|
I have to give it to Chevy......
At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers :rofl:
|
I honestly think some people were expecting near Z06 numbers with a car that has 50 less hp and heavier. Chevy didn't want to amaze people with straight line performance with this car. They wanted to make a RWD sports car that be driven to the limit much easier than past generations. You can toss the car around and know what exactly it will do next and they have succeeded. All of the mag reviews summed up, say they love the way this car drives and thats what matters.
|
It was explained by Edmunds that Chevy uses a 1 foot rollout in their numbers, while some of the mags do not. Personally, I could care less about 1 foot rollout times. Give me the real deal from a standing start.
Michael |
Originally Posted by tail_lights
(Post 1584512273)
At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers :rofl:
Sounds like the car is pretty nimble. I think for street driving, it will fit the bill for everyone short of those looking for roll ons. |
Originally Posted by tail_lights
(Post 1584512273)
At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers :rofl:
|
Exactly what times were you disappointed in? 3.9 sec.? 12.1 sec.? 93 ft.? All that for $51,995? Sounds pretty good to me. :willy:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by mpuzach
(Post 1584512431)
exactly what times were you disappointed in? 3.9 sec.? 12.1 sec.? 93 ft.? All that for $51,995? Sounds pretty good to me. :willy:
|
Originally Posted by tail_lights
(Post 1584512273)
At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers :rofl:
The mag stats are useful if you want to compare the C7 to other cars tested by the same mag, but even then air and track conditions will cause at least a couple of tenths and MPH variance from one test to another. The only valid comps are when the cars are tested by the same crew, at the same track, on the same day. Finally, once these cars are in the hands of real owners who practice drag racing them, the times will come way down. For example MT tested the 1999 C5 Hardtop and Hatchback with the following results: The new-for-1999 Hardtop with its fixed roof makes for an even stiffer structure than its Coupe or Convertible siblings. As our test numbers bore this out, the Hardtop (which comes standard with the race-style Z51 suspension system) whipped through the 600-foot slalom at an average 68.1 mph, the quickest we've gotten out of a C5 Vette. On the other hand, the improved structural rigidity did nothing to enhance straight-line performance. The 0-60-mph time of 4.8 seconds was identical for both cars and the quarter-mile times were actually better for the Coupe (13.2 seconds at 109.6 mph versus 13.3 at 108.6). Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2aCbczlUs http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...imes-list.html |
Originally Posted by Punishermach
(Post 1584512373)
:iagree: WTH? C7 runnin some weak ass times for a vette,especially for the new latest and greatest.
They have already tested a few tenths faster than the outgoing C6's. While I'm sure GM could have gotten more out of the LT1, they're not going to put out a C7 that's as fast as a C6Z for $52k (especially with how C6Z sales tanked the last few years). IMO, once in owner's hands the C7's will routinely be running high-11's, maybe a touch quicker at a sea level track in the northeast...say...this November or December. I hope to have my car by late September, and it'll be at Atco right after that. :yesnod: S. |
Originally Posted by adamsocb
(Post 1584512602)
The mag stats are useful if you want to compare the C7 to other cars tested by the same mag, but even then air and track conditions will cause at least a couple of tenths and MPH variance from one test to another. The only valid comps are when the cars are tested by the same crew, at the same track, on the same day.
Take Road & Track for example. They ran a 12.2 at 117 in 77* air, 62% humidity, at an elevation of 994' and likely on an unprepped surface. They do NOT correct for weather/DA using NHRA correction factors. Anybody who thinks these cars won't pick up a few tenths and a few mph at tracks like MIR, Etown, Atco, HRP, etc. in decent air is crazy. S. |
Originally Posted by Snorman
(Post 1584512851)
Exactly.
Take Road & Track for example. They ran a 12.2 at 117 in 77* air, 62% humidity, at an elevation of 994' and likely on an unprepped surface. They do NOT correct for weather/DA using NHRA correction factors. Anybody who thinks these cars won't pick up a few tenths and a few mph at tracks like MIR, Etown, Atco, HRP, etc. in decent air is crazy. S. |
Originally Posted by Sp00ky
(Post 1584512525)
I honestly think some people were expecting near Z06 numbers with a car that has 50 less hp and heavier.
Originally Posted by Sp00ky
(Post 1584512525)
Chevy didn't want to amaze people with straight line performance with this car. They wanted to make a RWD sports car that be driven to the limit much easier than past generations. You can toss the car around and know what exactly it will do next and they have succeeded. All of the mag reviews summed up, say they love the way this car drives and thats what matters.
|
Originally Posted by Michael A
(Post 1584512315)
It was explained by Edmunds that Chevy uses a 1 foot rollout in their numbers, while some of the mags do not. Personally, I could care less about 1 foot rollout times. Give me the real deal from a standing start.
Michael Lined up at a streetlight vs any other car- "I get a 1' foot rollout because the mag said so" :rofl: |
Originally Posted by tail_lights
(Post 1584513260)
Anyone though (without the blinders on) should be able to see what this car was capable of. Chevy has fallen way short in my opinion.
But why??? After so many on here were bashing the he!! out of the GTR for making it too easy now Chevy is trying to do the same? Yet the same bashers are going to be swingin' and singin' the praises of the C7 :ack: |
1) 0-60 around 4 seconds is quick enough for 99% of the people who want this car, including me.
2) who cares about numbers? It's the driving experience that's important. If you want numbers, go to the aftermarket. That's what it's for. Personally, how the car performs in the grand scheme is what makes a car great or not. I couldn't care less about the "Godzilla" machine. It's not my cup of tea even if it went 0-60 in 1 sec. |
Originally Posted by Sin City
(Post 1584513335)
1) 0-60 around 4 seconds is quick enough for 99% of the people who want this car, including me.
2) who cares about numbers? It's the driving experience that's important. If you want numbers, go to the aftermarket. That's what it's for. Personally, how the car performs in the grand scheme is what makes a car great or not. I couldn't care less about the "Godzilla" machine. It's not my cup of tea even if it went 0-60 in 1 sec. |
Originally Posted by 1985 Corvette
(Post 1584512367)
I liked them, car sounds amazing. What were you expecting right out the gate with the entry level? What 0-60? What trap? That's not sarcasm....just trying to get a feel for the disappointment in current times. What mph trap through the quarter in your opinion would be the threshold between great and disappointing?
Sounds like the car is pretty nimble. I think for street driving, it will fit the bill for everyone short of those looking for roll ons. The car will be great on the street, track and even as a cruiser. I don't know if you are getting one but I hope you do and enjoy every second of it :thumbs: I will admit, with the massive torque, I was hoping 0-60 times were a bit better, and thus everything that follows (60' although that would be before the 60mph mark, 1/4 mile, etc). I was hoping for more power so the trap could be higher. Not to start the trolling comments but I do have a C6 GS, and it has trapped 115.8 in less than optimum conditions. I was hoping the C7 would be in the high teens and maybe touch 120 and that in the initial testing that it was a solid 118-120 car, but it does not appear to be. I realize that some drivers will get it there, but the ones that run those numbers usually aren't in my neck of the woods. |
Originally Posted by Sin City
(Post 1584512522)
... :)
But that's the problem. It is just good. It could have been great :( |
Originally Posted by tail_lights
(Post 1584513372)
:lol:
But that's the problem. It is just good. It could have been great :( But, I didn't design it and every car is a compromise. Is the C7 great? I don't know yet as I haven't driven it. I sure like what I see though. I can tell you I don't think the Ferrari 458 is great either. Life is full of compromises, even for a car costing a quarter million. If you want perfection, you have to make your own car from scratch -- and probably never make it street legal. Otherwise, work to appreciate what others have done to solve the problems you never faced. |
Originally Posted by adamsocb
(Post 1584512602)
Where have you guys been for the last 20 years? The mags NEVER get the most out of these cars. They get a few hours with a pre-production car they are not supposed to break. Getting the best 0-60 and 1/4 mile times and trap speeds take the practice of many, many runs and likely full-on, no-lift, speed shifting these mag guys just can't do.
The mag stats are useful if you want to compare the C7 to other cars tested by the same mag, but even then air and track conditions will cause at least a couple of tenths and MPH variance from one test to another. The only valid comps are when the cars are tested by the same crew, at the same track, on the same day. Finally, once these cars are in the hands of real owners who practice drag racing them, the times will come way down. For example MT tested the 1999 C5 Hardtop and Hatchback with the following results: Then look at this thread see what Forum members have been able to do in stock C5s with run-flats. 12.8 @ 109-110MPH Much better than MT! http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...imes-list.html |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands