the best gets better (2008 vette)

[roosterjuicer]

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48592

quick and dirty...new vette gets a 6.2l ls3 v8 rated at 430hp.

all you import guys go ahead and bow down! the 400hp vette was already better than most of what japan/europe had to offer for twice the price and now its even better.

[speedy_2]

The Bang for the Buck factor of the Vette just keeps going up and up!! I hope to own a Vette one day. And, I'm sure the New Camaro, if ever released will have this 430HP motor in it as well. ;)

[Kitdy]

Definitely good news.

As for bowing down, I think there are pros and cons for American and European and Japanese cars.

[Clique]

6.2 litre and only 430 BHP hmmm...honda has been getting 240 odd BHP from a 2.0 litre since the turn of the millenium...bow down to that...

[Ingolstadt]

6.2 litre and only 430 BHP hmmm...honda has been getting 240 odd BHP from a 2.0 litre since the turn of the millenium...bow down to that...


Someone would definitely come to you and say :" Liter/BHP MEANS NOTHING."

I've nothing against this car, but can they do something for the interior? It looks crap.

[drakkie]

Someone would definitely come to you and say :" Liter/BHP MEANS NOTHING."


Problem is, that this guy will be easily buried in a flood of arguments, that he is wrong :D

[fisetdavid26]

I like it, it's nice to see the engine is even more powerful. The exterior is still stunning and the interior is quite good, for a GM at least. As for comparing it to european and japanese cars, I'm not putting myself in hot water by commenting that!

[speedy_2]

6.2 litre and only 430 BHP hmmm...honda has been getting 240 odd BHP from a 2.0 litre since the turn of the millenium...bow down to that...

But does Honda make a 430HP engine and put it in a car that costs half as much as similar competitors? Uhh no...no they don't. Wait, they did make a car with a 290HP V6 in it, but that cost how much???? Over $100,000??!!

Considering that it's a 6.2L pushrod engine that's impressive. You have to remember, more displacement=more rotating mass. Anyone that makes a 6.2L isn't going to get the same HP/liter as a 2.0L engine. Parasitic loss is inevitable. even if honda makes it.

[Waugh-terfall]

Uhoh, here comes Badda!:p

[Wouter Melissen]

Problem is, that this guy will be easily buried in a flood of arguments, that he is wrong :D

It's hp/kg that counts. Liters don't weigh anything and it is weight that slows cars down.

[roosterjuicer]

6.2 litre and only 430 BHP hmmm...honda has been getting 240 odd BHP from a 2.0 litre since the turn of the millenium...bow down to that...

yeah, the s2000 has great specific output but in the real world it wasn't that great because you have to rev the hell out of it to get any power. all its really good for is bragging rights.

the bottom line is that a bigger motor makes more power and its more usefull power because its there throughout the powerband, not just at 7000rpms.

[Kitdy]

It's hp/kg that counts. Liters don't weigh anything and it is weight that slows cars down.

No truer words have been spoken. As for hp/kg, the LS2 puts put 0.89 hp/lb, the LS7 1.10hp/lb. For comparisson, the AMG 6.3 in the CLK 63 has 1.08 hp/lb, and the S85 in the M5 and M6 has 0.94 hp/lb, so for the price, the base LS2 does pretty good, and I bet the LS3 is even better.

As an aside, approximately how much weight does making an engine DOHC as opposed to a pushrod engine add? Looking at all the stats of hp/lb, I see that the LS7 achieves it;s 505 hp at aonly 6,300 rpm - I know the rpm is limited in a pushrod engine, but were they to use a DOHC system, and allow the engine to rev to a higher levelm, say 8,000 like Ferrari's and Porsches, would the hp.kg be better in the LS7- or would the process of making it rev higher and use DOHC add too much weight and make it more like the hp/kg of the F140 of the Enzo or M80 of the CGT? I clearly am no engine expert and would like to learn more.

[henk4]

all you import guys go ahead and bow down!

I guess it is impossible not to ventilate your inferiority complex regarding cars when announcing a new US product:D

[roosterjuicer]

I guess it is impossible not to ventilate your inferiority complex regarding cars when announcing a new US product:D

haha touchee! i was really just trying to stir the pot a little. im sick of my threads being so short haha:o

[Kitdy]

I guess it is impossible not to ventilate your inferiority complex regarding cars when announcing a new US product:D

Henk4, do you thikn the Corvette is a good car? I've been trying to decipher what cars you like and if I had to guess it'd be the european cars form like the 60's or something.

[henk4]

Henk4, do you thikn the Corvette is a good car? I've been trying to decipher what cars you like and if I had to guess it'd be the european cars form like the 60's or something.

I think the Corvette is a good car, from the C6 onwards, and cannot be beaten in terms of value for money.

[henk4]

im sick of my threads being so short haha:o

maybe you should open threads about interesting cars?:)

[Kitdy]

I think the Corvette is a good car, from the C6 onwards, and cannot be beaten in terms of value for money.

From the C6 onwards, truth. I gotta include the C2 and early C3's as good cars too, the rest - crap! :)

[roosterjuicer]

From the C6 onwards, truth. I gotta include the C2 and early C3's as good cars too, the rest - crap! :)

the c5 z06 is a great car. although i will concede that the c4's were pretty lame although the zr1 was pretty sweet for its time

[Ferrer]

More power is always welcomed. :)

If only the value was as good as here as it is in the states... :(

[Clique]

But does Honda make a 430HP engine and put it in a car that costs half as much as similar competitors? Uhh no...no they don't. Wait, they did make a car with a 290HP V6 in it, but that cost how much???? Over $100,000??!!

Considering that it's a 6.2L pushrod engine that's impressive. You have to remember, more displacement=more rotating mass. Anyone that makes a 6.2L isn't going to get the same HP/liter as a 2.0L engine. Parasitic loss is inevitable. even if honda makes it.

the M3 has a 3.2 producing 343 BHP and i am sure that will probably keep up with it in a straigh line show the two cars corners and i know where i would put my money on..but each to their own eh i just prefer low capicity high revving engine not a lazy 6.2 litre...

[Kitdy]

the c5 z06 is a great car. although i will concede that the c4's were pretty lame although the zr1 was pretty sweet for its time

I actualyl dn;t know the deal with the C5 Z06 - though I am sure it is good. The C5 to me looks like a retarted, mashed up version of the gorgoeus C6, and the C4 is straight up crap, along with post 1971 C3's. I'll take the Big BLock C2 or C3 thank you - or a C6 Z06 or Blue Devil thank you. :D

[Ferrer]

hhmmm the V10 engine from the M5/6 5 litre engine producing more than 100 BHP per litre..as for price a standard caterham would own a corvette and it would cost much less..but each to their own eh i just prefer low capicity high revving engine not a lazy 6.2 litre...
But a Caterham isn't as practical or as nice on an everyday basis... ;)

[roosterjuicer]

the M3 has a 3.2 producing 343 BHP and i am sure that will probably keep up with it in a straigh line show the two cars corners and i know where i would put my money on..

the m3 3.2 litre was 320 hp. and its been well documented that it cant even keep up with a c5 z06 in the straights or the corners.

[The_Canuck]

the m3 3.2 litre was 320 hp. and its been well documented that it cant even keep up with a c5 z06 in the straights or the corners.

Highly doubt it.

[roosterjuicer]

Highly doubt it.

well the m3 did 0-60 in about 4.7-5.0 seconds depending on the tester while the c5 z06 did it in about 4.3. the vette is lighter and has a lot more horsepower and torque.

[Waugh-terfall]

Oh god, this reminds me of Me & the Audi RS6 4.2Bi-Turbo vs Pat and the Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZO6 LS7...

[The_Canuck]

well the m3 did 0-60 in about 4.7-5.0 seconds depending on the tester while the c5 z06 did it in about 4.3. the vette is lighter and has a lot more horsepower and torque.

I was refering to the cornering.

[Clique]

the m3 3.2 litre was 320 hp. and its been well documented that it cant even keep up with a c5 z06 in the straights or the corners.

i admit i havent driven many cars...but i have been lucky enough to drive a M3 for one week thanks to a really really really nice cousin of mine and trust me the m3 shifts like a muthafu*ker and it handled beautifully...as for comparing it to the z05 the comparison is wrong primarily because the z05 is more of a track car i would love to see the z05 face off againest the M3CSL...maybe in the US the corvette might be good value but here it costs around £50,000 ($100,000 £1=$2 :p ) which is £10,000 more expensive than an M3...and i dont think the extra outlay is worth it for an extra 100BHP and a car with interior plastics made out of lego...

[Slicks]

6.2 litre and only 430 BHP hmmm...honda has been getting 240 odd BHP from a 2.0 litre since the turn of the millenium...bow down to that...

With that logic, GM gets 430hp from just 380lbs (and 6000RPMs...), while it takes Honda 325lbs to get just 240hp (and at 7700RPMs...).
You fail.

[Slicks]

i admit i havent driven many cars...but i have been lucky enough to drive a M3 for one week thanks to a really really really nice cousin of mine and trust me the m3 shifts like a muthafu*ker and it handled beautifully...as for comparing it to the z05 the comparison is wrong primarily because the z05 is more of a track car i would love to see the z05 face off againest the M3CSL...maybe in the US the corvette might be good value but here it costs around £50,000 ($100,000 £1=$2 :p ) which is £10,000 more expensive than an M3...and i dont think the extra outlay is worth it for an extra 100BHP and a car with interior plastics made out of lego...
1.) Its Z06, not Z05.
2.) You've clearly never even seen a Corvette in real life.
3.) you're dumb.

[Slicks]

From the C6 onwards, truth. I gotta include the C2 and early C3's as good cars too, the rest - crap! :)

The C5 was one hell of a car, expecially the Z06.

[Kitdy]

With that logic, GM gets 430hp from just 380lbs (and 6000RPMs...), while it takes Honda 325lbs to get just 240hp (and at 7700RPMs...).
You fail.

Smoked.

Slicks, as for he C5 Z06 being a good car, I can respect that but the C5 seriously looks like a crock.

[Clique]

1.) Its Z06, not Z05.
2.) You've clearly never even seen a Corvette in real life.
3.) you're dumb.

1) i never bought up the zo5 the other dude did.. i was thinking why he never mentioned the new one..
2) yes i have everyday i drive past an american vehicles showroom on my daily commute and have sat in one but havent driven one...
3) shows how clever you are because you need to resort to insults in order to get your point accross..

[roosterjuicer]

1) i never bought up the zo5 the other dude did.. i was thinking why he never mentioned the new one..


i think what he meant was that there is no such thing as a z05

[Slicks]

1) i never bought up the zo5 the other dude did.. i was thinking why he never mentioned the new one..
2) yes i have everyday i drive past an american vehicles showroom on my daily commute and have sat in one but havent driven one...
3) shows how clever you are because you need to resort to insults in order to get your point accross..
No you brought up "Z05", which was a limited Corvette package for the base C5, which was fitted with Z06 suspension. What the "other dude" said was Z06. And this is why Im calling you dumb, your spouting off about something you know absolutely nothing about (that, and you brought up the dumbest arguement ever: hp/l)...
The term "Z06" has nothing to do with the generation of the Corvette, its a performance option introduced in 1963, and seen again in 2001-2004, and now in 2007+. A C5 Z06 is a 5th generation Corvette with the Z06 package.

[Kitdy]

No you brought up "Z05", which was a limited Corvette package for the base C5, which was fitted with Z06 suspension. What the "other dude" said was Z06. And this is why Im calling you dumb, your spouting off about something you know absolutely nothing about (that, and you brought up the dumbest arguement ever: hp/l)...
The term "Z06" has nothing to do with the generation of the Corvette, its a performance option introduced in 1963, and seen again in 2001-2004, and now in 2007+. A C5 Z06 is a 5th generation Corvette with the Z06 package.

you didn;t have to call CLique dumb though Slicks. That acheived nothing.

Anyways, I used to think hp/L mattered, but it is useless. hp/kg ftw!

Slicks does the C5 Z06 hold a candle to the C6 Z06?

[The_Canuck]

Anyways, I used to think hp/L mattered, but it is useless. hp/kg ftw!




The only thing I can think HP/L could be usefull for would be gauging the laziness of manufactures. You think with 7 litres they could get at least 575hp :p Jokes.

[Slicks]

you didn;t have to call CLique dumb though Slicks. That acheived nothing.

I felt like stirring the pot a bit :p


Anyways, I used to think hp/L mattered, but it is useless. hp/kg ftw!

Slicks does the C5 Z06 hold a candle to the C6 Z06?

In terms of track performance no, the C5 Z06 is down 100hp/70ft.lbs, has skinnier tires(but not runcraps thank god), previous generation suspension,and less downforce/worse aerodynamics. For a comparision, the C5 Z06 ran 7:56 at the n-ring, and the C6 Z06 ran 7:42.

[Slicks]

The only thing I can think HP/L could be usefull for would be gauging the laziness of manufactures. You think with 7 litres they could get at least 575hp :p Jokes.

The thing is they didnt want 575hp, although they could have easily gotten it. It comes very restriced from the factory, for example when LG got a hold of their first LS7 to tune (which they got over 700hp N/A out of, and didnt rev past 7000RPMs...) the simple removal of the air filter netted around 20RWHP! Thats over 20 fly wheel hp from just an air filter...
GM wanted a small and lightweight engine making 500hp, so they made it just like that.
If you ask me, Id say its lazy making a 500+lbs engine the size of a house, and making just 500hp, and very little torque... (cough BMW cough)

[Kitdy]

For a comparision, the C5 Z06 ran 7:56 at the n-ring, and the C6 Z06 ran 7:42.

That's pretty signifigant. That is clearly more of a reflection of how good the Z06 is. I am psyched for the Blue Devil or whatever you want to call it. IT is gonna have Enzo-like acceleration!

[kingofthering]

So... this means the Z06 gets a 30bhp bump.

Slicks- shut up. These are two different engines. The M5 is a luxury sedan and the Z06 is a sports car.

[Slicks]

So... this means the Z06 gets a 30bhp bump.

Read the article, the Z06 gets no power increase.


Slicks- shut up. These are two different engines. The M5 is a luxury sedan and the Z06 is a sports car.
More the reason to make a light/small engine.

[kingofthering]

Read the article, the Z06 gets no power increase.


Strange, the Z06 has always had a 100hp increase.

[Kitdy]

Strange, the Z06 has always had a 100hp increase.

The Z06 and standard C6 have two different engines - for the original run of the C6, the 6.0L LS2 was used, now the 6.2L LS3 is being used - the Z06 still uses the 7.0L LS7.

[Turbo.Jenkens]

From the C6 onwards, truth. I gotta include the C2 and early C3's as good cars too, the rest - crap! :)

The later C1s are very desirable also, I would kill a man for a 62' 327. Although the later C3s were crap you have to understand the decade, it really is a miracle that they were even produced. The early C4s were also really good compared to everything else that was out at the time, though by the 90s the styling was terribly dated. Unfortunately that is how they are remembered. I am amazed that you guys don't like the C5. I will admit that the hardtop and Zo6 are mis proportioned, but the coup is DROP DEAD SEXY.

[baddabang]

Uhoh, here comes Badda!:p

haha. Old news to anybody who hangs around corvette forums.


the c5 z06 is a great car. although i will concede that the c4's were pretty lame although the zr1 was pretty sweet for its time

<3 C4's


I actualyl dn;t know the deal with the C5 Z06 - though I am sure it is good. The C5 to me looks like a retarted, mashed up version of the gorgoeus C6, and the C4 is straight up crap, along with post 1971 C3's. I'll take the Big BLock C2 or C3 thank you - or a C6 Z06 or Blue Devil thank you. :D

How can it look like a smashed up version of the "gorgeous C6" if the C5 was produced before anybody knew what the the C6 was going to look like?


Oh god, this reminds me of Me & the Audi RS6 4.2Bi-Turbo vs Pat and the Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZO6 LS7...

Ah the good old times :D


The C5 was one hell of a car, expecially the Z06.

QFMFT. I <3 the Z06 vid on YouTube where it smokes a F430 around Sebring.

[Kitdy]

How can it look like a smashed up version of the "gorgeous C6" if the C5 was produced before anybody knew what the the C6 was going to look like?

You know, contrary to popular belief, I am not a moron. I knew the C5 was before the C6, but it is clear that GM developed a time machine in in the year 2006 to take pictures of the C6 into the past and said to the deisngers of the C5 to make it like that but "much, much uglier."

I may not have oficially got to drive a C5 but I did have the pleasure of backing one out of a driveway and revving to the redline - I was pretty excited I have to say - even though it was just a "lousy C5". :D

[The_Canuck]

QFMFT. I <3 the Z06 vid on YouTube where it smokes a F430 around Sebring.

Yup, youtube = teh truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahAfIw4ahw

Of course there are too many factors to judge cars by some amature race on the internet. ;) :D

[P4g4nite]

400 to 430hp, Will it make my penis 7.5% larger too?

Corvettes seem like pretty good value in the US of A but I can't help but think that if they were available here they would be driven by the types who have done up WRXs and Skylines.

[Ferrer]

you didn;t have to call CLique dumb though Slicks. That acheived nothing.

Anyways, I used to think hp/L mattered, but it is useless. hp/kg ftw!

Slicks does the C5 Z06 hold a candle to the C6 Z06?
Except when road taxes are considered. Then hp/L matters too. ;)

[Slicks]

Except when road taxes are considered. Then hp/L matters too. ;)

By "road taxes" do you mean those moronic displacement taxes?

[Slicks]

400 to 430hp, Will it make my penis 7.5% larger too?

Its not a Ferrari, BMW, or Porsche, so it doesnt come with any male enhancements.

[Slicks]

Yup, youtube = teh truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahAfIw4ahw

Of course there are too many factors to judge cars by some amature race on the internet. ;) :D

So a modified Talon is able to put a couple car lengths on a stock Z06, I dont see your point...

[Ferrer]

By "road taxes" do you mean those moronic displacement taxes?
Yup, but that's what we have. So we try to find other ways of getting power.

[roosterjuicer]

Yup, but that's what we have. So we try to find other ways of getting power.

god i would hate being taxed on something like that. im so glad i dont live in europe! what other stupid taxes like that do you have?

dont feel too bad though, im sure the usa will be there someday in the stupidity department, things are becoming more and more regulated every day.

[clutch-monkey]

Its not a Ferrari, BMW, or Porsche, so it doesnt come with any male enhancements.
what? it's a corvette, of course it does. in fact, if anything, it narrowly beats the others in the 'most male enhancements' department.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/557/627must3vr8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

although, here with a Z06 there are no such problems... the price of the conversion (lazy GM engineers strike again) keeps the riff raff out :)

[baddabang]

Yup, youtube = teh truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahAfIw4ahw

Of course there are too many factors to judge cars by some amature race on the internet. ;) :D


I can modify an engine and make a car go really fast in a straight line......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ec-ZDGjPFfg

Z06>F430

[Turbo.Jenkens]

By "road taxes" do you mean those moronic displacement taxes?

I'm so very very sorry that you have to pay a displacement tax:( . Seems kind of backwards because a big lazy V8 gets better gas mileage than a small motor with the same output:confused: .

[Clique]

the m3 3.2 litre was 320 hp. and its been well documented that it cant even keep up with a c5 z06 in the straights or the corners.

ohh look i bought the z05 up....


No you brought up "Z05", which was a limited Corvette package for the base C5, which was fitted with Z06 suspension. What the "other dude" said was Z06. And this is why Im calling you dumb, your spouting off about something you know absolutely nothing about (that, and you brought up the dumbest arguement ever: hp/l)...
The term "Z06" has nothing to do with the generation of the Corvette, its a performance option introduced in 1963, and seen again in 2001-2004, and now in 2007+. A C5 Z06 is a 5th generation Corvette with the Z06 package.

firstly slicks you dont need to resort to insults to get your point across maybe you think calling people dumb covers your shortcomings in life but trust me it doesnt ...earlier on in this thread i admitted that everyone has their own tastes as you and i have... clearly our tastes vary you prefer a 60 year old plastic car whereas i prefer modern high revving cars...maybe in america or whereever you are from the corvette might be cheap but as i am from england and here the corvette costs around $100,000 which is a rip off considering you can get BMW M3 for around $80,000, Porsche Cayman for around $90,000, an Audi RS4 for around $100,000 and a Mitsu Evo 9 MR 360 for around $70,000...and i am 100% sure that any of the cars mentioned will be able to see off the Corvette around a track although i am sure the Crovette will be fast in a straight line which says alot about its engineering...

[Slicks]

what? it's a corvette, of course it does. in fact, if anything, it narrowly beats the others in the 'most male enhancements' department.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/557/627must3vr8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

although, here with a Z06 there are no such problems... the price of the conversion (lazy GM engineers strike again) keeps the riff raff out :)

Maybe where your from, but here Corvette owners are either old guys, or the young hot rodders who like to actually work on their cars and get dirty. Where as the BMW, Ferrari, Porsche owners are pricks who buy the cars as fashion statements, and if it gets dirty they sell them for a new one.

[Slicks]

ohh look i bought the z05 up....
Man, your really not helping yourself with the dumb argument here...
"the m3 3.2 litre was 320 hp. and its been well documented that it cant even keep up with a c5 z06 in the straights or the corners."
Does that say Z05 or Z06?
YOU and only YOU brought up "Z05", he brought up Z06, which are of the same generation but different cars as Ive already explained. Its like saying EVO and EVO MR.



firstly slicks you dont need to resort to insults to get your point across maybe you think calling people dumb covers your shortcomings in life but trust me it doesnt ...earlier on in this thread i admitted that everyone has their own tastes as you and i have... clearly our tastes vary you prefer a 60 year old plastic car whereas i prefer modern high revving cars...

Once again your proving yourself to be dumb... Whats "60 years old" about a new Corvette?
Also, amoung plastic reinforced fiberglass, the Corvette is also made of magnesium, carbon fiber, and aluminum. But if you take your head out of your ass for one second you could see this.
Honestly I prefer modern day sports cars with engines not made directly by the marketing team of the company, but rather the racing division. That right, hp/l is marketing and nothing more. What counts is the torque curve, and the weight/physical size of the engine.


maybe in america or whereever you are from the corvette might be cheap but as i am from england and here the corvette costs around $100,000 which is a rip off considering you can get BMW M3 for around $80,000, Porsche Cayman for around $90,000, an Audi RS4 for around $100,000 and a Mitsu Evo 9 MR 360 for around $70,000...and i am 100% sure that any of the cars mentioned will be able to see off the Corvette around a track although i am sure the Crovette will be fast in a straight line which says alot about its engineering...
Dont complain to me about your country taxing the Corvette. And BTW, lets just take a look at some of those lap times:
N-ring:
C6 Corvette Z06: 7:42
C5 Corvette Z06: 7:56
C6 Corvette: 7:59
Audi RS4: 8:09
Cayman S: 8:11
EVO XI(no MR time): 8:11

Well so much for your theory... Not only does the C6 wearing tires you can drive 100 miles on flat beat them, but even the last generation Corvette beats them...
I agree though, $100,000 is a ripoff, but because your gov taxes the car doesnt make it a "bad" car now. In the US the base price Corvette is $45,000, the Cayman is $70,000(thats the price of a Z06), the M3 is around $60,000, EVO MR 360 is a limited production british car, and the RS4 is $70,000. You see the value now?

[Clique]

its like i said earlier people have different tastes...i like german cars you like american drivel you cant keep telling me that the corvette is better because i will always prefer german cars over american...also calling me dumb is just childish and uncalled for..i havent once insulted you i could because its not difficult to called an idiot dumb but i am not...
i call it quits...

[Niko_Fx]

But does Honda make a 430HP engine and put it in a car that costs half as much as similar competitors? Uhh no...no they don't. Wait, they did make a car with a 290HP V6 in it, but that cost how much???? Over $100,000??!!

$90k and is hand built. Far better car than any Vette will ever be.

[Kitdy]

I agree though, $100,000 is a ripoff, but because your gov taxes the car doesnt make it a "bad" car now. In the US the base price Corvette is $45,000, the Cayman is $70,000(thats the price of a Z06), the M3 is around $60,000, EVO MR 360 is a limited production british car, and the RS4 is $70,000. You see the value now?

The ont thing to be considered is that prices of these cars cannot really be directly compared; all we can really do is lets say for a Cayman - compare the cost of a Cayman in Germany to a Corvette in America; a 'vette is Brittain costs way more as it is imported, a Porsche in America costs way more becasue it is imported.

Clique, Slicks was kinda being a dick and that is too bad, but you gotta understand that the C6/Z06 is one of the better sportscars out there; probably the best for it's price in the American market! Don't enter an argument with a preconceived idea!

You know, so what, the Americans have a "lazy" V8 that is not a particularly sophisticated design, but that V8 is damn light and the beauty of the design is the simplicity. I used to come into things assuming that European cars were naturally somehow better - but when you get down to it, the C6, the Z06 especially is capable of mixing it up with the big European boys - and for a lot less.

I am currently looking at the Nürburgring times right now, and I think Slicks should have posted more times for perspective, personally- thought N-ring laptimes are not the be all, end all, they are a good measure of how good a car is (Cleraly variances in driver ability, weather, tires and such can adversly affect the performance, but it is a good rough idea).

Selected Street Legal Nürburgring Times (From Wikipedia's list of times:List of Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times))

Porsche Carrera GT: 7:28 (Fastest time not including little debatably street legal cars like Radicals and Donkervoort, so fastest "standard car layout car" I guess)
Pagani Zonda F: 7:33
Koenigsegg CCR: 7:34
Bugatti Veyron 16.4: 7:40
Mercedes Benz McLaren SLR: 7:40
Porsche 997 GT3 RS: 7:42
Ford GT: 7:42
Chevrolet Corvette C6: 7:43
Lamborghini Murcielago: 7:43
Pagani Zonda: 7:44
BMW M3 E46 CSL: 7:50
Lamborghini Gallardo: 7:52
Ferrari F430: 7:55

However, some of these lapt times appear to be set by race drivers such as Walter Röhrl in the Porsche CGT and Jan Magnussen in the Z06, while others may have been driven by less qualified drivers.

The point is, the C6 Z06 is smack dab in the thick of it, regardless of conditions or who drove it.

Now for the prices - pretty much smack dab tied with the Z06 is the 997 GT3 (one of my personal favourites - except for the stupid rear engine :p), which, as I have just learned, costs a base of €110,878.25 Euros in Germany, or as of today's exchange rate, $151,071 USD. The Z06 in America costs base of $70,000 USD or €51,376.10 Euros, so less than half the price for 1 second slower on the clock.

Also, according to GM's website:


Power-to-weight ratio exceeds Porsche 911 Turbo, Dodge Viper, Ferrari F430 and Aston Martin Vanquish S, and Ford GT.(1)

1 Based on latest available competitive information.

Impressive, no? In fact, the Z06 actualyl weighs less than a CGT: CGT is 1475kg, Z06 is 1419kg!

Now, as Slicks may recall, I used to hate on Corvettes (now I only hate on vettes from 1927 until the C6 :D) but credit must be given where it is due. As fun as it is for me, as a Canadian to hate on everything America does, and as fun as it is for many Europeans to do so as well, the Chevrolet Corvette in it's current incantation deserves applause, not ridicule.

The only thing left to hate about the Corvette is it's simplicty; but you do get what you pay for, and in this case anyways, what you pay for is pretty darn good! If you still think Corvettes are not that good, then you are lost to the automotive world without a hope methinks! :p

What was all this rant about anyways?

Oh yes, finally, props to Slicks for constantly fighting off the haters (if you could only do it in a more congenial fashion). :D

[roosterjuicer]

$90k and is hand built. Far better car than any Vette will ever be.

how is it better than any vette? it has less power than most camaro z28's and although its faster than the camaro's its about just as fast as a gto and it cant really shake a stick at a c5 z06 or a c6 or c6 z06. id much rather have an m3, or a 911 than an nsx.

call me old fashioned but im just not really that into paying 45k $ more for a car that im gonna loose most of my races in.

[Slicks]

its like i said earlier people have different tastes...i like german cars you like american drivel you cant keep telling me that the corvette is better because i will always prefer german cars over american...

Im not saying car X is better than car Y, Im just showing you facts, and like most fanboys you cant handle them... oh boohoo your German cars lost to some American "drivel", grow up, maybe next time you will actually try to RESEACH before you open your mouth?
edit: for the record, I love most german cars, the M3 and Carrera GT are two of my favorite cars.
edit again: its kinda funny, many BMW owners are starting to see the light, and dropping in proper engines to their cars:
http://www.nash8503.com/index.html


also calling me dumb is just childish and uncalled for..i havent once insulted you i could because its not difficult to called an idiot dumb but i am not...
i call it quits...
Contradiction?

[Slicks]

Oh yes, finally, props to Slicks for constantly fighting off the haters (if you could only do it in a more congenial fashion). :D

Honestly I used to, but as the years went by, and the haters got dumber I just gave up that approach. :D

[Niko_Fx]

call me old fashioned but im just not really that into paying 45k $ more for a car that im gonna loose most of my races in.

If you think that the $45k were dropped in to match the 1/4 mile performance of the cars previously mentioned then I rather not discuss at all with you as your ignorance will be too hard to penetrate and educate.

[Coventrysucks]

Dont complain to me about your country taxing the Corvette.

To import a vehicle from the USA to the UK you need to pay duty - 10%, and then VAT 17.5%.

So for a Corvette C6:

US MRSP = $44,995

+ Duty (£4,500)

= $49,500

+ VAT ($8663)

= $58,163 (£29,106)

Corvette Europe's OTR price for a C6 is £46,685 ($93,290)

Where is £17,579 going?

Not on shipping: a container + insurance should be about £3500 if you are importing privately, and GM don't ship cars individually in containers; they do it in bulk on RO-RO ferries, so that cost would be greatly reduced.

That is still £14,000+ ($28,000) to account for.

[092326001]

the Z06 relies on its power to get through a track
from most review i hear that the Z06's handling is very poor
the C5 Z06 was said to have much better handling

[Kitdy]

the Z06 relies on its power to get through a track
from most review i hear that the Z06's handling is very poor
the C5 Z06 was said to have much better handling

Now THAT is the other weakness I wasn't sure about. I thought that the handiling was pretty good for an American car, but I may be mistaken. THe one thing Europe has down over the American cars is handiling, and ususally why I aspire to them as I think both handiling and high power are good.

[Turbo.Jenkens]

Z06's handling is very poor
the C5 Z06 was said to have much better handling

Please site a source that confirms the Zo6's poor handling. Though I've never had the pleasure of driving one I've always read that they are extremely good handling cars.

Agility & superior road holding typically translate to a good handling automobile. Some stats from Road & Track's road test:




----------------------Skid pad (G)-------Slalom (mph)

C6 Z06------------------.96-----------------71.2

C5 Z06------------------.98-----------------67.6

911 Turbo---------------.97-----------------70.7

Cayman S---------------.95-----------------70.6

Carrera GT--------------.99------------------71.1

BMW M6----------------.88------------------69.5

Gallardo ----------------.99 -----------------70.6

Murcielago -------------.96 -----------------70.5

Lancer Evo RS----------.87------------------69.7

Enzo-------------------1.01-----------------73.0

Supra Turbo------------.98 -----------------65.4

NSX--------------------.91---------------- 65.8



Of course steering feel and balance are not so easy to put into #s but you get a idea of how it stacks up against the rest of the world.

[Slicks]

To import a vehicle from the USA to the UK you need to pay duty - 10%, and then VAT 17.5%.

So for a Corvette C6:

US MRSP = $44,995

+ Duty (£4,500)

= $49,500

+ VAT ($8663)

= $58,163 (£29,106)

Corvette Europe's OTR price for a C6 is £46,685 ($93,290)

Where is £17,579 going?

Not on shipping: a container + insurance should be about £3500 if you are importing privately, and GM don't ship cars individually in containers; they do it in bulk on RO-RO ferries, so that cost would be greatly reduced.

That is still £14,000+ ($28,000) to account for.
Sorry, all Corvette's sold to Europe are the Z51 models (unless optioned to be Z06). Base Z51 here is:
$46,770
+ 4677 (duty)
= 51477
+9003 (VAT)
=$60,480

32,659 GBP? Still off, but closer. GM also has to change little things like lights etc. to meet the different euro standards, and I assume they change some emmission stuff around as well.

[Slicks]

the Z06 relies on its power to get through a track
from most review i hear that the Z06's handling is very poor
the C5 Z06 was said to have much better handling

I think your confusing feel with handling (how much speed you can take in a corner). GM addressed the C6 Z06's lack of feel, and snap oversteer with some suspension tweaks for the '07 models, which supposedly not only make the car handle better and give more feedback, but the car also rides better.
But if the Z06 did only rely on power to get good track times, how is it possible that it could beat a Zonda (which has much greater power weight, and has proper tires) around a twisty track like the n-ring? Or beat something like an F430 which has almost the same power to weight?

[Kitdy]

Sorry, all Corvette's sold to Europe are the Z51 models (unless optioned to be Z06). Base Z51 here is:
$46,770
+ 4677 (duty)
= 51477
+9003 (VAT)
=$60,480

32,659 GBP? Still off, but closer. GM also has to change little things like lights etc. to meet the different euro standards, and I assume they change some emmission stuff around as well.

Don't forget the mystery X factor. That is the factor you pay for it being form another country. I am sure if we looked at Porsches and Ferraris their prices would be slightly higher even including taxes, shipping, and all that jazz.


I think your confusing feel with handling (how much speed you can take in a corner). GM addressed the C6 Z06's lack of feel, and snap oversteer with some suspension tweaks for the '07 models, which supposedly not only make the car handle better and give more feedback, but the car also rides better.
But if the Z06 did only rely on power to get good track times, how is it possible that it could beat a Zonda (which has much greater power weight, and has proper tires) around a twisty track like the n-ring? Or beat something like an F430 which has almost the same power to weight?

Based on what I've read, the Z06 handles OK, maybe not as good as say an Elise or a 997 GT3, but close enough and with much more power - I will look into my archived R&T and C+D magazines a bit later.

Slicks, as for the Z06 beating the Zonda and F430 around the track, I think that has more to do with the driver than the car - I may well be wrong, but I find it a little strange to see an F430 that well back of a Z06, or it beating the Zonda, then again, maybe the Z06 simply is that good.

[kingofthering]

Dont complain to me about your country taxing the Corvette. And BTW, lets just take a look at some of those lap times:
N-ring:
C6 Corvette Z06: 7:42
C5 Corvette Z06: 7:56
C6 Corvette: 7:59
Audi RS4: 8:09
Cayman S: 8:11
EVO XI(no MR time): 8:11

Well so much for your theory... Not only does the C6 wearing tires you can drive 100 miles on flat beat them, but even the last generation Corvette beats them...
I agree though, $100,000 is a ripoff, but because your gov taxes the car doesnt make it a "bad" car now. In the US the base price Corvette is $45,000, the Cayman is $70,000(thats the price of a Z06), the M3 is around $60,000, EVO MR 360 is a limited production british car, and the RS4 is $70,000. You see the value now?
You're off by 10K for the Cayman and the M3 is closer to 50K. Also, the Nuerburgring is a high-speed track.


how is it better than any vette? it has less power than most camaro z28's and although its faster than the camaro's its about just as fast as a gto and it cant really shake a stick at a c5 z06 or a c6 or c6 z06. id much rather have an m3, or a 911 than an nsx.

call me old fashioned but im just not really that into paying 45k $ more for a car that im gonna loose most of my races in.

The NSX is designed for balance through the corners and overall performance, but the Z06 is like the original cobra- brash, fast, and surprisingly capable.




edit again: its kinda funny, many BMW owners are starting to see the light, and dropping in proper engines to their cars:
http://www.nash8503.com/index.html

I disagree, that's like dropping a Nissan Skyline GT-R engine into a Camaro Z28- you're butchering it.

[Slicks]

Don't forget the mystery X factor. That is the factor you pay for it being form another country. I am sure if we looked at Porsches and Ferraris their prices would be slightly higher even including taxes, shipping, and all that jazz.

Yeah, maybe. But I dont see it logical for GM to charge extra for a car that Europeans are already biased against :P



Based on what I've read, the Z06 handles OK, maybe not as good as say an Elise or a 997 GT3, but close enough and with much more power - I will look into my archived R&T and C+D magazines a bit later.

Slicks, as for the Z06 beating the Zonda and F430 around the track, I think that has more to do with the driver than the car - I may well be wrong, but I find it a little strange to see an F430 that well back of a Z06, or it beating the Zonda, then again, maybe the Z06 simply is that good.

I honestly dont expect it to beat a base Zonda either, and usually when the Z06 is matched against an F430 (without the optional pirelli's) it only puts about 1 second on it(then again the Z06 is capable of over 200mph, possibly helping on that last big strait).

[Kitdy]

I honestly dont expect it to beat a base Zonda either, and usually when the Z06 is matched against an F430 (without the optional pirelli's) it only puts about 1 second on it(then again the Z06 is capable of over 200mph, possibly helping on that last big strait).

So without the Pirellis the Z06 takes it by a second then? :eek:

What kinda tires were on the Z06 when Magnussen drove it?

[Slicks]

You're off by 10K for the Cayman and the M3 is closer to 50K. Also, the Nuerburgring is a high-speed track.

Ah, I forgot there is a "base" Cayman now, thats the Cayman S's price.



I disagree, that's like dropping a Nissan Skyline GT-R engine into a Camaro Z28- you're butchering it.
Eh, not really. Your getting more power/torque out of it as a stock engine (350hp/375ft.lbs), and Im pretty sure its lighter than the M3's I6 too.

[Slicks]

So without the Pirellis the Z06 takes it by a second then? :eek:

What kinda tires were on the Z06 when Magnussen drove it?

runcraps.

Heres some articles for track times:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11329/2006-ferrari-f430.html

With Pirrellis:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=3768

Not an F430, but still good competition:
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/0703_hc_and_os_laptimes_ss.pdf

[Kitdy]

runcraps.

Why the hell did they use runflats? Are they stock then? They shoulda put some nice sticky tires on! A 7:43 with runflats isp retty damn good. WIth a good set of tires, how much do ya think they'd shave off?

[Slicks]

Why the hell did they use runflats? Are they stock then? They shoulda put some nice sticky tires on! A 7:43 with runflats isp retty damn good. WIth a good set of tires, how much do ya think they'd shave off?

Yeah they are stock on all C6s, and there is no other option unfortunetly. They put them on there because they dont have a spare tire (I dont know if its a legal thing or whatever). The C5 Z06 didnt have them, but had a tire repair kit. I cannot estimate the difference but I would assume it would be pretty significant. This article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/7004/suspensions-of-disbelief.html
tests the C5s different suspension options, and the non-runflat Z06 tires:
"On average, the tires alone improve skidpad grip by 0.04 g, lane-change performance by 1.7 mph, and autocross and handling circuit times by 1.3 and 1.8 seconds."

[Kitdy]

So pretty signifigant then. They shoulda put on a set of Pirellis of their own and hit the Nürburgring in them to see the difference!

What will be really scary will be seing what the Blue Devil can do to that track then!

When it comes to the Corvette, I just simply cannot understand why other cars like the F430 cost more and have similar if not worse performance on the track for much, much more cost. I'd probably take the F430 over the Z06 myself, but that is something that has come up to question myself on recently. I think that I can in general say however that I'd prefer most a Koenigsegg or a CGT! :D

Not that I could ever afford those, though.

[Coventrysucks]

Sorry, all Corvette's sold to Europe are the Z51 models

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that.


Skid pad (G), Slalom (mph)

No doubt it is effective; the Z06 does prove itself to be a very fast car, but I am not convinced that you would particularly care that your car has fractionally higher G readings when you are driving on the road in isolation.

Once you move away from the track (where, again, ultimate speed is irrelevant as most track days are not timed), the ability to control the car as precisely as possible and understand what will happen and how the car will react to a situation becomes more important than numbers from a data logger.

Impressive though it is, it is not an overall package that appeals to me.

I wish that, having proven their abilities with the Corvette, GM would employ their talents across a wider range of performance vehicles.

The initial tests of the Solstice/ Sky/ Opel GT indicate that it is a pretty poor effort. The UK is prime meat for any sports car manufacturer, and the fact that GM don't seem to want to put the effort in is disappointing, especially after the success of the (Lotus) VX220, and (Holden) Monaro. (The GT isn't even being sold in the UK.)

[Kitdy]

I wish that, having proven their abilities with the Corvette, GM would employ their talents across a wider range of performance vehicles.

The initial tests of the Solstice/ Sky/ Opel GT indicate that it is a pretty poor effort. The UK is prime meat for any sports car manufacturer, and the fact that GM don't seem to want to put the effort in is disappointing, especially after the success of the (Lotus) VX220, and (Holden) Monaro. (The GT isn't even being sold in the UK.)

How true. Outside of the Corvette and maybe the Silverado for those that are truck inclined, GM is really crappy.

On a side note, what are you looking for in a car Cov? Are you an AM man, cuz I think we all know you are not a fan or Ferraris. Is the DB9 your idea of heaven?

[baddabang]

I think your confusing feel with handling (how much speed you can take in a corner). GM addressed the C6 Z06's lack of feel, and snap oversteer with some suspension tweaks for the '07 models, which supposedly not only make the car handle better and give more feedback, but the car also rides better.
But if the Z06 did only rely on power to get good track times, how is it possible that it could beat a Zonda (which has much greater power weight, and has proper tires) around a twisty track like the n-ring? Or beat something like an F430 which has almost the same power to weight?

The thing with the Z06 is that it is not an easy car to drive by any standards. Ask any owner of a C6Z who previously owned a C5Z and they will tell you they got silly with the back end on their first push through a corner.

Oh and if you want proof the Z06 sucks at handling take a look at this from MotorTrend June 2007 issue



1) Porsche 911 GTS - $115,700
2) Porsche Cayman S - $63,300
3) Lotus Exige - $65,100
4) Mitsubishi EVO IXMR - $37,424
5) Mini Cooper S JCWGP - $31,150
6) BMW 335i - $42,675
7) Honda S200 - $34,845
8) MazdaSpeed 3 - $24,550
9) Corvette Z06 - $70,000
10) Honda Civic Si - $21,885


These are in order from the best handling to the not-so-best handling in a recent test. So pretty much some rookie moron with a brand new Z06 well equipped with runcraps :rolleyes: couldn't handle the car worth a shit. Either that or it was on an auto-x setup.

[Kitdy]

Lotus/Porsche handling FTW.

[The_Canuck]

These are in order from the best handling to the not-so-best handling in a recent test. So pretty much some rookie moron with a brand new Z06 well equipped with runcraps :rolleyes: couldn't handle the car worth a shit. Either that or it was on an auto-x setup.

What is a 911 GTS?

[baddabang]

What is a 911 GTS?

Why are you asking me? I hate poorshas.

[culver]

6.2 litre and only 430 BHP hmmm...honda has been getting 240 odd BHP from a 2.0 litre since the turn of the millenium...bow down to that...

1. I've never seen any proof that that motor made 240hp. 237hp maybe based on the 2.2L version. 240... nope.

2. HP/L.... live and learn. The Vette motor produces a lot more hp/lb
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=276347&postcount=219

[culver]

I’m happy to hear they are improving the shifter feel. The ’05 was sufficient in that it would cause you to miss a shift but it wasn’t a joy to operate. My biggest issue was the numb steering. It was very accurate and all but it had to little feel as compared to say an MX-5. I’m very happy to hear they are improving the steering. I wonder how much.

The interior upgrades are OK but really the problem with the interior isn’t the materials. The materials are fine. The soft touch plastic is as good as Audi’s. The hard plastic is as good as BMW’s. The panel gaps are tight where they are designed to be tight. The controls have a nice feel. The issue is the styling/design is just so blah. Really, they need to jazz the thing up. They need to do something that said passion of design rather than vanilla. Sadly passion would have cost no more than blah. All the ingredients are there, they just need to be mixed properly.

[Kitdy]

Ok I just read the past post you made culver and it seems then that pushrod engines are better than DOHC engines... or are they? For example, on the highest performance engines, such as the Enzo or the CGT's engine, why is DOHC used? Is it used because if made of very light materials DOHC is more efficient as those engines can rev higher?

What do F1 engines use?

[2ndclasscitizen]

Why did GM, who hasn't really got money to throw around these days, bother designing an all new engine for a 30hp gain, when it would've been cheaper and simpler to modify/upgrade the LS2?

[jediali]

Ok I just read the past post you made culver and it seems then that pushrod engines are better than DOHC engines... or are they? For example, on the highest performance engines, such as the Enzo or the CGT's engine, why is DOHC used? Is it used because if made of very light materials DOHC is more efficient as those engines can rev higher?

What do F1 engines use?

DOHC used to be used on 2vpc engines (early Ferrari etc), Fiat had many great early 4vpc engines, most people went 2vpc after that simply because they where following the pack.

From a purely technical point of view i would rather design valve springs to push against less mass, ie ohc. DOHC allows more accurate inlet/exhaust control. An engine will of course rev higher if the gas flow geometry and valve timing is possible and friction allows. simply speaking off course, don't want to get too far off topic.

[Slicks]

The thing with the Z06 is that it is not an easy car to drive by any standards. Ask any owner of a C6Z who previously owned a C5Z and they will tell you they got silly with the back end on their first push through a corner.
Well hard to drive doesnt = bad handling.



Oh and if you want proof the Z06 sucks at handling take a look at this from MotorTrend June 2007 issue



These are in order from the best handling to the not-so-best handling in a recent test. So pretty much some rookie moron with a brand new Z06 well equipped with runcraps :rolleyes: couldn't handle the car worth a shit. Either that or it was on an auto-x setup.
Wait, so you trying to tell me the Corvette handles bad when its on the top ten list of best handling cars?
I did a little google searching and it seems MT did a point system, and ride quality was part of it (probably where it lost the most points)
But looking at the results:
Cornering Grip:
No. 1 Porsche Cayman S
No. 2 Porsche GT3
No. 3 Chevy Corvette Z06

Laguna Seca: Best lap times
No. 1 Porsche 911 GT3 1:39.517
No. 2 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 1:40.919
No. 3 Lotus Exige S 1:45.818
No. 4 Porsche Cayman S 1:47.577
No. 5 Mitsubishi Evolution IX MR 1:47.926
No. 6 BMW 335i 1:49.038

[Slicks]

What is a 911 GTS?

*supposed to be GT3.

[Slicks]

Ok I just read the past post you made culver and it seems then that pushrod engines are better than DOHC engines... or are they? For example, on the highest performance engines, such as the Enzo or the CGT's engine, why is DOHC used? Is it used because if made of very light materials DOHC is more efficient as those engines can rev higher?

What do F1 engines use?
*Pushrod engines are lighter/smaller than comparable OHC engines. Take a look at Ford's 4.6L OHC vs their old OHV 5L.
There are high end cars using OHV engines, the S7 (which if I remember right, its 7L V8 is ridiculously light) and Mosler uses the LS6, LS2, and LS7. The Enzo and CGT both have OHC engines because they have never had a price limit to meet(so they could use very lightweight/expencive materials to compensate). Also, even if OHV engines were trully 100% better, they still wouldnt switch over, there are too many brainwashed people that wouldnt think its too "low tech."

F1 cars use Pneumatic valvetrains.

[Slicks]

Why did GM, who hasn't really got money to throw around these days, bother designing an all new engine for a 30hp gain, when it would've been cheaper and simpler to modify/upgrade the LS2?

Its not all new, its a bored LS2 with some tweaks. For what ever reason they are discontinuing the LS2 for 2008 or 2009(shorter production run that I thought it would be), so they needed a "new" engine.

[Kitdy]

So it sounds liek a tradeoff. OHC engines are heavier than their respective OHV counterparts, but if OHC engines use very lightweight materials then that means they can rev much higher than OHV engines and thus make more power.

Is the fact of the matter then Slicks that either:

a)OHC engines are heavier and have lower power to weight ratios than OHV engines except in the highest quality engines where inbetween the best OHC against the best OHV the OHC would be better?
b)OHV are always more lightweight and better.
c)Uncertain.

What I am wondering is what would happen if say, Ferrari or Porsche used exotic lightweight compounds liek they use in their DOHC engines to make a OHV engine, would they have a better power to weight ratio than they currently have with DOHC?

Or is this too hard to tell?

Or am I just rambling?

[baddabang]

Well hard to drive doesnt = bad handling.

I didn't say it handled bad, it just has too much power for crappy tires. Z06 owners usually swap them out quickly anyway.



Wait, so you trying to tell me the Corvette handles bad when its on the top ten list of best handling cars?

No not at all. I was just showing a shitty test MT did.

[clutch-monkey]

*supposed to be GT3.
the picture they showed is of a GT2 iirc, from what another forum was displaying. the consensus was MT is worthless

[Ferrer]

DOHC used to be used on 2vpc engines (early Ferrari etc)
If I'm not mistaken Ferrari didn't use DOHC engines until the 275 GTB/4 in 1966. Other manufacturers like Jaguar and Pegaso had started using 2vpc DOHC engines much before... ;)

[Wouter Melissen]

If I'm not mistaken Ferrari didn't use DOHC engines until the 275 GTB/4 in 1966. Other manufacturers like Jaguar and Pegaso had started using 2vpc DOHC engines much before... ;)

The Lampredi four cylinder engine had DOHC in 1952. The Alfetta engine was also developed by Scuderia Ferrari and had a twin cam head.

[Ferrer]

The Lampredi four cylinder engine had DOHC in 1952. The Alfetta engine was also developed by Scuderia Ferrari and had a twin cam head.
I see. The Colombo V12 though didn't aquire DOHC heads until much later, did it?

[Wouter Melissen]

I see. The Colombo V12 though didn't aquire DOHC heads until much later, did it?

Yes in 1957 Vittorio Jano did experiment with twin-cam heads on the 315 and 335 S sportscars. The biggest problem was that the 60 degree angle was too narrow to use twin-cams and Webers inside the V. That's why the twin-cam V6 engine were usually 65 degrees or wider.

[Ferrer]

Yes in 1957 Vittorio Jano did experiment with twin-cam heads on the 315 and 335 S sportscars. The biggest problem was that the 60 degree angle was too narrow to use twin-cams and Webers inside the V. That's why the twin-cam V6 engine were usually 65 degrees or wider.
So still in terms of road going engines Jaguar and Pegaso (amongs others) predate Ferrari DOHC engines, don't they?

[henk4]

So still in terms of road going engines Jaguar and Pegaso (amongs others) predate Ferrari DOHC engines, don't they?

but so did Alfa Romeo, Ballot, Amilcar, Duesenberg, Bugatti and many others before Jaguar and Pegaso...

[Ferrer]

but so did Alfa Romeo, Ballot, Amilcar, Duesenberg, Bugatti and many others before Jaguar and Pegaso...
That's why I said amongst others... :p

In fact IIRC the on of the early Bugattis (Type 13, 23?) no only had a twin cam engine, but 4 valves per cylinder too.

[jediali]

If I'm not mistaken Ferrari didn't use DOHC engines until the 275 GTB/4 in 1966. Other manufacturers like Jaguar and Pegaso had started using 2vpc DOHC engines much before... ;)

I bow to your classic car knowledge..:D i admit thats not my ace card

[Wouter Melissen]

That's why I said amongst others... :p

In fact IIRC the on of the early Bugattis (Type 13, 23?) no only had a twin cam engine, but 4 valves per cylinder too.

No they had a single cam engine, just like the Bentley engines. The valves were installed vertically in the head.

[Wouter Melissen]

Those Bugatti engines could rev to 6900 rpm on ball bearings at a time when 3000 rpm was considered high.

[Ferrer]

No they had a single cam engine, just like the Bentley engines. The valves were installed vertically in the head.
Yes you are right, my memory wasn't that good. :p

It was the Brescia Type 13, 22 and 23 which had the 4 valve heads. But accordong to here (http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/bugatti-cars/bugatti-13-22-23-16-valve.shtml) they only reved to 4000 or 4500rpm. Mind you for 1914 it still is amazing.

[Wouter Melissen]

Yes you are right, my memory wasn't that good. :p

It was the Brescia Type 13, 22 and 23 which had the 4 valve heads. But accordong to here (http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/bugatti-cars/bugatti-13-22-23-16-valve.shtml) they only reved to 4000 or 4500rpm. Mind you for 1914 it still is amazing.

Conway quotes Raymond Mays, who claimed his two Brescias could rev to 6700 and 6900 rpm. The factory suggested 3000 rpm on plain bearings, but Conway has several sources that claim 5000 could be reached. Mays claimed he could lap Brooklands at 100 mph. Quite a daunting speed for a car not fitted with fron brakes. Mays would take victory after victory in Hillclimbs with his two cars.

[roosterjuicer]

i know the overhead cam arguement is fun and all but lets look at more important stuff.

if you wanna look at technology pioneers then look no further than GM!

gm was the first to use overhead valves in a car motor (1949 caddy)
and gm was the first to use fuel injection! (c1 corvette)

overhead cams just cant compete with those tech innovations!

[henk4]

gm was the first to use overhead valves in a car motor (1949 caddy)
and gm was the first to use fuel injection! (c1 corvette)

overhead cams just cant compete with those tech innovations!

you are a technological wizard.....

[Ferrer]

you are a technological wizard.....
Do we have to tell him that his is wrong, or we'll leave it at that?

[henk4]

Do we have to tell him that his is wrong, or we'll leave it at that?

well, he is a NASCAR fan....

[henk4]

Do we have to tell him that his is wrong, or we'll leave it at that?

OK, the OHV engine was developed by David Dunbar Buick in 1902.
Fuel injection for gasoline engines was developed by Bosch and first applied in 1952 by german brands Goliath and Gutbrod. (The C1 got it in 1957).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_valve

and here is an interesting table regarding engine weight and performance, showing that the DOHC AMG 6.3 V8 engine is still lighter than the C6/Z06 OHV engine....

[Ferrer]

and here is an interesting table regarding engine weight and performance, showing that the DOHC AMG 6.3 V8 engine is still lighter than the C6/Z06 OHV engine....
And if they had quoted the engine as it is in the CL it would have a better power to weight ratio than LS7.

[Slicks]

OK, the OHV engine was developed by David Dunbar Buick in 1902.
Fuel injection for gasoline engines was developed by Bosch and first applied in 1952 by german brands Goliath and Gutbrod. (The C1 got it in 1957).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_valve

and here is an interesting table regarding engine weight and performance, showing that the DOHC AMG 6.3 V8 engine is still lighter than the C6/Z06 OHV engine....

I wish they would cite if the rest of the engines are fully dressed or not. Thats the fully dressed weight of the LS7. Take a look at this link:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=398927

"if you're curious about the weight, Fedex said that the whole weight of the crated engine was 528. I weighed all the packing crating materials at 84 lbs., so that leaves a weight for the engine as delievered at 444. That includes water pump, coils, y body engine mount brackets, Z06 exhaust manifolds and clutch/flywheel. I had to take off the flywheel/clutch assembly to put it on the stand, and that weighed in at 57 lbs."

[Kitdy]

OK, the OHV engine was developed by David Dunbar Buick in 1902.

Buick is actually a distant relative of mine so it would seem.

[baddabang]

Buick is actually a distant relative of mine so it would seem.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/299000164_4d7398dbf6.jpg?v=0

[kingofthering]

i know the overhead cam arguement is fun and all but lets look at more important stuff.

if you wanna look at technology pioneers then look no further than GM!

gm was the first to use overhead valves in a car motor (1949 caddy)
and gm was the first to use fuel injection! (c1 corvette)

overhead cams just cant compete with those tech innovations!

So what? Daimler-Benz invented the automobile.

OHC has a lot less mass, so it can produce more horsepower and is simpler than a cam in block.

[Ferrer]

So what? Daimler-Benz invented the automobile.
Karl Benz was first, not Gottlieb Daimler. Daimler-Benz wasn't created until 1926.

OHC has a lot less mass, so it can produce more horsepower and is simpler than a cam in block.
Actually it's the opposite. OHV is more compact and has less mass. However it's limited in terms or revs and ease of multivalve setups (which doesn't mean it can't be done).

[henk4]

Actually it's the opposite. OHV is more compact and has less mass. However it's limited in terms or revs and ease of multivalve setups (which doesn't mean it can't be done).

can you give me an example of an OHV engine with more than two valves?

[Ferrer]

can you give me an example of an OHV engine with more than two valves?
The Cummins ISB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cummins_B_Series_engine#ISB

[roosterjuicer]

Karl Actually it's the opposite. OHV is more compact and has less mass. However it's limited in terms or revs and ease of multivalve setups (which doesn't mean it can't be done).

correct. plus you can only do two valves per cylinder with a pushrod motor.

[roosterjuicer]

ok im a retard i didn't read closely and i thought that said multiple setups not multivalve

[Kitdy]

Ferrer is a very learned car man. Ferrer is your pic of a Hispanio-Suiza emblem? It is gorgeous.

[henk4]

The Cummins ISB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cummins_B_Series_engine#ISB

of course it is a diesel:)

[Ferrer]

Ferrer is a very learned car man. Ferrer is your pic of a Hispanio-Suiza emblem? It is gorgeous.
Yes it is. Apart from Seats we produced some damn fine cars in the XX century. :)

of course it is a diesel:)
I knew you'd be happy... :p

[2ndclasscitizen]

can you give me an example of an OHV engine with more than two valves?

Supposedly the earlier LS2 or LS7 prototypes were 3 valves.

[kingofthering]

I'm wondering, but does DOHC allow for more fine-tuning in the engine?

Or is that something you can do with multiple valves per cylinder?

[CdocZ]

I wish they would cite if the rest of the engines are fully dressed or not. Thats the fully dressed weight of the LS7.

So, what about the weight of the Merc's 6.2, with the same things on it.

[SlickHolden]

Well hard to drive doesnt = bad handling.


Wait, so you trying to tell me the Corvette handles bad when its on the top ten list of best handling cars?
I did a little google searching and it seems MT did a point system, and ride quality was part of it (probably where it lost the most points)
But looking at the results:
Cornering Grip:
No. 1 Porsche Cayman S
No. 2 Porsche GT3
No. 3 Chevy Corvette Z06

Laguna Seca: Best lap times
No. 1 Porsche 911 GT3 1:39.517
No. 2 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 1:40.919
No. 3 Lotus Exige S 1:45.818
No. 4 Porsche Cayman S 1:47.577
No. 5 Mitsubishi Evolution IX MR 1:47.926
No. 6 BMW 335i 1:49.038
It would be top if it didn't use leaf spring:p.



I'd still go for the XR6T and SS for bang for buck, But you got to respect the vette like it or not, It's a poor man's calais in the supercar world when you don't have the +100,000's

[h22a]

agree'd, i'd have a typhoon/xr6t.
vette = poor mans supercar
interesting that the merc 6.2 is lighter than the LS7

[culver]

Slickholen,

I think you are being facetious but just in case check out my first ever post on this forum. It was talking about the Corvette's leaf spring.
I'm not certain the MB 6.3 is lighter than the LS7. This is probably one of those games were it all depends on what we consider part of the "engine weight". For instance, if we say dressed we likely mean with a flywheel or flex plate. Well the LS7 only comes with a manual box so it would be weighed with a flywheel. On the other hand the MB only comes on an auto (to the best of my knowledge). As such it would be lighter because the flex plate weighs quite a bit less. As an example, GM quoted the LS1 auto at something like 450lb while the same engine with a manual flywheel was 50lbs more (all numbers based on my recollection).

Also, MB seemed very eager to make claims with their motor that turned out to be less that 100%. GM claimed the LS7 to produce 505hp. MB was happy to point out that their V* was more powerful because it produced 510hp. The problem was GM's ponies were based on the latest SAE standard. MB's ponies were not (presumably they were a DIN standard). When GM's engine was rated on the same scale the power went up to something like 512hp. Now the difference between the two is so small as to make no difference but it does negate MB's claims. Note that they no longer claim theirs is the most powerful normally aspirated V8. As the LS7 was out before their motor they could have done some checking first rather than quietly retracting that claim. Edit: looking at the wiki link the MB power has dropped from the originally claimed 510hp to 475hp. If so that makes me further question if MB is running flast and loose with their specs.

Now all that said, it's clear that MB's V8 produces nearly identical power for nearly identical mass. Both engines are hand built and both are expensive (though I suspect the MB cost more). The displacement difference isn't enormous (6.3 vs 7 or 11% greater).

As for the question a few pages back about modifying the LS2 vs making the "new LS3", the two engines are part of the same family so one really is a modified version of the other much the way the 3.5L Nissan VQ is a modified version of the 3L VQ. The GM engines are all part of the same family and probably are highly part compatible (heads, accessories etc can be swapped) even if they do change lots of part numbers.

[Ferrer]

Also, MB seemed very eager to make claims with their motor that turned out to be less that 100%. GM claimed the LS7 to produce 505hp. MB was happy to point out that their V* was more powerful because it produced 510hp. The problem was GM's ponies were based on the latest SAE standard. MB's ponies were not (presumably they were a DIN standard). When GM's engine was rated on the same scale the power went up to something like 512hp. Now the difference between the two is so small as to make no difference but it does negate MB's claims. Note that they no longer claim theirs is the most powerful normally aspirated V8. As the LS7 was out before their motor they could have done some checking first rather than quietly retracting that claim. Edit: looking at the wiki link the MB power has dropped from the originally claimed 510hp to 475hp. If so that makes me further question if MB is running flast and loose with their specs.
The 6.2-litre AMG V8 makes 481bhp in the CLK 63 AMG. In the CL 63 AMG this same engine produces 525bhp, which means that it still would be the most powerful normally aspirated production V8.

[Kitdy]

The 6.2-litre AMG V8 makes 481bhp in the CLK 63 AMG. In the CL 63 AMG this same engine produces 525bhp, which means that it still would be the most powerful normally aspirated production V8.

Whatever the exact number is, we can all agree the LS7 is a better engine anyways.

[henk4]

Whatever the exact number is, we can all agree the LS7 is a better engine anyways.

we???

[Ferrer]

Whatever the exact number is, we can all agree the LS7 is a better engine anyways.
I'm not so sure. If it's lighter, more powerful and more frugal, maybe the Mercedes-Benz V8 is better.

While a very good unit, the LS7 is not the be all end all of engines.

[Rockefella]

While a very good unit, the LS7 is not the be all end all of engines.

Of course it is.

[Kitdy]

we???

:p :D I jest, surely.


I'm not so sure. If it's lighter, more powerful and more frugal, maybe the Mercedes-Benz V8 is better.

While a very good unit, the LS7 is not the be all end all of engines.

So the Benz is lighter and more powerful? Then it is definetly better, my bad.

[Slicks]

So, what about the weight of the Merc's 6.2, with the same things on it.

Thats what Im asking. It sounds like thats the weight of the bare MB V8, while the LS7 there is fully dressed.

[Slicks]

It would be top if it didn't use leaf spring:p.


:rolleyes:
I dont see how adding heavier springs and higher center of gravity is going to help any.

[Slicks]

The 6.2-litre AMG V8 makes 481bhp in the CLK 63 AMG. In the CL 63 AMG this same engine produces 525bhp, which means that it still would be the most powerful normally aspirated production V8.

Wrong.
The Saleen S7 made 575 n/a hp in 2004... Dont bother saying its not a produciton car/engine, because it is.

[Ferrer]

Wrong.
The Saleen S7 made 575 n/a hp in 2004... Dont bother saying its not a produciton car/engine, because it is.
It still is more powerful than the LS7 though.

[Slicks]

I'm not so sure. If it's lighter, more powerful and more frugal, maybe the Mercedes-Benz V8 is better.

While a very good unit, the LS7 is not the be all end all of engines.

We dont know if its trully lighter (doesnt say if its dressed or not). And your leaving out another important aspect, size. The LS7 is undoubtably smaller and more compact.

[Slicks]

It still is more powerful than the LS7 though.

AMG is still lieing though.

[Ferrer]

We dont know if its trully lighter (doesnt say if its dressed or not). And your leaving out another important aspect, size. The LS7 is undoubtably smaller and more compact.
But I don't think physical size is that important. Furthermore if it fits under the bonnet of a C-class the M156 must be quite compact too.

[Kitdy]

You guys fighting is like watching children throw mud at each other. If you enter the argument with an open mind and don't care what side is better, then you serve to gain more than taking sides. :mad:

Maybe the LS7 is better, maybe the AMG is better; the final determination is we dont have the necessary information and besides both are excellent enignes anyways.

[Ferrer]

You guys fighting is like watching children throw mud at each other. If you enter the argument with an open mind and don't care what side is better, then you serve to gain more than taking sides. :mad:
We are not fighting, we are just discussing (this time about a pair of engines) like grown up adults which what should be done in forums.

[Kitdy]

We are not fighting, we are just discussing (this time about a pair of engines) like grown up adults which what should be done in forums.

That is a load. The both of you have an agenda - to prove to the other that your engine is better. :p

That isn't necessarilly bad but it doesn't particularilly lead to a good argument as each side already is biased.

As for this situation, it is yet another reiteration of the classic America vs. Europe car discussion. For the weight of the engine, why not email Mercedes and ask? I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you at all.

[CdocZ]

Thats what Im asking. It sounds like thats the weight of the bare MB V8, while the LS7 there is fully dressed.

Well, it is your argument and point - go out and research both sides before you give us the answer, eh? As much as I love the LS7, I think the fact that you are assuming it has to be bare to be that weight is unfair to the Merc's 6.2. I mean, yeah you have a good point, if you are correct, but how do we know? You are giving us biased information, in that you are not supplying the information about the Merc engine.

[Kitdy]

Well, it is your argument and point - go out and research both sides before you give us the answer, eh? As much as I love the LS7, I think the fact that you are assuming it has to be bare to be that weight is unfair to the Merc's 6.2. I mean, yeah you have a good point, if you are correct, but how do we know? You are giving us biased information, in that you are not supplying the information about the Merc engine.

That is what I was trying to get across. There is nothing fair about this comparisson at all. You got to use the scientific method and be unbiased in your evaluation while researching both sides as CdocZ said, and report your findings regardless of what the outcome is.

[culver]

Honestly, I suspect both are great engines. Furthermore it wouldn't surprise me if the MB engine was lighter yet more powerful than its real rival, the BMW V10. Honestly, if the LS7 is no more refined than the LS2 I drove I would say it's not smooth enough for use in a top line luxury car. Not that the LS2 was rough, it just wasn't as glassy smooth as other V8s I've driven including Ford's mod engines and GM's trucks. I will also add the disclaimer that the engine is not the only part of the NVH picture. You also have to include engine mounting, sound deadening etc.

[Rockefella]

That is a load. The both of you have an agenda - to prove to the other that your engine is better. :p

That isn't necessarilly bad but it doesn't particularilly lead to a good argument as each side already is biased.

As for this situation, it is yet another reiteration of the classic America vs. Europe car discussion. For the weight of the engine, why not email Mercedes and ask? I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you at all.

I don't even read debates like these anymore because they've become so redundant, and I try to avoid getting involved in one myself.

Slicks: Logs onto UCP. Goes into forums. Opens search function. Searches for 'corvette IS NOT the best car ever'. Makes note of all posts that don't put up the Corvette or comparable American cars as the best things since sliced bread. Argues for hours. Goes to sleep. Repeats.

The Anti-Slicks: Logs onto UCP. Goes onto forums. Opens search functions. Searches for 'Slicks'. Makes note of all posts that do put up the Corvette or comparable American cars as the best things since sliced bread. Argues for hours. Goes to sleep. Repeats.

The problem with a lot of people on forums these days, or even just in general terms, is that they've got their mindset so firmly implanted on a certain thing, be it the Corvette as the best car ever, Liberal Governments as the root of all evil, Ghosts existing, etc. that they refuse to accept or believe the opposing side's argument. Instead, he/she will find one tiny sentence that disproves the general statement and uses it as a key point of debate.

Example: (Slicks type member) The LS7 is the best engine that modern money can buy because it's cheap, powerful, light, doesn't have useless technical crap involved, blah blah blah.


The LS7 is the best engine that modern money can buy because it's cheap, powerful, light, doesn't have useless technical crap involved, blah blah blah.

(The Anti-Slicks) How light is light? :D The powerplant in the [insert Euro car here] is twice as light, and makes 3/4 of the power!


How light is light? :D The powerplant in the [insert Euro car here] is twice as light, and makes 3/4 of the power!

(Slicks type member) Not true. the [insert Euro car manufacturer here] lied about the power numbers according to this [insert stupid link here providing little evidence] source.

Instead of coming into it with an open mind, people just nitpick at details to try to prove themselves right, which leads NOWHERE. (See revetec thread, Fleet + others debates, Slicks and Matra debates over the years)

The cycle will never end. If you don't believe me, go to the debates we have on UCP and see for yourself. I am omniscient, or as the mortals would say it, all-knowing.

[Kitdy]

Rocke, I agree totally. I think that this may kill this thread, buit more in future will always sprout up. In short, this was not a proper debate/argument at all as minds wer not open and unbiased facts were not presented.

Rocke hit the nail on the head, and for his omniscient wisdom, I vote we ban him.

[Rockefella]

Rocke, I agree totally. I think that this may kill this thread, buit more in future will always sprout up. In short, this was not a proper debate/argument at all as minds wer not open and unbiased facts were not presented.

Rocke hit the nail on the head, and for his omniscient wisdom, I vote we ban him.

I'm already banned.

[Kitdy]

I'm already banned.

I meant I vote we ban you from the state of New Jersey.

It's one of those old dumb laws from the year of 1999 when they went NJ went nuts on internet laws:

"If any New Jersian is voted "banned" on any internet forum by more than 5 people, that New Jersian is hereby banned form the fair state of New Jersey."

[baddabang]

Honestly, I suspect both are great engines. Furthermore it wouldn't surprise me if the MB engine was lighter yet more powerful than its real rival, the BMW V10. Honestly, if the LS7 is no more refined than the LS2 I drove I would say it's not smooth enough for use in a top line luxury car. Not that the LS2 was rough, it just wasn't as glassy smooth as other V8s I've driven including Ford's mod engines and GM's trucks. I will also add the disclaimer that the engine is not the only part of the NVH picture. You also have to include engine mounting, sound deadening etc.

Well the LS7 isn't meant to be used in luxury cars seeing as Cadillac has the LS2 and LS6 to work with in the V series and they don't really need a 505 hp engine. That's why it's in the Z06.

Back to the 6.2 vs. LS7. With a simple tune, heads, or even headers the LS7 can make a lot more power than it does stock for relatively cheap. Can you do that with the 6.2?

[Fleet 500]

I don't even read debates like these anymore because they've become so redundant, and I try to avoid getting involved in one myself.

Slicks: Logs onto UCP. Goes into forums. Opens search function. Searches for 'corvette IS NOT the best car ever'. Makes note of all posts that don't put up the Corvette or comparable American cars as the best things since sliced bread. Argues for hours. Goes to sleep. Repeats.

The Anti-Slicks: Logs onto UCP. Goes onto forums. Opens search functions. Searches for 'Slicks'. Makes note of all posts that do put up the Corvette or comparable American cars as the best things since sliced bread. Argues for hours. Goes to sleep. Repeats.

The problem with a lot of people on forums these days, or even just in general terms, is that they've got their mindset so firmly implanted on a certain thing, be it the Corvette as the best car ever, Liberal Governments as the root of all evil, Ghosts existing, etc. that they refuse to accept or believe the opposing side's argument. Instead, he/she will find one tiny sentence that disproves the general statement and uses it as a key point of debate.

Example: (Slicks type member) The LS7 is the best engine that modern money can buy because it's cheap, powerful, light, doesn't have useless technical crap involved, blah blah blah.



(The Anti-Slicks) How light is light? :D The powerplant in the [insert Euro car here] is twice as light, and makes 3/4 of the power!



(Slicks type member) Not true. the [insert Euro car manufacturer here] lied about the power numbers according to this [insert stupid link here providing little evidence] source.

Instead of coming into it with an open mind, people just nitpick at details to try to prove themselves right, which leads NOWHERE. (See revetec thread, Fleet + others debates, Slicks and Matra debates over the years)

The cycle will never end. If you don't believe me, go to the debates we have on UCP and see for yourself. I am omniscient, or as the mortals would say it, all-knowing.
Well, I guess we can always discuss really interesting things like how many fibers there should be in the carpet per square inch on a certain car.
Of course, most members would probably fall asleep.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Back to the 6.2 vs. LS7. With a simple tune, heads, or even headers the LS7 can make a lot more power than it does stock for relatively cheap. Can you do that with the 6.2?

Well the only modifications I could find for the 63 engine so far are headers from Kleemann, so you can't tell the tuning potential of the engine yet, but it's not going to be cheap, it's an AMG engine.

[culver]

Well the LS7 isn't meant to be used in luxury cars seeing as Cadillac has the LS2 and LS6 to work with in the V series and they don't really need a 505 hp engine. That's why it's in the Z06.

Back to the 6.2 vs. LS7. With a simple tune, heads, or even headers the LS7 can make a lot more power than it does stock for relatively cheap. Can you do that with the 6.2?

I agree. I'm giving MB points for making that kind of power for that kind of weight AND being (presumably) refined enough for use in one of their cars.

I suspect the LS7 has a lot more aftermarket support than the AMG has. However, neither are as delivered from the factory so all bets are off.

Neither would get kicked out of my garage.

[Rockefella]

Well, I guess we can always discuss really interesting things like how many fibers there should be in the carpet per square inch on a certain car.
Of course, most members would probably fall asleep.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

[Fleet 500]

That has nothing to do with what I said.
That's why there is a "miscellaneous" board.

[Rockefella]

That's why there is a "miscellaneous" board.

Yes, I know there is a miscellaneous board. What the above has to do with anything.. I'm not sure.

[kingofthering]

I meant I vote we ban you from the state of New Jersey.

It's one of those old dumb laws from the year of 1999 when they went NJ went nuts on internet laws:

"If any New Jersian is voted "banned" on any internet forum by more than 5 people, that New Jersian is hereby banned form the fair state of New Jersey."
That would be doing them a favor:D


Well, I guess we can always discuss really interesting things like how many fibers there should be in the carpet per square inch on a certain car.
Of course, most members would probably fall asleep.
0- Carpet = weight = bad.

[Ferrer]

That is a load. The both of you have an agenda - to prove to the other that your engine is better. :p

That isn't necessarilly bad but it doesn't particularilly lead to a good argument as each side already is biased.

As for this situation, it is yet another reiteration of the classic America vs. Europe car discussion. For the weight of the engine, why not email Mercedes and ask? I am sure they wouldn't mind telling you at all.
I honestly like both engines, and as someone said I wouldn't mind having cars with both in my garage (altough I prefered the old 3-valve 5.4-litre, but that's another story).

Furthermore the debate of the LS7 v M156 was started without Slicks in it, he joined later. And anyway if we can't discuss about the Corvette or European cars or anything we might as well leave the forum. Yes those debates can attract fan boys, but I think this particular debate has been, so far, very civilised and both point of views have valid points.

If you take as an example the debate that has been going on on the "Foreign Interests" thread I think even if maybe the different participants were sometimes reluctant to accept that the car they were defending wasn't the best at everything, it still was a great discussion and I personally learned a lot of things that I didn't know about Cadillacs and Mercs. And I'm sure the same could be said about Fleet and Mercs and Pegasos, and Nota and Cadillacs and Pegasos.

[SlickHolden]

Slickholen,

I think you are being facetious but just in case check out my first ever post on this forum. It was talking about the Corvette's leaf spring.
I'm not certain the MB 6.3 is lighter than the LS7. This is probably one of those games were it all depends on what we consider part of the "engine weight". For instance, if we say dressed we likely mean with a flywheel or flex plate. Well the LS7 only comes with a manual box so it would be weighed with a flywheel. On the other hand the MB only comes on an auto (to the best of my knowledge). As such it would be lighter because the flex plate weighs quite a bit less. As an example, GM quoted the LS1 auto at something like 450lb while the same engine with a manual flywheel was 50lbs more (all numbers based on my recollection).

Also, MB seemed very eager to make claims with their motor that turned out to be less that 100%. GM claimed the LS7 to produce 505hp. MB was happy to point out that their V* was more powerful because it produced 510hp. The problem was GM's ponies were based on the latest SAE standard. MB's ponies were not (presumably they were a DIN standard). When GM's engine was rated on the same scale the power went up to something like 512hp. Now the difference between the two is so small as to make no difference but it does negate MB's claims. Note that they no longer claim theirs is the most powerful normally aspirated V8. As the LS7 was out before their motor they could have done some checking first rather than quietly retracting that claim. Edit: looking at the wiki link the MB power has dropped from the originally claimed 510hp to 475hp. If so that makes me further question if MB is running flast and loose with their specs.

Now all that said, it's clear that MB's V8 produces nearly identical power for nearly identical mass. Both engines are hand built and both are expensive (though I suspect the MB cost more). The displacement difference isn't enormous (6.3 vs 7 or 11% greater).

I must have missed your opining post at the time, But i see no comments on leaf springs?.

:rolleyes:
I dont see how adding heavier springs and higher center of gravity is going to help any.
Yes my apolliges i forgot it's more straight then turn that's important.

Why does it have to have a higher centre of gravity if springs are added?. If it shades 1 sec off it's lap times in handling alone there a bonus. The engine is heavy and expensive all be it a brute of a engine, But noone complains about weight when it's powerful, Talk about leaf springs the talk turns defensive as it always has why?. Because out right speed is more important then handling it always has been a big fat heavy engine upfront is excepted as long as it's powerful but a higher tech heavier rear end isn't.. This is a supercars poor cousin when you don't have the blank cheque you can buy the next best thing that will shock a supercar. But when it comes to handling it wont be it's strong point so ad the biggest engine they can find:D.
Ford Australia today still get bagged because they use leaf springs in there Ute and performance utes.

[culver]

My appologies, I was confusing threads. Here is the one I was thinking of.
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13582&highlight=leaf

Also, the Corvette engine's power/lb is very good. Even the base 400hp motor has a good power/weight ratio. It actually weighs about the same as the Nissan VQ V6.

BTW, just in case I get accused of bias, I'm not actually making claims about the handling of the car. It is good but it isn't the best I've driven when it comes to pure enjoyment. I've posted about GM's use of the pushrod motors and the leaf springs only because they are very misunderstood technologies. As much as I really like and respect the Corvette, it would not be my first choice for the money. Again, not bashing things I'm just trying to make sure I don't get accused of blind fan boyism.

[baddabang]

As much as I really like and respect the Corvette, it would not be my first choice for the money. Again, not bashing things I'm just trying to make sure I don't get accused of blind fan boyism.

What would by your first choice? Are we talking about the Z06 or the C6?

[henk4]

What would by your first choice? Are we talking about the Z06 or the C6?

maybe he wants an Elise/Exige????

[Ferrer]

maybe he wants an Elise/Exige????
Or maybe he doesn't want a sportscar.

[Slicks]

You guys fighting is like watching children throw mud at each other. If you enter the argument with an open mind and don't care what side is better, then you serve to gain more than taking sides. :mad:

Maybe the LS7 is better, maybe the AMG is better; the final determination is we dont have the necessary information and besides both are excellent enignes anyways.

Im only correcting misconceptions.

[Slicks]

I don't even read debates like these anymore because they've become so redundant, and I try to avoid getting involved in one myself.

Slicks: Logs onto UCP. Goes into forums. Opens search function. Searches for 'corvette IS NOT the best car ever'. Makes note of all posts that don't put up the Corvette or comparable American cars as the best things since sliced bread. Argues for hours. Goes to sleep. Repeats.

The Anti-Slicks: Logs onto UCP. Goes onto forums. Opens search functions. Searches for 'Slicks'. Makes note of all posts that do put up the Corvette or comparable American cars as the best things since sliced bread. Argues for hours. Goes to sleep. Repeats.

The problem with a lot of people on forums these days, or even just in general terms, is that they've got their mindset so firmly implanted on a certain thing, be it the Corvette as the best car ever, Liberal Governments as the root of all evil, Ghosts existing, etc. that they refuse to accept or believe the opposing side's argument. Instead, he/she will find one tiny sentence that disproves the general statement and uses it as a key point of debate.

Example: (Slicks type member) The LS7 is the best engine that modern money can buy because it's cheap, powerful, light, doesn't have useless technical crap involved, blah blah blah.



(The Anti-Slicks) How light is light? :D The powerplant in the [insert Euro car here] is twice as light, and makes 3/4 of the power!



(Slicks type member) Not true. the [insert Euro car manufacturer here] lied about the power numbers according to this [insert stupid link here providing little evidence] source.

Instead of coming into it with an open mind, people just nitpick at details to try to prove themselves right, which leads NOWHERE. (See revetec thread, Fleet + others debates, Slicks and Matra debates over the years)

The cycle will never end. If you don't believe me, go to the debates we have on UCP and see for yourself. I am omniscient, or as the mortals would say it, all-knowing.

Well atleast you got the part right about me using actual evidence to back my claims...
I dont have to use a search, Ill just be browsing the forums and of course run across some dumb european that lives for top gear and belives everything they say.

[Slicks]

And heres the perfect example of what I just posted about. A member that doesnt know (and doesnt bother to look up) something about a car and starts with assumptions.


I must have missed your opining post at the time, But i see no comments on leaf springs?.
Yes my apolliges i forgot it's more straight then turn that's important.

No, if strait line speed were more important GM would have used coils.


Why does it have to have a higher centre of gravity if springs are added?.

Because if you would bother too see how the springs are mounted (BTW look at the other post with leaf sping info, the Corvette uses 2 transverse leafs, one in front, one in back) coils would be mounted higher.


If it shades 1 sec off it's lap times in handling alone there a bonus.

And if it did shave 1 second off its lap time it would be wearing coils...


The engine is heavy and expensive all be it a brute of a engine, But noone complains about weight when it's powerful,

Last time I checked, an engine weighing under 400lbs undressed isnt very heavy...


Talk about leaf springs the talk turns defensive as it always has why?. Because out right speed is more important then handling it always has been a big fat heavy engine upfront is excepted as long as it's powerful but a higher tech heavier rear end isn't.. This is a supercars poor cousin when you don't have the blank cheque you can buy the next best thing that will shock a supercar. But when it comes to handling it wont be it's strong point so ad the biggest engine they can find:D.
This is so wrong is so many ways I can even start...


Ford Australia today still get bagged because they use leaf springs in there Ute and performance utes.
Because they arnt anything like the leafs used in the Corvette.

[Fleet 500]

0- Carpet = weight = bad.
What does carpet weigh? Maybe 12-15 lbs? I think my cars can handle that extra weight.:)

[SlickHolden]

My appologies, I was confusing threads. Here is the one I was thinking of.
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13582&highlight=leaf

Also, the Corvette engine's power/lb is very good. Even the base 400hp motor has a good power/weight ratio. It actually weighs about the same as the Nissan VQ V6.

BTW, just in case I get accused of bias, I'm not actually making claims about the handling of the car. It is good but it isn't the best I've driven when it comes to pure enjoyment. I've posted about GM's use of the pushrod motors and the leaf springs only because they are very misunderstood technologies. As much as I really like and respect the Corvette, it would not be my first choice for the money. Again, not bashing things I'm just trying to make sure I don't get accused of blind fan boyism.
Was a good read, Post 1 to 3 showed things many didnt know about them or most of us have never seen under a vette, To some drawbacks.. I can't help but feel at times there is this one minded goal of speed more then handling, To get the greatest speed they will compromise some handling.. Bit like the old argument about the Mustang and the live rear end.. But with the Vette i'm sure they could cut many of the interior goodies and go no frills like TVR does. I think there are 3 things in a "Supercar" you shouldn't play with.
1: Handling.
2: Braking.
3: Power (can't say torque woops i said it).
Even looks isnt the most important thing when you buzzing 300km/h and cornering like it's on rails. Leave out the power windows who needs a heater and A/C who needs a radio. Give us the steering wheel and some gauges mclaren F1 style:D.

But really to me leaf springs are for heavy duty use, Like utes for a larger payload in the rear and the only place i know them to also be is trucks. Why i wonder couldn't they use upper control arms with springs. Hang on don't they now use the Magnetic control ride?.

maybe he wants an Elise/Exige????


Or maybe he doesn't want a sportscar.
Maybe he wants a G8:D.

[culver]

What would by your first choice? Are we talking about the Z06 or the C6?

I've never driven a Z06. I have driven a Z51 (suspension package) C6 6spd. Love the speed. Really very few cars on the road today can even hope to keep up with the base Vette on a roll. The Vette's 0-60 suffers a bit as it tries to get all that power down via the rear wheels. When I first drove the car it was below freezing out. The tires would spin in second gear any time the car was given full gas. Even if you rolled onto the gas it could spin the tires. We are talking serious torque. The car is also very comfortable. I could easily see spending a day or more driving the car on a long trip. Very civil given the capabilities.

That said, I still would likely never get one. A few years back I drove a Boxster and really liked it. In the Vette's price range I could see getting something like a Caymen or Boxster. They don't have the pure power but they do have better tossability and the later cars finally have enough leg room and seat recline. The early cars were too limited in both.

The Lotus sounds very appealing but I'm not sure how well I could live with it. I've never driven one but the impression I get is the car is very elemental. That's great when I want to really drive but the rest of the time would I want to drive it? The Porsche and Vette are both civil enough to be daily drivers. The Lotus sounds to be just to raw for such a job. Which is better, a more refined yet relatively isolated toy that you can play with every day or a raw truly fun toy that you can only use every now and then. Really, if I were going to get a driving only toy I would probably just build a Lotus 7 or 550 Spyder or other kit vehicle. I think I would get more satisfaction out of doing it my self. I actually have been seriously considering just such a project.

Ultimately I don't know what would be my ultimate car. I'm quite happy with my older MX-5. Operating costs are low, I can drive it daily and few cars are just as lively with such good steering feel as the MX-5. It's not fast at all which is sometimes a problem but for the most part I'm happy with it. I could see supplementing it with a track/sunny weekend only kit toy.

Again, I really like the Vette and having read a good bit about the development of the C4 and C5 Vettes I have a lot of respect for the technology and engineering that GM put into those cars. Hence why I have written about said technology. But in the end I just can't quite see spending that kind of money for a street toy.

[culver]

But really to me leaf springs are for heavy duty use, Like utes for a larger payload in the rear and the only place i know them to also be is trucks. Why i wonder couldn't they use upper control arms with springs. Hang on don't they now use the Magnetic control ride?.


Thanks for the feedback! I know the leaf spring sounds odd in a performance car but consider that F1 cars are now using torsion springs! Those are used on the fronts of some Toyota and GM trucks.
The Vette does use double A arms all the way around. The leaf spring was never a shoe in for any generation after the C3. Each time it's handling and performance advantages were weighed against its disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage being the substantial increase in price over coils.
If you think about the job of the spring all a coil does is try to push the A-arms (assuming A arms) and wheel down relative to the chassis. The leaf is doing the same thing. However, the leaf can pack more spring force into the same mass as the metal springs. As an aside that energy/mass bit is why modern bows (like bow and arrow) are made with composite springs instead of metal springs.
The biggest issue as I mentioned before is people who assume the leaf springs as used on the Vette are related to a leaf spring suspension used on a truck. The Vette's suspension is a long-short A-arm setup (a set up GM actually pioneered decades back). A truck uses the leaves as axle locating links. That (and the solid axle) are the difference.
Anyway, I can assure you the Vette does handle well. My biggest issue is it doesn't feel lively at speeds under 100mph. Thus you can't "play with it" safely (or reasonably safely) on roads in the US. Personally I would rather go slower with something that is more lively. If you watch the 5th Gear review of the Z06 is clear they believe the car does handle quite well.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8145062821659961997&q=fifth+gear+corvette

Enjoy and thanks for the discussion!

[Northalius]

If higher horsepower per liter meant it was the better engine, then I'd love for someone to explain to me why the LS7.R engine (found in the Corvette C6.R) won "Global Motorsport Racing Engine of the Year" in November 2006? That has lower hp compared to its liters...

Many must stop listening to Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear, as if they're professional engineers. THEY'RE NOT! Clarkson constantly rags on American engines for having less hp per liter, but he's an idiot. When a British car has the same, he doesn't rag on it.

Ah, many have fallen for its propaganda, I see. :)

Remember, when you argue about hp per liter, bring up the LS7.R engine winning the international award... and that'll shut all of them up. :)

Anyway, it has nice fuel economy compared to most Euro sportscar exotics. That should also shut them up. ;)

[roosterjuicer]

well said northalius

[The_Canuck]

I think I remember C/D saying "Warning to Corvette drivers: you will not be able to ditch the 68 [Alpina B7s] already on the loose."

and thats a 4600 pound car :p

[Ferrer]

Anyway, it has nice fuel economy compared to most Euro sportscar exotics. That should also shut them up. ;)
It isn't that good. At least not with EU fuel consumption figures.

[Kitdy]

I think I remember C/D saying "Warning to Corvette drivers: you will not be able to ditch the 68 [Alpina B7s] already on the loose."

and thats a 4600 pound car :p

Wait, by ditch do they mean defeat, and by B7 (All I know is it is an Alpina model), what is that/the stats on that The_Canuck?

[The_Canuck]

Wait, by ditch do they mean defeat, and by B7 (All I know is it is an Alpina model), what is that/the stats on that The_Canuck?

Pretty close to the Corvette, 0-60 in 4.4, 0-100 in 10.1, 1/4 mile in 12.8, same top speed. Suposedly after around 100 miles it starts to pull away from the R8. After reading the article on it I love this car. Oh and it has 500 horsepower and even more torque from a supercharged V8 :D

Awesome. :cool:

[Kitdy]

Pretty close to the Corvette, 0-60 in 4.4, 0-100 in 10.1, 1/4 mile in 12.8, same top speed. Suposedly after around 100 miles it starts to pull away from the R8. After reading the article on it I love this car. Oh and it has 500 horsepower and even more torque from a supercharged V8 :D

Awesome. :cool:

What is it based off of though, an M5? Sounds pretty damn cool. IIRC, it is M5 based and they decided to supercharge the V8 (what is the V8 from, the M3?) instead of using BMW's V10. Am I right on that?

Finally, I have to say a Z06 or Z07/SS/Blue Devil/Stingray would whip it.... Too bad for you. :)

[The_Canuck]

What is it based off of though, an M5? Sounds pretty damn cool. IIRC, it is M5 based and they decided to supercharge the V8 (what is the V8 from, the M3?) instead of using BMW's V10. Am I right on that?

Finally, I have to say a Z06 or Z07/SS/Blue Devil/Stingray would whip it.... Too bad for you. :)

It's based on the 7-series. Alpina's own engine I think.....

Yeah a ZO6 could whip it, but again, it's a bloody 7 series. Not exactly a sports car ;) :p

[Ferrer]

What is it based off of though, an M5? Sounds pretty damn cool. IIRC, it is M5 based and they decided to supercharge the V8 (what is the V8 from, the M3?) instead of using BMW's V10. Am I right on that?

Finally, I have to say a Z06 or Z07/SS/Blue Devil/Stingray would whip it.... Too bad for you. :)
It's based on the 745i. It has an Alpina developped 4.4-litre superchaged V8 with 500bhp and 700Nm. It almost makes the 7er desirable. Almost.

[Kitdy]

It's based on the 7-series. Alpina's own engine I think.....

Yeah a ZO6 could whip it, but again, it's a bloody 7 series. Not exactly a sports car ;) :p


It's based on the 745i. It has an Alpina developped 4.4-litre superchaged V8 with 500bhp and 700Nm. It almost makes the 7er desirable. Almost.

Wow that's pretty damn impressive then. Props to Alpina.

[2ndclasscitizen]

If higher horsepower per liter meant it was the better engine, then I'd love for someone to explain to me why the LS7.R engine (found in the Corvette C6.R) won "Global Motorsport Racing Engine of the Year" in November 2006? That has lower hp compared to its liters...

But what about all the high hp/litre BMW engines that win the road car engine awards? Slightly more relevant than racing engines.

[clutch-monkey]

yeah, but BMW makes all these great engines, then sticks them into hideoulsy ugly, overwieght cars

[Ferrer]

yeah, but BMW makes all these great engines, then sticks them into hideoulsy ugly, overwieght cars
That's basically the problem with modern BMW's. Fantastic machines, horrible cars.

[Kitdy]

But what about all the high hp/litre BMW engines that win the road car engine awards? Slightly more relevant than racing engines.

hp/L FTL. hp/kg FTW.


yeah, but BMW makes all these great engines, then sticks them into hideoulsy ugly, overwieght cars

Why are their engines so great? The automotive press seems to think so but I would really like to know their criteria. IN a performance engine, it is all about hp/kg; in this category BMW does not excel at all in comparison with say, an LS7.

[Ferrer]

Why are their engines so great? The automotive press seems to think so but I would really like to know their criteria. IN a performance engine, it is all about hp/kg; in this category BMW does not excel at all in comparison with say, an LS7.
Again it's the feel of the thing. I haven't driven an LS-series engine nor the V10 in the M5, but I have driven a 330i with the latest straight six. And all I can say is that it was just brilliant. Responsive, eager to rev, powerful. To summarise a fantastic engine.

[Kitdy]

Again it's the feel of the thing. I haven't driven an LS-series engine nor the V10 in the M5, but I have driven a 330i with the latest straight six. And all I can say is that it was just brilliant. Responsive, eager to rev, powerful. To summarise a fantastic engine.

You can't argue with feel...

[henk4]

"the revised 282 bhp twin turbo 3-litre from BMW is different. Is is stonkingly fast, and not in the usual nice-dollop-of-low-down-troque sort of way. Not only does it hold on its power after the mid range, but it actually builds on so you get a real push into the sportsseats during the rush the the redline"

Quote from EVO #106, describing the BMW 535d M Sport....

[Ferrer]

You can't argue with feel...
Trust me, drive a BMW straight six and you'll know what it's all about.

[roosterjuicer]

i must agree. those bimmer straight sixes are amazing motors. the kind of motors that feel stronger than the numbers lead you to believe. plus they sound great.