2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 vs. 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo! - Head 2 Head Ep. 62 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5F18o8xayA#ws)
:hmm:
I was NOT expecting that.
I really wish they would have done multiple timed successive laps in the Z06 and then posted that data to see if heat soak/poor tuning is indeed and issue and part of the reason the car didn't meet their expectations.
The GT-R has the big(er) advantage of putting power down early and getting out of the corners quicker, that is evident in the first half of side by side video when the cars are pretty much in sync on the earlier half of the track.
I don't know if this could be chalked up to some of the reported issues with the Z, hence my first comment which would have either confirmed or dismissed that issue for this comparison.
If the Z did suffer slower track times as the laps piled up then that would be the clear reason the Z failed to outperform the GT-R(as it should and probably could).
I believe the Z does have the tuning issue that many owners and aftermarket shops claim to have encountered, I also believe GM will fix it(eventually).
I was a bit surprised the GTR had a faster lap time. Less tire, less power, way more weight...
Quote from: MX793 on February 04, 2015, 02:48:06 PM
I was a bit surprised the GTR had a faster lap time. Less tire, less power, way more weight...
Removing the traction advantage it has, the outright acceleration times are probably about equal. Which leaves 2 cars, one with a much better ability to put all it's power down, sooner, coming out of a corner.
I wasn't surprised the GTR was faster around the track... just didn't expect a 1.5 second advantage. It was really clear that the Z06 couldn't put its power down early enough. Probst said it was oversteering too much so he probably had to take it easy on the throttle on exit.
Hey, at least the vette didn't blow up.
Now where is the forums GM apologist...
Quote from: thecarnut on February 04, 2015, 03:05:57 PM
I wasn't surprised the GTR was faster around the track... just didn't expect a 1.5 second advantage. It was really clear that the Z06 couldn't put its power down early enough. Probst said it was oversteering too much so he probably had to take it easy on the throttle on exit.
:hesaid:
Kind of disappointing track performance, but the Corvette looks like a ton of fun. GT-R needs an update badly. Performance is still relevant but it's old looking.
I wonder if the Z06 would have benefited from a softer shock setting, especially in the rear. Might have helped with stability and the oversteer.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 04, 2015, 02:45:01 PM
I really wish they would have done multiple timed successive laps in the Z06 and then posted that data to see if heat soak/poor tuning is indeed and issue and part of the reason the car didn't meet their expectations.
I'm sure they did multiple laps before the hot lap and probably would have mentioned that if it occurred.
But did the Z06 reach the haters-had-to-learn-the-hard-way necessary 1,500 mile break-in period?
In the article, Pobst was quoted as saying that the Vette didn't feel like it was making all 650 hp...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 09:21:30 PM
But did the Z06 reach the haters-had-to-learn-the-hard-way necessary 1,500 mile break-in period?
There is the apologist
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 04, 2015, 08:42:19 PM
Kind of disappointing track performance, but the Corvette looks like a ton of fun. GT-R needs an update badly. Performance is still relevant but it's old looking.
I wonder if the Z06 would have benefited from a softer shock setting, especially in the rear. Might have helped with stability and the oversteer.
Z06 doesnt have enough chassis/rear tire/aero for the power. No suspension setting can fix that and it will always be a PITA to get lap times from.
Nah, it has the tires and aero... Same story as ever, not enough chassis for the power
Quote from: MX793 on February 05, 2015, 04:24:36 AM
In the article, Pobst was quoted as saying that the Vette didn't feel like it was making all 650 hp...
Look at the top speeds on the straights and the trap speed in the 1/4 mile - Z06 should be way out in front as the ZR1 was, but it's not.
M/T blaming the rear spoiler for power-robbing down force doesn't quite cut it.
I wasn't expecting that
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 05, 2015, 07:50:55 AM
Z06 doesnt have enough chassis/rear tire/aero for the power. No suspension setting can fix that and it will always be a PITA to get lap times from.
Plenty of tire. Plenty of aero. So what's wrong with the chassis?
90% of what he said pointed to the rear suspension being too stiff for that track - oversteer and feeling unsettled. It's weird that he talked about how many settings you could change yet the only thing they did was take off the rear spoiler, which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 08:58:09 AM
Plenty of tire. Plenty of aero. So what's wrong with the chassis?
90% of what he said pointed to the rear suspension being too stiff for that track - oversteer and feeling unsettled. It's weird that he talked about how many settings you could change yet the only thing they did was take off the rear spoiler, which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
They removed the spoiler solely to see if the speeds on the straights improved(since on some it appeared to be about 10MPH slower than the GTR), not to see cull oversteer or increase stability(I would assume). It certainly was pointless since the difference on the straights was pretty clearly visible in the side by side lap comparison. The GTR came out of every corner faster, even in a few where the cornering speed(mid corner) was slower.
No big mystery here, don't know why they didn't attribute the difference to that and not "err it's the spoiler".
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 05, 2015, 09:01:55 AM
They removed the spoiler solely to see if the speeds on the straights improved(since on some it appeared to be about 10MPH slower than the GTR), not to see cull oversteer or increase stability(I would assume). It certainly was pointless since the difference on the straights was pretty clearly visible in the side by side lap comparison. The GTR came out of every corner faster, even in a few where the cornering speed(mid corner) was slower.
No big mystery here, don't know why they didn't attribute the difference to that and not "err it's the spoiler".
Exactly, they tried to fix the end result and not the actual problem. Dummies. Soften up the rear a bit (and keep the Gurney flap!) and I think the straight speeds would increase.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 09:08:19 AM
Exactly, they tried to fix the end result and not the actual problem. Dummies. Soften up the rear a bit (and keep the Gurney flap!) and I think the straight speeds would increase.
They found that the spoiler did not help top speed on the straight(the car has plenty of HP to overcome that drag, IMO) but had increased oversteer due to removing the downforce that the spoiler provided(what a shocker).
Once again, I'd have liked to see a 10 lap warmup and then a 10 timed successive laps to see if this car is losing speed as the laps pile up. That could have been a factor in the vette's slower speeds. While the GTR would still maintain an exit speed advantage the diminished performance of the vette due to heat soak may have made the gap larger. The gtr certainly does use every ounce of power that it has, but if the Z is being handicapped by itself then it may have cheated(itself) out of a tie, marginal win(tenths of a second) or a close loss(once again, tenths).
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 09:08:19 AM
Exactly, they tried to fix the end result and not the actual problem. Dummies. Soften up the rear a bit (and keep the Gurney flap!) and I think the straight speeds would increase.
Playing with the suspension (if it's possible to change damping rates) probably would have allowed it to accelerate earlier/harder out of corners, where it was losing the most speed. In general it had higher cornering speeds than the GTR, but the GTR was able to get back on the gas so much earlier that it didn't even matter that it couldn't take corners as quickly.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 09:08:19 AM
Exactly, they tried to fix the end result and not the actual problem. Dummies. Soften up the rear a bit (and keep the Gurney flap!) and I think the straight speeds would increase.
I'm guessing that was editing - surely they tried all sorts of settings.
Also, the GT-R now looks positively awful. The NISMO rims and clad body bits look so dated it's comical.
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3601348-z06-at-cota-power-down-with-oil-temps-repost.html (http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3601348-z06-at-cota-power-down-with-oil-temps-repost.html)
Once again, would love to have seen more information from(lap times, straight speeds) a string of successive Z06 laps.
There is a good chance that this car(in the review) just fell apart after a half a dozen laps(probably generous as the above poster had it happen in less than 3).
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 05, 2015, 10:56:39 AM
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3601348-z06-at-cota-power-down-with-oil-temps-repost.html (http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3601348-z06-at-cota-power-down-with-oil-temps-repost.html)
Once again, would love to have seen more information from(lap times, straight speeds) a string of successive Z06 laps.
There is a good chance that this car(in the review) just fell apart after a half a dozen laps(probably generous as the above poster had it happen in less than 3).
Fuck. Two sets of tires in 5 days of track driving. My tires last 5-6 days easily. I guess it's because 600hp > 340hp.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 05, 2015, 09:30:01 AM
Playing with the suspension (if it's possible to change damping rates) probably would have allowed it to accelerate earlier/harder out of corners, where it was losing the most speed. In general it had higher cornering speeds than the GTR, but the GTR was able to get back on the gas so much earlier that it didn't even matter that it couldn't take corners as quickly.
Damping is only part of the suspension which is why I've found adjustable damping suspensions a little silly. Even if you nail the damping, if the springs are not the right rate or the sway bars aren't set up right the car just won't work. IDK what's going on with the diff but that could be an issue too since the problem is based around exits.
IMO though it's just too much damn power for the chassis... chassis has truckloads of grip well beyond the average performance car, and big rear meats.... but the chassis and engine just don't seem to be able to work together. I'm kind of wondering how this thing would have ran with the LS7. Would have shed a ton of weight and prob been not much slower around a track
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 05, 2015, 11:50:23 AM
IMO though it's just too much damn power for the chassis... chassis has truckloads of grip well beyond the average performance car, and big rear meats.... but the chassis and engine just don't seem to be able to work together. I'm kind of wondering how this thing would have ran with the LS7. Would have shed a ton of weight and prob been not much slower around a track
Nah, there are lots of old pro-touring muscle cars making 600-700 hp and control it just fine. The figure-8 time shows the car can handle it.
Not an ideal suspension set up for that track, maybe combined with heat soak issues. Still did a damn good job. 1.5 seconds off a car costing $50k more is nothing to sneeze at.
Old pro-touring cars making 600hp will not touch either of these cars unless they are flat out race modified and not street friendly
So is this when we bring up GMs almightiest of almighty V8s gets pwn3d by a TTV6?
Quote from: r0tor on February 05, 2015, 12:11:58 PM
Old pro-touring cars making 600hp will not touch either of these cars unless they are flat out race modified and not street friendly
Just as street friendly as these two in any way meaningful to my original point.
I'm sure these are very "street friendly" compared to an "old pro-touring" car.
Corvettes are the #1 early bird special commuter cars and my seat time in the GT-R(non nismo) gave me the impression of a 2 door maxima with a shit ton of power.
Yea I would love to see the lap times of those cars around Willow Springs (pref driven by Randy Pobst :) )
Sorry but it would be a much larger gap between GT-R and Z06 if the chassis couldn't handle the power. It was just a little too stiff in the rear. Pretty obvious to see.
Quote from: r0tor on February 05, 2015, 12:30:08 PM
So is this when we bring up GMs almightiest of almighty V8s gets pwn3d by a TTV6?
So the reason why the GT-R was out in front was because of its engine?
Wow are you ever a glutton for punishment...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2015, 01:11:24 PM
So the reason why the GT-R was out in front was because of its engine?
Wow are you ever a glutton for punishment...
Pretty obvious the GTR is rated in godzilla power and the Vette in donkey power...
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 11:56:00 AM
Not an ideal suspension set up for that track, maybe combined with heat soak issues. Still did a damn good job. 1.5 seconds off a car costing $50k more is nothing to sneeze at.
:hesaid:
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2015, 01:11:24 PM
So the reason why the GT-R was out in front was because of its engine?
Wow are you ever a glutton for punishment...
:lol:
I'm pretty sure that the GTR would have been faster but they did too many laps in a row so it overheated and lost power because of piss poor engineering
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2015, 10:29:59 AM
Also, the GT-R now looks positively awful. The NISMO rims and clad body bits look so dated it's comical.
2 FAST 2 FURIOUS!
Quote from: r0tor on February 05, 2015, 04:06:05 PM
I'm pretty sure that the GTR would have been faster but they did too many laps in a row so it overheated and lost power because of piss poor engineering
A+ creativity
Quote from: r0tor on February 05, 2015, 04:06:05 PM
I'm pretty sure that the GTR would have been faster but they did too many laps in a row so it overheated and lost power because of piss poor engineering
:deadhorse"
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 05, 2015, 01:00:33 PM
Yea I would love to see the lap times of those cars around Willow Springs (pref driven by Randy Pobst :) )
To clarify, my point was that there are non-OEM chassis that can easily handle 600-700 hp. Not that they are better/faster/more streetable, those are all red-herrings.
The Z06 has had this issue for a number of years across several iterations. I think if GM could simply swap shocks and fix it, they would have done so.
Randy said he put the suspension in track mode, which he then called too stiff. Why not try a softer setting?
Quote from: 68_427 on February 06, 2015, 04:27:30 AM
Randy said he put the suspension in track mode, which he then called too stiff. Why not try a softer setting?
I'd have to re-read the article, but I think they said he got his best laps in a softer setting. They didn't mention the other settings in the video.
Did this Z06 have MRC? Maybe they need the Z28's spool shocks. I think they are just bumping up on the limits of GM engineering and physics tho
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 06, 2015, 07:43:44 AM
Did this Z06 have MRC? Maybe they need the Z28's spool shocks. I think they are just bumping up on the limits of GM engineering and physics tho
They've definitely bumped the limits on their engine technology. The Z06 only makes max horsepower once a day.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 06, 2015, 08:24:00 AM
They've definitely bumped the limits on their engine technology. The Z06 only makes max horsepower once a day.
:lol:
Quote from: 68_427 on February 06, 2015, 04:27:30 AM
Randy said he put the suspension in track mode, which he then called too stiff. Why not try a softer setting?
Total conspiracy dude.... They obviously wanted Godzilla to win given the fact they tested the Vette multiple times in different configurations and Godzilla only once
The GTR comes dialed in from the factory, something to do with engineering and real world testing or something blah blah blah.
The Chevy is more of a DIY some completion required type thing, apparently.
Anther indication that they wanted Godzilla to win was Pobst nonchalantly driving Godzilla with one hand while lapping and him looking like being on the edge of a nervous breakdown in the Vette.
No one noticed that the Vette outtired the Nissan with Sport Cup tires (they even show only the inside has a channels).
The GT-R is clearly the superior car of the two, the Vette could benefit from a torque reduction feature to stop the rear tires from being overloaded, but I Just think they hit the limit of a FR car.
Sticky tires vs. AWD, just a different way to go fast. :huh:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 05:20:22 PM
Sticky tires vs. AWD, just a different way to go fast. :huh:
Unless you had AWD and sticky tires. ;)
There are FR cars out there putting down the same or more power then the Vette and not be obnoxious... no "limit of an FR car" has been found
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 05:43:58 PM
There are FR cars out there putting down the same or more power then the Vette and not be obnoxious... no "limit of an FR car" has been found
Can't think of one that laps faster than the GTR. I think that FR indeed has a physical limit, lower than some other configurations
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on February 06, 2015, 05:58:16 PM
Can't think of one that laps faster than the GTR. I think that FR indeed has a physical limit, lower than some other configurations
What about the F12?
P1... 458... ect ect ect
I'm pretty sure one of those is mid engined.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 06, 2015, 06:39:12 PM
What about the F12?
The GT-R murders an F12 - the F12 can't really even beat the lowly base C7. M/T test of C7, F12 and 911 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1312_chevrolet_corvette_stingray_z51_ferrari_f12_berlinetta_porsche_911_carrera_4s/viewall.html) - Laguna Seca times:
C7: 1:38.28
F12: 1:38.04
Some of you turkeys are so riled up with yer hate to realize there ain't a factory front engine/RWD car on the planet that can touch a GT-R on the track.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 06, 2015, 06:39:12 PM
What about the F12?
Barely quicker than a Z/28 around VIR. It's not a very good track car from what I've seen.
Quote from: 68_427 on February 06, 2015, 11:07:17 PM
Barely quicker than a Z/28 around VIR. It's not a very good track car from what I've seen.
I was just asking. I had heard it wasn't a good track car but it has over 700 hp so I thought it might actually give it some trouble. Apparently not.
I forgive Ferrari for that shortcoming.
HP doesnt mean much if you can't put it down or stop/turn on a dime, in the context of lap times.
For whatever its worth, the C6 ZR1 was the same ~1.5 seconds off of the NISMO GT-R's time around VIR.
I would still rather have a Cayman GTS/GT4 over all of these cars. This whole lap time obsession is silly and irrelevant... 99% of enthusiasts never see a track let alone go regularly
Quote from: SVT666 on February 06, 2015, 08:24:00 AM
They've definitely bumped the limits on their engine technology. The Z06 only makes max horsepower once a day.
Not far off. From the article:
QuoteAdd to that the Z06's tendency to get hot after one lap and the computer's decision to reduce power to compensate, and you have a lap slower than expected. "It felt faster [than the lap time], but it also didn't feel like it had 650 horsepower," Randy said. "Just not as fast as I expected."
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1504_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_vs_2015_nissan_gt_r_nismo_comparison/#ixzz3R4GDhjkI (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1504_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_vs_2015_nissan_gt_r_nismo_comparison/#ixzz3R4GDhjkI)
Nearly any road car will overheat in hard track use during extended lapping sessions, but few are spent in a single lap on a <3 mile road course, even in desert heat. A lowly Corolla could muster more than a single lap without overheating (though it's brakes would likely be shot after two laps), and a high performance car like a Corvette (and especially the Z06) absolutely should not have issues running at least a handful of back-to-back laps on a typical road course without the engine going into limp mode.
The more I think about it, makes sense that the Z06 has cooling troubles. Its low cowl means its frontal area for cooling is already limited. On top of that, there are airflow requirements not just for the engine, but the intercoolers and aero. And the engine's cooling airflow requirements are probably double that of the LT1 alone. So you have about 30lb of shit in a 5lb bag. Somethin finna buss. GT-R might just have 20lb of shit in a 10lb bag, and on top of that it has a mondo traction advantage. GM painted itself into a corner. Makes sense that they want to go MR next go round, C7 is at the limits of FR street cars.
They won't go MR next time Sporty. They never will.
But they promised :lol:
The ZL1 has the pre-facelift front end design for more cooling, so the Z06 probably does have a harder time.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 07, 2015, 10:35:42 AM
They won't go MR next time Sporty. They never will.
Mid-engine with the same lump...so they say. It'll be half-way there.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2015, 10:23:02 AM
The more I think about it, makes sense that the Z06 has cooling troubles. Its low cowl means its frontal area for cooling is already limited. On top of that, there are airflow requirements not just for the engine, but the intercoolers and aero. And the engine's cooling airflow requirements are probably double that of the LT1 alone. So you have about 30lb of shit in a 5lb bag. Somethin finna buss. GT-R might just have 20lb of shit in a 10lb bag, and on top of that it has a mondo traction advantage. GM painted itself into a corner. Makes sense that they want to go MR next go round, C7 is at the limits of FR street cars.
It's not cooling per se but the temp of the intake charge. Roots/scroll/screw style superchargers are mounted directly on the engine. This is good for getting the compressed intake charge quickly into the combustion chamber. This is bad for independently/separately cooling the compressed intake charge like that which is typically done with turbocharged engines (i.e., intercooler mounted well away from the engine). Now add DI which forces engines to run at higher CRs and you have a recipe for having to be very careful. ALL supercharged engines suffer from notable heat soak - simply google them (ZR1, ZL1, GT500, especially).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2015, 12:21:55 PM
It's not cooling per se but the temp of the intake charge. Roots/scroll/screw style superchargers are mounted directly on the engine. This is good for getting the compressed intake charge quickly into the combustion chamber. This is bad for independently/separately cooling the compressed intake charge like that which is typically done with turbocharged engines (i.e., intercooler mounted well away from the engine). Now add DI which forces engines to run at higher CRs and you have a recipe for having to be very careful. ALL supercharged engines suffer from notable heat soak - simply google them (ZR1, ZL1, GT500, especially).
Failpost. Just all of it. Failfauxinternerpersona. Why bother? :facepalm:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 07, 2015, 12:50:34 PM
Failpost. Just all of it. Failfauxinternerpersona. Why bother? :facepalm:
Naw hes rite
Blame Joe HELOC, the driver of this market, who can only understand HP and bench racing specs
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2015, 12:21:55 PM
It's not cooling per se but the temp of the intake charge. Roots/scroll/screw style superchargers are mounted directly on the engine. This is good for getting the compressed intake charge quickly into the combustion chamber. This is bad for independently/separately cooling the compressed intake charge like that which is typically done with turbocharged engines (i.e., intercooler mounted well away from the engine). Now add DI which forces engines to run at higher CRs and you have a recipe for having to be very careful. ALL supercharged engines suffer from notable heat soak - simply google them (ZR1, ZL1, GT500, especially).
The 662hp GT500 had no such problems.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 07, 2015, 01:49:53 PM
The 662hp GT500 had no such problems.
Run hard enough for an extended time, yes, the GT500 would suffer from some heat soak. I'm not aware of any production car, including the Corvette ZR-1 (running the LT-4s predecessor engine) that seems quite so prone to it as the new Z06.
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2015, 01:59:31 PM
Run hard enough for an extended time, yes, the GT500 would suffer from some heat soak. I'm not aware of any production car, including the Corvette ZR-1 (running the LT-4s predecessor engine) that seems quite so prone to it as the new Z06.
The 500 and 550 hp versions were very prone to heat soak, but not once did I read anything about the 662 hp version having that problem. The brakes were the problem.
A quick Google search was able to turn up some heat soak complaints from owners of '13-'14 GT500s. Particularly owners in the southwestern US. They aren't nearly as prone as the earlier models, but they are not completely immune.
Nah Mustangs are perfect.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 07, 2015, 01:49:53 PM
The 662hp GT500 had no such problems.
C'mon, man, by the very definition of how a Roots/screw/scroll supercharger works there will be heat soak issues with ANY such supercharged engine.
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2015, 01:59:31 PM
Run hard enough for an extended time, yes, the GT500 would suffer from some heat soak. I'm not aware of any production car, including the Corvette ZR-1 (running the LT-4s predecessor engine) that seems quite so prone to it as the new Z06.
To be more precise, the theory is the ECU is pulling back timing (I'm still not convinced however) to prevent detonation not heat soak per se (which is a standalone/non ECU issue - power loss due to heated (and less dense = less O
2) intake charge). I also can't think of any other S/C engine that is DI - definitely not GT500 or Hellcat.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2015, 03:03:34 PM
To be more precise, the theory is the ECU is pulling back timing (I'm still not convinced however) to prevent detonation not heat soak per se (which is a standalone/non ECU issue - power loss due to heated (and less dense = less O2) intake charge). I also can't think of any other S/C engine that is DI - definitely not GT500 or Hellcat.
If anything, I'd expect DI to help mitigate detonation, making non-DI cars more likely to have issues. And Audi has had a supercharged DI engine for a few years now in the S4. There are also some DI turbocharged engines out there with top-mounted intercoolers (Mazda's DISI engine in their Mazdaspeed cars and Subaru's FA engine in the WRX). None of these have the tendency to have their power cut after so little hard running.
Sounds like a few aftermarket tuners have gotten rid of the issue.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 07, 2015, 03:18:43 PM
Sounds like a few aftermarket tuners have gotten rid of the issue.
You shouldn't have to go aftermarket to get your brand new super-vette to be able to run hard for more than 2 minutes without the power being cut.
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2015, 03:26:50 PM
You shouldn't have to go aftermarket to get your brand new super-vette to be able to run hard for more than 2 minutes without the power being cut.
Well hopefully GM will fix it. :huh:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 07, 2015, 03:18:43 PM
Sounds like a few aftermarket tuners have gotten rid of the issue.
Just like the aftermarket "solved" the issue of putting a bigger cam into the LS7 ;).
GM knows more about the LT4 and its limitations esp. WRT a 10 year/100,000 warranty and emissions than all the tuners put together.
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2015, 03:26:50 PM
You shouldn't have to go aftermarket to get your brand new super-vette to be able to run hard for more than 2 minutes without the power being cut.
+1,000
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2015, 03:15:41 PM
If anything, I'd expect DI to help mitigate detonation, making non-DI cars more likely to have issues. And Audi has had a supercharged DI engine for a few years now in the S4. There are also some DI turbocharged engines out there with top-mounted intercoolers (Mazda's DISI engine in their Mazdaspeed cars and Subaru's FA engine in the WRX). None of these have the tendency to have their power cut after so little hard running.
IMO that would only occur if CR wasn't raised along with DI. Since typically CR is raised, it decreases the "safe" operating windo, and in particular, margin of safety when something doesn't go exactly to plan.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 07, 2015, 03:18:43 PM
Sounds like a few aftermarket tuners have gotten rid of the issue.
Yea and we will see how those tuned engines fare in the long run
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2015, 06:34:56 PM
Yea and we will see how those tuned engines fare in the long run
Well that lets GM off the hook too! Any mods void the warranty!
GM totally and completely dropped the ball.
I think the power issue is only a small fraction of the problem. At this point, the bulk of this "disaster" is the way they are giving everyone the bs runaround.
Own up to the issue, and solve it, problem solved.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2015, 06:22:27 PM
IMO that would only occur if CR wasn't raised along with DI. Since typically CR is raised, it decreases the "safe" operating windo, and in particular, margin of safety when something doesn't go exactly to plan.
The whole reason the CR can be as high as it is with forced induction is due to DI.
Audi's supercharged DI engine runs a higher compression ratio than the LT-4 and doesn't seem to have the issue of the ECU pulling power when the motor gets hot. Subaru's FA motor in the WRX likewise has a higher CR.
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2015, 09:53:44 PM
The whole reason the CR can be as high as it is with forced induction is due to DI.
Audi's supercharged DI engine runs a higher compression ratio than the LT-4 and doesn't seem to have the issue of the ECU pulling power when the motor gets hot. Subaru's FA motor in the WRX likewise has a higher CR.
Got it, but again the higher CR shrinks the safe process window.
Audi's 3.0 TFSI isn't in any sort of ultra high performance vehicle and the WRX like most any turbo engine these days has a separate intercooler.
The specific output in Audi's motor is about the same as the LT4. And the WRX's intercooler is mounted horizontally right above the engine. And unlike the LT4, it isn't a liquid to air heat exchanger. All of the heat transfer from charge to atmosphere takes place above the engine.
Im telling you guys, its the frontal area.
(http://image.vetteweb.com/f/features/1401_2015_chevrolet_corvette_stingray_z06_no_compromises/60377462/2015-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-z06-front-grille.jpg)
This is all the area the C7 has to feed air to the radiator, oil cooler, intercooler (which is intergrated in the blower and not even at the front of the engine bay) and brake ducts... compared with these
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/wot/1408_totd_which_nissan_gt_r_variant_would_you_choose/78999837/2015-nissan-gt-r-nismo-front-end.jpg)
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/photo_gallery/sedans/1201_2013_audi_a4_s4_photo_gallery/38593097/2013-audi-s4-front-end.jpg)
I mean u look at the Vette's grille, it looks like damn near half of it is closed too. You can't cool these heat exchangers without airflow. If I ran Jim Bob's Rootn Tootn Performance Shack Id be making front bumpers with way more openings. To hell with aero as these things will just be occasionally run at the strip and mostly paraded around parking lots anyway.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 07, 2015, 08:30:27 PM
GM totally and completely dropped the ball.
LOL
You think a minor performance hiccup that 99% of buyers won't even know about is going to affect sales?
Quote from: Minpin on February 08, 2015, 09:59:18 AM
LOL
You think a minor performance hiccup that 99% of buyers won't even know about is going to affect sales?
Minor? Hardly. Besides, who said anything about sales? GM fucked up, and they are refusing to admit there's a problem when every single review and comparo states it's a problem. It may or may not affect sales, but it certainly affects performance and it's a black eye for GM when your "most track capable Corvette ever" (GM quote) can't do more than a single lap without having the ECU rob large amounts of power. What good is 650 hp, if it only makes it for one acceleration run?
Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2015, 10:17:50 AM
Minor? Hardly. Besides, who said anything about sales? GM fucked up, and they are refusing to admit there's a problem when every single review and comparo states it's a problem. It may or may not affect sales, but it certainly affects performance and it's a black eye for GM when your "most track capable Corvette ever" (GM quote) can't do more than a single lap without having the ECU rob large amounts of power. What good is 650 hp, if it only makes it for one acceleration run?
Sales is all that matters.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2015, 06:41:09 AM
Im telling you guys, its the frontal area.
I mean u look at the Vette's grille, it looks like damn near half of it is closed too. You can't cool these heat exchangers without airflow. If I ran Jim Bob's Rootn Tootn Performance Shack Id be making front bumpers with way more openings. To hell with aero as these things will just be occasionally run at the strip and mostly paraded around parking lots anyway.
Again, for like the 7th time, the issue isn't "air flow". Just as with exhaust, air intake, etc., GM ain't gonna throw $100MM+ at a car only to then botch air flow. If the ECU is indeed pulling timing or w/e because of hot air charge, it is doing so for systemic reasons. But again, I am not convinced that is what is going on.
Quote from: Minpin on February 08, 2015, 10:53:45 AM
Sales is all that matters.
Such as it is the C7 Z06 is still the highest performance front engine/RWD factory car on the planet, a car Ford and Chrysler can only dream of developing, and only costs ~$80k...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
Such as it is the C7 Z06 is still the highest performance front engine/RWD factory car on the planet, a car Ford and Chrysler can only dream of developing, and only costs ~$80k...
Indeed. The GM haters are out in full force on this one. It'll sell like hot cakes like they always do, and the execs will get a congratulatory trip to Hawaii.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:15:18 AM
Again, for like the 7th time, the issue isn't "air flow". Just as with exhaust, air intake, etc., GM ain't gonna throw $100MM+ at a car only to then botch air flow. If the ECU is indeed pulling timing or w/e because of hot air charge, it is doing so for systemic reasons. But again, I am not convinced that is what is going on.
Yea its not like they made the Z28 so marginal in cooling that they had to come up with a " flowtie" emblem. Obviously they have a strong thermal management program
I say it again for like the 42nd time, GM would have been better going after a N/A "LT7" 550-600 hp style motor for the upscale C7 and Camaro rather than this F/I nonsense. F/I will always be fairly sucky for reasons I've carried on about for a very long time.
Apparently one of the guys in our Clash Clan is a salesman, said he does ok on vette sales but really makes out on z06 sales...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
Such as it is the C7 Z06 is still the highest performance front engine/RWD factory car on the planet, a car Ford and Chrysler can only dream of developing, and only costs ~$80k...
Hellcats will walk it in a straight line. AMG has been doing a TTV12 with 600hp forever now. Viper is at 645hp. They all have their shit together with thermal management.
Quote from: r0tor on February 08, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
Yea its not like they made the Z28 so marginal in cooling that they had to come up with a " flowtie" emblem. Obviously they have a strong thermal management program
First, the Z/28 is powered by the LS7 which is a N/A motor.
Second, WRT the C7 Z06 the working hypothesis is not a problem with engine cooling but a problem with cooling the intake charge (i.e., output of the supercharger).
Quote from: r0tor on February 08, 2015, 11:43:00 AM
Hellcats will walk it in a straight line. AMG has been doing a TTV12 with 600hp forever now. Viper is at 645hp. They all have their shit together with thermal management.
You mean 4,400 lb Hellcat cars? 2nd grade math will tell you this can't possibly be so (4,400 lb/707 hp vs. 3,500 lb/650 hp).
And do you know the difference between a turbo intercooler and supercharger intercooler?
Also, the Viper has a N/A V10.
All in all, I don't recommend this course of action - things did not go well for you in the F150 vs. Silverado and they won't go well here either.
Intercooler outlet temperature revolves back to thermal management and engineering which GM seems to not have a good handle on... Just like the marginal design of the Z28.
They use a liquid intercooler which the design itself usually suffers from heat soak issues without tremendous amounts of cooling. They have next to no cooling of the intercooling and u heard of levels of heat soak.
I'm still not convinced it's pulling power in this motor trend test. Just watching the side by side video is pretty clear. Huge difference in corner exit speed. Even with more power and less weight, it's not enough to catch up to the GTR. Even steady state handling favors the vette, but it gets completely destroyed on every corner exit.
Goodness some of you folk are like a broken record in here
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:51:05 AM
You mean 4,400 lb Hellcat cars? 2nd grade math will tell you this can't possibly be so (4,400 lb/707 hp vs. 3,500 lb/650 hp).
And do you know the difference between a turbo intercooler and supercharger intercooler?
Also, the Viper has a N/A V10.
All in all, I don't recommend this course of action - things did not go well for you in the F150 vs. Silverado and they won't go well here either.
You think the Z06 can manage to not go into limp mode?
Hmmm...
Quote
After several laps on the track or a few hard acceleration runs on the highway, owners of the brandy new Super Vette are reporting noticeable power loss from the supercharged LT4 V8. Originally it was thought that it was heat soak from the supercharger, but, it is, in fact, conservative tuning of the ECU to help the drivetrain survive for 100,000 miles as well as allow the Z06 to meet stringent US emissions regs.
...so it's the governments's fault :huh:.
Quote from: MrH on February 08, 2015, 11:52:36 AM
I'm still not convinced it's pulling power in this motor trend test. Just watching the side by side video is pretty clear. Huge difference in corner exit speed. Even with more power and less weight, it's not enough to catch up to the GTR. Even steady state handling favors the vette, but it gets completely destroyed on every corner exit.
That's why I don't really buy into this ECU stuff. If the ECU is pulling power because of a temp issue (engine temp or intake charge temp) one would think it's not gonna pull only 5 or 10% but would pull huge amounts of power to prevent thermal runaway.
Quote from: r0tor on February 08, 2015, 11:52:00 AM
Intercooler outlet temperature revolves back to thermal management and engineering which GM seems to not have a good handle on... Just like the marginal design of the Z28.
They use a liquid intercooler which the design itself usually suffers from heat soak issues without tremendous amounts of cooling. They have next to no cooling of the intercooling and u heard of levels of heat soak.
Again, please review the differences between a Roots/screw/scroll style supercharger and a typical turbocharger, and in particular, the location of the intercooler.
Quote from: MrH on February 08, 2015, 11:52:36 AM
I'm still not convinced it's pulling power in this motor trend test. Just watching the side by side video is pretty clear. Huge difference in corner exit speed. Even with more power and less weight, it's not enough to catch up to the GTR. Even steady state handling favors the vette, but it gets completely destroyed on every corner exit.
+1 definitely not going into limp mode or seeing the same HP losses that others have claimed.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 08, 2015, 11:58:29 AM
Hmmm...
...so it's the governments's fault :huh:.
That was the original assumption (along with ensuring proper break-in), which was thrown out the window by GM haters.
Owners are still experiencing the problem well beyond the "break-in period". GM fucked up. Period. GM apologists can keep making excuses, but no other car does what the Vette is doing. If it there yo protect the drivetrain, then GM did a shit job of engineering the drivetrain.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2015, 12:39:02 PM
but no other car does what the Vette is doing.
Punching way above it's weight?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:51:05 AM
You mean 4,400 lb Hellcat cars? 2nd grade math will tell you this can't possibly be so (4,400 lb/707 hp vs. 3,500 lb/650 hp).
And do you know the difference between a turbo intercooler and supercharger intercooler?
Also, the Viper has a N/A V10.
All in all, I don't recommend this course of action - things did not go well for you in the F150 vs. Silverado and they won't go well here either.
The 4400 lbs Hellcats do indeed outrun virtually everything in a straight line.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 08, 2015, 12:40:17 PM
Punching way above it's weight?
If you'd hitched yer wagon to Ford or Chrysler you probably would be a Corvette hater too.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
The 4400 lbs Hellcats do indeed outrun virtually everything in a straight line.
Hellcat vs. Z06 is a silly comparison, they're built for different purposes. Hellcat is missing the suspension and aero to perform on a road track, and that aero is not beneficial to the Z06 on the drag strip.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
The 4400 lbs Hellcats do indeed outrun virtually everything in a straight line.
So why are you so prone to these sweeping statements that can be researched with 14 seconds of Internetry or 3 seconds of 2nd grade math (4,400 lb/707 hp)?
The average of 5 road tests is:
6.3 lb/hp
0-60 in 3.7 sec
1/4 mile in 11.5 sec @ 125 mph
Those are 10-year-old C6 Z06 numbers, including lb/hp. So, IOW "virtually everything" except the C7 Z06, ZR1, GT-R, F458, F12, 911 Turbo, 911 GT3, Tesla P85D, Audi R8 V10, any Lambo, any McLaren, the ultra hyper exotics (Veyron, 918, LaFerrari), and probably others...
Quote from: MrH on February 08, 2015, 11:52:36 AM
I'm still not convinced it's pulling power in this motor trend test. Just watching the side by side video is pretty clear. Huge difference in corner exit speed. Even with more power and less weight, it's not enough to catch up to the GTR. Even steady state handling favors the vette, but it gets completely destroyed on every corner exit.
It didn't get outrun by the GT-R because it was going into limp mode. It got outlapped by the GT-R because the GT-R was simply faster around the track.
This isn't mentioned in the video, but the article (which I quoted and linked to in a previous post) noted that it was difficult to hone in on the best possible lap time with the Vette because it had a tendency to lose power after just a single lap, making back-to-back lapping sessions a no-go. Anyone who autocrosses knows that one of the challenges of that sport is that you don't get back-to-back lapping sessions on the course. You get one lap, then you sit for a period of time (IIRC, SCCA requires at least 5 minutes) before making your next run. Makes it very hard to perfect your lap.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:15:18 AM
Again, for like the 7th time, the issue isn't "air flow". Just as with exhaust, air intake, etc., GM ain't gonna throw $100MM+ at a car only to then botch air flow. If the ECU is indeed pulling timing or w/e because of hot air charge, it is doing so for systemic reasons. But again, I am not convinced that is what is going on.
Ur OEM fanboyism is showing again. OEMs "botch" stuff all the time; if they didn't there would be no recalls or TSBs. U want it to be about boost to rationalize your anti-boost jihad but no other boosted cars have these issues to this extreme. Most other ~700 HP cars have more than ~1 ft^2 of cooling air flow area though.
Quote from: r0tor on February 08, 2015, 11:56:58 AM
You think the Z06 can manage to not go into limp mode?
Once again there is no mention of "Limp Mode" in this video! The Nismo is just faster in the corners! And the Z is still balls to the walls fast for a car that was 'limping".
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 08, 2015, 03:40:29 PM
Once again there is no mention of "Limp Mode" in this video! The Nismo is just faster in the corners! And the Z is still balls to the walls fast for a car that was 'limping".
Read the article. The video does not go into the same level of detail.
Quote from: MrH on February 08, 2015, 11:52:36 AM
I'm still not convinced it's pulling power in this motor trend test. Just watching the side by side video is pretty clear. Huge difference in corner exit speed. Even with more power and less weight, it's not enough to catch up to the GTR. Even steady state handling favors the vette, but it gets completely destroyed on every corner exit.
Yeah, but look at the very beginning of the test. Even at the end of the straightaway, the GTR is doing 154 mph while the Z06 is only doing 148. Yeah, I know that the aero is going to slow it down at higher speeds, but I don't think that the aero the Z06 has is enough to overcome its power and weight advantage. Plus, the GTR is pretty big and blocky to begin with compared with the extremely low frontal area of the Z06.
The Z06 also had the GTR beat by a big margin in apex speeds, which explains why it was so ridiculously fast on the figure 8 test. I think the combination of not being able to put the power down on exit plus the lower power is what caused it to lose to the GTR. Those two could definitely add to a 1.5 second deficit to the GTR. I would think that with all 650 hp on tap, the Z06 would be able to catch the GTR, at least on speed alone, before the next corner.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:15:18 AM
Again, for like the 7th time, the issue isn't "air flow". Just as with exhaust, air intake, etc., GM ain't gonna throw $100MM+ at a car only to then botch air flow. If the ECU is indeed pulling timing or w/e because of hot air charge, it is doing so for systemic reasons. But again, I am not convinced that is what is going on.
GM threw $100MM+ at a car and botched the ECU, so I'm sure they could have botched airflow too if they tried hard enough.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2015, 10:23:44 PM
GM threw $100MM+ at a car and botched the ECU, so I'm sure they could have botched airflow too if they tried hard enough.
How do they just botch an ECU?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2015, 02:44:19 PM
Ur OEM fanboyism is showing again. OEMs "botch" stuff all the time; if they didn't there would be no recalls or TSBs. U want it to be about boost to rationalize your anti-boost jihad but no other boosted cars have these issues to this extreme. Most other ~700 HP cars have more than ~1 ft^2 of cooling air flow area though.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 08, 2015, 10:23:44 PM
GM threw $100MM+ at a car and botched the ECU, so I'm sure they could have botched airflow too if they tried hard enough.
So how could GM spend $100MM+ (probably more like $500MM) paying an army of automotive engineers, including all the development $$$ on an all-new engine, only to somehow botch something as simple as a "cooling" system or "ECU"?
Sorry, bros, ain't happening.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:31:32 PM
So how could GM spend $100MM+ (probably more like $500MM) paying an army of automotive engineers, including all the development $$$ on an all-new engine, only to somehow botch something as simple as a "cooling" system or "ECU"?
Sorry, bros, ain't happening.
If they didn't botch it, what's wrong with it? No other car retards timing after one hard acceleration run. If the "protection" mode is required to extend the life of the drivetrain, then the drivetrain is under engineered and the problem is much worse than botched ECU programming.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:31:32 PM
So how could GM spend $100MM+ (probably more like $500MM) paying an army of automotive engineers, including all the development $$$ on an all-new engine, only to somehow botch something as simple as a "cooling" system or "ECU"?
Sorry, bros, ain't happening.
You're aware that this is the same GM that managed to botch something as simple as an ignition switch, right?
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2015, 05:40:46 AM
You're aware that this is the same GM that managed to botch something as simple as an ignition switch, right?
Which also then preceded to bury and ignore the issue until the government had to step in.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2015, 11:31:32 PM
So how could GM spend $100MM+ (probably more like $500MM) paying an army of automotive engineers, including all the development $$$ on an all-new engine, only to somehow botch something as simple as a "cooling" system or "ECU"?
Sorry, bros, ain't happening.
Are u familiar with General Motors history?
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2015, 05:40:46 AM
You're aware that this is the same GM that managed to botch something as simple as an ignition switch, right?
That's also not something that is an obvious problem during testing. If it was an unintentional problem, the first test driver around the track would come back complaining big time.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 09, 2015, 09:11:24 AM
That's also not something that is an obvious problem during testing. If it was an unintentional problem, the first test driver around the track would come back complaining big time.
Esp. true given the culprit were people (esp. girls) dangling all manner of stuff off their key chains (i.e., chronic damage).
There are many thousands of test driver hours on the C7 Z06. NOTHING regarding cooling or ECU or w/e is broken. Whatever the car is doing is intentional (i.e., has a reason) though I'm not the least bit convinced we know what it going on.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 09, 2015, 09:34:46 AM
Esp. true given the culprit were people (esp. girls) dangling all manner of stuff off their key chains (i.e., chronic damage).
There are many thousands of test driver hours on the C7 Z06. NOTHING regarding cooling or ECU or w/e is broken. Whatever the car is doing is intentional (i.e., has a reason) though I'm not the least bit convinced we know what it going on.
If it's intentional, that makes it worse.
LOL at excuses
It seems that GM has suggested that "most people" will be happy with it. The conclusion being...you have 650 hp on tap that the ECU will let you use for a limited time, so that you don't break the engine. This seems a bit dodgy.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 09, 2015, 10:05:26 AM
It seems that GM has suggested that "most people" will be happy with it. The conclusion being...you have 650 hp on tap that the ECU will let you use for a limited time, so that you don't break the engine. This seems a bit dodgy.
Not really, makes it so that it wins the magazine stat wars and can do a few good runs. Thus validating it's claimed 0-60 and 1/4mile times.
It's like the opposite of overboost. Or instead of calling it overboost just stating the overboost number as the main HP figure.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 09, 2015, 09:44:18 AM
If it's intentional, that makes it worse.
So what is intentional?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 09, 2015, 10:04:23 AM
LOL at excuses
I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just looking at the development that went into the car and realizing there's no possible way for the test drivers to not notice such an issue. Thus, it can't be a mistake and there's a reason GM did it. Wouldn't be surprised if it's to keep the engine healthy for it's warranty. Are there other such engines with the same warranty?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 09, 2015, 10:34:42 AM
So what is intentional?
I don't know... Rating a car at 650hp when it can only maintain that for about 10 seconds?
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 09, 2015, 09:11:24 AM
That's also not something that is an obvious problem during testing. If it was an unintentional problem, the first test driver around the track would come back complaining big time.
U dont think a test driver would notice a sharp decline in power after a lap at a track in a highly developed perfromance car?
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 09, 2015, 10:48:59 AM
I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just looking at the development that went into the car and realizing there's no possible way for the test drivers to not notice such an issue. Thus, it can't be a mistake and there's a reason GM did it. Wouldn't be surprised if it's to keep the engine healthy for it's warranty. Are there other such engines with the same warranty?
If it can't make that HP for more than 2 minutes what's the point of having it operate at that HP at all?
And the Hellcats have the same 5/100,000 powertrain warranty, as I'm sure the GT500 did when it was out.
I think theres a bit of hyperbole and drama stemming from people's reactions to this but it's pretty obvious GM dun goofed. Usually when a car's HP is temporary they will say "rated xxx for xx seconds". GM made no such caveats and just hoped Joe Heloc wouldn't notice.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 09, 2015, 11:13:27 AM
U dont think a test driver would notice a sharp decline in power after a lap at a track in a highly developed perfromance car?
That's exactly what I'm saying... Test driver would notice that and would tell the engineers there was a problem, if he wasn't already aware that it's an intentional ECU function.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 09, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
That's exactly what I'm saying... Test driver would notice that and would tell the engineers there was a problem, if he wasn't already aware that it's an intentional ECU function.
Intentional is perhaps worse than it being a glitch.
Thousands of miles of testing, but when was the production ecu code completed? Most of the time, its not until the end of the thousands of miles of testing.
I want to know how much power is being cut....
Quote from: r0tor on February 09, 2015, 11:44:45 AM
Thousands of miles of testing, but when was the production ecu code completed? Most of the time, its not until the end of the thousands of miles of testing.
So they just suddenly add 10 lines of code totally screwing everything up right before production?
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 09, 2015, 11:51:52 AM
So they just suddenly add 10 lines of code totally screwing everything up right before production?
Stranger things have happened. Perhaps near then end there was a serious concern about engines having issues and production deadlines needed to be made.... Not like GM would ever do something wrong...
Its an improvement. Old GM would have just let the engines blow up and blamed the users.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 09, 2015, 11:47:22 AM
I want to know how much power is being cut....
That's the crux of the problem - no real analysis so people are guessing (and each to their skewed POV)...
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2015, 11:29:48 AM
Intentional is perhaps worse than it being a glitch.
Intentional is definitely worse. It means the powertrain is under engineered and the engineers needed to protect it from blowing up.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 09, 2015, 02:21:27 PM
Intentional is definitely worse. It means the powertrain is under engineered and the engineers needed to protect it from blowing up.
Reminds me a bit of the old (circa 1980s) F1 qualifying engines that would last about 5 laps before blowing up. They over-boosted them to get a better grid position and then swapped in a another engine for the race.
Do we have any actual data? Or are you guys just reading a bunch of posts from corvette forum?
Have they put a car on the dyno, shown at least comparatively (since we all know dyno data is garbage ;)) that there is a huge cut in power, and then proven what the trigger point is and what it's causing?
ie. Intake temps > some temperature is causing the timing to adjust, resulting in 20% loss in power.
Or has anyone even dyno'ed a car post break in repetitively to see if power is actually being reduced?
Absolutely nothing in the Motor Trend video shows power is being reduced.
Quote from: MrH on February 09, 2015, 04:07:23 PM
Absolutely nothing in the Motor Trend video shows power is being reduced.
For the last time READ THE ARTICLE
Here, I'll post it again:
QuoteAdd to that the Z06's tendency to get hot after one lap and the computer's decision to reduce power to compensate, and you have a lap slower than expected.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1504_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_vs_2015_nissan_gt_r_nismo_comparison/#ixzz3RIOF5H7u (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1504_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_vs_2015_nissan_gt_r_nismo_comparison/#ixzz3RIOF5H7u)
Holy crap, MX793 is right. That quote came right out of the article :lol:
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2015, 05:02:24 PM
For the last time READ THE ARTICLE
Here, I'll post it again:
I just rewatched the video. I don't see where you are getting that from since they never once mentioned anything about a loss of power.
Most horsepower guestimators would say the Vette only had about 550hp show up based on its trap speed and weight... So I guess making 650hp even for 10 seconds is generous.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 09, 2015, 05:15:36 PM
Holy crap, MX793 is right. That quote came right out of the article :lol:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 09, 2015, 05:22:17 PM
I just rewatched the video. I don't see where you are getting that from since they never once mentioned anything about a loss of power.
I think they put that in from the previous write up! I don't see why Probst wouldn't mention a power loss while driving.
I didn't think the existence of the power loss was in question. GM already said in essence, yeah, we had to retard the ECU to help it meet emissions standards. (http://www.chevyboost.com/content.php?5522-GM-advising-C7-Z06-owners-to-get-an-aftermarket-LT4-V8-tune-Conservative-OEM-ECU-tune-pulling-timing-and-heat-soak-to-blame-for-performance)
Quote from: Tave on February 10, 2015, 05:51:09 AM
I didn't think the existence of the power loss was in question. GM already said in essence, yeah, we had to retard the ECU to help it meet emissions standards. (http://www.chevyboost.com/content.php?5522-GM-advising-C7-Z06-owners-to-get-an-aftermarket-LT4-V8-tune-Conservative-OEM-ECU-tune-pulling-timing-and-heat-soak-to-blame-for-performance)
The apologists don't even believe GM.
Quote from: Tave on February 10, 2015, 05:51:09 AM
I didn't think the existence of the power loss was in question. GM already said in essence, yeah, we had to retard the ECU to help it meet emissions standards. (http://www.chevyboost.com/content.php?5522-GM-advising-C7-Z06-owners-to-get-an-aftermarket-LT4-V8-tune-Conservative-OEM-ECU-tune-pulling-timing-and-heat-soak-to-blame-for-performance)
Cougs ain't coming back :popcorn:
Hilarious they admit to detuning the engine for emissions or durability, but then don't change the HP rating.
I got a $500 gift card from Mazda about 10 years ago from the same basic circumstance. But that was over 10hp, not 100hp.
Back? You haters are failing miserably. What more can I do?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2015, 02:43:21 PM
Back? You haters are failing miserably. What more can I do?
You apologists are hilarious. Defending a safety measure that should not be required and no other production car has, and only when you aren't denying it even exists even though GM admits it's there.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2015, 02:43:21 PM
Back? You haters are failing miserably. What more can I do?
concede. :huh:
GM built a defective car. It's still ultra-sweet, even with it's defects, but it's still defective.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 10, 2015, 03:22:04 PM
concede. :huh:
GM built a defective car. It's still ultra-sweet, even with it's defects, but it's still defective.
Exactly. I still dig the car, but the engine management is really flawed.
Quote from: r0tor on February 10, 2015, 01:30:15 PM
Hilarious they admit to detuning the engine for emissions or durability, but then don't change the HP rating.
I got a $500 gift card from Mazda about 10 years ago from the same basic circumstance. But that was over 10hp, not 100hp.
In a lab environment on the dyno, it makes the advertised power. And I'm not sure the SAE would let them advertise a lower level than what it tested at and still claim the figure to be SAE Certified. IIRC, manufacturers are only permitted to adjust the number a very small amount (like 1-2%) from what was measured during the test to account for variation between motors due to tolerances, etc.... In reality, they probably should have detuned it to a level that they could reliably achieve both in the lab and in the real world rather than coming off as somewhat disingenuous.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 10, 2015, 03:31:32 PM
Exactly. I still dig the car, but the engine management is really flawed.
Meh, after seeing the GT350R and GT4, any want of the Z06 went out the window. Yeah, yeah, not exactly competitors, but still. Plus seeing the Z06 getting its ass handed to it on the track vs the GTR made me quickly lose interest in it.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 10, 2015, 03:38:19 PM
Meh, after seeing the GT350R and GT4, any want of the Z06 went out the window. Yeah, yeah, not exactly competitors, but still. Plus seeing the Z06 getting its ass handed to it on the track vs the GTR made me quickly lose interest in it.
You're acting like it lost to a Miata. :rolleyes: :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2015, 02:43:21 PM
Back? You haters are failing miserably. What more can I do?
Yet another GM bested by a TT V6.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 10, 2015, 03:42:09 PM
You're acting like it lost to a Miata. :rolleyes: :lol:
It lost to a car with 50 less hp, 500 lb more and sitting on an 8 year old chassis by a big margin. Sorry, I'm not very impressed.
And it lost to a japanese car of all things, those people only make a bunch of FWD economy cars.
If you can't even beat the japanese then beating the germans and italians is totally out of the question.
Ohh wait, I forgot how we are supposed to treat the corvette.
If it loses then we can only compare cars that cost the same or less than the corvette. But if it wins then it's a "giant killer" and price doesn't matter, unless a car costing the same as the one it beat wins against the corvette then we go back to price comparable criteria.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 10, 2015, 03:50:51 PM
It lost to a car with 50 less hp, 500 lb more and sitting on an 8 year old chassis by a big margin. Sorry, I'm not very impressed.
OK!
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 10, 2015, 03:53:22 PM
OK!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a GM hater. I still absolutely love the Z28 and would take one over the Z06 any day. I just think they dropped the ball on this one.
I am taking the side of the haters on this debate. I think it's hugely disappointing that the Z06 cannot hold stated power for a few laps.
As a side note, on our track day at COTA there were a few rented auto regular Stingrays. They all overheated (tranny).
That sucks.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on February 10, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
As a side note, on our track day at COTA there were a few rented auto regular Stingrays. They all overheated (tranny).
That sucks.
Ok, I can honestly say I've always wanted a vette. Until I read that.
Utterly and absolutely pathetic.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 10, 2015, 03:50:51 PM
It lost to a car with 50 less hp, 500 lb more and sitting on an 8 year old chassis by a big margin. Sorry, I'm not very impressed.
You should be unimpressed by most cars, then.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 10, 2015, 05:03:22 PM
You should be unimpressed by most cars, then.
Yes, lets compare everything to a GTR. :rolleyes: :facepalm:
Kind of sad the king of the great Chevy small block only makes 550hp
Quote from: thecarnut on February 10, 2015, 05:11:44 PM
Yes, lets compare everything to a GTR. :rolleyes: :facepalm:
"I'd rather have a slower car because the faster car is slower than the fastest car"
Doesn't make much sense. :huh:
Quote from: r0tor on February 10, 2015, 05:12:04 PM
Kind of sad the king of the great Chevy small block only makes 550hp
Got a dyno for that?
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 10, 2015, 05:52:10 PM
"I'd rather have a slower car because the faster car is slower than the fastest car"
Doesn't make much sense. :huh:
Got a dyno for that?
LOL GM apologists are hilarious. If you're fine with your 3300 lb, 650 hp "supercar" (as GM calls it) getting spanked by an 8 year old GTR with less hp that weighs more than my 4Runner, go right ahead. I'm sorry I'm not as easily pleased with its performance, considering what it should be capable of if it actually worked.
And hell yes I would take a slower car that let me use 100% of its power 100% of the time than a faster car that let me use 100% of its power 10% of the time and then went into limp mode.
Figure out how a 3600lb car traps the 1/4 mile at 125mph and how it traps less than a 600hp car that weighs 350lbs more... All data suggests 550hp -shrug-
Quote from: thecarnut on February 10, 2015, 05:59:18 PM
LOL GM apologists are hilarious. If you're fine with your 3300 lb, 650 hp "supercar" (as GM calls it) getting spanked by an 8 year old GTR with less hp that weighs more than my 4Runner, go right ahead. I'm sorry I'm not as easily pleased with its performance, considering what it should be capable of if it actually worked.
And hell yes I would take a slower car that let me use 100% of its power 100% of the time than a faster car that let me use 100% of its power 10% of the time and then went into limp mode.
The comparison to the GT-R is silly because ALMOST EVERYTHING gets beat by it. So I don't get your point.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 10, 2015, 06:18:09 PM
The comparison to the GT-R is silly because ALMOST EVERYTHING gets beat by it. So I don't get your point.
Except that the vette went around the figure 8 faster than the GTR and had higher apex speeds. It was obviously down on power (as stated by Motor Trend in their article) and couldn't catch up to the GTR on the straights. Yes, it probably loses some time to the GTR on corner exit, but if it had its full 650 hp I really doubt it would have lost by that much (if it had lost at all).
If I bought one and had power troubles, I'd just get an aftermarket tune. Or maybe go the Lingenfelter route. Worth it for the chassis IMO.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 10, 2015, 06:26:27 PM
If I bought one and had power troubles, I'd just get an aftermarket tune. Or maybe go the Lingenfelter route. Worth it for the chassis IMO.
So you'd go take your brand new $80k car and dump more money into it fixing GM's mistakes and possibly voiding your warranty?
Not possibly, it would surely void the warranty. Then you'd pray to god that these things don't start popping like the c6 z's. If you drop a aftermarket tune and the motor blows then your going to be out 20+ k to fix it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 10, 2015, 05:52:10 PM
"I'd rather have a slower car because the faster car is slower than the fastest car"
You would rather have a slow car with an overheating engine and no warranty as long as it has a Chevy badge :lol:
I think both cars are silly and all the anger over the Z06 problems is overblown. But it does kind of suck that it can't do the one thing it's supposed to do right. That said, this mindless obsession with lap times and bench racing specs are why GM had to take things to such extremes. Truthfully, the Z06 should have been N/A and hardcore as fuck, with a focus on weight reduction and engagement. Could have kept the LS7 truthfully. Corvette ZR1 should have been this garbage. U got wat u wished for. Z51 is the pick of the breed.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 10, 2015, 06:18:09 PM
The comparison to the GT-R is silly because ALMOST EVERYTHING gets beat by it. So I don't get your point.
The point is if you've hitched your wagon to Ford or Chrysler you gotta find ways to do the hate...
Corvettes have never really been track stars and such as it is the C7 Z06 is world class no matter how much haters pile on. To add insult to their injury it's also selling like hotcakes ;).
Quote from: thecarnut on February 10, 2015, 06:47:00 PM
So you'd go take your brand new $80k car and dump more money into it fixing GM's mistakes and possibly voiding your warranty?
People dump money into $80k cars all the time. For $85k I could have one of the most badass cars for sale, I don't see the problem. Nor do I really care about warranties, I'm used to old cars.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 10, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
You would rather have a slow car with an overheating engine and no warranty as long as it has a Chevy badge :lol:
I'm really not a huge Chevy fan. Just not a Ford fanboi.
Here's a list of cars I want to get next:
Datsun 510
Datsun 240z
BMW E30 M3
'33 Ford (FFR Hot Rod)
'65 Shelby Cobra (FFR)
FJ Cruiser
Jeep Wrangler
1970s Porsche 911 or 914
1960s VW Beetle
Ford Fiesta ST
None of those are a Chevy.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2015, 07:21:02 PM
The point is if you've hitched your wagon to Ford or Chrysler you gotta find ways to do the hate...
Corvettes have never really been track stars and such as it is the C7 Z06 is world class no matter how much haters pile on. To add insult to their injury it's also selling like hotcakes ;).
You're so delusional it's not even funny.
I hear there is a video of a new z06 getting walked by a camry v6, apparently they did about 10 runs from a roll and the corvette just kept getting slower. To be fair the camry did have some mods (intake manifold, ground kit and a tune).
I find it hilarious that the guys with Miatas in their sigs are concerned with horsepower....... :mask:
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 10, 2015, 10:11:58 PM
I find it hilarious that the guys with Miatas a Corvette in their sigs are aren't concerned with horsepower....... :mask:
FWIW, I'm concerned with getting what I paid for. If I pay for a 650 hp car, I don't want a 500 hp one.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 10, 2015, 10:36:33 PM
FWIW, I'm concerned with getting what I paid for. If I pay for a 650 hp car, I don't want a 500 hp one.
Nah, I think 550hp is realistic
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 10, 2015, 07:31:09 PM
People dump money into $80k cars all the time. For $85k I could have one of the most badass cars for sale, I don't see the problem. Nor do I really care about warranties, I'm used to old cars.
I'm really not a huge Chevy fan. Just not a Ford fanboi.
Here's a list of cars I want to get next:
Datsun 510
Datsun 240z
BMW E30 M3
'33 Ford (FFR Hot Rod)
'65 Shelby Cobra (FFR)
FJ Cruiser
Jeep Wrangler
1970s Porsche 911 or 914
1960s VW Beetle
Ford Fiesta ST
None of those are a Chevy.
I want to get a 2nd gen MR2 for my next project car and I have a 350Z now. Doesnt make me any less of a biased Honda fanboi. But I throw that asterisk up every time I talk about Big Red
And theres nothing badass about a car that doesn't make its advertised horsepower for more than 2 minutes without completely voiding the warranty.
If you are gonna do that why bother with the Z06 at all? Throw a Procharger on a base C7, or take that 80K and build a sick C5/C6 since you won't have the warranty anyway. W/o the promised performance this car is pointless... no better than a Z51 C7
The Z06 has a hell of alot more kit added than just b00st.
Quote from: 68_427 on February 11, 2015, 06:32:20 AM
The Z06 has a hell of alot more kit added than just b00st.
Yea, like a poorly tuned suspension and an air brake on the rear
Quote from: r0tor on February 11, 2015, 06:49:35 AM
Yea, like a poorly tuned suspension and an air brake on the rear
LOL lemme see you tune a base C7 that runs a skidpad the same as the Z06.
The tires alone would help a ton, and would enable more aggressive suspension tuning to further capitalize on that.
U can get damn near any car to corner at a g with sticky enough tires and a stiff enough suspension. Plus as the GT-R showed HP and grip don't mean much if you can't use them to the fullest or have full access to them all the time
So you think you can tune the suspension better than GM chassis engineers with just tires and aftermarket suspension?
I would rather have a FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. More exiting and fun > fastest lap time.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 08:15:20 AM
So you think you can tune the suspension better than GM chassis engineers with just tires and aftermarket suspension?
I would rather have a FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. More exiting and fun > fastest lap time.
Depends, are the chassis engineers any better than the powertrain guys?
If they aren't then it might be a pretty easy target.
How about a different question.
Do you think the <blank> chassis engineer can tune the chassis any better than GM engineers?
<blank> insert Nissan, Porsche, Ford(did wonders with that shitty live axle), Ferrari engineers.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 08:15:20 AM
So you think you can tune the suspension better than GM chassis engineers with just tires and aftermarket suspension?
I would rather have a FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. More exiting and fun > fastest lap time.
Point is, GM apologists are pulling anything out of their ass to defend the fact that their 650 HP "supercar" with full aero still has a bunch of problems and still isn't as fast as an old design. Yeah, it's fast around a figure 8 but after that it doesn't have anything.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2015, 07:21:02 PM
The point is if you've hitched your wagon to Ford or Chrysler you gotta find ways to do the hate...
Corvettes have never really been track stars and such as it is the C7 Z06 is world class no matter how much haters pile on. To add insult to their injury it's also selling like hotcakes ;).
No one ever claimed that GM wasn't a great marketing company. For that matter, it's their main strength. The example was set by their founder, William Crapo "Billy" Durant. I don't disparage of anything GM does. As a matter of fact, some of my favourite cars were built by GM. However, sometimes their marketing effort is belied by their product...as in this case. However, the hoards of GM fans will always rise to their defense.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 11, 2015, 09:12:11 AM
No one ever claimed that GM wasn't a great marketing company. For that matter, it's their main strength. The example was set by their founder, William Crapo "Billy" Durant. I don't disparage of anything GM does. As a matter of fact, some of my favourite cars were built by GM. However, sometimes their marketing effort is belied by their product...as in this case. However, the hoards of GM fans will always rise to their defense.
Reminds me of some of the days(years) I spent lurking over at GMInsidenews. It was years ago, back in the dark days of GM. It never ceased to amaze me the length that the true blinded fanboy would goto to defend just about anything GM did. Since the timeframe that I was lurking was during some rough times, it seemed the defenders where on red alert 24/7.
Things like the malibu classic, rebranding the cavalier as cobalt, sticking with 4 speed transmissions, cylinder slap and of course the pre/during/post bankruptcy period. If I had a dollar for everytime someone said "I'm buying a ton of GM stock, it's cheaper than it's ever been, I think it's a no brainer. This baby's going to go up to the moon when X/Y/Z comes out".
Good times, the poor fools are still at it I assume. I can only imagine now that GM has some competent and competitive products how loud some of those guys can be.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on February 11, 2015, 08:50:42 AM
Depends, are the chassis engineers any better than the powertrain guys?
If they aren't then it might be a pretty easy target.
How about a different question.
Do you think the <blank> chassis engineer can tune the chassis any better than GM engineers?
<blank> insert Nissan, Porsche, Ford(did wonders with that shitty live axle), Ferrari engineers.
Multiple recent GM performance cars have been hitting way above their weight, chassis-wise. One supposed engine problem and all the sudden the chassis gets shit on for no reason?
Quote from: thecarnut on February 11, 2015, 08:55:21 AM
Point is, GM apologists are pulling anything out of their ass to defend the fact that their 650 HP "supercar" with full aero still has a bunch of problems and still isn't as fast as an old design. Yeah, it's fast around a figure 8 but after that it doesn't have anything.
"Bunch" of problems? One problem with a lot of speculation thrown around. And you're still pulling this "not as fast as a GT-R" business when it's $50k cheaper and still faster than a bunch of other supercars. Said supercars aren't as fast as the GT-R while still costing more. Are those a failure as well? If GM is retarded for not being able to beat the GT-R, everyone else is retarded too. Fair is fair.
(Especially considering that if you tune the ECU and get rid of the supposed problem, the thing might be faster than the GT-R)
I don't think it's me defending GM at any cost here, it's y'all being idiots about this.
Meh, I still don't buy all these hypotheses.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 09:23:38 AM
Multiple recent GM performance cars have been hitting way above their weight, chassis-wise. One supposed engine problem and all the sudden the chassis gets shit on for no reason?
I find this interesting.
You say recent GM performance cars have been hitting way above their weight. No doubt a reference to the Z/28, and a factual one at that. So it's apparent GM can design a car with a stated performance goal and match if not exceed it.
Then you go on to use the word "supposed" when a GM performance product fails to even meet it's goal. It hasn't even met it, let alone come anywhere close to exceeding it. Yet it's just a "supposed" problem.
This car has lost on the track to the GTR, been walked by vipers in multi roll races and another car from the same stable is a consistent and excellent performer.
I don't know how any rational non biased person could not see a problem here.
I say supposed because it's still unknown exactly what the problem is. Just lots of speculation.
IMO the hi-po Vettes jumped the shark after the C4 Zr1 and C5 Z06. The C6 Zr1 was a better effort but my expectations aren't much going forward. The base model is the only entry in the lineup that has consistently interested me over the last 10 yrs.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 09:23:38 AM
Multiple recent GM performance cars have been hitting way above their weight, chassis-wise. One supposed engine problem and all the sudden the chassis gets shit on for no reason?
"Bunch" of problems? One problem with a lot of speculation thrown around. And you're still pulling this "not as fast as a GT-R" business when it's $50k cheaper and still faster than a bunch of other supercars. Said supercars aren't as fast as the GT-R while still costing more. Are those a failure as well? If GM is retarded for not being able to beat the GT-R, everyone else is retarded too. Fair is fair.
(Especially considering that if you tune the ECU and get rid of the supposed problem, the thing might be faster than the GT-R)
I don't think it's me defending GM at any cost here, it's y'all being idiots about this.
It was also unstable/oversteering at the limit.
Your solution to this is to get a warranty-voiding tune on a brand new $80k that likes to blow up engines with a stock tune, and your justification is "oh I like old cars so I'm used to not having a warranty". I bet if you dropped $80k on that thing, you wouldn't want to drop another $20k+ replacing the engine when you eat it with a tune.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 11, 2015, 09:57:05 AM
It was also unstable/oversteering at the limit.
Your solution to this is to get a warranty-voiding tune on a brand new $80k that likes to blow up engines with a stock tune, and your justification is "oh I like old cars so I'm used to not having a warranty". I bet if you dropped $80k on that thing, you wouldn't want to drop another $20k+ replacing the engine when you eat it with a tune.
That's just the nature of a high performance FR car. Makes it fun. (Also I'd still like to see proof that they tried reducing rear shock settings, which should have been step one with those complaints)
If you don't like my personal solution, that's okay. If it were my money I'd build a C3 with an LS7. (Which BTW wouldn't have much of a warranty)
Quote from: Tave on February 11, 2015, 09:55:57 AM
IMO the hi-po Vettes jumped the shark after the C4 Zr1 and C5 Z06. The C6 Zr1 was a better effort but my expectations aren't much going forward. The base model is the only entry in the lineup that has consistently interested me over the last 10 yrs.
This is true too. No one should really care much about these "super" Vettes or forced induction cars in general. It's limited technology that mostly exists to appease regulation or play the spec game or appease lack of time/money/expertise to Do It Right (natural aspiration).
The C6 Z06 was the pinnacle IMO.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 11, 2015, 10:03:16 AM
This is true too. No one should really care much about these "super" Vettes or forced induction cars in general. It's limited technology that mostly exists to appease regulation or play the spec game or appease lack of time/money/expertise to Do It Right (natural aspiration).
The C6 Z06 was the pinnacle IMO.
So, that's as good as it's going to get? :huh:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 08:15:20 AM
So you think you can tune the suspension better than GM chassis engineers with just tires and aftermarket suspension?
I would rather have a FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. More exiting and fun > fastest lap time.
I think its pretty obvious the rear end needs to be softer by the amount of sweat running down Pobst forehead on a car only making 550hp. The full 650hp would be even worse oversteering.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 11, 2015, 10:06:19 AM
So, that's as good as it's going to get? :huh:
Pinnacle implies "up till now." Who knows what the future will hold.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 11, 2015, 10:09:35 AM
Pinnacle implies "up till now." Who knows what the future will hold.
Actually, it doesn't...but I won't argue about your intent. As for the future, my prediction is a mid-engine TT V6. Far more potential for increased performance...providing they get the engineering right.
Quote from: r0tor on February 11, 2015, 10:08:37 AM
I think its pretty obvious the rear end needs to be softer by the amount of sweat running down Pobst forehead on a car only making 550hp. The full 650hp would be even worse oversteering.
That's more in the "specific track tuning" category. Every track is different.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 11, 2015, 10:13:41 AM
Actually, it doesn't...but I won't argue about your intent. As for the future, my prediction is a mid-engine TT V6. Far more potential for increased performance...providing they get the engineering right.
As long as it's not called a Corvette.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 10:21:36 AM
That's more in the "specific track tuning" category. Every track is different.
Bad oversteer everywhere on a track is probably indicative of a larger problem then just 1 particular track.
The car has immense reliability issues, HP deficit, and an ill conceived aero package. At best this thing was rushed out the door to meet a deadline before it was fully baked. At worse it was engineered by a team that just didn't give a shit.
Quote from: r0tor on February 11, 2015, 10:48:25 AM
Bad oversteer everywhere on a track is probably indicative of a larger problem then just 1 particular track.
The car has immense reliability issues, HP deficit, and an ill conceived aero package. At best this thing was rushed out the door to meet a deadline before it was fully baked. At worse it was engineered by a team that just didn't give a shit.
Quite a lot of speculation there, have proof of ill-tuning on other tracks?
What's wrong with the aero package?
This thread is so full of facepalm, I'm done with it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 10:50:53 AM
Quite a lot of speculation there, have proof of ill-tuning on other tracks?
What's wrong with the aero package?
Yup, sweating pro drivers and complaints the rear spoiler is slowing down "650"hp is just pure speculation... Exploding C&D test carS is also pure speculation... Getting bitch smacked by a car with 50 supposed less HP and 350lb more also speculation.
That life itself even exists is pure speculation. That you actually exist also speculation.
Quote from: thecarnut on February 11, 2015, 09:57:05 AM
It was also unstable/oversteering at the limit.
Your solution to this is to get a warranty-voiding tune on a brand new $80k that likes to blow up engines with a stock tune, and your justification is "oh I like old cars so I'm used to not having a warranty". I bet if you dropped $80k on that thing, you wouldn't want to drop another $20k+ replacing the engine when you eat it with a tune.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 10:01:18 AM
That's just the nature of a high performance FR car. Makes it fun. (Also I'd still like to see proof that they tried reducing rear shock settings, which should have been step one with those complaints)
If you don't like my personal solution, that's okay. If it were my money I'd build a C3 with an LS7. (Which BTW wouldn't have much of a warranty)
Not all FR's with big engines handle like a Vette. Some are much more progressive and predictable at their limits. The monster Vettes tend to snap steer in weird directions under throttle coming out of corners.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 08:15:20 AM
So you think you can tune the suspension better than GM chassis engineers with just tires and aftermarket suspension?
I would rather have a FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. More exiting and fun > fastest lap time.
No but now you are moving the goalposts. Never said anything about tuning a suspension. Skidpad grip is simple physics. More rubber + less lean = more grip. So if skidpad grip is your metric of handling damn near any car can handle like this. Look at the crazy shit folks do for auto-X.
I too would rather have FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. But if the choice is a GT-R or an FR with a big V8 that loses 10-20% of its horsepower after a lap on a track I wouldn't do either. I'd rather do something like the base Corvette or a 911 GTS than either of these cars. GT-R is in no fucking way worth $150K, I don't care how fast it attacks a track. And the C7 Z06 is yet another example of Neue GM biting off more than it can chew and not correcting things before putting the car on sale.
Your fanboism is showing. Even Cougs fell back on this one.
When I get home remind me to post the Best Motoring C6 vid.
Quote from: r0tor on February 11, 2015, 11:06:42 AM
Yup, sweating pro drivers and complaints the rear spoiler is slowing down "650"hp is just pure speculation... Exploding C&D test carS is also pure speculation... Getting bitch smacked by a car with 50 supposed less HP and 350lb more also speculation.
That life itself even exists is pure speculation. That you actually exist also speculation.
Obvious lack of understanding of aero.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 11, 2015, 11:24:30 AM
No but now you are moving the goalposts. Never said anything about tuning a suspension. Skidpad grip is simple physics. More rubber + less lean = more grip. So if skidpad grip is your metric of handling damn near any car can handle like this. Look at the crazy shit folks do for auto-X.
I too would rather have FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. But if the choice is a GT-R or an FR with a big V8 that loses 10-20% of its horsepower after a lap on a track I wouldn't do either. I'd rather do something like the base Corvette or a 911 GTS than either of these cars. GT-R is in no fucking way worth $150K, I don't care how fast it attacks a track. And the C7 Z06 is yet another example of Neue GM biting off more than it can chew and not correcting things before putting the car on sale.
Your fanboism is showing. Even Cougs fell back on this one.
When I get home remind me to post the Best Motoring C6 vid.
I'm the one moving the goalposts? This whole post took the goalpost and threw it to the other end zone.
Quote from: MrH on February 11, 2015, 10:51:42 AM
This thread is so full of facepalm, I'm done with it.
+1
Quote from: MrH on February 11, 2015, 10:51:42 AM
This thread is so full of facepalm, I'm done with it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 11:40:43 AM
+1
Obviously, the concept of "banter" has been lost on this generation.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 11:34:29 AM
Obvious lack of understanding of aero.
Real modern supercars use diffusers to get downforce which create minimal drag and active rear wings to create downforce and limit drag... Not creating an airbrake on the rear to try to cancel out the immense amount of lift the C6 had.
If this was a Mustang, the same people defending the Corvette would be all over Ford for putting out a half-baked product. In fact, Cougs has said that about Ford for issues that are of much less importance than an engine that only produces max power for one acceleration run.
Quote from: MrH on February 11, 2015, 10:51:42 AM
This thread is so full of facepalm, I'm done with it.
This is just your high n mighty way of acknowledging you have nothing to add, but still wanting to put your two cents in anyway. Well hear hear, you have been acknowledged as you wish.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 11, 2015, 12:42:58 PM
This is just your high n mighty way of acknowledging you have nothing to add, but still wanting to put your two cents in anyway. Well hear hear, you have been acknowledged as you wish.
No use even adding anything in this sea of garbage.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 11, 2015, 11:24:30 AM
No but now you are moving the goalposts. Never said anything about tuning a suspension. Skidpad grip is simple physics. More rubber + less lean = more grip. So if skidpad grip is your metric of handling damn near any car can handle like this. Look at the crazy shit folks do for auto-X.
I too would rather have FR with a big V8 than the GT-R. But if the choice is a GT-R or an FR with a big V8 that loses 10-20% of its horsepower after a lap on a track I wouldn't do either. I'd rather do something like the base Corvette or a 911 GTS than either of these cars. GT-R is in no fucking way worth $150K, I don't care how fast it attacks a track. And the C7 Z06 is yet another example of Neue GM biting off more than it can chew and not correcting things before putting the car on sale.
Your fanboism is showing. Even Cougs fell back on this one.
When I get home remind me to post the Best Motoring C6 vid.
Fell back? You're reaching too far for that small semblance of validation. I spoke my piece and will gladly speak more if/when there is actual data or information, and guesses/hypotheses are NOT that. Till then its watching from the sidelines as you guys get spun up and off into the weeds.
Quote from: r0tor on February 11, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
Real modern supercars use diffusers to get downforce which create minimal drag and active rear wings to create downforce and limit drag... Not creating an airbrake on the rear to try to cancel out the immense amount of lift the C6 had.
So how did GM miss this???
Quote from: GoCougs on February 11, 2015, 01:03:29 PM
So how did GM miss this???
Same way they missed the the ECU programming.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 11, 2015, 01:03:29 PM
So how did GM miss this???
Time and/or money would be the logical GM answer to everything that is wrong with the car...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 11, 2015, 12:42:58 PM
This is just your high n mighty way of acknowledging you have nothing to add, but still wanting to put your two cents in anyway. Well hear hear, you have been acknowledged as you wish.
Dude works for Bilstein... Expert at everything and needs to not speak
still so salty 'bout the 6.2L whuppin ^^
Nope pretty sure this is the second thread in a week with the infamous small block Chevy getting killed by a TTV6
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 01:30:02 PM
still so salty 'bout the 6.2L whuppin ^^
Silverado vs. F150? That went very poorly for r0tor (esp. torque vs. hp).
Everyone knows I obliterated you in that thread... Keep on drinking that delusional juice
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2015, 09:23:38 AMSaid supercars aren't as fast as the GT-R while still costing more. Are those a failure as well?
Yes.
In the April edition of Car And Driver the Z06 takes first place over the Nismo AND 911 Turbo (the GT3 they were suppose to test was wrecked). All testing was done on canyon roads though.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 28, 2015, 06:47:04 PM
In the April edition of Car And Driver the Z06 takes first place over the Nismo AND 911 Turbo (the GT3 they were suppose to test was wrecked). All testing was done on canyon roads though.
Sounds like someone throwing GM a bone.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 01, 2015, 09:40:35 AM
Sounds like someone throwing GM a bone.
Corvette won because the 911 was given an 18 point deficit from price.
Seriously though, its time GM comes clean with its HP rating. The 911 weighs 60lbs more, has 90 less HP, and 136 less lbft.... Yet...
- 911 demolishes the Vette in the 1/4 mile by .9 sec and more importantly by 5 MPH
- 911 destroys the Vette to 150 MPH by 3 sec!!!
Hell, even the 360 lb heavier GT-R spanked the Vette in every performance measurement.
The Vette is making 550hp tops. End of story. Begin the class action lawsuit.
Quote from: r0tor on March 02, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
Corvette won because the 911 was given an 18 point deficit from price.
Seriously though, its time GM comes clean with its HP rating. The 911 weighs 60lbs more, has 90 less HP, and 136 less lbft.... Yet...
- 911 demolishes the Vette in the 1/4 mile by .9 sec and more importantly by 5 MPH
- 911 destroys the Vette to 150 MPH by 3 sec!!!
Hell, even the 360 lb heavier GT-R spanked the Vette in every performance measurement.
The Vette is making 550hp tops. End of story. Begin the class action lawsuit.
Have you forgotten both of those cars have AWD putting the power to the ground. And in the article C&D says the 911 is the better car but at 190K it's not TWICE as good as the Z06. They even said to top the performance of the Z06 GM is gonna have to go mid engine!
I can only imagine the amount of problems gm would have releasing an all new ground up mid engined supercar. Something i believe they have zero experience with.
Still would love to see them make one though. Got to dive in sometime, and I'm sure after a gen or two it will be a legitimate supercar contender.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 02, 2015, 05:27:30 PM
Have you forgotten both of those cars have AWD putting the power to the ground. And in the article C&D says the 911 is the better car but at 190K it's not TWICE as good as the Z06. They even said to top the performance of the Z06 GM is gonna have to go mid engine!
Trap speeds don't lie.... They also don't care about fwd, AWD, or rwd.
Hell the C6 posts the same trap speeds with 100hp less. It is what it is.
Quote from: r0tor on March 02, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
Corvette won because the 911 was given an 18 point deficit from price.
Seriously though, its time GM comes clean with its HP rating. The 911 weighs 60lbs more, has 90 less HP, and 136 less lbft.... Yet...
- 911 demolishes the Vette in the 1/4 mile by .9 sec and more importantly by 5 MPH
- 911 destroys the Vette to 150 MPH by 3 sec!!!
Hell, even the 360 lb heavier GT-R spanked the Vette in every performance measurement.
The Vette is making 550hp tops. End of story. Begin the class action lawsuit.
Trap speed is a legit point but lets not act like AWD + DSG isn't faster from a dig than RWD + stickshift
Is this article online yet?
And lets also not forget the GT-R and 911 are like 1.5-2x the price :huh:
If it were a problem with power Joe HELOC would have turned it up with dyno testing. Its the aero
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 02, 2015, 07:20:38 PM
Trap speed is a legit point but lets not act like AWD + DSG isn't faster from a dig than RWD + stickshift
Is this article online yet?
And lets also not forget the GT-R and 911 are like 1.5-2x the price :huh:
If it were a problem with power Joe HELOC would have turned it up with dyno testing. Its the aero
For gods sake - its slower then the 2012 Z06... A couple tenths in the .25mile, a mph slower trap, almost a full sec slower to 150.
Sporty, make that AWD + DSG + rear engined. Turbo S has always been a quarter mile master.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 02, 2015, 07:20:38 PM
Trap speed is a legit point but lets not act like AWD + DSG isn't faster from a dig than RWD + stickshift
Is this article online yet?
And lets also not forget the GT-R and 911 are like 1.5-2x the price :huh:
If it were a problem with power Joe HELOC would have turned it up with dyno testing. Its the aero
r0tor is whack. The C7 Z06 is ~400 lbs heavier than the C6 Z06 and puts up better acceleration numbers than the C6 ZR1 (albeit not by tons).
My hunch is their internal testing showed with today's tech this is about as far as they can take a front engine/RWD street car at any price. No other such car comes close in overall performance. The $400k Ferrari F12 is a bit quicker but gets eaten in the curves (can't even beat a lowly Z51).
No, its slower than the C6 Z06 and ZR1 by a large margin.
Nah, the C7 Z06 is well out in front 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile (albeit this is the 8AT but the only car I could find that C&D tested). 0-150 and top speed suffer which is due to aero.
(http://s15.postimg.org/pn3s2fva3/Untitled.png)
Partial article here on page 3
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3613769-just-got-the-april-car-and-driver-in-the-mail-3.html (http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3613769-just-got-the-april-car-and-driver-in-the-mail-3.html)
Woah, just saw that - 93 mph in 2nd gear? Jesus. And lol at those braking and handling numbers...
I'm not sure the hate. With the M/T the C7 Z06 is right on par with the C6 ZR1 for lower speed acceleration despite significantly more aero (that cuts top speed by ~20 mph).
Looking at the charts from c and d, it looks like one contributing factor seems to be the higher torque peak and lower hp peak, assuming a narrower peak power range, compared to the porsche and nissan tt v6s.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 02, 2015, 08:33:00 PM
Nah, the C7 Z06 is well out in front 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile (albeit this is the 8AT but the only car I could find that C&D tested). 0-150 and top speed suffer which is due to aero.
(http://s15.postimg.org/pn3s2fva3/Untitled.png)
Compare these latest times to the C&D ZR-1 and 2012 Z06 tests, and the C7 is slower everywhere. Take off the fanboy glasses, that car makes no where near 650 HP. All it has is more grip off the line from the pilot sport cup 2 tires.
C7 Z06 ... 11.5@125 , 17.9 sec 0-150
C6 Z06 ... 11.6 @126, 17.0 sec 0-150
C6 ZR-1 ... 11.6 @128, 16.8 sec 0-150
Let's see where the HP is at...
C7 z06 100-150... 10.4 sec
C6 z06 100-150... 9.4 sec
C6 ZR1 100-150... 9.1 sec
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 02, 2015, 07:20:38 PM
Trap speed is a legit point but lets not act like AWD + DSG isn't faster from a dig than RWD + stickshift
Is this article online yet?
And lets also not forget the GT-R and 911 are like 1.5-2x the price :huh:
If it were a problem with power Joe HELOC would have turned it up with dyno testing. Its the aero
I'll be glad when someone test a NON Z07 A8 Z06! I'm sure the straight line numbers will improve!
If the NASCAR disaster rear spoiler is causing 100hp worth of drag, then its time for GM to go back to the drawing board and not use a similar design of spoiler that NASCAR uses to actually slow down the field and create better drafting effects.
You want to see HP?
Look at the 30-50 and 50-70 times. /jawdrop
C6 Z06
(http://i.imgur.com/WUTtJ17.jpg)
C6 ZR1
(http://i.imgur.com/C4fy6K1.jpg)
See Cougs' post for C7 Z06.
You can also look at the 5-60 times, where traction shouldn't be an issue. C7 Z06 stomps both older cars.
13.9 and 10.8 per the recent C&D article
5-60 is 4.0 seconds, per the recent C&D article.
(http://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin/766x1600/80-16509613130_24591c3706_h_c76e0602288d2b0a1920e531595f9b03df5cd312.jpg)
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 03, 2015, 11:02:47 AM
You want to see HP?
Look at the 30-50 and 50-70 times. /jawdrop
C6 Z06
(http://i.imgur.com/WUTtJ17.jpg)
C6 ZR1
(http://i.imgur.com/C4fy6K1.jpg)
See Cougs' post for C7 Z06.
You can also look at the 5-60 times, where traction shouldn't be an issue. C7 Z06 stomps both older cars.
Automatics are allowed to downshift during a top gear 30-50 and 50-70 test. You can't compare autos and manuals in that test.
Quote from: MX793 on March 03, 2015, 11:10:41 AM
Automatics are allowed to downshift during a top gear 30-50 and 50-70 test. You can't compare autos and manuals in that test.
Well that's a silly thing to do.
You can't stop it, you mash the gas at 30 and what happens happens.
5-60 is still a good measure though
As for the recent C&D comparo, I was intrigued(as others on the Corvette forum were) about the total lack of track times.
Personally, I think that speaks volumes about what one could assume was the outcome. I think it's cowardly and they should have just posted the numbers.
It reminds me of that guy that talks shit and then when you drag race(and he's losing) he turns off on a side street before the next light.
Entire C&D comparo is on page 4 here if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3613769-just-got-the-april-car-and-driver-in-the-mail-4.html (http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3613769-just-got-the-april-car-and-driver-in-the-mail-4.html)
r0tor lol. It's definitely the aero. I couldnt see photos in here but I looked up the C6 vs C7 Z06 C&D test results. C7 Z06 has a lower top speed and is slower from 150, but is faster through the quarter and at speeds under ~130. Its also pulling 1.2gs. Im guessing the aero is very effective... TOO effective.
Quote from: r0tor on March 03, 2015, 05:02:59 AM
Compare these latest times to the C&D ZR-1 and 2012 Z06 tests, and the C7 is slower everywhere. Take off the fanboy glasses, that car makes no where near 650 HP. All it has is more grip off the line from the pilot sport cup 2 tires.
C7 Z06 ... 11.5@125 , 17.9 sec 0-150
C6 Z06 ... 11.6 @126, 17.0 sec 0-150
C6 ZR-1 ... 11.6 @128, 16.8 sec 0-150
Let's see where the HP is at...
C7 z06 100-150... 10.4 sec
C6 z06 100-150... 9.4 sec
C6 ZR1 100-150... 9.1 sec
Tires? Nah, the cars are geared so high (~60 mph in 1st, ~90 mph in 2nd) and tires so huge (335) traction isn't a huge problem. Also look at the 5-60 times.
The C7 Z06 is as fast as it should be.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 03, 2015, 03:16:28 PM
r0tor lol. It's definitely the aero. I couldnt see photos in here but I looked up the C6 vs C7 Z06 C&D test results. C7 Z06 has a lower top speed and is slower from 150, but is faster through the quarter and at speeds under ~130. Its also pulling 1.2gs. Im guessing the aero is very effective... TOO effective.
Right... aero even makes it slower 5-60...
...and you realize what speeds the skidpad numbers are pulled from?
And you also realize the C7 should be not marginally faster, but significantly faster with >100hp more?
Quote from: GoCougs on March 03, 2015, 03:23:50 PM
The C7 Z06 is as fast as it should be.
Then why does it continually get its ass kicked by heavier, less powerful cars?
Quote from: r0tor on March 03, 2015, 03:45:01 PM
Then why does it continually get its ass kicked by heavier, less powerful cars?
Leaf springs.
Quote from: r0tor on March 03, 2015, 03:45:01 PM
Then why does it continually get its ass kicked by heavier, less powerful cars?
You act like it lost to a V6 Camry! It's losing (to the GTR on the track. No word on if the 911 is faster) because of the reasons we stated earlier. The Quick shifting, AWD cars are a tad bit quicker than the rear drive manually shifted Z06. And both of those cars (that LOST to the Z06 in this comparo) cost 50-100K more!
Hp is Hp. Cost is irrelevant to power. On the Motor Trend compare the Vette got stomped by the GT-R in all forms of acceleration despite being heavier and less powerful. In the C&D comparo it again gets its ass handed by 2 cars with much less power and more weight. Compared with older less powerful better, it again loses.
Its not making 650hp. Simple story.
You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1095816_another-c7-z06-hits-the-dyno-and-posts-strong-power-numbers-video (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1095816_another-c7-z06-hits-the-dyno-and-posts-strong-power-numbers-video)
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 03, 2015, 06:16:05 PM
You act like it lost to a V6 Camry! It's losing (to the GTR on the track. No word on if the 911 is faster) because of the reasons we stated earlier. The Quick shifting, AWD cars are a tad bit quicker than the rear drive manually shifted Z06. And both of those cars (that LOST to the Z06 in this comparo) cost 50-100K more!
You saw the c&d article and the numbers the 911 turbo put down. You really have to wonder if the porsche would be faster than the vette on a track?
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 03, 2015, 07:10:18 PM
You saw the c&d article and the numbers the 911 turbo put down. You really have to wonder if the porsche would be faster than the vette on a track?
Corvette has it beat in the slalom, skidpad, and braking. I think it would depend on the track. The OP track would favor the 911.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 03, 2015, 07:10:18 PM
You saw the c&d article and the numbers the 911 turbo put down. You really have to wonder if the porsche would be faster than the vette on a track?
I'm sure it would be stellar but did you see the numbers the Vette put up handling wise? C&D said "The painted lines aren't this glued to the road!"
I guess its simple math to me.
In a recent timed track comparison the corvette lost to the nismo gtr, the porsche 911 tt is faster than a nismo gtr. :huh:
Video of an A8 Z06 with Stage 1 Aero Package. OP compares his numbers to 911 TT numbers also.
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3614830-z06-a8-0-150-mph.html (http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-z06-discussion/3614830-z06-a8-0-150-mph.html)
Quote from: r0tor on March 03, 2015, 06:37:33 PM
Hp is Hp. Cost is irrelevant to power. On the Motor Trend compare the Vette got stomped by the GT-R in all forms of acceleration despite being heavier and less powerful. In the C&D comparo it again gets its ass handed by 2 cars with much less power and more weight. Compared with older less powerful better, it again loses.
Its not making 650hp. Simple story.
I'm not sure what the issue is with you when it comes to torque and horsepower. Seems to be a common theme. I already gave you shades of what was going on by reminding you the C7 Z06 is geared extremely high. Using the GTR as an example, literally 1st gear is almost twice as steep - 15.02:1 vs. 7.8:1.
True the GTR has more losses through the AWD and it weighs ~10% more but those aren't big factors in the face of significantly steeper gearing. Also remember both the GTR and 911T have violent and extremely effective launch control and AWD - worth ~0.5 sec in the 1/4. Z06 has no such aids.
Yah Vette has 2 ~0.5 sec shifts. Streets need that non Z07 auto test to happen. Chassis dynos indicate power is not at all the problem.
Im pretty sure they do multiple runs too.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 03, 2015, 09:26:10 PM
I'm not sure what the issue is with you when it comes to torque and horsepower. Seems to be a common theme. I already gave you shades of what was going on by reminding you the C7 Z06 is geared extremely high. Using the GTR as an example, literally 1st gear is almost twice as steep - 15.02:1 vs. 7.8:1.
True the GTR has more losses through the AWD and it weighs ~10% more but those aren't big factors in the face of significantly steeper gearing. Also remember both the GTR and 911T have violent and extremely effective launch control and AWD - worth ~0.5 sec in the 1/4. Z06 has no such aids.
Why did they gear it so high? It's not like they were hurting for ratios.
Quote from: Tave on March 04, 2015, 05:56:13 AM
Why did they gear it so high? It's not like they were hurting for ratios.
So that the fat old guys who drive them wouldn't lose their belly contents if they accidently had a foot spasm? :huh:
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 03, 2015, 06:59:50 PM
You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1095816_another-c7-z06-hits-the-dyno-and-posts-strong-power-numbers-video (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1095816_another-c7-z06-hits-the-dyno-and-posts-strong-power-numbers-video)
Yippee.... Chassis dyno numbers... because those are never wrong or calibrated wrong or have people messing with correction factors
Quote from: GoCougs on March 03, 2015, 09:26:10 PM
I'm not sure what the issue is with you when it comes to torque and horsepower. Seems to be a common theme. I already gave you shades of what was going on by reminding you the C7 Z06 is geared extremely high. Using the GTR as an example, literally 1st gear is almost twice as steep - 15.02:1 vs. 7.8:1.
True the GTR has more losses through the AWD and it weighs ~10% more but those aren't big factors in the face of significantly steeper gearing. Also remember both the GTR and 911T have violent and extremely effective launch control and AWD - worth ~0.5 sec in the 1/4. Z06 has no such aids.
So what your saying is they geared their sports car wayyyyy too long and then saddled it with a terribly high drag aero package, and then threw in an undersized cooling system
Was this car engineered by infants?
And anyway, I haven't been focusing on ET because AWD does have an advantage. I'm focused on trap speeds which are the best indicator of how much power is being made - and the Vette is trapping like a 550hp car.
Viper makes 650HP, weighs less, goes about the same as the Z06
Last ZR1 trapped a hair higher
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-srt-viper-gts-vs-2013-corvette-zr12013-srt-viper-gts-and-2013-chevrolet-corvette-zr1-comparo.pdf (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-srt-viper-gts-vs-2013-corvette-zr12013-srt-viper-gts-and-2013-chevrolet-corvette-zr1-comparo.pdf)
Pretty obvious what's happening.... AWD/DSG cars trap higher because they have 0ms shifts and quicker hole shots, and the Z07 has a lot more drag :huh:
Chevy focused their efforts on max grip for the Z07. When they test an auto non-aero Z06 I bet it will be a lot "faster".
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 07:14:36 AM
Viper makes 650HP, weighs less, goes about the same as the Z06
Last ZR1 trapped a hair higher
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-srt-viper-gts-vs-2013-corvette-zr12013-srt-viper-gts-and-2013-chevrolet-corvette-zr1-comparo.pdf (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-srt-viper-gts-vs-2013-corvette-zr12013-srt-viper-gts-and-2013-chevrolet-corvette-zr1-comparo.pdf)
Pretty obvious what's happening.... AWD/DSG cars trap higher because they have 0ms shifts and quicker hole shots, and the Z07 has a lot more drag :huh:
Chevy focused their efforts on max grip for the Z07. When they test an auto non-aero Z06 I bet it will be a lot "faster".
i put a video up of a A8 Stage 1 doing a 0-150 run and it was faster than the manual Z07 car. We will see what happens when the magazines get one!
Well then I guess the answer is simple, GM put wayyy to much aero on this car. While attempting to give the car unbelievable amounts of downforce and grip they have effectively destroyed the cars performance potential based on a power to weight ratio. As observed by the 100-150 MPH times compared to the porsche, a car that weighs the same yet has an average of 17% less power but still manages to be 20% faster(100-150MPH, which negates the awd launch advantage).
Sounds just like poor decision making to me, the overemphasis on aero has made the cars power to weight ratio pretty much moot. I can't help but think there should have been a better option, somewhere in the middle, that still offered a fair amount of downforce while preserving the HP advantage that this car has over the competition.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 07:34:36 AM
Well then I guess the answer is simple, GM put wayyy to much aero on this car. While attempting to give the car unbelievable amounts of downforce and grip they have effectively destroyed the cars performance potential based on a power to weight ratio. As observed by the 100-150 MPH times compared to the porsche, a car that weighs the same yet has an average of 17% less power but still manages to be 20% faster(100-150MPH, which negates the awd launch advantage).
Sounds just like poor decision making to me, the overemphasis on aero has made the cars power to weight ratio pretty much moot. I can't help but think there should have been a better option, somewhere in the middle, that still offered a fair amount of downforce while preserving the HP advantage that this car has over the competition.
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2009/ghij/2009-Hamann-Volcano-Mercedes-Benz-SLR-Carbon-Fiber-Rear-Wing-Extensions-1920x1440.jpg)
Nissan claims theirs creates downforce with zero drag
I'm not saying aero can't be done right, I'm just saying GM's implementation was a poor choice in regards to the overall performance of the vehicle.
Quote from: 68_427 on March 04, 2015, 07:49:20 AM
Nissan claims theirs creates downforce with zero drag
And I claim I know how to do faster than light travel.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 08:04:01 AM
I'm not saying aero can't be done right, I'm just saying GM's implementation was a poor choice in regards to the overall performance of the vehicle.
Isn't the heavy aero an optional package on the Z06?
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 08:04:01 AM
I'm not saying aero can't be done right, I'm just saying GM's implementation was a poor choice in regards to the overall performance of the vehicle.
Yeah I was just agreeing with you.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 04, 2015, 08:06:58 AM
Isn't the heavy aero an optional package on the Z06?
Yup, but i'd think the automaker would opt to offer their performance car in a way that promotes max performance.
GM has essentially offered an air brake for their track car and then labeled it a "track pack". Maybe the C8 Z will have a restricter plate option too.
Z07 package will be the go-to option for people looking to autocross. At lower speeds, you need a huge air brake like that to generate the same down force.
Cool, 100K autocross car......
:rolleyes:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 08:34:03 AM
Cool, 100K autocross car......
:rolleyes:
That's more than most owners will actually do anyway.
Yup, probably why GM really didn't hammer down the last 10% on this car.
If the customers happy, then we did "good enough".
I don't particularly like that frame of mind, and I don't know why their are top level highly paid "talent" amongst GM that think it's acceptable.
How many porsche owners will do 60 consecutive launches in their TT? Probably no one, but Porsche builds a car that is capable of doing what few will ever be able to do with it.
Quote from: Tave on March 04, 2015, 05:56:13 AM
Why did they gear it so high? It's not like they were hurting for ratios.
Dunno for sure but my hunch is their testing showed lower gearing didn't help much with acceleration (esp. w/no launch control). It also enables them to have relatively short spacing (~30 mph) between gears 2-5. Top speed in each gear:
1st: 66
2nd: 93
3rd: 124
4th: 150
5th: 183
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 08:48:43 AM
Dunno for sure but my hunch is their testing showed lower gearing didn't help much with acceleration (esp. w/no launch control). It also enables them to have relatively short spacing (~30 mph) between gears 2-5. Top speed in each gear:
1st: 66
2nd: 93
3rd: 124
4th: 150
5th: 183
Definitely no way they could gear it as low as the GT-R and it's AWD. The Corvette would just spin the tires.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 07:34:36 AM
Well then I guess the answer is simple, GM put wayyy to much aero on this car. While attempting to give the car unbelievable amounts of downforce and grip they have effectively destroyed the cars performance potential based on a power to weight ratio. As observed by the 100-150 MPH times compared to the porsche, a car that weighs the same yet has an average of 17% less power but still manages to be 20% faster(100-150MPH, which negates the awd launch advantage).
Sounds just like poor decision making to me, the overemphasis on aero has made the cars power to weight ratio pretty much moot. I can't help but think there should have been a better option, somewhere in the middle, that still offered a fair amount of downforce while preserving the HP advantage that this car has over the competition.
Theres more to performance than straight line speed, especially above 120-130 MPH. Where can u regularly see such speeds in the US, even on a track?
No other car in the segment is pulling close to 1.2gs of lateral grip. Clearly thats where GM wanted to focus the Z07's prowess. Does that translate to faster lap times? So far it's a wash... I'm waiting to see results from LL2015 which will be in October. I'm not expecting much though. Z51 ran a 2:53 compared to the 2:50-51s for the ZR1/Z28 and the GT-R NISMO was still faster in the 2:49s (4th fastest car of the competition's history). This thing is at the absolute limits of FR street car performance in all aspects.
"Theres more to performance than straight line speed"
I think that is my point, actually. I don't see where i was stating anything other than that. Hence why I've continued to focus on the track times(and the z06's loss) to make the point.
A race track will test the overall blend of performance aspects of a car, acceleration, grip, suspension tuning/setup and chassis balance. Apparently, having a notable advantage in HP and a SIGNIFICANT advantage in torque, as well as a better F/R weight ratio not to mention a large skidpad advantage. The corvette still lost by a pretty large margin considering it's abundance of advantages over the Nismo.
There is more to straightline speed indeed, as well as there is more to skidpad numbers.
I really don't know what GM was thinking, did they have any competition around for benchmarking when they were putting the final touches on this car? Or being the horrible corporate sloth that it is did the GM team actually sandbag the samples they had to appease the suits?
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 06:20:28 AM
So what your saying is they geared their sports car wayyyyy too long and then saddled it with a terribly high drag aero package, and then threw in an undersized cooling system
Was this car engineered by infants?
And anyway, I haven't been focusing on ET because AWD does have an advantage. I'm focused on trap speeds which are the best indicator of how much power is being made - and the Vette is trapping like a 550hp car.
No, what I'm saying is you still do not understand torque and horsepower. It should now be obvious why the GTR is quicker and not only because it has AWD, DSG and launch control.
No, trap speed doesn't indicate power made - it indicates thrust force put to the street per unit of mph. Put in gearing that is 50% taller and the Z06 is gonna slow way down.
No, the C7 Z06 is both trapping similar speeds and running similar 1/4 mile times to other M/T RWD cars with similar power/weight ratios and similar tall gearing (these ALL do ~60 mph in 1st and ~95 mph in 2nd); mid 11s @ 125-128 mph:
C7 Z06 - 3,550 lbs, 650 hp, 5.5 lb/hp
C6 ZR1 - 3,360 lbs, 638 hp, 5.3 lb/hp
Viper - 3,350 lbs, 640 hp, 5.2 lb/hp
GT500 - 3,850 lbs, 662 hp, 5.8 lb/hp
Umm the Z07 is only generating a couple hundred pounds of down force. Super cars like the Saleen S7 generated 3,000 lbs of down force with far less drag issues.
If this aero package is creating so much drag its making a 650hp car act like a 550hp one, some better be firing their aero engineers.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 09:11:56 AM
No, what I'm saying is you still do not understand torque and horsepower. It should now be obvious why the GTR is quicker and not only because it has AWD, DSG and launch control.
No, trap speed doesn't indicate power made - it indicates thrust force put to the street per unit of mph. Put in gearing that is 50% taller and the Z06 is gonna slow way down.
No, the C7 Z06 is both trapping similar speeds and running similar 1/4 mile times to other M/T RWD cars with similar power/weight ratios and similar tall gearing (these ALL do ~60 mph in 1st and ~95 mph in 2nd); mid 11s @ 125-128 mph:
C7 Z06 - 3,550 lbs, 650 hp, 5.5 lb/hp
C6 ZR1 - 3,360 lbs, 638 hp, 5.3 lb/hp
Viper - 3,350 lbs, 640 hp, 5.2 lb/hp
GT500 - 3,850 lbs, 662 hp, 5.8 lb/hp
Viper is trapping 129-130 mph. The expected trap speed for a 3400ish pound car with 650hp is 130. The expected trap speed for a 3400ish pound with 550hp is 125.
Do you really need me to give you a Google search to the hundreds of 1/4 calculators in existence that have worked for ages?
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 09:20:20 AM
Viper is trapping 129-130 mph. The expected trap speed for a 3400ish pound car with 650hp is 130. The expected trap speed for a 3400ish pound with 550hp is 125.
Do you really need me to give you a Google search to the hundreds of 1/4 calculators in existence that have worked for ages?
Calculators? 3,400 lbs?
You quite simply do not understand either torque or horsepower nor understand how a car gets on down the strip *r0tor shrug*.
Why argue about 1/4 mile times when there are perfectly good road course times with A PROFESSIONAL DRIVER to illustrate that something is "wrong" with the Z06?
I don't care if its slightly slower around a track than cars costing twice as much. It's probably more fun to drive than those.
I do care that it limps after a couple of laps.That really sucks.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 04, 2015, 09:31:30 AM
I don't care if its slightly slower around a track than cars costing twice as much. It's probably more fun to drive than those.
I do care that it limps after a couple of laps.That really sucks.
+1
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 09:27:48 AM
Calculators? 3,400 lbs?
You quite simply do not understand either torque or horsepower nor understand how a car gets on down the strip *r0tor shrug*.
Basic physics still does apply to the Corvette
https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F4+mile+calculator (https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F4+mile+calculator)
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 09:34:23 AM
Basic physics still does apply to the Corvette
https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F4+mile+calculator (https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F4+mile+calculator)
There's literally 100x more to it.
You throw out a dyno but a garbage 1/4 mile estimator is treated like the gold standard. No way a dyno is gonna be off by 100 hp on multiple occasions, but it's very easy for a 1/4 mi estimate to be off by a couple MPH.
I don't get your jihad. Did you short GM stock recently?
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 09:35:37 AM
There's literally 100x more to it.
I don't get your jihad. Did you short GM stock recently?
Fine, prove it performs like a 650hp car. Do you want to use the comparo where it got bitch slapped on a road course, or a comparo where it got bitch slapped in a straight line?
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 04, 2015, 09:31:30 AM
I don't care if its slightly slower around a track than cars costing twice as much. It's probably more fun to drive than those.
I do care that it limps after a couple of laps.That really sucks.
It's less about cost and more about what the car(Z06 is).
If I buy a car with:
More HP
More Torque
Better balance
Better brakes
Lower weight
higher grip
I would be concerned something is wrong with it if it loses to a car with significantly less than the above.
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 09:37:33 AM
Fine, prove it performs like a 650hp car. Do you want to use the comparo where it got bitch slapped on a road course, or a comparo where it got bitch slapped in a straight line?
By AWD cars using lower gearing? :huh:
See my edit, btw. Your assertion that it only makes 550 hp is so wrong it hurts. I would say you should stop now before you embarrass yourself any further, but I don't think that's possible.
Doing more with less
or
Doing less with more
I know which one should describe the Z06. You'd think that GM would have held themselves to a higher standard.
Wow, just got my mag. C&D gushed over the Z06 like no other and put it into a performance and driving enjoyment category 1 or 2 levels above the other two cars. They also noted lots of wheel spin on the acceleration testing - they had to walk it off the line to get the best results.
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 09:20:20 AM
Viper is trapping 129-130 mph. The expected trap speed for a 3400ish pound car with 650hp is 130. The expected trap speed for a 3400ish pound with 550hp is 125.
Do you really need me to give you a Google search to the hundreds of 1/4 calculators in existence that have worked for ages?
Do those calculators factor in transmissions, drag and drivetrains?
And lol @ bringing up the S7... its 600lbs lighter, mid engined, and makes 100 more HP lol. Very relevant.
Its not so much that I disagree that the Z06 has problems, its that you are so terrible at getting your point across. Online trap speed calculators? Lol.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 09:43:47 AM
It's less about cost and more about what the car(Z06 is).
If I buy a car with:
More HP
More Torque
Better balance
Better brakes
Lower weight
higher grip
I would be concerned something is wrong with it if it loses to a car with significantly less than the above.
I see your point. However, considering the price I'd forgive that. Not the limping.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 09:44:18 AM
By AWD cars using lower gearing? :huh:
See my edit, btw. Your assertion that it only makes 550 hp is so wrong it hurts. I would say you should stop now before you embarrass yourself any further, but I don't think that's possible.
Porsche GT3. 475hp in a NA 6 cyljnder. Rear wing generates 300lbs of down force. 1/4 mile of 11.1@125mph? Top speed 195mph?
Pretty sad if you pull up to one with your 650hp supercharged V8 Vette and get smoked....
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 09:48:55 AM
Porsche GT3. 475hp in a NA 6 cyljnder. Rear wing generates 300lbs of down force. 1/4 mile of 11.1@125mph? Top speed 195mph?
Pretty sad if you pull up to one with your 650hp supercharged V8 Vette and get smoked....
lol - GT3 weighs ~3,150 lbs, has PDK and launch control, has rear engine, and has gearing about like the GTR (1st gear of 14.9:1 vs. Z06 of 7.8:1)...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 09:47:17 AM
Do those calculators factor in transmissions, drag and drivetrains?
And lol @ bringing up the S7... its 600lbs lighter, mid engined, and makes 100 more HP lol. Very relevant.
Its not so much that I disagree that the Z06 has problems, its that you are so terrible at getting your point across. Online trap speed calculators? Lol.
He did the same in defending EcoBoost in the F150 vs. Silverado thread. He has a point, then at some point falls down a rabbit hole, and then comes out the other side with so much wrongness.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 04, 2015, 09:47:21 AM
I see your point. However, considering the price I'd forgive that. Not the limping.
A car that has a significant advantage in every performance category shouldn't loose to cars that it vastly(should) outperform.
That's just a poorly designed car, it's something that I would not forgive. Certainly not at a 6 figure price point.
The article was an ok read, but I guess it seemed alittle too much like justifying their (predetermined?) ranking.
"The Turbo S is the best car here."
Pretty much sums the article up for me. I always figured these comparo's where about the cars, and finding the best one. Not injecting a price handicap in to position the cars as they(or the manufacturer) sees fit. If that's the case(price factored) then anyone of these comparo's is nothing more than an elaborate sales brochure. Swinging favor from one car to the next based on who's the most recent one on the market.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 09:59:40 AM
lol - GT3 weighs ~3,150 lbs, has PDK and launch control, has rear engine, and has gearing about like the GTR (1st gear of 14.9:1 vs. Z06 of 7.8:1)...
THE CORVETTE HAS LAUNCH CONTROL DUMB DUMB
...so what your saying in this post is Porsche knows how to engineer a sports car, GM does not.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 07:14:36 AM
Viper makes 650HP, weighs less, goes about the same as the Z06
Pretty obvious what's happening.... AWD/DSG cars trap higher because they have 0ms shifts and quicker hole shots, and the Z07 has a lot more drag :huh:
+1
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 09:27:48 AM
Calculators? 3,400 lbs?
You quite simply do not understand either torque or horsepower nor understand how a car gets on down the strip *r0tor shrug*.
+1
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 10:11:22 AM
THE CORVETTE HAS LAUNCH CONTROL DUMB DUMB
...so what your saying in this post is Porsche knows how to engineer a sports car, GM does not.
So how is it you keep taking these hits but keep coming back for more? Jesus, it's simply unbelievable.
Firstly, M/T launch control and DSG launch control couldn't be any more different. The former modulates throttle to prevent excessive wheel spin the latter dumps clutches at high(er) rpm to maximum effect.
Secondly, a decent driver will beat M/T launch control fairly easily; we all know this.
Third, please read the article. They got the best accel results by not using launch control and simply walking the car off the line.
I think this car shows the gulf between buying a car to show off and buying a car because it's fun. If you want to show off and brag, buy an AWD, DSG, launch control car. If you are secure about your manhood, buy a RWD fun machine. I'd rather drive a Z06 around than a GT-R. (Although a Z51 would probably be even more fun per dollar)
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 10:25:03 AM
If you want to show off and brag, buy an AWD, DSG, launch control car. If you are secure about your manhood, buy a RWD fun machine, invest in driving lessons, learn to drive, and annoy assholes @ the track in the mentioned "show off" cars with your "inferior" car.
:hesaid:
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 10:25:03 AM
I think this car shows the gulf between buying a car to show off and buying a car because it's fun. If you want to show off and brag, buy an AWD, DSG, launch control car. If you are secure about your manhood, buy a RWD fun machine. I'd rather drive a Z06 around than a GT-R. (Although a Z51 would probably be even more fun per dollar)
Why does MC's quote show this line
"invest in driving lessons, learn to drive, and annoy assholes @ the track in the mentioned "show off" cars with your "inferior" car."
Did you change your post when you realized that a driver that invested in driving lessons, learned to drive and went to the track would probably be faster in the "inferior" cars.
Pobst got better times out of the better track car, it wasn't the Z06.
I just want GM to put out a car that I know they are capable of putting out, not a car that they know their fans will accept and defend when they give them excuses.
Odd that makes people like me the hater to some people, or the unreasonable one.
The Z06 should have DESTROYED the nismo gtr, but apparently my standards are too high given the huge advantages afforded to the Z06.
I will annoy you in your well-driven RWD fun machine in my rolling-chicane FWD economy machine.
I think some of you guys have a mental block.
Folks here generally consider themselves purists, and generally prefer RWD cars with manual transmissions.
Unfortunately the reality is that, for racing, automatics (dual clutch) gearboxes and all wheel drive are simply superior.
The Z06 could very well be the pinnacle of front engine, manual transmission, rear wheel drive cars and it would STILL lose to cars that have DSG's (or PDK's or whatever) and "smart" AWD systems.
The Z06 is not perfect, mind you, but that is not why you are seeing the results you expect/want. Enthusiasts have to simply accept the AWD and DSG can more than overcome more weight and less power.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 04, 2015, 11:07:02 AM
I will annoy you in your well-driven RWD fun machine in my rolling-chicane FWD economy machine.
Yes that would annoy me. It actually happened before I took driving lessons and when I was an - even greater - asshole. On one of my first track outings in the E46 M3 a kid in a Seat Ibiza FR owned me on the twisty bits. Yeah, it was pretty annoying! He was all over me every lap when we got back to the beginning of the main straight. I would pull away and then he would be all over my ass again by the beginning of the next lap.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 11:03:04 AM
Why does MC's quote show this line
"invest in driving lessons, learn to drive, and annoy assholes @ the track in the mentioned "show off" cars with your "inferior" car."
I did the quote modifying.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 04, 2015, 11:16:57 AM
I did the quote modifying.
Should have figured, what with all the slow BMW's and all you are probably used to trying to justify things like that.
:lol:
Next time you're on the track, just keep an eye out in your rearview mirror for those VW's.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on March 04, 2015, 11:10:19 AM
I think some of you guys have a mental block.
Folks here generally consider themselves purists, and generally prefer RWD cars with manual transmissions.
Unfortunately the reality is that, for racing, automatics (dual clutch) gearboxes and all wheel drive are simply superior.
The Z06 could very well be the pinnacle of front engine, manual transmission, rear wheel drive cars and it would STILL lose to cars that have DSG's (or PDK's or whatever) and "smart" AWD systems.
The Z06 is not perfect, mind you, but that is not why you are seeing the results you expect/want. Enthusiasts have to simply accept the AWD and DSG can more than overcome more weight and less power.
I think enthusiasts have long accepted the advantage of AWD and DSG (and hence lower gearing) in overcoming more weight/less power (well, most of us anyway ;)).
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on March 04, 2015, 10:51:26 AM
:hesaid:
Very true.
I can give a lot of guys hell on the autocross course even though they have a lot more HP, trick suspension set ups, and sticky tires. I'd rather be the underdog who exceeds expectations than the rich guy who can't drive.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Very true.
I can give a lot of guys hell on the autocross course even though they have a lot more HP, trick suspension set ups, and sticky tires. I'd rather be the underdog who exceeds expectations than the rich guy who can't drive.
What if you are the underdog that shows up with the baddest ride, and you turn out to be the best driver there. Only to completely lose your ass. If that sounds sweet then GM has the car for you.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 11:20:39 AM
Should have figured, what with all the slow BMW's and all you are probably used to trying to justify things like that.
:lol:
Next time you're on the track, just keep an eye out in your rearview mirror for those VW's.
:clap:!!!!
MCM is right though, this is all so silly. Barring MCM Im pretty sure everyone here would shit their pants trying to manhandle a base C7 6MT around a track at 10/10ths. So crying about 3-5 MPH trap speed in a 650* horsepower car is ridiculous. r0tor is a glutton for punishment though, never passes up an opportunity to lose an argument.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on March 04, 2015, 11:10:19 AM
I think some of you guys have a mental block.
Folks here generally consider themselves purists, and generally prefer RWD cars with manual transmissions.
Unfortunately the reality is that, for racing, automatics (dual clutch) gearboxes and all wheel drive are simply superior.
The Z06 could very well be the pinnacle of front engine, manual transmission, rear wheel drive cars and it would STILL lose to cars that have DSG's (or PDK's or whatever) and "smart" AWD systems.
The Z06 is not perfect, mind you, but that is not why you are seeing the results you expect/want. Enthusiasts have to simply accept the AWD and DSG can more than overcome more weight and less power.
If the game is bench racing, yeh, more tech is gud. I dont think anyone here, besides r0tor, is in denial of this.
But wat a spec sheet doesnt tell u is how a GT-R looks/feels/drives like a well sorted AWD Altima. Or how meaningless 3-4 MPH on a 125-130 MPH 1/4 trap speed is. Etc. This thread is a demonstration of how lost the priorities of some automotive "enthusiasts" are. "The C7 Z06 does not trap what my calculations estimate! Impeach Obama for bailing out this god awful company!!!!!!" Lets all take a step back, breathe, and appreciate the awesomeness of the performance car market in 2015. Cars including the C7 Z06 have never been better.
"MCM is right though, this is all so silly. Barring MCM Im pretty sure everyone here would shit their pants trying to manhandle a base C7 6MT around a track at 10/10ths. So crying about 3-5 MPH trap speed in a 650* horsepower car is ridiculous. r0tor is a glutton for punishment though, never passes up an opportunity to lose an argument."
I'm not crying about 1/4 mile times.
I'm just pointing out how F'ed up it is that a car that has every single performance category in it's favor fails to outperform a lesser(numerically) performance car.
I really must be the only one that sees that.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 11:37:14 AM
:clap:!!!!
MCM is right though, this is all so silly. Barring MCM Im pretty sure everyone here would shit their pants trying to manhandle a base C7 6MT around a track at 10/10ths. So crying about 3-5 MPH trap speed in a 650* horsepower car is ridiculous. r0tor is a glutton for punishment though, never passes up an opportunity to lose an argument.
If the game is bench racing, yeh, more tech is gud. I dont think anyone here, besides r0tor, is in denial of this.
You flatter me. I can drive my cars (340hpish) comfortably with all aids off, fast. 650hp is a different animal......oh wait!.......maybe it's only 500hp after all
:evildude:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 11:44:10 AM
"MCM is right though, this is all so silly. Barring MCM Im pretty sure everyone here would shit their pants trying to manhandle a base C7 6MT around a track at 10/10ths. So crying about 3-5 MPH trap speed in a 650* horsepower car is ridiculous. r0tor is a glutton for punishment though, never passes up an opportunity to lose an argument."
I'm not crying about 1/4 mile times.
I'm just pointing out how F'ed up it is that a car that has every single performance category in it's favor fails to outperform a lesser(numerically) performance car.
I really must be the only one that sees that.
I think you're right. GM is definitely overselling this car with regards to not meeting expectations. What I meant above is that if GM didn´t oversell it and advertised it in line with its real capability, I'd still think it a great buy for the price, except for the limping.
Im still going to reserve judgement until they test all the different versions of the Z06.
Interesting fact: 911 GT2 RS does the quarter in 11.1@133. Also has a top speed of 209 compared to the Z07's ~185. More proof that aero is the culprit IMO.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 11:44:10 AM
"MCM is right though, this is all so silly. Barring MCM Im pretty sure everyone here would shit their pants trying to manhandle a base C7 6MT around a track at 10/10ths. So crying about 3-5 MPH trap speed in a 650* horsepower car is ridiculous. r0tor is a glutton for punishment though, never passes up an opportunity to lose an argument."
I'm not crying about 1/4 mile times.
I'm just pointing out how F'ed up it is that a car that has every single performance category in it's favor fails to outperform a lesser(numerically) performance car.
I really must be the only one that sees that.
Nope. I see it too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 11:37:14 AM
But wat a spec sheet doesnt tell u is how a GT-R looks/feels/drives like a well sorted AWD Altima.
More like a really high performance version of the G37x. That's how it felt to me anyway.
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 09:13:09 AM
Umm the Z07 is only generating a couple hundred pounds of down force. Super cars like the Saleen S7 generated 3,000 lbs of down force with far less drag issues.
If this aero package is creating so much drag its making a 650hp car act like a 550hp one, some better be firing their aero engineers.
NASCAR version of Ford's old Windsor push-rod small-block expanded to 427CI generating 550hp. Makes you wonder how amazing that engine would now be if they had persevered with it. Thank goodness they opted for modern technology though.
:rolleyes:
:fogey:
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 10:19:11 AM
So how is it you keep taking these hits but keep coming back for more? Jesus, it's simply unbelievable.
Firstly, M/T launch control and DSG launch control couldn't be any more different. The former modulates throttle to prevent excessive wheel spin the latter dumps clutches at high(er) rpm to maximum effect.
Secondly, a decent driver will beat M/T launch control fairly easily; we all know this.
Third, please read the article. They got the best accel results by not using launch control and simply walking the car off the line.
Most M/T launch control systems have a launch rev limiter. Floor the gas, it revs to the desired rpms and holds, then you dump the clutch and it modulates the gas. The only difference is the computer dumping the clutch vs your foot.
I guess your saying GM half assed yet another her system on the car?
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 09:46:51 AM
Wow, just got my mag. C&D gushed over the Z06 like no other and put it into a performance and driving enjoyment category 1 or 2 levels above the other two cars. They also noted lots of wheel spin on the acceleration testing - they had to walk it off the line to get the best results.
Just goes to show that bigger tires can't always compensate for less than adequate suspension.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 04, 2015, 12:05:17 PM
Nope. I see it too.
Me too, but it's fun just watching the butthurt
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 12:03:30 PM
Im still going to reserve judgement until they test all the different versions of the Z06.
Interesting fact: 911 GT2 RS does the quarter in 11.1@133. Also has a top speed of 209 compared to the Z07's ~185. More proof that aero is the culprit IMO.
You realize the GT2 RS generates down force too right?
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 11:44:10 AM
"MCM is right though, this is all so silly. Barring MCM Im pretty sure everyone here would shit their pants trying to manhandle a base C7 6MT around a track at 10/10ths. So crying about 3-5 MPH trap speed in a 650* horsepower car is ridiculous. r0tor is a glutton for punishment though, never passes up an opportunity to lose an argument."
I'm not crying about 1/4 mile times.
I'm just pointing out how F'ed up it is that a car that has every single performance category in it's favor fails to outperform a lesser(numerically) performance car.
I really must be the only one that sees that.
I get what you're saying.
The thing that rubs me wrong is when people assert that GM engineers are idiots and don't know what they're doing. They've be pretty successful in pushing the Corvette to what appears to be the limit of an FR platform - further than almost any other car. You can't just do that without having a very talented team. It's not a perfect car and they can indeed do better, but it's far from shitty. If it wasn't a good car, the reviews wouldn't be so glowingly positive.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2015, 12:23:05 PM
Just goes to show that bigger tires can't always compensate for less than adequate suspension.
...what? The suspension of the Z06 is the best part.
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 12:31:44 PM
You realize the GT2 RS generates down force too right?
"But for the technical prowess, you might be surprised to learn that the Z06 eschews active aero for a far simpler solution: three aero packages in increasing aggressiveness. The first is the Z06's standard equipment, and the second adds a front splitter with end plates, rocker panel extensions, and a spoiler—all of it in carbon fiber, and all of it fixed. The third stage uses the second-stage components as mounts, attaching larger end plates to the splitter and an adjustable wickerbill to the spoiler, like the Z/28's. The Chevy team says there's extra meat on the movable parts should the more serious owners want to drill their own holes. Juechter says that in its most aggressive setting, the Corvette makes more downforce than any other car they've tested in GM's wind tunnel. Some cars GM has tested: Porsche 911 Turbo S, Ferrari 458, McLaren 12C.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1502_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_first_test/#ixzz3TRmipUdy (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1502_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_first_test/#ixzz3TRmipUdy)"
The Porsche GTRS cars produce several hundred pounds more down force the the non track edition cars.
Too bad GM doesn't just say what the #s are
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 12:33:50 PM
...what? The suspension of the Z06 is the best part.
Now that is unfortunate.
Quote from: r0tor on March 04, 2015, 12:31:44 PM
You realize the GT2 RS generates down force too right?
Yes
But how much compared tot he Z07?
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk144/TB993tt/GT2RSaero.jpg)
Z07 makes more downforce than any car GM has made before and the Z28 makes 440 (dont know at what speed). GT2RS makes 350 at 200 and significantly narrower in profile (~5"). GT2 grips to 1.07g while Z07 grips to 1.19-1.2. So I dont think it's unreasonable to say Z07 is making a shit ton more downforce (and by extension drag) than the GT2RS and pretty much any other car up against it. Again Z07 is the aero track package, regular one will be faster in a straight line.
No matter how much down force the Z07 makes, apparently it is useless since it negates almost 20-30% of it's HP compared to it's competition.
What is the point of all that down force if it actually results in a negative effect regarding track performance?
Again theres more to cars than HP, you know this. C6 Z06 has a higher top speed than the Z07. Its the drag
Not to mention Im not sure Id call cars costing $50-100K more "competition". That the Z07 can even hold its own in such company is saying something. Plus its only marginally slower than the old ZR1 and Viper through the quarter which make similar power and much less grip. So wot r u on about m8, u r0tor and SVT666 are punching walls over like 3-4 MPH in a 125-130MPH quarter mile.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 01:57:25 PM
Again theres more to cars than HP, you know this. C6 Z06 has a higher top speed than the Z07. Its the drag
Not to mention Im not sure Id call cars costing $50-100K more "competition". That the Z07 can even hold its own in such company is saying something. Plus its only marginally slower than the old ZR1 and Viper through the quarter which make similar power and much less grip. So wot r u on about m8, u r0tor and SVT666 are punching walls over like 3-4 MPH in a 125-130MPH quarter mile.
Once again, more to hp, track times?
Does this sound weird to you?
"Just because a car has more hp, torque, is lighter, with a better weight balance and has better grip and has better brakes. Doesn't mean it will be faster on a track than a car with less of all of those."
Ahh, the old price issue.
So did GM build a "world class" performance car or did they just build a cheap car. Or is it only world class if the price of the other car is equal to or less than the corvette.
If GM wants to truly compete in the supercar segment, they need to drop the F/R setup with the hotrod engine and go to a M/R setup with a modern power-plant. TTV6 sounds about right...at least, this is what the rumours are. They even make one.
I think the motor is less of an issue than the chassis, but I agree both could be changed out for something else.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2015, 02:10:25 PM
If GM wants to truly compete in the supercar segment, they need to drop the F/R setup with the hotrod engine and go to a M/R setup with a modern power-plant. TTV6 sounds about right...at least, this is what the rumours are. They even make one.
Mark Ruess said "ours will have a v8"
No ttv6 in the gm supercar
There will be no GM supercar...ever.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 04, 2015, 02:21:54 PM
There will be no GM supercar...ever.
The new impala and suburban are pretty super
Quote from: SVT666 on March 04, 2015, 02:21:54 PM
There will be no GM supercar...ever.
...and that is a shame. You cannot remain competitive by sticking to the old formula. If the Corvette is to remain relevant, they must go with what works best in order to achieve the results, otherwise, it will remain an old man's nostalgia symbol. GM has a problem with that...including their fixation with push-rods. Revs are where the power's at and as much as you can make a push-rod rev, reciprocating bits of metal will never achieve the free-wheeling deliverance of a circular motion.
Quote from: 68_427 on March 04, 2015, 02:14:56 PM
Mark Ruess said "ours will have a v8"
No ttv6 in the gm supercar
EcoBoost has been a failure and I remain unconvinced putting a V6 into a $400k is gonna fix that.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 01:57:25 PM
Again theres more to cars than HP, you know this. C6 Z06 has a higher top speed than the Z07. Its the drag
Not to mention Im not sure Id call cars costing $50-100K more "competition". That the Z07 can even hold its own in such company is saying something. Plus its only marginally slower than the old ZR1 and Viper through the quarter which make similar power and much less grip. So wot r u on about m8, u r0tor and SVT666 are punching walls over like 3-4 MPH in a 125-130MPH quarter mile.
Haters gonna hate (but behind the scenes some are most certainly learning, even if it doesn't look like it).
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 02:46:28 PM
EcoBoost has been a failure and I remain unconvinced putting a V6 into a $400k is gonna fix that.
Speaking of haters. It's comforting to know that you disagree.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 02:02:58 PM
Once again, more to hp, track times?
Does this sound weird to you?
"Just because a car has more hp, torque, is lighter, with a better weight balance and has better grip and has better brakes. Doesn't mean it will be faster on a track than a car with less of all of those."
Ahh, the old price issue.
So did GM build a "world class" performance car or did they just build a cheap car. Or is it only world class if the price of the other car is equal to or less than the corvette.
Again, if track times (including 1/4 mile times) were all that mattered, all performance cars would be AWD and have DSG's.
Of course when Ferrari/Lambo/Porsche put out such cars, you will lament the loss of RWD and manual transmission.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on March 04, 2015, 02:58:49 PM
Again, if track times (including 1/4 mile times) were all that mattered, all performance cars would be AWD and have DSG's.
Of course when Ferrari/Lambo/Porsche put out such cars, you will lament the loss of RWD and manual transmission.
This has nothing to do with my personal preference, which may surprise many of you as I would probably prefer the Z06 out of this group, or a GT3 had that been in the group.
This is about building a car that performs to a fraction of it's specs, and the confusing nature by which many seem to not understand that.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 02:46:28 PM
EcoBoost has been a failure and I remain unconvinced putting a V6 into a $400k is gonna fix that.
a failure at what??
Ford is selling a lot of them (win) and meeting dumb federal guidelines (win again).
I completely agree that the extra maintenance costs will bite owners later on, but no need to get angry about it.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on March 04, 2015, 02:58:49 PM
Again, if track times (including 1/4 mile times) were all that mattered, all performance cars would be AWD and have DSG's.
Of course when Ferrari/Lambo/Porsche put out such cars, you will lament the loss of RWD and manual transmission.
There will always be Miata. :ohyeah:
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2015, 02:10:25 PM
If GM wants to truly compete in the supercar segment, they need to drop the F/R setup with the hotrod engine and go to a M/R setup with a modern power-plant. TTV6 sounds about right...at least, this is what the rumours are. They even make one.
Corvette isn't supposed to be a supercar. And if they drop it and go to mid engined, AWD, DSG, that will be a huge loss for the industry. Yet another boring supercar to be paraded down Hollywood Boulevard by guys with cash and no driving skill.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2015, 03:02:48 PM
There will always be Miata. :ohyeah:
I only want one with a V8 in it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 03:18:14 PM
Corvette isn't supposed to be a supercar. And if they drop it and go to mid engined, AWD, DSG, that will be a huge loss for the industry. Yet another boring supercar to be paraded down Hollywood Boulevard by guys with cash and no driving skill.
No reason that it can't be. If they want to market it as something that can be competitive with supercars, they need to make it one.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 04, 2015, 03:19:40 PM
I only want one with a V8 in it.
You want a hot rod...and so do I.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 02:46:28 PM
EcoBoost has been a failure and I remain unconvinced putting a V6 into a $400k is gonna fix that.
Such FAIL. More F1 wins than any other manufacturer, but totally a fail engine idea.
(http://www.speedhunters.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/FerrariMus-032.JPG)
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
No reason that it can't be. If they want to market it as something that can be competitive with supercars, they need to make it one.
An $80k that competes with super cars? GM wholly enjoys your premise ;).
Quote from: SVT666 on March 04, 2015, 02:21:54 PM
There will be no GM supercar...ever.
It's already in the works. And the word is there will continue to be a FR Corvette along side the MR (ZR1?) version.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 04, 2015, 03:38:40 PM
It's already in the works. And the word is there will continue to be a FR Corvette along side the MR (ZR1?) version.
That's been the rumour for 40 years. I'll believe it when I see it.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 03:29:33 PM
An $80k that competes with super cars? GM wholly enjoys your premise ;).
Until they sneak in the fact that its cooling system won't handle track days, launch control blows, it gets man handled by cars with 20% less power, and a pro driver took off their aero package to try and go quicker...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 01:36:29 PM
Yes
But how much compared tot he Z07?
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk144/TB993tt/GT2RSaero.jpg)
Z07 makes more downforce than any car GM has made before and the Z28 makes 440 (dont know at what speed). GT2RS makes 350 at 200 and significantly narrower in profile (~5"). GT2 grips to 1.07g while Z07 grips to 1.19-1.2. So I dont think it's unreasonable to say Z07 is making a shit ton more downforce (and by extension drag) than the GT2RS and pretty much any other car up against it. Again Z07 is the aero track package, regular one will be faster in a straight line.
The head GM project engineered said it is not possible to measure and quote down force figures. Obviously he must be right and that graph can't exist.
Z07's performance is in line with or better than other 600HP ~3400lb RWD stickshift cars :huh:
Keep winding yourself up though and blow a gasket over a car u will never buy/drive tho
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 04:05:46 PM
Z07's performance is in line with or better than other 600HP ~3400lb RWD stickshift cars :huh:
Keep winding yourself up though and blow a gasket over a car u will never buy/drive tho
His GM hate has no chill.....
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 04:05:46 PM
Z07's performance is in line with or better than other 600HP ~3400lb RWD stickshift cars :huh:
Keep winding yourself up though and blow a gasket over a car u will never buy/drive tho
2013 Shelby GT500 (you know, the car Cougs says underperforms) 662 hp
631 lbs-ft
3871 lbs
6 MT
285 rear tires
1/4 mile = 11.6 @ 126 mph
2015 Corvette Z06650 hp
650 lbs-ft
3533 lbs
7 MT
335 rear tires
1/4 mile = 11.3 @ 126 mph
2013 Corvette ZR1
638 hp
604 lb-ft
3353 lbs
6MT
335 rears
1/4 mile = 11.6 @ 128
2013 Viper
640 HP
600 lb ft
3356 lb ft
6 MT
335 meats
1/4 mile = 11.5 @ 126
2009 Civic EX
140 HP
127 lb ft
2800 lbs
5 MT
1/4 mile = 16.1 @ 87
:praise:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 04, 2015, 04:57:43 PM
2013 Corvette ZR1
638 hp
604 lb-ft
3353 lbs
6MT
335 rears
1/4 mile = 11.6 @ 128
2013 Viper
640 HP
600 lb ft
3356 lb ft
6 MT
335 meats
1/4 mile = 11.5 @ 126
2009 Civic EX
140 HP
127 lb ft
2800 lbs
5 MT
1/4 mile = 16.1 @ 87
:praise:
LOL
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 04, 2015, 03:29:24 PM
Such FAIL. More F1 wins than any other manufacturer, but totally a fail engine idea.
(http://www.speedhunters.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/FerrariMus-032.JPG)
Ferrari does not make a production V6 and you cray if you think without the rules forcing it that the teams would choose that motor over the previous N/A V10.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 04, 2015, 05:35:26 PM
Ferrari does not make a production V6 and you cray if you think without the rules forcing it that the teams would choose that motor over the previous N/A V10.
Looks like Ford is writing the rules now.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 04, 2015, 05:41:05 PM
Looks like Ford is writing the rules now.
They always do...when they feel like it.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 04, 2015, 04:41:05 PM
2013 Shelby GT500 (you know, the car Cougs says underperforms)
662 hp
631 lbs-ft
3871 lbs
6 MT
285 rear tires
1/4 mile = 11.6 @ 126 mph
Under performs? Relative to the ZL1, sure;). The GT500 just wasn't a great car as Ford was extremely limited with the S197 chassis - making it quick was all they could do.
I thought the GT500 was faster than the ZL1 camaro.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 06:08:46 PM
I thought the GT500 was faster than the ZL1 camaro.
In a straight line it is. Around a few tracks it is (eg: Laguna Seca), it's neck and neck on most tracks, and gets its ass spanked on the rest. The one and only real weakness the GT500 had was it's brakes. After a couple laps they started to fade badly and the lap times just got longer and longer.
Ohh yea, I remember reading a review were they stated that the brakes just gave up after so many laps.
That was before huge ceramic brakes were the norm.
You dont need ceramic brakes for a car to be qble to make it around a track for 20 laps without reaching a danger point.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 07:12:37 PM
You dont need ceramic brakes for a car to be qble to make it around a track for 20 laps without reaching a danger point.
You do if they are drums. Ceramic drums.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 04, 2015, 06:08:46 PM
I thought the GT500 was faster than the ZL1 camaro.
Yes, it was quicker but everything else lagged; handling, brakes, ride quality, NVH, etc. Many Ford fanboys assert the two really aren't competitors (same with the Challenger Hellcat), which I'd tend to agree with.
I have never heard anyone say the GT500 and ZL1 weren't competitors. They were competitors, but the ZL1 is more track focused and the GT500 was more GT focused.
It used to be that Camaro and Mustang were true direct competitors with each model, but today the Camaro and Mustang product lines don't completely match up.
Mustang V6 rental = Camaro V6 rental
Mustang EcoBoost = Camaro RS
Mustang GT = Camaro SS
Shelby GT350R = Camaro Z28
The models with no direct competitors are:
Shelby GT350
Camaro 1LE
Camaro ZL1
Quote from: SVT666 on March 04, 2015, 08:12:02 PM
I have never heard anyone say the GT500 and ZL1 weren't competitors. They were competitors, but the ZL1 is more track focused and the GT500 was more GT focused.
It used to be that Camaro and Mustang were true direct competitors with each model, but today the Camaro and Mustang product lines don't completely match up.
Mustang V6 rental = Camaro V6 rental
Mustang EcoBoost = Camaro RS
Mustang GT = Camaro SS
Shelby GT350R = Camaro Z28
The models with no direct competitors are:
Shelby GT350
Camaro 1LE
Camaro ZL1
1LE is the equivalent of the Mustang's Performance Pack. Slightly pricier and more track oriented, but it's ultimately just a wheel/tire/suspension/brake upgrade option package applied to the SS. It's not really its own trim level or model.
Quote from: MX793 on March 04, 2015, 09:16:10 PM
1LE is the equivalent of the Mustang's Performance Pack. Slightly pricier and more track oriented, but it's ultimately just a wheel/tire/suspension/brake upgrade option package applied to the SS. It's not really its own trim level or model.
The 1LE is more of a track pack, whereas the Mustang's Performance Pack is more street oriented and nowhere near as aggressive as the 1LE.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 04, 2015, 10:50:01 PM
The 1LE is more of a track pack, whereas the Mustang's Performance Pack is more street oriented and nowhere near as aggressive as the 1LE.
They are both $3000-ish optional handling packs boasting a similar set of upgrades. That Chevy's suspension is a bit stiffer doesn't make them nonequivalent. It's not like Chevy upgrades more stuff with the 1LE package than Ford does with the performance pack.
Quote from: MX793 on March 05, 2015, 05:03:22 AM
They are both $3000-ish optional handling packs boasting a similar set of upgrades. That Chevy's suspension is a bit stiffer doesn't make them nonequivalent. It's not like Chevy upgrades more stuff with the 1LE package than Ford does with the performance pack.
:hesaid:
One package is made for aggressive street driving, the other the track. So do you compare their performance on the track or street?
Quote from: r0tor on March 05, 2015, 08:31:02 AM
One package is made for aggressive street driving, the other the track. So do you compare their performance on the track or street?
If the standard suspension in the Camaro SS is much stiffer and more track oriented than that of the Mustang GT, does that make the standard models non-comparable?
As a "track package", the 1LE does a better job on the track. The Mustang is more well-rounded, giving up some on-track performance for comfort on the street. How you judge them comes down to how you plan to use the car.
r0tor plans to use them however best shits on GM, which I guess would be on the track, even though he said driving a car on the track in a non competitive way is a waste of time.
Quote from: MX793 on March 05, 2015, 08:56:16 AM
If the standard suspension in the Camaro SS is much stiffer and more track oriented than that of the Mustang GT, does that make the standard models non-comparable?
As a "track package", the 1LE does a better job on the track. The Mustang is more well-rounded, giving up some on-track performance for comfort on the street. How you judge them comes down to how you plan to use the car.
I would say the Mustang GT with Performance Pack is more inline with the standard Camaro SS. The standard Mustang GT suspension is really setup for comfort, and the 1LE is a step beyond the Mustang's Performance Pack. I agree that they essentially compete with one another on price, but their focus is different.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 05, 2015, 09:08:21 AM
r0tor plans to use them however best shits on GM, which I guess would be on the track, even though he said driving a car on the track in a non competitive way is a waste of time.
This hurts :cry:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 05, 2015, 09:08:21 AM
r0tor plans to use them however best shits on GM, which I guess would be on the track, even though he said driving a car on the track in a non competitive way is a waste of time.
:golfclap:
Quote from: SVT666 on March 05, 2015, 10:00:52 AM
I would say the Mustang GT with Performance Pack is more inline with the standard Camaro SS. The standard Mustang GT suspension is really setup for comfort, and the 1LE is a step beyond the Mustang's Performance Pack. I agree that they essentially compete with one another on price, but their focus is different.
In so many word the 1LE out tracks the Track Pack! :ohyeah:
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 05, 2015, 01:53:27 PM
:golfclap:In so many word the 1LE out tracks the Track Pack! :ohyeah:
It's not a track pack. It's a "Performance Pack". The old Stang had a track pack.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 05, 2015, 10:00:52 AM
I would say the Mustang GT with Performance Pack is more inline with the standard Camaro SS. The standard Mustang GT suspension is really setup for comfort, and the 1LE is a step beyond the Mustang's Performance Pack. I agree that they essentially compete with one another on price, but their focus is different.
Brembo brakes, shorter rearend ratio, additional bracing, up-rated cooling... That's above and beyond the standard SS's hardware and pretty much matches what GM includes with the 1LE package.
Quote from: MX793 on March 05, 2015, 07:02:27 PM
Brembo brakes, shorter rearend ratio, additional bracing, up-rated cooling... That's above and beyond the standard SS's hardware and pretty much matches what GM includes with the 1LE package.
:rolleyes:
And? The 1LE suspension tuning is far more aggressive and track oriented. It's got a different focus than the Performance Pack.
My neighbor back home has a 1LE. :wub:
I think I'd rather have an F-type R coupe over a Z06.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 08, 2015, 09:28:13 PM
I think I'd rather have an F-type R coupe over a Z06.
I'd take whichever F-Type that comes with a stick.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 08, 2015, 09:53:50 PM
I'd take whichever F-Type that comes with a stick.
V6, which is the best one anyways
Quote from: 68_427 on March 08, 2015, 10:42:56 PM
V6, which is the best one anyways
Other than price, :huh: V8 plz
V8 sound is the only good thing about the V8. It's too fast and too nose heavy for, for example, a 2 lane backroad. Also they are going to put AWD in the V8s which will put them over 4,000lbs (!!!!!). V6s are better by far for driving enjoyment/engagement. They cut about 400lbs off of comparable XKs but many of those were well over 4,000lbs. ITs too fucking heavy, a 911 has 4 seats and weighs literally 500lbs less than the V6
Actually the base XK coupe weighed 3500lbs.
I actually like the V6 F-Type sound better anyways.
Something I found interesting is the XK Convertible is 10 grand LESS than the Coupe
The F Type 'vert costs more than the coupe
Quote from: 68_427 on March 09, 2015, 05:11:57 AM
Actually the base XK coupe weighed 3500lbs.
No wai bro
http://www.jaguarusa.com/all-models/xk/specifications/dimensions-weight.html (http://www.jaguarusa.com/all-models/xk/specifications/dimensions-weight.html)
http://www.edmunds.com/jaguar/xk-series/2002/features-specs.html (http://www.edmunds.com/jaguar/xk-series/2002/features-specs.html)
Motortrend did a retest with the Z06 on Willow after complaining that they thought there was something wrong with the test car. Turns out there was. The rear alignment was off. GM also did a firmware update on the suspension tuning to add a "rough track" mode which addressed Pobst's complaints that the track mode setting was too harsh on Willow's relatively rough surface. Lap times increased significantly (though the GT-R was still clocking faster speeds down the straights). They also got an automatic-equipped car to see if the 8AT might be faster than the 7MT (especially since Pobst had some difficulty engaging 5th gear). Ambient temperatures were <80F and the auto-equipped car started pulling power after the first hard lap (and continued pulling power and losing some time each successive lap). That said, both were over a second faster than the original test car. The 7MT wound up .7s faster than the GT-R and the 8AT was a few hundredths slower.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1503_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_track_retest/ (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1503_2015_chevrolet_corvette_z06_track_retest/)
So my original diagnosis was correct. Not surprised.
Now GM just needs to fix the damn ECU.
Ahh yes, a "firmware" update for the "suspension" system.
AKA
A hot tune for the ECU to lay down the best track times, engine longevity be damned.
I'll take that information and place it with the other 20lb bags of salt I have in the basement.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2015, 12:20:41 PM
Ahh yes, a "firmware" update for the "suspension" system.
AKA
A hot tune for the ECU to lay down the best track times, engine longevity be damned.
I'll take that information and place it with the other 20lb bags of salt I have in the basement.
This... Absolutely pathetic
lol
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 01:01:09 PM
lol
I'd say the same thing if it was nissan "updating" the "suspension".
It's bs, pretty clear bs in fact. Anyone with a rational mind should question it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 01:01:09 PM
lol
U can cut the hate w/a knife and serve it on toast, so thick, so rich.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2015, 01:16:44 PM
I'd say the same thing if it was nissan "updating" the "suspension".
It's bs, pretty clear bs in fact. Anyone with a rational mind should question it.
Are you a 9/11 truther too?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 20, 2015, 01:17:51 PM
U can cut the hate w/a knife and serve it on toast, so thick, so rich.
Are you a 9/11 truther too?
I don't confine myself to limited passages of thought by "being" anything.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2015, 01:16:44 PM
I'd say the same thing if it was nissan "updating" the "suspension".
It's bs, pretty clear bs in fact. Anyone with a rational mind should question it.
Exactly
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 11:21:02 AM
So my original diagnosis was correct. Not surprised.
Now GM just needs to fix the damn ECU.
How is "fixing the ECU" going to solve the massive cooling issue causing the ecu to pull timing?
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2015, 01:25:57 PM
How is "fixing the ECU" going to solve the massive cooling issue causing the ecu to pull timing?
you turn off the safety switch. Get a good lap. then make everyone else keep their safety switch on.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2015, 01:16:44 PM
I'd say the same thing if it was nissan "updating" the "suspension".
It's bs, pretty clear bs in fact. Anyone with a rational mind should question it.
You're out of your mind if you think Motor Trend is stupid enough to not notice that the suspension is exactly the same yet it has more power.
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2015, 01:25:57 PM
How is "fixing the ECU" going to solve the massive cooling issue causing the ecu to pull timing?
A couple of days ago I asked Ridetech's boss about his new Z06. They went out and tested it along with their new C3 'Vette build. Said they did 23 minutes of hot laps and the engine ran at 226 degrees F, oil at 262 F.
Multiple tuners have come out with less conservative ECU tunes, since they don't have to worry about emissions or 100,000 mile warranties. Problem solved. Although chances of GM doing the same tune from the factory are super slim, unfortunately. Not a good sign for future performance cars - emissions and MPG requirements from the government are only going to make it more difficult to provide showroom-floor race cars. The rise of hybrid supercars is further evidence.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 01:37:01 PM
You're out of your mind if you think Motor Trend is stupid enough to not notice that the suspension is exactly the same yet it has more power.
A couple of days ago I asked Ridetech's boss about his new Z06. They went out and tested it along with their new C3 'Vette build. Said they did 23 minutes of hot laps and the engine ran at 226 degrees F, oil at 262 F.
Multiple tuners have come out with less conservative ECU tunes, since they don't have to worry about emissions or 100,000 mile warranties. Problem solved. Although chances of GM doing the same tune from the factory are super slim, unfortunately. Not a good sign for future performance cars - emissions and MPG requirements from the government are only going to make it more difficult to provide showroom-floor race cars. The rise of hybrid supercars is further evidence.
I guess I really wasn't claiming they didn't do stuff to the suspension. But if you think an ecu tune didn't "slip" in there when they were messing around with the other computers then I guess you have more faith in companies than I do.
Keep in mind the extent to which GM lied and covered up the ignition issue. An issue that actually resulted in death. If they'll lie about that, then they will sure as hell alter a test car to beat the competition for bragging rights and most likely sales.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2015, 01:49:49 PM
I guess I really wasn't claiming they didn't do stuff to the suspension. But if you think an ecu tune didn't "slip" in there when they were messing around with the other computers then I guess you have more faith in companies than I do.
Keep in mind the extent to which GM lied and covered up the ignition issue. An issue that actually resulted in death. If they'll lie about that, then they will sure as hell alter a test car to beat the competition for bragging rights and most likely sales.
But the automatic car still pulled power.
I didn't see them specify that the automatic car was retuned. It reads as if the automatic was just another test car brought in for comparison.
Also:
"We checked the data, and lap times and peak speeds did fall off by a few tenths of a second and 1 or 2 mph on each subsequent lap, though these could also be attributed to tire wear and other factors. Although Pobst has consistently complained of reduced engine power when lapping C7 Z06s, the problem does not appear to be especially great (in terms of lap times) and only seems to affect drivers of Pobst's incredibly high skill, suggesting that most customers won't encounter it."
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 02:06:26 PM
"most customers won't encounter it."
They'll do whatever they can to get away with whatever.
Seems genius really- they get the high HP figures for magazines but real world much lower (after the first lap :lol: ) which will make the cars last longer.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2015, 02:03:00 PM
I didn't see them specify that the automatic car was retuned. It reads as if the automatic was just another test car brought in for comparison.
Both test cars had the revised suspension firmware with the "rough track" mode. The was the only software/firmware update reported in the article that differed from the original test car. This update is apparently available to all owners currently.
Thats good to know.
Still, giving the automaker the opportunity to alter, and retest, a car after it lost a comparison will have but one goal. To make the car faster, and win the comparison.
While there maybe a chance they did nothing more than what they claimed, there is a much larger chance that they would make alterations that would result in the best performance possible in an attempt to win. I'm sure just about any automaker would.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2015, 03:25:30 PM
Thats good to know.
Still, giving the automaker the opportunity to alter, and retest, a car after it lost a comparison will have but one goal. To make the car faster, and win the comparison.
While there maybe a chance they did nothing more than what they claimed, there is a much larger chance that they would make alterations that would result in the best performance possible in an attempt to win. I'm sure just about any automaker would.
I have mixed feelings. The rear alignment was out of whack on the original test car, which is a legit issue that will affect lap times. Part of me thinks they should have tested the exact same car but with the alignment issue fixed. Pobst seemed to think that the alignment fix accounted for the lion's share of the lap time improvement since the back end was better behaved in the corners and could put power down better coming out of the corners. A lot of the previous twitchiness was a result of the rear end alignment.
So was the alignment out of factory specs, or did they just change it to something more suitable for track use?
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 01:37:01 PM
You're out of your mind if you think Motor Trend is stupid enough to not notice that the suspension is exactly the same yet it has more power.
A couple of days ago I asked Ridetech's boss about his new Z06. They went out and tested it along with their new C3 'Vette build. Said they did 23 minutes of hot laps and the engine ran at 226 degrees F, oil at 262 F.
Multiple tuners have come out with less conservative ECU tunes, since they don't have to worry about emissions or 100,000 mile warranties. Problem solved. Although chances of GM doing the same tune from the factory are super slim, unfortunately. Not a good sign for future performance cars - emissions and MPG requirements from the government are only going to make it more difficult to provide showroom-floor race cars. The rise of hybrid supercars is further evidence.
So fixing the massive issue means cutting away the control logic designed to help the engine not blow up instead of fixing the immense screw up that is the cooling system. GM really likes its fanbois....
Quote from: r0tor on March 20, 2015, 04:55:54 PM
So was the alignment out of factory specs, or did they just change it to something more suitable for track use?
Out of spec. It's supposed to have 0 caster on the rears and their car was at +2 degrees.
GM built an engine that is under engineered since they have to retard ignition to make the engine last the length of the warranty. Everyone defending something like this would be all over Dodge if it was the Viper, or Ford if it was the Mustang, or Ferrari if it was the 458. Why does GM get a pass for screwing up like this? They claim it's the most track capable Vette yet, but that's a lie just because of this one issue...never mind the straightaway speed killing Stage 3 aero kit.
Lol... Just read the article.
The temp for the test was only 70deg and they still have overheating. The magic suspension mode is not available yet and was designed specifically for that track.
Also, rear caster is usually not a real big deal. Factory settings are 0 to .8deg so the car was maybe 1 deg off? But, when changing caster the camber changes - that is a big deal. I wonder if the complete alignment was independently checked prior to going out.
Also, lol for not inviting the GTR for the "rematch".
The butthurt over this car is immense.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 05:42:53 PM
The butthurt over this car is immense.
+1
Errbody's talking in absolutes when zero meaningful data is available.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 20, 2015, 05:20:02 PM
GM built an engine that is under engineered since they have to retard ignition to make the engine last the length of the warranty. Everyone defending something like this would be all over Dodge if it was the Viper, or Ford if it was the Mustang, or Ferrari if it was the 458. Why does GM get a pass for screwing up like this? They claim it's the most track capable Vette yet, but that's a lie just because of this one issue...never mind the straightaway speed killing Stage 3 aero kit.
Yeah because we all know Ford wouldn't do anything this stupid! **COUGH**
Warranty voiding Line Lock **COUGH**
:mask:
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 05:42:53 PM
The butthurt over this car is immense.
YUP! I do agree that the ECU thing is silly but even with that "handicap" the Z06 still runs with the best of them!
I should also point out that when/if the one off suspension setting will be available, it will be sold through GM performance - meaning both Vetted tested are no longer "stock" and therefore a stock nismo GTR still stomps a stock C7 Z07
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 20, 2015, 06:18:04 PM
Yeah because we all know Ford wouldn't do anything this stupid! **COUGH** Warranty voiding Line Lock **COUGH**
:mask:
What does that have to do with GM producing an engine that is under engineered?
GM's incompetence is mind blowing.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 20, 2015, 07:13:07 PM
What does that have to do with GM producing an engine that is under engineered?
GM's incompetence is mind blowing.
My point is you are busting GMs balls about the ECU issue while acting like you favorite Manufacturer hasn't made so stupid decisions also! Why put a Line Lock on a car but void the warranty if it's used!?! Hell even when the GT-R debut its warranty was voided if you used the Launch Control IIRC. I haven't heard one complain about either...
Exactly as I had stated, we didn't know the entire picture. Not sure how a car like that didn't get the fine tooth comb treatment before going out to a comparison test but w/e, some M/T idiot could have curb'd it.
So beating a GTR NISMO for ~$100k is so lol it's hard to process really.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 20, 2015, 08:12:27 PM
My point is you are busting GMs balls about the ECU issue while acting like you favorite Manufacturer hasn't made so stupid decisions also! Why put a Line Lock on a car but void the warranty if it's used!?! Hell even when the GT-R debut its warranty was voided if you used the Launch Control IIRC. I haven't heard one complain about either...
There were tons of complaints about the GT-R Launch Control, and lots of people have complained about the line lock voiding Ford's warranty. Have you been living under a rock? Making a dumb decision like a warranty thing is NOT the same as botching the drivetrain engineering like GM has.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 20, 2015, 09:36:34 PM
There were tons of complaints about the GT-R Launch Control, and lots of people have complained about the line lock voiding Ford's warranty. Have you been living under a rock? Making a dumb decision like a warranty thing is NOT the same as botching the drivetrain engineering like GM has.
I was referring to all of the GM haters on this forum! And the ECU cutting power at extreme temps IS CLEARLY there to protect the engine. Thats no different from what Ford or Nissan did! Calling a car that OUTRUNS the NISMO while in "Limp Mode" botched is crazy!
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 20, 2015, 09:47:10 PM
I was referring to all of the GM haters on this forum! And the ECU cutting power at extreme temps IS CLEARLY there to protect the engine. Thats no different from what Ford or Nissan did! Calling a car that OUTRUNS the NISMO while in "Limp Mode" botched is crazy!
Extreme temps? Really? 70 degrees is extreme?
Quote from: SVT666 on March 20, 2015, 09:51:38 PM
Extreme temps? Really? 70 degrees is extreme?
NO! The extreme temps of the driveline.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 20, 2015, 10:11:39 PM
NO! The extreme temps of the driveline.
No car with a properly functioning cooling system (clean radiator, working fans, working water pump, proper coolant level) should ever reach "extreme temperatures" when driven at 70F. Even if driven hard. The cooling system is plainly under-sized/under-spec'ed.
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2015, 10:28:03 PM
No car with a properly functioning cooling system (clean radiator, working fans, working water pump, proper coolant level) should ever reach "extreme temperatures" when driven at 70F. Even if driven hard. The cooling system is plainly under-sized/under-spec'ed.
I agree!
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 20, 2015, 10:33:51 PM
I agree!
And that's the problem. It's not that the ECU cuts power to protect the car when it gets hot. Every car does that. It's that the car gets hot enough to cause the ECU to cut power when ambient temperatures aren't particularly high (and well before other cars driven just as hard in the same conditions are experiencing heat issues) that's the problem.
Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2015, 10:44:50 PM
And that's the problem. It's not that the ECU cuts power to protect the car when it gets hot. Every car does that. It's that the car gets hot enough to cause the ECU to cut power when ambient temperatures aren't particularly high (and well before other cars driven just as hard in the same conditions are experiencing heat issues) that's the problem.
But not every car seems to do it. Ridetech hasn't had an issue with their test car (see one of my previous posts) and they beat on their cars. Kinda odd.
Are theirs manuals? Most of the issues seem to be with the autos. No mention in the latest MT test of the manual car having any cooling issues.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 20, 2015, 09:47:10 PM
I was referring to all of the GM haters on this forum! And the ECU cutting power at extreme temps IS CLEARLY there to protect the engine. Thats no different from what Ford or Nissan did! Calling a car that OUTRUNS the NISMO while in "Limp Mode" botched is crazy!
In fine M/T fashion IMO it was poorly written. To me it sounds like it was the auto car that was being throttled back and it was because the tranny was running hot (as all autos will quickly do when driven hard).
Quote from: GoCougs on March 20, 2015, 09:00:19 PM
Exactly as I had stated, we didn't know the entire picture. Not sure how a car like that didn't get the fine tooth comb treatment before going out to a comparison test but w/e, some M/T idiot could have curb'd it.
So beating a GTR NISMO for ~$100k is so lol it's hard to process really.
A modified Vette "beat" (well not really because they didn't invite the GTR back on the nice cool day they chose for the Vette) a stock Nismo GTR... Yippee
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 20, 2015, 01:37:01 PM
You're out of your mind if you think Motor Trend is stupid enough to not notice that the suspension is exactly the same yet it has more power.
A couple of days ago I asked Ridetech's boss about his new Z06. They went out and tested it along with their new C3 'Vette build. Said they did 23 minutes of hot laps and the engine ran at 226 degrees F, oil at 262 F.
Multiple tuners have come out with less conservative ECU tunes, since they don't have to worry about emissions or 100,000 mile warranties. Problem solved. Although chances of GM doing the same tune from the factory are super slim, unfortunately. Not a good sign for future performance cars - emissions and MPG requirements from the government are only going to make it more difficult to provide showroom-floor race cars. The rise of hybrid supercars is further evidence.
It kind of sucks that this level of performance has been reached at a time where regulations are this high. But truthfully the idea of a race car without a race car driver seems stupid as hell to me. 400, 500, 600, 700 HP Joe HELOC can barely drive any of em faster than whats required to peacock through a C&C parking lot. Stingray (or C5/C6) with mods is the more rational choice
Quote from: MrH on March 20, 2015, 05:45:37 PM
+1
Errbody's talking in absolutes when zero meaningful data is available.
The only meaningful data we have is the numbers from the original review.
The one that had two stock cars, driven by the same driver, on the same track, under the same conditions, on the same day back to back. Those numbers are a valid point of comparison.
Taking one of the cars back, after the manufacturer modified it (for whatever reason) and re testing that car by itself and under different conditions and inserting those numbers into the prior comparison. That is the definition of meaningless.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 21, 2015, 12:14:58 AM
In fine M/T fashion IMO it was poorly written. To me it sounds like it was the auto car that was being throttled back and it was because the tranny was running hot (as all autos will quickly do when driven hard).
I'm pretty sure that an AMG Mercedes, or even a Toyota Corolla, could be flogged more than one lap around Willow on a 70F day without the automatic transmission reaching temperatures that would trigger limp mode.
Yes, every auto will eventually overheat (especially in high ambient temperatures). Overheating after 90 seconds of hard use on a very mild day is unacceptable.
Quote from: MX793 on March 21, 2015, 08:07:09 AM
I'm pretty sure that an AMG Mercedes, or even a Toyota Corolla, could be flogged more than one lap around Willow on a 70F day without the automatic transmission reaching temperatures that would trigger limp mode.
Yes, every auto will eventually overheat (especially in high ambient temperatures). Overheating after 90 seconds of hard use on a very mild day is unacceptable.
No it's not. You're just a hater. It's completely acceptable.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 21, 2015, 08:34:33 AM
No it's not. You're just a hater. It's completely acceptable.
Everybody on this thread has agreed that it's not acceptable....... :deadhorse"
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 21, 2015, 08:42:43 AM
Everybody on this thread has agreed that it's not acceptable....... :deadhorse"
So why are GM fanbois and owners accepting it?
Quote from: MX793 on March 21, 2015, 08:07:09 AM
I'm pretty sure that an AMG Mercedes, or even a Toyota Corolla, could be flogged more than one lap around Willow on a 70F day without the automatic transmission reaching temperatures that would trigger limp mode.
Yes, every auto will eventually overheat (especially in high ambient temperatures). Overheating after 90 seconds of hard use on a very mild day is unacceptable.
But then of course neither of those cars can put down the power the Z06 can - much more grip, handling, braking = much more power into the track (and through the AT).
Per the article the power reduction was slight and progressive - there was no "overheating" or "limp mode".
As I said very early on ITT the C7 Z06 is unique - nothing even remotely as capable has been available with a supercharger and AT. Said capability brings to the surface the limitations of these two technologies.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 21, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
But then of course neither of those cars can put down the power the Z06 can - much more grip, handling, braking = much more power into the track (and through the AT).
Per the article the power reduction was slight and progressive - there was no "overheating" or "limp mode".
As I said very early on ITT the C7 Z06 is unique - nothing even remotely as capable has been available with a supercharger and AT. Said capability brings to the surface the limitations of these two technologies.
You're right, the 640 HP supercharged SLR doesn't put out nearly as much power as the 650 hp Z06. And that car is pulling around a fair bit more weight to boot. Or how about a 707 hp Dodge Charger Hellcat? Pretty sure that one will run more than a lap without overheating on a 70 degree day as well.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 21, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
But then of course neither of those cars can put down the power the Z06 can - much more grip, handling, braking = much more power into the track (and through the AT).
Per the article the power reduction was slight and progressive - there was no "overheating" or "limp mode".
As I said very early on ITT the C7 Z06 is unique - nothing even remotely as capable has been available with a supercharger and AT. Said capability brings to the surface the limitations of these two technologies.
So, you agree? GM put out a half baked product that wasn't engineered as well as it should have been. Is that acceptable to you?
Right, because Mercedes AMG didn't have a 500hp supercharged V8 with an automatic for over 10 years ago.. Clearly GM just broke all new ground :rolleyes:
Oh, here's something new for a change - more not understanding and more not reading the article...
More grip + handling + braking + down force = higher track speeds = more power into the track = more power produced by the engine and put through the transmission. The Hellcat or SLR or any AMG car isn't in remotely the same (track) league as the C7 Z06, ergo, they can't put down anywhere near the average power over a sustained amount of time. There's a reason why left to their own devices a professional track team (or race series) would never choose/mandate a S/C motor or slushie AT.
OK... Please elaborate further how grip, braking, and down force impact the cooling system loading :popcorn:
Just close this retarded thread already.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 21, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
Oh, here's something new for a change - more not understanding and more not reading the article...
More grip + handling + braking + down force = higher track speeds = more power into the track = more power produced by the engine and put through the transmission. The Hellcat or SLR or any AMG car isn't in remotely the same (track) league as the C7 Z06, ergo, they can't put down anywhere near the average power over a sustained amount of time. There's a reason why left to their own devices a professional track team (or race series) would never choose/mandate a S/C motor or slushie AT.
SLR ran 0-60 in the low 3s, 1/4 mile in the low 11s at ~128 mph, and can pull 1.13g of lateral. It had active aero creating and managing downforce. That lines up pretty damn close to the Z06. Especially when you consider the older SLR made do with only a 5-speed auto and weighed 350 lbs more than the Z06. Auto bild magazine's test driver clocked a 7:40 lap time at the Nurburgring like 10 years ago. That puts it right in the company of cars like the F430 Scud, Nissan R35 GT-R (circa '09), 997 GT3, Gallardo Superleggara, and Murcielago. That's no track slouch.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 21, 2015, 09:55:28 AM
Just close this retarded thread already.
Oh, god no, it's just starting to get good as these threads are wont to do - it should be pinned if anything...
Next up:
Rereading the article
A review slushie AT operation
A rereview of S/C operation
Quote from: MX793 on March 21, 2015, 10:06:25 AM
SLR ran 0-60 in the low 3s, 1/4 mile in the low 11s at ~128 mph, and can pull 1.13g of lateral. It had active aero creating and managing downforce. That lines up pretty damn close to the Z06. Especially when you consider the older SLR made do with only a 5-speed auto and weighed 350 lbs more than the Z06. Auto bild magazine's test driver clocked a 7:40 lap time at the Nurburgring like 10 years ago. That puts it right in the company of cars like the F430 Scud, Nissan R35 GT-R (circa '09), 997 GT3, Gallardo Superleggara, and Murcielago. That's no track slouch.
Absolute track performance is the metric, plus those cars are old; 7:40 is now down there with the lowly Camaro ZL1 (7:41). As comparison, the SLR is vastly quicker in a straight line with a far better power/weight ratio yet posted pretty much the same 'Ring time = SLR was putting a much smaller % of its power into the track.
So older cars can manage to not overheat with high output supercharged V8s with automatic transmissions - but not the latest and greatest from GM? Maybe they can catch up in another 10-20 years then.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 21, 2015, 10:27:05 AM
Absolute track performance is the metric, plus those cars are old; 7:40 is now down there with the lowly Camaro ZL1 (7:41). As comparison, the SLR is vastly quicker in a straight line with a far better power/weight ratio yet posted pretty much the same 'Ring time = SLR was putting a much smaller % of its power into the track.
And if it were the case that something like an SLR could run 20 minutes as hard as the drive could flog it around a track before putting the thermometer needle into the red while the Z06 put the needle in the red after only 15 or 16 minutes, I'd nod in agreement that the Z06 is generating more heat and that I'm not terribly surprised that it overheated a bit faster.
This car put the needle in the red in 90 seconds. On a 70 degree day. An SLR would most assuredly be able to lap a track flat out many times longer than that before it put the temp gauge into the red. It's not generating that much more heat than an SLR driven flat out.
GM under-sized the cooling system. Plain and simple.
Quote from: r0tor on March 21, 2015, 09:02:31 AM
So why are GM fanbois and owners accepting it?
The non anti-C7 Z06 jihadists haven't "accepted" anything. We are just not yelling at the top of our lungs and bashing our heads on our keyboards in anger over the laptime at a track none of us will ever go to in a car none of us will ever buy. C7 Z06 has problems. My question to you is, OK, so why does it matter so, to the point that you are still angry about this test some months later? You guys are ridiculous. I don't even like this car, but the hate/insanity from you/r0tor/FBC around it is ridiculous. Its not that serious.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 21, 2015, 11:40:31 AM
The non anti-C7 Z06 jihadists haven't "accepted" anything. We are just not yelling at the top of our lungs and bashing our heads on our keyboards in anger over the laptime at a track none of us will ever go to in a car none of us will ever buy. C7 Z06 has problems. My question to you is, OK, so why does it matter so, to the point that you are still angry about this test some months later? You guys are ridiculous. I don't even like this car, but the hate/insanity from you/r0tor/FBC around it is ridiculous. Its not that serious.
:hesaid:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 21, 2015, 11:40:31 AM
The non anti-C7 Z06 jihadists haven't "accepted" anything. We are just not yelling at the top of our lungs and bashing our heads on our keyboards in anger over the laptime at a track none of us will ever go to in a car none of us will ever buy. C7 Z06 has problems. My question to you is, OK, so why does it matter so, to the point that you are still angry about this test some months later? You guys are ridiculous. I don't even like this car, but the hate/insanity from you/r0tor/FBC around it is ridiculous. Its not that serious.
Haha, I was just about to make a similar point. What does it matter if GM didn't put enough cooling in the car? None of us will ever buy one or drive one, much less track one. Much less track one at the same speed as Randy Pobst.
I like the car, because it's a different approach to going fast. Much more old school, with big power, big tires, and big aero. A good alternative to the GT-Rs of the world (which I also like). Variety is the spice of life, I like 99% of cars. Why take sides and limit yourself? Why do we get so caught up in hating cars? It's illogical. Stop worrying about having the best car and just have fun.
And because I know it's coming, my point isn't to say we have to limit discussions to cars we can acquire; my point is I think there is a reasonable limit of time and emotion worth spending being angry about cars- even cars we can buy or even own. This thread is a month and a half old and people are still angry. FOR WAT?
Not to mention the C7 Z06 is still eye wateringly fast and fun to drive, at least according to people whove actually driven it. So what's the issue?
Nobody is angry.
LOL
"It's OK for me to talk about how awesome this car is because it's so powerful, but no one is allowed to criticize it for not making the power it advertises."
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 21, 2015, 11:40:31 AM
The non anti-C7 Z06 jihadists haven't "accepted" anything. We are just not yelling at the top of our lungs and bashing our heads on our keyboards in anger over the laptime at a track none of us will ever go to in a car none of us will ever buy. C7 Z06 has problems. My question to you is, OK, so why does it matter so, to the point that you are still angry about this test some months later? You guys are ridiculous. I don't even like this car, but the hate/insanity from you/r0tor/FBC around it is ridiculous. Its not that serious.
How dare they post and discuss a Motor-Trend published follow-up article to an issue people were debating? How. Dare. They.
Quote from: Tave on March 21, 2015, 02:29:46 PM
LOL
"It's OK for me to talk about how awesome this car is because it's so powerful, but no one is allowed to criticize it for not making the power it advertises."
This would be the "new ground" GM broke that cougs keeps sputtering about
Quote from: Tave on March 21, 2015, 02:31:43 PM
How dare they post and discuss a Motor-Trend published follow-up article to an issue people were debating? How. Dare. They.
Discuss? It was almost blatant dismissal just because it got faster. Because that doesn't fit the narrative of the Z06 being crap.
Quote from: Tave on March 21, 2015, 02:29:46 PM
LOL
"It's OK for me to talk about how awesome this car is because it's so powerful, but no one is allowed to criticize it for not making the power it advertises."
People can do whatever they want, including criticize it, which I have done in this thread. But at this point, 7 weeks later, IMO it's beating a dead horse, and getting wound up over something that doesn't even matter. This is not like the complete bungling of Cadillac, which is way more disastrous, and which I have harped on about, but with a way stronger case than 1 lap time from one day and 2-4 MPH in trap speed. That has huge implications for GM and is far more indicative of management failure than the at the limit performance of a competitive hypercar that will sell no matter what. In my opinion. People are free to post what they want but they aren't free from responses to said posts they mite not like.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 21, 2015, 02:01:35 PM
Nobody is angry.
"Call it wat u want" - Foster The People
I was reading the road and track Camaro z28 vs the world track comparo and after three laps of a ~1.5 mile course the oil temps went over 300. The only car in the test to do it with a gtr, viper, andPorsche something or other.
I'd like gm to say something at least
Quote from: HotRodPilot on March 22, 2015, 07:55:52 AM
I was reading the road and track Camaro z28 vs the world track comparo and after three laps of a ~1.5 mile course the oil temps went over 300. The only car in the test to do it with a gtr, viper, andPorsche something or other.
I'd like gm to say something at least
It was a V12 Vantage, not a Porsche.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on March 22, 2015, 07:55:52 AM
I was reading the road and track Camaro z28 vs the world track comparo and after three laps of a ~1.5 mile course the oil temps went over 300. The only car in the test to do it with a gtr, viper, andPorsche something or other.
I'd like gm to say something at least
I can't find any other Z28 oil temp problems, that seems to be an anomaly.
So, I reread it.
As to this retest, first, the M/T test driver says the car loses a lot of power but then the M/T writer immediately counters that the data says the "loss" was only a few tenths and a few mph per lap.
Second, nowhere is it stated that the car "overheated" or when into "limp mode." The test driver simply notes the temperature read high. When cars overheat they hit a falloff point and they they are done.
All this is pointing to typical F/I heat soak, which will be present for any S/C motor.
Heat soak on a 70deg day doing one lap on a 1.5 mile track? You have to be a fairly bad apologist to consider that an acceptable defense.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on March 22, 2015, 07:55:52 AM
I was reading the road and track Camaro z28 vs the world track comparo and after three laps of a ~1.5 mile course the oil temps went over 300. The only car in the test to do it with a gtr, viper, andPorsche something or other.
I'd like gm to say something at least
They undersized the Z28 cooling so badly they had to come up with the "flowtie"...
Quote from: r0tor on March 22, 2015, 11:12:50 AM
They undersized the Z28 cooling so badly they had to come up with the "flowtie"...
The Camaro wasn't really originally designed to play in the performance field that the Z/28 plays in. They had to find cooling wherever they could. Just as the Aston Martin Vantage wasn't originally designed to accommodate the V12 motor and the guys at Aston had to put a bunch of louvers and vents all over the front bodywork to keep that motor cool.
And as this is the first instance I've heard of the Z/28 getting hot in such a short running time, I also think it may have been an isolated issue.
Quote from: r0tor on March 22, 2015, 11:11:29 AM
Heat soak on a 70deg day doing one lap on a 1.5 mile track? You have to be a fairly bad apologist to consider that an acceptable defense.
I only consider facts, logic, knowledge and experience, which says that cars don't incrementally overheat and then incrementally lose performance.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2015, 10:36:30 AM
So, I reread it.
As to this retest, first, the M/T test driver says the car loses a lot of power but then the M/T writer immediately counters that the data says the "loss" was only a few tenths and a few mph per lap.
Second, nowhere is it stated that the car "overheated" or when into "limp mode." The test driver simply notes the temperature read high. When cars overheat they hit a falloff point and they they are done.
All this is pointing to typical F/I heat soak, which will be present for any S/C motor.
The oil temp gauge was reporting 320 degrees, which is as high as the gauge reads in the Corvette (and beyond the "redline" on the gauge). It's possible that there's some gauge error and that's why the car didn't go into complete limp-mode, but that's still not a good sign after only a couple laps on a relatively cool day.
Does beg the question if a lot of the reported heat incidents aren't related to an incorrectly calibrated gauge.
A simple trans cooler + oil cooler + ceramic coated headers would be easy mods if you live in a hot climate.
Quote from: MX793 on March 22, 2015, 12:20:18 PM
The oil temp gauge was reporting 320 degrees, which is as high as the gauge reads in the Corvette (and beyond the "redline" on the gauge). It's possible that there's some gauge error and that's why the car didn't go into complete limp-mode, but that's still not a good sign after only a couple laps on a relatively cool day.
Does beg the question if a lot of the reported heat incidents aren't related to an incorrectly calibrated gauge.
Could be too close to the exhaust, maybe? I know that can be a problem with aftermarket gauges.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 22, 2015, 12:23:45 PM
A simple trans cooler + oil cooler + ceramic coated headers would be easy mods if you live in a hot climate.
But then you would be removing the much better designed and optimally efficient oem units in favor of poorer designed and performing aftermarket units.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 22, 2015, 12:28:04 PM
But then you would be removing the much better designed and optimally efficient oem units in favor of poorer designed and performing aftermarket units.
Good thing I'm not Cougs.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 22, 2015, 12:24:17 PM
Could be too close to the exhaust, maybe? I know that can be a problem with aftermarket gauges.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 22, 2015, 12:23:45 PM
A simple trans cooler + oil cooler + ceramic coated headers would be easy mods if you live in a hot climate.
The Corvette's transmission isn't anywhere near the headers. Transmission is at the back of the car, bolted straight to the differential, for better weight distribution. Transmission cooler is also at the back of the car; behind the driver's side rear wheel. Could be that they just aren't getting enough airflow. On most cars, with more traditional transmission mounting, the trans cooler is integrated into the radiator at the front of the car where it gets lots of fresh air.
Either way, I'm sure if there is a problem with the z28 Gm will address and repair it asap.
Quote from: MX793 on March 22, 2015, 12:36:20 PM
The Corvette's transmission isn't anywhere near the headers. Transmission is at the back of the car, bolted straight to the differential, for better weight distribution. Transmission cooler is also at the back of the car; behind the driver's side rear wheel. Could be that they just aren't getting enough airflow. On most cars, with more traditional transmission mounting, the trans cooler is integrated into the radiator at the front of the car where it gets lots of fresh air.
The headers comment was just for engine bay temps. I'd move the trans cooler to the radiator.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 22, 2015, 12:23:45 PM
A simple trans cooler + oil cooler + ceramic coated headers would be easy mods if you live in a hot climate.
No.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2015, 12:46:51 PM
No.
So...........Much..........Information................
:popcorn:
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2015, 12:46:51 PM
No.
You can ceramic coat the stock exhaust manifold if headers scare you.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 22, 2015, 12:45:16 PM
The headers comment was just for engine bay temps. I'd move the trans cooler to the radiator.
Which means running long fluid lines from the back of the car to the front, drastically increasing system pressure drop. You'd also be running said lines along the center tunnel, right next to the hot exhaust. By the time it got back from the front heat exchanger, may well be nearly as hot as when it left the transmission.
Quote from: MX793 on March 22, 2015, 01:40:48 PM
Which means running long fluid lines from the back of the car to the front, drastically increasing system pressure drop. You'd also be running said lines along the center tunnel, right next to the hot exhaust. By the time it got back from the front heat exchanger, may well be nearly as hot as when it left the transmission.
Side pipe exhaust.
Problem solved.
How about not taking a slushie AT to the track?
No matter what size/location of (traditional) cooler it's gonna overheat fairly quick. You'd have to have some sort of Rube Goldberg-esque active chiller (i.e., with refrigerant) and goofy fluid routing to keep the fluid cool.
FWIW EVO ran the Z07 against a 991 GT3.... couldn't get the track at Willow Springs but they loved it. Then again EVO has never sought to satiate spec hungry bench racing dorks....