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.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.