11.4 @ 126

I assumed 3150lbs with driver and 500hp

Based off an average of a few hp/qrt mile calculators. Now this would be for the few drivers who know what the hell they're doing. Evan Smith for example, GMHTP's best test driver.

Still even in the car rags hands it's a high 11 @ 122-123 car.

 

I could see that, especially if the curb weight is lower than the current Z06 which I expect it will be. Dare I say < 3000lb's if so 500hp/tq would be good enough for solid mid 11's @125 by most mags and most drivers with good tracks and conditions.
And for the bench racers out there when you see speeds near or over 125 or so you know the car has a 10sec slip in it but when and whare is the question. Granted it will take a solid track and great conditions but its possible. A factory stock Vette going 10.9 would be really really be big news! Would look nice on a GMHTP cover....

 

According to my CarTest 2000 physics program it would run around 12.06 @ 119.96 with an average/decent driver.

Of course I found it odd that CarTest2000 listed the curb weight of the 2002 Z06 already at 3116 pounds... so the Z06 will actually be gaining weight??

 

Well curb weight is with full fluids but no driver. Assuming a 170lb driver the '02 Z06 goes up to 3286.

As far as your CarTest results, the 500hp Viper SRT-10 has already done better than that at a curb weight of 3410. Meaning it with driver it weighs in at 3580lbs.

Anyone got the head to head test results of the Viper vs GT runs in Motortrend? I think the Viper went 11.7x@124?

 

It should be somewhere around there

 

SRT-10 Viper 11.77@123.63
GT 11.78@124.31

 

I know that Motor Trend can't drive their way out of a wet paper bag and yadda yadda....but for them to be this close assuming they're using the same crappy driver is pretty surprising.

 

Everything I've read says there won't be a Z06 until 2006. Granted, nothing is written in stone yet. I guess we'll have to wait and see. If they do produce a Z06 for 2005, I don't see it going over 450 hp personally.

 

This is what I have been saying, the GT and the Viper seem to have very close numbers and if you compare the tests of the Viper to the GT within those magazines, they are very similar with the GT just edging out the Viper. The only test I have seen that breaks the average of the other tests is the Car and Driver test. It seems kind of suspect that the car tested that much better than all the other tests. There is an easy way to settle this: Someone go out and buy a new production GT and then someone buy a production Viper, take the two to the track and see how close they are.

 

In '05, the first year for the new C6, the hot setup will be the Z51 package. While the current Z51 gets stiffer suspension settings, that is about it. The new Z51 will get the stiffer suspension settings, slightly bigger brakes, I believe different compound tires (probably summer tires, though still run flat I *think*), and specific transmission gearing (like the current Z06), along with extra coolers. So, basically, the '05 C6 with the Z51 option should theoretically be neck and neck with the C5 Z06, but with a removable roof and the hatchback body. If that's not enough, then you'll have to wait for the ~500 hp C6 Z06 that bows the following year (as an '06 model).

 

Yea, ill get right on that.......

 

CarTest is not very generous with the 1/4 mile times. Never has for me. It used to say my first Z28 would run a 14.5, using common numbers for the mods. It ran a 13.7 consistantly.

 

Cartest assumes average conditions and an average driver. You can actually make inputs to assume a driver capable of a better launch, better weather, quicker shifts, revving past redline, and so on... but it is a very conservative program and basically just assumes that the average joe came off the street and did the best job he knew how of accelerating.

So the times cartest gives, as I said earlier, are for an average/decent driver.

 

I understand what you mean. I've tested it against many cars. Though on my '95 Z... there wasn't too many variables.. (I always edited it for elevation and temps... shifting profile for the driver). I had good traction at the local track typically. Mechanically... it's an auto... removes one variable. Perhaps CT's average auto shift times are low, compared to that of the 4L60-E? The only other variable was that perhaps the engine was stronger than others... it only had CAI and a catback and would run 13.6's on occasion.

Though CT has always been correct with one car... my friends '92 RS 305 TBI. .... CT said it would run a 17 sec or so 1/4... and by golly he ran a 17.

Either way... I love that program.