LOL. The "confused" smiley is appropriate. If you cannot tell the difference between my statement and your "Consider yourself educated now" statement, well, then you just go right on posting confused and rolleyes looks.

Ok. Stranger things have happened.

 

You still patted yourself on the back, my statement notwithstanding. It doesn't bother me if you do. But don't act holier than thou and claim you would never do it, because you just did.

 

Yessir, I'll definately take your advise (or was that an order?) under advisement. And you go right on thinking it the same. Please.

 

Now who's "of" might that belong to?

 

LOL. Kindly pardon my incorrect use of the word "their". Please replace the word "their" with the word "there", as this shall make it more correct. While we're at it, should "there of" be hyphenated?

And of course, I was talking about myself.

 

Thereof should not be hyphenated, it should be spelled as I did in this sentence.

 

LOL. Oh my, I best quit with my silliness before I get two...errr...to.....errr....too carried away.

Ya'll have a wonderful evening.

 

First Id like to say you did a very good job explaing it.
Second, I didnt mean to say ergonomics..LOL..I meant aerodynamics.
But there is still a small difference between 198 and 200
Although a small diff its still a diff. Although its not as big a difference as I expected so I actually did get some kind of education from this.
Learn something new everyday.

 

Thanks for the compliment. I figured you meant aerodynamics, but just felt like tossing in a smartass comment but now I apologize to you for having done it. My intent was to let you all know that weight really is insignificant when talking about 200+ mph top speeds. Nearly 1000 lbs of weight difference and only 2 mph less top speed? Almost a meaningless difference.

 

Nuke, do you have a formula to figure out top speed based on weight, cd, frontal area, hp, etc? I would like to play around with it and see how accurate it is.

 

Just plug the formulas into a spreadsheet and let it do the number crunching, or you can rearrange the formulas to solve for mph instead of power. When you try to determine what's called "frontal area" it's not the front of the car. It's basically the entire area of the biggest part of the car. The roughly 20 square feet happens to be the fA of a C5 Corvette.

 

The original post also had a curiosity about relative fuel economy potential between the C6 and the SVT Cobra. A buddy of mine bought a brand new '03 SVT Cobra vert and I saw that the window sticker rated it at 22mpg highway. I've seen weight figures for that generation SVT Cobra verts tipping the scales in the neighborhood of a portly 3700lbs. Can you say pork? Hopefully the coupe version of the SVT Cobra is a tad less thirsty given its lighter weight compared to the vert. Now, many base C5 owners have bragged 29-30mpg from their cars and the LS1 f-bodies weren't far behind that, stock for stock, in economy. Anyone seen fuel economy figures for the C6. GM's power vs fuel economy history from the L98 through the LS1 has been remarkable. Synthesized with CAI and improved cat back exhaust my former '91 1LE Z could knock out 25mpg at 75mph. When the LT1's came out the power was up 30-40hp over the L98 and fuel economy was up approx. 1-2mpg as well. That trend continued with the advent of the LS1, more power and slightly better fuel economy than the LT1. Now obviously there has to be a point of diminishing returns. Has the LS2 reached that point? Not sure. But if the LS2 can put out its 400hp with on par fuel economy with the LS1, or perhaps a tad improvement, I'd have to call that a serious coup. Who'd ever thought 30 years ago that you could have 12 second 1320' performance and have 28-30mpg fuel economy out of the same car? My hats off to GM for pulling off that power vs fuel economy trend over the last 20 years. I said all that to speculate that the SVT Cobra won't be able touch the C6 in fuel economy.

 

Chevy rates the 2005 C6 LS2 Vette at 18/26 for the auto and 18/28 for the stick.
Chevy rated the 2004 C5 LS1 Vette at 18/25 for the auto and 19/28 for the stick.
Those numbers are close enough to be considered the same.

Pontiac rates the 2005 LS2 GTO at 16/21 for the auto and 17/25 for the stick.
Pontiac rated the 2004 LS1 GTO at 16/21 for the auto and 17/29 for the stick.
A4 numbers are identical - I have no clue why there is such a differenc in the M6 highway miles.

FYI....the 03 Cobra was rated at 16/22, while the 04 (with no real changes) was 17/24. Go figure.

I think it is safe to say that the 07 Cobra won't get the same mileage as the much lighter C6 Vette, though it should still be close to the GTO.

 

What is the exact formula and unit of measure for each part of the formula?

 

This mpg twist to the topic reminds me of when I went to see a friend with a WRX wagon and let him drive my car through a very twisty section of road near his house. He knew my car had lots of horsepower compared to his Subie, but was very surprised when it handled pretty darn well through the section of road that he's driven so often that he said he could do it blind-folded. Then the crushing blow came when I told him that I got just shy of 30 mpg on a trip to Vegas and average 21. He said the best he's ever done in his car is the low 20's