OHV4LIFE

You were the one who brought up R&T not me. When you didn't like the C&D figures you brought up R&T. Now you don't like R&T figures you now want to cite GM's official numbers. You are a 1st class troll. Oh yeah, GM hasn't published the official weight for the C7 Z51 so all we have is the weights published by the mags. From what we know the weight of Arnold is at around the weight of Wilbur (427 convertible). At least for the C7's extra weight you get a decent interior and good seats.

By the way, Arnold can't say hi while it's whooping your 427 around the track. You are free to wave hi at its Camaro lights.

sam90lx

Like when GM released track times with a pro driver and the C7 was faster than a C6 Z06 when we all know it is not? Talk about cherry picking! You C7 lovers couldnt wait to jump on that train.

Matt26

Pot meet kettle. You just used 2 different sources for your argument that the GS is faster because GM says so.

Snorman

MT did instrumented testing on both cars and the C7 was faster in both 0-60 and the quarter mile. In fact, it was faster than any GS on the C6 Fast List. GM also states that the C7 is faster 0-60 than the Grand Sport (3.8 vs. 3.95). What's your point?
S.

NoOne

Is that with driver or without?

That is a porker.

Everyone here focused on GM saying they saved so much weight on the frame and all that...then completely ignored the 100lbs in electronic stuff that was added.

That's what happens when you read the marketing material and ignore the fine print.

Anyone who tried to point that out got jumped all over.

I would bet the wheel/tire package adds 50-60lbs over the base car.

Look how lightweight the ATS is, now go sit in an ATS and see how small it is, how small the wheels/tires are, etc.

For the price GM is selling the C7 for with all that content the only way to go down in weight is more exotic materials and your not going to be at the same price point.

RussM05

While I am a slightly disappointed in the 3,444 curb weight listed by Motor Trend, I believe GM did everything possible under the current federal safety regulations and the consumers desire for additional content to make it as light as possible yet keep the base list price close to the C6.

In comparison to other super cars far more expensive that use more carbon fiber, in my opinion, the weight is acceptable. Not that I like it at 3444 lbs.

Another points is be careful when you see weights listed. Some are "dry" and others are "curb". The definition of "curb" is full fluids/gas tank and no driver.

Audi R8 V-10 Quatro curb weight 3605
Ferrari 458 curb weight 3,274
Lamborghini LP 550-2 Balboni curb weight 3,274

Snorman

That's pretty interesting, because a no-option '13 3LT A6 GS stickers for $64,420.
And a '13 4LT M6 GS optioned similarly to the MT '14 test car stickers for $70,130, or about $1500 more than the '14 for less performance and fewer features.
S.

sam90lx

I have the window sticker, 64.5 for a Hertitage edition with NPP loaded. Only option I dont have is Nav.

Big Dan 427

I'll admit I made an alpha designation mistake, R&T and GM say the same thing, 3355. If you ever get a C7 vert (vert = apples to apples) I will run you any race you want, 0-60 or 1/4 mile or around any circuit.
We can even do a 40-140 roll on if you like. When the LT1 gives up the LS7 will be just winding up!!

And why do you feel the need to call me a troll, never mind I know why. The keyboard is your protector.

Hot Rod Todd

Lets face it, the car has to be heavier due to the added content and focus on fuel economy. Even with the weight it has excellent performance and is still lighter than most in it's class (or all?), especially if cost is considered.

I'm tired of all the C6 trolls who never hit the track crying about every pound like it's the end all of performance or sucess on the C7. Everyone knew that the only way the C7 lighter would be to make it smaller. That was not going to happen. If GM makes a spare no expense performance model with no consideration for fuel economy they can shave off quite a few pounds. Until then it is what it is. They removed as much weight as they could for the money, then added what they had to based on their goals. I believe they did a good job. The C6 is an excellent track performer and very light for what it costs. Even so, it was always slammed by the mags. If the C7 is better on every front and weighs a bit more it is a success.

Achmed

Guys come on! This thread is not about the C7 weight compared to the C6 or C7 performance compared to the C6. The thread topic simply asked how the non-Z51 C7 will rate in straight line acceleration against a Z51 C7. I think I've seen only one actual on-topic reply so far, on the first page someone said they think the non-Z51 will be the quicker car in a straight line.

sam90lx

Point is I should'nt have any problems with one since I'm running the same Michelins....just in Man size!

sam90lx

Can anyone imagine if the C7 was on Goodyears like the C6's were!

JustinStrife

Can anyone imagine if the C7 ran the same width rubber as the C6 GS/Z06?

You're comments trying to diminish the C7, are tiresome Sam.

Snorman

And MSRC?
I thought you said your car was $57k.
S.

Kappa

You'll never see a 458 weigh in at that weight in a magazine or real life. Most likely the same for the Gallardo.

sam90lx

I paid 57, no where near Msrp. You can understand why I'm not tripping over myself for a C7. Now the Hi-Po version....may be a different story.

Snorman

That's not the discussion here. It's about stock cars vs. stock cars. Not stock cars vs. stock cars with $1500 worth of Michelins on them.
The C7 is faster...

S.

Snorman

So with this quote...
...you were comparing the price of your discounted C6, eight years into the 6th generation, to a C7?
I'm sure C7's won't be selling for less than MSRP in 2021.
S.

sam90lx

Thank Michelin, they saved the C7!