2006 Chevy Corvette Z06 [Archive]

MoparRocks

24-09-2005, 03:23

I love the new Z06. I'm sure some of you have heard of it somewhere? It's a new Corvette that costs only $66k and out-accelerates and out-brakes Aston-Martins that cost $120k, Mercedes-Benz's that cost $190k, Ferrari's that cost $181k, Porsche that cost $143k, and even a $141k Ford GT.

Yep. 0-60 in 3.6 seconds. Runs the 1/4 in 11.7 seconds at 127mph. A Ford GT can only do it in 12s @ 123mph. And don't even get me started on those European grand tourer's that claim to be 'sports cars." Don't make me laugh. 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, you say? From a 6-liter V12 with forced induction, you say? My 'Vette will do it 1.2 seconds faster while using a naturally-aspirated engine with 4 less cylinders while cost $100k less and getting 5-7mpg more. Also, let's not forget taking 40 less feet to stop from 70mph. And pulling .14 more G's of lateral acceleration on the skidpad. I'm talking to you, Aston-Martin and Mercedes-Benz. Heh...

Even Ferrari and Lamborghini get beaten on the 1/4-mile and the skidpad by the Z06, which gets tremendously better gas mileage (16/26) and cost tens of thousands of dollars less. Hundreds of thousands.

To quote Car & Driver, the Z06 shows European sports cars as what they are:

Overpriced, underperforming snobs...

Just for the record, the Z06 does-

0-60: 3.6 seconds (better than F430, V8 Vantage, 911 Turbo)
0-100: 7.9 seconds (Better than GT and others)
1/4-mile: 11.7 seconds @ 127mph (better than Gallardo, 911 Turbo, SL55)
Top Speed: 198mph (better than 911 Turbo, V8 Vantage, Gallardo)
Roadholding: 1.04g (Better than V8 Vantage, SL55, 911 Turbo)
70-0 Braking: 162ft (better than F430, V8 Vantage, SL55, Ford GT)
Fuel Economy: 16 city, 26 highway mpg (Viper, GT, SL55, 911 Turbo, V8 Vantage, F430, Gallardo, etc. all bow down to the surprisingly economical Z06)

Not that I don't like the Aston DB9 or the Ferrari Superamerica...

EDIT: I almost forgot. Z06 engine specs (from C&D)-

Type: V-8, aluminum block and heads
Bore x stroke: 4.13 x 4.00 in, 104.8 x 101.6mm
Displacement: 428 cu in, 7008cc
Compression ratio: 11.0:1
Fuel-delivery system: port injection
Valve gear: pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters
Power (SAE net): 505 bhp @ 6300 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 470 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Redline: 7000 rpm

EDIT 2: I found more accurate ratings for the 1/4 and on the skidpad. I also found the drag coefficient, which is 0.31.

Neutered Sputniks

24-09-2005, 03:40

LoL...

The 'vette has outperformed most sports cars twice it's price tag for quite some time. Ever watch Grand Am racing?

Epsonee

24-09-2005, 03:43

Any pics of it?

Leonstein

24-09-2005, 03:47

Cannot think of a name

24-09-2005, 03:51

For a Mopar guy you sure talk about Corvettes a lot.

I think it looks stubby and plasticy. There are things that are beyond a list of stats.

Within the first few miles, you'll notice the Corvette simply can't match the delicacy and fluency of the Porsche's controls. The 911's gearshift operates with the oily precision of a rifle-bolt, the pedals are beautifully placed, and you can steer it with your fingertips. The Corvette is a more deliberate drive, from the two-three pause as you pull the shift lever through its longish, slightly notchy arc, to the less consistent weighting of the pedals. The stupid skip-shift system, which forces a first-to-fourth change on you unless the engine's too cold, or you spin it past 2500 rpm, makes the C6 feel more lumpen than it deserves and has no place on a real sports car.

Okay, let's get serious. Nail the gas in the Corvette--any gear, any time--and the LS2 digs deep into the torque curve and simply grunts away. It's exactly what you'd expect from a big V-8 born and bred in Detroit. What you don't expect is its willingness to spin to 6500 rpm with damn near the smoothness and refinement of a multivalve, multicam European engine. It's good, very good. But the Porsche's 3.8-liter flat-six is better, combining razor-sharp throttle response with a velvety, perfectly linear surge of thrust that simply doesn't stop until you kiss the soft-limiter.

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0501_brothers/index2.html
Of course there is an inherent ridiculousness in arguing the merits of two cars, niether of which I've driven. So I'll just admit that I'm a Porsche man from way back, never really liked the Vette (except the '63-that's a beautiful machine) I have driven one of each and I really like my old Porsche.

Naturality

24-09-2005, 04:01

front end reminded me of a dodge viper. http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/Images.shtml

http://www.vipercentral.com/

Vettes are cool looking sports cars, but I wouldn't buy one. My brother has always had vettes and I've driven quite a few of them.. Just not my style.

MoparRocks

24-09-2005, 04:53

I'm impressed that they managed to price it so competitively.

But here is something you might be interested in:
A Caterham outperforms the Z06 in every single one of your categories.

None of your stats tell me anything about handling, which is the one and only thing that counts. My WRX might not be as fast in a straight line, but put me in it and I'll go from here to Indooroopilly faster than I could in a Z06...

WRX sucks. It looks like bad plastic surgery. Malpractice suit BAD.

I went to the Caterham website. Any idea where you can buy one off a dealership? They're like kit cars. And the have no bodies. Just an engine and transmission and chassis with wheels and tires. In fact, only the CSR 260 can out-accelerate the Z06. But it's top speed is 43mph lower. I find it funny that it is powered by the same engine as a Ford Focus. Heck, the steering wheel is on the left side. Must be a British car. You know, Brit cars don't exactly have a good reputation for reliability.

200ft-lbs of torque a 600rpm? For some reason, I think the 0-60mph figure is innacurate. Kinda like the 3.9 second 0-60 time for the '63 Pontiac Catalina 2+2?

And they cost just as much as a Z06. Not to mention they look like crap...

And as for the Z06 handling capability... all any magazine article or manufactuer's website will say is that is pulls 0.98g on the skidpad and has a 39ft turning circle. Oh, Car and driver says it handles as good as or better than anything from Europe. They took it from that Nurbugring place all the way to France. And they said they never had any problems. One of GM's twest drivers took it though multiple hairpin turns at some place called Eva Rouge, I belive. Never went below 110mph, but usually kept it at 140.

Can a WRX even make it to 140? And has a Caterham ever won 1st in it's class during LeMans for the last 4 years in a row? Or numerous other races like the 24 Hours of Daytona or 12 Hours of Sebring? Or drag races and such? Not that I've heard of.

MoparRocks

24-09-2005, 05:00

For a Mopar guy you sure talk about Corvettes a lot.

What can I say? I like all vintage American cars. Especially rare one-off versions, like the ZL-1 and ZR-2 Corvette's and the '67 Shelby Super Snake Mustang. Or the Yenko Deuce Nova. Or the Baldwin-Motion supercars...

Cannot think of a name

24-09-2005, 05:02

WRX sucks. It looks like bad plastic surgery. Malpractice suit BAD.
Glass houses, dude....glass houses...

I went to the Caterham website. Any idea where you can buy one off a dealership? They're like kit cars. And the have no bodies. Just an engine and transmission and chassis with wheels and tires. In fact, only the CSR 260 can out-accelerate the Z06. But it's top speed is 43mph lower.
The original Lotus Super 7 was a kit car, and the Caterham can be shipped as a kit. It fits with the heritage of one of the most uncomprimising sports cars in history. I think there is one with 'bird' in it's name somewhere that really can't be beat off the line, coming to a stop, or turning. It's the total package unless your a pansy, "Ohhhh, I need a roof and a cup holder, la de da...." Jeep owners can deal, suck it up if you want a real sports car.

I find it funny that it is powered by the same engine as a Ford Focus.
I believe they have a variety of engines available, including one from a motorcycle.
Heck, the steering wheel is on the left side. Must be a British car.
Yes it is, but-uh, it's our cars that are left hand drive....(I'm sure you already caught this)
You know, Brit cars don't exactly have a good reputation for reliability.
Glass houses again.

200ft-lbs of torque a 600rpm? For some reason, I think the 0-60mph figure is innacurate. Kinda like the 3.9 second 0-60 time for the '63 Pontiac Catalina 2+2?
Remember-you almost weigh more than the Caterham does-it's relative to weight.

And they cost just as much as a Z06. Not to mention they look like crap...
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure the Caterhams are in the 20s.

Cannot think of a name

24-09-2005, 05:07

Can a WRX even make it to 140? And has a Caterham ever won 1st in it's class during LeMans for the last 4 years in a row? Or numerous other races like the 24 Hours of Daytona or 12 Hours of Sebring? Or drag races and such? Not that I've heard of.
But Caterham has won at the Nurbering (24 hours), and the car that it's based on-the Lotus Super 7, won plenty.

Drag racing is for hillbillies with short attention spans or people with no appriciation for what a good car can and should do. The steering wheel is there for a reason...

And the WRX has won at what could be argued the best, most grueling and real test of an automobile-the World Rally Championship. Streetable cars through variety of roads, mostly shitty. Certianly a pretty good claim to fame, since there is a lot more similar between a customer WRX and a racer vs a customer vette and the racer.

MoparRocks

24-09-2005, 05:22

But Caterham has won at the Nurbering (24 hours), and the car that it's based on-the Lotus Super 7, won plenty.

Drag racing is for hillbillies with short attention spans or people with no appriciation for what a good car can and should do. The steering wheel is there for a reason...

And the WRX has won at what could be argued the best, most grueling and real test of an automobile-the World Rally Championship. Streetable cars through variety of roads, mostly shitty. Certianly a pretty good claim to fame, since there is a lot more similar between a customer WRX and a racer vs a customer vette and the racer.

So the Caterham has won some races? Good for you and for them. After all, that is the point of a making a race car- to race it and (hopefully) win.

I like drag racing. It's fun to watch. Fun to modify you car and see how much power you can get out of it...

And while it is cool that the WRX has won something, it still hasn't won any beaty contests. Joking aside, something about them just doesn't sit right with me. I dunno... I just don't like them.

Just like I'd rather have a '69 Mach 1 Mustang more than I would a new Mach 1. Both are just as fast, the new one gets better gas mileage and brakes much better, but it just doesn't look or feel like the real deal. No rumble from a 428c.i. Super Cobra Jet V8 with solid lifters and a shaker hood scoop. The roar of headers and glasspack mufflers....

In the end, it's your choice. Every one has their own opinion. You may like the high-tech, high-revving, high-priced imports. But I still prefer old muscle cars. Regardless of poor handling or bad gas mileage. I can make them handle better. I can make a new one handle better, too, but it would be lacking in one thing.

sentimental value

Cannot think of a name

24-09-2005, 05:28

So the Caterham has won some races? Good for you and for them. After all, that is the point of a making a race car- to race it and (hopefully) win.

I like drag racing. It's fun to watch. Fun to modify you car and see how much power you can get out of it...

And while it is cool that the WRX has won something, it still hasn't won any beaty contests. Joking aside, something about them just doesn't sit right with me. I dunno... I just don't like them.

Just like I'd rather have a '69 Mach 1 Mustang more than I would a new Mach 1. Both are just as fast, the new one gets better gas mileage and brakes much better, but it just doesn't look or feel like the real deal. No rumble from a 428c.i. Super Cobra Jet V8 with solid lifters and a shaker hood scoop. The roar of headers and glasspack mufflers....

In the end, it's your choice. Every one has their own opinion. You may like the high-tech, high-revving, high-priced imports. But I still prefer old muscle cars. Regardless of poor handling or bad gas mileage. I can make them handle better. I can make a new one handle better, too, but it would be lacking in one thing.

sentimental value
Well, it's not good for me-I had nothing to do with the Caterham winning. I am a big fan of the base car, the Lotus Super 7, from way back. Like you, I like the older cars, the cars that required more of the driver to pull itself out. And Porsches aren't high revers-my old 914 peaked around 2500-3500, go on demand. I can't put up a lot of impressive numbers about that car, all I can really attest to is that for some reason I was allowed to drive a go-cart on the road, and that driving from one parking lot to the next was an absolute thrill. Driving modern cars is like driving on novicane.

MoparRocks

24-09-2005, 05:58

Driving modern cars is like driving on novicane.

I fell out of my seat when I saw that. So true...

Leonstein

24-09-2005, 06:17

Well, everyone's got their taste...

I like modern cars, partly because I wasn't born when the classics were around. I don't think I'd buy a Caterham, but I am trying to get my hands on a first generation Elise or VX220, but the chances ain't great around here...

I love my WRX, and point-to-point it certainly is one of the fastest things you can buy, still.

My favourites overall are the Porsche Turbo & Carrera GT, the Lambo Gallardo and the BMW M5 (cuz you have to be sensible some of the time...).

Lateral G's apparently are all the rage in the US, but honestly, I don't think you can quantify things like steering response, feeling and the like. Mazda tried it with the new MX-5, and Evo Magazine wasn't too impressed by it.

So I say: Good on the Americans to build cars that actually are worth selling outside the US. If they now started to convert a few to rhd, they'd be set, because they undercut the price of others (such as Porsche) by quite a margin.
Which, I'm afraid to say, they have to until they can get another few generations developed and match what Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari and the rest did.

And about Le Mans...the Corvette Racecar is quite differently engineered from the standard Corvette C6, it has a lot more modern suspension, while the road car keeps the old version. Maybe the Z06 is different, I'm not sure.

Cannot think of a name

24-09-2005, 07:13

Well, everyone's got their taste...

I like modern cars, partly because I wasn't born when the classics were around. I don't think I'd buy a Caterham, but I am trying to get my hands on a first generation Elise or VX220, but the chances ain't great around here...

Mmmm....Lotus Elise. There are a handful of those around here now, because I live on a stretch of road that people with cool cars flock to.

I'm waiting for the VX220 to be released here as the Saturn SKY. Waiting is euphomistic, I'm not really going to be in a position to buy it as far as I know.

MoparRocks

24-09-2005, 21:32

Well, everyone's got their taste...

And about Le Mans...the Corvette Racecar is quite differently engineered from the standard Corvette C6, it has a lot more modern suspension, while the road car keeps the old version. Maybe the Z06 is different, I'm not sure.

The Z06 is essentially a street legal C6-R.

What the hell is 'rhd?"

Leonstein

25-09-2005, 01:19

What the hell is 'rhd?"
Right Hand Drive

Ianarabia

25-09-2005, 11:44

I would never buy a "modern" car which still uses Leaf spring suspension.

I've driven a few nice cars, mostly Astons, Ferraris, Porsches. I also drove a Corvette from 2 years ago.

If I were to own such a car, I would want to be able to drive 1000miles quickly over all sorts of roads quickly and with out effort. I doubt I could ever do that in the Corvette. Normally to get cornering the Corvettes suspensions are setup very very hard to give a horrible ride. Sure you go around a croner okay but at the end of a blast you get out of a Corvette feeling tired, in an Aston etc you don't. That is called class...or quality. Something American cars seem to lack.

As 7 litre V8 and how much power? American engineering. :rolleyes:

Nureonia

25-09-2005, 12:04

I could buy two cars that weren't penis compensation cars for $66k. Going fast is overrated.

Greedy Pig

25-09-2005, 14:07

Awesome looking car. :) Two thumbs and a Big toe up.

Bedou

25-09-2005, 14:18

I hate Vettes.

Bedou

25-09-2005, 14:19

I could buy two cars that weren't penis compensation cars for $66k. Going fast is overrated.
I dont know about the whole "penis" thing, but going fast is overrated.

MoparRocks

25-09-2005, 22:38

MoparRocks

25-09-2005, 22:38

I hate Vettes.

F**k you...

MoparRocks

25-09-2005, 22:39

Awesome looking car. :) Two thumbs and a Big toe up.
You are my new best friend.

Brockadia

25-09-2005, 22:46

It looks oddly phallic...

New Zeiland

25-09-2005, 22:46

American car = shit.
7L and its only 500bhp, what torque? Where? What is torque?
2 valves per cylinder?
I pity the fool

MoparRocks

25-09-2005, 22:47

It looks oddly phallic...
I've heard that alot about Corvette's. Even the old Mako Shark. Which was modeled after a Mako shark that designer Bill Mitchell caught while deep-sea fishing in the Carribean on his vacation in 1961.

MoparRocks

25-09-2005, 22:49

American car = shit.
7L and its only 500bhp, what torque? Where? What is torque?
2 valves per cylinder?
I pity the fool

505hp. 470ft-lbs of torque. 7000rpm redline. I guess they were trying to please the import crowd.

2 Titanium valves per cylinder? Reliability in simplicity. There are Euro engines with blowers and twin-cam set-ups that use 1 liter less displacement and get 50hp less. That would be fine w/o the supercharger, but no...

Find me a Jag or Aston or Benz or Porsche that does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds and can make it to 200mph. That cost's less than $100,000. Oh wait- YOU CAN'T! The only thing that comes close is the $440,000 (the Z06 cost $65,800) Porsche Carrera GT with a V10. It does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and tops out at 205mph. 7mph faster, but .03 seconds slower to 60 and w/ 2 more cylinders and costing nearly 400 grand more.

So stop bragging when you nothing to brag about.

Brockadia

25-09-2005, 22:53

best car ever:
http://motor.tuportada.com/img/wp/lotus-elise-13.jpg

Cannot think of a name

25-09-2005, 22:56

I could buy two cars that weren't penis compensation cars for $66k. Going fast is overrated.
I've said this before, but--
If big engines and horsepower are inversely proportionate with penis size-consider that I drive a 1600 cc 48 hp VW Bus...

And clearly, you haven't gone fast enough yet.

Cannot think of a name

25-09-2005, 23:01

American car = shit.
7L and its only 500bhp, what torque? Where? What is torque?
2 valves per cylinder?
I pity the fool
American cars have almost always been about torque, so that seems like an ill concieved criticism.

What the 'Vette offers is the shade tree traditionalism. Much like Porsche still insists on hanging the engine out the back, there is a specific feel to the mechanical nature of the engine and rear end that the 'vette is catering to.

I'm no fan of the 'Vette, but I'm fair enough to recognize it for what it stands for.

Cannot think of a name

25-09-2005, 23:03

best car ever:
http://motor.tuportada.com/img/wp/lotus-elise-13.jpg
Mmmmm.....fun on a stick.

MoparRocks

25-09-2005, 23:18

Cannot think of a name

25-09-2005, 23:22

Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren
- 0-60 in 3.8 seconds (0.2s slower)
- 208mph top speed (10mph faster)
- supercharged 5.5-liter V8 617hp/575ft-lbs (+ 112hp/105ft-lbs)
- $452,750 (+ $386,950)

Porsche Carrera GT
- 0-60 in 3.8 seconds (0.2s slower)
- 205mph top speed (7mph faster)
- naturally-aspirated 5.7-liter V10 605hp/435ft-lbs (+ 100hp/- 35ft-lbs)
- $440,000 (+ $374,200)

Aston-Martin V12 Vanquish S
- 0-60 in 4.8 seconds (1.0s slower)
- 200mph top speed (2mph faster)
- naturally-aspirated 6.0-liter V12 520hp/425ft-lbs (+ 15hp/- 45ft-lbs)
- Won't say what it costs (translation: more than the Z06 'Vette)

Lamborghini Murcielago
- Acceleration isn't listed
- 205mph top speed (7mph faster)
- 6.2-liter V10 (actual output not listed)
- Won't say what it costs (translation: see above)

Ferrari F430
- 0-60 in 4.0 seconds (0.4 slower)
- 196mph top speed (2mph slower)
- 4.3-liter V8 490hp/343ft-lbs (- 15hp/127ft-lbs)
- $181,000 (+ $115,200)

As you can plainly see, the Z06 is superior to cars several times it's price.
Cars are more than just stats.

MoparRocks

25-09-2005, 23:27

Brockadia

25-09-2005, 23:33

Cannot think of a name

25-09-2005, 23:33

Cars ARE more than just states.

Which is why I'd much rather drive a beat-up '80s Datsun pick-up than a brand-new Mustang GT.

Yep. That '84 Datsun eats Road Runner's and GTO's at the drag strip.

And nobody in their Ferrari Enzo better try to take me on a twisty mountain road. Nope.
I raced an old hot rod pick up up the Pacific Highway for a whole tank of gas once in my 914. He would barrel by me in the flats and I would snake back by in the mountains. He ran out of gas first, obviously.

I even popped a 6.6 Trans Am up a hill once in that 914. And it was the tiny one, too. The 1.7, and not in great shape. (which is why I no longer own it-I opted for a VW Bus in not great shape...

I really shouldn't make my own car decisions....)

Cannot think of a name

25-09-2005, 23:35

Lotus Elise
- 0-60 in 4.9 seconds (do you need faster? if so, what for?)
- 150 mph top speed (see above questions - fastest I've ever driven is 120mph)
- 1.8 liter 189hp/133 ft-lbs :eek:
- £26,793.00 ($47500)
- Total mass: 860kg
See now, that doesn't tell you how much fun your going to have in that car. Ripping down Highway 9, keeping up with all the sport bikes....thats where that car shines.

Kellarly

25-09-2005, 23:47

http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/index.asp?submenu=4

Can you say fast?

I know its expensive, but i would rather blow a crap load of money on this, or go for a lotus, than get a 'vette. Not thats there is anything wrong with them, just caus i like these, and i'm not a fan of the way the 'vette looks or rides (going from one past experience).

East Coast Federation

25-09-2005, 23:50

Brockadia

25-09-2005, 23:52

I always liked vettes. They're pretty awsome.

But I'd rather take a Saleen S7, which outdoes the z-6 in every catogory expect fuel ecnonmy.

0-60 in 2.8.
Ah, the S7... if there were any upside-down roads, you'd be able to drive on them with that car. Litterally. Now wouldn't that be fun. Only problem: The price tag. Something like $6-700k. Oh, and if you brake while you're driving upside-down... bye bye S7.

Leonstein

26-09-2005, 01:55

Stats really are quite irrelevant.

Here's an interesting bit for you:
If it rains....see what a Porsche (any Porsche) does to your Corvette.
It bends it over and rapes it.

Drag Strips have nothing to do with the real world either. I challenge you to prove to me that a guy in a Z06 can possibly hope to hang on to a Turbo S, a Murcielago, or a god-damned BMW M5 for that matter.

And finally, if you want to see a fast car, don't quote sorry little Carrera GTs, or Saleens. Go for the big ones: the Zonda F or, just maybe, THE BUGATTI VEYRON???

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/driven/52263/corvette_c6.html

East Coast Federation

26-09-2005, 02:21

Leonstein

26-09-2005, 02:29

How is a Saleen S7 " little "?
Its the 3rd fastest car on the planet, Only the Enzo and the Mclaren are faster.
Faster? What do you mean by faster?
Have you heard of the Koenigsegg CCR? Or the 9ff 9F-V400? Or the slightly insane TVR Cerbera Speed 12 even?
Or perhaps the Bugatti Veyron (1000bHP, Quad-Turbo 64v W16, with more torque than a road train)?

The Saleen is a fast car, yes. But it's only one in a group of very impressive machines, above which is an even more select group.

And BTW, the McLaren is little more than a fancy limousine for people with too much money, and they are starting a limited edition serious Enzo in a few weeks (the "FXX").
Plus, look out for the Murcielage GTR, which goes all carbo-fibre, drops the heavy awd and gets an extra 100 or so horses...

Cannot think of a name

26-09-2005, 02:41

Faster? What do you mean by faster?
Have you heard of the Koenigsegg CCR? Or the 9ff 9F-V400? Or the slightly insane TVR Cerbera Speed 12 even?
Or perhaps the Bugatti Veyron (1000bHP, Quad-Turbo 64v W16, with more torque than a road train)?

The Saleen is a fast car, yes. But it's only one in a group of very impressive machines, above which is an even more select group.

And BTW, the McLaren is little more than a fancy limousine for people with too much money, and they are starting a limited edition serious Enzo in a few weeks (the "FXX").
Plus, look out for the Murcielage GTR, which goes all carbo-fibre, drops the heavy awd and gets an extra 100 or so horses...
Okay, that seems a little....suspect...but to be fair-ALL those cars listed are little more than knob polishers for people with way too much money.

I mean seriously. I like power and speed as much as the next guy-but I live a little too far from an autobahn to consider these cars anything more than an affectation. Really, once you've hit around the S7 range of things, it's like having a lion for a pet. You're just showing off.

I live on a world class stretch of road and the people having the most fun on it are doing it in TR-3 (and maybe those three cats with the Elises).

I understand having something that 'can do' that, but I didn't have a hand in making that car capable of doing that-so pride in it is really just "Hey, I had a bunch of money." But driving a well balanced car through a set of twisties just right, it's back to being an instrument.

Just like when I was playing jazz. You can tell the guys who suck because they had shiny horns and way too much kit, the cats with the chops showed up with duct taped cases and tarnished horns.

Leonstein

26-09-2005, 02:45

Okay, that seems a little....suspect...but to be fair-ALL those cars listed are little more than knob polishers for people with way too much money....
Of course you're right. :D
I guess what I meant is that while the Enzo, or even the Saleen are quite hardcore machines, the McLaren disqualifies (are we talking about the F1 or the SLR... :confused: ) as being too soft - really only good for driving up to the read carpet at the Monte Carlo Casino...

Cannot think of a name

26-09-2005, 02:51

Of course you're right. :D
I guess what I meant is that while the Enzo, or even the Saleen are quite hardcore machines, the McLaren disqualifies (are we talking about the F1 or the SLR... :confused: ) as being too soft - really only good for driving up to the read carpet at the Monte Carlo Casino...
I actually thought you where talking about the F1. The SLR is a Benz in the same way the McLaren Mustangs where still mustangs.

The SLR is in the Silver Arrow tradition, though. You don't look for a bare bones racer from Benz, you want the best engineering in a gentlemans package. And if it's fast as hell while your at it, that's what a gentleman prefers. It has to be like that or it's not really a Benz (just like the handful of CLK-GTRs that where made for the road aren't really being considered here)

Leonstein

26-09-2005, 02:57

The SLR is in the Silver Arrow tradition, though. You don't look for a bare bones racer from Benz, you want the best engineering in a gentlemans package.
The original Silver Arrow was a serious bare bones racer though. Just because some people prefer to fit an empire like Mercedes simply into the "luxury" market doesn't mean that they can't, or shouldn't, do it right if they want to build a sports car.
I just really hate the SLR - I want my cars hard and fast and slightly dangerous (but not too dangerous...).
And so it shouldn't be a surprise that I love the CLK-GTR. They should've made more of them.

Cannot think of a name

26-09-2005, 03:32

The original Silver Arrow was a serious bare bones racer though. Just because some people prefer to fit an empire like Mercedes simply into the "luxury" market doesn't mean that they can't, or shouldn't, do it right if they want to build a sports car.
I just really hate the SLR - I want my cars hard and fast and slightly dangerous (but not too dangerous...).
And so it shouldn't be a surprise that I love the CLK-GTR. They should've made more of them.
The race cars where, but c'mon-the 300 SL (which is the spiritual father of the SLR) came with custom made luggage. Granted it had things like the Gullwings becuase that allowed for a much stiffer chassis, but the SLR has compramises like that in both directions.

I hate the CLK-GTR because I'm a Porsche man, so I spent a lot of time rooting against them and for the 911 GT-1 (with love for the Lotus Elise GT-1, but that never really was given a shot...)

MrMopar

13-12-2005, 06:12

Lotus Elise
- 0-60 in 4.9 seconds (do you need faster? if so, what for?)
- 150 mph top speed (see above questions - fastest I've ever driven is 120mph)
- 1.8 liter 189hp/133 ft-lbs :eek:
- £26,793.00 ($47500)
- Mileage: 41.5 mpg (up to 52.3 if you pick the non-sporty version, which is only a tad slower - 0-60 in 5.1 instead of 4.9)
- Total mass: 860kg (as low as 785kg for the non-sporty one again)

Vette mileage: 28mpg, mass: 1850kg...

The Elise gets 27mpg, asshole. It says on their website.

Cannot think of a name

13-12-2005, 06:17

The Elise gets 27mpg, asshole. It says on their website.
Easy there slugger. They're just cars.

Kaetoria

13-12-2005, 06:26

That sounds like a great car. My neighbour has had a beautiful corvette for years but recently traded it in for a mercedes. Maybe he will switch back after I tell him about this.

Antikythera

13-12-2005, 06:41

the volvo S60 R is a nice little car
but if i had to pick i would have to take the new Bugatti veyron 16.4

Cannot think of a name

13-12-2005, 06:53

the volvo S60 R is a nice little car
but if i had to pick i would have to take the new Bugatti veyron 16.4
I've come around on this thing about super-cars. In theory, sure they're great. Superfast balls out street car.

But even on the Autobahn there really only so much of that umph. Like with muscle cars, any yay-hoo can punch an accelerator. With cars like the Elise or the M3 or the Porsche GT-3 or even the new Corvette, the cars invite the driver to engage the road in a way that not even the Saleen S7 would. To find the razor edge of that car you have to move past speeding ticket and into reckless endangerment.

Add to that the amount of babying that the cars need to handle normal everyday traffic.

In all reality, a supercar lives for the track days. And if I'm going to a track day with a supercar I'm actually in a comprimised car that has to make consulations for road legality when I can be driving something that is maxed for the track.

When it comes down to it, supercars make great calender material for 12 year-olds, but cars are for driving.

Blauschild

13-12-2005, 08:03

First some more realistic numbers on the Z06.

2005 Cheverlote Z06 (Road and Track 12-05)
0-60 3.9
0-100 8.8
1/4 mile 12.2 @ 118.3
60-0 109 ft
Skidpad .99g
Slalom speed 69.9

Not quite as fast as you seem to think, but since my source is the same magazine for all the cars it won't matter how my numbers vary from yours. No matter what mine will be more accurate each car relative to each other as they will all have been determined via the same method. Unlike yours which seem to match rather nicely with google hits for the cars in question.

Porsche 911 Turbo (Road and Track 11-00)
0-60 4.0
0-100 9.2
1/4 mile 12.4 @ 115.6
60-0 119 ft
skidpad .96g
Slalom speed 67.8

Z06 is the faster and probably better handaling car. And it damn well should be seeing as the current 911 Turbo is a 5 year old design. For a future reference on how the new 911 Turbo will handle we can look at the 911 Carrera S's slalom speed of 71.7 and skidpad of .98g.

Ferrari F430 Spider (Road and Track 9-05)

0-60 4.0
0-100 9.2
1/4 mile 12.3 @ 116.9
60-0 113
skidpad .90g
slalom speed 70.9

Hmmm, difference in acceleration at 0-60 of .1 doesn't mean much, the 0-100 difference is a lot more important as is the 2mph in the 1/4 mile. The Z06 is defintely a faster car, but probably doesn't handle that much better, if at all seeing as the spider can post a better slalom speed than the Z06. Let alone the coupe.

Ford GT (Road and Track 12-03)

0-60 3.8
0-100 8.8
1/4 mile 12.2 @ 121.6
60-0 117
skidpad 0.99g
slalom speed 69.5

Results plain to see, Ford is faster and according to the numbers handles ~the same.

Lambo Murcielago (Road and Track 5-02)

0-60 3.6
0-100 9.1
1/4 mile 12.0 @ 121.0
60-0 122
skidpad 0.90g
slalom speed 65.7

Yeah, a rocket that can't turn. But a faster Rocket than the Z06.

I'm not going to bother going into the more expensive Carrera GT, Enzo, SLR, Saleen etc... They all out-perform the Z06.

The Z06 is what it has been and will continue to be. a Blue-collar guy in jeans showing up at a white-tie event. It doesn't have the look, it doesn't have the interior quality, it doesn't have the pedigree but more importantly it doesn't have the handaling abilities of the European cars. All it has is an insane performance/$ ratio, but it still can't really show up the cars it is attempting to take on.

Cannot think of a name

13-12-2005, 08:09

The Z06 is what it has been and will continue to be. a Blue-collar guy in jeans showing up at a white-tie event. It doesn't have the look, it doesn't have the interior quality, it doesn't have the pedigree but more importantly it doesn't have the handaling abilities of the European cars. All it has is an insane performance/$ ratio, but it still can't really show up the cars it is attempting to take on.
Okay, to be fair, the numbers you posted put the Corvette in the same league as all of those cars. And Corvette has taken it to the track and proved that it can indeed hold up, winning multiple Le-Mans events and posting impressive track times at Nurburing.

This doesn't say anything about plastic fantastic interiors, but lets be honest about what's there.

Blauschild

13-12-2005, 08:15

Okay, to be fair, the numbers you posted put the Corvette in the same league as all of those cars.

acceleration wise, not handaling wise. Which was the point. The Porsche out handles it, the Ferrari out handles it. The Lambo as pointed out doesn't. The Ford is American and has nothing to do with my conclusion.

And Corvette has taken it to the track and proved that it can indeed hold up, winning multiple Le-Mans events and posting impressive track times at Nurburing. This doesn't say anything about plastic fantastic interiors, but lets be honest about what's there.

Uh, no it hasn't. The cars we all see at Le Mans have nothing to do with the street legal versions of 'these vehicles.' The Cars at Le Mans are carbon fiber clad creatures that share virtually nothing with their street legal counterparts.

Cannot think of a name

13-12-2005, 08:22

acceleration wise, not handaling wise. Which was the point. The Porsche out handles it, the Ferrari out handles it. The Lambo as pointed out doesn't. The Ford is American and has nothing to do with my conclusion.
A one mph difference in slalom speed is hardly a trouncing, nor does slalom tell the whole tale, and the Corvette had the top skidpad score. Looks to me like the 'Vette has earned its place at the table.

Uh, no it hasn't. The cars we all see at Le Mans have nothing to do with the street legal versions of 'these vehicles.' The Cars at Le Mans are carbon fiber clad creatures that share virtually nothing with their street legal counterparts.
GT racing is based a great deal on the road versions, and aren't allowed to deviate to much from the homologated road cars. They have to have several components, including the chassis, of the street car. This is not NASCAR, where a Tauras skin is stretched over a pure racing tube frame. So yes, yes they have proved the breed in the race and it is in fact why manufacturers bother with racing GT divisions, or making homologation versions so that they can win (re:the M3 GTR that was attempted as a one off and opposed by manufacturers that where being true to thier normal cars.)

And then there is the Nurburing times, which is the street car.

Blauschild

13-12-2005, 09:51

A one mph difference in slalom speed is hardly a trouncing, nor does slalom tell the whole tale, and the Corvette had the top skidpad score. Looks to me like the 'Vette has earned its place at the table.

The slalom speed is more indicitative of handaling than the skidpad, and neither tells the whole story, only some time behind the wheel of both in track conditions by a professional could do that sadly. But since all we can do here is bench race...

A 1 mph difference is generated by a convertible. You know, something missing its roof with all the resulting consquences of that fact. If a died in the wool 'race-proven' would be super car can't outhandle the convertible of its foe, then well, I can't see how it has earned its place. Meanwhile the Porsche 911 Carrera S beats out the Z06 by 1.8 mph and Porsche has a nasty tendencey of deliberaty engineering vehicles to fall into price brackets. The 911 Turbo will outhandle the Carrera S, and consquenty the Z06. You can thank Stuttgart's marketing department.

GT racing is based a great deal on the road versions, and aren't allowed to deviate to much from the homologated road cars. They have to have several components, including the chassis, of the street car. This is not NASCAR, where a Tauras skin is stretched over a pure racing tube frame. So yes, yes they have proved the breed in the race and it is in fact why manufacturers bother with racing GT divisions, or making homologation versions so that they can win (re:the M3 GTR that was attempted as a one off and opposed by manufacturers that where being true to thier normal cars.)

Whatever you want to believe. There are people who think their Ferrari is based off the Ferrari F1 car as well.

And then there is the Nurburing times, which is the street car.

Don't you mean Nürburgring?. And of a Pre-Production car. Outstanding time to be sure.

Cannot think of a name

13-12-2005, 10:17

The slalom speed is more indicitative of handaling than the skidpad, and neither tells the whole story, only some time behind the wheel of both in track conditions by a professional could do that sadly. But since all we can do here is bench race...

A 1 mph difference is generated by a convertible. You know, something missing its roof with all the resulting consquences of that fact. If a died in the wool 'race-proven' would be super car can't outhandle the convertible of its foe, then well, I can't see how it has earned its place. Meanwhile the Porsche 911 Carrera S beats out the Z06 by 1.8 mph and Porsche has a nasty tendencey of deliberaty engineering vehicles to fall into price brackets. The 911 Turbo will outhandle the Carrera S, and consquenty the Z06. You can thank Stuttgart's marketing department.
Balancing the two scores, frankly, paints a picture of a car that is running in the herd.

Whatever you want to believe. There are people who think their Ferrari is based off the Ferrari F1 car as well.
Wow, head in the sand then, is it? What you are talking about is called silloutte races, which is what the Grand Am series has gone to. But the ALMS, and Le Mans, have held to racing the cars that the manufacturer sells.

Here you go, slugger (http://www.lemans.org/24heuresdumans/live/pages/reglements_gb.html)
Educate yourself on the strict rules of modification from the homologated cars into the GT catagory. I'd quote them for you but their very specific to what you can and can't modify. And, frankly since you've decided to be an ass I ain't holding your hand through this.
EDIT: And regardless, the Ferrari and Aston Martin and everyone else are allowed the same modifications and still can't catch the 'Vette.

Don't you mean Nürburgring?. And of a Pre-Production car. Outstanding time to be sure.
Ah man, I lost points on my spelling test. Find signifigant differences between the car tested and the car sold.

I'm a Porsche fan myself, and have never liked the style or philosophy of the Corvette. But, above all, I'm a racing fan and will give it up when it's due. The car has earned its place at the table and I welcome it because a bigger field makes for more interesting racing.

Fjordburg

13-12-2005, 11:57

Blauschild, you're so biased against the 'vette that you're seeing what you want to see. The numbers are hardly different at all. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of car testing would know better than to stake out on 1mph through a slalom course, especially when you yourself posted evidence of a highly likely track temperature difference, seeing as the Ferrari was tested in September versus the Z06's December test. Further, a simple adjustment of tire pressures could totally change that number. That's not to mention what a different compound tire could do... I would almost guarantee that Chevy is running a much harder compound than Ferrari.

Your Porsche argument sucks. The 911 Turbo is inferior in all measures... and for the price, Porsche should just paint a rainbow on it at that rate. You don't mention from where you gather the S's data, but assuming that it was the same source: Porsches are rear-engined. Slalom is what they do best. As you may know, those numbers (71.7) are some of the best for a street car. Nonetheless, this says little about the car's performance on a track. On a track, where you have to brake from speed into a turn, the Porsche's rear engine becomes and oversteer-inducing hindrance. Not to mention it would be abused on all but the tightest of tracks by the vette's superior speed, braking, and corner-holding.

No one with a brain believes street cars are directly based from race cars, or vice versa. Certain parts, ideas, and themes may be carried from one to the other, which is important, but that's about it. The ALMS C5-R was, however, the starting point for the C6 Z06. The project front man said so himself. The 427 engine in the new Z06 was derived straight from the C5-R; of course the compression is lower, the cam is less radical, and the lifters are hydraulic instead of solid, but it retained the forged crank, Titanium con rods and valves and the dry sump. I think even Porsche would be impressed by that... and they'd have to charge $200,000 for it! On the body, the Z06 gets Carbon Fiber quarter panels, just like the race car. The roof support/bridge is made of Magnesium alloy; that's a first of any production car I know of.

All in all, the Z06 is an incredible car. And despite your commentary to the contrary, price is a huge issue for all but the ridiculously rich. Chevy is bringing B-class supercar performance to "the masses" (relatively). The fact of that level of performance is available for such a price is offensive to many harboring European loyalties, and I shed a tear of pity to any Ford GT owner who has a Z06 run right next to him in whatever he does... for half the price. Ouch.

And just to prove to you that I'm not biased, I wouldn't have a Z06, Porsche, Ferrari, or whatever anyway. You can crush those numbers for a cool $11,000 with any Japanese crotch rocket. A stone-stock 1000cc Sportbike reaches 60mph in 2.1sec, and hits 100mph about the time the cars above get to 60. In a 0-100-0 test conducted last year, the GSXR-1000 was stopped before the Viper even got to 100. Now that, friends, is real performance.

Oh, and the Carrera GT can be beat, with a car costing less than $50k. The GT isn't really the vehicle I'd choose to hang my hat on Mr. Blauschild.

Neu Leonstein

13-12-2005, 13:19

Your Porsche argument sucks. The 911 Turbo is inferior in all measures...
I'd doubt that.

Porsches are rear-engined. Slalom is what they do best.
Porsches are properly engineered, their dynamics is what they do best. Which is why a GT3 RS with 130HP will lap the Nordschleife just as fast as the Z06 will.
You just picked the wrong car to pick on, because IMHO Porsche is the car company on this planet which has got things worked out.
The 911 is time and again the top model of its class, and there is not a car in the world that has actually passed a comparison test against it favourably. Some have come close (Aston Martin V8), but ultimately it remains the car everyone else is compared to. Which by no means is meant as putting down the Corvette, because a car that can lap the Nürburgring at the same pace as a GT3 RS, but for that sort of money deserves a good run nonetheless.

On a track, where you have to brake from speed into a turn, the Porsche's rear engine becomes and oversteer-inducing hindrance. Not to mention it would be abused on all but the tightest of tracks by the vette's superior speed, braking, and corner-holding.
Obviously not.
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=105&i=8886
The Turbo S does a 7:56, the Z06 does a 7:43. Which is somewhat understandable, seeing as to the kind of car the Turbo S is. As I said, take a Porsche model comparable to the Z06 (ie a halo race-inspired model) and you get the GT3 RS which does the same time, but with a lot less power.

All in all, the Z06 is an incredible car. And despite your commentary to the contrary, price is a huge issue for all but the ridiculously rich. Chevy is bringing B-class supercar performance to "the masses" (relatively).
I agree, and I hope it pays off.

The fact of that level of performance is available for such a price is offensive to many harboring European loyalties, and I shed a tear of pity to any Ford GT owner who has a Z06 run right next to him in whatever he does... for half the price. Ouch.
If you buy a Ford GT, it's your own bloody fault.

In a 0-100-0 test conducted last year, the GSXR-1000 was stopped before the Viper even got to 100. Now that, friends, is real performance.
I watched a piece on TV the other day...a race bike vs a Ferrari 575 GT-Racecar. The bike was faster on the straights, but the Ferrari clawed its way back with superior downforce and cornering speed, and on this track actually went faster. That depends on the track though.
Suffice to say that bikes aren't my thing.

Oh, and the Carrera GT can be beat, with a car costing less than $50k. The GT isn't really the vehicle I'd choose to hang my hat on Mr. Blauschild.
Those cars would have to be Radicals and Ariels then, because the Carrera GT is the fastest supercar around the Nürburgring at 7:32.
Plus it'd be nicer to have it in the driveway.

Fjordburg

13-12-2005, 18:54

I'd doubt that.

I'm using his own stats from a page back:

2005 Cheverlote Z06 (Road and Track 12-05)
0-60 3.9
0-100 8.8
1/4 mile 12.2 @ 118.3
60-0 109 ft
Skidpad .99g
Slalom speed 69.9

Porsche 911 Turbo (Road and Track 11-00)
0-60 4.0
0-100 9.2
1/4 mile 12.4 @ 115.6
60-0 119 ft
skidpad .96g
Slalom speed 67.8

Don't criticize me, criticize your fellow Porsche fan. In those stats, to which I refer, the 911 Turbo is inferior in all measures, as I so stated, no debate about it.

Porsches are properly engineered, their dynamics is what they do best. Which is why a GT3 RS with 130HP will lap the Nordschleife just as fast as the Z06 will.
You just picked the wrong car to pick on, because IMHO Porsche is the car company on this planet which has got things worked out.
The 911 is time and again the top model of its class, and there is not a car in the world that has actually passed a comparison test against it favourably. Some have come close (Aston Martin V8), but ultimately it remains the car everyone else is compared to. Which by no means is meant as putting down the Corvette, because a car that can lap the Nürburgring at the same pace as a GT3 RS, but for that sort of money deserves a good run nonetheless.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamics"- whether handling or aero in nature. I'll assume you meant handling by context and the fact that no one in his right mind argues the 911 shape is a good aero piece.

Speaking of picking wrong cars though, the fact that you had to use the GT3 RS to find a comparison says it all. The GT3 RS is an EXTREMELY limited production factory racer! How limited? Only 200 units! That's less than the Ferrari Enzo! It's a stripped down factory racer that comes with a freakin roll cage, a plastic rear window which is used only on race cars, stripped interior... Meanwhile the 'vette is lapping with sattelite Nav, stereo, air conditioning... come on man, give me a break. That's the equivalent of going back and picking out the ZL1 'vette to compare to a Porsche of that day. Further, that model isn't sold in the US, which is the home of the 'vette, so I don't think that argument could be any more moot.

But wait, it can!
From rsportscars.com (the first site google brought up with "Porsche GT3 RS," ie, I didn't numbers hunt):
"For the classic sprint from 0 to 62 mph the GT3 RS needs 4.4 seconds, and goes on to reach 124 mph in 14 seconds. Its top speed is 190 mph."

Z06 bests all. And the GT3RS Lists for 120,xxx Euro?! I can see Porsche blushing from here.

As for comparisons, no one in America has given Porsche a second look for a good ten years. There's no need to. It's not that it's a bad car, it's quite good, but it's just not up to the level of modern cars, especially considering its price.

Obviously not.
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=105&i=8886
The Turbo S does a 7:56, the Z06 does a 7:43. Which is somewhat understandable, seeing as to the kind of car the Turbo S is. As I said, take a Porsche model comparable to the Z06 (ie a halo race-inspired model) and you get the GT3 RS which does the same time, but with a lot less power.

I have no idea where these numbers are coming (not that link) from, but what I see is "excuses... blah blah... Z06 is a whole 13sec faster... but our limited production stripped race car might be able to match it..." Though I see no numbers good sir, and without numbers to backup your claim, you may save your opinion for the next Porsche Owners Club meeting.

If you buy a Ford GT, it's your own bloody fault.

I watched a piece on TV the other day...a race bike vs a Ferrari 575 GT-Racecar. The bike was faster on the straights, but the Ferrari clawed its way back with superior downforce and cornering speed, and on this track actually went faster. That depends on the track though.
Suffice to say that bikes aren't my thing.

For the record, I hate the Ford GT and the double insult it represents, firstly to the original car, and secondly to the public by suggesting they should pay $150,000 for the "priviledge" of owning one. Scoff.

I of course don't know of exactly what show you speak, but unless it was a MotoGP bike, that comparison is way out of whack. You wouldn't compare a race car with no aeros to one fully equipped would you? Aeros make a massive difference, and everyone knows that. Bikes can't generate downforce, so in order to pick a competitive car, they had to use aeros? Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

Here in America two or three years ago Cycle World (or one of the big mags) did a test with Kevin Schwantz (500cc GP world champ, and he won a touring car champ. as well which eludes me) riding a GSXR-1000, stock, versus a stock C5 Z06 vette. I believe the track was Willow Springs, but I don't remember. Anyway, the bike won with a few seconds to spare. The car was faster in corner entry and mid turn, but the bike was faster everywhere else. You are very correct in saying that the track makes a big difference. It's a side point anyway, just to prove I have no Chevy loyalties.

Those cars would have to be Radicals and Ariels then, because the Carrera GT is the fastest supercar around the Nürburgring at 7:32.
Plus it'd be nicer to have it in the driveway.

Although Radical is a great car, I don't think the SR8 would fit under the $50k cap. Besides, they're not road legal here in the States. I was refering to the Factory Five GTM, which is just now coming to production. As such, it hasn't been around the 'ring. But it is (unlike the radical) a full size, enclosed 2 seater with mid engine, rear drive. It uses, appropriately here, a corvette engine and suspension components. It weighs 100lbs less than the Carrera GT (fully outfitted w/ fluids), produces only 10lbs less downforce at 150mph, and acceleration numbers are on par with the GT using only a stock C5's 350hp LS1. It is setup to accept the LS7. Destruction awaits.

And I don't think it would be too uncool to have this (http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/images/windtunnel/windtunnel3.jpg) sitting in your driveway either.

Edit: Forgot to mention above that Schwantz did the both the driving and the riding back to back, with data aquisition/GPS used to measure the differences.

Cannot think of a name

13-12-2005, 19:50

I'm using his own stats from a page back:

2005 Cheverlote Z06 (Road and Track 12-05)
0-60 3.9
0-100 8.8
1/4 mile 12.2 @ 118.3
60-0 109 ft
Skidpad .99g
Slalom speed 69.9

Porsche 911 Turbo (Road and Track 11-00)
0-60 4.0
0-100 9.2
1/4 mile 12.4 @ 115.6
60-0 119 ft
skidpad .96g
Slalom speed 67.8

Don't criticize me, criticize your fellow Porsche fan. In those stats, to which I refer, the 911 Turbo is inferior in all measures, as I so stated, no debate about it.
And five years apart. But in reality, Porsche's turbo model has been slipping for a while and thier normally aspirated cars have been better drivers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamics"- whether handling or aero in nature. I'll assume you meant handling by context and the fact that no one in his right mind argues the 911 shape is a good aero piece.
It has a .29 drag coeffecient. Where do you get this stuff?

Speaking of picking wrong cars though, the fact that you had to use the GT3 RS to find a comparison says it all. The GT3 RS is an EXTREMELY limited production factory racer! How limited? Only 200 units! That's less than the Ferrari Enzo! It's a stripped down factory racer that comes with a freakin roll cage, a plastic rear window which is used only on race cars, stripped interior... Meanwhile the 'vette is lapping with sattelite Nav, stereo, air conditioning... come on man, give me a break. That's the equivalent of going back and picking out the ZL1 'vette to compare to a Porsche of that day. Further, that model isn't sold in the US, which is the home of the 'vette, so I don't think that argument could be any more moot.

But wait, it can!
From rsportscars.com (the first site google brought up with "Porsche GT3 RS," ie, I didn't numbers hunt):
"For the classic sprint from 0 to 62 mph the GT3 RS needs 4.4 seconds, and goes on to reach 124 mph in 14 seconds. Its top speed is 190 mph."

Z06 bests all. And the GT3RS Lists for 120,xxx Euro?! I can see Porsche blushing from here.
For the most part this is fair. Though Porsche's numbers are old and Porsche has never been one to stand being beaten for very long. Though right now their focus is on the new Cayman (which would be the comparison to the 'Vette on price at least, and apparently laps at 8'20", which gives the 'Vette owner time to light a cigarette before the Cayman comes in. I'd still take the Cayman, though, because I'm not going racing.

As for comparisons, no one in America has given Porsche a second look for a good ten years. There's no need to. It's not that it's a bad car, it's quite good, but it's just not up to the level of modern cars, especially considering its price.
What magazines have you been reading? Porsche's have been rated at in the top of every comparison test I see.

I have no idea where these numbers are coming (not that link) from, but what I see is "excuses... blah blah... Z06 is a whole 13sec faster... but our limited production stripped race car might be able to match it..." Though I see no numbers good sir, and without numbers to backup your claim, you may save your opinion for the next Porsche Owners Club meeting.

For the record, I hate the Ford GT and the double insult it represents, firstly to the original car, and secondly to the public by suggesting they should pay $150,000 for the "priviledge" of owning one. Scoff.
I hear people say this, but only this. No one is ever specific.

I of course don't know of exactly what show you speak, but unless it was a MotoGP bike, that comparison is way out of whack. You wouldn't compare a race car with no aeros to one fully equipped would you? Aeros make a massive difference, and everyone knows that. Bikes can't generate downforce, so in order to pick a competitive car, they had to use aeros? Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

Here in America two or three years ago Cycle World (or one of the big mags) did a test with Kevin Schwantz (500cc GP world champ, and he won a touring car champ. as well which eludes me) riding a GSXR-1000, stock, versus a stock C5 Z06 vette. I believe the track was Willow Springs, but I don't remember. Anyway, the bike won with a few seconds to spare. The car was faster in corner entry and mid turn, but the bike was faster everywhere else. You are very correct in saying that the track makes a big difference. It's a side point anyway, just to prove I have no Chevy loyalties.
As someone who has had both a bike and a sports car, I ain't gettin' anywhere near this debate. Nothing's more obnoxious than watching car and bike people go at it.

Although Radical is a great car, I don't think the SR8 would fit under the $50k cap. Besides, they're not road legal here in the States. I was refering to the Factory Five GTM, which is just now coming to production. As such, it hasn't been around the 'ring. But it is (unlike the radical) a full size, enclosed 2 seater with mid engine, rear drive. It uses, appropriately here, a corvette engine and suspension components. It weighs 100lbs less than the Carrera GT (fully outfitted w/ fluids), produces only 10lbs less downforce at 150mph, and acceleration numbers are on par with the GT using only a stock C5's 350hp LS1. It is setup to accept the LS7. Destruction awaits.

And I don't think it would be too uncool to have this (http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/images/windtunnel/windtunnel3.jpg) sitting in your driveway either.

Edit: Forgot to mention above that Schwantz did the both the driving and the riding back to back, with data aquisition/GPS used to measure the differences.
Factory Five? The kit cars? Granted, that's how Lotus started, but damn.

There has to be a limit to how much I'm going to argue over cars I haven't driven myself. In all honesty, I just wanted to be fair to the Corvette. I like the Porsche's that I have driven, I like the ones on the track. But I'm starting to feel a bit like Napolean Dynamite defending their honor on a forum.

Fjordburg

13-12-2005, 21:18

It has a .29 drag coeffecient. Where do you get this stuff?

One only needs a cursory understanding of aerodynamics to understand that the 911's shape is about the worst possible in terms of downforce. That's where I got that stuff. If you told some engineers to draw a wing with 4 wheels, that's what it'd look like. Granted, they've smoothed it out as the years have worn on, but it's still basically a giant lifting surface. Don't you wonder why it has a 2ft by 4ft (I dunno exactly, it's huge) wide wing on the back? Because if it didn't, the thing would freakin take off!

Cd is totally different than shape. You can make huge, lumbering objects have low Cd's (aka airplanes) but that doesn't mean anything if the shape sucks. Here's what I want to know: was that Cd number generated with the wing up or down? If up, as it should be, I give Porsche a lot of credit for making a wing with a Cd that low. No one's ever accused the Germans of being bad engineers. However, if that number was attained with the wing down, throw it in the trash, b/c wing up will be much worse.

While Cd is not irrelevant, the .02 difference b/t the Z06 and 911 is. The truly relevant question to performance is which generates more downforce (or the least lift), and I haven't seen such information for the Z06 as of yet. My comment was merely a stab at the poor shape of the 911, not an actual challenge. If you can find the downforce(lift) numbers of the two, that would be extremely interesting though.

I'd still take the Cayman, though, because I'm not going racing.

That's fine by me, and I wouldn't slight you the least for it. But in an argument about performance, numbers and lap times are foundational.

What magazines have you been reading? Porsche's have been rated at in the top of every comparison test I see.

While I don't maintain any subscriptions, I pretty well pay attention to motorsports. I'm not aware of any such comparisons in which a Porsche has won. Feel free to point me to any if it concerns you.

Factory Five? The kit cars? Granted, that's how Lotus started, but damn.

If you're scoffing at Factory Five, I can't imagine how the actual Carrera GT owners/sympathizers will feel when it pounds them for 1/13 of the price.

For the record, these guys are about as kit car as a Jesse James chopper. Yeah, it uses other parts to complete the car... and? That $50k figure only requires phone calls from you. That's what you could have it professionally built for; ie, you never even touch it. They deliver it to the shop of your choice, shop builds to your specs and delivers a finished product to you. I call that a custom car, not a kit car.

If you'd like to go the kit route and do it yourself, you can slice $20k off of that price and the hilarity of the Carrera GT is even better. GT driver, "Wow, what was that car that just destoried me?" GTM driver, "Oh, just a kit I picked up for $20k and threw a few 'vette bits at in my garage."

If you're the type that prefers Harley because of the name, never mind its higher price and lower performance, or if you buy an Lexus that is a Camery with fake wood trim, then I could care less about your opinion on the matter.

I'm a purist, and if I can get performance for cheap, all the better. Sleepers are just as if not cooler than outward style and show. Ever been to the drag strip and seen the guy who pulls out the beat up, primer color Nova and said to yourself, what a piece, only to see it run in the 8's b/c the guy has done all the business work before the outer show? I like that guy. Conversely, I absolutely dispise the ricer boy with his Civic that's got 10,000 stickers and enough wings to dizzy an FIA steward, with a stone stock/fart canned 150hp I4.

Cheestoast

13-12-2005, 21:30

i agree with Leonstein. american muscle cars have ALWAYS been faster but they don't turn worth a shit. that's the main reason i hate the viper

Fjordburg

13-12-2005, 22:02

i agree with Leonstein. american muscle cars have ALWAYS been faster but they don't turn worth a shit. that's the main reason i hate the viper

That argument worked... about 20 years ago. American sports cars handle with the best now.

Slalom only measures direction change. As mentioned before, this should be combined with skidpad to give a better overall picture of handling, but it's still nothing conclusive. For example, FWD POS Jap cars (Civic, focus, protoge) will run through the Slalom in the upper 60's, but I don't think anyone will be arguing for them come track time.

Cannot think of a name

14-12-2005, 00:01

One only needs a cursory understanding of aerodynamics to understand that the 911's shape is about the worst possible in terms of downforce. That's where I got that stuff. If you told some engineers to draw a wing with 4 wheels, that's what it'd look like. Granted, they've smoothed it out as the years have worn on, but it's still basically a giant lifting surface. Don't you wonder why it has a 2ft by 4ft (I dunno exactly, it's huge) wide wing on the back? Because if it didn't, the thing would freakin take off!

Cd is totally different than shape. You can make huge, lumbering objects have low Cd's (aka airplanes) but that doesn't mean anything if the shape sucks. Here's what I want to know: was that Cd number generated with the wing up or down? If up, as it should be, I give Porsche a lot of credit for making a wing with a Cd that low. No one's ever accused the Germans of being bad engineers. However, if that number was attained with the wing down, throw it in the trash, b/c wing up will be much worse.
All this time I thought it had to do with lift throttle loses and getting airflow to the engine. Who knew all those engineers and automotive historians where so wrong and the tear drop shape was so bad. What genius' the Stuttgart folks are to get a wing to maintain zero lift.

While Cd is not irrelevant, the .02 difference b/t the Z06 and 911 is. The truly relevant question to performance is which generates more downforce (or the least lift), and I haven't seen such information for the Z06 as of yet. My comment was merely a stab at the poor shape of the 911, not an actual challenge. If you can find the downforce(lift) numbers of the two, that would be extremely interesting though.[/quote]
All this time I thought it had to do with lift throttle loses and getting airflow to the engine. Who knew all those engineers and automotive historians where so wrong and the tear drop shape was so bad, what with it being so previlent in race cars. What genius' the Stuttgart folks are to get a wing to maintain zero lift.

That's fine by me, and I wouldn't slight you the least for it. But in an argument about performance, numbers and lap times are foundational.

While I don't maintain any subscriptions, I pretty well pay attention to motorsports. I'm not aware of any such comparisons in which a Porsche has won. Feel free to point me to any if it concerns you.
They are in the top of every comparison their in. They don't win them all, but they are definitly considered (which counters your claim that they aren't) I didn't say they won everyone, but they are up there everytime. Are you sure you pay attention? Look, it's cool if you don't care about Porsche's and as such don't notice them when they show up, but sheesh...

And they continue to be the car you buy if you're serious about winning the GT2 (formally just GT) catagory at Le Mans.

If you're scoffing at Factory Five, I can't imagine how the actual Carrera GT owners/sympathizers will feel when it pounds them for 1/13 of the price.

For the record, these guys are about as kit car as a Jesse James chopper. Yeah, it uses other parts to complete the car... and? That $50k figure only requires phone calls from you. That's what you could have it professionally built for; ie, you never even touch it. They deliver it to the shop of your choice, shop builds to your specs and delivers a finished product to you. I call that a custom car, not a kit car.

If you'd like to go the kit route and do it yourself, you can slice $20k off of that price and the hilarity of the Carrera GT is even better. GT driver, "Wow, what was that car that just destoried me?" GTM driver, "Oh, just a kit I picked up for $20k and threw a few 'vette bits at in my garage."

If you're the type that prefers Harley because of the name, never mind its higher price and lower performance, or if you buy an Lexus that is a Camery with fake wood trim, then I could care less about your opinion on the matter.

I'm a purist, and if I can get performance for cheap, all the better. Sleepers are just as if not cooler than outward style and show. Ever been to the drag strip and seen the guy who pulls out the beat up, primer color Nova and said to yourself, what a piece, only to see it run in the 8's b/c the guy has done all the business work before the outer show? I like that guy. Conversely, I absolutely dispise the ricer boy with his Civic that's got 10,000 stickers and enough wings to dizzy an FIA steward, with a stone stock/fart canned 150hp I4.
The Jesse James comparison is off. He fabricates the parts individually to each bike. Factory Five is a replica kit car company. It's a kit car, they don't have any problem calling it a kit car because it's a kit car.

Everything else goes back to arguing about cars I haven't driven. I'm not going ot chest thump for either Carrera or the GTM. The difference is going to be in the driving dynamics and for that I have to take other peoples words for it.

With age and experience I've gotten far less hostile about peoples car tastes. Much in the same way I don't measure penis' in the shower...seems kinda insecure...

Neu Leonstein

14-12-2005, 00:58

That argument worked... about 20 years ago. American sports cars handle with the best now.
Some of them.

I'll just quickly summarise:
I've never driven any of these nice cars. I have once been a passenger in a 996 Carrera S that was driven mildly hard and it was a lot of fun.
I'm afraid I don't own a Porsche. :(

I think the new Corvette is the best car America's ever made, and I actually devoted a thread to it a while ago. It is cheap enough to make it against the established competition, and I wish it all the best.

I can't stand the Viper, and neither can any motoring journalist I have come across.

Personally I believe Porsche is the best car company on the planet, precisely for creating something unique, with a history and which still tops its class every time.

Once American cars finally abandon the idea that you need comfort, that suspensions shouldn't be seriously hard, and that you don't need a 7 litre engine to create 500HP (case in point, British-tuned WRX with 900HP (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/driven/59744/rcms_impreza_wrx_sti.html)...some people are insane).

I'd agree that on some level, if I spend so much money on a car, I want it to feel special, and Ferrari, Porsche and so on do that a little better than current American marques don't do that as well, partly because they save money on the interior.

And finally...statistics can't tell you anything about how a car really feels when you drive it. It might be great to have a few numbers to boast with, but ultimately a drag coefficient or lateral g's are a pointless exercise.
What matters are things that you can't put into numbers, like steering- and brake feel, responsiveness of all controls and so on.
Which is why it is so important to find really good magazines that describe these things well, and don't get obsessed about numbers.

Blauschild

14-12-2005, 02:23

Blauschild, you're so biased against the 'vette that you're seeing what you want to see.

I think its more likely you are reading biased bullshit into my post. Read it over a few more times.

The numbers are hardly different at all.

Correct they are not. Something I point out in my own post, but hey... you want to see me as some sort of jackass who is saying the Z06 sucks. To bad I have said nothing of the kind.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of car testing would know better than to stake out on 1mph through a slalom course, especially when you yourself posted evidence of a highly likely track temperature difference, seeing as the Ferrari was tested in September versus the Z06's December test.

Perhaps you don't know this, but all the major magazines, R&T in particular, subject all of their numbers to a formula to remove the atmospheric affects from their numbers. What this means is that the numbers we get to see aren't what they really posted, they are however all comaprable.

Further, a simple adjustment of tire pressures could totally change that number. That's not to mention what a different compound tire could do... I would almost guarantee that Chevy is running a much harder compound than Ferrari.

So we're suddenly going to start modifying the cars... not that changing the rubbers is much of a modifcation.

Your Porsche argument sucks. The 911 Turbo is inferior in all measures... and for the price, Porsche should just paint a rainbow on it at that rate.

Yeah it is... and its a five year old design... and as I noted in my post the Porsche is inferior. So I don't quite see where we're going here...

You don't mention from where you gather the S's data,

R&T 3-05

but assuming that it was the same source: Porsches are rear-engined. Slalom is what they do best. As you may know, those numbers (71.7) are some of the best for a street car. Nonetheless, this says little about the car's performance on a track. On a track, where you have to brake from speed into a turn, the Porsche's rear engine becomes and oversteer-inducing hindrance. Not to mention it would be abused on all but the tightest of tracks by the vette's superior speed, braking, and corner-holding.

Uh huh... The proto-type Z06 did Nürburgring in 7:42. The Porsche GT2 did it in 7:42. Sadly the Porsche only has 456 horsepower... I guess it must have made up that lack of power somewhere... probably in the.. hmm. What are those bits where the car isn't going straight? The corners? Yeah. The corners. Will the new Turbo handle as well as the old GT2? Don't know. Maybe, Maybe not. We'll have to wait and find out.

Rear-engine = Oversteer problems which is preferable to....
Front-engine = Understeer problems (bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad) while if you take rear-engine, add it to front engine and divide by the length of the chasis you get...
mid-engine = just right.

All in all, the Z06 is an incredible car. And despite your commentary to the contrary, price is a huge issue for all but the ridiculously rich.

I don't recall comenting on the price other than to say that the Z06 has an insane $/performance ratio.

Chevy is bringing B-class supercar performance to "the masses" (relatively). The fact of that level of performance is available for such a price is offensive to many harboring European loyalties, and I shed a tear of pity to any Ford GT owner who has a Z06 run right next to him in whatever he does... for half the price. Ouch.

Uh right. I will go ahead and say something about the price now. If your claim to fame is you do something almost as well for less. You have no claim to fame. Anyone with a pocketfull of cash can make a car that will trounce Carrera GTs, Enzos and Zondas. There will always be something that does more for less.

And just to prove to you that I'm not biased, I wouldn't have a Z06, Porsche, Ferrari, or whatever anyway. You can crush those numbers for a cool $11,000 with any Japanese crotch rocket. A stone-stock 1000cc Sportbike reaches 60mph in 2.1sec, and hits 100mph about the time the cars above get to 60. In a 0-100-0 test conducted last year, the GSXR-1000 was stopped before the Viper even got to 100. Now that, friends, is real performance.

Not that I'm going to get into it, but for a race track a super-car will trounce on any bike. Something about having 4 big wide contact patches as oposed to two skinny ones.

Oh, and the Carrera GT can be beat,

No really? I'm so utterly shocked and amazed that I almost died. No really.

Fjordburg

14-12-2005, 04:37

Look, while in the world of fantasy, undying loyalty, and absolute dedication to stereotype without regard to the evidence, maybe price doesn't matter. Apparently you guys live in that world. In the world in which I live, price is a very relevant component to anything. As such, I could care less that the GT2 is just able to **match** the Z06, for a whopping $110,000 premium. If you're SO dedicated to Porsche that you somehow find that cool, I'll happily wave whilest the men in white suits take you away. Where I live, $185k will buy you a house. The vette's $70k could, I suppose, but you wouldn't want to live in it. Nonetheless, we're back to the point that the performance is the same for gigantically less. If you'd like to get into that price range just arguing about American vs. Porsche, you should pick on the S7, not the Z06. That's America's Supercar, and it rightly falls into such category, not a high-volume Z06. The fact that the Z06 is a PRODUCTION car with supercar performance is part of what makes it so impressive. It's not supposed to make your dick feel 10" long because you're driving the most exclusive/expensive hunk of metal on the block, rather, its goal is to pin your ass to that seat in a way the vast majority of owners would never experience if their only alternatives are the cars you guys are arguing for.

Rear-engine = Oversteer problems which is preferable to....
Front-engine = Understeer problems (bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad) while if you take rear-engine, add it to front engine and divide by the length of the chasis you get...
mid-engine = just right.

What the hell? That's the most awkwardly worded way of saying mid engine is the best format I've ever seen. For your reference, the GT2's weight distribution is a lovely 38/62 (automobile magazine), while the standard C6 is 51/49 (Z06 numbers aren't out, but ought to be the same). I think you can draw your own conclusions there.

How does the GT2 make up its time? If I had to bet, I'd say most of it comes from its pricey ceramic-carbon brakes and one hell of a driver.

Uh right. I will go ahead and say something about the price now. If your claim to fame is you do something almost as well for less. You have no claim to fame. Anyone with a pocketfull of cash can make a car that will trounce Carrera GTs, Enzos and Zondas.

As cited above, quit taking the candy from the kids. If you want to talk about cars that TRY to compete with those, use the S7 as mentioned above. The Z06 patently does not, nor does it make any claim to. As aforementioned, the fact that its performance catapults it into that range is enough on its own, but it doesn't mean it should be compared with those cars, whose purposes are razor edge performance and style, no cost barred. Quite different from the goal of the Z06, and since subjectivity and feel seems to carry more weight with yall than objectivity, that should make perfect sense to you.

Once American cars finally abandon the idea that you need comfort, that suspensions shouldn't be seriously hard, and that you don't need a 7 litre engine to create 500HP (case in point, British-tuned WRX with 900HP...some people are insane).

Question: as specific output increases, what directly-related area decreases? Reliability/durability. F1 cars squeeze almost 1000hp out of a 3L, but the engine only lasts about 8000mi... most of the time. Anyone can build timebombs that generate massive power, just look at the NHRA top fuel cars that can make 8,000hp from a block only slightly bigger than the Z06's. But who cares if it only lasts 10 seconds.
Any Joe can throw a compressor onto X engine and generate horsepower from a small capacity, that's what forced induction does: makes up for cubic inches. Just go ask Ford and their 5.4L supercharged truck motor turned Ford GT. No one's impressed.

If you generate power from cubic inches, though, you do it with much more relibility/durability and simplicity than otherwise. You think that 900hp WRX will run for 200,000mi of abuse? Neither do I. The Z06 is designed to do so. That's not to mention that the more power you generate from forced induction, the less drivable a motor becomes. I'll take a whack that WRX has a boost hit from hell.
Why are Porsches HP numbers so low? Their engine is small. That's why it keeps getting bigger and bigger to compensate. They had to go to water cooling to deal with the level of boost (ie, heat) they're choking into the things to attempt to make them compete.

If you somehow find it a detractor that the American car does it with cubic inches, then you're absolutely nuts. A naturally aspirated engine is always more drivable, more durable, and simpler.

Everything else you say, Neu Leonstein, is subjective. Your opinions are just that, and are not the subject of any debate here, no matter how ignorant of the facts they may be.

All this time I thought it had to do with lift throttle loses and getting airflow to the engine. Who knew all those engineers and automotive historians where so wrong and the tear drop shape was so bad. What genius' the Stuttgart folks are to get a wing to maintain zero lift.

Would you please explain what a "lift throttle loss" is, and how it relates to aerodynamics? I'm very well versed and I don't know of what you speak.

The tear drop shape can be executed without a huge, steeply sloped rear end. That's the 911's problem, because such a design causes lift. Stretch it over a surface area as large as the 911's and you need serious assistance to negate that lift. Enter the wing...

Wings = drag. You didn't answer my question as to whether that Cd number was generated wing up or down either. Wings are always second choice to building downforce (cutting lift) through body design and undertray, because those areas are far less costly to drag. High five your Stuttgart boys for finding the easy way out in correcting an inherent design flaw.

And they continue to be the car you buy if you're serious about winning the GT2 (formally just GT) catagory at Le Mans.

And the Corvette continues to be the car to have if you're serious about winning the GT1 category at Le Mans OR in the ALMS. Your point is...

The Jesse James comparison is off. He fabricates the parts individually to each bike. Factory Five is a replica kit car company. It's a kit car, they don't have any problem calling it a kit car because it's a kit car.

Everything else goes back to arguing about cars I haven't driven. I'm not going ot chest thump for either Carrera or the GTM. The difference is going to be in the driving dynamics and for that I have to take other peoples words for it.

With age and experience I've gotten far less hostile about peoples car tastes. Much in the same way I don't measure penis' in the shower...seems kinda insecure...

The "kit car company" in question uses the sam CAD and robotic manufacturing technics that any other car company does. Further, the GTM, the only product of theirs in question, is not a replica, but 100% designed in house from scratch. Yes, it's sold in a kit. Does that insult your penis?

The point of the GTM is the raw performance for the cost. The point of my bring it into the argument was that in previous posts the Carrera GT was given a sort of holy grail status. I find it funny that "one of the world's best super cars," engineered no-holds-barred by your beloved Stuttgart boys, can be trumped by a kit. Driving dynamics, whatever you mean by that, be damned; that's straight up embarassing.

Lastly, I argue for fun. It's what I do. I'm not going to convince life-long Porsche lovers to go buy a Z06, nor is that my point. I'm not hostile towards opinion, unless one bases it on misinformation or is just flat wrong. If you like a Porsche because it makes you feel more endowed, be my guest and enjoy. However, if you say you like Porsche because it's the best car in the world (as stated here), you've got an argument coming. Since subjectivity is just that, said argument must be based on objective facts, which include performance and technology, both of which are held against the light of price.

New Granada

14-12-2005, 05:08

Too bad it doesnt look like an aston martin. and isnt an aston martin.

Cannot think of a name

14-12-2005, 05:15

Look, while in the world of fantasy, undying loyalty, and absolute dedication to stereotype without regard to the evidence, maybe price doesn't matter. Apparently you guys live in that world. In the world in which I live, price is a very relevant component to anything. As such, I could care less that the GT2 is just able to **match** the Z06, for a whopping $110,000 premium. If you're SO dedicated to Porsche that you somehow find that cool, I'll happily wave whilest the men in white suits take you away. Where I live, $185k will buy you a house. The vette's $70k could, I suppose, but you wouldn't want to live in it. Nonetheless, we're back to the point that the performance is the same for gigantically less. If you'd like to get into that price range just arguing about American vs. Porsche, you should pick on the S7, not the Z06. That's America's Supercar, and it rightly falls into such category, not a high-volume Z06. The fact that the Z06 is a PRODUCTION car with supercar performance is part of what makes it so impressive. It's not supposed to make your dick feel 10" long because you're driving the most exclusive/expensive hunk of metal on the block, rather, its goal is to pin your ass to that seat in a way the vast majority of owners would never experience if their only alternatives are the cars you guys are arguing for.
In the real world, people actually drive these cars instead of compare them like baseball card stats.

If you generate power from cubic inches, though, you do it with much more relibility/durability and simplicity than otherwise. You think that 900hp WRX will run for 200,000mi of abuse? Neither do I. The Z06 is designed to do so. That's not to mention that the more power you generate from forced induction, the less drivable a motor becomes. I'll take a whack that WRX has a boost hit from hell.
WRX is a rally derived car, meaning that it puts up with a lot of abuse over a great length.

Would you please explain what a "lift throttle loss" is, and how it relates to aerodynamics? I'm very well versed and I don't know of what you speak.
You can't possibly be having a serious discussion about Porsche handling dynamics and not know what lift throttle traction loss is. Or competitive driving for that matter. This is pretty elementry. Porsches, as you have noted, are rear heavy since the engine is hanging off the rear axle. When a driver goes into a turn and it gets slippery, amatuer drivers first reaction is to let off the gas. In any car this takes all the traction off the rear tires, with the Porsche's extra weight behind that it will whip the car around. At the speeds that the 930 started to reach that problem could be a big one, in addition to the additional cooling that the engine needed despite it being in a horrible position to recieve it. Enter the whale tale (though the duck tale of the early RSs where largely for tail end stability.) This gave the Porsche its early reputation as a drivers car because a skilled driver could use what was really a predictable rear wash to fly through turns while yay-hoos with heavy feet couldn't handle it. (While I would never in a million years call Richard "The King" Petty a yay-hoo, he had a problem with the lively handling of the Porsches in the first IROC races that featured the 73 RSs, remarking, "I didn't know how to drive them, I just slammed straight through the turns" (paraphrasing because I don't feel like looking this up right now).

All cars are suceptable to lift throttle traction loss, for a Porsche it's a major part of its dynamics (one that I think four or five years ago was all but eleminated, frustrating some purists.)

Wings = drag. You didn't answer my question as to whether that Cd number was generated wing up or down either. Wings are always second choice to building downforce (cutting lift) through body design and undertray, because those areas are far less costly to drag. High five your Stuttgart boys for finding the easy way out in correcting an inherent design flaw.
I buy used, they aren't my boys even by proxy.

And the Corvette continues to be the car to have if you're serious about winning the GT1 category at Le Mans OR in the ALMS. Your point is...
'Vette winning in the GT1 catagory is a point I've made several times in this thread, which brings one to wonder what the hell your point is.

The "kit car company" in question uses the sam CAD and robotic manufacturing technics that any other car company does. Further, the GTM, the only product of theirs in question, is not a replica, but 100% designed in house from scratch. Yes, it's sold in a kit. Does that insult your penis?

The point of the GTM is the raw performance for the cost. The point of my bring it into the argument was that in previous posts the Carrera GT was given a sort of holy grail status. I find it funny that "one of the world's best super cars," engineered no-holds-barred by your beloved Stuttgart boys, can be trumped by a kit. Driving dynamics, whatever you mean by that, be damned; that's straight up embarassing.
It means actually driving the car, not listing its stats on the internet to prove how cool the car you read in a magazine is compared to another car you read in a magazine is. Driving is about the driving, stats are about the penis.

Lastly, I argue for fun. It's what I do. I'm not going to convince life-long Porsche lovers to go buy a Z06, nor is that my point. I'm not hostile towards opinion, unless one bases it on misinformation or is just flat wrong. If you like a Porsche because it makes you feel more endowed, be my guest and enjoy. However, if you say you like Porsche because it's the best car in the world (as stated here), you've got an argument coming. Since subjectivity is just that, said argument must be based on objective facts, which include performance and technology, both of which are held against the light of price.
Actually the guy who started this thread was out to say the Z06 was the greatest thing to grace the road. For the most part I've been defending it as a good car. I managed to do it without spending most of my time telling people what losers they are to like the cars they like. Call it phallic security.

Maybe it comes with age and experience. I remember being a kid reading magazines thinking I knew something because I looked at road test summaries. I poo pooed cars. But then I got to drive a few more, then a lot more. And I found that there are things that don't fit on the summary page. And that if you haven't turned the wheel, your opinion of the car is suspect. So yeah, there are some cars that I'm not crazy about but if someone says they like it or think it's the greatest I'm experienced enough to let it go.

But like I said, I don't measure in the shower either, to each their own.

Fjordburg

14-12-2005, 06:55

WRX is a rally derived car, meaning that it puts up with a lot of abuse over a great length.

The fact that the WRX competes in the WRC has as much to do with the production car as the Z06 does the C6-R. And I don't care what form of racing it has competed in, extracting 900hp from a ~3L flat four does not lend a reliable, well driving engine. Period. It will not have long term durability by the laws governing engine performance.

You can't possibly be having a serious discussion about Porsche handling dynamics and not know what lift throttle traction loss is. Or competitive driving for that matter. This is pretty elementry. Porsches, as you have noted, are rear heavy since the engine is hanging off the rear axle. When a driver goes into a turn and it gets slippery, amatuer drivers first reaction is to let off the gas. In any car this takes all the traction off the rear tires, with the Porsche's extra weight behind that it will whip the car around. At the speeds that the 930 started to reach that problem could be a big one, in addition to the additional cooling that the engine needed despite it being in a horrible position to recieve it. Enter the whale tale (though the duck tale of the early RSs where largely for tail end stability.) This gave the Porsche its early reputation as a drivers car because a skilled driver could use what was really a predictable rear wash to fly through turns while yay-hoos with heavy feet couldn't handle it. (While I would never in a million years call Richard "The King" Petty a yay-hoo, he had a problem with the lively handling of the Porsches in the first IROC races that featured the 73 RSs, remarking, "I didn't know how to drive them, I just slammed straight through the turns" (paraphrasing because I don't feel like looking this up right now).

All cars are suceptable to lift throttle traction loss, for a Porsche it's a major part of its dynamics (one that I think four or five years ago was all but eleminated, frustrating some purists.)

Interesting, but... none of which relate in the least to aerodynamics or the rear wing, which in regards you again neglect to answer my question a third time.

I buy used, they aren't my boys even by proxy.

That got a laugh. At least you're man enough to admit your affiliations.

'Vette winning in the GT1 catagory is a point I've made several times in this thread, which brings one to wonder what the hell your point is.

Race cars weren't ever my point, as cited in my first post in this thread. They have precious little to do with street cars.
My point, as mentioned in my above post, is refuting the claim of Porsche as "the best car in the world" at most, and in least, better than the Z06. I think the latter has been established, unless you make the following qualifications: price is no object, style is more important than performance, and exclusivity and expense are more important than actual power to back it up.

It means actually driving the car, not listing its stats on the internet to prove how cool the car you read in a magazine is compared to another car you read in a magazine is. Driving is about the driving, stats are about the penis.

Care to spot me $70k? I promise not to wreck it! I'm graduating undergrad in 3 months and going to law school, so forgive me if I'm a bit short on cash with which to drive the best/fastest cars in the world.

Driving is about driving and performance is about performance. If you want to just drive, go buy a Civic, it does that just fine. Performance is driving at a higher level. Figuring out where that level is requires a look at the numbers. While the "feel" is a worthwhile point which may make up for slight differences, it doesn't make up for massive gaps found between the normal, production 911's and the Z06. If that fact is hard to take, put away the ruler and break out your silk thong. That way you can enjoy the "feel" of "luxury" and ignore the stats.

Actually the guy who started this thread was out to say the Z06 was the greatest thing to grace the road. For the most part I've been defending it as a good car. I managed to do it without spending most of my time telling people what losers they are to like the cars they like. Call it phallic security.

I don't recall making personal insults. I have said what reasons are and are not good for making a case for Porsche in my above post. And all the while my phallus has been securely tucked away.

Maybe it comes with age and experience. I remember being a kid reading magazines thinking I knew something because I looked at road test summaries. I poo pooed cars. But then I got to drive a few more, then a lot more. And I found that there are things that don't fit on the summary page. And that if you haven't turned the wheel, your opinion of the car is suspect. So yeah, there are some cars that I'm not crazy about but if someone says they like it or think it's the greatest I'm experienced enough to let it go.

But like I said, I don't measure in the shower either, to each their own.

I have little doubt you have me on the age, especially if you were around to watch the 930's run, but I don't lack in experience, not in racing anyway. I've been competing in various forms of offroad motorcycle racing across the state for about 6 years now. I do all my own maintainence, modifications, etc. No, it's not a supercar. But do you drive one either? The point is, I do it. Combine that with my wide tastes for other forms of racing and I've got a very broad background. These are just the series I've attended; I'm a fan of much more: AMA pro Motocross/Supercross/Arenacross, AMA GNCC, AMA Superbike, MotoGP (Laguna Seca), APBA offshore, IHBA drag racing, NMMA drag racing, Grand-Am, NASCAR, Superkart, and Formula Renault. I follow F1, CART, ALMS, WRC, DTM, SCCA Trans-am, WSBK, and many others. I've had track time in a modified WRX, CRX (laugh), Z/28, and mustang GT at road courses, drag strips, and autocrosses. My friend with the WRX even bought an old eclipse which I helped him strip and race prep. I've had a few rides with him in the gravel it, as well as doing some driving in my own car. Have you ever gone 70mph on gravel through a national forest in your Porsche? I've done it in my Mazda. Driving on gravel will teach you a thing or two about what you term "lift throttle loss" faster than you can blink. I'd know, it took a few spins before I caught it myself.

Anyway, as you can see, I'm somewhat of a racing afficiando. The technical aspect of it is one of my favorite parts, and I have pretty uncompromising standards when it comes to carrying those aspects over to the street. Compression ratio, torque, rpm, induction methods, valve train, etc are all far more important to me than whether the interior "feels nice." I'm highly critical of Chevy, for example, for still using pushrods and two valve heads.
I hate the car I drive, but I won't be able to change that for another 3 years b/c of the aforementioned schooling. Until then, I take it out my need for racing on my race bike, which I have prepped and maintain to my exacting standards.

Cannot think of a name

14-12-2005, 07:05

I have little doubt you have me on the age, especially if you were around to watch the 930's run, but I don't lack in experience, not in racing anyway. I've been competing in various forms of offroad motorcycle racing across the state for about 6 years now. I do all my own maintainence, modifications, etc. No, it's not a supercar. But do you drive one either? The point is, I do it. Combine that with my wide tastes for other forms of racing and I've got a very broad background. These are just the series I've attended; I'm a fan of much more: AMA pro Motocross/Supercross/Arenacross, AMA GNCC, AMA Superbike, MotoGP (Laguna Seca), APBA offshore, IHBA drag racing, NMMA drag racing, Grand-Am, NASCAR, Superkart, and Formula Renault. I follow F1, CART, ALMS, WRC, DTM, SCCA Trans-am, WSBK, and many others. I've had track time in a modified WRX, CRX (laugh), Z/28, and mustang GT at road courses, drag strips, and autocrosses. My friend with the WRX even bought an old eclipse which I helped him strip and race prep. I've had a few rides with him in the gravel it, as well as doing some driving in my own car. Have you ever gone 70mph on gravel through a national forest in your Porsche?
.
It's this point I'm supposed to list my pedigree and accomplishments so I deserve to remark as well. And while I do have them, this is the internet. I could be telling you that I race the Paris-Dakar in the Pope-Mobile. This is not to say that I think you are lying (but how in the hell does someone who's driven a rally not know about lift throttle traction loss? Anyway, not the point...) I have no doubt you're telling the truth.

But, this is the kind of penis measuring that makes talking to some people about cars a pain in the ass and on the internet down right embarassing.

Blauschild

14-12-2005, 07:18

My point, as mentioned in my above post, is refuting the claim of Porsche as "the best car in the world" at most, and in least, better than the Z06. I think the latter has been established, unless you make the following qualifications: price is no object, style is more important than performance, and exclusivity and expense are more important than actual power to back it up.

Find someone who has said Porsche is 'the best car in the world' before you attempt to refute it.

Fjordburg

14-12-2005, 07:27

It's this point I'm supposed to list my pedigree and accomplishments so I deserve to remark as well. And while I do have them, this is the internet. I could be telling you that I race the Paris-Dakar in the Pope-Mobile. This is not to say that I think you are lying (but how in the hell does someone who's driven a rally not know about lift throttle traction loss? Anyway, not the point...) I have no doubt you're telling the truth.

But, this is the kind of penis measuring that makes talking to some people about cars a pain in the ass and on the internet down right embarassing.

Right you are, this is the internet, where media can back up words. It just so happens I have a few of the above mentioned already hosted.

Me riding at Mill Creek Motocross track (http://photos-714.facebook.com/n7/397/n7004397_30116714_9395.jpg)

The back stretch at Barber Motorsports Park during AMA SBK practice (http://photos-752.facebook.com/n/52/77/n7004397_6427752_9370.jpg)

Atlanta Supercross opening ceremonies (http://photos-832.facebook.com/n/32/78/n7004397_6427832_1082.jpg)

The front stretch at the US MotoGP this July (http://www.auburn.edu/~milleb2/mgp.jpg)

I even have a .7Mb video of Nicky Hayden blasting by from at the MotoGP: http://www.auburn.edu/~milleb2/hayden.mov

That's for your enjoyment, not because I think you doubt.

What's the point? If you have experience and breadth of knowledge to trump that, I welcome your advice. Heck, I'd just love to see a picture of you piloting the pope-mobile across the desert. Otherwise, I'll consider myself very well versed in terms of what is performance and the ability to recogize it when I see it. That's the point. It's the ability to read stats on a page and combined with having seen video and read tests, understand what a vehicle (car, boat, motorcycle...) is capable of doing. It's sort of an area of expertise for me, so when an opportunity to discuss or even argue it presents itself, I take it.

In all my life I've never heard the term "lift throttle traction loss." I've seen it, I've experienced it, I've just never heard it called such. That's all.

Fjordburg

14-12-2005, 07:35

Find someone who has said Porsche is 'the best car in the world' before you attempt to refute it.

In so many words:

Personally I believe Porsche is the best car company on the planet, precisely for creating something unique, with a history and which still tops its class every time.

You just picked the wrong car to pick on, because IMHO Porsche is the car company on this planet which has got things worked out.
The 911 is time and again the top model of its class, and there is not a car in the world that has actually passed a comparison test against it favourably.

Cannot think of a name

14-12-2005, 07:37

Right you are, this is the internet, where media can back up words. It just so happens I have a few of the above mentioned already hosted.

Me riding at Mill Creek Motocross track (http://photos-714.facebook.com/n7/397/n7004397_30116714_9395.jpg)

The back stretch at Barber Motorsports Park during AMA SBK practice (http://photos-752.facebook.com/n/52/77/n7004397_6427752_9370.jpg)

Atlanta Supercross opening ceremonies (http://photos-832.facebook.com/n/32/78/n7004397_6427832_1082.jpg)

The front stretch at the US MotoGP this July (http://www.auburn.edu/~milleb2/mgp.jpg)

I even have a .7Mb video of Nicky Hayden blasting by from at the MotoGP: http://www.auburn.edu/~milleb2/hayden.mov

That's for your enjoyment, not because I think you doubt.

What's the point? If you have experience and breadth of knowledge to trump that, I welcome your advice. Heck, I'd just love to see a picture of you piloting the pope-mobile across the desert. Otherwise, I'll consider myself very well versed in terms of what is performance and the ability to recogize it when I see it. That's the point. It's the ability to read stats on a page and combined with having seen video and read tests, understand what a vehicle (car, boat, motorcycle...) is capable of doing. It's sort of an area of expertise for me, so when an opportunity to discuss or even argue it presents itself, I take it.

In all my life I've never heard the term "lift throttle traction loss." I've seen it, I've experienced it, I've just never heard it called such. That's all.
I don't race to prove how cool I am, I don't list my 'credits' to prove how valid my opinions are. I love to argue as much as the next guy, but I simply love to drive, and driving fast is part of that. I let the kids argue over who's got the better calender photo or whose gone fast where.

Fjordburg

14-12-2005, 07:44

I don't race to prove how cool I am, I don't list my 'credits' to prove how valid my opinions are. I love to argue as much as the next guy, but I simply love to drive, and driving fast is part of that. I let the kids argue over who's got the better calender photo or whose gone fast where.

I'm glad you can determine my motivation for racing. :rolleyes:

You sir brought up the challenge to my credentials with your "age and experience" comment. I simply chose to come back with evidence instead of words. It's that whole subjective vs. objective thing that keeps raring its ugly head in these posts.

..."yadda yadda, I can't back it up, but I still have an opinion." That's fine with me and thumbs up to you, but if you'll go back to my argument, leave the question of performance to the people who know and care, and you can go check the question of how you feel about a car.

IE, don't argue that Porsche is on par with the vette when the numbers clearly show otherwise. No one stated, "The Z06 has the best interior I've ever seen," or "The new Z06 has awesome styling;" rather, the question is performance, and that argument is over.

Antikythera

14-12-2005, 08:02

i have an idea that will help you get rid of all the pent up frustration
insted of arguing about vetts and fairries and such.... tell me what you think about the volvo S60 R compared to the subaru WRX or the dodge SRT 8:)

Blauschild

14-12-2005, 08:31

IE, don't argue that Porsche is on par with the vette when the numbers clearly show otherwise. No one stated, "The Z06 has the best interior I've ever seen," or "The new Z06 has awesome styling;" rather, the question is performance, and that argument is over.

Yes the argument is over. And the conclusion is that the C6 Z06 circa 2005 beats the 996 Turbo circa 2000. Sad to say but you're running just an unfair comparison by comparing the C6 Z06 to the 996 Turbo as we could conceivably be doing by comparing a 75k car to a 100K+ car. The proper comparison is the C5 Z06 to the 996 Turbo, you know cars of the same age. Which the Porsche wins. By looking at the 997 Carrera S and the old 996 Turbo we can plainly see that if Porsche continues its 30 odd year trend of slowly improving the Turbo breed we'll see a 997 Turbo that will be faster than the 996 Turbo and will handle as well or better than the 997 Carrera S. That creates a car that happily beats the C6 Z06. Though we'll really just have to wait and see until the 997 Turbo comes out before we can't actually argue that one.

In so many words:

When it comes to car companies.. Porsche is bar none by the best by the most important figure. Profit/product. Porsche is the single most profitable mass market manufacturer per product. As far as the other quote, Neu Leonsteinis a bit delusional. Though the various models have always done rather well against their direct competitors of the same age. IE 996 Turbo vs Z06 and Viper. GT2 vs Ferrari. Boxster vs BMW Z3 (and now the Z4.) Etc... But then there certainly are better performing cars out there.

i have an idea that will help you get rid of all the pent up frustration insted of arguing about vetts and fairries and such.... tell me what you think about the volvo S60 R compared to the subaru WRX or the dodge SRT 8

Volvo S60R, or Cadillac CTSV

Antikythera

14-12-2005, 08:42

why the Cadillac CTSV?

Fjordburg

14-12-2005, 10:59

Yes the argument is over. And the conclusion is that the C6 Z06 circa 2005 beats the 996 Turbo circa 2000. Sad to say but you're running just an unfair comparison by comparing the C6 Z06 to the 996 Turbo as we could conceivably be doing by comparing a 75k car to a 100K+ car. The proper comparison is the C5 Z06 to the 996 Turbo, you know cars of the same age. Which the Porsche wins. By looking at the 997 Carrera S and the old 996 Turbo we can plainly see that if Porsche continues its 30 odd year trend of slowly improving the Turbo breed we'll see a 997 Turbo that will be faster than the 996 Turbo and will handle as well or better than the 997 Carrera S. That creates a car that happily beats the C6 Z06. Though we'll really just have to wait and see until the 997 Turbo comes out before we can't actually argue that one.

Is that my fault? I'm using the numbers you yourself provided. If Porsche is behind the times with their car, you should take it up with them, not slight my argument for it.

Predicting future values is a dangerous thing; just ask the Ford GT owners. If it's better when it comes out, I'll be more than happy to award its due. I'll still harp about its price, but if it's better, I'll say at least it adds some justification. However, now is now and that's that.

Antikythera- the WRX is a great car, a lot of fun, but how you grouped it with those other two eludes me. The WRX is an economical sports car with four doors. The Volvo and Dodge are both "sporty" luxury cars in a higher price range, and in the case of the Dodge anyway, weigh a boatload more. That's why the CTS-V is a better fit, even though its price is ridiculous. If the GTO were a 4 door, it would be a good fit as well.

Neu Leonstein

14-12-2005, 13:00

In so many words...
I thought we went over this. In both cases I said "in my personal opinion" - meaning exactly that.
I like Porsche as a company, and I like their products. I'd prefer them to a Corvette, and I don't care about the price, nor the g's it pulls on a skidpan.

If I am in the market for the Z06, I will definitely give it a look, because it is clearly not a bad car. But it has some serious competition in its own price range, that despite less power may still offer a more compelling package.

Cannot think of a name

14-12-2005, 13:26

I'm glad you can determine my motivation for racing. :rolleyes:

You sir brought up the challenge to my credentials with your "age and experience" comment. I simply chose to come back with evidence instead of words. It's that whole subjective vs. objective thing that keeps raring its ugly head in these posts.
You're right, I did and it was my bad. There are young cats like yourself at every race and track event having these same stupid arguements and I was frustrated that I had allowed myself to be dragged into it. It got the best of me and I became condescending because of the stats over seat time arguement. If I went by stats I'd never know what a driver's thrill it is to drive vintage sports cars.

..."yadda yadda, I can't back it up, but I still have an opinion." That's fine with me and thumbs up to you, but if you'll go back to my argument, leave the question of performance to the people who know and care, and you can go check the question of how you feel about a car.
It's statements like this that give the impression that you're a magazine gearhead. That you confuse 'how you feel about the car' with 'the feel of the car' makes it clear that we are having two different conversations.

And 'plea to authority' is a logical fallacy, and bragging on the internet is sad. So I try to avoid both. Calender car fans have a different way of looking at cars. I never collected baseball cards either.

IE, don't argue that Porsche is on par with the vette when the numbers clearly show otherwise. No one stated, "The Z06 has the best interior I've ever seen," or "The new Z06 has awesome styling;" rather, the question is performance, and that argument is over.
I spent most of this thread agreeing that the Corvette did a good job. I don't like the car but I gave it it's props.

Both statements where about the company Porsche, which means you have to take thier history and influence into account. In that respect, the stats that you're so fond of add up.

And the argument of performance is never over. Like I had said, Porsche is not one to let itself be beaten for very long. This is not the first time a car has come out that beats the Porsche in some aspect, no one implied they where infaliable, just that they where a good company. Next year there will be other cars and other times, maybe it will be a Porsche, maybe it will be a Chevy, maye it'll be a kit car. One thing's for sure, there'll be a even faster car again the next year. You can buy the Z06 to be the fastest, but it will only be the fastest for so long. To stay on top of the stat heap you'll have to spend that money you saved on the next top stat car.

Or come up with a better standard.

NationStates Jolt Archive

2006 Chevy Corvette Z06