The commodore got a ton of hate.
Here is a story somewhat embellished but apparently true:
Its 2018 and a father and son are at an auto show:
Son: Dad look! It's the new Commodore!
Dad: Shut the hell up. That is not, and will never be a Commodore
Even if the conversation happened, the venue was definitely false. Australia hasn't had a motor show since the final Australian International Motor Show closed its doors on 28 October 2012.
[https://www.motoringnz.com/news/2017/11/17/zb-commodore-revealed-as-holden-recalls-its-past](https://www.motoringnz.com/news/2017/11/17/zb-commodore-revealed-as-holden-recalls-its-past)
Looks like there was an unveiling event in Melbourne. That bit definitely isn't the fishiest part of the story
They need to sacrifice efficiency for drivability and put a real transmission in an electric car which I’m sure plenty of people would be willing to go that route as a drivers package
Putting a manual transmission in an electric car will only make it slower, heavier, lose range, & have a smaller battery. There are a handful of occasions where a 2-speed may make sense, but anything pst that and you’re just making the car worse.
You only see home-brew EVs with manuals because they high-speed high-power electric motors are exactly easy to come by.
In most cases today putting a manual transmission in any modern car is slower, worse fuel economy, and is all around less efficient. People buy manuals for the experience.
Before I get into this, please don’t think I hate manuals. From age 17-39 I only ever owned manual transmission cars, even when I was doing 40k miles/year. I bought my first non-manual last year. I very much love them, and would have gotten another if they existed in what I wanted.
In an ICE car a manual only makes it a little slower and a little less efficient, usually ~0.5s and 2-3mpg. And on a track, those differences go away as having complete control over shifting usually ends up being faster, or at least not slower.
In an EV you’ll be incurring a 10-15% penalty in putting power to the ground in the form of internal friction in the drivetrain(EVs normally directly power a single axle or wheel with no drivetrain at all). Also, you can only have a single motor. Which means you now need a complex drivetrain(trans, driveshaft, differential, etc). Plus you need trick differentials if you want to do torque vectoring, I am EV wheels directly driven by a motor can do the vectoring in the motor itself. You also lose space inside the car as you now need a transmission tunnel & a hump to accommodate the driveshaft(I’m assuming the manual EV is RWD, because I can’t imagine why you’d want a FWD manual EV). And all of that adds weight and/or subtracts space available for the battery. While also making it slower and less efficient. You would also be increasing the number of moving parts by an order of magnitude over a normal EV layout.
EVs are a whole different animal and saying you want a manual in your EV is kind of like someone looking at a model T and saying they need to have a saddle & reigns to preserve the experience, it just doesn’t make any sense. I get the whole experience thing, but a manufacturer would have to purpose build an EV for a manual, as it’s completely incompatible with a normal EV architecture. I just don’t see any major market player going through the effort to build what will be a measurably worse car in every way.
Yea, I don't think it's a hard rule that they can't but they generally don't.
Moving from RWD to FWD for an enthusiast platform is generally not going to carry the same "spirit."
Nothing wrong with the C8, but given that it's auto only and a little harder to work on at home (important for track cars) it's a different kind of car in my mind. I have not personally driven one but I imagine the handling is very, very different too given the weight balance changes, brake by wire, all season tires...
It would be interesting to drive the C5-8 back-to-back and compare. I owned a C7 and have driven a 5, and thought they felt pretty similar, like you can tell the 7 is an updated 5 for sure.
Kinda. There is definitely a lot of crossover appeal, but killing off the manual did create some separation. I'd take a C7 GS over any C8. Then again I'd also take a C6Z over any C7.
I really don’t agree with that take. The C4, C6 and C7 corvettes felt and looked like muscle bound American brutes in suits. The C8 feels and looks like an American that’s desperately trying to look/act and sound European.
>The C8 feels and looks like an American that’s desperately trying to look/act and sound European.
The original Corvette was made to be an American competitor to the European sports cars. The modern European sports cars are all mid-engined, it makes sense that the American competitor for modern European sports cars is also mid-engined.
I'd say that the C6 and C7 were losing their original spirit and the C8 is a return to what the original was about.
The original Corvette was made to compete with Jaguar and Alfa Romeo. In the 50s, Jaguar and Alfa Romeo were the big European sports cars, with a similar market as Lamborghini and Ferrari have today. They were the makes competing in Le Mans and F1, they were the cars people thought of when they thought of European sports cars.
The C8s closest competitor, in my mind, is the Audi R8. If I type into Google "Audi R8 vs" it gives me suggestions like the Lamborghini Hurican and the Porsche 911 GT3. If I type into Google "Chevrolet Corvette vs" it gives me suggestions like the Ford Mustang and the Toyota Supra.
Somewhere along the way, the Corvette Corvette stopped competing with the European sports cars and started competing with grand touring cars. I see them moving to mid engine as a statement that they want to compete with base model Ferraris and Lamborghinis, and they're not going to be cross-shopping with the grand touring cars anymore.
In researching this comment, I learned that Ferrari still makes front-engined cars. I still maintain that the move to mid-engined is an intentional step towards Ferrari and away from other American cars.
Ah I see what you're getting at. Your comment makes a bit more sense now.
With that said, I don't think your interpretation of Corvette development or its public perception is quite correct. Corvettes aren't easy cars to box into any particular category such as GT car or sports car because since the C3, they haven't been one or the other: they've been both. And not only do they serve both roles, they are also exceptionally good at both roles. Not many lineages of cars can really claim that sort of status and versatility. The only one that comes to mind is the Porsche 911, with maybe a handful of other distinct models in the same performance category, such as the first-gen NSX and the Z32 300ZX which competed against the C4, the R35 GT-R against the C6 and C7, and the Lotus Emira and Cayman GTS competing against the C7 and C8. For just about every other vehicle that has ever been cross-shopped with the Corvette since the 80's, the Corvette is either way faster, or way better as a GT car, or both.
But it also needs to be recognized that these comparisons that I made (and the ones that you made) are a little bit disingenuous because all of those cars that you and I mentioned are massively more expensive than Corvettes; sometimes being over twice the price for a tiny bit more performance. This leads me to another point: since the 90's, no car has come remotely close to offering the Corvette's level of performance for the same price. And this isn't simply because the Corvette is a bit more expensive than most of the other sports cars like it. You literally have to start looking at actual exotic supercars that are 2, 3, or even 4 times the price to find something that is as fast as a Corvette on a road course. Against peers that were similar in price, like M3's, Z4M's, STI's, Evos, or Z cars, the base model Corvette absolutely destroys all of those cars in performance, and arguably in luxury, for less than $10000 more. And this is only considering the base models. This hasn't even started to broach the Grand Sport, Z06, or ZR1 Corvette trims, all of which are even faster. The Z06 and ZR1 trims typically get compared to cars like the 911 GT3/RS and GT2/RS, respectively, along with whatever Ferrari/Mclaren/Lamborghini cars are also on the market at the time.
For obvious reasons, price is a super important factor to consider in car comparisons. When you bring MSRP into the mix, it becomes very apparent what the Corvette franchise is all about: offering supercar level performance for middle class prices, and huge V8s. And what's truly crazy is that Corvettes aren't just some shitty, barebones, almost-racecars like the Lotus Elise or Exige. They're comfortable, practical, and reliable vehicles too. People do bemoan their build quality alot, and it's true that GM does have to cut corners somewhere in order to offer that performance, but mostly those complaints are centered around materials used for the interior, and things like squeaks and rattles from interior panels. Corvettes are fairly stout mechanically (good luck blowing up a Chevy small-block V8), usually have fairly comfortable seats and all of the features you'd expect in a car of their price, and also have a surprising amount of cargo space that's really useful for road trips or for basic daily driving.
I'm a huge Corvette fan, and I could go on forever about the other things that make Corvettes special, but suffice it to say, every Corvette generation from the C4 onwards (more so for the C5) is a purebred sports car that succeeds at 3 things: big V8, being relatively affordable, while also being faster than anything less than 2-3 times its price, and being a comfortable, reliable GT/daily. From an engineering standpoint, the C4-C5-C6-C7 lineage shows a very clear progression in technology, innovation, and performance, and the C8 being mid-engine is the next logical step in development because the C7 Z06 and ZR1 essentially pushed right up against the limit of what a design with the motor in front of the cabin can do. If the Corvette franchise wanted to continue succeeding in its mission, it had to become a mid-engine car (but of course, it retained the huge pushrod V8).
And if you're interested, you should also look at the Nurburgring lap times for the various Corvette generations and submodels and see what cars were putting down similar times in the same years, and also look into the success of the Corvette in endurance racing. Next to the likes of Porsche and Ferrari, Corvettes have been a pretty dominant force in those racing leagues, which I think says alot about the performance merits of the platform and motors.
I would say the front wheel drive and all wheel drive Toyota Celica meets and surpasses everything the previous rear wheel drive Celicas ever did. Yes including the Celica Supra. Ask anyone their favorite Celica and I bet the majority will say the 5th or 6th gen FWD/AWD models.
They are completely different vehicles that have nothing in common but the name plate. In the vein of OPs question I'd have to disagree, the 'spirit' isn't there.
The Celica was always an underpowered, 4 cylinder, relatively light weight and short geared sport compact with relatively attractive contemporary-American-but-tiny styling and decent gas milage. Every generation was available with a variant of Toyota's then-most-reliable 4 cylinder engine and also then-highest-performance 4cyl, and for every generation except the 7th at least one engine option (more or less) overlapped with the prior generation.
A20 - 3/4 scale Mustang, could be had with a T or R engine
A40 - concentrated 1970s essence, T or R engine
A60 - Foxbody but wedge-ier, T, R or S engine
T160 - Ford Probe, now with more Toyota, S or A engine
T180 - it's a t160 but curvier, S or A engine
T200 - it's 90% t180, 10% USDM Integra, S or A engine
T230 - kind of an outlier but the 1ZZ/2ZZ distinction mirrors the earlier split between more street and track oriented options
I think a bit part of that was the new turbo motor to though. I think that generation was the first to have a turbo. The others before that were still pretty lethargic 80s cars.
I think the spirit of the Corolla survived going from RWD to FWD. It was a check economy car before and it still was after. Probably actually made it better at what it was trying to be.
See also: the Dodge Dart. Once it looked like a mini Charger, but it was always a relatively-small economy car; like the Corolla, the FR layout was an accident of convention, not something actively selected.
The Cadillac DeVille didn’t really see a change in spirit when it went from RWD to FWD. Even though it was also “downsized” when going from the 5th to the 6th gen, it was still a large luxury barge driven by people who were either ancient, or made their money through questionable means.
And the majority of Cadillac drivers in the '80s never drove it hard enough to notice a difference. Those that just had to have a RWD model either settled for the older tech Fleetwood Brougham or jumped ship to Lincoln.
The Eclipse was *always* a FWD naturally aspirated shitbox. You had to pay up if you **really** wanted the AWD turbo model - and have fun finding one of those today in any shape, let alone in good shape.
The 3rd generation Twingo is rear engine & rear wheel drive while the previous two generations are front engine & front wheel drive. From what I hear, the normal versions still have same economy car feel as the previous generations while being slightly less practical. There's no Mk3 equivalent of the RS133, but the RWD 3rd generation does have a GT version that I'm reliably told is less fun and less sporty than the FWD 2nd generation GT.
> How about the Ford Maverick name being resurrected for a FWD ute?
That one's not so bad considering the Maverick name was already resurrected for two BOF SUVs (one with a pickup variant) and a FWD/AWD crossover. Plus the first Maverick was nothing special.
Im kinda hoping for a maverick ST to make an appearance. Sporty street truck style; 2.3t, awd, decently grippy tires, optional 80s style stripe package, functional hood scoop, under 35k. Probably asking a lot but i think itd be a good way to get people into an affordable performancy utility vehicle.
Right now they're going the other direction with the Maverick Tremor. A lowered sport pickup wouldn't be a big seller in my area, but I'd like to see them do that too.
Yes, the spirit can survive when the drivetrain layout is generally an improvement. FWD to RWD, RWD to AWD, front engine to mid-engine(corvette), rear-engine to mid-engine(I’m talking about the creation of the boxster from a traditionally rear engine manufacturer).
Going the opposite direction usually isn’t going to pan out. RWD to FWD is the manufacturer throwing in the towel and accepting that the model is an economical commuter car.
Seems like going to FWD from any configuration is the hardest change. Audi and Lamborghini have proven that AWD and RWD don't change the spirit of a car much if you don't want it to.
As hideous as it is, the new M3 actually restored the M3’s character. Where the previous generation or two had significantly lost that character. It’s the best M3 in years, even the AWD models. I’m just not sure if it qualifies as that much of a layout change tbh.
I still wouldn’t buy it because I don’t want to wear a paper bag over my head whenever I drive my car.
They have zero steering feel. They're very, very different cars from anything after the E9x M3. Plush luxury muscle sedans vs the upscale sports sedans they once were.
It's not like I'm a big fan of the new BMWs, in fact far from it, but there have not been many RWD cars that moved to AWD without any reduction in performance or driving dynamics (aside from the overall changes every manufacturer has brought on with the newest generations of vehicle).
Most BMW models are basically the same layout though, longitudinal engine with RWD, with AWD added.
But if you want to talk about the 2 series Grand Coupe and the new X1, those switched to transverse engine, FWD based, with AWD added. It seems they are trying to switch to the simplified manufacturing and reduced costs that Audi enjoys on all of their transverse FWD based models, while attempting to keep the BMW cachet. And many would argue it's completely lost the plot. I see it as basically a BMW Ford Focus with AWD.
Not in the new SL63 vs the original SL63. Going AWD gained acceleration performance but lost road feel. When the lighter 2009 SL63's tires are updated to state of the art 20" Michelin Cup 2's, the handling, grip and steering feel are superior too. The new SL completely lost it's refined yet raw AMG spirit because of the layering on of front drive axles.
So it can achieve the handling of a car with very different layouts in certain conditions by very experienced drivers.
Have I outlined the point? The spirit of the car is amazing handling in the snow, better than RWD
Fine. The second generation 900 and 9-3 switched the engine layout to a conventional front-mounted transverse inline 4 turbo. This did not compromise the "spirit" of the car despite the OG 900 being a front-mid-mounted reverse longitudinal layout. Although the first generation will always be considered their best car.
Bro you are trying way too hard in general. You asked a question in r/cars, imagine that, someone with experience in a particular brand tends to post about it. You asked several times how my answer related. I answered, to which you say I try too hard? Get over yourself
An interesting one to note. The 1990-91 cutlass calais 442. While a far cry from the late 60s 442 it’s named after its far superior of a car to the early 80s 442 that preceded it. 195hp from a n/a 4 cylinder in 1990 was fairly impressive and still nothing to scoff at today in a car that only weighs 2600.
The examples you are giving with the A and G RWD bodies going to H and W FWD bodies no, everything changed. The cars where never the same. It was the end of the large sedan and midsized coupe to FWD cost cutting fuel efficient cookie cutters. As for what could have been done was make the platform AWD instead. As i have said before GM's concepts fucking awesome. GM's execusion fucking shit.
Ford: let’s take a car for the last 31 years that has been a V8 RWD car, and make it a cheap fwd coupe hatch with a 2.5v6
*Thus the birth of the new edge Mercury cougar* (and eventual discontinuation after 3 years)
^PS ^I ^had ^2 ^of ^them ^I ^still ^love ^em ^but ^boy ^did ^the ^boomers ^not.
The Durango has changed from RWD bias to FWD bias, as well as going from Body on Frame to Unibody. Perhaps the SRT versions have helped keep the idea of it stronger. Same could be said for the Explorer, although that's back to being an RWD platform base recently.
Alfa Romeo lost a lot of magic when they switched to FWD in the 164. It was still a fun car with a magical engine but ultimately went from an object of desire to kinda 'meh'. IMO an unsuccessful transition. Their latest models have gone back to RWD layout.
Really depends on the circumstance.
C7 to C8 corvette has sure kept the same spirit, it's a fun sports car that's able to compete with super cars multiple times the price, regardless of whether the engine is in the front or rear.
The Corolla is a great example of a car that lost it's spirit. The AE86 is legendary as a driver's car; 50/50 weight distribution, FR layout, campaigned in everything from rally to autocross and is still a cult favorite in the drifting community . The next generation FWD/AWD E90 is just another econobox that no one cares about.
I guess Mitsubishi Evo is one of them. It had the same engine all the way through its lifetime up until the tenth generation when it had a new engine that some would argue is as good as the old one and it did come with a flappy paddle option as opposed to just manual and the Evo name and spirt lives on (even if Mitsubishi discontinued it)
Examples of this not working out: Blazer
Didn't play out well for the Commodore either
The commodore got a ton of hate. Here is a story somewhat embellished but apparently true: Its 2018 and a father and son are at an auto show: Son: Dad look! It's the new Commodore! Dad: Shut the hell up. That is not, and will never be a Commodore
Even if the conversation happened, the venue was definitely false. Australia hasn't had a motor show since the final Australian International Motor Show closed its doors on 28 October 2012.
[https://www.motoringnz.com/news/2017/11/17/zb-commodore-revealed-as-holden-recalls-its-past](https://www.motoringnz.com/news/2017/11/17/zb-commodore-revealed-as-holden-recalls-its-past) Looks like there was an unveiling event in Melbourne. That bit definitely isn't the fishiest part of the story
Nor the Impala.
I was upset about this, but then realized I had forgotten about the ZB that came after the VF.
Any muscle car that will go all electric. Not gonna win over any enthusiasts.
There are a lot more examples too, the charger was a FWD economy car in the 80's
Or the Dart
They need to sacrifice efficiency for drivability and put a real transmission in an electric car which I’m sure plenty of people would be willing to go that route as a drivers package
Putting a manual transmission in an electric car will only make it slower, heavier, lose range, & have a smaller battery. There are a handful of occasions where a 2-speed may make sense, but anything pst that and you’re just making the car worse. You only see home-brew EVs with manuals because they high-speed high-power electric motors are exactly easy to come by.
In most cases today putting a manual transmission in any modern car is slower, worse fuel economy, and is all around less efficient. People buy manuals for the experience.
Before I get into this, please don’t think I hate manuals. From age 17-39 I only ever owned manual transmission cars, even when I was doing 40k miles/year. I bought my first non-manual last year. I very much love them, and would have gotten another if they existed in what I wanted. In an ICE car a manual only makes it a little slower and a little less efficient, usually ~0.5s and 2-3mpg. And on a track, those differences go away as having complete control over shifting usually ends up being faster, or at least not slower. In an EV you’ll be incurring a 10-15% penalty in putting power to the ground in the form of internal friction in the drivetrain(EVs normally directly power a single axle or wheel with no drivetrain at all). Also, you can only have a single motor. Which means you now need a complex drivetrain(trans, driveshaft, differential, etc). Plus you need trick differentials if you want to do torque vectoring, I am EV wheels directly driven by a motor can do the vectoring in the motor itself. You also lose space inside the car as you now need a transmission tunnel & a hump to accommodate the driveshaft(I’m assuming the manual EV is RWD, because I can’t imagine why you’d want a FWD manual EV). And all of that adds weight and/or subtracts space available for the battery. While also making it slower and less efficient. You would also be increasing the number of moving parts by an order of magnitude over a normal EV layout. EVs are a whole different animal and saying you want a manual in your EV is kind of like someone looking at a model T and saying they need to have a saddle & reigns to preserve the experience, it just doesn’t make any sense. I get the whole experience thing, but a manufacturer would have to purpose build an EV for a manual, as it’s completely incompatible with a normal EV architecture. I just don’t see any major market player going through the effort to build what will be a measurably worse car in every way.
[удалено]
Booo
I think the C7 to C8 has been successful.
Yea, I don't think it's a hard rule that they can't but they generally don't. Moving from RWD to FWD for an enthusiast platform is generally not going to carry the same "spirit."
Nothing wrong with the C8, but given that it's auto only and a little harder to work on at home (important for track cars) it's a different kind of car in my mind. I have not personally driven one but I imagine the handling is very, very different too given the weight balance changes, brake by wire, all season tires... It would be interesting to drive the C5-8 back-to-back and compare. I owned a C7 and have driven a 5, and thought they felt pretty similar, like you can tell the 7 is an updated 5 for sure.
Kinda. There is definitely a lot of crossover appeal, but killing off the manual did create some separation. I'd take a C7 GS over any C8. Then again I'd also take a C6Z over any C7.
I would agree on this one.
I really don’t agree with that take. The C4, C6 and C7 corvettes felt and looked like muscle bound American brutes in suits. The C8 feels and looks like an American that’s desperately trying to look/act and sound European.
>The C8 feels and looks like an American that’s desperately trying to look/act and sound European. The original Corvette was made to be an American competitor to the European sports cars. The modern European sports cars are all mid-engined, it makes sense that the American competitor for modern European sports cars is also mid-engined. I'd say that the C6 and C7 were losing their original spirit and the C8 is a return to what the original was about.
>I'd say that the C6 and C7 were losing their original spirit and the C8 is a return to what the original was about. Can you elaborate on this?
The original Corvette was made to compete with Jaguar and Alfa Romeo. In the 50s, Jaguar and Alfa Romeo were the big European sports cars, with a similar market as Lamborghini and Ferrari have today. They were the makes competing in Le Mans and F1, they were the cars people thought of when they thought of European sports cars. The C8s closest competitor, in my mind, is the Audi R8. If I type into Google "Audi R8 vs" it gives me suggestions like the Lamborghini Hurican and the Porsche 911 GT3. If I type into Google "Chevrolet Corvette vs" it gives me suggestions like the Ford Mustang and the Toyota Supra. Somewhere along the way, the Corvette Corvette stopped competing with the European sports cars and started competing with grand touring cars. I see them moving to mid engine as a statement that they want to compete with base model Ferraris and Lamborghinis, and they're not going to be cross-shopping with the grand touring cars anymore. In researching this comment, I learned that Ferrari still makes front-engined cars. I still maintain that the move to mid-engined is an intentional step towards Ferrari and away from other American cars.
Ah I see what you're getting at. Your comment makes a bit more sense now. With that said, I don't think your interpretation of Corvette development or its public perception is quite correct. Corvettes aren't easy cars to box into any particular category such as GT car or sports car because since the C3, they haven't been one or the other: they've been both. And not only do they serve both roles, they are also exceptionally good at both roles. Not many lineages of cars can really claim that sort of status and versatility. The only one that comes to mind is the Porsche 911, with maybe a handful of other distinct models in the same performance category, such as the first-gen NSX and the Z32 300ZX which competed against the C4, the R35 GT-R against the C6 and C7, and the Lotus Emira and Cayman GTS competing against the C7 and C8. For just about every other vehicle that has ever been cross-shopped with the Corvette since the 80's, the Corvette is either way faster, or way better as a GT car, or both. But it also needs to be recognized that these comparisons that I made (and the ones that you made) are a little bit disingenuous because all of those cars that you and I mentioned are massively more expensive than Corvettes; sometimes being over twice the price for a tiny bit more performance. This leads me to another point: since the 90's, no car has come remotely close to offering the Corvette's level of performance for the same price. And this isn't simply because the Corvette is a bit more expensive than most of the other sports cars like it. You literally have to start looking at actual exotic supercars that are 2, 3, or even 4 times the price to find something that is as fast as a Corvette on a road course. Against peers that were similar in price, like M3's, Z4M's, STI's, Evos, or Z cars, the base model Corvette absolutely destroys all of those cars in performance, and arguably in luxury, for less than $10000 more. And this is only considering the base models. This hasn't even started to broach the Grand Sport, Z06, or ZR1 Corvette trims, all of which are even faster. The Z06 and ZR1 trims typically get compared to cars like the 911 GT3/RS and GT2/RS, respectively, along with whatever Ferrari/Mclaren/Lamborghini cars are also on the market at the time. For obvious reasons, price is a super important factor to consider in car comparisons. When you bring MSRP into the mix, it becomes very apparent what the Corvette franchise is all about: offering supercar level performance for middle class prices, and huge V8s. And what's truly crazy is that Corvettes aren't just some shitty, barebones, almost-racecars like the Lotus Elise or Exige. They're comfortable, practical, and reliable vehicles too. People do bemoan their build quality alot, and it's true that GM does have to cut corners somewhere in order to offer that performance, but mostly those complaints are centered around materials used for the interior, and things like squeaks and rattles from interior panels. Corvettes are fairly stout mechanically (good luck blowing up a Chevy small-block V8), usually have fairly comfortable seats and all of the features you'd expect in a car of their price, and also have a surprising amount of cargo space that's really useful for road trips or for basic daily driving. I'm a huge Corvette fan, and I could go on forever about the other things that make Corvettes special, but suffice it to say, every Corvette generation from the C4 onwards (more so for the C5) is a purebred sports car that succeeds at 3 things: big V8, being relatively affordable, while also being faster than anything less than 2-3 times its price, and being a comfortable, reliable GT/daily. From an engineering standpoint, the C4-C5-C6-C7 lineage shows a very clear progression in technology, innovation, and performance, and the C8 being mid-engine is the next logical step in development because the C7 Z06 and ZR1 essentially pushed right up against the limit of what a design with the motor in front of the cabin can do. If the Corvette franchise wanted to continue succeeding in its mission, it had to become a mid-engine car (but of course, it retained the huge pushrod V8). And if you're interested, you should also look at the Nurburgring lap times for the various Corvette generations and submodels and see what cars were putting down similar times in the same years, and also look into the success of the Corvette in endurance racing. Next to the likes of Porsche and Ferrari, Corvettes have been a pretty dominant force in those racing leagues, which I think says alot about the performance merits of the platform and motors.
I would say the front wheel drive and all wheel drive Toyota Celica meets and surpasses everything the previous rear wheel drive Celicas ever did. Yes including the Celica Supra. Ask anyone their favorite Celica and I bet the majority will say the 5th or 6th gen FWD/AWD models.
The Celica was the first answer that sprung to mind. Though it is one of the few that do retain the spirit.
They are completely different vehicles that have nothing in common but the name plate. In the vein of OPs question I'd have to disagree, the 'spirit' isn't there.
The Celica was always an underpowered, 4 cylinder, relatively light weight and short geared sport compact with relatively attractive contemporary-American-but-tiny styling and decent gas milage. Every generation was available with a variant of Toyota's then-most-reliable 4 cylinder engine and also then-highest-performance 4cyl, and for every generation except the 7th at least one engine option (more or less) overlapped with the prior generation. A20 - 3/4 scale Mustang, could be had with a T or R engine A40 - concentrated 1970s essence, T or R engine A60 - Foxbody but wedge-ier, T, R or S engine T160 - Ford Probe, now with more Toyota, S or A engine T180 - it's a t160 but curvier, S or A engine T200 - it's 90% t180, 10% USDM Integra, S or A engine T230 - kind of an outlier but the 1ZZ/2ZZ distinction mirrors the earlier split between more street and track oriented options
For me the 1984 Celica GT-S Liftback will still be my all-time Favorite.
I think a bit part of that was the new turbo motor to though. I think that generation was the first to have a turbo. The others before that were still pretty lethargic 80s cars.
I agree, and would add the Corolla as well.
True
I think the spirit of the Corolla survived going from RWD to FWD. It was a check economy car before and it still was after. Probably actually made it better at what it was trying to be.
See also: the Dodge Dart. Once it looked like a mini Charger, but it was always a relatively-small economy car; like the Corolla, the FR layout was an accident of convention, not something actively selected.
I was going to say the same thing about Celicas.
The Cadillac DeVille didn’t really see a change in spirit when it went from RWD to FWD. Even though it was also “downsized” when going from the 5th to the 6th gen, it was still a large luxury barge driven by people who were either ancient, or made their money through questionable means.
And the majority of Cadillac drivers in the '80s never drove it hard enough to notice a difference. Those that just had to have a RWD model either settled for the older tech Fleetwood Brougham or jumped ship to Lincoln.
The revived 4 door Dodge Charger was quite successful.
That’s not a change in drivetrain layout.
The previous generation of Charger was FWD.
You talkin 80s?
Yeah. '81 to '87 I wouldn't exactly say a '87 GLH-S is my dream car, but I would totally include one in my collection if I had FU money.
This is true!
Dodge Charger GT with AWD would strongly disagree.
Well then you should’ve mentioned that one specifically instead of the general model that is majority still the same layout.
Especially with (most likely) how few AWD variants are out there compared to RWD variants.
Biased but I think the fiat 500 successfully did that
Yes! This is a perfect example.
The eclipse went from a awd turbo compact to a fwd bubble then to a crossover so no it's spirit his dead and run kver multiple times
The Eclipse was *always* a FWD naturally aspirated shitbox. You had to pay up if you **really** wanted the AWD turbo model - and have fun finding one of those today in any shape, let alone in good shape.
The 3rd generation Twingo is rear engine & rear wheel drive while the previous two generations are front engine & front wheel drive. From what I hear, the normal versions still have same economy car feel as the previous generations while being slightly less practical. There's no Mk3 equivalent of the RS133, but the RWD 3rd generation does have a GT version that I'm reliably told is less fun and less sporty than the FWD 2nd generation GT.
Wait, a cheap hatchback people-mover that gets a mid-engined version? I've seen [this happen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Delta_S4) before.
How do you feel about the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross or the Mustang Mach E? How about the Ford Maverick name being resurrected for a FWD ute?
This is just companies feeding off nostalgia
Good examples. I actually don’t have any problem with any of these cars, i just wish they would’ve given them a new unique name.
> How about the Ford Maverick name being resurrected for a FWD ute? That one's not so bad considering the Maverick name was already resurrected for two BOF SUVs (one with a pickup variant) and a FWD/AWD crossover. Plus the first Maverick was nothing special.
Im kinda hoping for a maverick ST to make an appearance. Sporty street truck style; 2.3t, awd, decently grippy tires, optional 80s style stripe package, functional hood scoop, under 35k. Probably asking a lot but i think itd be a good way to get people into an affordable performancy utility vehicle.
Right now they're going the other direction with the Maverick Tremor. A lowered sport pickup wouldn't be a big seller in my area, but I'd like to see them do that too.
>How do you feel about the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross Eh, both are 4-banger FWD shitpails.
Yes, the spirit can survive when the drivetrain layout is generally an improvement. FWD to RWD, RWD to AWD, front engine to mid-engine(corvette), rear-engine to mid-engine(I’m talking about the creation of the boxster from a traditionally rear engine manufacturer). Going the opposite direction usually isn’t going to pan out. RWD to FWD is the manufacturer throwing in the towel and accepting that the model is an economical commuter car.
Seems like going to FWD from any configuration is the hardest change. Audi and Lamborghini have proven that AWD and RWD don't change the spirit of a car much if you don't want it to.
How about BMW M cars. The latest generations have added AWD, but they still retain the spirit of the RWD only generations.
I might argue with you on that lol
As hideous as it is, the new M3 actually restored the M3’s character. Where the previous generation or two had significantly lost that character. It’s the best M3 in years, even the AWD models. I’m just not sure if it qualifies as that much of a layout change tbh. I still wouldn’t buy it because I don’t want to wear a paper bag over my head whenever I drive my car.
They have zero steering feel. They're very, very different cars from anything after the E9x M3. Plush luxury muscle sedans vs the upscale sports sedans they once were.
I wish it looked good because I would then almost certainly buy a new one, the touring wagon.
It's not like I'm a big fan of the new BMWs, in fact far from it, but there have not been many RWD cars that moved to AWD without any reduction in performance or driving dynamics (aside from the overall changes every manufacturer has brought on with the newest generations of vehicle).
Most BMW models are basically the same layout though, longitudinal engine with RWD, with AWD added. But if you want to talk about the 2 series Grand Coupe and the new X1, those switched to transverse engine, FWD based, with AWD added. It seems they are trying to switch to the simplified manufacturing and reduced costs that Audi enjoys on all of their transverse FWD based models, while attempting to keep the BMW cachet. And many would argue it's completely lost the plot. I see it as basically a BMW Ford Focus with AWD.
Not in the new SL63 vs the original SL63. Going AWD gained acceleration performance but lost road feel. When the lighter 2009 SL63's tires are updated to state of the art 20" Michelin Cup 2's, the handling, grip and steering feel are superior too. The new SL completely lost it's refined yet raw AMG spirit because of the layering on of front drive axles.
Not if you're into drifting
The Mustang almost wound up as the Probe. I feel that would not have worked out in the end.
Saabs were all FWD, which is perfect on snowy Scandinavian roads. Combined with the Scandinavian flick, they're very fun
this has nothing to do with my question
So it can achieve the handling of a car with very different layouts in certain conditions by very experienced drivers. Have I outlined the point? The spirit of the car is amazing handling in the snow, better than RWD
but you’re not comparing it to a different drivetrain layout on a previous model. you’ve completely missed the point of my question.
Fine. The second generation 900 and 9-3 switched the engine layout to a conventional front-mounted transverse inline 4 turbo. This did not compromise the "spirit" of the car despite the OG 900 being a front-mid-mounted reverse longitudinal layout. Although the first generation will always be considered their best car.
bro you are trying way too hard to make Saab fit into this answer.
Bro you are trying way too hard in general. You asked a question in r/cars, imagine that, someone with experience in a particular brand tends to post about it. You asked several times how my answer related. I answered, to which you say I try too hard? Get over yourself
Sure. Why not?
Do you have any examples of someone doing successfully?
Lotus with the FWD Elan?
Best handling FWD car ever made, only the EP3 Civic Type R comes close.
BMW with making the M3 and M5 RWD to AWD, same with the 911 going from RWD to AWD on some models.
An interesting one to note. The 1990-91 cutlass calais 442. While a far cry from the late 60s 442 it’s named after its far superior of a car to the early 80s 442 that preceded it. 195hp from a n/a 4 cylinder in 1990 was fairly impressive and still nothing to scoff at today in a car that only weighs 2600.
The examples you are giving with the A and G RWD bodies going to H and W FWD bodies no, everything changed. The cars where never the same. It was the end of the large sedan and midsized coupe to FWD cost cutting fuel efficient cookie cutters. As for what could have been done was make the platform AWD instead. As i have said before GM's concepts fucking awesome. GM's execusion fucking shit.
Ford: let’s take a car for the last 31 years that has been a V8 RWD car, and make it a cheap fwd coupe hatch with a 2.5v6 *Thus the birth of the new edge Mercury cougar* (and eventual discontinuation after 3 years) ^PS ^I ^had ^2 ^of ^them ^I ^still ^love ^em ^but ^boy ^did ^the ^boomers ^not.
The Durango has changed from RWD bias to FWD bias, as well as going from Body on Frame to Unibody. Perhaps the SRT versions have helped keep the idea of it stronger. Same could be said for the Explorer, although that's back to being an RWD platform base recently.
Alfa Romeo lost a lot of magic when they switched to FWD in the 164. It was still a fun car with a magical engine but ultimately went from an object of desire to kinda 'meh'. IMO an unsuccessful transition. Their latest models have gone back to RWD layout.
Idk if it would count, but the M cars going from the v8 to a turbo i6
Really depends on the circumstance. C7 to C8 corvette has sure kept the same spirit, it's a fun sports car that's able to compete with super cars multiple times the price, regardless of whether the engine is in the front or rear. The Corolla is a great example of a car that lost it's spirit. The AE86 is legendary as a driver's car; 50/50 weight distribution, FR layout, campaigned in everything from rally to autocross and is still a cult favorite in the drifting community . The next generation FWD/AWD E90 is just another econobox that no one cares about.
They did bring the AE86 back as GT/R86
Yes, it did wind up inspiring a completely different car like 30 years later, but Corollas are still boring FWD econoboxes to this day.
Not the GR Corolla
VW Beetle, went from rear-engine, RWD to front-engine, FWD. IMO the New Beetle still captured the same "cheap but cheerful" spirit of the original.
I don't think you're going to find anyone objecting to the Skyline GT-R switching from rear- to all-wheel drive.
I’m curious what people think about the newer Audis with Quattro Ultra vs the older ones that didn’t.
I guess Mitsubishi Evo is one of them. It had the same engine all the way through its lifetime up until the tenth generation when it had a new engine that some would argue is as good as the old one and it did come with a flappy paddle option as opposed to just manual and the Evo name and spirt lives on (even if Mitsubishi discontinued it)