First Z05 numbers from mags!

I found this at C&D forums.

From MT (Oct. issue):
0 – 60 MPH: 3.5 sec
Quarter Mile: 11.5 sec @ 127 MPH
Braking, 60 – 0 MPH: 104 Feet
Lateral Acceleration: 1.05 G

From C&D (Oct. 2005):
0-60 in 3.6 sec.
0-100 in 7.9 sec.
0-150 in 17 sec.
Skidpad = 0.98g
¼ mile: 11.7 sec @ 125 MPH

Motor Trend: (June 2005) “Ford GT vs. Ferrari F430”
0-60:
Ford GT: 3.6
Ferrari F430: 3.8

1/4 mile:
Ford GT: 11.6@126.2
Ferrari F430: 11.7@122.8

Motor Trend: (June 2003) “Dodge Viper SRT-10”
0-60: 3.9
1/4 Mile: 11.8 @ 123.6

Road & Track: MB McLaren SLR
0-60: 3.5 sec
1/4 mile@11.5 sec @126.1
0-100: 7.5 sec

Here are some comparison numbers between the Z06, Viper, and GT:

Z06 0-100 in 7.9
GT 0-100 in 8.6
Viper 0-100 in 9.6

Z06 0-150 in 17
GT 0-150 in 19.5
Viper 0-150 in 24.1

Here is a little blurb from MT:

"The most entertaining part of the Nurburgring F1 track is the high-speed kink called Hatzenbach Bogen. While F1 cars car routinely see 180 mph and 2g lateral loads, the Z06 - without the aid of thousands of pounds of downforce - managed a respectable 120 mph while delivering a 1.0g force, sustained for a second and a half. It's that combination of unflappable grip and seemingly endless grunt the Z06 manages so well. Nothing seems too great a task, and only your instinct for self-perservation gets in the way of attempting the impossible."

The Z06 some AMAZING! Bravo Chevy!

:metal: :bow: :bow:

I found this at C&D forums.

From MT (Oct. issue):
0 – 60 MPH: 3.5 sec
Quarter Mile: 11.5 sec @ 127 MPH
Braking, 60 – 0 MPH: 104 Feet
Lateral Acceleration: 1.05 G

From C&D (Oct. 2005):
0-60 in 3.6 sec.
0-100 in 7.9 sec.
0-150 in 17 sec.
Skidpad = 0.98g
¼ mile: 11.7 sec @ 125 MPH

Motor Trend: (June 2005) “Ford GT vs. Ferrari F430”
0-60:
Ford GT: 3.6
Ferrari F430: 3.8

1/4 mile:
Ford GT: 11.6@126.2
Ferrari F430: 11.7@122.8

Motor Trend: (June 2003) “Dodge Viper SRT-10”
0-60: 3.9
1/4 Mile: 11.8 @ 123.6

Road & Track: MB McLaren SLR
0-60: 3.5 sec
1/4 mile@11.5 sec @126.1
0-100: 7.5 sec

Here are some comparison numbers between the Z06, Viper, and GT:

Z06 0-100 in 7.9
GT 0-100 in 8.6
Viper 0-100 in 9.6

Z06 0-150 in 17
GT 0-150 in 19.5
Viper 0-150 in 24.1

Here is a little blurb from MT:

"The most entertaining part of the Nurburgring F1 track is the high-speed kink called Hatzenbach Bogen. While F1 cars car routinely see 180 mph and 2g lateral loads, the Z06 - without the aid of thousands of pounds of downforce - managed a respectable 120 mph while delivering a 1.0g force, sustained for a second and a half. It's that combination of unflappable grip and seemingly endless grunt the Z06 manages so well. Nothing seems too great a task, and only your instinct for self-perservation gets in the way of attempting the impossible."

The Z06 some AMAZING! Bravo Chevy!

:metal: :bow: :bow:


thats utterly amazing... the cheaper car whooped the self-proclaimed supercars in almost every category, and in the MOST important category of all Price!

its a good day to be the general, now lets work those magic fingers on the F5 and the general will officially be back in black!

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Z06 0-100 in 7.9
GT 0-100 in 8.6
Viper 0-100 in 9.6

Z06 0-150 in 17
GT 0-150 in 19.5
Viper 0-150 in 24.1

At a second glance i have to make another comment, the GT's numbers in respect to its $150,000 price tag are humiliating. Ford just needs to stop trying for top spot, its already taken.

That is F*ckin SICK!!!!

What's a Z05? :D

That is F*ckin SICK!!!!


that sums it up the best it can be sumed :metal:

The numbers for the z06 are impressive, but in all fairness, I think it would be worth waiting until it is put up directly against th other cars in a shootout or something, instead of cross referencing times from different situations. That is the best way to eliminate all of the variables, and the speculation that follows. Until that time, I will refrain from making a judgement on which one is the fastest, although it is obvious the z06 is definetly in their league.

By powershifting, someone did get a 2004 Z06 down to 11.9. The LS7 has roughly 100 more horses. I think low 11's are more than possible.


if someone wasnt concious about cracking into there $70,000 car, i bet with some easy mods we are looking at a 10 second Z06.

The king is back :metal:

At a second glance i have to make another comment, the GT's numbers in respect to its $150,000 price tag are humiliating. Ford just needs to stop trying for top spot, its already taken.

Beg to differ.

The Z06 is essentially an in house performance job on an existing car.

The Ford GT was made from the 1st bolt as a supercar.

You'd need at least an intersection's distance to spot a Z06.

You'd spot a Ford GT almost from the other side of town.

I'm not slamming the Z06 in any way. Those acceleration numbers are downright sick (to borrow someone else's term ;) ), and it no doubt holds it's own with anything on the planet.

But the mission of the Z06 is to offer supercar performance on the cheap (relatively speaking, of course), while the Ford GT is a showcase American exotic car, also on the cheap ($150K is still alot cheaper than comparable rides from Europe) that already has star collector status.

The loser in all this is the Dodge Viper. But then again, the Viper suddenly ends of the cheaper of the 3 now.

The numbers for the z06 are impressive, but in all fairness, I think it would be worth waiting until it is put up directly against th other cars in a shootout or something, instead of cross referencing times from different situations. That is the best way to eliminate all of the variables, and the speculation that follows. Until that time, I will refrain from making a judgement on which one is the fastest, although it is obvious the z06 is definetly in their league.

Very true, they definitely need a side by side comparison (and they should sell tickets to it :D ). The Z06 is definitely in their league, that in itself says a lot considering the price differences :bow: .

David

The loser in all this is the Dodge Viper. But then again, the Viper suddenly ends of the cheaper of the 3 now.


How is it the cheapest of the 3 now? It still MSRPs higher than a new z06. I hope Dodge does something with the Viper soon, because I like that car, and I don't want to see Chrysler do something dumb and pull the plug on it.

I knew there was some reaason I was a Chevy guy!

Beg to differ.

Ofc you do :p

The Z06 is essentially an in house performance job on an existing car.

What do you call the cobra and other stangs of past and present? I beleive the GT-40 is being built in Saleen plants, atleast this is what my friends who work there tell me, but it is essentially an in house build. Cobra R comes to mind atm :think:

The Ford GT was made from the 1st bolt as a supercar.

This isnt helping why there numbers are worse then a slightly tuned corvette with a 50% price tag.

You'd need at least an intersection's distance to spot a Z06.

Maybe you do :p, whenever i see a vette i can quickly hound down if its a Z06 or not, and usually one who knows what to look for can tell simply from a glance. GT-40 is a ringer from .5 miles away 6 lanes over, but thats what it was meant to be.

You'd spot a Ford GT almost from the other side of town.

Yes but i would be arguing with myself if it was a "New GT-40" or an old one (i know a little unrealistic :p) because ford kept it as close as possible without just pulling the sheet metal out of storage, for Nestalgia purpose's and Eye catcher factor. At the same time the New Z06 stylings will make it stick out like a sore thumb to.

I'm not slamming the Z06 in any way. Those acceleration numbers are downright sick (to borrow someone else's term ;) ), and it no doubt holds it's own with anything on the planet.

Yep, it sure does. And if the numbers stands true, it beats anything in its price bracket hands down, and 90% of those streetable out of its price bracket by $70,000 - $400,000...

But the mission of the Z06 is to offer supercar performance on the cheap (relatively speaking, of course), while the Ford GT is a showcase American exotic car, also on the cheap ($150K is still alot cheaper than comparable rides from Europe) that already has star collector status.

In the begining the Viper was built to be an exotic as well, or atleast thats the way dodge sold it to the public, and now its unarguably the slowiest in the pack. $150,000 is alot cheaper then alot of EU's offerings, but IMO i would rather spend another $25,000 and get a ferarri. There isnt a ford on the planet worth $150,000. (Classics Exempt :p). I would swoop 2 Z06s for that price ;)

The loser in all this is the Dodge Viper. But then again, the Viper suddenly ends of the cheaper of the 3 now.

(yes this is info i looked up, but last 05' Viper i seen had 77,000 on the windshield.)

Viper: $74236 - $81495
Z06: Est (which im sure will be close): $70,000

Viper isnt only overpriced, its also optioned car. The Z06 comes loaded off the lot. Still pulling Mid-Low 11's while yanking: Leather seats, CD Premium Sound, AC and alot of nice included things.

So the viper cant hide behind price, and the GT couldnt dream of doing so. Not in the performance world.

Z06: Est (which im sure will be close): $70,000
______________________________

I think its 66K on the Chevy website.

Very true, they definitely need a side by side comparison (and they should sell tickets to it :D ). The Z06 is definitely in their league, that in itself says a lot considering the price differences :bow: .

David


That in itself, brings those cars worlds crashing down.

GT-40 is a stripper being pushed by a blown V8, i have no clue what luxurys its missing, but im sure the z06 is a hell of alot more plush inside.

The Viper is pushing 500+ CID V-10... Come on now, there shouldnt be an excuse.

Im not sure if this is | was one of chevys logos or another of the big three, but it applys here.

"The rules have changed":metal:

Z06: Est (which im sure will be close): $70,000
I think its 66K on the Chevy website.

Point, Match....... Game.

That in itself, brings those cars worlds crashing down.

GT-40 is a stripper being pushed by a blown V8, i have no clue what luxurys its missing, but im sure the z06 is a hell of alot more plush inside.

The Viper is pushing 500+ CID V-10... Come on now, there shouldnt be an excuse.

Im not sure if this is | was one of chevys logos or another of the big three, but it applys here.

]"The rules have changed"[/I]:metal:

The Ford GT comes with your standard luxuries, pwr w/l/ blah blah blah, with a 6 disc "premium"(everyone's definetion of premium is different) sound system, leather, AC, most of the standard goodies. It may not come with as many as the z06 will, but it is far from sparse, so I don't know if I would say it is a "hell of alot more plush inside."

The Vipers engine is also a few years old now, whereas the ls7 is going to be brand new for street production. I am sure Chrysler has something up their sleeves (at least I hope they do).

I found this at C&D forums.

From MT (Oct. issue):
0 – 60 MPH: 3.5 sec
Quarter Mile: 11.5 sec @ 127 MPH
Braking, 60 – 0 MPH: 104 Feet
Lateral Acceleration: 1.05 G

From C&D (Oct. 2005):
0-60 in 3.6 sec.
0-100 in 7.9 sec.
0-150 in 17 sec.
Skidpad = 0.98g
¼ mile: 11.7 sec @ 125 MPH

Motor Trend: (June 2005) “Ford GT vs. Ferrari F430”
0-60:
Ford GT: 3.6
Ferrari F430: 3.8

1/4 mile:
Ford GT: 11.6@126.2
Ferrari F430: 11.7@122.8

Motor Trend: (June 2003) “Dodge Viper SRT-10”
0-60: 3.9
1/4 Mile: 11.8 @ 123.6

Road & Track: MB McLaren SLR
0-60: 3.5 sec
1/4 mile@11.5 sec @126.1
0-100: 7.5 sec

Here are some comparison numbers between the Z06, Viper, and GT:

Z06 0-100 in 7.9
GT 0-100 in 8.6
Viper 0-100 in 9.6

Z06 0-150 in 17
GT 0-150 in 19.5
Viper 0-150 in 24.1

Here is a little blurb from MT:

"The most entertaining part of the Nurburgring F1 track is the high-speed kink called Hatzenbach Bogen. While F1 cars car routinely see 180 mph and 2g lateral loads, the Z06 - without the aid of thousands of pounds of downforce - managed a respectable 120 mph while delivering a 1.0g force, sustained for a second and a half. It's that combination of unflappable grip and seemingly endless grunt the Z06 manages so well. Nothing seems too great a task, and only your instinct for self-perservation gets in the way of attempting the impossible."

The Z06 some AMAZING! Bravo Chevy!

:metal: :bow: :bow:


Gee. How'd ya miss this one, skippy?

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_lemansintro/index5.html

Hmmm. 3 600+ hp cars run head to head. Oh... and will you look at that. the 0-100 on these 3 is bus lengths ahead of the Z06. Now tell me how bad it'll be by 150.

I know. I know. After the GT smacks the Z06 over the curb, it's gonna be "wait for the blue devil!" :D

Those numbers are incredible, and to get such praise from MT is great to see. Way to go GM!

Dan

Gee. How'd ya miss this one, skippy?

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_lemansintro/index5.html

Hmmm. 3 600+ hp cars run head to head. Oh... and will you look at that. the 0-100 on these 3 is bus lengths ahead of the Z06. Now tell me how bad it'll be by 150.

I know. I know. After the GT smacks the Z06 over the curb, it's gonna be "wait for the blue devil!" :D


.04 of a second is 3 bus lengths? hmmm...

I watched a "Speed" some british show, do a test on the Gt-40 few times over. According to this compiled data, the Z06 is just as fast in the limited testing thats been done, lets see what happens when a full hard shifting reveiw is done with the new Z06, because those brits where slamming on the GT-40.

Hey big blue I think that we should wait till the Viper GT and Z06 are run at the same track at the same time with the same driver, back to back to back. Then and ONLY then can we say which one is faster, but I will say the Z06 is BADDD ASSS!!!!

Gee. How'd ya miss this one, skippy?

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_lemansintro/index5.html

Hmmm. 3 600+ hp cars run head to head. Oh... and will you look at that. the 0-100 on these 3 is bus lengths ahead of the Z06. Now tell me how bad it'll be by 150.

I know. I know. After the GT smacks the Z06 over the curb, it's gonna be "wait for the blue devil!" :D

Put the crack pipe down dude....Ford Fanboys are in hyper-CYA mode already I see.

The Ford GT comes with your standard luxuries, pwr w/l/ blah blah blah, with a 6 disc "premium"(everyone's definetion of premium is different) sound system, leather, AC, most of the standard goodies. It may not come with as many as the z06 will, but it is far from sparse, so I don't know if I would say it is a "hell of alot more plush inside."

Compare for yourself. GT-40 (http://ford.jbcarpages.com/GT/2005/Bilder/Bild43.php) 2005 Corvette (http://chevrolet.jbcarpages.com/Corvette/2005/Bilder/Bild25.php)

Given the GT-40's interior is a little more "Over the top" but for $150,000 it better damn well be.

IMO the Base vettes interior is more inviting, and a hell of alot more practicle for a daily driver or anything else you choose to use it for. This isnt even taking the Z06's slight upgrades when it launchs.

The Vipers engine is also a few years old now, whereas the ls7 is going to be brand new for street production. I am sure Chrysler has something up their sleeves (at least I hope they do).

doesnt excuse the size, and lack of performance. The Viper motor has seen revisions in the past 10 years, lets not sell it like they pulled one out of a 93' and slammed it in a 05'. LS7 is just a variant of the motor thats been powering Vettes for almost 10 years. No excuse.

.04 of a second is 3 bus lengths? hmmm...

I watched a "Speed" some british show, do a test on the Gt-40 few times over. According to this compiled data, the Z06 is just as fast in the limited testing thats been done, lets see what happens when a full hard shifting reveiw is done with the new Z06, because those brits where slamming on the GT-40.


It's .5 sec. 7.9-7.4 = .5sec

.5s x 100m/hr x 5280ft/mile x 1hr/3600s = 73.3ft about 2 bus lengths.

Bottom line. You'll have to wait for the blue devil. No 500-something hp car is gonna get close to a car already dynoing 540-560 at the wheels.


Oh.. and the British guy. The host for Top Gear. He hated the GT so much... he bought one.

Put the crack pipe down dude....Ford Fanboys are in hyper-CYA mode already I see.


And our favorite GM fanboy poops in right on schedule.

It's .5 sec. 7.9-7.4 = .5sec

.5s x 100m/hr x 5280ft/mile x 1hr/3600s = 73.3ft about 2 bus lengths.

lol Groar! I put a .0 by accident, we must go to different tracks because 2 bus lengths is about a 1-2 second variation champ.

Bottom line. You'll have to wait for the blue devil. No 500-something hp car is gonna get close to a car already dynoing 540-560 at the wheels.

the Z06's "Official" numbers havnt even been released, last i heard there was talk of rebadging with a 550HP insignia over the 505, due to the 505 being "not accurate".

This all reminds me of the 00' R Vs Z06 shoot out, i beleive the R was putting down more power as well, didnt really help on the track in the end now did it.


Oh.. and the British guy. The host for Top Gear. He hated the GT so much... he bought one.

Awfully defensive, so defensive that your making **** up :metal:, Never did i say he didnt like it. He loved the "ease of shifting" and "Handling, besides its slight understeer".

Damnit!!!! I need to hurry up and win the lottery. :mad:


ill prey for you, if you promise to buy me one if you win!

any bit of help is just that much more ;)

From Car and Driver

Highs: Supercar performance at a reasonable price, everyday practicality

Lows: An uncommunicative chassis

Verdit: If the rest of the GM line were as good as this, the company's troubles would be over.

They quoted that the Z06 was faster than the last GT they tested. Also the Z06 weighs 3147 lbs while the all-aluminum Ferrari F430 weighs 3380 lbs. and the $446,000 Porsche Carrera GT thats carbon fiber weighs in at 3146 lbs.

How did I know even with the Z06 they would find a way to bash the GM :o



$150K+++++ for a Ford GT, that looks 60s ugly :no:
$65,800 Z06 that faster, lighter,more fuel efficient and has modern bad a** looks :bow:

Gee. How'd ya miss this one, skippy?

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_lemansintro/index5.html

Hmmm. 3 600+ hp cars run head to head. Oh... and will you look at that. the 0-100 on these 3 is bus lengths ahead of the Z06. Now tell me how bad it'll be by 150.

I know. I know. After the GT smacks the Z06 over the curb, it's gonna be "wait for the blue devil!" :D

I just copied and pasted what I found on C&D forums, and that wasn't there.

I'll wait until a comparo to see which is the fastest, as testing conditions were probably different in each of the tests.

Despite the GT having more power, it also has a bit more heft.

Highs: Supercar performance at a reasonable price, everyday practicality

Thats being rediculously modest :p

Lows: An uncommunicative chassis

Rome wasnt built in a day :metal:

Verdit: If the rest of the GM line were as good as this, the company's troubles would be over.

amen.

They quoted that the Z06 was faster than the last GT they tested. Also the Z06 weighs 3147 lbs while the all-aluminum Ferrari F430 weighs 3380 lbs. and the $446,000 Porsche Carrera GT thats carbon fiber weighs in at 3146 lbs.

this isnt the only media outlet stating the Z06 is faster then the GT, its been all but unanomus, now the actual mags are hitting stands.

GM preyed to the right god to pull off that weight, especially while being Fully Loaded is the only option. :bow:

How did I know even with the Z06 they would find a way to bash the GM :o

Because its like the national pass time for auto-mags to gut even GM's best performers :p , kinda hard to when the thing damn near takes flight on take off. So they hit the chassis, predictable.



$150K+++++ for a Ford GT, that looks 60s ugly :no:

ugly is being kind, apparently Fords answer to nay-sayers for the next 5-10 years is retro, i hope the fad dont kick them in the tooch.

$65,800 Z06 that faster, lighter,more fuel efficient and has modern bad a** looks :bow:

:bow:

A .5 second difference is about 5 car lengths at 100 mph. The cars were tested at different times. Like someone else said, they need a head to head, which is bound to happen soon.

That same data shows the 0-60 for the GT to be 0.2 sec slower than the Z06.

I'm not picking sides here. I love both the GT and the Z06. They will need a head to head comparison to make a fair judgment. The GT is by no means out of the Z06's league though.

Dan

Despite the GT having more power, it also has a bit more heft.


with a solid aluminum chassis, must be all those retro ques killing them even in there race car.

A .5 second difference is about 5 car lengths at 100 mph. The cars were tested at different times. Like someone else said, they need a head to head, which is bound to happen soon.

thats a bus +.5 max. Not 12 like the guy is trying to imply.

That same data shows the 0-60 for the GT to be 0.2 sec slower than the Z06.

:cool:

I'm not picking sides here. I love both the GT and the Z06. They will need a head to head comparison to make a fair judgment. The GT is by no means out of the Z06's league though.

Dan

:bow:

Thats being rediculously modest :p



Rome wasnt built in a day :metal:



amen.



this isnt the only media outlet stating the Z06 is faster then the GT, its been all but unanomus, now the actual mags are hitting stands.

GM preyed to the right god to pull off that weight, especially while being Fully Loaded is the only option. :bow:



Because its like the national pass time for auto-mags to gut even GM's best performers :p , kinda hard to when the thing damn near takes flight on take off. So they hit the chassis, predictable.


C/D stated that they almost lost it at the Spa track in the Eau Rouge section trying to dulicate the Chevy test drivers times. "Somewhere in the sequence we erred" The car got squirrelly "We weren't frightened. Terrified is a better word" The only thing that saved there a** was the Z06s stability control system.
Once again Car and Driver is so contradictive :o

lol Groar! I put a .0 by accident, we must go to different tracks because 2 bus lengths is about a 1-2 second variation champ.



the Z06's "Official" numbers havnt even been released, last i heard there was talk of rebadging with a 550HP insignia over the 505, due to the 505 being "not accurate".

This all reminds me of the 00' R Vs Z06 shoot out, i beleive the R was putting down more power as well, didnt really help on the track in the end now did it.




Awfully defensive, so defensive that your making **** up :metal:, Never did i say he didnt like it. He loved the "ease of shifting" and "Handling, besides its slight understeer".


You're prolly right on the lengths. But it still doesn't explain how a Z06 is supposed to come around the GT from 100-150.

As far as rebadging to 550, the 2 quarter mile times from 2 different mags indicate it'll be closer to 500 than 550.

As far the Cobra R vs Z06. You do realize the Cobra R is a Mustang, right? Not a purpose built supercar.

I misread your "slamming" on the GT. I guess you mean they were getting on it. Well I hope they slam the Z06 too. Don't want any excuses. The last vette(C6) they tested didn't do so well, at least on the raw acceleration part.


BTW, I'm not knocking the Z06. Best sports car under a hundred grand.

C/D stated that they almost lost it at the Spa track in the Eau Rouge section trying to dulicate the Chevy test drivers times. "Somewhere in the sequence we erred" The car got squirrelly "We weren't frightened. Terrified is a better word" The only thing that saved there a** was the Z06s stability control system.
Once again Car and Driver is so contradictive :o

even in that previous post about the Z06 at the track in EU. The driver stated at times the car was terrifying.

C/D shouldnt ever try to duplicate numbers, some of there 1/4s ive seen over the years are a little less then impressive compared to what is seen by other drivers.

But in the end, if the Z06 is frieghtening fast. I much rather be terrifyed by my Sports car, then bored to hell by it. :metal:

Terrifying just sounds very interesting to me :metal:

You're prolly right on the lengths. But it still doesn't explain how a Z06 is supposed to come around the GT from 100-150.

really depends at which RPM range each will thrive, Z06 could pull like a bastard post 100, only time will tell.

As far as rebadging to 550, the 2 quarter mile times from 2 different mags indicate it'll be closer to 500 than 550.

until we see it on a dyno we really wont know, but its something that has been mentioned. The Z06 is putting out high numbers.

As far the Cobra R vs Z06. You do realize the Cobra R is a Mustang, right? Not a purpose built supercar.

well until recently Ford didnt really have a dedicated "Supercar" that had been built recently. So i would place my bet, the 00' is the closiest thing Ford has produced for consumer use intended for the "Supercar" market, Tread lightly because "Technically" the vette isnt a supercar neither, but sure as hell is putting down supercar numbers, is it not?

I misread your "slamming" on the GT. I guess you mean they were getting on it. Well I hope they slam the Z06 too. Don't want any excuses. The last vette(C6) they tested didn't do so well, at least on the raw acceleration part.

No problem :) , I certainly hope they slam on the Z06 as well, because so far as stated above the mags are saying the Z06 is coming through the light at 11.5-11.7, if thats pussyfooting it, then there is a plausable 11.3-11.0 in Chevys new pride and joy. In the end its exciting times for all fan boys, be they Bow tie boys, or Blue oval boys. To be fair the 02 SS was said to come through the lights at 13.2 , most of us have seen them bone stock coming through in the 12.99 - 12.7 range.


BTW, I'm not knocking the Z06. Best sports car under a hundred grand.

:bow:


No matter how we cut this pie, the time of the 11 second american top performers is here in full force, i for one say. Bout' time.

Glad to see all 3 automotive giants having atleast 1 contender there this round.

The Z06 is badass regardless of how it compares to anything.

And STOP CALLING IT A GT-40!!

:p

The Z06 is badass regardless of how it compares to anything.

And STOP CALLING IT A GT-40!!

:p


Nevarrrr!!!!!!! GT-40!

:p

To be fair the 02 SS was said to come through the lights at 13.2 , most of us have seen them bone stock coming through in the 12.99 - 12.7 range.

A few LS1 F-bodies have hit 12s bone stock in the quarter, but that is not anywhere near even being remotely close to most of them.

Quoting 12.99 - 12.7 for a bone stock '02 SS is just very unlikely. 13.2 is about the norm. Fact.

Hell, since you're saying it, I want proof regarding a 12.7 second quarter mile time a bone stock SS.

:p

I, personally, really like the way the Ford GT looks. It is a beast and imho a worthy addition to the GT name. I think it pretty much had to look the way it does to get the publicity they wanted it to get and to make the supercar guys to sit up and take notice. The Z06 will also make them take notice, much the same way the Viper did/does. I like all three cars, and I would honestly own each of them if I had the kind of money necessary to do so. Each have their pro's and con's, and if you are just comparing car to car it is pretty much anybody's guess who is the king. If you are looking at performance and cost, the Z06 is top dog IMO.

David

A few LS1 F-bodies have hit 12s bone stock in the quarter, but that is not anywhere near even being remotely close to most of them.

Quoting 12.99 - 12.7 for a bone stock '02 SS is just very unlikely. 13.2 is about the norm. Fact.

Hell, since you're saying it, I want proof regarding a 12.7 second quarter mile time a bone stock SS.

:p

search around, 12.9 is common place for a 02 SS with a Good driver, ive heard it was common in a great deal of the late LS1's.

Do a search, im sure you'll find some pleasant reading :D

I, personally, really like the way the Ford GT looks. It is a beast and imho a worthy addition to the GT name. I think it pretty much had to look the way it does to get the publicity they wanted it to get and to make the supercar guys to sit up and take notice. The Z06 will also make them take notice, much the same way the Viper did/does. I like all three cars, and I would honestly own each of them if I had the kind of money necessary to do so. Each have their pro's and con's, and if you are just comparing car to car it is pretty much anybody's guess who is the king. If you are looking at performance and cost, the Z06 is top dog IMO.

David

Performance per price isnt even a debate, the Z06 humbly takes that title hands down. Im speaking in reference to any modern car on the planet.

search around, 12.9 is common place for a 02 SS with a Good driver, ive heard it was common in a great deal of the late LS1's.

Do a search, im sure you'll find some pleasant reading :D

Look at my registration date. Look at my post count. I've been around.

I still wouldn't say 12.9 is a common place. It's happened several times, but it's not the norm. I would also venture to say that most SS drivers are not skilled enough to drive them to a 12 second timeslip.

And I still want proof of a 12.7.

:p

Look at my registration date. Look at my post count. I've been around.

I see that, but post counts dont mean you have insane strip experiance. :p


I still wouldn't say 12.9 is a common place. It's happened several times, but it's not the norm. I would also venture to say that most SS drivers are not skilled enough to drive them to a 12 second timeslip.

What is the norm? Ive seen a LS1 F-bod run 13.9 all day, there is 2 deciding factors in any 1/4 run. Car capabilities and Driver capabilites.

02' SS's stock are capable of sub 13second times, the only question is "Is the drivers capabilites matching of the machine he heads?".

And i agree Most SS drivers arnt capable of grinding out 12 second slips, but that doesnt mean the machine isnt well capable of it with a good driver behind the wheel.

When i received my 1993 (stock mind you) most of the guys at the track couldnt get there stocks hitting below 13.8, end of the day i had very little trouble squeeking out a 13.7, not saying im special. I just had a good day, and they had a consistantly bad one. Same can be said for any car.

I and many others have seen the same LS1 F-bod stock run 12's over and over, meaning the Car is very capable of it, with the right man commanding it.
And I still want proof of a 12.7.

Never seen anything post 12.8 personally on a stock LS1 F-bod, but ive been told of the 12.7 times, although again ive never seen them personally. 12.8 consistants is the Best i can vouche for.

I'd say the new GT has kick ass styling. I love the old one, I love the new one. No debate. In the looks department it LOOKS like a supercar. The Z06 however is quite bland and boring. It may be modern, but it doesnt have the "supercar" look to it. But in all honesty, it isnt a supercar (but again, putting out near supercar numbers) and that makes it okay.

I'm more waiting to see if something neat pops out from cadillac or we here more about the rumored LS9 engine getting stuffed into a production vehicle.

The Z06 is badass regardless of how it compares to anything.

And STOP CALLING IT A GT-40!!

:p
Damnit, you beat me to it :D

with a solid aluminum chassis, must be all those retro ques killing them even in there race car.
try more along the lines of the gigantic ass 5.4 in back. despite being all aluminum, with the dry sump and everything else they have done, that motor is just plain heavy.

ugly is being kind, apparently Fords answer to nay-sayers for the next 5-10 years is retro, i hope the fad dont kick them in the tooch.

:rolleyes:

Then again GM aint to far behind in the butt ugly looks with that bloated rebadged PT Crusier.

As for the vette, admittedly magazines dont do it justice and the car looks far better in RL, although for some reason it reminds me of an opel GT??

That's it, the C6 Z06 will be my track car. Just give me a few years to get the money together... God damn, what a bargin!

-B

That's it, the C6 Z06 will be my track car. Just give me a few years to get the money together... God damn, what a bargin!

-B

Heh, anybody who sells a car with equal or lesser performance for more than the cost of the Z06 should fell ashamed for ripping off the customer like that!

:bow: for building a damn fine performance machine.

GM swung on the high fastball, with bases loaded, and hit that puppy into the sun...

Anyone have the official EPA gas milage? I belive it doesnt get the gas tax, so to even have a car to put out so much power, to be so efficent....GM should play off that like no ones business.

Look at my registration date. Look at my post count. I've been around.

I still wouldn't say 12.9 is a common place. It's happened several times, but it's not the norm. I would also venture to say that most SS drivers are not skilled enough to drive them to a 12 second timeslip.

And I still want proof of a 12.7.

:p
Didn't one of the Mustang mags get a SS to run 12.8/7s?

Didn't one of the Mustang mags get a SS to run 12.8/7s?
I think it was 13.0's all day long in the heat. And I think it was a sidebar called "know your enemy" in MM&FF.

Didn't one of the Mustang mags get a SS to run 12.8/7s?

It was 12.89ish with Evan Smith driving.

:p

I see that, but post counts dont mean you have insane strip experiance. :p




What is the norm? Ive seen a LS1 F-bod run 13.9 all day, there is 2 deciding factors in any 1/4 run. Car capabilities and Driver capabilites.

02' SS's stock are capable of sub 13second times, the only question is "Is the drivers capabilites matching of the machine he heads?".

And i agree Most SS drivers arnt capable of grinding out 12 second slips, but that doesnt mean the machine isnt well capable of it with a good driver behind the wheel.

When i received my 1993 (stock mind you) most of the guys at the track couldnt get there stocks hitting below 13.8, end of the day i had very little trouble squeeking out a 13.7, not saying im special. I just had a good day, and they had a consistantly bad one. Same can be said for any car.

I and many others have seen the same LS1 F-bod stock run 12's over and over, meaning the Car is very capable of it, with the right man commanding it.


Never seen anything post 12.8 personally on a stock LS1 F-bod, but ive been told of the 12.7 times, although again ive never seen them personally. 12.8 consistants is the Best i can vouche for.

You don't need insane strip experience to learn about what times what cars can or usually run. But as for my personal experience, I don't have much, but I have witnessed many more stock LS1s go 14s than 12s.

And I fully agree, with a great driver, most '02 LS1s are capable of a 12 second timeslip.

Dictionary.com defines "common" as "Occurring frequently or habitually; usual." Despite knowing what the BEST drivers can get out of them, I would still say that the most frequently posted time for an '02 LS1 is not in the 12s.

I was not arguing for the fact that an LS1 could not hit 12s, I know it can. I was merely saying that is not the commonplace for a late-model LS1.

:p

The average LS1 with the average driver who's at the strip at the first time in his life with average weather conditions would be extremely lucky to break into the 13s at ALL as his BEST run of the night... his worst run could easily be in the 15s without anything truely major going wrong.

A sub-13 time for a 100% bone stock (yes that includes free mods, DRs, etc, too despite what some "bone stock" guys like to pretend) LS1 f-body is about as rare as it gets. It takes a combination of a GREAT driver, GREAT conditions, a ringer car (one that makes a little more power than normal just by luck), and it'll be the best run of the night for sure. It is in no way shape or form 'the norm'.

I've seen FAR more stock LS1 f-bodies run in the low 14s than I have in the high 13s. Are those care capable of better? I'm sure they are, but quoting the car's potential with the best of every circumstance coming together all at once is far from quoting 'the norm'. The norm is what I'm used to seeing, not what makes everyone's jaw drop and say "wow I can't believe what I just saw, I'm going to have to tell all my friends about this!". And that's what a 100% stock f-body running a 12.xx time would be for sure. Especially a 12.7x.

My GS400 ran a best of 14.7 @ 97 in bad weather conditions (hot & humid) and a worst run of 15.1 @ 95. Now I've seen times for my car in completely stock condition running as good as 13.9 @ 101. But did I honestly expect my car to run that? Hell no. Could I honestly tell people that was 'common' for them to run in the high 13s and low 100s? No way!

Please don't lie to yourself in front of others. That's how misinformation is spread. A high 12 in an LS1 is a religious occasion... NOT 'normal'. Hell.. most of the stock C5 Z06s I've seen run didn't quite get into the 12s. I know, the driver sucked for sure... but there are FAR more drivers like I'm talking about than drivers, tracks, and nights (weather conditions) that will combine to make a 12 second stock LS1.;)

Lastly, don't tell people who've been around this board longer than you've likely been surfing the internet altogether to go look around the board to educate themselves. It just makes no sense.:p

For somebody who just said in another thread
I hope they come out with a !VVT! elimintor i like having all 8 always one demand
I kinda wonder about your car knowledge as well. You're getting VVT mixed up with DoD - two very common technologies with two very different purposes.:p

This z06 has gotten us all bench racing!!!! :lol:

The average LS1 with the average driver who's at the strip at the first time in his life with average weather conditions would be extremely lucky to break into the 13s at ALL as his BEST run of the night... his worst run could easily be in the 15s without anything truely major going wrong.

If they have absolutly NO knowlege of how running a car works...

Its safe to say, the average Sports car enthusiast can take a LS1 car to the track and dip into the 13's on there 2nd or 3rd try.

A sub-13 time for a 100% bone stock (yes that includes free mods, DRs, etc, too despite what some "bone stock" guys like to pretend) LS1 f-body is about as rare as it gets. It takes a combination of a GREAT driver, GREAT conditions, a ringer car (one that makes a little more power than normal just by luck), and it'll be the best run of the night for sure. It is in no way shape or form 'the norm'.

I seen 2 different Magazine drivers (yes those who sometimes are .5-1 full second above what the average drag racer can do) quote the times in the 12's...

This isnt even speaking of personal experiance. I was more speaking of the 02' SS initially dont generalize what i said. In decent conditions, with a GOOD driver, Not God-Like or Excellent just GOOD, you will crack 12.99 with a stock 35th anniversery SS.

I've seen FAR more stock LS1 f-bodies run in the low 14s than I have in the high 13s. Are those care capable of better? I'm sure they are, but quoting the car's potential with the best of every circumstance coming together all at once is far from quoting 'the norm'. The norm is what I'm used to seeing, not what makes everyone's jaw drop and say "wow I can't believe what I just saw, I'm going to have to tell all my friends about this!". And that's what a 100% stock f-body running a 12.xx time would be for sure. Especially a 12.7x.

I would say any LS1 f-body is capable of better then Low 14's... I think anyone would agree.

The norm is exactly what your used to seeing, and apparently you have some piss poor drivers running those LS1's in front of you, The tracks i visit Milan for the most part (in michigan) seeing LS1's in the Low 13's high 12's is an everyday occurance, therefor it is "The norm" for me.

the 12.7 was mentioned by a friend, as well as mentioned on here by another member.

My GS400 ran a best of 14.7 @ 97 in bad weather conditions (hot & humid) and a worst run of 15.1 @ 95. Now I've seen times for my car in completely stock condition running as good as 13.9 @ 101. But did I honestly expect my car to run that? Hell no. Could I honestly tell people that was 'common' for them to run in the high 13s and low 100s? No way!

Definition of common : "Occurring frequently or habitually; usual." if you Frequently seen this | witnessed this, then yes you should expect this. Again it is heavily based on driver. Ive seen Vipers run 15's at the track, sometimes consistantly, Will i argue they arnt capabe of sub 13 times? or even for that matter its not Common?

No i wouldnt, because i know thats not the case. Just because you've seen a few high 13 second LS1's, dont think its not purely driver. Because it is.

Occurring frequently or habitually; usual.


Please don't lie to yourself in front of others. That's how misinformation is spread. A high 12 in an LS1 is a religious occasion... NOT 'normal'. Hell.. most of the stock C5 Z06s I've seen run didn't quite get into the 12s. I know, the driver sucked for sure... but there are FAR more drivers like I'm talking about than drivers, tracks, and nights (weather conditions) that will combine to make a 12 second stock LS1.;)

Lie to myself? You have to be kidding right? Where the hell am i even lying in general? Your trying to feed me that the same LS1's comming from the factory will run Mid 14's and some will randomly run 12's as a grown man if that doesnt sound nieve i have to question you.

Whatever track you are hanging out at is piss-poor to say the least, Stock C5 Z06's hanging in the low 13's. Either everyone at my local tracks are supermen or your exagerating on alot of your points.

First time i ever seen a LS1 crack 13's was the Fall of 01' it was 91 degree's and humid as all hell. It doesnt take a 50 degree Night with perfect humidity to run 12's with a stock 02' SS. I'm sorry again completly wrong.

Lastly, don't tell people who've been around this board longer than you've likely been surfing the internet altogether to go look around the board to educate themselves. It just makes no sense.:p

..... Personal attack number 3? WTF is your issue? Ive never spoken a word to you. Posting on here longer then ive been surfing the internet? So i guess post counts really make for experiance. Let me call up Carroll Shelby and inform him. Or maybe Calaway. Very intelegent insult there.

For somebody who just said in another thread

I kinda wonder about your car knowledge as well. You're getting VVT mixed up with DoD - two very common technologies with two very different purposes.:p

Make sure to post what i said intirely.

"I hope they come out with a !VVT! elimintor i like having all 8 always one demand

jk, this is very good news. More power while still meating emissions GM."

the intire post was a spoof, yes I as a chevy fan do not know what Variable Valve timeing and Displacement on Demand stand for or mean.

Glad you caught me on that one :rolleyes:

try more along the lines of the gigantic ass 5.4 in back. despite being all aluminum, with the dry sump and everything else they have done, that motor is just plain heavy.

I think you where missing the point, even with a solid aluminum frame and god knows what other weight reductions she's still heavy, the Vette comes down the line for mass production and the LSx motors arnt a boat-load heavier then 5.4.

The GT40 comes down the line to be a light weight Supercar, built for stictly racer-man useage and is still heavier then the mass produced normal build chassised Vette'. The 5.4 isnt going to make a crap load of difference here, the GT40 is just plane heavy for what its supposed to be.

:rolleyes:

Then again GM aint to far behind in the butt ugly looks with that bloated rebadged PT Crusier.

What does this have to do in the world of sport cars? I was speaking in respect to the 05' Stang, and 05' GT40.

As for the vette, admittedly magazines dont do it justice and the car looks far better in RL, although for some reason it reminds me of an opel GT??

No they dont do it justice, whenever i see a 05' Vette on the road it usually takes my breath away. It is beautiful, and the Z06 is an eye catcher irl. I seen one at the gas station across from the tech center couple weeks ago. It grabs your attention, there is no doubt about that.

The opel GT kinda resembles the older vette's but i dont really see the similaritys.

I guess everyone can decide for themselves :p

Opel GT (http://www.oldie-data.de/Opel_GT_J_1971.05_93243_1.jpg)
2005 Corvette (http://www.tomstrongman.com/RoadTests/05Corvette/Images/03Corv.jpg)

And I fully agree, with a great driver, most '02 LS1s are capable of a 12 second timeslip.

Dictionary.com defines "common" as "Occurring frequently or habitually; usual."

you answered your own question, Frequent = "Most of the time" with a good driver 12 second ET's are common.

That was my point the intire time :p

I'm more waiting to see if something neat pops out from cadillac or we here more about the rumored LS9 engine getting stuffed into a production vehicle.


of the two reveiws | preveiws of the 06' Z06 ive read, Both have mentioned one time atleast something "Terrifying, horrific or scarey" that occured during the test of the 06' Z06 in reference to speed or squirrelyness.

Could you imagine the reveiws with the LS9 plopped in the same box? another 150HP :metal: Im not sure if the world is ready for that yet :thumb:

Im pretty sure, that would equal sub 11 second ET's stock, I can only imagine :metal:

What does this have to do in the world of sport cars? I was speaking in respect to the 05' Stang, and 05' GT40.

In 5 years people will still be breaking their necks to look at a Ford GT.
This will not be the case for the new Z06. Ford has nothing wrong with their styling.

In 5 years people will still be breaking their necks to look at a Ford GT.
This will not be the case for the new Z06. Ford has nothing wrong with their styling.


and if GM tossed a damn near identical replica of 1969 Camaro RS/SS with a LS9 on the streets. I'm sure it would snap necks too, but that would be a weee bit unoriginal now wouldnt it.

My hats off to those who dont aspire to be original, stick with what worked is what i always said.

In decent conditions, with a GOOD driver, Not God-Like or Excellent just GOOD, you will crack 12.99 with a stock 35th anniversery SS.

If any good driver can get 12.9x, why did Evan Smith, a driver as close to god-like as you can get, only run a 12.8x?

Good drivers and god-like drivers are not within one-tenth of a second of each other in equal vehicles.

:p

If any good driver can get 12.9x, why did Evan Smith, a driver as close to god-like as you can get, only run a 12.8x?

Good drivers and god-like drivers are not within one-tenth of a second of each other in equal vehicles.

:p


Im done with you Dwray!!

lol, i have no clue. Maybe thats all the car is capable of? The 12.7's coulda been lies :shrug:

Now leave me aloneZZZ :p

...What is the norm? Ive seen a LS1 F-bod run 13.9 all day, there is 2 deciding factors in any 1/4 run. Car capabilities and Driver capabilites...

Also tempreature, humidity, altitude, mileage (if tested new), perhaps moreso. Chrysler's hemi LXs and GTOs are perfect examples of wildly varying times based on climate & or break in.

Also, "good" or "great" drivers don't close gaps between cars. a half second gap between 2 cars is going to remain a half second gap under identical circumstances and drivers.

Finally, Camaros are easier to launch than Mustangs. That means that Camaros aren't going to vary much no matter who's driving. Mustangs will, and are more dependent on a "good" driver to launch well.


BTW: Stock LS1s are about 13 second flat cars.
I know it's probally pointless saying that because someone here is going to come up with some disclaimer. :lol:

My point is that what a car CAN run with the best of circumstances, driver, etc is NOT anything close to what they typically run. High 12s are possible with the best of circumstances, but it is FAR more common to see LS1s running all over the 14s than it is high 12s unless you're talking about modded LS1s or a 'pro' track day or something along those lines.

Futurewhateveryournamewas, if you see LS1s running almost exclusively high 12 and very low 13 second times then you're not seeing truely stock LS1s.

And it was beyond obvious that your "jk" was not in reference to VVT not having anything to do with cylinder deactivation. But whatever... it's becoming apparent you're one of those types who will refuse to listen to reason and never claim fault.

What can Evan Smith, Jon Smith, or Jon Jacob Jingle..... nevermind...

What can JS really do to make THAT much difference in a STOCK car on STOCK tires??

I've always been the one to get the quicker times out of something around town but its not a God given talent or anything to set me far apart from anyone else. Its just a natural feel for whats going on with the rest of the car.

(stock cars are still slow, btw)

Holy crap.:shock:

I need to sell my house and buy myself a Z06.

They sleep 4 don't they?

I could sleep in a Corvette, but I couldn't race my house....:o

I would still buy a Ferrari if I had the money (as would most people, don't kid yourself)....but DAYUM that certianly is a way to stick it to the Europeans, the Japanese the rest of Detroit.

Didn't the Z06 run faster around the ring than the Ford GT?

Mustang GT__17/25_______(300hp)
GTO_________17/25______(400hp)
Base Vette___18/28(est)__(400hp)

Ferrari 430___11/16______(483hp) <--not that impressed!
Gallardo______9/15_______(500hp) <--sad!
Viper________12/20______(500hp)
Z06 Vette___16/26(est)__(505hp)

Ford GT_____13/21______(550hp) <--should this say 580hp?
Carrera GT___10/16______(605hp) <--worse than the Ford!
MB/M SLR____13/18______(617hp) <--Almost as good as the Ford!


GM and Ford are making some nice mpg figures, end of story.

If the S2000 is now estimated at 20/25, that means that a honda 240hp 4 cylinder weight 2835 pounds averages WORSE fuel economy than a 400hp Chevy Corvette V8 weighing over 3100lb.

Go Ford and GM! :usa:

Also tempreature, humidity, altitude, mileage (if tested new), perhaps moreso. Chrysler's hemi LXs and GTOs are perfect examples of wildly varying times based on climate & or break in.

Also, "good" or "great" drivers don't close gaps between cars. a half second gap between 2 cars is going to remain a half second gap under identical circumstances and drivers.

Finally, Camaros are easier to launch than Mustangs. That means that Camaros aren't going to vary much no matter who's driving. Mustangs will, and are more dependent on a "good" driver to launch well.


BTW: Stock LS1s are about 13 second flat cars.
I know it's probally pointless saying that because someone here is going to come up with some disclaimer. :lol:


Even tho' you went to discredit me :p, in the end you pushed my point forward.

:bow: 2x in a row tonight, i hope this isnt the start of a fad :thumb:

My point is that what a car CAN run with the best of circumstances, driver, etc is NOT anything close to what they typically run. High 12s are possible with the best of circumstances, but it is FAR more common to see LS1s running all over the 14s than it is high 12s unless you're talking about modded LS1s or a 'pro' track day or something along those lines.

And my point is it Doesnt take ideal circumstances to get a Late LS1 to dip into the 12's. You keep insisting that its more common to see LS1's in the 14 sec range, i ask you do these people even own the cars they brought to the track? a Modest Late LS1 with a "OK" driver can pull 13 second slips all night. I'm talking about completely stock here.

I wish some people would chime in here, because i know there is a crap load of people who would agree.

Ive had my Vette for no more then a week at this point, initial run was 13.6 and i damn near missed second. I am an "OK" driver to say the least. The LS1 is a mighty strong motor, to be pulling 14's. Can i ask you... Have you ever driven a LS1? or Owned one? If not i think you need to take one out for a whirl. People dipping into the 14's with a stock LS1 shouldnt be driving one (if consistantly).

Futurewhateveryournamewas, if you see LS1s running almost exclusively high 12 and very low 13 second times then you're not seeing truely stock LS1s.

wow i didnt see that coming, another insult! :thumb: to you.

I think Genuiom :sorry i hacked your name: said it best. Late LS1's are 13 flat cars. I know for a Fact the times im seeing are stock, save a lid or lowered Tire pressure (lol?). Ive seen the same people run consecutive times, some being close friends of mine.

I got it, maybe the local track is rigging the runs... (sorry it seems to be the next aqusation). What i normally see from a Late model LS1 is 13.5 - 12.899. Again there is over a dozen people who would attest to this, just maybe not where you run cars.

And it was beyond obvious that your "jk" was not in reference to VVT not having anything to do with cylinder deactivation. But whatever... it's becoming apparent you're one of those types who will refuse to listen to reason and never claim fault.

Im quick to claim fault, but not when im screwing around and being taken literally. You've taken a handful of shots at me since your first post to me, then expect me to say my claims are false. Well thats not how i am. I only state what "I've seen with my own two eyes" 99.99% of the time. You should do so as well, because your LS1 info is poor to put it kindly.

WOW :eek: :bow:

and people thought $65,800 (http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/) was too much for a Vette, still chaeper than a ZR1 and it's the fastest car under $300,000 on the street.

And my point is it Doesnt take ideal circumstances to get a Late LS1 to dip into the 12's. You keep insisting that its more common to see LS1's in the 14 sec range, i ask you do these people even own the cars they brought to the track? a Modest Late LS1 with a "OK" driver can pull 13 second slips all night. I'm talking about completely stock here.

I wish some people would chime in here, because i know there is a crap load of people who would agree.


I'll back you up. LS1's run mid to low 13s ALL DAY LONG...auto's included....most cars run 12s with just a lid and cutout...some do it from the factory. I've seen 2 in person do it.

Those are incredible numbers. I think the ZO6 just might be faster than the GT. You can pull all sorts of numbers from different tests but until there is a head to head battle with the same conditions, and hopefullly similar break-in, the answer is not clear. I would like to see if the ZO6 tops the GT in other performance catagories as well.

I'll back you up. LS1's run mid to low 13s ALL DAY LONG...auto's included....most cars run 12s with just a lid and cutout...some do it from the factory. I've seen 2 in person do it.


The car I drove to work today.....98 M6 Z28. Lid, Cutout 12.85 @ 110. Maybe this car is a freak.......................................But then I think so are the other 90% of Ls1 cars running 13.XX @ 108,109,110. Good friend of mine.......02 WS6 A4 with 2.73 gears. Lid, cutout, converter.......12.00, 12.05, 12.03, 12.4 Consistent.




About the ZO6, think about it like this, it is faster than any Ferrari ever made in acceleration(0-60, 1/4) except the Enzo, which new was $660k, and now used can go for as much as $1.4m. And the according to MT the ZO6 beats the Enzo to 60, and is on its tails in the 1/4. Were not talking about looks or collector status, were talking about performance.

My point is that what a car CAN run with the best of circumstances, driver, etc is NOT anything close to what they typically run. High 12s are possible with the best of circumstances, but it is FAR more common to see LS1s running all over the 14s than it is high 12s unless you're talking about modded LS1s or a 'pro' track day or something along those lines.

Futurewhateveryournamewas, if you see LS1s running almost exclusively high 12 and very low 13 second times then you're not seeing truely stock LS1s.

And it was beyond obvious that your "jk" was not in reference to VVT not having anything to do with cylinder deactivation. But whatever... it's becoming apparent you're one of those types who will refuse to listen to reason and never claim fault.

No offense, but I could run low 14s with my 1992 Z28 with a 245hp L98 at IRP. To suggest that a 345hp vehicle with a better suspension can only run the same times is ludicrous. And I've only been to the strip less then 5 times in my life! Are you sure it wasn't an all women track day?

No offense, but I could run low 14s with my 1992 Z28 with a 245hp L98 at IRP. To suggest that a 345hp vehicle with a better suspension can only run the same times is ludicrous. And I've only been to the strip less then 5 times in my life! Are you sure it wasn't an all women track day?

Please understand the difference between a car's capabilities and what a car will run on average - that means an average driver with average weather, average track conditions, average stock car, etc. I know damn well the numerous LS1s I've seen run 14 second time after 14 second time would be capable of running in the low 13s or likely even in the high 12s with an awesome driver, awesome conditions, perfect run, etc.

But again... quoting the absolute best case scenario as 'the norm', as FutureZGuy or whatever his name is, just shows a lack of a sense of reality or an overwhelming sense of fanboyism.

Please understand the difference between a car's capabilities and what a car will run on average - that means an average driver with average weather, average track conditions, average stock car, etc. I know damn well the numerous LS1s I've seen run 14 second time after 14 second time would be capable of running in the low 13s or likely even in the high 12s with an awesome driver, awesome conditions, perfect run, etc.

But again... quoting the absolute best case scenario as 'the norm', as FutureZGuy or whatever his name is, just shows a lack of a sense of reality or an overwhelming sense of fanboyism.




True, but at the same time, you cant take some kid in a ls1 car that can drive anybetter than a 90 year old and say his track time is the norm for those cars. I have seen a few run 14's, I've seen a few in the 12's. So I would say the norm for 99% of LS1 cars to be mid to low 13's. But even still any decent m6 driver can get an LS1 car to trap over 106, so if the car were to hook on the line then it can still be a 12 sec car. I know I ran a 14.1 @ 105 in my car, and ive run 13.4 @ 106. You are correct, but in the same time wrong in a little way. I am not aware of the conditions when they tested the ZO6, so who knows if they were great, or crapy. Who knows if there test drivers suck, I'm sure there good, but are they? I dont know.

Please understand the difference between a car's capabilities and what a car will run on average - that means an average driver with average weather, average track conditions, average stock car, etc. I know damn well the numerous LS1s I've seen run 14 second time after 14 second time would be capable of running in the low 13s or likely even in the high 12s with an awesome driver, awesome conditions, perfect run, etc.




I think you are quoting the worst case and not the average.

A friend of mine ran 12.9x with his 2002 SS with a Lid and Catback. He is a good driver and cut like a 1.9 60ft. Most of the time he was low 13s. I go to the track a lot, and I would say the norm for LS1s is anywhere from 13.1-13.7. Yes there are cars that go faster, or slower. But I would have to say the norm is within that range.

That Z06 is going to be disgusting. I can't wait to see one on the road, or at the track.

I'll back you up. LS1's run mid to low 13s ALL DAY LONG...auto's included....most cars run 12s with just a lid and cutout...some do it from the factory. I've seen 2 in person do it.


:bow:

you answered your own question, Frequent = "Most of the time" with a good driver 12 second ET's are common.

That was my point the intire time :p

Perhaps the track you visit is a "ringer", perhaps it's not accurate, or maybe it has perfect conditions. What is common/normal/expected to you is no indication of the rest of the conditions.

Threxx made a valid point - if you were hanging out on this site for more than just a month, a few years, you would find out that the norm for LS1 in an f-body is about 13.2 to 13.6. That is the norm. Exceptions are high 13's to low 14's, and high 12's. This is from experience of reading many, many drag posts on this site as well as others, and from my own track experience.

Perhaps the track you visit is a "ringer", perhaps it's not accurate, or maybe it has perfect conditions. What is common/normal/expected to you is no indication of the rest of the conditions.

Threxx made a valid point - if you were hanging out on this site for more than just a month, a few years, you would find out that the norm for LS1 in an f-body is about 13.2 to 13.6. That is the norm. Exceptions are high 13's to low 14's, and high 12's. This is from experience of reading many, many drag posts on this site as well as others, and from my own track experience.

Yep, I'll agree with that statement with one exception. The average best time here is from 13.2 to 13.6. In other words I'm sure those people have had plenty of times that are quite a bit worse than what they're telling everyone about on the board.;) And I'm sure there's also quite a few noob LS1 drivers at the track who've never been to the track in their life and hit a crappy time and didn't even want to post it out of shear embarassment since they couldn't do as good as everyone else they've read about.
The few people who run in the high 12s and are truely stock usually they can't duplicate it most of the time.

I guess what I'm saying is overall if you seriously think you can go to a random 'test and tune - open to the public' night with average weather conditions and see "most 100% stock LS1s" run high 12s and low 13s, then you brought some drugs to the track that and smoked them. Either that or there's the "Annual meeting of profesional drag racers who like to race their LS1 fbodies on the side" meeting that night.:p

To date over half of the stock LS1 fbodies I've seen run have run anywhere from very high 13s to very low 15s. Of the remaining 50% I'd say I see 90% of those guys running mid 13s, and the remaining 10% running low 13s. I've never in my life seen a truely stock f-body run anything below a 13.2 I know it's happened... I'm not saying it hasn't. I'm just saying that with me personally, I've literally seen more LS1s in the low 15s than I have in the high 12s, so that makes two and zero, respectively, and more f-bodies running low 14s than I have low 13s.:p

:bow:

Welcome to CZ28.com... I see you've already learned the art of circle jerking. Wow... you newbs catch on quick!:p

Your gettin on my nerves with this riff raff...

Please understand the difference between a car's capabilities and what a car will run on average - that means an average driver with average weather, average track conditions, average stock car, etc. I know damn well the numerous LS1s I've seen run 14 second time after 14 second time would be capable of running in the low 13s or likely even in the high 12s with an awesome driver, awesome conditions, perfect run, etc.

WTF?! A cars capabilities are ALL that matter. Best time on the best track in best conditions is what that car WILL run. If the conditions are worse, its worse for every car, and a 12.50 car is still a faster car than a 14 second car with 110 degree heat at 4000ft. As long as we as car enthusiasts guage a car's cool factor on accelleration numbers, you have to guage it on how fast the car CAN go. If it does 12.96 once...that car is a 12.90's car. MT HAS run a 11.50 with the new Z06, so IT IS A 11.50 CAR!!!!!!!!!! Reguardless of the other drivers that will inevitably run 14's in it.

What is this facination with "average" and "the norm." They are irrelevant, and unquantifiable. Maybe we should take every pass from every LS1 f-body and average the whole mother. Is the fastest horse at the Kentucky derby gonna win with me ridin him? No, but that doesnt mean the horse is any slower.

Easy breakdown
Variables - Weather, Altitude, track conditions, driver, ect.

Static (non-variable) - The car

There are "ringers" with 5-10 more hp than others, and lemons...but assuming a standard deviation in power output of 2-3%, your variables ^^ are much bigger factors.

PLEASE NO MORE TALK ABOUT 14 SECOND LS1 F-BODIES BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your gettin on my nerves with this riff raff...



WTF?! A cars capabilities are ALL that matter. Best time on the best track in best conditions is what that car WILL run. If the conditions are worse, its worse for every car, and a 12.50 car is still a faster car than a 14 second car with 110 degree heat at 4000ft. As long as we as car enthusiasts guage a car's cool factor on accelleration numbers, you have to guage it on how fast the car CAN go. If it does 12.96 once...that car is a 12.90's car. MT HAS run a 11.50 with the new Z06, so IT IS A 11.50 CAR!!!!!!!!!! Reguardless of the other drivers that will inevitably run 14's in it.

What is this facination with "average" and "the norm." They are irrelevant, and unquantifiable. Maybe we should take every pass from every LS1 f-body and average the whole mother. Is the fastest horse at the Kentucky derby gonna win with me ridin him? No, but that doesnt mean the horse is any slower.

Easy breakdown
Variables - Weather, Altitude, track conditions, driver, ect.

Static (non-variable) - The car

There are "ringers" with 5-10 more hp than others, and lemons...but assuming a standard deviation in power output of 2-3%, your variables ^^ are much bigger factors.

PLEASE NO MORE TALK ABOUT 14 SECOND LS1 F-BODIES BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:thumb:

I think you where missing the point, even with a solid aluminum frame and god knows what other weight reductions she's still heavy, the Vette comes down the line for mass production and the LSx motors arnt a boat-load heavier then 5.4.

The GT40 comes down the line to be a light weight Supercar, built for stictly racer-man useage and is still heavier then the mass produced normal build chassised Vette'. The 5.4 isnt going to make a crap load of difference here, the GT40 is just plane heavy for what its supposed to be.

The blown 5.4 is ATLEAST 200-300lbs heavier than the LsX motors.

On top of that, the GT is 8.2" longer and 4.3" wider than the corvette. Short of hight (GT is 4.7" shorter), the GT is a bigger car than the corvette in most exterior dimensions. That and GM just did an excellent job with weight management on the z06. In the end, the weight difference isn't as surprising imo.

My take on this whole thing: wait for a head to head test for a more accurate performance comparison. Either way, both are winners in my book. The GT is one of the most desireable cars on the planet and the performance is still topnotch for its price (212mph topspeed, 3.3-3.6 sec 0-60, mid 11sec 1/4'ers, etc....) and the vette has no equals in the value department. Both companies set out with different objectives in mind, and both delivered imo. In the end, the z06 and GT are both fine additions in the growing american sportscar/supercar class.

Next up, i'd like to see Dodge redo the Viper, and i'd like to see Cadillac roll out an exotic supercar that can rival the Saleen S7, Porsche CGT, and Enzo.

Your gettin on my nerves with this riff raff...



WTF?! A cars capabilities are ALL that matter. Best time on the best track in best conditions is what that car WILL run. If the conditions are worse, its worse for every car, and a 12.50 car is still a faster car than a 14 second car with 110 degree heat at 4000ft. As long as we as car enthusiasts guage a car's cool factor on accelleration numbers, you have to guage it on how fast the car CAN go. If it does 12.96 once...that car is a 12.90's car. MT HAS run a 11.50 with the new Z06, so IT IS A 11.50 CAR!!!!!!!!!! Reguardless of the other drivers that will inevitably run 14's in it.

What is this facination with "average" and "the norm." They are irrelevant, and unquantifiable. Maybe we should take every pass from every LS1 f-body and average the whole mother. Is the fastest horse at the Kentucky derby gonna win with me ridin him? No, but that doesnt mean the horse is any slower.

Easy breakdown
Variables - Weather, Altitude, track conditions, driver, ect.

Static (non-variable) - The car

There are "ringers" with 5-10 more hp than others, and lemons...but assuming a standard deviation in power output of 2-3%, your variables ^^ are much bigger factors.

PLEASE NO MORE TALK ABOUT 14 SECOND LS1 F-BODIES BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ehh... if you actually read the threat to beginning to end you might be able to look at this more logically. He said that he said that MOST of the 100% stock LS1s he sees run, end up running a high 12s or a low 13. He said nothing about the car's capabilities... he said that's what he actually usually sees them running, which is pure crap.

14 second LS1 f-bodies DO exist... in fact they're down right common - they're just capable of much better in better conditions and with a better driver. When people ask me what my GS400 runs I tell them "under the most ideal circumstances they're capable of a 14 flat @ around 100, but more commonly they'll run mid to high 14s @ mid-high 90s.

That's a hell of a lot more realistic than just saying "oh... they do 14 flat @ 100". Then everybody gets confused and felt like they were lied to when their car does almost a full second worse the first time they go to the track on a hot summer day, gets embarrassed, and usually won't admit their dissappointment to the rest of the f-body community.

And yes, I'm sure I'm annoying you and plenty others. That's what happens when you hear what you don't want to hear. But what I'm speaking is the truth. IMO a car's capabilities under the best conditions with the best driving skill (99% of the time that means being driven by somebody who doesn't even own the car or know the guy who's going to drive it for him :lol: ), are NOT "the norm" for a car or what you should "expect to usually see" at the 1/4-mile track.

Ehh... if you actually read the threat to beginning to end you might be able to look at this more logically. He said that he said that MOST of the 100% stock LS1s he sees run, end up running a high 12s or a low 13. He said nothing about the car's capabilities... he said that's what he actually usually sees them running, which is pure crap.

14 second LS1 f-bodies DO exist... in fact they're down right common - they're just capable of much better in better conditions and with a better driver. When people ask me what my GS400 runs I tell them "under the most ideal circumstances they're capable of a 14 flat @ around 100, but more commonly they'll run mid to high 14s @ mid-high 90s.

That's a hell of a lot more realistic than just saying "oh... they do 14 flat @ 100". Then everybody gets confused and felt like they were lied to when their car does almost a full second worse the first time they go to the track on a hot summer day, gets embarrassed, and usually won't admit their dissappointment to the rest of the f-body community.

And yes, I'm sure I'm annoying you and plenty others. That's what happens when you hear what you don't want to hear. But what I'm speaking is the truth. IMO a car's capabilities under the best conditions with the best driving skill (99% of the time that means being driven by somebody who doesn't even own the car or know the guy who's going to drive it for him :lol: ), are NOT "the norm" for a car or what you should "expect to usually see" at the 1/4-mile track.


I'll agree that saying most LS1's are 12 second or low 13 second cars is a pretty bad blanket statement, because a lot of them run 13.5's around here.

A car's potential however is based on the best times available by a stock subject because environmental issues are variables, so you go off the best times as they are the true representation of the car's ability. Everybody knows that, so why is that being argued? This whole thread has become everyones personal pissing match.

With each post the margin widens, now LS1 are in the 15s. If a stock car hits low 13s on a regular basis, then its a clearly a 13 sec car not 14 or 15. If that same car or a like car ran a 15 sec run then clearly there was an error, missed gear, too much wheelspin, whatever it doesn't matter the car is capable of much more. Watching all kinds of people with LS1s run 14 & 15s doesn't mean a thing.
From my own personal experiences, I've seen stock LT1s in the 13.6-7 ranges and stock LS1s in the very low 13.0xs and GMHTP got a stock C5 Z06 in the 11s. So I think anyone with the right experience can take x car and go x time/speed with the right conditions
The new Z06 times were base line runs, the mags times should improve the next time around, when they have more time with the car and when they can take the car to there own testing facilities. Its hard to say what kind of times the car will put down GMHTP gets there hands on one.

Just a case in point. The first time I went to the track with my LT1, I NEVER was so bad as to get a 15 second time slip, and that was with a bone stock, fully loaded, '97 Z28 on a 90 degree day. LS1's hitting 15's must have a driver that is a complete moron behind the wheel, or he missed a shift, or some other driver error. LS1's are solid mid to low 13 second cars on average, just like the LT1 is a solid low 14 second car on average. This topic has been argued to death.

Dan

and if GM tossed a damn near identical replica of 1969 Camaro RS/SS with a LS9 on the streets. I'm sure it would snap necks too, but that would be a weee bit unoriginal now wouldnt it.

My hats off to those who dont aspire to be original, stick with what worked is what i always said.
Whatever it takes to make you sleep at night. But the facts are there and you simply can NOT dispute their styling on the GT.
Wake me up when GM decides to do that. Until then...sorry to say the GT is always going to be a car people will kill themselves to get a brief glimpse at. And frankly...even if GM did that with the Camaro...it would be no more freak worthy as I like to call it than the GT500.

The Ford GT is not that spectacular (styling wise) in my book same goes for the Mustang, but hey I know I am in the minority, I think. Ford had a GT on display at the Kentucky Speedway during th Busch race earlier this summer. Over 80K people were there and not once did I see a huge crowd around the GT, usually groups of 4 or 5. I seen lots people shake there heads, shoo it and walk away after they saw the window sticker. I guess Ford and Exotic and Nascar rednecks don't mix. Actually I believe more people were drawn to the Super Duty Power Stroke trucks, but thats Kentucky for ya. I work details at the track and the GT was in my sight for over 12 hours that day.

Check this out... these viper guys actually think the SRT10 is faster than the Z06


http://vca2.viperclub.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB14&Number=582441&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Ehh... if you actually read the threat to beginning to end you might be able to look at this more logically. He said that he said that MOST of the 100% stock LS1s he sees run, end up running a high 12s or a low 13. He said nothing about the car's capabilities... he said that's what he actually usually sees them running, which is pure crap.

14 second LS1 f-bodies DO exist... in fact they're down right common - they're just capable of much better in better conditions and with a better driver. When people ask me what my GS400 runs I tell them "under the most ideal circumstances they're capable of a 14 flat @ around 100, but more commonly they'll run mid to high 14s @ mid-high 90s.

That's a hell of a lot more realistic than just saying "oh... they do 14 flat @ 100". Then everybody gets confused and felt like they were lied to when their car does almost a full second worse the first time they go to the track on a hot summer day, gets embarrassed, and usually won't admit their dissappointment to the rest of the f-body community.

And yes, I'm sure I'm annoying you and plenty others. That's what happens when you hear what you don't want to hear. But what I'm speaking is the truth. IMO a car's capabilities under the best conditions with the best driving skill (99% of the time that means being driven by somebody who doesn't even own the car or know the guy who's going to drive it for him :lol: ), are NOT "the norm" for a car or what you should "expect to usually see" at the 1/4-mile track.

14 second LS1 f-bodies are NOT common. Neither are 12 second LS1's. But to say that he's ridiculous for saying a 12 second one is common and then saying a 14 second one is common is just as ridiculous. And I'd really like to see some proof of that mythical 15 second ones (btw one 15 second pass because something went wrong doesn't count)...

Geez, 3.8L V-6 f-bodies are common to run mid - low 15's and you want us to believe you've seen some LS1's do that on a clean run (no breakdown, no sitting there and smoking the tires on the starting line)?

Most people can take a LS1 to the track for the first time and squeeze off a mid to low 13. EASILY. My first time at the track with NO experience with that car and only one previous track event months before with my v6 and I was able to squeeze off consistant 13's (13.45 being best). That was FULL WEIGHT BONE STOCK and I was a crappy driver (at the time).

Chris

My dad has taken his LS1 to the track numerous times and his best is only a 13.5. To say that people easily hit low 13s is a stupid statement.

What is just as impressive is that this car can do low 11's and still get 26 MPG on the hwy. :bow:

My dad has taken his LS1 to the track numerous times and his best is only a 13.5. To say that people easily hit low 13s is a stupid statement.

My first time EVER to the track with a manual transmission netted me 13.3 @107mph in my stock WS.6....it was pretty easy too :D

My dad has taken his LS1 to the track numerous times and his best is only a 13.5. To say that people easily hit low 13s is a stupid statement.

If you're referring to my post above I did say MID to low 13's....

And I did say MOST, not ALL....

Chris

Welcome to CZ28.com... I see you've already learned the art of circle jerking. Wow... you newbs catch on quick!:p

:rolleyes:

don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

:rolleyes:

don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

That won't happen because from the looks of it he has too much of a point to prove here by splitting hairs. I have lived long enough to know that it is not hard to spot someone who wants to be right all the time.

I thought this thread was about the AMAZING numbers from the new Z06 and how nothing, short of a F1 or Enzo, can catch it?

I'm sitting back and waiting to see the response from Dodge. It has been said from a couple people at SRT that they will not let the Vette beat them.

I guess I'll just say this. Orginally it was said that 'most stock LS1s you see at the track run high 12s and low 13s'. They said nothing about the car's potential, or 'their best run of the night' or anything like that. It was stated as essentially if you took a survey of every run made at every track with every stock LS1 fbody, the majority would be high 12s and low 13s.

And I will say that in my experience and in the experience of most people I've talked to who don't have a bias toward f-bodies:
-It is much more common to see somebody run a 14.x second time in an stock LS1 than a high 12 time.
-It is somewhat more common to see somebody run a high 13 second time in a stock LS1 than it is to see a low 13 second time.

Are those cars capable of high 12s or low 13s? Usually yes. But do they run them given typical circumstances and driver skill? Usually no.

If you disagree with the above then I guess we've just seen two very different sides of test and tune drag racing.

:rolleyes:

don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

Heh... I'm not leaving. Excuse me for saying what y'all don't want to hear.

Just another note, I had a black Ford GT drive up next to me a couple of nights ago, and while the car looked exotic, the look of how the body panels fit was absolutely horrible. Part of it is by design, but it's makes the GT look like a kit car with poor fitment. It did sound great though, and man does that thing sit low.

Dan

Just another note, I had a black Ford GT drive up next to me a couple of nights ago, and while the car looked exotic, the look of how the body panels fit was absolutely horrible. Part of it is by design, but it's makes the GT look like a kit car with poor fitment. It did sound great though, and man does that thing sit low.

Dan

I saw one at the dealership near my house a couple weeks ago with a "sold" sign on it, so they wouldn't let anyone even touch it, but looking from my walk around I did notice it had the appearance of very large panel gaps. Then again they also appeared very uniform and even. So I figured it was intentional, but do you know for what purpose? To allow for some intended chassis flex in the corners or something?

I thought this thread was about the AMAZING numbers from the new Z06 and how nothing, short of a F1 or Enzo, can catch it?

I'm sitting back and waiting to see the response from Dodge. It has been said from a couple people at SRT that they will not let the Vette beat them.

I think Team Corvette has said the same think about Dodge. Things are going to get interesting in the next couple of years.

Just another note, I had a black Ford GT drive up next to me a couple of nights ago, and while the car looked exotic, the look of how the body panels fit was absolutely horrible. Part of it is by design, but it's makes the GT look like a kit car with poor fitment. It did sound great though, and man does that thing sit low.

Dan
Maybe they put the lift's posts in the wrong places to install the right control arms, lol.

Maybe they put the lift's posts in the wrong places to install the right control arms, lol.

:D Maybe. The GT is an extremely impressive car, but it didn't look like it had the fit and finish it should for the price it costs. For how close the GT and Z06 are in performance, the Z06 is the bang for the buck winner for sure. The GT will be bought for other reasons than the Z06 though, for a few people. It's styling is one of a kind, whereas the Z06 is an extension of the C6, which is no problem for me, since I love the look of the C6.

They are both cars that I would love to have in my driveway, but to be honest, even if they both cost the same, I might choose the Z06.

Dan

I saw one at the dealership near my house a couple weeks ago with a "sold" sign on it, so they wouldn't let anyone even touch it, but looking from my walk around I did notice it had the appearance of very large panel gaps. Then again they also appeared very uniform and even. So I figured it was intentional, but do you know for what purpose? To allow for some intended chassis flex in the corners or something?

Intended chasis flex? I hope not.. esp. corners where it would affect handling negatively; the only things flexing by design ought to be in some suspension elements and various bushings and driveline mounts where some give is required to make for a somehwat civic / streetable experience and whatnot. Chasis flex they couldn't design out? Possibly.

What are the GT's body panels made of? Metal or composite? If composite, then it's quite possible they do expand in the heat of the sun and contract in colder weather. As I understand it, the vette has this same sort of expansion and contraction tolerance built in to it's bodywork accomodate the effects of heat and cold on its non-metal panels.

:D Maybe. The GT is an extremely impressive car, but it didn't look like it had the fit and finish it should for the price it costs.
Dan

The only thing I think that looks cheap on it are the side air vents. I don't really know what you guys are referring to by bad fit and finish, there is a red one at a dealership not even 5 minutes from my house, so I get to see it regularly, and it sure didn't look bad to me.

The only thing I think that looks cheap on it are the side air vents. I don't really know what you guys are referring to by bad fit and finish, there is a red one at a dealership not even 5 minutes from my house, so I get to see it regularly, and it sure didn't look bad to me.

The panel gaps are large, but not uneven, which isn't necessarily bad fit and finish... generally as long as everything is even all over then it was by design. Why it was by design I guess we're not sure, but it doesn't seem to be any sort of poor fit or build of any kind.

By powershifting, someone did get a 2004 Z06 down to 11.9. The LS7 has roughly 100 more horses. I think low 11's are more than possible.

That was GMHTP where they ran an 11.97 BONE STOCK, did not even check the air in the tires they said. If that guy drove the 06 Zo6 it would probably hit around 11.2-11.3. Get rid of the crappy run flats and maybe an 11 flat in is the picture. Just think if they get rid of the tires, add 50Hp and drop 100lbs with this driver, we could see the first REAL production vehicle hit the 10's on factory tires. That would be better than the Enzo times, simply amazing.

I just got my copy of Road & Track. They said the Z06 did 12.3 in the 1/4mile and the Viper was still faster @ 12.1 THey should be ashamed to even print such a rediculous time and should fire the driver.

Didn't one of the Mustang mags get a SS to run 12.8/7s?

12.89 from GMHTP when the MM&FF were at the track.

I would still buy a Ferrari if I had the money (as would most people, don't kid yourself)....but DAYUM that certianly is a way to stick it to the Europeans, the Japanese the rest of Detroit.

Didn't the Z06 run faster around the ring than the Ford GT?

Never would I buy a Ferrari even IF I could afford one, NEVER!

On page 19 of the Sept. 2005 issue of Motor trend they have the top 10 times at the RIng for all Non race cars. The Z06 is second with a 7:42 time in unseasonably muggy conditions, 10 sec behind the Porsche Carrera GT which they say has "BEEN REPORTEDLY" which means no one verified this time. I bet if the EMT's were changed the times would have been a lot closer.

The C6 vette ran a 7:59 to the Vipers 8:10 giving the BASE Vette the 8th best time ever recorded.

Never seem a time for the GT.

That was GMHTP where they ran an 11.97 BONE STOCK, did not even check the air in the tires they said. If that guy drove the 06 Zo6 it would probably hit around 11.2-11.3. Get rid of the crappy run flats and maybe an 11 flat in is the picture. Just think if they get rid of the tires, add 50Hp and drop 100lbs with this driver, we could see the first REAL production vehicle hit the 10's on factory tires. That would be better than the Enzo times, simply amazing.

I just got my copy of Road & Track. They said the Z06 did 12.3 in the 1/4mile and the Viper was still faster @ 12.1 THey should be ashamed to even print such a rediculous time and should fire the driver.


I looked over that R&T at the store tonight, awesome pics. and cutaway illustrations of the Z06, but man do they suck driving, they always have the worst performance #s.

Simply put Road & Track has the best photographers and the worst test drivers.

We should start a email campaign about how bad they did, and flood there inbox and see how many they use next month. This is as bad as the GTO vs. Mustang thing that C & D did a few months back.