This was posted on Germancarzone but the original poster didn't provide a link and hasn't provided one yet. The translation (Babelfish) is terrible and I can't do anything because I couldn't find the article on www.autozeitung.de. :banghead:
EDIT: I FOUND THE LINK ON THE SITE. WILL TRANSLATE THE GOOD STUFF.
http://autozeitung.de/online/render.php?render=0039979
Nice pics though and a best laptime. :lol:
Tracktest Corvette Z06 gegen Porsche 911 GT3 RS
Beide stellen die Basis f?r einen Rennwagen, und doch trennen die Corvette Z06 und den neuen Porsche 911 GT3 RS Welten. Rennprofi Kurt Thiim testet beide auf dem Formel-1-Kurs in Hockenheim (Both cars represent the simple basics needed for a sports car, yet, both cars are different in how they do it. Professional driver, Kurt Thiim, tests both these hardcore performance machines.)
Der potente US-Hammer ist kompromisslos gebaut: geringes Gewicht dank einem Chassis aus Aluminium und Kohlefaser-Verbundwerkstoffen, b?renstark dank des gr??ten Small-Block-V8, den General Motors je gebaut hat, und drehzahlfest dank Titanpleuel, Natrium-gef?llten Titan-Einlassventilen und Alu-Flachkolben. Nur die Ventilsteuerung erfolgt immer noch ?ber eine zentral angeordnete Nockenwelle. 512 PS sowie 637 Newtonmeter Drehmoment sprechen eine deutliche Sprache, die H?chstgeschwindigkeit von 320 km/h ebenfalls. Zum Schluss noch das Sahneh?ubchen: Das Leistungsgewicht der Z06 liegt bei nur 2,8 kg/PS. Das sollte reichen, um jeden Porsche zu erschrecken, oder? (The American car is built without compromise: low weight (thanks to an aluminum chassis), carbon fiber bonding materials, a powerful V8 and much more. 512-horsepower, 637 Nm of torque, 320 km/h top speed and 2.8 kg / horsepower. Enough to scare every Porsche, right?)
Aber: ?ber eine gute Rundenzeit entscheiden auch Dinge wie Bremsleistung und Fahrstabilit?t im Grenzbereich. Und hier setzt der im Vergleich zur flachen, breiten Corvette fast zierliche 911 GT3 RS an, Leistungsgewicht: 3,3 kg/PS. Und die RS-Modelle zeigen schon seit 1972, was in puncto Fahrdy-namik mit einem stra?enzugelas-senen Auto m?glich ist. (A good lap time is not only determined by power output. The quality of the brakes, stability in extreme speeds etc. all determine a good laptime. This is what the weaker GT3 RS uses to its advantages with it's 3.3 kg / horsepower rating.)
Der neueste RS ist da keine Ausnahme. Nochmals 20 Kilo leichter als der normale GT3 und mit einem einstellbaren Fahrwerk, optimierter Aerodynamik sowie feinsten Racing-Attributen ausgestattet, tritt er an, um die Sportwagenwelt zu beherrschen. (The new RS is 20 kg lighter than the normal GT3 and has an adjustable chassis, optimized aerodnamics as well s high quality racing attributes.)
Der heiser bellende 3,6-Liter-Boxer im Heck verf?gt nicht nur ?ber ebenso exklusive Innereien wie der GM-V8, sondern jetzt auch ?ber ein Einmassenschwungrad, das gegen?ber dem herk?mmlichen Schwungrad acht Kilo einspart. ?Der Motor reagiert dadurch sehr spritzig, dreht ph?nomenal schnell hoch?, schildert Thiim die Auswirkungen, ??berhaupt, der Porsche ist eigentlich ein Rennwagen, du merkst es sofort am Kupplungsgegendruck oder auch an den hohen Schaltkr?ften. Und wenn du morgens losf?hrst, knackt es hier und da, Laufger?usche kommen aus dem Antriebsstrang. Das Gleiche erlebst du, wenn du mit einem kalten Rennwagen aus der Boxengasse auf die Piste rollst ? herrlich.? The 3.6-l 6-cylinder of the Porsche barks aggressively. "The engine response is very good and rev's very quickly," says Thiim. Thiim also says, "This car is made for the racetrack, you can feel it because of the heavy clutch and the heavy feeling shifts on the manual gear box."
Den Leistungsnachteil gegen?ber der Corvette ? 415 zu 512 PS ? will der GT3 RS mit seinem Fahrwerk und den serienm??igen Michelin-Semi-Slicks mehr als nur kompensieren. Die Goodyear-Runflatreifen des Ami sind da eher eine alltagstaugliche L?sung. (Despite the power disadvantage, 415-hp against 512-hp, the GT3 makes a good impression with its Michelin-semi-slicks. The everyday tires of the Corvette, Goodyear runflats, are at a disadvantage here.)
Thiim entscheidet sich nach zwei Proberunden mit den beiden Autos als erstes f?r die Z06: ?Die Umstellung zwischen den beiden Autos ist riesengro?, so herum f?llt es aber etwas leichter.? Der D?ne verzichtet auf jegliche elektronische Unterst?tzung. Also w?hlt er die Einstellung ?ASR und aktives Handling aus? im Cockpit-Display. Nach kurzem Anlauf bollert der V8 ?ber die Start/Zielgerade. Bei 204 km/h wirft Thiim den Anker vor der Nordkurve und schaltet runter. (Thiim takes the Corvette for a spin first. He claims that, "The difference between these two cars is extreme.")
Schon hier wird klar: ?Du musst dir Zeit lassen beim Schalten, sonst kracht es im Getriebe. Die Schaltwege sind deutlich l?nger und nicht so genau definiert wie im Porsche.? Die zweite Eigenart der Corvette wird in der n?chsten Rechtskurve vor der langen Parabolika deutlich: Von 211 km/h muss Thiim runter bis auf 58 Sachen, dabei einlenken und sich gleichzeitig auf m?glichst fr?hes Beschleunigen konzentrieren. ?Technisch alles kein Problem, doch in den Sitzen der Corvette finde ich zu wenig Halt und rutsche teilweise etwas hilflos herum?, sagt Thiim sp?ter. (Thiim on the Corvette, "You need to take your time shifting with the Corvette, otherwise the transmission crunches." "The shifts are longer and not as precise as those in the Porsche," Thiim will later say. All of a suddent a shrap right curve comes. From 211 km/h, Thiim slows down to 58 km/h, no problem, the brakes are good. Thiim, :"The seats of the Corvette are a little slippery and don't offer the support and grip you find in the Porsche.")
Doch was auf die Rutschpartie folgt, fasziniert den D?nen: ?Der Drehmomentkick und diese Beschleunigungsorgie bis zur Spitzkehre stellen einfach alles in den Schatten.? 251 km/h zeigt das GPS-Messger?t beim Anbremspunkt an, nur 44 km/h vertr?gt die enge Rechtskurve ? H?chstbelastung f?r alle Fahrzeugkomponenten. ?Das Auto bleibt sehr stabil bei diesen harten Bremsman?vern. Doch die Reifen sind auf der Rennstrecke ?berfordert und schmieren. Das Fahrverhalten verliert dabei an Pr?zision.? ("What I like about the Corvette is the torque and acceleration." 251 km/h, another curve, slow down to 44 km/h - a heavy toll on all parts of the car. No problem in the Corvette. It's stable during these hard braking maneuvers. "The tires are overworked and not suited for track use though," says Thiim.)
Wieder tritt die Z06 an, als w?re der Teufel hinter ihr her. Der gro?e V8 hat mit dem Leergewicht von 1440 Kilogramm leichtes Spiel. Im sanften Rechtsknick vor der Mercedes-Trib?ne muss Thiim kurz vom Gas und verliert Geschwindigkeit. Auch der folgende Sektor in und durch das Kurvengeschl?ngel des Motodrom wird wohl nie der Lieblingsspielplatz der Corvette. Thiim: ?Du musst dich in Kurven immer wieder zur Ruhe zwingen, dem Auto Zeit geben, sich zu stabilisieren. Nur so kannst du die ganze Power einsetzen. (The Corvette has an easy acceleration time though. 1440 kg of weight to haul around coupled to a powerful V8 make this not a problem. On the track, there's a portion where one has to slalom through. This proves to be too much for the Corvette: possibly because of the tires.)
Die Karosseriebewegungen sind im Vergleich zum Porsche ausgepr?gter und wollen einkalkuliert werden.? Entsprechend sind die Anbremsgeschwindigkeiten sehr hoch, die Kurventempi aber eher durchschnittlich. Nur die nach au?en leicht ?berh?hte Sachskurve erleichtert es der Corvette ein wenig. Der Drift bei 97 km/h am Eingang zur Start-/Zielgerade ist kaum zu vermeiden. Wenige Sekunden sp?ter rauscht Kurt Thiim mit 187 km/h durch die Lichtschranke. Seine Gesamtzeit: 1.57,90 Minuten. (The chassis movement of the Corvette are more distinctive and demand calculation.)
Der Rennsportprofi steigt direkt um in den Porsche und zw?ngt sich in den Schalensitz. Das elektronische PASM-Fahrwerk auf hart gestellt, die Sporttaste f?r ein noch spontaneres Ansprechen des Motors gedr?ckt und die Traktionskontrolle deaktiviert ? es kann losgehen. Heiser br?llend jagt der GT3 RS auf die Nordkurve zu und bremst deutlich sp?ter als die Corvette. Allerdings ist er hier auch neun km/h langsamer als die Z06. (The professional racedriver Thiim now tests the Porsche. The electronic suspension is programmed to "hard": traction control is set too off. The first right curve Thiim encounters in the Porsches forces him to brake a little later than in the Corvette - and was 9 km/h slower than the 'Vette too.)
Das gleiche Spiel vor der n?chsten Kurve: sehr sp?tes und hartes Anbremsen bis in die Kurve hinein, dann ebenso fr?hes Beschleunigen. Hier zeigt sich die Klasse des Fahrwerks und der Reifen. Die Kurvengeschwindigkeit liegt zehn km/h h?her als bei der Corvette. Dann folgt die Spitzkehre, Thiim bremst bei 241 km/h an, verliert also zehn km/h auf den US-Sportler. Aber: Der Bremspunkt liegt stattliche 23 Meter sp?ter, das sind fast f?nf Fahrzeugl?ngen. (The same game in the next curve: late braking and steering into the curve then early acceleration. This is where the class of the suspension and tires is shown. The speed of the Porsche in curves is 10 km/h quicker than that of the Corvette. Then comes a straight, and this is where the Corvette would catch up.)
Thiim dazu: ?Trotzdem, um einen Zeitvorteil mit dem Porsche zu realisieren, musst du sehr genau fahren und den Motor ausquetschen. Doch genau daf?r ist dieses Auto gebaut. Einlenkverhalten und Fahrstabilit?t sind einfach gro?artig.? Wo er in der Corvette vorsichtig agieren musste, kann er im Porsche nahezu Vollgas geben. Und er muss es auch, denn bis zum Anbremsen vor der Mercedes-Trib?ne liegt die Corvette mit 0,87 Sekunden Vorsprung immer noch vorn. ?Den Eingang ins Motodrom kannst du im Porsche fast voll nehmen. Da spielt die neue Aerodynamik des RS schon eine gro?e Rolle?, sagt Thiim. (Thiim on the Porsche: "If you want to beat the Corvette, you need to play for a time advantage: drive calculated, anticipate and abuse the engine, and this is what the car was built for." Where you need to be careful in the Corvette, you can go beyond in the Porsche. And you have to, because the Corvette accelerates quicker.)
Jetzt spielt der Rennfahrer seine jahrzehntelange Erfahrung aus und pr?gelt den Elfer durch die Kurven. Im letzten Sektor holt er tats?chlich einen Vorsprung von 1,23 Sekunden raus und ?berquert nach 1.57,44 Minuten den Zielstrich, knappe f?nf Zehntelsekunden fr?her als mit der Corvette. Thiim rollt abgek?mpft in die Boxengasse: ?Wenn du so einen Porsche kaufen willst, musst du ein Racer sein. Sonst erschlie?t sich dir das ?berragende Fahrerlebnis niemals. Der GT3 RS ist kein Spielzeug.? (Thiim uses his years of experience and flaunts the Porssche. Surprisingly, he catches up with the Corvette's best time in the last lap and has a 1.23 second lead for a final time of 1.57,44 minutes. Thiim on the GT3, "If you buy such a car, you need to be racedriver, otherwise, you don't get no satisfaction from it.")
Fazit
"Der Test war eine gro?e ?berraschung f?r mich. Wir haben hier zwei v?llig unterschiedliche Sportwagenkonzepte, die sich erwartungsgem?? auch v?llig unterschiedlich bewegen lassen. Auf der einen Seite mit der Corvette Z06 ein echtes Powercar aus den USA mit 7,0 Liter Hubraum zum Angebots-preis. Auf der anderen Seite einen Rennwagen mit Stra?enzulassung. Den Porsche 911 GT3 RS als etwas anderes zu bezeichnen, w?re verfehlt. Bei der Serienbereifung trennen die beiden ebenfalls Welten. Alltagstaugliche Runflat-Reifen auf dem V8-Monster, Semi-Slicks auf dem fein ausbalancierten Renner. Und was passiert? Die beiden trennen am Ende nur f?nf Zehntelsekunden. Der Porsche macht genau das, was du willst. Die Corvette dr?ckt wie wild nach vorn. Doch du kannst die Kraft viel schlechter umsetzen, weil du st?ndig k?mpfen musst. Du brauchst in der Corvette auch mehr Mut als im Porsche, sie kommt selbst im vierten Gang noch quer. Wenn du diese Kraft auf den Asphalt bringen k?nntest ? Semi-Slicks gibt es f?r die Z06 zurzeit noch nicht ?, dann w?re sie ein echtes Ungeheuer. Der Porsche ist das absolut runde und schnelle Gesamtpaket." (A very surprising test. The Corvette is a power car for an appealing price. The Porsche is a racecar for the street. Admittedly, the Corvette was disadvantaged because of the tires.)
Z06
Laptime: 1,57.90 min
GT3 RS
Laptime: 1,57.44 min
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33105_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33109_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33125_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33133_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33137_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33141_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33149_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33169_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33177_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33185_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33193_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33197_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33205_1024.jpg)
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33209_1024.jpg)
Quote from: cawimmer430 on January 11, 2007, 12:00:39 PM
(http://autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/33141_1024.jpg)
I would still take the Z06....if I could afford one. Is it just me or does the way the dark plastic and the silver plastic come together at the top of the centre stack and the switchgear around the instrument pod look like shit?
Z06 for me as well. I'd love a 993 though.
Between the two, I'd pick the Porsche, but the Vette is still an awesome car.
Also, look at the leather in the driver seat compared to the passenger seat in the Vette. There's been some definite use in this car.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 11, 2007, 12:03:52 PM
I would still take the Z06....if I could afford one.? Is it just me or does the way the dark plastic and the silver plastic come together at the top of the centre stack and the switchgear around the instrument pod look like shit?
Yes, I'd say you're right. The Z06 at the Seattle Auto show late last year had all sorts of fit and gap issues inside and out.
I would take the vette, even though the RS is a kickass car.
The Nethead here ain't gonna nitpick on the Z06's interior because the Porsche's interior looks forty times better even if the fit and finish of the Z06's interior pieces fit within one micron of each other.? OTOH, the Z06's exterior is vastly better looking than the Porsche's collection of scoops connected by a few strands of green 911.? A sick shade of green 911 at that!
Note the closeness of the lap times between the 3.6 liter Porsche and the twice-bigger-engined 7.0 liter Z06.? Would a Porsche engine upscaled to 7.0 liters push the 997 to 300 MPH--assuming they could keep tires on it, of course?
I'd take either one, and sell either one to buy a black 911 Turbo from--what?--twenty years ago now.? If I got both, I'd sell them to buy a 959 from --what?--twelve years ago.? Nah, no one would sell a 959 for the money I could get from selling both of them...maybe I could pick up a Carrera 6 circa 1966 for the proceeds from the sale of both if I ain't too picky about the condition (and I ain't).
Quote from: Nethead on January 11, 2007, 01:04:42 PM
The Nethead here ain't gonna nitpick on the Z06's interior because the Porsche's interior looks forty times better even if the fit and finish of the Z06's interior pieces fit within one micron of each other.? OTOH, the Z06's exterior is vastly better looking than the Porsche's collection of scoops connected by a few strands of 911.? A sick shade of green 911 at that!
Note the closeness of the lap times between the 3.6 (Isn't it? Or is it now a 3.8?) liter Porsche and the twice-bigger-engined 7.0 liter Z06.? ?Would a Porsche engine upscaled to 7.0 liters push the 997 to 300 MPH--assuming they could keep tires on it, of course?
I thought the GT3 was a 3.6?
Raghaven is correct, and the Nethead here has amended his errant posting! Thanks, RagDude!
GT3 RS= :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:
That's my choice.
I wouldn't turn down a vette, though.
Quote from: Nethead on January 11, 2007, 01:04:42 PM
The Nethead here ain't gonna nitpick on the Z06's interior because the Porsche's interior looks forty times better even if the fit and finish of the Z06's interior pieces fit within one micron of each other.? OTOH, the Z06's exterior is vastly better looking than the Porsche's collection of scoops connected by a few strands of 911.? A sick shade of green 911 at that!
Note the closeness of the lap times between the 3.6 liter Porsche and the twice-bigger-engined 7.0 liter Z06.? ?Would a Porsche engine upscaled to 7.0 liters push the 997 to 300 MPH--assuming they could keep tires on it, of course?
I'd take either one, and sell them to buy a black 911 Turbo from--what?--twenty years ago now.? If I got both, I'd sell them to buy a 959 from --what?--twelve years ago.? Nah, no one would sell a 959 for the money I could get from selling both of them...maybe I could pick up a Carrera 6 circa 1966 for the proceeds from the sale of both if I ain't too picky about the condition (and I ain't).
It don't matter how big an engine is if it gets the power, torque, AND mileage the Vette's gets. The last 959 was in '89 which would make it 18 years ago.
The Z06 is an awesome car, but I could see myself taking even the base C6 over a 997.
if i'm paying, there is no way i'd pass up such a deal on the vette.
i'd get a GT3 RS if someone else is paying, strip it and use it on the track exclusively.
Quote from: Nethead on January 11, 2007, 01:04:42 PM
Note the closeness of the lap times between the 3.6 liter Porsche and the twice-bigger-engined 7.0 liter Z06.? ?Would a Porsche engine upscaled to 7.0 liters push the 997 to 300 MPH
Nothing against you personally Nethead (because you know I like you and respect your opinions), however I'm getting really tired of hearing people say things like "If Porsche built an engine that was 7.0L then...." or "If Ferrari built a....". They don't. The Z06 is one of the fastest cars on the planet and gets better gas mileage then any of the European monsters. It also costs signifanctly less then those European monsters. Those Ferrari V8 engines are smaller displacement, however need gearing that destroys their mileage just to get the performance to the same level of the Vettes. I'm not one to defend the Corvette (anyone here knows that), but even I have to admit it's a fantastic machine and the engine displacement shouldn't matter to anyone.
One of the most important things that seems to be glossed over was the difference in tires. Street tires are NOT race tires, and the way a car responds on them is VASTLY different even with the exactly same car/suspension/brakes. Had the Corvette had street legal race tires like the Porsche, there would not have been the issues with it being hard to control, nor would there have been braking differences, and the supposed advantages of the Porsche would have gone away. All for a few hundred bucks in tires.
Half a second difference in lap times? Even DOT slalom or road race tires with tread are good for a couple seconds just from lateral grip. The Porsche had them, the Corvette did not. Had the Corvette been equipped with similar tires, it would have had a second and a half advantage on the track or even more with the additional control and ability to use the power.
I know, coulda, woulda, shoulda. I just get tired of this sort of easy to assess and fix issue causing the expensive Eurocar to come ou ton top by a fraction, and then let the major equipment difference get glossed over in the manner of the article.
that's excatly what i was thinking everytime i read run-flat.
i'm sure the vette would ahve come on top with similar tyres.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 11, 2007, 02:06:13 PM
One of the most important things that seems to be glossed over was the difference in tires. Street tires are NOT race tires, and the way a car responds on them is VASTLY different even with the exactly same car/suspension/brakes. Had the Corvette had street legal race tires like the Porsche, there would not have been the issues with it being hard to control, nor would there have been braking differences, and the supposed advantages of the Porsche would have gone away. All for a few hundred bucks in tires.
Half a second difference in lap times? Even DOT slalom or road race tires with tread are good for a couple seconds just from lateral grip. The Porsche had them, the Corvette did not. Had the Corvette been equipped with similar tires, it would have had a second and a half advantage on the track or even more with the additional control and ability to use the power.
I know, coulda, woulda, shoulda. I just get tired of this sort of easy to assess and fix issue causing the expensive Eurocar to come ou ton top by a fraction, and then let the major equipment difference get glossed over in the manner of the article.
I agree, and not only are the ZO6 tires street legal, they're runflats at that (i.e. even without going to racing tires, switching over to a good non-runflat street tire like Michelin PS2 would make a difference). When testing cars with $30k+ difference in price range, why not spend the few grand to equip the cheaper car with comprable tires?
I know I know, those are the tires Chevy puts on the car, but they are selling to a mass market (compared to the market of the RS at least) and with no room for a spare, factory equipped runflats do make sense.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 11, 2007, 02:06:13 PM
One of the most important things that seems to be glossed over was the difference in tires. Street tires are NOT race tires, and the way a car responds on them is VASTLY different even with the exactly same car/suspension/brakes. Had the Corvette had street legal race tires like the Porsche, there would not have been the issues with it being hard to control, nor would there have been braking differences, and the supposed advantages of the Porsche would have gone away. All for a few hundred bucks in tires.
Half a second difference in lap times? Even DOT slalom or road race tires with tread are good for a couple seconds just from lateral grip. The Porsche had them, the Corvette did not. Had the Corvette been equipped with similar tires, it would have had a second and a half advantage on the track or even more with the additional control and ability to use the power.
I know, coulda, woulda, shoulda. I just get tired of this sort of easy to assess and fix issue causing the expensive Eurocar to come ou ton top by a fraction, and then let the major equipment difference get glossed over in the manner of the article.
In all fairness Chris, the tester did mention several times that the Corvette tires were hurting the performance.
This leads me to believe that a simple (well 4 grand) tire swap can fix this problem.
Not that it matters as this guy is a professional and I would probably be 10 seconds behind him anyway.....
Quote from: Nethead on January 11, 2007, 01:04:42 PM
The Nethead here ain't gonna nitpick on the Z06's interior because the Porsche's interior looks forty times better even if the fit and finish of the Z06's interior pieces fit within one micron of each other. OTOH, the Z06's exterior is vastly better looking than the Porsche's collection of scoops connected by a few strands of 911. A sick shade of green 911 at that!
Note the closeness of the lap times between the 3.6 liter Porsche and the twice-bigger-engined 7.0 liter Z06. Would a Porsche engine upscaled to 7.0 liters push the 997 to 300 MPH--assuming they could keep tires on it, of course?
I'd take either one, and sell them to buy a black 911 Turbo from--what?--twenty years ago now. If I got both, I'd sell them to buy a 959 from --what?--twelve years ago. Nah, no one would sell a 959 for the money I could get from selling both of them...maybe I could pick up a Carrera 6 circa 1966 for the proceeds from the sale of both if I ain't too picky about the condition (and I ain't).
You can get a GT3 RS in decent looking colors. Probably white with blue lettering is available, and they have black as well, I believe.
I really want a 964 Carrera RS America. Actually, I want the regular RS, but the RS America is as close as I can get.
Quote from: southdiver1 on January 11, 2007, 02:18:50 PM
In all fairness Chris, the tester did mention several times that the Corvette tires were hurting the performance.
Except every comment about how the Corvette drove would have been changed by use of similar tires, so teh conclusion drawn is that the Corvette is just another American pig that can't handle and is only good at making power. the Porsche is more "precise and responsive." Well, of course, it has tires for that purpose. ANYONE putting th eCorvette on the track would put the same tires on it the Porsche had, thus it's not a comparison of how the cars drive but of how close the Corvette can come with one arm tied behind it's back.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 11, 2007, 01:53:33 PM
Nothing against you personally Nethead (because you know I like you and respect your opinions), however I'm getting really tired of hearing people say things like "If Porsche built an engine that was 7.0L then...." or "If Ferrari built a....".? They don't.? The Z06 is one of the fastest cars on the planet and gets better gas mileage then any of the European monsters.? It also costs signifanctly less then those European monsters.? Those Ferrari V8 engines are smaller displacement, however need gearing that destroys their mileage just to get the performance to the same level of the Vettes.? I'm not one to defend the Corvette (anyone here knows that), but even I have to admit it's a fantastic machine and the engine displacement shouldn't matter to anyone.
C&D's sports car comparison of a few years ago they tested, amongst a number of vehicles, the C6 'vert and the S2000. Each had similar EPA ratings of about 18/27 or there abouts. The as tested real-world MPG? C6 was at 13 mpg, and the S2000 at 21 mpg, or in other words, more than a 50% advantage to the S2000.
EPA ratings are noise on the subject of fuel consumption for these types of vehicles; mostly if for nothing other than auto makers simply don't care. This of course is a reflection of the the simple fact that these vehicles' target demographic doesn't care. It costs time and money to eek out mileage; add a gear, develop/test/validate fuel systems and ECU mapping, etc. The LS7 has the mileage rating benefit (not to be confused with fuel consumption) borne out of use of its progenitors used in many of GM's products in with EPA ratings are important, or at least somewhat so.
The parting and paradoxial shot I'll take is that the larger and 400lb heavier, equally fast, and almost equally powered AWD '07 Porsche 911 Turbo has a superior mileage rating at 18/25 compared to the ZO6's 16/26.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 11, 2007, 01:53:33 PM
Nothing against you personally Nethead (because you know I like you and respect your opinions), however I'm getting really tired of hearing people say things like "If Porsche built an engine that was 7.0L then...." or "If Ferrari built a....".? They don't.? The Z06 is one of the fastest cars on the planet and gets better gas mileage then any of the European monsters.? It also costs signifanctly less then those European monsters.? Those Ferrari V8 engines are smaller displacement, however need gearing that destroys their mileage just to get the performance to the same level of the Vettes.? I'm not one to defend the Corvette (anyone here knows that), but even I have to admit it's a fantastic machine and the engine displacement shouldn't matter to anyone.
Hemi666: Hey, Hemi, I know it ain't personal!? Read my posting again--did I bash the Z06?? And what's so effin' wrong with Porsche upscaling their mighty 3.6 to 7.0--is that
illegal or somethin'?? I mean, I'd like to say that it's fantastic that the Corvette has a world-beating coil spring suspension, or that it has a world-beating DOHC engine, or that it has the engine behind the occupants directly connected to the transaxle instead of connected by a shaft, or that it has world-beating full-time AWD.? But if I said that, I'd be lying...So I comment that wouldn't it be something to see what a 997 GT3 could do with a 7.0 liter version of the 3.6 that can match laptimes with a car that has an engine twice as big.? You're more likely to see Porsche introduce its own 7.0 liter engine than Chevrolet introduce a Corvette with coils, OHCs, AWD, and the engine behind the occupants, huh?? That's for damned sure.? It ain't my fault Chevy charges $68,000 or so for a car and then equips it with runflat tires--don't blame it on lack of room for a spare--the Ford GT doesn't have room for a spare, either, and it makes no excuses for its tires, nor does it need any.? But let's do the possible thing:? Put a 3.6 GM engine in the Corvette and then compare it to a GT3! Or be fair and compare it to a 350Z since a 3.6 Porsche would scald a 3.6 Z06 by 30 or more seconds per lap on that track.? I'd bet on the 350Z myself.
Quote from: Nethead on January 11, 2007, 02:58:49 PM
Hemi666: Hey, Hemi, I know it ain't personal!? Read my posting again--did I bash the Z06?? And what's so effin' wrong with Porsche upscaling their mighty 3.6 to 7.0--is that illegal or somethin'?? I mean, I'd like to say that it's fantastic that the Corvette has a world-beating coil spring suspension, or that it has a world-beating DOHC engine, or that it has the engine behind the occupants directly connected to the transaxle instead of connected by a shaft, or that it has world-beating full-time AWD.? But if I said that, I'd be lying...So I comment that wouldn't it be something to see what a 997 GT3 could do with a 7.0 liter version of the 3.6 that can match laptimes with a car that has an engine twice as big.? You're more likely to see Porsche introduce its own 7.0 liter engine than Chevrolet introduce a Corvette withcoils, OHCs, AWD, and the engine behind the occupants, huh?? That's for damned sure.? It ain't my fault Chevy charges $68,000 or so for a car and then equips it with runflat tires--don't blame it on lack of room for a spare--the Ford GT doesn't have room for a spare, either, and it makes no excuses for its tires, nor does it need any.? But let's do the possible thing:? Put a 3.6 GM engine in the Corvette and then compare it to a GT3! Or be fair and compare it to a 350Z since a 3.6 Porsche would scald a 3.6 Z06 by 30 or more seconds per lap on that track.? I'd bet on the 350Z myself.
I see waht you're saying, but that's not how things work. That's like saying, let's put the same size brakes on every car and test their braking abilities. The cars are competitors and that's how they come from the factory.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 11, 2007, 02:24:34 PM
Except every comment about how the Corvette drove would have been changed by use of similar tires, so teh conclusion drawn is that the Corvette is just another American pig that can't handle and is only good at making power. the Porsche is more "precise and responsive." Well, of course, it has tires for that purpose. ANYONE putting th eCorvette on the track would put the same tires on it the Porsche had, thus it's not a comparison of how the cars drive but of how close the Corvette can come with one arm tied behind it's back.
I guess I am coufused. The driver blamed most of the Corvette problems on the tires. He did mention a crappy seat (I have read that elsewear) and a slow shifter but all other problems he related to the tires:
Despite the power disadvantage, 415-hp against 512-hp, the GT3 makes a good impression with its Michelin-semi-slicks.
The everyday tires of the Corvette, Goodyear runflats, are at a disadvantage here.
No problem in the Corvette. It's stable during these hard braking maneuvers. "
The tires are overworked and not suited for track use though,"
On the track, there's a portion where one has to slalom through. This proves to be too much for the Corvette:
possibly because of the tiresThe same game in the next curve: late braking and steering into the curve then early acceleration. This is where the class of the suspension
and tires is shownA very surprising test. The Corvette is a power car for an appealing price. The Porsche is a racecar for the street.
Admittedly, the Corvette was disadvantaged because of the tiresI mean really, anyone that claims the vast superioity of the Porche over the Corvette based on this particular test is not very bright.
Also remember that this professional driver could probably beat most of us if he was in a Yugo.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2007, 02:30:10 PM
The parting and paradoxial shot I'll take is that the larger and 400lb heavier, equally fast, and almost equally powered AWD '07 Porsche 911 Turbo has a superior mileage rating at 18/25 compared to the ZO6's 16/26.
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. It's Z-zero-6, not Z-oh-6. Zero. Not the letter "O."
And Nethead, I'm going to have to agree with Hemi about all of the "if Porsche built a 7.0L engine to compete with the LS7 it would be so much better" comments. Until they do, all you're doing is speculating, which, for all intents and purposes, is meaningless. Your post vaguely reminds me of the visit I paid to a Porsche enthusiast website a while ago, which was full of a bunch of condescending elitists who looked down on the Corvette for being "crude." If all the Corvette needed was a better set of tires to beat the Porsche around a track, I suppose all of that "fancier" technology was being put to good use, eh? I'm not trying to be a total prick here, but as most of you well know, I love the Corvette.
Coincidentally, VetteZ06 here would take the Corvette. :devil:
I cannot deny the ZO6's unequalled blend of performance and price. Chevy lists the ZO6 at $7O,OOO even. The ZO6 forces other automakers to charge 5O% or more to get close to the performance of the ZO6. In and of itself the term "ZO6" is destined to become urban-speak for "wow, that's such a good deal (as in the ZO6)."
The ZO6, with its various compromises, it so "ZO6-ish" in nature, that it has already burned its indelible ZO6 legend into the minds of ZO6 fans and owners the world over. Go ZO6, go!
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2007, 03:43:12 PM
I cannot deny the ZO6's unequalled blend of performance and price. Chevy lists the ZO6 at $7O,OOO even. The ZO6 forces other automakers to charge 5O% or more to get close to the performance of the ZO6. In and of itself the term "ZO6" is destined to become urban-speak for "wow, that's such a good deal (as in the ZO6)."
The ZO6, with its various compromises, it so "ZO6-ish" in nature, that it has already burned its indelible ZO6 legend into the minds of ZO6 fans and owners the world over. Go ZO6, go!
:clap:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2007, 03:43:12 PM
I cannot deny the ZO6's unequalled blend of performance and price. Chevy lists the ZO6 at $7O,OOO even. The ZO6 forces other automakers to charge 5O% or more to get close to the performance of the ZO6. In and of itself the term "ZO6" is destined to become urban-speak for "wow, that's such a good deal (as in the ZO6)."
The ZO6, with its various compromises, it so "ZO6-ish" in nature, that it has already burned its indelible ZO6 legend into the minds of ZO6 fans and owners the world over. Go ZO6, go!
:evildude:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2007, 03:43:12 PM
I cannot deny the ZO6's unequalled blend of performance and price. Chevy lists the ZO6 at $7O,OOO even. The ZO6 forces other automakers to charge 5O% or more to get close to the performance of the ZO6. In and of itself the term "ZO6" is destined to become urban-speak for "wow, that's such a good deal (as in the ZO6)."
The ZO6, with its various compromises, it so "ZO6-ish" in nature, that it has already burned its indelible ZO6 legend into the minds of ZO6 fans and owners the world over. Go ZO6, go!
Oh man are you asking for it :lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 11, 2007, 03:48:03 PM
Oh man are you asking for it :lol:
Well, looks like you're guilty of the O (read: "oh") sin as well.
It's "ZO6" for the entire time I'm on the Internets...
hold on a sec, before jumping on the tire bandwagon...
The Z06 is on Goodyear Eagle F1 supercar tires (275 front / 325 rear) which is the best DOT legal tire Goodyear produces. The Porsche is on Michelin Pilot Sport Cup which are a more aggressive compund but smaller in width (235 front / 305 rear)
this isn't a huge mismatch
Quote from: r0tor on January 11, 2007, 05:18:31 PM
hold on a sec, before jumping on the tire bandwagon...
The Z06 is on Goodyear Eagle F1 supercar tires (275 front / 325 rear) which is the best DOT legal tire Goodyear produces.? The Porsche is on Michelin Pilot Sport Cup which are a more aggressive compund but smaller in width (235 front / 305 rear)
this isn't a huge mismatch
Yes it is, the supercars runcraps aren't that great. Runflats definately have some drawbacks.
Quote from: Lebowski on January 11, 2007, 07:43:57 PM
Yes it is, the supercars runcraps aren't that great. Runflats definately have some drawbacks.
The sidewalls are just too stiff. Too stiff is no good.
I'll take the Porsche.
Someone else is paying, right?
Quote from: J86 on January 11, 2007, 07:53:21 PM
I'll take the Porsche.
Someone else is paying, right?
:lol:
Quote from: J86 on January 11, 2007, 07:53:21 PM
I'll take the Porsche.
Someone else is paying, right?
ditto. But I think a regular GT3 would suffic.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=7185.msg331793#msg331793 date=1168570213
The sidewalls are just too stiff.? Too stiff is no good.
and your Boxster has rubber band profile tires on it because....?
Quote from: r0tor on January 11, 2007, 05:18:31 PM
hold on a sec, before jumping on the tire bandwagon...
The Z06 is on Goodyear Eagle F1 supercar tires (275 front / 325 rear) which is the best DOT legal tire Goodyear produces. The Porsche is on Michelin Pilot Sport Cup which are a more aggressive compund but smaller in width (235 front / 305 rear)
this isn't a huge mismatch
Compound is everything. Trust me, from a DOT-tire perspective, a semi-slick compound will walk on
all regular street tires by over 2 seconds on a 60 second lap. Even a bad semi slick compound. And Goodyears are not that good to start with.
Quote from: southdiver1 on January 11, 2007, 03:25:38 PM
I guess I am coufused.
You probably didn't read the original translation that Wimmer posted, which I did. The conclusion of the article was that the tires were not a factor: the Porsche is a precision instrument, and the Corvette a brutish car that's hard to drive fast. It glossed over the fact that the tires would cause the Corvette to be hard to drive fast, and MAKE the Porsche a precision instrument.
The new translation has more about the tires, but the overall tone is still that the Porsche is much more precise and easy to drive fast, while the Corvette's only saving grace is it's accelleration. So I say, the tires are teh reason. Tires are wear items and anyone going to the track like this in a Z06 will put on the same tires that the Porsche had.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 11, 2007, 03:17:28 PM
I see waht you're saying, but that's not how things work.? That's like saying, let's put the same size brakes on every car and test their braking abilities.? The cars are competitors and that's how they come from the factory.
HEMI666: As we've all come to expect from HemiDude, all his postings in this thread are thoughtful, informative, and incisive!
Great stuff, Hemi! And thanks for establishing how long ago when probably history's most capable street car, the 959, was last available. How can it have been so long?
Shit, the Nethead here is an effin' fossil! But there it is...
In a similar vein, the Nethead here believes that a GT3 with its 3.6 engine upscaled to 7.0 liters would beat the Bug Veyron's 252 MPH production car speed record. Naturally, cooling would have to be increased, fuel lines & fuel pumps would have to be enlarged, and probably the frame would have to be reinforced to say nothing of tire widths. Everyone here understands that doubling the displacement in a vehicle's engine dictates a lot of mods to the vehicle's chassis and running gear if the same level of reliability, handling, and braking are to be maintained. But I'm gonna go hotrodder cheap here and just drop in an upscaled engine, upscaled cooling, and upscaled fuel lines & fuel pumps--and wider rear tires if they'll fit (no runflats, thank you). I'd guesstimate a sustainable top speed in the 260s, but 270s might happen if wider tires will fit. It is amazing how easy it would be for Porsche to introduce the fastest production car in the world! Now, Bug is talking the talk about a 1232 HP version of the Veyron, which they claim will sustain 272 MPH (it won't, but it should be into the 260s unless the aerodynamics aren't up to the task)! That's assuming Bug will still be in existence, of course, which ain't necessarily a given in this equation. Without Porsche stepping up to the challenge, the Veyron's current and possibly future production car speed records may stand for a long, long time...
But I digress...the comparo shows that the Porsche comes with everything it should have, plus a sharp-looking interior diminished by riceboyracer external gaudiness. It also shows that the Z06 still comes lacking some fundamental items--it's hard to get more fundamental than tires equal to the vehicle's performance capabilities--which makes you have to ask how much does a Z06
properly equipped for its near-200 MPH performance really cost? The Porsche costs more, but it has everything needed for its performance and a great interior to boot. If you want equipment parity, then ya gotta spend a bundle on the Z06's interior as well. The Z06 ain't embarrassed by a JC Whitney-ish exterior, which is more than can be said for the other car in this comparo (hint: from Stuttgart). Remember the delicious great looks of the first 911 Turbo? Like the Mustang did, Porsche needs to get back to its roots...
Question:? If you remove all taxes--sales, luxury, whatever--and you remove all shipping costs, and you remove any any import duties (if such duties are levied on vehicles), what would then be the selling price of a Z06 and a Porsche GT3?? This is more the true "price" of the car, since that excludes what the governments punish you with for buying the vehicle(s) of your choice--especially if your choice wasn't manufactured here.? Has anyone got figures on this??
I know that currency fluctuations (How often does the Deutschmark depreciate against the dollar, if that has ever happened?) can change the "price" of a car instantly (when I arrived in what was then West Germany in the Army in the early 'Seventies, the exchange rate was 3 Deutschmarks, 62 pfennigs per 1 US dollar, and that was dropping almost monthly by the time my 20 months in West Germany were up), meaning that the "price" of a Porsche GT3 is probably rising incrementally all the time, just as the "price" of a Z06 for sale in Germany would probably be dropping incrementally all the time.
I bring this up because of the numerous postings about the purchase price advantage that the Z06 has over the Porsche GT3--not all of this has to do with the true price of a Porsche or with the true price of a Z06.? And of course if the Z06 offered the tires found on a Porsche GT3 and the excellent interior in a Porsche GT3, it would retail for more (maybe substantially more) than the Z06 as tested here.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2007, 04:02:16 PM
Well, looks like you're guilty of the O (read: "oh") sin as well.
It's "ZO6" for the entire time I'm on the Internets...
You're right. :(
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2007, 09:06:47 AM
I know that currency fluctuations (How often does the Deutschmark depreciate against the dollar...
Deutschmark doesn't exist anymore. It's the Euro. :ohyeah:
Quote from: ChrisV on January 11, 2007, 02:06:13 PM
One of the most important things that seems to be glossed over was the difference in tires. Street tires are NOT race tires, and the way a car responds on them is VASTLY different even with the exactly same car/suspension/brakes. Had the Corvette had street legal race tires like the Porsche, there would not have been the issues with it being hard to control, nor would there have been braking differences, and the supposed advantages of the Porsche would have gone away. All for a few hundred bucks in tires.
Half a second difference in lap times? Even DOT slalom or road race tires with tread are good for a couple seconds just from lateral grip. The Porsche had them, the Corvette did not. Had the Corvette been equipped with similar tires, it would have had a second and a half advantage on the track or even more with the additional control and ability to use the power.
I know, coulda, woulda, shoulda. I just get tired of this sort of easy to assess and fix issue causing the expensive Eurocar to come ou ton top by a fraction, and then let the major equipment difference get glossed over in the manner of the article.
Ding, ding, ding! They can't expect to compare the cars on an equal footing using crappy stock runflats. Tires make all the difference in handling and it's puzzling that they wouldn't put a good set on first.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2007, 10:13:38 AM
Deutschmark doesn't exist anymore. It's the Euro. :ohyeah:
Don't you mean the eurZ06? :ohyeah:
Quote from: SaltyDog on January 12, 2007, 10:35:56 AM
Ding, ding, ding!? They can't expect to compare the cars on an equal footing using crappy stock runflats.? ?Tires make all the difference in handling and it's puzzling that they wouldn't put a good set on first.?
Because the RS is designed as a racecar thats legal for the street and the Z06 is designed as a street car that performs well on a race track?? Because GM is in contract with Goodyear as their tire supplier and they don't make any DOT approved tires better then whats on there now? How about because 95% of Z06 owners would be pissed if their tires wore out every 5,000 miles?
Quote from: r0tor on January 12, 2007, 10:51:56 AM
Because the RS is designed as a racecar thats legal for the street and the Z06 is designed as a street car that performs well on a race track? Because GM is in contract with Goodyear as their tire supplier and they don't make any DOT approved tires better then whats on there now?
I'm not bitching at GM for their tire choice, but saying the Vette needs proper tires to be reviewed on a track. Everything they said about it's handling was followed by saying the tires suck.
Why are so many people suggesting that reviewers put the same tires on both cars to make testing fair? If you go down to your local Chevy dealer and buy a Zed-OH-6, what tires will be equipped with the car? Right, the ones that were on the car in this test. Why would they test the car with different tires then? That would be like putting the same brakes on both cars, or the same seats, or, or, or...
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2007, 10:59:43 AM
Why are so many people suggesting that reviewers put the same tires on both cars to make testing fair? If you go down to your local Chevy dealer and buy a Zed-OH-6, what tires will be equipped with the car? Right, the ones that were on the car in this test. Why would they test the car with different tires then? That would be like putting the same brakes on both cars, or the same seats, or, or, or...
Tires are car parts that are constantly changed and aren't brand or model specific. Brakes, seats, and the like are, so it's not really a fair comparison.
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2007, 07:55:35 AM
But I digress...the comparo shows that the Porsche comes with everything it should have, plus a sharp-looking interior diminished by riceboyracer external gaudiness. It also shows that the Z06 still comes lacking some fundamental items--it's hard to get more fundamental than tires equal to the vehicle's performance capabilities--which makes you have to ask how much does a Z06 properly equipped for its near-200 MPH performance really cost?
Add teh grand or so for tires and youre' still looking at a significant savings. And as I said, ANYONE putting the Corvette on a track like in this test would put the DOT Semi-slicks on it. (or even actual slicks). When driven on the street however, where these cars spend 90% of their time, the stock tires will last an order of magnitude longer on the Corvette, and the Porsche will be at a disadvantage having to not only change tires more often, but be much more careful about driving in the rain. Unless the owner reverts to tires liek the Corvettes, in which case the more expensive Porsche will also negate any advantage it had.
Quote from: SaltyDog on January 12, 2007, 11:04:54 AM
Tires are car parts that are constantly changed and aren't brand or model specific.? Brakes, seats, and the like are, so it's not really a fair comparison.
People usually don't buy new tires until the O.E. tires have worn out, and
most people just buy the same tires again. Yes, lots of people buy different tires after the originals wear out (I'm one of them), but you can do the same with brakes, shocks, springs, seats, exhaust systems, shifters, etc. etc.. I replaced all of those on my Mustang. Each one made a big difference in how the car performed. Magazines do the right thing and test the car with original equipment from the manufacturer. This is how the car performs when new. It can only get better from that point.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2007, 11:13:30 AM
People usually don't buy new tires until the O.E. tires have worn out, and most people just buy the same tires again. Yes, lots of people buy different tires after the originals wear out (I'm one of them), but you can do the same with brakes, shocks, springs, seats, exhaust systems, shifters, etc. etc.. I replaced all of those on my Mustang. Each one made a big difference in how the car performed. Magazines do the right thing and test the car with original equipment from the manufacturer. This is how the car performs when new. It can only get better from that point.
I can understand what you're saying if the car being reviewed is something mainstream, but we're talking about an exotic car capable of extraordinary performance that's held back by something as simple as bad tires.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2007, 11:13:30 AM
People usually don't buy new tires until the O.E. tires have worn out, and most people just buy the same tires again. Yes, lots of people buy different tires after the originals wear out (I'm one of them), but you can do the same with brakes, shocks, springs, seats, exhaust systems, shifters, etc. etc.. I replaced all of those on my Mustang. Each one made a big difference in how the car performed. Magazines do the right thing and test the car with original equipment from the manufacturer. This is how the car performs when new. It can only get better from that point.
The point is, if you buy a Z06 and go to the track, you WILL change the tires to the type that the Porsche has. The test was originally worded in such a manner as to belittle the Corvette's inability to be driven like it's the fault of the car
as a whole, when the real difference was in those 4 patches of rubber that are wear items.
This one mentions tires more, but I can guarantee you that the audience the article was aimed at will not see that it's the tires that are the difference.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2007, 11:13:30 AM
People usually don't buy new tires until the O.E. tires have worn out, and most people just buy the same tires again.?
Interesting how you form your conclusion based on what "most" people do ...
Dude,
most people don't buy $70k+ sports cars. And
most people will never drive their car on a track. I think Joe Average's tiring buying habits aren't all that relevant to a test that involves driving two supercars around a race track.
I agree that if C&D is testing the Camry vs. the Accord head to head, just leave the stock tires on. But when testing two $70k+ performance cars,
and the test is conducted not on the streets but on a track, it makes more sense to me to put comparable tires on the cars.
ChrisV: Well, which is it ChrisDude?
Is the Z06 providing you with great tires whereas the Porsche is lavishing fabulous tires on you; or is it that the Porsche is providing you with tires suited to their car's performance and Chevy is cheap-assing you on the Z06??
If the first statement is true, then what's your complaint?
If the second statement is true, why are you posting umpty dozen arguments defending the Z06? After all, it's not Porsche's fault that the Z06 runs out of tire before it runs out of oomph, huh?
Are Porsche's engineers that much smarter than Chevrolet's engineers that they can figure out what tires a really fast car needs but Chevrolet's can't?
Or is it that Chevy accountants said "No Way" to the quality (and the cost) of tires sufficient to perform as well as the tires that the Porsche accountants said were a completely justifiable expense for a car with their customer's lives literally riding on them?
I tend to think it's the engineers at fault since the accountants could just say "Leave the tires as is, but make those tires that come on Porsche GT3s an extra cost option." What say you?
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2007, 10:13:38 AM
Deutschmark doesn't exist anymore.? It's the Euro. :ohyeah:
HEMI666: Who needs a spellchecker when we've got HEMI666 keeping us on the straight and narrow?!?! Yep, it's Euros now--unfortunately for the stronger economies of Europe...
But this may have the backdoor benefit of stabilizing the price of a Porsche GT3, since Euros don't appreciate like Deutschmarks did back in the day. Near the time of the switch to Euros, I remember running across an article which mentioned that a dollar converted to about 1 Deutschmark, 50 pfennings--a far cry from the 3.62 rate when I arrived in Germany in the early 'Seventies! In other words, any Porsche bought with dollars would have more than doubled in price from currency revaluations alone!
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2007, 12:57:59 PM
ChrisV: Well, which is it ChrisDude??
Is the Z06 providing you with great tires whereas the Porsche is lavishing fabulous tires on you; or is it that the Porsche is providing you with tires suited to their car's performance and Chevy is cheap-assing you on the Z06???
If the first statement is true, then what's your complaint??
If the second statement is true, why are you posting umpty dozen arguments defending the Z06?? After all, it's not Porsche's fault that the Z06 runs out of tire before it runs out of oomph, huh??
Are Porsche's engineers that much smarter than Chevrolet's engineers that they can figure out what tires a really fast car needs but Chevrolet's can't??
Or is it that Chevy accountants said "No Way" to the quality (and the cost) of tires sufficient to perform as well as the tires that the Porsche accountants said were a? completely justifiable expense for a car with their customer's lives literally riding on them?
I tend to think it's the engineers at fault since the accountants could just say "Leave the tires as is, but make those tires that come on Porsche GT3s an extra cost option."? What say you?
Wow, talk about missing the mark completely. Where to begin ...
First, go to tirerack.com and price a set of GY Eagle F1 Supercar EMTs in ZO6 sizes and see if that impacts your "GM is cheap-assing you" theory. They are expensive tires. The tires do get a lot of complaints, but being cheap isn't one of them.
This is not a case of either GM cheaping out, or of one car having good tires and the other fabulous tires - we're talking about tires with totally different intended purposes. The GT3 is the more raw version of the 911, and the RS is the more raw version of the GT3. The GT3 RS is an extremely low volume production car with a very, very targeted (and very much enthusiast minded) market. The ZO6 is a relatively high volume (for a $70k sports car anyway) car with a much more mainstream market. If I could afford one, I'd have no qualms using a ZO6 as my daily driver, and I wouldn't say the same about the RS.
Compare a ZO6 and a plain jane 911 Carrera S on a track and I doubt you'll hear anybody complaining about an unfair tire comparison. Both of those cars can be used as daily drivers, both have tires that will last more than 5,000 miles and both have tires that won't get you killed in the rain. The GT3 RS simply isn't meant to be a daily driver, and if someone were seriously cross shopping a GT3 RS and a ZO6 with the intention of tracking either, I'd suspect they'd be more than willing to invest in a new set of tires if they opt for the ZO6.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 12, 2007, 11:30:41 AM
The point is, if you buy a Z06 and go to the track, you WILL change the tires to the type that the Porsche has. The test was originally worded in such a manner as to belittle the Corvette's inability to be driven like it's the fault of the car as a whole, when the real difference was in those 4 patches of rubber that are wear items.
This one mentions tires more, but I can guarantee you that the audience the article was aimed at will not see that it's the tires that are the difference.
I agree with you Chris. It's the same thing that Top Gear does when they test American cars. Make sure that there is every reason possible to pick the European car over the American car. However, I believe that if you are testing cars in stock form, then they should stay that way. This test in particular, because it was a track test, might have been one of those rare occasions when I would agree that maybe different tires should have been used, but in general stock tires whould always be used.
what are all these rain comments about regarding the RS's tires? They are a dual compound with the outer half devoted to dry performance and the inner half devoted to wet performance.
People are acting like they are racing slicks, and they are not.
Quote from: Lebowski on January 12, 2007, 01:26:54 PM
Wow, talk about missing the mark completely.? Where to begin ...
First, go to tirerack.com and price a set of GY Eagle F1 Supercar EMTs in ZO6 sizes and see if that impacts your "GM is cheap-assing you" theory.? They are expensive tires.? The tires do get a lot of complaints, but being cheap isn't one of them.
This is not a case of either GM cheaping out, or of one car having good tires and the other fabulous tires - we're talking about tires with totally different intended purposes.? The GT3 is the more raw version of the 911, and the RS is the more raw version of the GT3.? The GT3 RS is an extremely low volume production car with a very, very targeted (and very much enthusiast minded) market.? The ZO6 is a relatively high volume (for a $70k sports car anyway) car with a much more mainstream market.? If I could afford one, I'd have no qualms using a ZO6 as my daily driver, and I wouldn't say the same about the RS.?
Compare a ZO6 and a plain jane 911 Carrera S on a track and I doubt you'll hear anybody complaining about an unfair tire comparison.? Both of those cars can be used as daily drivers, both have tires that will last more than 5,000 miles and both have tires that won't get you killed in the rain.? The GT3 RS simply isn't meant to be a daily driver, and if someone were seriously cross shopping a GT3 RS and a ZO6 with the intention of tracking either, I'd suspect they'd be more than willing to invest in a new set of tires if they opt for the ZO6.
Lebowski: Great response, LebDude! I see that you don't miss the point, whereas ChrisV is challenged in that respect! The short answer is that Porsche lavishes fabulous tires on the GT3, whereas the Z06 has merely great tires. Yes, the Porsche's tires are expensive. Yes, they may require delicate driving in slippery road conditions. Yes, they are better tires than those on the Z06, at least when road conditions aren't slippery. Porsche reasonably assumes that when you buy a GT3, you have paid the extra bucks to have a car with a raised level of capability, and that you will sometimes wring out every ounce (or gram, perhaps) of that raised level of capability. They also assume--reasonably or not--that when you buy a GT3 that you know enough about the hazards of slippery road conditions that you will match your driving to the conditions, or that you'll swap tires to those more suitable to how you intend to drive in those conditions. Being the price that a GT3 is, a GT3 owner is expected to have the bucks and the knowledge to have sets of tires sufficient for the driving intended on the conditions encountered--or the brains to adjust the driving to stay within the limits of the tires in less than optimal conditions for the width, tread pattern, compound, and inflation pressure of the tires currently on the car.
With the Z06 able to attain 197-198 MPH, there should be tires on the car that are as good as the tires on the GT3--even if the price has to increase significantly to see that they are. At the very least they should be optional. Unless Chevy knows the owners won't ever approach the 180s, much less the 190s. Otherwise...
So the piece of plastic American junk (with a tractor engine and trail-wagon suspension) loses to the pure-bred German racing machine?
No surprise there.
:lol: :devil: :lol:
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2007, 02:13:19 PM
Lebowski:? Great response, LebDude!? I see that you don't miss the point, whereas ChrisV is challenged in that respect!? The short answer is that Porsche lavishes fabulous tires on the GT3, whereas the Z06 has merely great tires.? Yes, the Porsche's tires are expensive.? Yes, they may require delicate driving in slippery road conditions.? Yes, they are better tires than those on the Z06, at least when road conditions aren't slippery.? Porsche reasonably assumes that when you buy a GT3, you have paid the extra bucks to have a car with a raised level of capability, and that you will sometimes wring out every ounce (or gram, perhaps) of that raised level of capability.? They also assume--reasonably or not--that when you buy a GT3 that you know enough about the hazards of slippery road conditions that you will match your driving to the conditions, or that you'll swap tires to those more suitable to how you intend to drive in those conditions.? Being the price that a GT3 is, a GT3 owner is expected to have the bucks and the knowledge to have sets of tires sufficient for the driving intended on the conditions encountered--or the brains to adjust the driving to stay within the limits of the tires in less than optimal conditions for the width, tread pattern, compound, and inflation pressure of the tires currently on the car.?
With the Z06 able to attain 197-198 MPH, there should be tires on the car that are as good as the tires on the GT3--even if the price has to increase significantly to see that they are.? At the very least they should be optional.? Unless Chevy knows the owners won't ever approach the 180s, much less the 190s.? Otherwise...
Actually Goodyear Eagle Supercars blow in the rain too. They are also an asymetric tread with 1/2 for dry and 1/2 for wet. The real difference is in the stiffness of the GY EMT technology, and the harder compound that gives the SC's a more realistic wear time.
Overall non EMT SC tires (like the ones that came on my C5z06) are not quite as good as Michellin Pilot Sport 2 sport tires. Michelin PS2's are a popular (though expensive) upgrade for many Z06 owners. The Michellin sport cups that come on the RS are definitely a few steps above that. Add in the EMT side walls, and the C6z06 suffers a bit more. In fact, despite a much bigger contact patch all around, the C6 z06 doesn't really pull anymore lateral G's than it's predecessor.
I suppose that GM decided to switch to EMT for the Z06 instead of the portable inflator and leak repair kit due to safety concerns. I find this a bit conservative considering family oriented offerings like the RX8 have the inflator kit option.
I suppose that everyone's point is that the newer Z06's really haven't ever been a no compromise race ready car. It's always tried to straddle a good compromise between daily driver capability and on track fun. I mean I remember R&T had a comprision between the C5 Z06, M3, 911 , and 350z and the Z06 had the most comfortable ride. I found this hard to believe at first, but when I test drove the Z06 in comparision to the 350z, EVO, STI, s2000, and Rx8, only the Rx8 had a more supple ride. The new C6 z06 continues along the same trend. The Z06 is filled with features that make it more streetable, EMT tires, Butterfly valves to suppress noise levels, long crusing 6th gear that's useless for performance, and a livable suspension (even compared to less hardcore models).
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2007, 02:13:19 PM
Lebowski:? Great response, LebDude!? I see that you don't miss the point, whereas ChrisV is challenged in that respect!? The short answer is that Porsche lavishes fabulous tires on the GT3, whereas the Z06 has merely great tires.? Yes, the Porsche's tires are expensive.? Yes, they may require delicate driving in slippery road conditions.? Yes, they are better tires than those on the Z06, at least when road conditions aren't slippery.? Porsche reasonably assumes that when you buy a GT3, you have paid the extra bucks to have a car with a raised level of capability, and that you will sometimes wring out every ounce (or gram, perhaps) of that raised level of capability.? They also assume--reasonably or not--that when you buy a GT3 that you know enough about the hazards of slippery road conditions that you will match your driving to the conditions, or that you'll swap tires to those more suitable to how you intend to drive in those conditions.? Being the price that a GT3 is, a GT3 owner is expected to have the bucks and the knowledge to have sets of tires sufficient for the driving intended on the conditions encountered--or the brains to adjust the driving to stay within the limits of the tires in less than optimal conditions for the width, tread pattern, compound, and inflation pressure of the tires currently on the car.?
With the Z06 able to attain 197-198 MPH, there should be tires on the car that are as good as the tires on the GT3--even if the price has to increase significantly to see that they are.? At the very least they should be optional.? Unless Chevy knows the owners won't ever approach the 180s, much less the 190s.? Otherwise...
What does top speed have to do with it (I'll tell you what: nothing). As long as the tire is rated up to that speed, the top speed of the car has nothing to do with whether it should use a street versus racing tire.
Why do you say the GT3 owner is expected to have the "bucks" to have the proper tires, yet the ZO6 owner doesn't have the bucks to buy a proper set of track tires if he chooses to track it?
I still say you miss the point - it's not a great tire vs. good tire dilemna, it's an issue of the car being able to be used as a daily driver versus a 2nd or 3rd car. Porsche makes about 6 billion incarnations of the 911, and the GT3 RS is the most trackable and least intended for a daily driver out of them all. The corvette on the other hand is available in only 3 forms - coupe, vert, or ZO6. Given that, they have to make the car suitable for your typical sports car buyer as opposed to the small minority of drivers that will ever track the car.
I do agree with you though that GM should offer a track tire on the ZO6
as an option.
And 565 you are correct, the supercars aren't great in the rain. I was assuming the GT3 RS tires were even worse, but maybe that's wrong (still, I hardly think you can call the GT3s tires ideal for a daily driver).
Quote from: Lebowski on January 11, 2007, 02:18:49 PM
When testing cars with $30k+ difference in price range, why not spend the few grand to equip the cheaper car with comprable tires?
A better comparison would be putting the Vette tires on the Porsche and seeing what it did- why it always gotta be move up to the frikin Euro-trashers? Make them come down to our level for once!
GT3 tires:
(http://www.reifenversand-online.de/images/alle/Mi-PilotSportCup.jpg)
Z06 tires:
(http://www.westcoastcorvette.com/images_old/parts/ACF18B0.jpg)
I'm not bitching about the car comparison, but its true these two tires are in totally different classes. The Pilot Sport cup is at least one level above most manufacturers "Max performance" category, and kinda bridges a gap between that and DOT approved competition tires. Even the Eagle F1 GS-D3 would have fared better than those shitty Supercars.
why not bitch at GM for not making a track ready Z06 (or even giving you the option) instead of the reviewers for not trying to make it track ready like the GT3 RS? :huh:
I'd rather bitch at the reviewers for thinking this review is worth anything w/o properly tire-ing the Vette.
Quote from: SaltyDog on January 13, 2007, 02:38:01 PM
I'd rather bitch at the reviewers for thinking this review is worth anything w/o properly tire-ing the Vette.
yup.
Lebowski: LebDude, think about your quotes here:
"Why do you say the GT3 owner is expected to have the "bucks" to have the proper tires, yet the ZO6 owner doesn't have the bucks to buy a proper set of track tires if he chooses to track it?
I still say you miss the point - it's not a great tire vs. good tire dilemna, it's an issue of the car being able to be used as a daily driver versus a 2nd or 3rd car.? Porsche makes about 6 billion incarnations of the 911, and the GT3 RS is the most trackable and least intended for a daily driver out of them all.? The corvette on the other hand is available in only 3 forms - coupe, vert, or ZO6."
The GT3, as you have pointed out, "...is the most trackable and least intended for a daily driver out of them all."? That's why Porsche expects the purchasers of this "most trackable" incarnation of the 911 to have sets of tires suitable for the conditions to be encountered!? Any questions?
Now, as you have also pointed out, "...the Corvette on the other hand is available in only 3 forms - coupe, vert, or Z06."? Now, LebDude, you help us out here:? Which of these "3 forms" of the Corvette is the most trackable and least intended for a daily driver?? Is it the coupe?? Is is the vert?? Is it the Z06?? I'll bet you guessed correctly!!? That's why they tested the Z06 against the GT3...Would you have preferred that they tested the coupe against the GT3?? Would you have preferred that they tested the vert against the GT3?? I mean, shit, they paired a Z06 with a 7.0 liter engine against a Porsche with a 3.6!!!? No wonder the Z06 left the Porsche in its dust---er, wait a minute--that's actually not what happened, was it??? Or did I not understand the results...
And I repeat, whose fault is it that the Z06 doesn't have tires as capable as those on the GT3--Porsche's or Chevrolet's??? Whose fault is it that tires as good as those on the GT3 aren't even available as options on the Z06--Porsche's or Chevrolet's??? The same can be said for the interiors, of course, but neither car is bought for their respective interiors so that's a non-issue, IMO.?
Basically, the Z06 costs less--but you get less.? The GT3 costs more, but you don't need to take it to a tire dealer to buy better tires (there may not BE better tires for the GT3's weight and performance characteristics since it can lap as fast as cars whose engines are twice the displacement with the tires that come on the car) and then take it to a custom upholstery shop to get a great interior.
Different strokes for different folks...
I'd still take the GT3. There's just something about saying you drive a Porsche over a Chevy.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on January 13, 2007, 09:02:49 PM
I'd still take the GT3. There's just something about saying you drive a Porsche over a Chevy.
Dude, I keep reading stupid comments coming from you.
Quote from: Nethead on January 13, 2007, 08:59:25 PM
Lebowski: LebDude, think about your quotes here:
"Why do you say the GT3 owner is expected to have the "bucks" to have the proper tires, yet the ZO6 owner doesn't have the bucks to buy a proper set of track tires if he chooses to track it?
I still say you miss the point - it's not a great tire vs. good tire dilemna, it's an issue of the car being able to be used as a daily driver versus a 2nd or 3rd car.? Porsche makes about 6 billion incarnations of the 911, and the GT3 RS is the most trackable and least intended for a daily driver out of them all.? The corvette on the other hand is available in only 3 forms - coupe, vert, or ZO6."
The GT3, as you have pointed out, "...is the most trackable and least intended for a daily driver out of them all."? That's why Porsche expects the purchasers of this "most trackable" incarnation of the 911 to have sets of tires suitable for the conditions to be encountered!? Any questions?
Now, as you have also pointed out, "...the Corvette on the other hand is available in only 3 forms - coupe, vert, or Z06."? Now, LebDude, you help us out here:? Which of these "3 forms" of the Corvette is the most trackable and least intended for a daily driver?? Is it the coupe?? Is is the vert?? Is it the Z06?? I'll bet you guessed correctly!!? That's why they tested the Z06 against the GT3...Would you have preferred that they tested the coupe against the GT3?? Would you have preferred that they tested the vert against the GT3?? I mean, shit, they paired a Z06 with a 7.0 liter engine against a Porsche with a 3.6!!!? No wonder the Z06 left the Porsche in its dust---er, wait a minute--that's actually not what happened, was it??? Or did I not understand the results...
And I repeat, whose fault is it that the Z06 doesn't have tires as capable as those on the GT3--Porsche's or Chevrolet's??? Whose fault is it that tires as good as those on the GT3 aren't even available as options on the Z06--Porsche's or Chevrolet's??? The same can be said for the interiors, of course, but neither car is bought for their respective interiors so that's a non-issue, IMO.?
Basically, the Z06 costs less--but you get less.? The GT3 costs more, but you don't need to take it to a tire dealer to buy better tires (there may not BE better tires for the GT3's weight and performance characteristics since it can lap as fast as cars whose engines are twice the displacement with the tires that come on the car) and then take it to a custom upholstery shop to get a great interior.
Different strokes for different folks...
Use the [enter] key.? Break things up into paragraphs.?
Your displacement argument is stupid. What's the point? 7.0L vs. 3.6? Who cares - if you can get me 500hp in a $70k that weighs in at ~3100 lbs, I don't care how you do it. What exactly is the downside of using a 7.0l engine if they can do so without making the car too heavy.
And yeah, as I said the corvette is available in 3 forms, the porsche is in 8 billion. That's one of the reasons they're able to sell it at such a low price. Now, how many poeple track their cars? I don't care if you're talking abou the corvette, or the 911 (in general, I'm talking all 911s), I'm sure the number is
very small.
Here's the point: If you're chevy, why on earth would you make the ZO6 come standard with track tires that 97% of all buyers will immediately replace with street tires, when you could instead make it come with street tires that 3% of buyers will replace with track tires? For porsche, it's totally different - they have the carrera, carrera S, carrera 4, carrera 4s, turbo, gt3, and RS, they can make one of those models come with tires that suck for use on a daily driver.
Answer this: If Chevy is doing something wrong by offering the ZO6 with Street tires, then why doesn't the all knowing Porsche make the GT3 RS' tires standard on the 911 turbo?
But please, before you answer, practice for awhile on that whole paragraph thing.
Quote from: Lebowski on January 13, 2007, 09:47:57 PM
Use the [enter] key. Break things up into paragraphs. When you do that I'll go back and read your post.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: VetteZ06 on January 11, 2007, 03:27:09 PM
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. It's Z-zero-6, not Z-oh-6. Zero. Not the letter "O."
And Nethead, I'm going to have to agree with Hemi about all of the "if Porsche built a 7.0L engine to compete with the LS7 it would be so much better" comments. Until they do, all you're doing is speculating, which, for all intents and purposes, is meaningless. Your post vaguely reminds me of the visit I paid to a Porsche enthusiast website a while ago, which was full of a bunch of condescending elitists who looked down on the Corvette for being "crude." If all the Corvette needed was a better set of tires to beat the Porsche around a track, I suppose all of that "fancier" technology was being put to good use, eh? I'm not trying to be a total prick here, but as most of you well know, I love the Corvette.
Coincidentally, VetteZ06 here would take the Corvette. :devil:
I have always wanted a Corvette for two reasons:
1. Its looks.
2. The fact that people can be snobbish about them.
I am one person that doesn't like to do what everybody else is doing. I'd buy one just to be "subversive".
Quote from: Nethead on January 13, 2007, 08:59:25 PM
I mean, shit, they paired a Z06 with a 7.0 liter engine against a Porsche with a 3.6!!!? No wonder the Z06 left the Porsche in its dust---er, wait a minute--that's actually not what happened, was it??? Or did I not understand the results...
Still beating that dead horse, I see? I like your tactic - say it as many times as possible with the hope that it will become increasingly more relevant/meaningful every time you say it. We'll see how that works.
QuoteDifferent strokes for different folks...
How very insincere of you.
One can surely bet that manufacturers used tire selection as a critical component of suspension design and tuning for vehicles of this ilk.
The 911 needs its engine as small as possible owing to its rear-engined position, so I don't think 7L would work. Just continue to design it to move more air via more valves and revs. Much more scalable than big jumps in engine displacement.
one would think the GT3 engine size is engineered around the GT class road racing rules
VetteZ06 & Lebowski: ChrisV would have us believe that the low 400 HP Porsche GT3 beat the low 500 HP Corvette Z06 strictly because of its tires. I'm sure neither of you are that brand blind...right? There are tires and there are tires but I've never seen a set that's worth 100 horsepower on cars that have very high performance tires to begin with. And neither have you or anyone else. I'm confident enough in the GT3's ability to predict that if you put the Z06's tires on wheels that'll bolt up to the GT3, that the GT3 will still be as quick around the track as the Z06. It might be a little quicker around the track than the Z06 even with the Z06's tires. This will be hard to prove, of course. But equally hard to disprove, huh?
Did this article give the drive away price of the GT3 and the Z06 in Germany, where the testing took place? After all, some in this topic talk about all the money you'd save by buying the Z06--but that's if you buy it here. It was a German mag testing in Germany, and they may have picked the GT3 and the Z06 because of the near parity in prices due to import tariffs applying to the Z06 that would not apply to the domestic (for them) GT3. For Germans, there may be no savings that could be put towards a set of the Porsche's tires in sizes that fit the Z06's wheels.
But what we have here are too few facts: How much was the Z06 and how much was the GT3--and I mean the "drive away" retail price in Germany, not the prices of the two cars in countries where this test did not occur? The facts we do have are that with the best tires available on the Z06 (and aren't these the only tires available on the Z06?) and perhaps the best tires Porsche makes available on the GT3, there was near parity in performance around the track where the test occurred, with the GT3 pulling a slightly quicker time in its fastest lap versus the fastest lap of the Z06. The Z06's extra roughly 100 HP pulled away on the straights, but the Porsche caught right back up in the corners.
Is anyone reading this shocked by this?????? If yes, why??????
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2007, 10:47:22 AM
The 911 needs its engine as small as possible owing to its rear-engined position, so I don't think 7L would work. Just continue to design it to move more air via more valves and revs. Much more scalable than big jumps in engine displacement.
the 911's engine weighs as much as the Corvette's, as is realized by those that do the LS
x conversion to 911s.
Quote from: Nethead on January 16, 2007, 11:37:47 AM
VetteZ06 & Lebowski: ChrisV would have us believe that the low 400 HP Porsche GT3 beat the low 500 HP Corvette Z06 strictly because of its tires. I'm sure neither of you are that brand blind...right?
Caling me BRAND BLIND? I'm not even a Chevy fan. I'm an Ex PCA member ,and have owned 3 911s, raced 2 of them, and a few other Porsches, as well as worked on many other racing Porches. Jesus CHRIST. I've been racing in SCCA for a couple DECADES. I've SEEN the difference TIRES FUCKING MAKE you SHITHEEL.
God DAMN. That REALLY pissed me off.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 16, 2007, 12:19:44 PM
Caling me BRAND BLIND? I'm not even a Chevy fan. I'm an Ex PCA member ,and have owned 3 911s, raced 2 of them, and a few other Porsches, as well as worked on many other racing Porches. Jesus CHRIST. I've been racing in SCCA for a couple DECADES. I've SEEN the difference TIRES FUCKING MAKE you SHITHEEL.
God DAMN. That REALLY pissed me off.
Shitheel? :huh:
Quote from: ChrisV on January 16, 2007, 12:17:24 PM
the 911's engine weighs as much as the Corvette's, as is realized by those that do the LSx conversion to 911s.
Now that one I'd have to see proof of owing to a flat's efficiency in block material usage.
Let's calm down people. We don't want another C&D here, do we?
Quote from: Nethead on January 16, 2007, 11:37:47 AM
VetteZ06 & Lebowski:? ChrisV would have us believe that the low 400 HP Porsche GT3 beat the low 500 HP Corvette Z06 strictly because of its tires.? I'm sure neither of you are that brand blind...right?
I'm obviously biased (my namesake should remove any doubt with regards to that subject), but I'm not blind. Far from it.
Give the Z06 a set of tires equivalent to the GT3, and I think its track time would've been a bit different. The fact that they mentioned the tires as a disadvantage more than a few times throughout the article lends some credence to such a thought.
The Porsche probably made up some time in the corners, but that doesn't mean it won because it handled better. The Corvette was at a clear disadvantage with its stock rubber. Perhaps Chevrolet could make said better tires an option. :huh:
Quote from: VetteZ06 on January 16, 2007, 02:30:09 PM
I'm obviously biased (my namesake should remove any doubt with regards to that subject), but I'm not blind. Far from it.
Give the Z06 a set of tires equivalent to the GT3, and I think its track time would've been a bit different. The fact that they mentioned the tires as a disadvantage more than a few times throughout the article lends some credence to such a thought.
The Porsche probably made up some time in the corners, but that doesn't mean it won because it handled better. The Corvette was at a clear disadvantage with its stock rubber. Perhaps Chevrolet could make said better tires an option. :huh:
Maybe the two cars shouldn't have been compared at all considering they are directed at two different buyers. The GT3 is directed at people who will be taking it to the track quite often. The Z06 is not. I think it speaks volumes of the Z06 that they felt they had to compare it against a car that is practically built specifically for the track.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on January 16, 2007, 02:30:09 PM
I'm obviously biased (my namesake should remove any doubt with regards to that subject), but I'm not blind. Far from it.
Give the Z06 a set of tires equivalent to the GT3, and I think its track time would've been a bit different. The fact that they mentioned the tires as a disadvantage more than a few times throughout the article lends some credence to such a thought.
The Porsche probably made up some time in the corners, but that doesn't mean it won because it handled better. The Corvette was at a clear disadvantage with its stock rubber. Perhaps Chevrolet could make said better tires an option. :huh:
My bet is with equal tires, the Porsche would still handle better, but the Z06's better ability to get its power to the ground on corner exits would give it the time advantage. That said, I still want the 911, though I take nothing away from the Z06. It's quite a machine.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=7185.msg337745#msg337745 date=1168988005
My bet is with equal tires, the Porsche would still handle better, but the Z06's better ability to get its power to the ground on corner exits would give it the time advantage.? That said, I still want the 911, though I take nothing away from the Z06.? It's quite a machine.
Porsche whore.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 16, 2007, 03:05:04 PM
Maybe the two cars shouldn't have been compared at all considering they are directed at two different buyers.? The GT3 is directed at people who will be taking it to the track quite often.? The Z06 is not.? I think it speaks volumes of the Z06 that they felt they had to compare it against a car that is practically built specifically for the track.
what advantage does a Z06 have over a normal vette if your not taking it to the track?
Quote from: r0tor on January 16, 2007, 05:05:47 PM
what advantage does a Z06 have over a normal vette if your not taking it to the track?
At the very least, the same advantage and S65 AMG has over an S550.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=7185.msg337745#msg337745 date=1168988005
My bet is with equal tires, the Porsche would still handle better, but the Z06's better ability to get its power to the ground on corner exits would give it the time advantage.? That said, I still want the 911, though I take nothing away from the Z06.? It's quite a machine.
If anything I would think that the 911 would be better at getting power to the ground. It has alot more weight over the rear tires. After all thats the 911 mantra, "Slow in, fast out".
Quote from: JYODER240 on January 16, 2007, 07:51:10 PM
If anything I would think that the 911 would be better at getting power to the ground. It has alot more weight over the rear tires. After all thats the 911 mantra, "Slow in, fast out".
Yes, but this time is what the RS ran on those tires; it has no place to go. The Z06, having the extra grip, will be able to put more power on the ground when exiting corners, the area in which I surmise the Corvette lost the most time. I have no doubt that the RS is faster in the corner, but the Z06's extra power isn't making it any faster on the default tires. If you go to grippier tires, you get more time at WOT.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=7185.msg338074#msg338074 date=1169003580
Yes, but this time is what the RS ran on those tires; it has no place to go.? The Z06, having the extra grip, will be able to put more power on the ground when exiting corners, the area in which I surmise the Corvette lost the most time.? I have no doubt that the RS is faster in the corner, but the Z06's extra power isn't making it any faster on the default tires.? If you go to grippier tires, you get more time at WOT.?
I misunderstood what you were trying to say in your original post, nevermind.
ChrisV: The Nethead here has shit on my heel from stomping you in the head.
Now that that is settled, on to the full statement I made and not an excerpt out of context:
"ChrisV would have us believe that the low 400 HP Porsche GT3 beat the low 500 HP Corvette Z06 strictly because of its tires. I'm sure neither of you are that brand blind...right? There are tires and there are tires but I've never seen a set that's worth 100 horsepower on cars that have very high performance tires to begin with."
Whether you admit it or not, the Z06 has great tires. The GT3 has fabulous tires, at least for a dry track. But the difference between "great" and "fabulous" does not make up the difference of around 100 horsepower--even if the Porsche's tires are as wide as the Z06's (anyone got the figures on that?), which ain't likely even in a GT3.
There's more to the parity in speed than tires alone. I presume both these cars have upper and lower A-arm independent suspensions, but the Porsche uses coil springs and the Z06 uses transverse leaf springs. The Corvette has good weight distribution front to rear; the Porsche has great weight distribution front to rear, at least for a dry track. The Porsche brakes later going into a curve; the Corvette accelerates harder coming out of a curve, as would be expected with its approximately 100 horsepower advantage.
The fastest laps of both were nearly equal, although that roughly half-second advantage of the GT3 is admittedly several car lengths at the speeds these cars were attaining on that track. One has more engine, one has more suspension. What the driver reported sounds like what anyone should expect; and no one should be shocked--or upset--at those quite predictable results.
Did anyone get the prices in Germany for these cars?
So what do you think would happen if the Corvette had "fantastic" tires?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on January 17, 2007, 03:57:35 PM
So what do you think would happen if the Corvette had "fantastic" tires?
It would asplode :huh:
Ah, yes. Makes perfect sense. :praise:
Quote from: Nethead on January 17, 2007, 11:56:01 AM
ChrisV:? The Nethead here has shit on my heel from stomping you in the head.?
Now that that is settled, on to the full statement I made and not an excerpt out of context:
"ChrisV would have us believe that the low 400 HP Porsche GT3 beat the low 500 HP Corvette Z06 strictly because of its tires.? I'm sure neither of you are that brand blind...right?? There are tires and there are tires but I've never seen a set that's worth 100 horsepower on cars that have very high performance tires to begin with."
Whether you admit it or not, the Z06 has great tires.? The GT3 has fabulous tires, at least for a dry track.? But the difference between "great" and "fabulous" does not make up the difference of around 100 horsepower--even if the Porsche's tires are as wide as the Z06's (anyone got the figures on that?), which ain't likely even in a GT3.
There's more to the parity in speed than tires alone.? I presume both these cars have upper and lower A-arm independent suspensions, but the Porsche uses coil springs and the Z06 uses transverse leaf springs.? The Corvette has good weight distribution front to rear; the Porsche has great weight distribution front to rear, at least for a dry track.? The Porsche brakes later going into a curve; the Corvette accelerates harder coming out of a curve, as would be expected with its approximately 100 horsepower advantage.?
The fastest laps of both were nearly equal, although that roughly half-second advantage of the GT3 is admittedly several car lengths at the speeds these cars were attaining on that track.? One has more engine, one has more suspension.? What the driver reported sounds like what anyone should expect; and no one should be shocked--or upset--at those quite predictable results.
Did anyone get the prices in Germany for these cars?
The GT3 in Germany is 110.878,00 Euros. The Z06 in America is 70K USD. At todays exchange rate, that makes the Corvette 54,110.4883 Euros. The GT3 is more then twice as much as the Corvette. Even if you tack on, lets say, 20 grand for shipping and such, the Vette is still a bargin.
And given how close the times were and given the fact that the testor attributed the slower cornering TO THE TIRES, it is LOGICAL to say that with BETTER RUBBER, the Vette can make FASTER TIMES.
It is pretty easy.
Quote from: Nethead on January 17, 2007, 11:56:01 AM
ChrisV:? ? I presume both these cars have upper and lower A-arm independent suspensions, but the Porsche uses coil springs and the Z06 uses transverse leaf springs.? The Corvette has good weight distribution front to rear; the Porsche has great weight distribution front to rear, at least for a dry track.? One has more engine, one has more suspension.?
You presumed incorrectly. The Z06 uses upper and lower A arm independent suspensions all around. The Porsche makes due with MacPherson front strut design. A MacPherson strut design is a fundementally flawed setup that has trouble keeping the wheels at a consistent angle to the ground at extreme suspension travel. The primary purpose of the MacPherson design is to save space and cut costs on mainstream sedans. The 911 uses a multilink rear design as well. In terms of sheer design, the 911 uses a much more mainstream setup than the Z06's race car like double wishbone all around suspension setup. That said, execution in suspensions is as important as design (if not more so), and the 911 makes the most of it's inferior setup with extremely good tuning.
Also as with all 911's the GT3 has an extremely flawed weight distribution compared to the nearly ideal 50/50 of the Z06. Not enough weight over the front wheels cause all recent 911's to understeer on turn in. Also too much weight overhanging the rear wheels causes unpredictable oversteer characteristics.
The 911 has always been an extremely odd design that no other sportscar manufacture has bothered to emulate. It's astonishing that Porsche engineerings have managed to make it as capable as it is.
I believe that Jeremy Clarkson said it best. "The engine's in the wrong place, but instead of fixing it, Porshce engineers have stubbornly tried to engineer around the problem."
The 911 is truly an example of the triumph of sheer will and determination over common sense.
The 911 is good, but as they put more and more power into it, it's going to have trouble with the engine in the rear.
Quote from: 565 on January 17, 2007, 06:20:20 PM
You presumed incorrectly. The Z06 uses upper and lower A arm independent suspensions all around. The Porsche makes due with MacPherson front strut design. A MacPherson strut design is a fundementally flawed setup that has trouble keeping the wheels at a consistent angle to the ground at extreme suspension travel. The primary purpose of the MacPherson design is to save space and cut costs on mainstream sedans. The 911 uses a multilink rear design as well. In terms of sheer design, the 911 uses a much more mainstream setup than the Z06's race car like double wishbone all around suspension setup. That said, execution in suspensions is as important as design (if not more so), and the 911 makes the most of it's inferior setup with extremely good tuning.
Also as with all 911's the GT3 has an extremely flawed weight distribution compared to the nearly ideal 50/50 of the Z06. Not enough weight over the front wheels cause all recent 911's to understeer on turn in. Also too much weight overhanging the rear wheels causes unpredictable oversteer characteristics.
The 911 has always been an extremely odd design that no other sportscar manufacture has bothered to emulate. It's astonishing that Porsche engineerings have managed to make it as capable as it is.
I believe that Jeremy Clarkson said it best. "The engine's in the wrong place, but instead of fixing it, Porshce engineers have stubbornly tried to engineer around the problem."
The 911 is truly an example of the triumph of sheer will and determination over common sense.
Which is why I love it so much :praise:
So a conundrum of sorts: pushrods and leaf springs vs. rear engine and strut/multi-link. (No brainer IMO.)
Quote from: GoCougs on January 17, 2007, 06:50:48 PM
So a conundrum of sorts: pushrods and leaf springs vs. rear engine and strut/multi-link. (No brainer IMO.)
Yup, pushrods and leafsprings for me. By the way, can anyone please explain to people like me who don't quite understand how the leaf springs work (and the people who rag on the Vette for using leaf springs) exactly what they do? Because I believe the Vette uses coil overs at all 4 corners, so what do the leafs actualy do?
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 17, 2007, 07:44:25 PM
Yup, pushrods and leafsprings for me.? By the way, can anyone please explain to people like me who don't quite understand how the leaf springs work (and the people who rag on the Vette for using leaf springs) exactly what they do?? Because I believe the Vette uses coil overs at all 4 corners, so what do the leafs actualy do?
Actually, no coils
anywhere. The leafs (mono actually) run left to right under the car (much like a sway bar) connecting the two lower A-frames. The spring is bolted to the chassis in its center. That's it for "springs" as far as the Corvette is concerned. See the inherent issue?
(http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4528/leafs29qeyc8.jpg)
Hmm, I thought they ran parallel to the body on each side of the car?
Quote from: Raghavan on January 17, 2007, 07:56:31 PM
Hmm, I thought they ran parallel to the body on each side of the car?
They do on trucks, lumber wagons, and probably 99% of vehicles that have them for that matter, but not on the vette.
Douchebag.
Oh, that's a cool setup.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 17, 2007, 06:50:48 PM
So a conundrum of sorts: pushrods and leaf springs vs. rear engine and strut/multi-link. (No brainer IMO.)
They're both flawed. I haven't driven a C6 or 997 but i've driven a few C5's and 996's. Its no contest the 911 is easily my favorite. It doesn't have the power of the Vette but its much more involving to drive. The C5 feels massive, and i can't stand its gearbox. I enjoy driving my Z more than the C5.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 17, 2007, 07:44:25 PM
Because I believe the Vette uses coil overs at all 4 corners, so what do the leafs actualy do?
They make the Corvette an inferior car. :ohyeah:
Quote from: VetteZ06 on January 17, 2007, 09:23:35 PM
They make the Corvette an inferior car. :ohyeah:
The fact that it's American makes it an inferior car.
Transverse leaf springs were fairly common on sportscars through the 1960s. The original Cobras (260s, then 289s) used multi-leaf transverse leaf springs combined with A-arms through 1963, which was the suspension inherited from the AC Ace that became the Cobra. With the power (and especially the torque) available in the 427, Carroll Shelby and Pete Brock sought the more responsive and quicker-reacting coils on all four corners, along with upper and lower A-arms on all four. The coils were a major improvement, and this was before variable-rate coils. In fact, it was transverse leafspring independent sportscar suspensions that gave Ford engineer Fred MacPherson the idea to develop a coil spring version of that sportscar suspension way back in 1948, I believe it was. That suspension he developed bears his name to this day.
The Nethead here wasn't certain what suspension was underneath the GT3 (hence the "presumably")--and I stand corrected by 565--who has informed us that MacPherson struts are on the front of the GT3. The springs are coils, as in the many BMWs that use MacPherson struts with coils. MacPherson struts do have geometry problems at extreme suspension travel, but that's probably not an issue on pavement vehicles like it is with ORVs--even at great speed in corners, Porsches stay very flat. BMWs, too. But so do all really fast sportscars and racecars, many of which have very modest suspension travel limits. And the GT3's suspension surely works--down 100 horsepower, not benefiting from the Z06's 50-50 weight distribution, and not benefiting from the Z06's racecar-like suspension, the GT3 kept right with the Z06 around the racetrack. In fact, the GT3 was a little faster--but that half-second per lap may be the difference between the Z06's great tires and the Porsche's fantastic tires. It's the whole car, after all, that's put to the test at the limits of performance.
And whomever quoted exchange rates as an indication of what a Z06 costs in Germany has obviously never purchased an imported car in Germany! I have--OK, technically a motorcycle. In 1971, I bought the first vehicle I ever owned (and still have it)--the European spec 1971 Honda CB-750 Four for 5,106 Deutchsmarks. Since I was a GI, I could buy the cycle tax-free and import-duty-free provided I signed a contract that specified that I was (a) not a resident of West Germany, (b) that I would export the vehicle, and (c) that I would have to pay the Bundesrepublik both the original taxes and the original import duties if I ever sold the motorcycle within West Germany. If I had been a West German citizen or a permanent non-citizen resident of West Germany, that motorcycle would have cost me over 8,000 Deutschmarks. The Common Market (or European Union, if you prefer) may have changed that ratio of 5,106 to 8,000+ somewhat, but it may be even more lopsided today. Even back then, taxes and import duties were over 3,000 DMarks on a 5,106 DMarks vehicle. Apply that ratio to the currency-converted US price of a Z06, and expect your result to be somewhere short of what a German citizen would probably have to pay in 2007 to drive a Z06 away from a dealership.
The Nethead here is on a roll. Oh baby. :pee:
Quote from: Nethead on January 17, 2007, 10:34:47 PM
And whomever quoted exchange rates as an indication of what a Z06 costs in Germany has obviously never purchased an imported car in Germany!? I have--OK, technically a motorcycle.? In 1971, I bought the first vehicle I ever owned (and still have it)--the European spec 1971 Honda CB-750 Four for 5,106 Deutchsmarks.? Since I was a GI, I could buy the cycle tax-free and import-duty-free provided I signed a contract that specified that I was (a) not a resident of West Germany, (b) that I would export the vehicle, and (c) that I would have to pay the Bundesrepublik both the original taxes and the original import duties if I ever sold the motorcycle within West Germany.? If I had been a West German citizen or a permanent non-citizen resident of West Germany, that motorcycle would have cost me over 8,000 Deutschmarks.? The Common Market (or European Union, if you prefer) may have changed that ratio of 5,106 to 8,000+ somewhat, but it may be even more lopsided today.? Even back then, taxes and import duties were over 3,000 DMarks on a 5,106 DMarks vehicle.? Apply that ratio to the currency-converted US price of a Z06, and expect your result to be somewhere short of what a German citizen would probably have to pay in 2007 to drive a Z06 away from a dealership.?
The Southdiver here....
I lived in Germany for almost 4 years. I owned German cars and (drum roll) American cars purchased while over there.
Both prices that I quoted were pre tax prices. Also, this is not 1971, it is 2007 and the rules have changed quite a bit since the nethead was in germany.
Do you really expect me to believe that a 55K euro car will be 110K euro car simply because of taxes?
A good example...
in 1993, I bought a H-D Wide Glyde from PX sales. Picked it up in Mintz Kastel and rode it back to Augsburg. I sold it the next day for 35K American. The exchange rate was right aroung 1.63 to 1.65 I wrote that he gave me 12K American for the bike. He ended up paying less then 20K American once all was said and done. I can't remember exactly how many DM it was.
Things have changed.
southdiver1: Yo, SouthDude!? Thank you for the prompt and informative reply!? It's good that import duties have changed in Germany--although American vehicles sold in Germany still constitute a small percentage of annual vehicle sales there.? Still, American vehicles need all the foreign sales they can get!? The exchange rate when I got there was 3 DeutschMarks, 62 pfennigs per dollar--but once that started dropping it seemed like we got fewer and fewer DMarks every payday.? It was still over 3-to-1 when I finished my twenty months...
Back then, 5,106 DMarks would buy a good used VW, or one of the six greatest bikes on Earth at the time.? For the Nethead here, there was never a question as to which one to do!
so would everyone also like for the magazine to retune the Z06's suspension after putting on the stickier tires to get rid of the increased body roll from stickier tires?
Quote from: r0tor on January 18, 2007, 05:54:58 AM
so would everyone also like for the magazine to retune the Z06's suspension after putting on the stickier tires to get rid of the increased body roll from stickier tires?
The magazine should probably replace that archaic leaf spring too. :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on January 18, 2007, 05:54:58 AM
so would everyone also like for the magazine to retune the Z06's suspension after putting on the stickier tires to get rid of the increased body roll from stickier tires?
No..
I would like for a magazine to go ahead and put the SAME tires on BOTH cars. Nothing more or less.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 17, 2007, 07:51:20 PM
Actually, no coils anywhere. The leafs (mono actually) run left to right under the car (much like a sway bar) connecting the two lower A-frames. The spring is bolted to the chassis in its center. That's it for "springs" as far as the Corvette is concerned. See the inherent issue?
(http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4528/leafs29qeyc8.jpg)
Thanks a lot for that Cougs. I'm not a huge Vette fan so I don't pay a lot of attention to the suspension setup like I would on say a Mustang. Frankly I don't see the inherent issue if the car handles and performs as well as it does. I would like to see GM try coilovers on a test mule to see how the handling changes though.
Quote from: southdiver1 on January 18, 2007, 07:21:30 AM
No..
I would like for a magazine to go ahead and put the SAME tires on BOTH cars. Nothing more or less.
chassis tuning is done with specific tires in mind... you can't change the tires without hampering the suspension setup which is why they always test with OEM tires. So suddenly they stick on grippier tires and now the vette has a noticeable increase in body roll and a lack of responsiveness - which would bring up even more complaining.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 18, 2007, 07:22:43 AM
Thanks a lot for that Cougs.? I'm not a huge Vette fan so I don't pay a lot of attention to the suspension setup like I would on say a Mustang.? Frankly I don't see the inherent issue if the car handles and performs as well as it does.? I would like to see GM try coilovers on a test mule to see how the handling changes though.
I'm sure GM has, and decided to keep the Composite transverse springs. I went to Wikipedia :rockon: and pulled some info on these transverse leaf springs. The Pros and Cons may surprise you.
"Advantages of transverse leaf springs
Less unsprung weight. Coil springs contribute to unsprung weight; the less there is, the more quickly the wheel can respond at a given spring rate.
Less weight. The C4 Corvette's composite front leaf weighed 1/3 as much as the pair of conventional coil springs it would replace.
Weight is positioned lower. Coil springs and the associated chassis hard mounts raise the center of gravity of the car.
Superior wear characteristics. The Corvette's composite leaf springs last longer than coils, though in a car as light as the Corvette, the difference is not especially significant. No composite Corvette leaf has ever been replaced due to fatigue failure, though steel leafs from 1963 to 1980 have been.
As used on the Corvette, ride height can be adjusted by changing the length of the end links connecting the leaf to the suspension arms. This allows small changes in ride height with minimal effects on the spring rate.
Also as used on the Corvette, the leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar, allowing for smaller and lighter bars than if the car were equipped with coil springs.
Disadvantages of transverse leaf springs
Packaging can be problematic; the leaf must span from one side of the car to the other. This can limit applications where the drivetrain, or another part, is in the way.
Materials expense. Steel coils are commodity items; a single composite leaf spring costs more than two of them. Design complexity. Composite monoleafs allow for considerable variety in shape, thickness, and materials. They are inherently more expensive to design, particularly in performance applications. Susceptibility to damage. Engine fluids and exhaust modifications like cat-back removal might weaken or destroy composite springs over time. The spring is more susceptible to heat related damage than conventional steel springs.
Perception. Like pushrod engines, the leaf spring has a stigma that overshadows its advantages. "
As you can see, the composite leaf is actually a more expensive setup than simple steel coils. I mean a simple Chevy Aveo comes with steel coils, but only the Corvette uses these composite leaf springs.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 18, 2007, 07:22:43 AM
Thanks a lot for that Cougs.? I'm not a huge Vette fan so I don't pay a lot of attention to the suspension setup like I would on say a Mustang.? Frankly I don't see the inherent issue if the car handles and performs as well as it does.? I would like to see GM try coilovers on a test mule to see how the handling changes though.
The inherent issue is that there is one single suspension memeber acting as two. This creates two problems. First, beam theory tells us that deflection on one side of the spring gives us deflection on the other (though in practical terms solidly clamping the spring in the center counteracts this). Second, the interaction of these two deflections can induce a harmonic(s) into the spring (causes resonance).
Corvette suspenion engineers are very smart, so I've confidence that a portion of these issues (and others) have been addressed to some extent, but the design is far less than optimal, and no doubt responsible for the Corvette's reputation for a brittle ride and twitchy handling. Just as with the 911's rear engine, BMW's in-line 6, and other vestiges that other car makers left behind, leaf springs on the Corvette are a legacy hold-over dating back to the early '60s and the C2.
one would ask if the leaf springs truely has no performance drawbacks, why is an adjustable coil-over used in the C6-R... http://www.corvetteracing.com/cars/c6r/chassis_specs.shtml
Quote from: southdiver1 on January 17, 2007, 04:41:15 PM
The GT3 in Germany is 110.878,00 Euros. The Z06 in America is 70K USD. At todays exchange rate, that makes the Corvette 54,110.4883 Euros. The GT3 is more then twice as much as the Corvette. Even if you tack on, lets say, 20 grand for shipping and such, the Vette is still a bargin.
And given how close the times were and given the fact that the testor attributed the slower cornering TO THE TIRES, it is LOGICAL to say that with BETTER RUBBER, the Vette can make FASTER TIMES.
It is pretty easy.
You have to use in-market prices, you can't use exchange rates. If you do that, then every 3 series in Australia costs 900 thousand dollars.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=7185.msg339398#msg339398 date=1169135495
You have to use in-market prices, you can't use exchange rates.? If you do that, then every 3 series in Australia costs 900 thousand dollars.
And while I agree with that, I really have no way of really knowing what these cars are going for in Germany. Even if they are going to 100K Euros, it is STILL less then the GT3
Quote from: r0tor on January 18, 2007, 08:50:46 AM
one would ask if the leaf springs truely has no performance drawbacks, why is an adjustable coil-over used in the C6-R... http://www.corvetteracing.com/cars/c6r/chassis_specs.shtml
You answered your own question.
The adjustable coil overs are used because they are... adjustable, while leaf springs are not. On a race car, you need to be able to change spring stiffness to adapt to changing conditions. If the C6-R used leaf springs, they'd have to swap out different stiffness leafsprings, which would be a pain. On a roadcar, the coils provided usually aren't adjustible anyway, so it makes no difference.
The MORE interesting question is the flipside. If coil overs from the C5-R/C6-R really did provide some performance advantage, why didn't they make their way into the C6? A myraid of developments made on the C5R racecar later influenced the design of the C6 and C6 Z06, including exposed headlamps, longer wheelbase, and 7.0 liter smallblock and dry sump for the Z06. One would think that with all the racing success of the C5R's with coil overs, and considering how cheaper they are, they'd be the obvious C5R derived improvement to be carried over to the C6.
Continued use of the transverse leafspring on the Corvette is not a cheap proposition. It's pretty much the only car in GM's lineup that uses the setup. All of GM's other cars use cheap conventional steel springs. It would be extremely cost effective for GM to eliminate the complex composition transverse spring setup. GM has ample testing of coilovers used in a Corvette application with the C5R and C6R racing projects. GM chooses to continue the transverse composite leafspring design because there must be benefits that outweigh the obvious costs.
Quote from: southdiver1 on January 18, 2007, 09:05:54 AM
And while I agree with that, I really have no way of really knowing what these cars are going for in Germany. Even if they are going to 100K Euros, it is STILL less then the GT3
Considering neither Chevrolet's German or UK sites have the Corvette or Z06 listed, it will probably have to be imported through a third party, and that could potentially even up the prices more than you think. Look at what we have to do import a car that isn't sold in the US. Some C&D columnist said it would cost over a million dollars to import a Fiat Panda (this, admittedly, is because no one had ever imported the Panda before, so he would have to buy at least a dozen for crash testing).
EDIT: A search on Evo.co.uk has them pricing a 2005 Z06 at 59K GBP, which is not really that much compared to the GT3 RS, which taps in at 94K GBP.
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 09:10:41 AM
GM chooses to continue the transverse composite leafspring design because there must be benefits that outweigh the obvious costs.
Legacy hold-over is my vote; just as with the 911's rear engine or BMW's in-line 6.
I have a tough time buying the expense argument ("they must be better because Chevy could've saved money on coils"). The Corvette is all about bargain performance. Further, a good portion of "expense" is labor for installation. Two mono leafs look quite a bit easier to install than four coils.
If the advantages were there, Porsche, Ferrari, et al., and race series with flexibility on suspension types, would use 'em.
Lastly, I don't know if one can get variable spring rate with leafs. If so, I don't see how. If not, that explains it.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=7185.msg339414#msg339414 date=1169136774
Considering neither Chevrolet's German or UK sites have the Corvette or Z06 listed, it will probably have to be imported through a third party, and that could potentially even up the prices more than you think.? Look at what we have to do import a car that isn't sold in the US.? Some C&D columnist said it would cost over a million dollars to import a Fiat Panda (this, admittedly, is because no one had ever imported the Panda before, so he would have to buy at least a dozen for crash testing).
EDIT:? A search on Evo.co.uk has them pricing a 2005 Z06 at 59K GBP, which is not really that much compared to the GT3 RS, which taps in at 94K GBP.?
http://www.corvette-europe.com/index.aspx?ChapterID=2837&FilterID=998
It looks like to me that you need to actually contact a local (German) dealer to get a price. I admit Mein Deutch is not that great so I might be missing it somewhere...
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 09:10:41 AM
You answered your own question.?
The adjustable coil overs are used because they are... adjustable, while leaf springs are not.? On a race car, you need to be able to change spring stiffness to adapt to changing conditions.? If the C6-R used leaf springs, they'd have to swap out different stiffness leafsprings, which would be a pain.? On a roadcar, the coils provided usually aren't? adjustible anyway, so it makes no difference.
The MORE interesting question is the flipside.? If coil overs from the C5-R/C6-R really did provide some performance advantage, why didn't they make their way into the C6? A myraid of developments made on the C5R racecar later influenced the design of the C6 and C6 Z06, including exposed headlamps, longer wheelbase, and 7.0 liter smallblock and dry sump for the Z06.? One would think that with all the racing success of the C5R's with coil overs, and considering how cheaper they are, they'd be the obvious C5R derived improvement to be carried over to the C6.
Continued use of the transverse leafspring on the Corvette is not a cheap proposition.? It's pretty much the only car in GM's lineup that uses the setup.? All of GM's other cars use cheap conventional steel springs.? It would be extremely cost effective for GM to eliminate the complex composition transverse spring setup.? GM has ample testing of coilovers used in a Corvette application with the C5R and C6R racing projects.? GM chooses to continue the transverse composite leafspring design because there must be benefits that outweigh the obvious costs.
Leaf spring stiffness is just as easily chaged as coil spring stiffness - you just need to change the springs. Of course with the leaf spring you are more or less stuck with equal spring rates on both sides. An adjustable shock can be used with either, and ride height can be adjusted with either.
My best guess is (as another poster stated) the transverse leaf spring is just a legacy hold-over like the the pushrod engine.... you can throw buckets of money to make something work well, but at the end of the day there are better alternatives.
Quote from: southdiver1 on January 18, 2007, 09:22:24 AM
http://www.corvette-europe.com/index.aspx?ChapterID=2837&FilterID=998
It looks like to me that you need to actually contact a local (German) dealer to get a price. I admit Mein Deutch is not that great so I might be missing it somewhere...
Well, either way, there's no doubt anymore that the Z06 is wildly cheaper and just as fast around a track (although I imagine this has a lot to do with the track; around Bedford West, the Z06 ran a 1.24.45, with a peak of 118.1 mph, which is only slightly quicker than a Carrera S, which ran 1.24.60, with a peak of
108.2).
For me, though, it's still the 911. It always has been, and I assume it always will be. And that
is my bias, and I don't mind if anyone quotes me on that.
bedfore west, eh? did you read their fastest track test.
Quote from: heelntoe on January 18, 2007, 09:32:38 AM
bedfore west, eh? did you read their fastest track test.
I might have. I don't have the newest issue, I have to get that still. The last issue I had was eCOTY, and I'm still fuming about that.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 18, 2007, 08:46:37 AM
The inherent issue is that there is one single suspension memeber acting as two. This creates two problems. First, beam theory tells us that deflection on one side of the spring gives us deflection on the other (though in practical terms solidly clamping the spring in the center counteracts this). Second, the interaction of these two deflections can induce a harmonic(s) into the spring (causes resonance).
Corvette suspenion engineers are very smart, so I've confidence that a portion of these issues (and others) have been addressed to some extent, but the design is far less than optimal, and no doubt responsible for the Corvette's reputation for a brittle ride and twitchy handling. Just as with the 911's rear engine, BMW's in-line 6, and other vestiges that other car makers left behind, leaf springs on the Corvette are a legacy hold-over dating back to the early '60s and the C2.
There is no issue with a single leaf spring secured at two points rather than two seperate leaf springs. First off, in middle section of the spring is arched and flush with the metal crossmember. Any resonance or harmonics generated by one portion of the spring must be transfered to the other side by vibrational motion in this middle portion. Also the magnitude of motion transfered (if any) would depend on the maximum limit of motion allowed by the portion of the spring that transfers the energy. Yet this middle portion already is permantly held in a flexed position, and there is no further motion possible.
The faults of the Corvette's handling is not in the springs, but rather in rather lackluster shock tuning and in less on track testing than their German and Japanese counterparts to dial in the finer points of the suspension. Case in point, GM spent just 2 weeks at the Nurburgring testing their Z06, and only after it was almost completed. Nissan on the other hand has been at the Ring for years with their upcoming GTR, testing at each step in the mule process.
In your mention of BMW and Porsche, you have brought up two interesting ways of justifying the keeping a traditional design. Automakers don't hang onto a particular design when others are doing something else unless they have strong reasons to.
1) BMW hangs onto the inline 6 because it's the best balanced engine. They keep the design for it's obvious advantages over the disadvantages. BMW's make their living off making the ultimate driving machine, and the advantages of the smoother engine outweigh the packaging advantages of a V6.
2) Porsche's 911's flawed engine placement is kept because 911 lovers demand it (and they are a forceful bunch). Porsche engineers wanted to kill off the 911's rear engine, because every aspect of its design was compromised by it's VW beetle roots. But Porsche accountants reasoned that the 911 was their best selling design and alienation of their strong an base would bring financial ruin. So the 911 slaved on with the rear engine, and Porsche did their best to make the most of the recipe (and they have done very well). Thus it is no wonder that the 911 evolves so conservatively. 911 lovers were offended even when the 996 introduced water cooling. But notice that with the exception of the 959, Porsche has never introduced another rear engined sports car. 924's, 944's, 928's, and more recently, the Boxster, Cayman, and Carrera GT, have been either front or mid engined.
Since no Corvette lovers have ever really pushed one way or another for the leafsprings, and the general stigma on leafsprings is negative, GM had no reason to keep the leafsprings to keep it's fan base. GM rather follows BMW's reasoning. The unspring weight advantage of the leafsprings outweighs the cost over coils.
Quote from: r0tor on January 18, 2007, 09:26:21 AM
Leaf spring stiffness is just as easily chaged as coil spring stiffness - you just need to change the springs.? ? Of course with the leaf spring you are more or less stuck with equal spring rates on both sides.? An adjustable shock can be used with either, and ride height can be adjusted with either.
My best guess is (as another poster stated) the transverse leaf spring is just a legacy hold-over like the the pushrod engine.... you can throw buckets of money to make something work well, but at the end of the day there are better alternatives.
To adjust the stiffness on a leafspring you'd need to change out an entire leafspring, that no where as easy as simply adjusting the spring rates on an adjustable coil setup like the one on the C5R-C6R. And that also means you have to stock about 20 different leafsprings with different stiffnesses. They are alot bigger than say, 20 different coil springs. So on a pitstop where the driver wants the rear springs a bit softer, you'd have some guy climbing under the car and trying to swap out a 3 feet long piece of plastic.
Legacy hold-overs only make sense if it somehow saves you money, or preserves your fan base. GM uses the pushrod engine because it has extensive infrastructure built upon this engine. It's basic structure is used in many engines including portions of its truck line, a version is used in the Impala, and various cars overseas. Also many Chevy fans swear by the pushrod smallblock V8.
The transverse leafspring doesn't benefit from any of these reasons. There is no intrastructure for it, the Corvette is the only car that uses it. It would be far more cost effective to switch the Corvette onto the same steel coils on every other car. There is no fan demand for it. But rather just the opposite, as there is a rather negative stigma aganist it.
GM chooses to continue to use the transverse leaf spring because they feel the advantages outweigh the costs.
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 09:40:32 AM
2) Porsche's 911's flawed engine placement is kept because 911 lovers demand it (and they are a forceful bunch).? Porsche engineers wanted to kill off the 911's rear engine, because every aspect of its design was compromised by it's VW beetle roots.? But Porsche accountants reasoned that the 911 was their best selling design and alienation of their strong an base would bring financial ruin. So the 911 slaved on with the rear engine, and Porsche did their best to make the most of the recipe (and they have done very well).? ?Thus it is no wonder that the 911 evolves so conservatively.? ?911 lovers were offended even when the 996 introduced water cooling.? But notice that with the exception of the 959, Porsche has never introduced another rear engined sports car.? 924's, 944's, 928's, and more recently, the Boxster, Cayman, and Carrera GT, have been either front or mid engined.
Not really, the accounts wanted to kill of the 911 because it wasn't selling. The public felt they were too expensive and they had quality control issues. No one wanted to pay that much for a car if it wasn't going to function properly. The engineers never wanted to kill of the design. In fact morale was very low because they knew that Ernst Fhrmann who was running the company at the time was planning on killing it off after 1981.
Porsche may not have built another rear-engine car but they don't need too. The 911 is unique and has character. It's not just about the performance numbers it can put up but about the unique experience you get from driving one. Sure the weight distribution is off and they're prone to snap oversteer but guess what the owners don't mind because they're loving every minute of it. It's not about the bragging rights of setting the fastest lap times it's about whats happening along the way.
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 09:40:32 AM
There is no issue with a single leaf spring secured at two points rather than two seperate leaf springs.? First off, in middle section of the spring is arched and flush with the metal crossmember.? Any resonance or harmonics generated by one portion of the spring must be transfered to the other side by vibrational motion in this middle portion.? Also the magnitude of motion transfered (if any) would depend on the maximum limit of motion allowed by the portion of the spring that transfers the energy.? Yet this middle portion already is permantly held in a flexed position, and there is no further motion possible.?
Good points, but the theory of harmonics and beam theory state that the transverse leaf spring, at its core, has fundamental drawbacks that in practical terms, have been mitigated somewhat.
Quote
The faults of the Corvette's handling is not in the springs, but rather in rather lackluster shock tuning and in less on track testing than their German and Japanese counterparts to dial in the finer points of the suspension.? Case in point,? GM spent just 2 weeks at the Nurburgring testing their Z06, and only after it was almost completed.? Nissan on the other hand has been at the Ring for years with their upcoming GTR, testing at each step in the mule process.
That would do it, but why would GM's suspension engineers spend a bunch of (supposed) extra cost on such a unique (and non-scalable) design as transverse leaf springs and then stumble on the industry standard practices of shock tuning and track testing?
Quote
In your mention of BMW and Porsche, you have brought up two interesting ways of justifying the keeping a traditional design.? Automakers don't hang onto a particular design when others are doing something else unless they have strong reasons to.
1) BMW hangs onto the inline 6 because it's the best balanced engine.? They keep the design for it's obvious advantages over the disadvantages.? BMW's make their living off making the ultimate driving machine, and the advantages of the smoother engine outweigh the packaging advantages of a V6.
In the days of old perhaps, but V6s and V8s what with dynamic engine mounts and a whole host of other NVH mitigation techniques have matched an in-line 6's smoothness, and eliminatied the inherent packaging and crank strength issues of in-line 6 (and 8) configurations. This is a legacy hold-over of the history kind. (read: "What, a BMW V6?!").
Quote
2) Porsche's 911's flawed engine placement is kept because 911 lovers demand it (and they are a forceful bunch).? Porsche engineers wanted to kill off the 911's rear engine, because every aspect of its design was compromised by it's VW beetle roots.? But Porsche accountants reasoned that the 911 was their best selling design and alienation of their strong an base would bring financial ruin. So the 911 slaved on with the rear engine, and Porsche did their best to make the most of the recipe (and they have done very well).? ?Thus it is no wonder that the 911 evolves so conservatively.? ?911 lovers were offended even when the 996 introduced water cooling.? But notice that with the exception of the 959, Porsche has never introduced another rear engined sports car.? 924's, 944's, 928's, and more recently, the Boxster, Cayman, and Carrera GT, have been either front or mid engined.
I agree, a legacy hold-over of the styling kind.
Quote
Since no Corvette lovers have ever really pushed one way or another for the leafsprings, and the general stigma on leafsprings is negative, GM had no reason to keep the leafsprings to keep it's fan base.? GM rather follows BMW's reasoning.? The unspring weight advantage of the leafsprings outweighs the cost over coils.
I disagree; it's a legacy hold-over of the stubborn kind.
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 09:58:03 AM
To adjust the stiffness on a leafspring you'd need to change out an entire leafspring, that no where as easy as simply adjusting the spring rates on an adjustable coil setup like the one on the C5R-C6R.? And that also means you have to stock about 20 different leafsprings with different stiffnesses.? They are alot bigger than say, 20 different coil springs.? So on a pitstop where the driver wants the rear springs a bit softer, you'd have some guy climbing under the car and trying to swap out a 3 feet long piece of plastic.
I'm not familiar with any coil-over setup that allows for adjusting spring rates. You can adjust the ride height and the shocks, but i've never seen an adjustable spring rate. The closest thing I can think of is Nascar people chucking spring rubbers in between the coils during the race to effect spring rate... and thats not something you see done in road racing.
also, the leaf spring beam will abosulety have several resonant frequencies that will cause modal bending if excited correctly (which may or may not be a problem).
Quote from: JYODER240 on January 18, 2007, 10:01:14 AM
Not really, the accounts wanted to kill of the 911 because it wasn't selling. The public felt they were too expensive and they had quality control issues. No one wanted to pay that much for a car if it wasn't going to function properly. The engineers never wanted to kill of the design. In fact morale was very low because they knew that Ernst Fhrmann who was running the company at the time was planning on killing it off after 1981.
Porsche may not have built another rear-engine car but they don't need too. The 911 is unique and has character. It's not just about the performance numbers it can put up but about the unique experience you get from driving one. Sure the weight distribution is off and they're prone to snap oversteer but guess what the owners don't mind because they're loving every minute of it. It's not about the bragging rights of setting the fastest lap times it's about whats happening along the way.?
The 911 was due to be replaced because engineers deemed it was "too hard to drive" and couldn't meet the emissions regulations. It was supposed to be replaced by the front engined water cooled 928 in 1981. Here are some interesting facts from a site dedicated to 911's from that era
http://www.adelgigs.com/911schistory.shtml
"The 911 was due for replacement in the early 1980s, but demand continued strongly with the 911SC outselling its declared successor, the 928, by nearly 50 per cent."
Here is a similar quote. from
http://www.answers.com/topic/porsche-911
"In 1979 Porsche made plans to replace the 911 with the 928,
but the 911 still sold so much better than the 928, that Porsche revised its strategy and inject new life into the Type 911 European editions. Those cars (1981?1983 911 SCs) were massaged to yield 204 bhp @ 5900 rpm from their 2994 cc powerplants. North Americans would have to wait for the replacement 3.2 L 911 Carrera in 1984 before seeing any extra horsepower."
So pretty much Porsche engineers already made a modernized car to replace all of the 911's faults, but the 911's strong sales over the car that was suppose to replace it, saved it from the cutting block.
Quote from: r0tor on January 18, 2007, 10:41:08 AM
I'm not familiar with any coil-over setup that allows for adjusting spring rates.? You can adjust the ride height and the shocks, but i've never seen an adjustable spring rate.? The closest thing I can think of is Nascar people chucking spring rubbers in between the coils during the race to effect spring rate... and thats not something you see done in road racing.
also, the leaf spring beam will abosulety have several resonant frequencies that will cause modal bending if excited correctly (which may or may not be a problem).
Yes you'd have to swap out the coil springs, but still as I said before 20 coils is alot smaller and more compact than 20 leaf springs (actually more cause you can't swap them around like you can coils, and you pack coils into each other).? Also can you imagine them changing a 3 foot long piece of plastic on a pitstop?
Here is another post found on Corvette Forums that is rather interesting.? Interesting thing of note.? Older Corvettes used coil springs for the front before.? So the all around transverse composite leafspring isn't exactly tradition at all.
"Corvette and leaf springs. Many people are surprised to hear that the C6 Corvette uses leaf springs. This seams to conger up images of ox carts and old Ford pickups. I thought I would post my understanding of the technology with the hopes that other will post their insight.
Since 1984 the Corvette has used a transverse fiberglass composite leaf spring as part of the suspension. The C5 and C6 both have very similar double A-arm suspensions that wouldn't look out of place on any high end sports car. The only significant difference being instead of a coil over spring the Vette is using a single leaf spring. The suspension geometry and motion would be exactly the same if GM chose to use coil springs rather than the leaf. For those who might think the Corvette?s leaf spring is ?outdated? technology, keep in mind that the composite leaf spring was introduced as an option in 1981 and in it?s current layout (acting as a partial anti-role bar) in 1984. It?s safe to say the coil spring is much older.
This is a picture of the C5's rear suspension.
http://www.corvettecavalry.com/exhaust/no-mufflers.jpg
The leaf is the black thing that runs from one side to the other just under the lower A arms.
A Brief History of Leaf Spring Suspension.
Excluding the Corvette I'm aware of 4 general types of leaf spring suspensions.
1. Model T style transverse leaf.
http://www.trainweb.org/toenailridge/vanradiator.jpg
This model shows the transverse leaf used on a Ford Model-T. The suspension has two lateral arms that keep the front axle perpendicular with the chassis. Lateral axle movement is controlled by the spring. This system suffers from poor control of the axle?s movements among other flaws. I?m not aware of any production car that uses this suspension type.
2. Conventional truck type, longitudinal leaf springs:
http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbi...ion_bible.html (scan down)
This is the one we all love to hate. It?s also about the only type of leaf spring suspension still in use. It?s cheep, durable and handles badly. It suffers from friction between the leaves and from poor control of the axle?s location.
3. Golf cart style transverse leaf spring:
I couldn?t find any pictures of this but it basically looks like a double A-arm where the leaf spring is one of the A-arms. The geometry is probably OK under vertical loads but lateral loads would defect the spring and cause camber changes. Not an issue for golf carts but bad for sports cars.
4. Leaf with links. There are lots of variations on this suspension
Miller Indy Roadster
http://www.scaleautoworks.com/millerphoto.jpg
http://www.scaleautoworks.com/metalMillerFQ3.jpg (the black things on top of the front axle
Jaguar MkII rear suspension (can?t find a picture)
Like #3, these suspensions uses a combination of links and the leaf spring to support the axle. The Jaguar set up looks similar to a 4 bar solid axle rear suspension except the lower link is the end of an inverted leaf spring. The other end for the leaf is attached to the chassis under the passenger compartment. The middle of the upside down (frown rather than smile) spring presses against a rubber block. The end connects to the bottom of the axle. This system offers better handling and axle control than #2 but is still suffers from friction between the leaves of the springs and compared to multi-link live axles, poor control of the axle?s location.
What makes these all the same
All of the above have several things in common. First, multi-leaf springs that suffer from friction between the leaves as the leaf flexes. Second, the inherently flexible leaf spring is being asked to work as a spring AND a suspension arm. Springs (leaf, coil, torsion etc) are good at being springs. They are bad at being other things like rigid links. In those suspension designs the spring is being asked to hold the axle and be a spring. To it?s credit, the leaf spring does this much better than a coil spring. How well would a coil spring do that job? Think of a bobble head doll.
Why is the Vette different?
First, the Vette actually has double A-arm suspension like many other high end sports cars. The A-arms are used to fully control the movement of the wheels. The only difference between the Vette and other cars with A-arms is the Vette uses a leaf to pull the lower arm down rather than a coil spring to push it down. In both cases the spring is doing what it does best, being a spring ONLY.
The other problem was friction between the leaves of a leaf spring. Well the Vette uses a single piece leaf so there is no internal friction, just like a coil spring.
So what we have is double A-arm geometry just using a different type of spring.
So why does the Vette use it
To be honest, I have no idea how GM got started with the transverse leaf spring. The used to use coils in front but in 1984 they switched too leafs front and rear. I suspect it?s a tradition they maintain for the same reason Porsche keeps their engine out back even though the platform mate Boxster moved it to the middle.
What are the advantages for the Vette?
This is an article written around the time the C4 was released. It covers a lot of the reasons why GM retained the leaf suspension
http://web.telia.com/~u60113742/misc...ass_spring.gif
The big advantages are:
-It weights A LOT LESS than coil springs. One leaf replaces two coils. The two coil springs weigh 3 times as much as the one leaf. Additionally the leaf is placed at the bottom of the car. In addition to removing weight you lower the CG.
-It acts as an anti role bar. The article above explains how this works so I won?t. The advantage is you can run lighter anti-role bars because the springs are taking care of part of the job for you.
-The leaf springs never wear out. The vendor of these springs has never had to replace one due to fatigue failure. Coil springs to were out but you typically don?t notice on smaller, lighter cars. You do see it more on old, heavy Caddies and such. The improved fatigue life was really evident compared to the C3?s steel leaf spring. Thus this is an advantage over coils but not a big one.
What are the drawbacks for the Vette?
-They are expensive. We normally don?t think of leaves as the expensive suspension but in the case of the Corvette, coils would be cheaper. The Vette already has all the parts a coil sprung double A arm suspension would use. Pull the leaf off, replace the shock with a coil over and you?ve converted the Vette. Since the rest of the system is the same, the cost comes down to the price of 2 coils or one spring. Well if it was a steal leaf spring it might be cheaper (remember truck suspension is cheaper because the leaves also act as links).
Part 2
**********************************************
If it?s so good why don?t other people use it?
It?s legitimate to ask, does GM know something that Ferrari, Porsche etc don?t know or are the people at GM just being pig headed and sticking with ?outdated? technology.
Street cars:
-You must design them into the car in the first place. This seams obvious but consider these springs span across the bottom of the car. In the front they have to clear the engine oil pan and in the back they have to stay out of the way of the differential. Basically, you can retro fit coils on the Vette because the mounts can be shared with the shock mounts. For the most part you can?t retrofit Corvette style leaves onto other cars because you would have to add mounts that don?t exist on the regular car.
-GM and their supplier spent a lot of time and money developing the Vette?s composite spring. Currently they are the only manufacture with the knowledge and understanding to make the springs work. On the other hand, coil springs are common and well understood. Lots of vendors can make them in a wide variety of configurations. It?s easier for the other manufactures to stick with what they know. Other manufactures would have to study the design and manufacture of composite leaf springs before they could pop them on the next Supra-NSX-Type-GT. GM did that work years ago. Toyota could certainly afford to develop their own composite springs if they wanted. The same may not be true for smaller companies like Ferrari and Porsche.
-Engineers like to stick with what they know. Lots of suspension engineers are familiar with using coil springs. They could experiment with leaves if they wanted or they could stick with coils and get the job done. See the point about undertaking a research project.
-Coils are cheaper. This automatically keeps them off lower cost cars (Miata, Civic) and cars that share platforms with lower cost siblings (Audi TT). Porsche isn?t worried about saving every last dollar but there suspension and chassis design may not allow packaging a Corvette type leaf. The same is probably true of Ferrari. Even if packaging isn?t a problem they still have to pay for tooling to make the springs. Unlike the GM who spreads that cost over 30,000 Vettes a year, Ferrari would spread that over maybe 2000 cars a year. Porsche would be somewhere in between. Conversely I can get coils made with relatively low setup cost and a cheaper per part cost. So not only would they have to spend more per car, they have to spend a lot more up front.
-Perception. Just like pushrods, the leaf spring as a stigma attached to it. The reasons for the stigma are legit (key component to heavy and typically poor handling suspension). However the reality is the sum of the older parts was the problem, not a specific part of it.
What about race cars? (this section is almost verbatim from another post of mine.
To start off, not all race cars use coil springs. Some F1 cars (Ferrari and others) use torsion springs instead. Years ago Indy and F1 cars DID use leaf springs but those days are long past.
The current design of open wheel racecars places great restrictions on suspension packaging. The Corvette?s transverse leaf spring must span from one side of the car to the other. Also, to be most effective the links between the spring and suspension arms should be under tension. This makes a bottom mount spring most effective. This packaging doesn?t work well on an open wheel car because the spring would have to pass though the gear box around the dif (or the gear box would have to be raised and hurt the car?s CG). At the front the driver?s legs would get in the way. Additionally the spring is wide and would have to extend past the body work where it would hurt the car?s aero package.
NASCAR rules dictate coil springs on the rear axle. They probably originally used leaves but given the option any car designer (modifier back in the day?) would have replaced the leaves with a multi-link set up. As I said before the multi-link offers better control of the rear suspension.
Another good reason is only a few companies understand the technology necessary to make the springs. Hypercoil is currently the top race spring manufacture. They can make very precise, matched spring pairs. The level of precise spring rate control and matching may not exist in the composite bow springs.
Coil race springs are not car specific. You select rates, diameters, length etc but you don?t have a specific spring for a specific car. If you want to order a custom spring Hypercoil will wind it to your specifications on the same machine they use for the next custom spring. A custom Porsche, Formula Ford and LMP car spring can all be made on the same machine. By the time the C6 evolves into a C6-R (they don?t start off with a production Corvette) the suspension geometry is so different that they couldn?t just mount a C6 leaf spring. It?s far too expensive to have a few custom leaf springs tooled up (you would have to buy the tooling as well as the springs) so they use readily available coil springs.
This type of universal tooling isn?t availible for the composite leaf spring. Only the Vette currently uses the spring so you are making a Vette only part. This seriously reduces the market for aftermarket composite leaf springs (still there are after market leaf springs available for the Vette). The business case for custom equipment to make Vette springs is harder to justify since it?s a smaller market.
Why don?t other cars retrofit leaf springs? Well they also don?t retrofit torsion springs despite the fact that F1 cars use them. Put simply it would be VERY difficult. The Vette was designed to have them. It has mount points under the car where the springs fit to the suspension sub frames. It?s not easy to just add that to a car that was designed to use a coil spring. All of the cars you mentioned would have to be re-engineered to add leaf springs. Replacing the factory spring with a racing is easy by comparison.
The other VERY significant reason is racers will use what they know. They will put effort into learning about new technology (torsion springs in F1) but ultimately it is too there advantage to stick with what they know.
Would the Vette be better with coil springs?
Well that depends. As I said before, there are a lot more options available in coil springs. If I want to substantially change the Vette?s spring rates then I will need to go to coils. Also, if I want to totally get rid of the Vette?s anti roll I need to dump the leaves because they provided some roll resistance.
BUT?
If for some reason I just lost my leaf spring (maybe someone stole it to make a very strong bow and arrow) and had to replace it with coils. I want the same ride quality, the same spring and roll rates etc. Basically I want the car to be the same as before but with coil springs. Assuming you didn?t change anything but the springs (same tires, shocks, ride height, same spring rate and effective roll rate, etc) the Vette would unquestionably be SLOWER with coils instead of the leaf setup. Basically if all else is equal, the coils are heavier and raise the CG of the car. One other small advantage is the shocks on the leaf sprung car will move more freely than the car with coilovers. When used as a coil over, coils impart a bending load on the shocks that cause them to bind a bit. On a street car you will never notice but on a race car it can cost a tenth of a second or so. (Hypercoil markets a pivoting spring perch to reduce the effects of side loading in coil over shocks).
Again, if I decide I really want to race I will likely dump the leaves because I have more options with coils. For a reasonable (in racing terms) price I can get custom coils made. The same isn?t true of the composite leaf spring."
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 10:44:36 AM
The 911 was due to be replaced because engineers deemed it was "too hard to drive" and couldn't meet the emissions regulations.? It was supposed to be replaced by the front engined water cooled 928 in 1981. Here are some interesting facts from a site dedicated to 911's from that era
http://www.adelgigs.com/911schistory.shtml
"The 911 was due for replacement in the early 1980s, but demand continued strongly with the 911SC outselling its declared successor, the 928, by nearly 50 per cent."
Here is a similar quote. from
http://www.answers.com/topic/porsche-911
"In 1979 Porsche made plans to replace the 911 with the 928, but the 911 still sold so much better than the 928, that Porsche revised its strategy and inject new life into the Type 911 European editions. Those cars (1981?1983 911 SCs) were massaged to yield 204 bhp @ 5900 rpm from their 2994 cc powerplants. North Americans would have to wait for the replacement 3.2 L 911 Carrera in 1984 before seeing any extra horsepower."
So pretty much Porsche engineers already made a modernized car to replace all of the 911's faults, but the 911's strong sales over the car that was suppose to replace it, saved it from the cutting block.
"Dealers in the United States and Europe had two consistent complaints: The cars were too expensive, and they had serious quality control problems. To Schutz, this was one issue: No one objects to paying a price for something if it functions perfectly. He heard morale a Porsche was poor because the company planned to discontinue the 911 and push the 924 and 928. ... 'Every Monday, Porsche's top managers have lunch together,' Schutz said. 'This had been going on forever. So the first Monday I was there, I went to the lunch. It was a mixed bag of engineers, sales people, manufacturing, and I listened to their converstaions. After a while I asked these folks one question: "What is going on in this company right now that is so exciting that you can hardly wait to come to work?" You could hear a pin drop."
Porsche 911: Perfection By Design. By Randy Leffingwell P.166-167
http://www.stratstone.com/StratstoneWebApp/NVDetails.aspx?capcode=COZ670%20%20%202CPIM
Official Corvette dealer lists it at ?59,895, though it's not available in RHD (It's not sold as a Chevrolet here).
The 911 comes in, like Raza said, at about ?94,000.
It's definitely an interesting comparison. Personally I think the cars are good at different things. The ZO6 has a beast of an engine which makes it lightning quick and I'm sure is pretty decent on the road.
The 911 is more finely focused but I'm sure would be harder to live with every day and pricier. It does look a hell of a lot better than the Corvette IMHO, which reminds be a bit of a big yellow bathtub. But then it's only two thirds the price...you get what you pay for I guess...
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 11:06:18 AM
Yes you'd have to swap out the coil springs, but still as I said before 20 coils is alot smaller and more compact than 20 leaf springs (actually more cause you can't swap them around like you can coils, and you pack coils into each other).? Also can you imagine them changing a 3 foot long piece of plastic on a pitstop?
and so on and so on...
When is the last time you saw a spring replaced during a pit stop? This is an immense pain in the ass to change - especially if its a coilover. Also, I don't see how unbolting a coilover is easier then a leaf spring. Realistically, during a race if you want to adjust the spring rate of your suspension, you would adjust the tire pressure. I noticed in the article they mention that F1 cars have moved towards tortion bars - what they didn't mention that the flex in the tire of an F1 car is accountable for over half of the suspension travel and they use air pressure to adjust that.
I see other rather weak arguments in the article like money (when GM has millions invested in that team) and manufactureablity (they are a composite material - its no harder to make then making the carbon fiber bodywork on the C6R). Then they go on to precision, but this time fail to mention some F1 cars have carbon aero components designed to bend in a specific way during loading from drag at certain speeds.... talk about precision.
the article was rather not suprisingly biased.
Quote from: r0tor on January 18, 2007, 12:02:13 PM
the article was rather not suprisingly biased.
Are there any articles out there that prove that the Corvette's transverse leaf springs are a decesive deficit to handling? Outside of a few articles from Corvette fans, it's all just speculation and prejudice. Absent minded thinking that goes much along the lines of "since trucks use leaf springs, and most cars use coils, Corvette's transverse leaf springs must be junk."
The fact is, Corvette's transverse leaf springs are unlike anything out there on the market. I'm sure people here are gonna speculate about energy transfer or harmonics or other stuff they learned in Physics 101, but at the end of the day the fact remains that they have no idea how it would truly impact the characteristics of the suspension in real world application.
The performance advantages of the transverse leaf spring have been listed already, less unspring weight, lower CG.
Can anyone here find any evidence (aka not your own speculation) of the performance superiority of coils over the Corvette's leaf springs?
This isn't like the debate of pushrods over OHC engines. There have been hundred upon hundreds of pages written by automobile engineers about why OHC offeres advantages over OHV designs.
Can anyone find me even 1 page devoted to all the wonderful performance advantages of coils over Corvette's transverse leaf springs?
So far all the advantages of the coil springs have been practical rather than performance, cheaper cost, easy of implementation, etc.
sorry, but things like this is rediculous
Coil race springs are not car specific. You select rates, diameters, length etc but you don?t have a specific spring for a specific car. If you want to order a custom spring Hypercoil will wind it to your specifications on the same machine they use for the next custom spring. A custom Porsche, Formula Ford and LMP car spring can all be made on the same machine. By the time the C6 evolves into a C6-R (they don?t start off with a production Corvette) the suspension geometry is so different that they couldn?t just mount a C6 leaf spring. It?s far too expensive to have a few custom leaf springs tooled up (you would have to buy the tooling as well as the springs) so they use readily available coil springs.
I'll be willing to bet that the vette designers road tested a couple dozen different spring rates before deciding on the production rate and the C6R team has a bunch more money in the budget then they do...
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 05:04:53 PM
Can anyone here find any evidence (aka not your own speculation) of the performance superiority of coils over the Corvette's leaf springs?
Fixed rate.
Limited wheel travel.
"Absorbtion confusion" via double duty as anti-roll bar (absorbing forces from both lower A-arms and body roll simultaneously).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 18, 2007, 05:45:37 PM
Fixed rate.
Limited wheel travel.
"Absorbtion confusion" via double duty as anti-roll bar (absorbing forces from both lower A-arms and body roll simultaneously).
I wanted evidence, not speculation.
Just wanted to clarify that as far as I know one of if not the single biggest reason the C6-R uses coil springs in place of the production leaf springs is that most of the rac series it competes in have specific rules which govern suspension set-up, and along the line there's more than likely quite a few which mandate that the cars have to have coil springs, performance advantage or not.
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 06:29:43 PM
I wanted evidence, not speculation.
IMO they're perfect examples of attributes as evidence.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 18, 2007, 06:41:04 PM
IMO they're perfect examples of attributes as evidence.
I want evidence as in automotive engineers or reputable sources that have said, yes we tried corvette like transverse leaf spring setup and we ran into these problems, or we found the design was lacking in this area or that area.
All you have is speculation based on a photograph and an idea of a design, and none of it arises from experience or real world tests. How do you know what the limit of suspension travel is? It might be actually much higher than coil spring. Nor do you know whether using a leaf spring design and a softer antiroll bar actually transfers more or less motion than using coils and a stiffer antiroll bar.
You have done none of these experiments and yet speculate that the data will fall in your favor.
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 06:46:58 PM
I want evidence as in automotive engineers or reputable sources that have said, yes we tried corvette like transverse leaf spring setup and we ran into these problems, or we found the design was lacking in this area or that area.
All you have is speculation based on a photograph and an idea of a design, and none of it arises from experience or real world tests.? How do you know what the limit of suspension travel is?? It might be actually much higher than coil spring. Nor do you know whether using a leaf spring design and a softer antiroll bar actually transfers more or less motion than using coils and a stiffer antiroll bar.
You have done none of these experiments and yet speculate that the data will fall in your favor.?
I disagree.
Tell anyone with a smidge of automotive experience that given the choice between two performance suspension set-ups, which is preferred soley on its inherent attributes:
1.) Limited wheel travel, fixed rate, same spring works the suspension and controls body sway
2.) More wheel travel, variable rate, spring separate from anti-roll bar.
Taking it any further would necessitate quantitative tests that GM no doubt peformed, but sure as heck isn't going to make public whatever the results owing to IP concerns on testing and design methodologies.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 18, 2007, 06:52:16 PM
I disagree.
Tell anyone with a smidge of automotive experience that given the choice between two performance suspension set-ups, which is preferred soley on its inherent attributes:
1.) Limited wheel travel, fixed rate, same spring works the suspension and controls body sway
2.) More wheel travel, variable rate, spring separate from anti-roll bar.
Taking it any further would necessitate quantitative tests that GM no doubt peformed, but sure as heck isn't going to make public whatever the results owing to IP concerns on testing and design methodologies.
Once again you continue to speculate.
Where's the evidence for limited wheel travel?
Wheres the evidence for fixed rate.
Where's the evidence that the leaf spring isn't more controlled than an antiroll bar?
All you have is a photo and a flawed understanding of how things work.? Don't try to make speculations of "inherit attributes"
Instead of continuing to speculate, why don't you go on the internet and try to find some informed articles written about the Corvette transverse leaf spring that support your opinions.
If your opinions are valid, then certainly others with more knowledge will back them up.
Quote from: 565 on January 18, 2007, 07:19:24 PM
Once again you continue to speculate.
Where's the evidence for limited wheel travel?
Wheres the evidence for fixed rate.
Where's the evidence that the leaf spring isn't more controlled than an antiroll bar?
All you have is a photo and a flawed understanding of how things work.? Don't try to make speculations of "inherit attributes"
Instead of continuing to speculate, why don't you go on the internet and try to find some informed articles written about the Corvette transverse leaf spring that support your opinions.
If your opinions are valid, then certainly others with more knowledge will back them up.
First, you have yet to make the case for my supposed flawed understanding.
Second, the onus is on you to seek proof if you're so eager to prove/disprove my assertions.
Lastly, the only quantitative proof I need beyond common knowledge is that no one else uses transverse leaf springs.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 18, 2007, 08:16:45 PM
First, you have yet to make the case for my supposed flawed understanding.
Second, the onus is on you to seek proof if you're so eager to prove/disprove my assertions.
Lastly, the only quantitative proof I need beyond common knowledge is that no one else uses transverse leaf springs.
Why is the onus on me to prove your assertions? They are your unfounded assertions, you prove them.
The flaw in your understanding is that you think you can look at a photo and a description without any real knowledge and come to any reasonable conclusion.
There have been already manly reasons posted why no one else uses transverse leaf springs and all are related to pracitical concerns. None related to performance.
Wow, this conversation has moved beyond my area of expertise.
In other news, I saw a picture of the Z06 in the new issue of Evo, and for the first time ever, it looked like a really nice looking car. I never thought the C6 would grow on me, but the combination of the low angle (I keep telling people that!) and that snarling little snout on it, it makes for a world of better looks than the standard model. Shame about the roof.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 18, 2007, 06:52:16 PM
I disagree.
Tell anyone with a smidge of automotive experience that given the choice between two performance suspension set-ups, which is preferred soley on its inherent attributes:
1.) Limited wheel travel, fixed rate, same spring works the suspension and controls body sway
Actually, if you look at the picture, the spring does NOT control body sway, the anti-roll bar does. And the anti-roll bar is clearly pictured in the photo YOU posted. the Corvette spring only works as a spring, just like a coil spring. it's variable rate, AND it has a lower CG and less weight.
And yes, you made the assertions, the onus is on you to prove your assertions. Give ACTUAL articles stating that they are inferior with testing proof, not a "talk to any one" statement.
Quote from: Nethead on January 17, 2007, 11:56:01 AM
Now that that is settled, on to the full statement I made and not an excerpt out of context:
"ChrisV would have us believe that the low 400 HP Porsche GT3 beat the low 500 HP Corvette Z06 strictly because of its tires. I'm sure neither of you are that brand blind...right?
The full statement IS in context. The bolded word makes you come across making the statement that we ARE brand blind in making our assertions. And that's total crap. I'm a Porsche fan and have been for decades, and I still know it's the TIRES that were the difference in how the Corvette handled and felt, as far as precision, nervousness at the limit, etc. And those problems would have been mitigated even had the car not been retuned, as rOtor suggests needed doing.
The rest of your commentary, that YOU have never seen tires make the difference at that level shows a distinct lack of experience on your part. We aren't talking adding HORSEPOWER, but adding CORNERING GRIP. And the DOT semi-slicks are worth a good 2 seconds on the same car over the kind of tires the Corvette runs even on a 45 second course.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 19, 2007, 06:44:42 AM
The full statement IS in context. The bolded word makes you come across making the statement that we ARE brand blind in making our assertions. And that's total crap. I'm a Porsche fan and have been for decades, and I still know it's the TIRES that were the difference in how the Corvette handled and felt, as far as precision, nervousness at the limit, etc. And those problems would have been mitigated even had the car not been retuned, as rOtor suggests needed doing.
The rest of your commentary, that YOU have never seen tires make the difference at that level shows a distinct lack of experience on your part. We aren't talking adding HORSEPOWER, but adding CORNERING GRIP. And the DOT semi-slicks are worth a good 2 seconds on the same car over the kind of tires the Corvette runs even on a 45 second course.
Or maybe the "at-the-limit" handling problems is because of the soft suspension setup that every other review blames for the squirly handling at the limit. As I stated earlier, this is not a fair fight because the Z06 is not a car that was designed for track use and the GT3 RS was. The Z06's suspension is setup for road use, not track use.
the Z06 is not softly suspended, and it seems to do fine in track work with real tires put on it, as has been proven by Z06 owners nationwide.
I'm also going by two decades+ of direct experience with cars and tires, and how much difference in feel, stability, and grip real tires make over even good performance street tires. I can take you to the track and show you back to back the difference. The Goodyear run-flats are not even slightly as good as even a cheapy DOT legal semi-slick from a Korean tire manufacturer, much less a top brand one. There is that much difference.
A full tread street tire will be squirmy and imprecise due to the tread blocks moving around and being of a harder compound. Not only do semi-slicks have fewer tread blocks to squirm, the tread blocks themselves are not as tall, so deflect less when subjected to side forces, making them react more predictably, and with even less squirming.
Hemi, nice sig. Have you ever done this:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/rex1.MPG
ChrisV: When you've got wider tires and an advantage of about 100 horsepower and you're behind about a half-second per lap, it ain't just your tires lettin' you down...that could easily be the driver, but this was the same professional driver in both cars, and I suspect he knows the differences in tires, too--although admittedly he may not be as knowledgeable about tires as ChrisV here (who is?). He says the fantastic tires on the Porsche are better than the great tires on the Chevrolet, but the translation upstream in this thread does not show that the professional driver credited the tires with being the sole reason the GT3 was every bit as quick as the Z06. Don't take it personally, but I'm taking his word over yours...after all, he was actually behind the wheel of the GT3 and the Z06 and you're behind a keyboard.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 19, 2007, 07:07:13 AM
Hemi, nice sig. Have you ever done this:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/rex1.MPG
I'm assuming that's you in your 302 powered RX-7? Very nice, and no I have not done what you have done in your video, and if this is your way of saying "I know more then you do", then you are even more childish then I originally thought. "Look what I did, look what I did" is so high school. Chris, neither you nor I have driven either the new Z06 or the GT3 on a track, and every review I have read about the Z06 blames the soft suspension that is tuned for street use for the squirly behaviour at the limit. Are you saying that every review is wrong, because you obviously know more then they do.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 19, 2007, 06:35:11 AM
Actually, if you look at the picture, the spring does NOT control body sway, the anti-roll bar does. And the anti-roll bar is clearly pictured in the photo YOU posted. the Corvette spring only works as a spring, just like a coil spring. it's variable rate, AND it has a lower CG and less weight.
And yes, you made the assertions, the onus is on you to prove your assertions. Give ACTUAL articles stating that they are inferior with testing proof, not a "talk to any one" statement.
Actually, yes, that transverse spring will absolutely see forces from (read: control) body sway owing to the 18" or so between its two mounts on the chassis. (If it were single point contact, then no, it wouldn't see forces from body sway.) That's why the roll bar pictured is small for a performance-based vehicle.
I will back-track a bit on the variable rate. Perhaps there are variable rates "bands" sandwiched in the composite lay-up or it is of tapered construction (narrower toward the ends)
Quote from: Nethead on January 19, 2007, 08:06:11 AM
ChrisV: When you've got wider tires and an advantage of about 100 horsepower and you're behind about a half-second per lap, it ain't just your tires lettin' you down...
I see you still don't understand that the width doesn't matter as much as the compound does. The stock Corvette tires may be wider, but they are considerably slimier in cornering use.
QuoteDon't take it personally, but I'm taking his word over yours...after all, he was actually behind the wheel of the GT3 and the Z06 and you're behind a keyboard.
Don't take this personally either, but you're behind a keyboard now, too. I've been in the SCCA for 20+ years, been an SCCA and BSCC driving instructor, and built road race and slalom race cars, as well as working on the GT3 Porsches for Team Seattle.
You still don't show that you have ANY experience in road racing or cornering competition events. I posted a vid of my self in a car I prepped, that won a regional championship. I've also built national champions for other drivers. I'll post pictures from home later on. I think in 20+ years of this that I've learned a tad about what it takes to make a car work.
yipee... I've designed from scratch, built, tuned, and raced a FSAE car in college... does that make me a superior being as well? :zzz:
Quote from: r0tor on January 19, 2007, 01:55:52 PM
yipee... I've designed from scratch, built, tuned, and raced a FSAE car in college... does that make me a superior being as well? :zzz:
What does superior being have to do with anything? nethead was discussing tires as adding hp and that tires won't make the different in lap times. 20+ years of direct experience says otherwise. Sorry, that you can express any fucking opinion you want but *I* can't and apparently BASING said opinion on a life spent LEARNING that information is enough for you to be insulting about it. Great. I guess I should have spent that life writing books that you little fucks could reference on the web in order for it to be fucking valid.
Since you'd rather live by conjecture than experience, I'm done helping, and I'll simply lower myself to your standards and ONLY insult people from know on who use personal experience as ANY form of basis for opinion. In fact, I'll be just like you and ONLY insult people at all times. How's that? That what you want? In fact, I don't know why you're upset about me doing to you what you do to everyone else, including me.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 19, 2007, 02:01:22 PM
What does superior being have to do with anything? nethead was discussing tires as adding hp and that tires won't make the different in lap times. 20+ years of direct experience says otherwise. Sorry, that you can express any fucking opinion you want but *I* can't and apparently BASING said opinion on a life spent LEARNING that information is enough for you to be insulting about it. Great. I guess I should have spent that life writing books that you little fucks could reference on the web in order for it to be fucking valid.
Since you'd rather live by conjecture than experience, I'm done helping, and I'll simply lower myself to your standards and ONLY insult people from know on who use personal experience as ANY form of basis for opinion. In fact, I'll be just like you and ONLY insult people at all times. How's that? That what you want? In fact, I don't know why you're upset about me doing to you what you do to everyone else, including me.
:nono: :pullover:
You keep proving me right with your childish outbursts.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 19, 2007, 01:50:35 PM
I see you still don't understand that the width doesn't matter as much as the compound does. The stock Corvette tires may be wider, but they are considerably slimier in cornering use.
Don't take this personally either, but you're behind a keyboard now, too. I've been in the SCCA for 20+ years, been an SCCA and BSCC driving instructor, and built road race and slalom race cars, as well as working on the GT3 Porsches for Team Seattle.
You still don't show that you have ANY experience in road racing or cornering competition events. I posted a vid of my self in a car I prepped, that won a regional championship. I've also built national champions for other drivers. I'll post pictures from home later on. I think in 20+ years of this that I've learned a tad about what it takes to make a car work.
ChrisV: The first item--the wider tires on the Z06--is to point out that there is a greater contact patch on the wider tires than would be on the Porsche's (likely to be) narrower tires. So, we have better compound in the Porsche tires but spread over a smaller area. Tire engineers could tell us the offset one has over the other if we could give them each tire's compound, diameter, width, tread specifics, inflation pressures (the dynamic pressures, since the pressures and the grip change as the tires heat up), and weights borne by each tire (the dynamic weights, since cornering causes more of it to shift to the outside tires and braking causes more of it to shift to the front tires, yada yada yada). We don't have enough of that information in this article, nor was it likely recorded in the testing. If the Z06 had stinkin' tires, this would be an issue. But the Z06 has great tires, so the difference is much less than would be the case if the Z06 had stinkin' tires. And the Z06's tires presumably have a greater contact patch than the GT3's tires,
which offsets the presumably greater stickiness of the GT3's smaller contact patch tires to some degree--only careful measurements could nail that exact value for us. I'd say adding up the pros and cons of the tires is pretty much a wash--one has a greater contact area and one makes better use of the smaller contact area it has. But the Porsche is down about 100 horsepower yet laps the track as fast as the Corvette. It's actually a few carlengths per lap faster, but I grant that that may truly be the benefits of having better dry-conditions tires--you'll notice in my postings that I've said they lap equally fast, even though the article makes more of that half-second per lap than I think is justified because the conditions at the track favored the dry-conditions design of the Porsche's tires. But the 400+ HP Porsche kept right there with the 500+ HP Corvette, which shouldn't shock anyone that has raced Porsches as you have. I've never raced anything but motorcycles, yet I'm not shocked.
Is ANYONE besides you shocked by these results?
maybe someone should ask Mallet why they put a coilover system on their Hammer vette? :huh:
The Annual CarSPIN Bitchslap Thread returns!
ChrisV: What is this shit:
"nethead was discussing tires as adding hp and that tires won't make the different in lap times."
Tires DON'T add horsepower! Tires DO make a difference in lap times. Are we gonna havta start giving you a breathalyzer test before we let you approach a keyboard?
Now take notes if you can't grasp what I'm saying this time and surely you can find someone at your middle school that can explain it to you:
The tires on the Z06 are great tires, but the tires on the GT3 are fantastic tires for dry-track conditions. But the difference here between great and fantastic is greatly reduced by the bigger contact patch of the Z06's tires--possibly totally negated, but more likely the narrower tires on the GT3 still have a small grip advantage. The big reasons the GT3 can lap as quickly, or quicker, than the Z06 despite the Z06's nearly 100 horsepower advantage is that the GT3 has much better handling at speed in the dry, much better braking at speed (wet or dry), much better control at speed in the dry, and a much better engine location for dry-track traction--more weight over the driven wheels. Pee on the track and that engine location becomes as big a liability as it is an asset on a dry track.
Once again, and this shouldn't have to be stated a third time in the same topic but in our case it does: the Porsche used superior handling, braking, and control to lap just as fast as the Z06, which used its 100 horsepower advantage to catch back up to the GT3 on the straights. Why are you the only one who's in denial about this? You should be thankful that the Z06 had a hundred horsepower advantage or the Porsche would have been much, much further ahead.
Quote from: r0tor on January 19, 2007, 05:09:27 PM
maybe someone should ask Mallet why they put a coilover system on their Hammer vette?? :huh:
Well most tuners add stiffer springs as well as better shocks to make their modified car handle more aggressively than standard.
What would Mallet do if they wanted to put a stiffer leaf spring on the Vette?? Ask GM's supplier to redesign special ones just for their tiny production of cars?
Alot of people put aftermarket stiffer coil springs on the Vette quite simply because there is little aftermarket support for the leaf springs.? They are a specialized piece of engineering and it's not exactly trivial to make them.
I did a quick search and just found a few places that actually make aftermarket leaf springs, and the selection is limited at best.
http://www.lgmotorsports.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1569&osCsid=c39f56f9ebe0b8c50bd4729aacae37a4
and they only offer 1 single stiffness set.? If Mallet wanted a different set of spring rates, they are out of luck.
By comparision that same site offers coil over solutions.
http://www.lgmotorsports.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=342_230_337&products_id=272&osCsid=c39f56f9ebe0b8c50bd4729aacae37a4
and on their site, they say you can specify whatever spring rates you choose.
Thus for a tuner, coil overs allow them more choice in their suspension tuning.
Quote from: Nethead on January 19, 2007, 08:00:59 PM
ChrisV:Are we gonna havta start giving you a breathalyzer test before we let you approach a keyboard?
:lol:
Quote from: r0tor on January 19, 2007, 05:09:27 PM
maybe someone should ask Mallet why they put a coilover system on their Hammer vette? :huh:
Coilovers are easily adjustable.
Quote from: SaltyDog on January 13, 2007, 09:37:21 PM
Dude, I keep reading stupid comments coming from you.
:lol:
Quote from: ChrisV on January 16, 2007, 12:19:44 PM
Caling me BRAND BLIND? I'm not even a Chevy fan. I'm an Ex PCA member ,and have owned 3 911s, raced 2 of them, and a few other Porsches, as well as worked on many other racing Porches. Jesus CHRIST. I've been racing in SCCA for a couple DECADES. I've SEEN the difference TIRES FUCKING MAKE you SHITHEEL.
God DAMN. That REALLY pissed me off.
Quote from: Nethead on January 17, 2007, 11:56:01 AM
ChrisV: The Nethead here has shit on my heel from stomping you in the head.
Quote from: omicron on January 19, 2007, 06:20:07 PM
The Annual CarSPIN Bitchslap Thread returns!
Quote from: Nethead on January 19, 2007, 08:00:59 PM
Are we gonna havta start giving you a breathalyzer test before we let you approach a keyboard?
(http://www.section.at/img/smiley/popcorn.gif)
:pee: (http://www.section.at/img/smiley/old.gif)
This topic's old. We don't know why the German publication picked a GT3 and a Z06 for a professional driver to take to a racetrack. We don't even know what each car would cost in Germany, certainly a strange omission--were the costs given in the article but no one copied & translated them?
Never mind. We don't own either, so we have to accept what their results showed at that testing session on that day (which was dry). If I had a Z06's money in Euros or a GT3's money in Euros, I'd put it in the bank until one or the other of my four vehicles need replaced--and then buy something else with just part of that moolah.
Yawn. Time to move on...
time to move on, albeit with some fond memories (check my sig) :lol:
Yes, let's move on.
CHEVY RULES!!!
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 20, 2007, 07:26:00 PM
Coilovers are easily adjustable.
they are no more adjustable then a corvette with its leaf springs and an adjustable shock... shock dampening and ride height is adjustable on both
Quote from: GoCougs on January 18, 2007, 10:20:22 AM
In the days of old perhaps, but V6s and V8s what with dynamic engine mounts and a whole host of other NVH mitigation techniques have matched an in-line 6's smoothness, and eliminatied the inherent packaging and crank strength issues of in-line 6 (and 8) configurations. This is a legacy hold-over of the history kind. (read: "What, a BMW V6?!").
Eh, not really. Other than pedestrian crash safety (which, honestly, who cares about here in the states?), V6's offer no real benefits versus an inline 6 in a RWD application. In addition, I6's are naturally smoother, less complex (two camshafts instead of four in a DOHC application and no need for a balance shaft), and cheaper to manufacture (one head instead of two), ceteris paribus of course.
Quote from: LonghornTX on January 23, 2007, 12:22:52 AM
Eh, not really.? Other than pedestrian crash safety (which, honestly, who cares about here in the states?), V6's offer no real benefits versus an inline 6 in a RWD application. In addition, I6's are naturally smoother, less complex (two camshafts instead of four in a DOHC application and no need for a balance shaft), and cheaper to manufacture (one head instead of two), ceteris paribus of course.
The primary reason is indeed packaging (I was thinking of design actually), even for RWD vehicles. Try styling an X3 or 3 series with a 3.5 - 4.0L I6 under the hood. I don't thing it would look right. This is why IMO we see the advent of the twin turbo 3.0L. They wanted 300hp to keep pace with the Japanese premium brands' 300hp 3.5L - 3.7L V6s, but a larger I6 would've made BMW's smaller vehicles look goofy(ier).
All emotions aside, I gotta agree with ChrisV on this. Tires make a huge difference, and im sorry, but any car that has RFTs would benefit GREATLY from switching to regular tires of the same caliber, much less semi-slick tires. Trust me, I know this from experience. Not only do RFTs kill the ride (which matters little in this test), but they are also heavier (more unsprung weight), and IMO numb the steering feel (probably the weight issue).
Also, even with as little experience as I have (helping friends out at autocrosses), I know how much difference a simple switch from a max performance tire (like the supercars, except in my case it was Pilot sports) to a DOT semi-slick makes, and yes, Chris is right on the money. Especially on a dry, clean track. There is no comparison between the two.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 23, 2007, 12:44:05 AM
The primary reason is indeed packaging (I was thinking of design actually), even for RWD vehicles. Try styling an X3 or 3 series with a 3.5 - 4.0L I6 under the hood. I don't thing it would look right. This is why IMO we see the advent of the twin turbo 3.0L. They wanted 300hp to keep pace with the Japanese premium brands' 300hp 3.5L - 3.7L V6s, but a larger I6 would've made BMW's smaller vehicles look goofy(ier).
Well, we can speculate all we want and we will never know the truth. Personally, I think BMW went with turbos not for packaging sake (many say that a 3.5L version of the R6 design was in consideration), but rather for the power potential they can provide. And remember, increasing the displacement of the engine does not necesarily mean the physical size of the engine will increase greatly, especially in heigth (which is really the only dimension that would have any affect on the car's looks). As it is, BMW's I6s are undersquare in design, so plausibly they could have simply increased the bore. Who knows, but it is certainly a dis-service to treat the I6 as some sort of anachronism.....
Ok, so I just realized that this topic had pretty much reached it's peak already (I decided to post before reading the whole thing). Oops :banghead:. I guess that is what I get for going away for awhile :tounge:.