time needed to correct them. It’s the GM way.
Doing what you’re suggesting is the definition of a disaster. You’re talking about expensive recalls, gobs of negative press and perception, all kinds of bad reviews and reliability rankings all for what – to meet some arbitrary target and appease a few fanboys? No, let them take their time and do it right on the first try. They’re making complex machines here… not pizzas.
There you go, of course it had to be more serious than an “electrical issue”, not many outside of GMA wonderland believed it to begin with.
The thing bends out of shape. The modifications will add development cost and also weight which will affect performance. The fact they figured that out at THIS stage should tell you a thing or two about GM engineering.
But I am confident together we can come up with some excuses as to why having to design an all new platform or space frame on a car that was to be released last year is acceptable.
The frame issue was discovered over a year ago, you’re only just hearing about it now. Basically the Hagerty article takes all the issues that required re-engineering fixes and presents them as if they all happened at once and caused a six month delay.
The test C8s you see on the public roads? They were built last July/August, and they all include an updated frame, so that gives you an idea of how long ago they addressed the problem.
Based on your comments, you have not developed a product… especially one as complex as a modern automobile meant for mass consumption.
Heck, you make it sound like developing a product is a linear process and the only “acceptable” way to do so is to always be moving forward. That’s far from the case. You discover things as you go along… problems or just ways of doing what you’re trying to do better. So you redevelop some parts, change out others, or sometimes scrap the whole thing and start fresh… or scrap entire systems and redevelop those. That is the norm, not the exception. Typically, we don’t hear about any of this for plebeian models like the Cruze or Sonic or Malibu. But this is the Corvette, so we here at the “GMA wonderland” have tirelessly dug for information – and that’s why you’re even seeing this info come to light.
By the way, they’re not in a rush to get the Mid-engine car to market. The C7 is doing just fine, and is still very much competitive and a fine product. So they have the rare and interesting luxury of taking their time to make this car just right… which is what they’re doing.
But hey, keep pretending that they’re making frozen pizzas, rather than complex machines with significant levels of complexity.
They do need to address the chassis issue since a large group will add horse power right from the dealer.
All these resolutions don’t cure ugly! Dat back…
How can you say it’s ugly when you have never seen one uncovered yet?????
GM has only one shot at getting this right so let them take all the time they need. Automotive engineering is a science in and of itself in today’s world and anyone that doesn’t comprehend that should’t be driving today’s vehicles. Corvette is not just a model it’s an icon so let’s give it the time it needs to be a success on the first go round. As a retired Chevrolet dealer I can tell you first hand what it’s like to deal with vehicles that were, in my opinion rushed to market with inherent problems that should have been identified and corrected beforehand. There should be no deadline to rush this vehicle to production before it’s ready.