Iker

Im very disappointed about the acceleration perormance!
All other area of performancce are very good

In C&D tests : 0-150 mph
C7 Z06 17.8 sec 8 speed auto
Lambo Huracan 13.3 sec
Mclaren Mp4-12c 12.8 sec
Porsche 911 turbo s 15.6 sec
C6 ZR1 16.4 sec


Also 0-160 mph 23 sec!
It takes 6 second from 150-160 mph !!!!
Is it 650hp and 650 lb-ft????????

Iker

Also I noticed this in C&D review



Max speed of 6th gear is 185 mph!

3 Z06ZR1

Yikes not so fast once she hits triple digits!
That is slower than the C6 Z06!

LFZ

C6 Z06 0-150mph is 17.3 seconds if I remember correctly. Maybe an overweight issue for the C7Z in that area.

shadowx360

Hm, I think a combination of weight and higher drag from the aero packages. With the much higher downforce, you also have a tradeoff in higher drag. It would make the car much more stable than the old Z06, but I'd be disappointed if no C7 can break 200 mph.

NSC5

You guys think the extra down force with level 3 doesn't add drag??? Highest top speed and fastest acceleration at that speed will come with the level 1 aero package.

jimmyb

Exactly right. Aero drag (not weight) is the reason. Want the fastest STRAIGHT line Z06, get stage one. Want the best track car, get Z07.

I'll take it one step further. I bet the stage one Z06 will be at least 10 MPH faster on top end and lop seconds off acceleration numbers, especially past 100 MPH. And I'll also bet that a Z07 will be considerably quicker on a track than a stage one (Cup 2's probably worth a second or two alone, add the downforce and ......)

Jimmy

JG853

But I do not think you get the same tires as the Z07 package either, correct?

I agree with you on downforce, but the tires make a big difference. I know you can put them on afterward, but we are talking stock to stock...

I would have to believe that weight does play a factor as well. I think the car tested was 3559?

RedZ4me

Any orders cancelled yet ??

jimmyb

I am sure the guys that DON'T have an order (but say they do) will cancel their non-existent orders and load these pages with mythic levels of hand wringing prognostications about Tadge and company's failures.

Jimmy

JustinStrife

Weight has less to do with top speed than horsepower, aerodynamics, downforce, and gearing.

zeshawn

holy **** thats slow as ****, however I also can't see how any car with 650hp would take 6 seconds from 150 to 160mph, there seems to be something wrong about this.

If this is the case id get myself a procharged c7 and fly, less weight, less frontal area and lower CoD and more power.

Then again this makes the new Viper ACR a viable option and the GT3 RS

KKreme15

This is why cars have active aero. All that downforce when you need it, and not when you don't - like for high speed runs

mirage2991

hmm physics? something that weight more will take longer to reach a given speed…so in this case BOTH are against it, not just one…I bet the level one aero is still slower based on that

ChevyChad

I'm a bit confused.. Wasnt there a claim that this was the most aerodynamic vette ever? If thats the case, the aero parts should not hinder it. I think a lot of people are confusing downforce with drag. Yes, they are related, but they are different. Whatever the case, something doesnt add up. And its not 6 seconds from 150-160mph, more like 5 (22.9-17.8=5.1 to be exact).

mirage2991

When you add spoilers/wings and so forth you add drag, there's no ways around that on a car, and it usually become most significant at high speed (triple digits).
Look at the Bugatti, this is what it does to get to it's top speed:

"The car's everyday top speed is listed at 343 km/h (213 mph). When the car reaches 220 km/h (140 mph), hydraulics lower the car until it has a ground clearance of about 9 cm (3.5 in). At the same time, the wing and spoiler deploy. In this handling mode, the wing provides 3,425 newtons (770 lbf) of downforce, holding the car to the road.[21]

For top speed mode the driver must, while stationary, toggle a special top speed key to the left of the driver's seat. A checklist then establishes whether the car and its driver are ready to attempt to reach 407 km/h (253 mph). If so, the rear spoiler retracts, the front air diffusers shut, and normal 12.5 cm (4.9 in) ground clearance drops to 6.5 cm (2.6 in)." (From Wiki)

as you can see by my example, the top speed setting is meant to reduce drag as much as possible (which in essence provides the least down force). If you watch the top gear Vedeo, they go through the whole explanation. I believe if during that top speed setting you even lift off the gas, all the spoilers come back on to provide handling dowforce so you can safely control the car.

dar02081961

These numbers are BS. The 0-160 time could be right but the 17.8 to 150 is totally BS. This may be what C&D attained but is nowhere near the best the car is capable of. If you think a C7 Z06 A8 can beat the C6 Z06 to 60 mph by .5 seconds and 1/4 mile by .5 seconds then by 150 MPH be behind by .2 or .3 seconds? With a weight adjusted 110hp advantage? Yea ok..........I am selling some land in south Florida at a very competitive price! No reasonable offer refused.

dar02081961

Correct ChevyChad.
Folks are quick to say adding down force creates drag (which it does) and in the same discussion never mention the drag reduction benefits that many of the same aero components bring to the equation. After all the sole purpose of some of the aero components is drag reduction.

URBAN LEGEND

And unbalanced... Been there, done that. Also had a great time paying for the the domino effect. Power isn't everything.

zeshawn

I'm trying to understand your reasoning here, what makes the 0-160mph time right and not the 0-150mph? do you have any evidence to prove what you're saying?

If you watch the motor trend video you could see how slow the car accelerated on the track (aero 3 and z07 package) once it hit 150mph. I think those numbers are very accurate. Now I would like to know if the vehicles have been tested at an elevation or at sea level, that itself could make a big difference.