Edmunds: Z06 vs. GT vs. Viper

[ifcar]

Introduction



"I raced for 17 years. Ran the Daytona 24 Hours, NASCAR Southwest Tour, SCCA GT1 cars, IMSA, oval tracks. But I never raced a car with this much horsepower."

That was the comment from our professional test-driver after his lap times in this latest American Exotics comparison test. Each of these ? the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06, Dodge Viper SRT10 Coupe and Ford GT ? are more powerful than Formula One racecars of 25 years ago. Even today, relatively few racecars boast more than 500 horses.

However, if you have good credit, your local Chevy, Dodge or Ford dealer can put you in a vehicle with more horsepower than a NASCAR Nextel Cup car set up for Daytona or Talladega. A Cup motor fitted with a restrictor-plate makes about 450 horses, while the Corvette Z06 is rated at 505, the Viper SRT10 Coupe at 510 ponies, and the Ford GT at 550.

Our calibrated derri?res suggested that at least Chevy ? and probably Ford, too ? was more than a bit conservative with those ratings. Another racecar comparison: While it's a challenge to find believable data on the peak torque of the current 2.4-liter F1 engine, you can bet it's less than any of these: Dodge (535 pound-feet), Ford (500) and Chevy (470).

Still, that wondrous power is not the most amazing thing about this trio. Another also-ran in the Top Attribute contest is how relatively inexpensive two of these three cars are. If you have an above-average income and really want one ? enough to sacrifice vacations, expensive homes, and relationships with the opposite sex ? you can own a brand-new Corvette Z06 or Dodge Viper Coupe.

Though unexpectedly welcome, we're also thrilled to report that each is friendly and forgiving when pushed to their limits ? and beyond ? on the racetrack: The once-feared Viper is now perhaps too easy to drive fast. (More on that later.)

Finally, though none would be confused with a Camry, each is relatively easy to maneuver in everyday traffic. The most difficult thing about daily use is the occasional gawker who tangles up traffic flow around you. It wouldn't be outlandish to use any of them, but especially the Corvette, as a commuter car, though low ground clearance and summer tires mean you'd want to leave them home when it snows. And our particular Ford GT test car had the disconcerting habit of occasionally piddling what appeared to be transaxle oil.

And we must provide some caveats to those who might consider using these as daily drivers. Super-grippy tires wear much more quickly than conventional rubber: Our experience suggests that aggressive drivers may wind up replacing rear tires at every other oil change. Or sooner.

The cars
The concept is simple: add horsepower and lightness. Chevrolet applied this classic formula with brilliant success on the Z06. Despite a long list of additional (and mass-increasing) features ? bigger brakes, wider wheels and tires, and a dry sump oiling system ? the Z06 is almost 50 pounds lighter than the base 400-horse Corvette Coupe. This is thanks to some fairly exotic and expensive material.

Not only does it offer the best power-to-weight ratio in this test, the Z06 is the least expensive: With a base price of $65,000 it comes in some $18,000 less than the Viper and about $100,000 less than the Ford. It's also worth noting that the Z06's impressive EPA fuel mileage ratings of 16/26 make it the only car in this test to completely avoid the gas-guzzler tax. Our tester was priced at a thrifty $69,135.

Normally, car companies first build a hardtop and, when sales need a boost, turn it into a convertible: Dodge's Street and Racing Technology team went the other way. The resulting SRT10 Coupe is significantly different than its open-top sibling. Its interior feels deceptively confining even though the double-bubble roof provides domelike accommodation to taller occupants.

In hard corners and transitions, the added structure delivered righteous testimony to the unifying strength of a hardtop over a convertible. Power comes from an upgraded version of the truck-based OHV V10 ? this time displacing 8.3 liters and featuring an aluminum block and heads. Though still a four-wheel Harley, the Coupe is more of an Electraglide than a Deuce. Out-the-door price of our tester, including a $3,000 gas-guzzler tax, was $86,995.

When the original Ford GT40 debuted more than 40 years ago, it took on Europe's best top performance cars at places like Daytona, Sebring and Le Mans ? and won! The current Ford GT has repeated history on public roadways. With 550 (at least!) supercharged horsepower pumped out of its 5.4-liter DOHC V8 and a very sweet handling chassis, the GT is a delicious combination of classic good looks and totally modern performance.

Chassis stiffness, suspension tuning, aero tweaks, and performance tires have come a long way in 40 years: The GT offers a crisp responsiveness, high limits and small penalties if you step over the edge. Sticker price is a steep $166,945 ? if you can find a dealer who will let one go at MSRP.

How they stacked up
The logical right brain gets little exercise in a discussion of exotic cars. Fortunately for us, our scoring system acts as an onboard logic center to keep us grounded. A sobering fact: For the current price of a Ford GT, you could get a Z06 and put $100,000 in a Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Or buy two Z06s and put $30 grand in the Mega-Millions lottery. The Corvette is easier to drive in everyday traffic; has stability control to prevent you from wasting your investment and yourself; offers Cadillac-like creature comforts; doesn't attract as much unwanted attention (from cops and fellow motorists); and is just as fast around the road racing circuit. Our winner: The Z06.

When lust was allowed to rule, we could see only the Ford GT. If you were old enough to be aware of how the Ford GT40 and its close relatives ruled the 24 Hours of Le Mans in the mid- and late '60s, the new Ford GT had you at the word "Hello." Is it a coincidence that many of those who today can afford a Ford GT were between 10 and 19 years old in the years between 1964 and 1969? The fact that the GT is incredibly fast, easy to drive at the limit, and docile on the street made the distinction between lust and love only that much more confusing.

Earning a solid 3rd-place finish (that would be "last" in a three-car shoot-out) is the Viper Coupe. It's somewhat ironic when you consider that Dodge's Viper was the first real exotic American sports car of the modern era. Without it, the other two likely wouldn't exist. Now, after driving all three of these cars, it's clear the Viper has been surpassed on nearly every level. The Corvette costs less, performs better and is a jovial sweetheart where the Viper is a cranky nag. The GT outclasses Dodge's snake to an even greater extent ? albeit at twice the price.

One observant editor made the following comment: "Maybe they could fix it by simply throwing a 'Hemi' under the hood. It's worked for every other modern Chrysler product."  

[ifcar]

First Place: 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06













It's important to know what the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is not. It's not just a regular Vette with a bored-and-stroked small block stuffed into its engine compartment. Certainly the hand-built 7.0-liter OHV LS7, which boasts titanium valves and connecting rods, and a forged-steel crankshaft, is the star of the show.

But power alone isn't significant. What counts is a vehicle's power-to-weight ratio, and the Z06 offers the best in this comparison. If you believe the manufacturer's numbers, the Z06 has 6.2 pounds per horsepower against 6.3 for the Ford and 6.7 for the Viper. The Z06 earns this rating thanks in part to its aluminum frame and magnesium engine cradle, which are both steel on regular Vettes. In addition, there are lightweight carbon-fiber front fenders, wheelhouses and floorboards.

This effort at lightening not only offsets the Z06's list of additional mass-increasing features, but also makes the Z06 almost 50 pounds lighter than the regular 400-horse Corvette Coupe. The result of more power and less weight: A 0-to-60-mph acceleration run in a dusty parking lot of 4.4 seconds, topping out with an 11.9-second, 124-mph quarter-mile. This even though the two-three shift is more than a bit difficult with the hardy-yet-primitive Tremec six-speed transmission.

Racecar bits and performance
To help keep the LS7 alive at its 7,000-rpm rev limit, and during the car's extreme cornering forces offered by it's light weight and sticky tires, is a racecar-style dry-sump oiling system. A dry sump moves the oil reservoir from its traditional position below the crankshaft to a remote location. Among other things this prevents the oil pump from being starved during hard cornering and keeps the crankshaft from splashing through the reservoir; the latter not only foams the oil but also creates power-sapping drag.

In the past, Corvette brakes were far from its most robust component, but that's changed. The '06 Z06 gets monoblock six-piston front brake calipers and four-piston rear calipers that grab onto vented and cross-drilled rotors, 14-inch diameter front and 13.4-inch rear. Large cooling ducts keep the brakes at peak efficiency even on the racetrack. The result is the shortest stopping distance in this comparison: 106 feet 60-0 mph and 300 feet 100-0 mph.

Transmitting the power to the ground are massive Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires: The Z06's P275/35ZR18 front tires are but 10mm narrower than the regular version's rears and the P325/30ZR19s dwarf those on many racecars. This rubber works through unequal-length (a.k.a. "short/long arm") forged-aluminum control arms. This helped give the Z06 a second-best slalom run at 68.3 mph.

Racetrack terror
At Willow Springs Raceway, the Z06 was more than a bit of a handful, twitching into oversteer (a.k.a. "loose") at the exit of most corners. Perhaps it didn't get a fair shake. Its Goodyears had suffered through photographer-pleasing burnouts that took them down to just above their legal tread limit.

Perhaps this also reduced rear grip by revulcanizing the rubber. Or perhaps the Z06 is always a handful at the limit. Virtually all owners will be thankful for the two-stage (normal and competition) stability control system. (We replaced the rear Goodyears after Willow and before the slalom and skid pad runs.)

Gripes include an overly optimistic g-meter on the Z06's otherwise excellent head-up display. On the skid pad, our tester kept an eye on it the entire lap. It never went below 1.0 g and often showed 1.04 and above. The true average cornering power was 0.92 g.

The winner
One of the Z06's strengths ? the fact that it blends into traffic far more easily than its opposition ? is also one of its weaknesses. Driving a Ford GT there's little chance you'll pass yourself on the highway, but in a Z06 Corvette, you're likely to see a visually near identical (but non-Z06) vehicle piloted by an orthodontist or a recent divorcee every 10 minutes.

Yet, the bottom line remains: Chevrolet applied the time-honored formula of adding horsepower and reducing weight with brilliant success on the Z06. Rated at grins per dollar, the '06 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is the best supercar bargain of all time.


Vehicle Tested:
2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2dr Hatchback (7.0L 8cyl 6M)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $69,135

What Works:
Weight-saving aluminum frame and magnesium engine cradle, potent bored-and-stroked LS7, two-stage stability control, head-up display.

What Needs Work:
At-the-limit handling balance too much toward oversteer (a.k.a. "loose"), lacks exclusivity of other exotics.

Bottom Line:
The best value in the entire supercar kingdom.  

[ifcar]

Second Place: 2006 Ford GT











Behind the wheel of the 2006 Ford GT, we couldn't help imagining ourselves at Le Mans, Sebring, Daytona, or the Nurburgring, battling boyhood heroes like Mario Andretti, Mark Donohue, Dan Gurney and Phil Hill. Since the GT40 racecars had less than the '06's 550 horsepower, we could almost imagine running ahead of the heroes of yore. But keep that between us: We don't want Dan or Mario coming out of retirement to spoil our fantasy.

The Ford GT is far better than its inspiration. Racecars are hot, noisy, rattley, uncomfortable, and unforgiving. Forty years ago, suspension designers either didn't fully understand bump and toe steer or didn't have today's powerful computers to help work out the bugs. Or both.

Chassis designers were unable to combine both stiffness and lightness; often achieving neither. Engines were so peaky as to make K2 look like Kansas. Comparing clutches and leg-press machines created distinctions without a difference. Steering was also exercise-machine heavy. Four-speed gearboxes were recalcitrant at best. Installation convenience, not driver ease of use, determined control location. And everything on the car broke. A lot.

Real car and racecar
The Ford GT is how nonracers imagine racecars to be. It's comfortable and quiet, at least in the realm of super-high-performance cars. Except for its go-kart view of life among Freightliner-sized SUVs, the GT is docile and easy to drive in traffic. The interior is spartan but controls are easily employed.

On the racetrack it was surprisingly easy ? no, make that shockingly easy ? to drive at its lofty limit: It took us a couple of laps to believe its benign manners. Despite its good behavior, as we entered Turn 8 at 150 mph, we wished for six-point belts and a chrome moly roll cage. And those without racing experience ? or good judgment ? will also wish for stability control.

Ford's "modular" overhead-cam engine has powered everything from Crown Victorias to E-350 Super Duty Chateau vans. Production configurations have included 4.6-liter V8s to 6.8-liter SOHC V10s, both of those with iron blocks and two valves per cylinder. Even the Jaguar S-Type's V6 claims modular lineage. For the GT, Ford chose the modular's long-stroke 5.4-liter, four-cam, four-valve V8 configuration with aluminum block and heads. Topped by an Eaton supercharger, it makes a neck-snapping 550 hp.

This force goes to the ground through a Ricardo six-speed manual transaxle. The result: An impressive 4.0-second 0-60 mph on a very dusty (but controlled) parking lot. It covered the quarter-mile in a blazing 11.8 seconds at a shocking 126 mph.

Bolted onto the GT's all-aluminum spaceframe chassis are unequal-length (a.k.a. short-long arm) control arms and P235/45ZR18 front, P315/40ZR19 rear Goodyear's Eagle F1 Supercars. These are the narrowest tires in the test: Imagine calling 315s "narrow"! Still, the GT recorded the fastest slalom run at 69.5 mph. About the only place it didn't shine was braking, where it trailed the Z06 by 9 feet 60-0 and 14 feet 100-0. Still, we experienced no fade from its Brembos on the track.

No flaws at full throttle
Criticizing the GT is like finding blemishes on Victoria Secret models. There's no luggage space for much more than a toothbrush, T-shirt and workout shorts. And its doors are problematic. If you don't open them all the way, you'll slam the top of your head into the door edge: It only took us four head smacks to figure it out. Finding a parking place that allows you to open them all the way will be a challenge: You'll hunt for the farthest one in the row to prevent another car from blocking you in. The prominent left-side A-pillar blocks a good chunk of forward vision, making it disconcerting in heavy traffic and requiring extra care when placing the car for tight left-handers.

But our best advice when driving a 2006 Ford GT is simple: please aspire not to curse when you reach wide-open throttle.


Vehicle Tested:
2006 Ford GT 2dr Coupe (5.4L 8cyl S/C 6M)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $166,945

What Works:
Precise, yet forgiving handling; 550-plus supercharged horsepower; Le Mans-winning styling.

What Needs Work:
Still a challenge to get one at MSRP; reliability remains unproven; needs double-wide parking places.

Bottom Line:
A trip back into '60s racing lore where reality is better than fantasy.  

[ifcar]

Third Place: 2006 Dodge Viper











At one point in history, devices as varied as the longbow, paddle-wheeled steamboat, North American P51 Mustang, and 35mm film camera enjoyed reigns at the top of the technological mountain. Just as their reign has ended, so, too, has that of the once dominant Dodge Viper.

From the very start of this comparison, it was clear the Viper SRT10 Coupe was going to be a 3rd-place finisher. Through the entire test, it did little to change that assessment. First, it was the most difficult to live with. Getting into the seat is challenging for many. Getting out is a challenge for virtually all. The combination of its long hood and lower seating position makes it only slightly less difficult to park than an Indy car.

Front end first
It took much less than a lap of Willow Springs to figure out that Dodge has become very tired of the number of Vipers showing up on www.wreckedexotics.com. The SRT10 Coupe is a resolute pusher, its front tires losing traction long before the rears reach their peak grip. This makes the Viper handle unlike its tail-happy predecessors and very much like a Neon.

Even when you try, the SRT10's rear doesn't want to step out. Such a setup (combined with a now standard antilock braking system) makes the SRT10 extremely stable, utterly forgiving and easy to master. But slow. All this is great for owners who lack racing experience, but it limits the car's ultimate lap times when piloted by a veteran. Offsetting this understeer-biased setup is the Viper's super-wide Michelin Pilot Sports, huge 275/35R18s front and gargantuan 345/30R19s on the back.

At the test track, the only performance test it won was skid-pad cornering power (which is more a tire test than a car test) at 0.95 g, and it finished 2nd in only braking (a negligible 2 feet back of the Vette's 60-0 mph), thanks to the combination of Brembo brakes, ABS and sticky tires.

On top of all this, the SRT10 is considerably more expensive than its more capable Z06 opposition.

Fast but slowest
When the Viper RT/10 debuted as a '92 model, Dodge claimed its 8.0-liter OHV V10 produced 400 hp at 4,600 rpm. That was true. But unstated was that if revved higher, the truck-based pushrod mill made even more power. For the '96 Viper Coupe, Dodge claimed 50 more hp at 5,200 rpm. And a few more rpm probably made a few more horses in that engine, too.

For the latest version, the bore of its aluminum block has been increased 0.03 inch and the stroke lengthened by 0.08 inch to gain another 0.3 liter of displacement, bringing the total to 8.3 liters. Along with other tweaks, this brings the claimed peak horsepower to 510 at 5,600 rpm. We wouldn't be surprised if a few more revs reaped a few more ponies. (Torque is 535 lb-ft at 4,600.) A prediction: SRT10 owners will spend tens of thousands of dollars with aftermarket tuners to make their rides as fast as the Z06 and Ford GT. Stock versions of the Z06 and GT, that is.

Thanks in part to its torque advantage, the Viper's V10 is arguably more flexible than the power plants of its rivals. Don't know a double-clutch downshift from a double cappuccino? Just leave the six-speed Tremec in 3rd gear: In that gear it pulls strongly from 40 mph to well over 100. And on those rare occasions when you do have to shift, the Viper's tranny feels better sorted than the Corvette's, though both use the same Tremec unit. Go figure.

Too much Mr. Nice Guy
While still a spectacular performer, the 2006 Dodge Viper SRT10 lacks the freshness of its predecessors. It also lacks much of its former bad attitude. That's at once a very good and a very bad thing.


Vehicle Tested:
2006 Dodge Viper SRT-10 2dr Coupe (8.3L 10cyl 6M)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $87,695

What Works:
Understeer-biased handling keeps novices out of trouble; sticky Michelin Pilot Sports; a plethora of torque.

What Needs Work:
Understeer-biased handling limits racetrack lap time; ingress/egress challenging for even Bo Duke; has officially lost its king-of-hill title.

Bottom Line:
Though still a four-wheel Harley, the Coupe is more of an Electraglide than a Deuce.  

[ifcar]

0-60:
GT: 4.01
Z06: 4.41
Viper: 4.93

Quarter Mile:
GT: 11.8 @ 125.9
Z06: 12.0 @ 123.9
Viper: 12.6 @ 117.4

Braking, 60-0:
Z06: 106.52
GT: 108.44
Viper: 115.49

100-0:
Z06: 299.72
GT: 303.80
Viper: 314.37

Grip, 200 ft skidpad:
Viper: .95g
Z06: .92g
GT: .92g

Lap Time around 2.5-mile Willow Springs Raceway:
GT: 1.32.45
Z06: 1.33.04
Viper: 1.33.30


Personal Rating (10% of total):
GT: 89%
Z06: 78%
Viper: 33%

Recommended Rating (10%):
Z06: 100%
GT: 67%
Viper: 33%

Evaluation Score (20%):
Z06: 78%
GT: 77%
Viper: 66%

Feature Content (20%):
Z06: 60%
GT: 40%
Viper: 30%

Performance (30%):
GT: 95%
Z06: 90%
Viper: 78%

Price (10%):
Z06: 100%
Viper: 78%
GT: 0%

Total:
Z06: 82.4%
GT: 66.0%
Viper: 57.0%

[Raza]

Well, it's not saying that I didn't expect this outcome.  The Z06's price makes it a clear winner, thought the GT is the style winner, and the Viper is definitely the best looking car here, in my opinion.  I'd probably take the Viper anyway, knowing that it's not as fast (though I'm sure there are people out there that can help the handling) because it's just devastatingly beautiful.

[giant_mtb]

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.     If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.  It's my number two dream car.  And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.  (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)  I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.  I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.  What gives?

[footoflead]

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.     If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.  It's my number two dream car.  And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.  (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)  I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.  I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.  What gives?

Either the tester/s werent pushing the car..or they had problems with traction or something

or they just flat sucked....

take your pick

[Run Away]

edmunds always has terrible acceleration figures.

C&D got 3.3 for the GT, edmunds is .7 seconds slower.

[280Z Turbo]

Why would Ifcar post this? They all get poor gas mileage, lack luggage and passenger space, and are very expensive.

At any rate...I like the Ford GT the best. It has that low-slung, exotic look that the others can't quite match. I think the Corvette is my second favorite, but all of the unnecessary technology and driver aids discourages me from picking the Vette. The Viper sounds more like my kind of car, but I'd have a hard time picking any Dodge over a Corvette!

It's hard for me to choose, because I don't know what the hell I'd do with them! Take it to school? No way! Keep it locked up in the garage? That's even worse! Autocross it? I'd shit my pants!! All of these cars have certain strengths and since I don't know what I'd do with a supercar, it's hard to pick one.

[Raza]

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.     If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.  It's my number two dream car.  And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.  (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)  I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.  I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.  What gives?

It's Edmunds.  

[Raza]

edmunds always has terrible acceleration figures.

C&D got 3.3 for the GT, edmunds is .7 seconds slower.

Any idiot could get 4 seconds in a Ford GT.  And that idiot works for Edmunds.

[280Z Turbo]

edmunds always has terrible acceleration figures.

C&D got 3.3 for the GT, edmunds is .7 seconds slower.

Any idiot could get 4 seconds in a Ford GT.  And that idiot works for Edmunds.

Do you think that you could do it better than them?

[Raza]

edmunds always has terrible acceleration figures.

C&D got 3.3 for the GT, edmunds is .7 seconds slower.

Any idiot could get 4 seconds in a Ford GT.  And that idiot works for Edmunds.

Do you think that you could do it better than them?

Yes, frankly.  I'd need a few goes, but I certainly do.

[JYODER240]

edmunds always has terrible acceleration figures.

C&D got 3.3 for the GT, edmunds is .7 seconds slower.

Any idiot could get 4 seconds in a Ford GT.  And that idiot works for Edmunds.

Do you think that you could do it better than them?

0-60 in 4.9 for the viper? I could do that and i suck at stick. Most rolling starts are faster than that.

[Lebowski]

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.     If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.  It's my number two dream car.  And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.  (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)  I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.  I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.  What gives?

All of those 0-60 times are extremely slow.  I think it's just an issue of comparing magazines, which are geared more towards enthusiasts, to Edmunds, which is geared more towards the average joe.  I don't think edmunds launches as aggressively for 0-60 times, for one thing.

EDIT:  Obviously, this point has already been made multiple times!  

I'm really not a huge fan of edmunds when it comes to reviews of high end sports cars.  It's a good source for more mainstream cars, but they just aren't as performance oriented as C&D or R&T and it shows.

[SVT666]

If money were no object I would take the GT, but if it were my money I would take the Z06.  Then I would go home only to get my head ripped off and beaten to a pulp and having to sign divorce papers with a broken hand for selling the house and blowing it on a car.  So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it were really my money I would wait until I paid off my Ram and then I would buy a 10 year old Mustang and drop a 345 hp crate engine in it and be done with it.  That's even stretching it a bit, but at least a divorce wouldn't ensue.  And to anyone who might ask, "What about all those other Mustangs you owned and modified?", my answer is this: Yes I was with my wife for most of those cars, but we did not have kids yet.  Now we do, and that's why I sold the last Mustang.  It absolutely killed me to sell my last Mustang, but after my daughter was born, I realized that getting so upset over selling a car was extremely trivial compared to what had just come into my life.

[TBR]

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.     If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.  It's my number two dream car.  And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.  (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)  I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.  I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.  What gives?

All of those 0-60 times are extremely slow.  I think it's just an issue of comparing magazines, which are geared more towards enthusiasts, to Edmunds, which is geared more towards the average joe.  I don't think edmunds launches as aggressively for 0-60 times, for one thing.

EDIT:  Obviously, this point has already been made multiple times!  

I'm really not a huge fan of edmunds when it comes to reviews of high end sports cars.  It's a good source for more mainstream cars, but they just aren't as performance oriented as C&D or R&T and it shows.

Edmunds sucks period, they are just very biased.

[BMWDave]

Edmunds always gets extremely, extremely slow times, relative to magazines like C/D and R/T.  

[ifcar]

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.     If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.  It's my number two dream car.  And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.  (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)  I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.  I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.  What gives?

All of those 0-60 times are extremely slow.  I think it's just an issue of comparing magazines, which are geared more towards enthusiasts, to Edmunds, which is geared more towards the average joe.  I don't think edmunds launches as aggressively for 0-60 times, for one thing.

EDIT:  Obviously, this point has already been made multiple times!  

I'm really not a huge fan of edmunds when it comes to reviews of high end sports cars.  It's a good source for more mainstream cars, but they just aren't as performance oriented as C&D or R&T and it shows.

Edmunds sucks period, they are just very biased.

Towards...

[Tom]

I'm really not a huge fan of edmunds when it comes to reviews of high end sports cars.  It's a good source for more mainstream cars, but they just aren't as performance oriented as C&D or R&T and it shows.

I agree, but I suppose it's a way of bringing car enthusiasts into their site.  They cater mostly to regular, non-car people trying to decide which mainstream sedan to replace their current mainstream sedan with, similar to CR.  These people only have occasion to visit the site every, say, 6 years or how ever often they shop for a new car.  It would be hard to run a profitable site with such infrequent visits I would think.  A supercar comparo, even if it isn't very good, atleast brings in attention.

[Raza]

Edmunds reviews are also fairly short.  In most mags, you get a few pages, but on Edmunds, it's usually one page.

[Run Away]

Edmund's test track runs uphill.

[Raza]

Edmund's test track runs uphill.

And they leave the handbrake on.

:P  

[Lebowski]

Link to flawed corvette vs. 911 comparison

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.? ?? If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.? It's my number two dream car.? And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.? (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)? I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.? I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.? What gives?

All of those 0-60 times are extremely slow.  I think it's just an issue of comparing magazines, which are geared more towards enthusiasts, to Edmunds, which is geared more towards the average joe.  I don't think edmunds launches as aggressively for 0-60 times, for one thing.

EDIT:  Obviously, this point has already been made multiple times!  

I'm really not a huge fan of edmunds when it comes to reviews of high end sports cars.  It's a good source for more mainstream cars, but they just aren't as performance oriented as C&D or R&T and it shows.

Edmunds sucks period, they are just very biased.

They do pretty much suck.  I was recently reading through their review of the C6 vs. the 911 S, and couldn't help thinking that the article is inherently and completely flawed.  My problem isn't that the 911 won (I would prefer it too if price is no object), but there were two insanely stupid elements to the test.  One, the C6 didn't have the Z51 package, which seems stupid given that the 911 was an S, and the review basically went so far as to say flat out that the biggest reason the vette trailed in performance and handling tests was its lack of aggressive tires (which the Z51 would include).  Second, the 911 as tested price was $89k, the corvette as tested price was about $54k, and one reviewer actually had the audacity to say something like (I'm paraphrasing) "anyone who can afford a $50k car can also afford an $80k (I like how he rounds $88k and change to $80k) car, so the price difference isn't much of a factor to me".  


EDIT:

Flawed edmunds corvette vs. 911 comparison

Idiotic statement about the price difference

[BMWDave]

Link to flawed corvette vs. 911 comparison

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.? ?? If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.? It's my number two dream car.? And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.? (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)? I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.? I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.? What gives?

All of those 0-60 times are extremely slow.  I think it's just an issue of comparing magazines, which are geared more towards enthusiasts, to Edmunds, which is geared more towards the average joe.  I don't think edmunds launches as aggressively for 0-60 times, for one thing.

EDIT:  Obviously, this point has already been made multiple times!  

I'm really not a huge fan of edmunds when it comes to reviews of high end sports cars.  It's a good source for more mainstream cars, but they just aren't as performance oriented as C&D or R&T and it shows.

Edmunds sucks period, they are just very biased.

They do pretty much suck.  I was recently reading through their review of the C6 vs. the 911 S, and couldn't help thinking that the article is inherently and completely flawed.  My problem isn't that the 911 won (I would prefer it too if price is no object), but there were two insanely stupid elements to the test.  One, the C6 didn't have the Z51 package, which seems stupid given that the 911 was an S, and the review basically went so far as to say flat out that the biggest reason the vette trailed in performance and handling tests was its lack of aggressive tires (which the Z51 would include).  Second, the 911 as tested price was $89k, the corvette as tested price was about $54k, and one reviewer actually had the audacity to say something like (I'm paraphrasing) "anyone who can afford a $50k car can also afford an $80k (I like how he rounds $88k and change to $80k) car, so the price difference isn't much of a factor to me".  


EDIT:

Flawed edmunds corvette vs. 911 comparison

Idiotic statement about the price difference

I agree, that is a stupid statement.

I might be in the market in a year or two for a car, and if it was between the Vette and the 911, I'd really have a hard decision.  I mean, I'm a tremendous Porsche lover, but really, the Vette is just so appealing.  I could get a ZO6 for not even the price of a Carrera.  (non-S).  

And thats a very idiotic statement on behalf of their editor in chief.

[SVT666]

I am getting tired of inferior cars beating out better cars because they are cheaper.  Tell me which car is better regardless of price.  

[footoflead]

I am getting tired of inferior cars beating out better cars because they are cheaper.  Tell me which car is better regardless of price.

I agree..its the only way to decide whether or not i'm gonna swing the cash for a certain car or not

[TBR]

Well the Ford GT is the best overall performer...but sadly the Z Zero Six can almost match it for less than half the price.     If I had a choice and money was no object, I'd pick the Ford GT.  It's my number two dream car.  And according to that article, the Viper is slower to 60 MPH than an STi.  (IIRC, an STi can do it in 4.6, and the Viper here did it in 4.9...)  I also always remember reading 0-60 times under 4.3 seconds for all of these cars...at least.  I always remember seeing under 4 for the top two finishers and I've seen <4.2 for most Viper reviews.  What gives?

All of those 0-60 times are extremely slow.  I think it's just an issue of comparing magazines, which are geared more towards enthusiasts, to Edmunds, which is geared more towards the average joe.  I don't think edmunds launches as aggressively for 0-60 times, for one thing.

EDIT:  Obviously, this point has already been made multiple times!  

I'm really not a huge fan of edmunds when it comes to reviews of high end sports cars.  It's a good source for more mainstream cars, but they just aren't as performance oriented as C&D or R&T and it shows.

Edmunds sucks period, they are just very biased.

Towards...

They are definitely biased against Nissan/Infiniti and perhaps towards Acura/Honda and Lexus/Toyota. I don't pay much attention to their stuff anymore because it just plain disgusts me.  

[ifcar]

I've seen no such patterns, and I do follow their reviews.