Here is the 2001 Motor Week shoot-out between the 01 Z06, 00 Cobra R and 01 ACR Viper that RC45 was referencing. The 1/4 mile times for the Z06 are crap, but the road course segment is quite interesting.

 

Because I believe a 360CS is faster than a C5Z06? Darn. had I known I wasn't really a sports car enthusiast, I wouldn't have just dropped around $1500 for a radiator so I could keep doing this without having to slow down for a couple cool off laps.




Don't take is so personal.

 

Yes - a 2001 C5 Z06 is slower than are revalved higher power 2004 car.

Yes - a 2004 C5 Z06 is faster than a revalved lower power car.

Is this deficit easily made up? Yes - install the 2004 shocks and a headers and tune. Or better yet, replace the LS6 with a tuned LS7 and the stock suspension with some coil overs, add aero and drop some weight from the car. But I digress - the "debate" is whether the C5 Z06 is just some piece of redneck crap that has no chance of keeping up with the "oh so precious" 360CS. If you want I can post up the detailed photoshoot I did of the 360CS - I am intimately familiar with what the dar is - and if I my memory serves me correctly, when the car was being corner weighted for track us the F360CS was more like 2980lbs soaking wet rather than 2800lbs. That is within 100 pounds or a small childs weight of the C5 Z06.

By the way, you still havent said where you are getting your 2000 SportAuto information from.

And again - teh 2004 C5 Z06 is a better car than the 2001 car with regard to engine power and shock tuning. The result was noticable to me (and others) around race tracks and fast backroads.

Why are you so keen to argue about this?

I am not taking it personally I am just amazed that someone who "tracks" their car is so unwilling to believe that the cars were improved over the years, and that these improvements are noticable and that it is just possible that the car is capable of more than you give it credit for.

If the 360CS was God's gift to the automotive world, Ferrari would never have improved it over the years or replaced it wiht a newer model all together.

 

Those are some weak *** torque numbers. Why has this not been factored into the argument?

 

WHAT???!!! What debate are you in? Who said anything like that at all? I thought the debate was whether the 360CS was faster than a C5Z06 on not.

I didn't argue about it at all. Why are you putting words in my mouth that I ever said otherwise? I said the difference is minimal. And it is. More minimal than the difference between the C5Z06 and the 360CS. And it is. Yet you insist that the 360CS isn't faster at all.



Who said anything about God's gift? Why don't you answer my questions directly instead of agrueing against things I never said? Do you think the 2004 Z06 is 2 seconds quicker around Hockenhiem short than a 2001 Z06? Of course not. But you won't answer the question because you know it means the 360SC is STILL FASTER.

Oh yeah, fastestlaps.com. The absolute best site on the net for hunting down track times for factory stock cars. Spend some time there. You can see lists by track, car, or even compare cars directly. And times come with their sources.

 

Because torque is only really important in drag racing. I know I'm going to get a lot flack for that statement.
Once the car is up and running it's HP and high-revs that make it go faster and Ferrari makes high-revving engines. Don't forget that the F360CS has 2000 RPM more to play with vs a C5Z06.
Heck even F1 cars make "only" something like 287 ft-lbs, but yet make 750HP to 800HP at 19,000RPM.

It would be interesting to see a real comparo (on a road course, with laptimes) of a 2004 F360CS vs a 2004 C5Z06.

 

Because it doesn't really matter so much. The Ferrari makes up for the torque with RPM. Sure it would get wasted if they pulled from the same RPM or launched from idle, but the Ferrari revs to 8500. So as long as the driver keeps the revs up where they belong, it makes more power. The 360CS went 12.1 in the 1/4 in a mag test while not at a drag strip. I don't know of any stock C5Z06 going faster than 12.4 in any mag test.

 

That's good. Then what is the purpose of the thinly vialed personal attacks?

 

Yes.

nd again you are arguing the point. The C5 Z06 can and does and will run neck and neck with the 360CS on the street and on the track.

Why is there no other refernce to this "mysterious" SportAuto test of the 2001 C5 Z06 that was never sold or presented in Germany (or anywherein Europe fo rthat matter) - other than by private importation.

There are no, thinly veiled or othersie, personal attacks, but I have to wonder why you refuse to accept that not only are the numbers in favour of the C5 Z06 but many people have seen and experienced how the C5 Z06 pulls car lenghts on the 360 and can roll away from the 360CS on the freeway, and can run nose to tail on the backroads and tracks?

Why? If the Corvette pulled away you would say "driver" and if the Ferrari pulled away you would say "car".

Besides which, the chances o ffinding either a stock 360CS or stock C5 Z)6 that are tracked is slim to none - I have yet to see a 360CS that does not have at least an exhaust and possibly some intake and tuning work done, and the same can be said for tracked C5 Z06's.

I bet you guys also think the C6 Z06 is an "ok" car, but really not up to par with the GT3RS or the F430CS or even the Viper - right?

I mean US cars can be "ok" but they ar enever ever going to be able to be equal to thei rEuropean counterparts right?

I bet you guys will also never believe that the C4 ZR1 was able to dance toe to toe with its German and Italian counterparts of the day - or that hter was barely an improvement between the 1990 ZR1 and the 1995 ZR1.

I guess American cars are stuck with the "rubbish" stigma that the media (local and foreign) labeled them with. Sadly perception does seem to be reality.

 

See my post first post on page 2

 

zo6 c5 is neck and neck with a 360cs around a road coarse..

same goesfor f430 neck and neck with c5 zo6.

 

Okay. We are done. If you really think that, then there is nothing left to debate. I don't think you will find many knowledgable people who will agree with you on that point, though. All three track I run are in the vecinity of 1:14 laps and I know adding 20hp and changing the rear shocks would not make 2 seconds. But if it's your opinion that it would, I can't prove otherwise.



Stop making bets. You don't seem to be very good at them. Why must you continue to try to extrapilate this comparison into a broader picture of USA vs world? If one European car is faster than one American car, it doesn't mean that all of them are better. Nobody has said that or infered it in any way. Don't assume what people think about other topics based on what they say about an unrelated one.

 

Oh dear. Does that mean that the C6Z06 blows the F430 into the weeds, or is the C5Z06 also neck and neck with a C6 Z06?

 

That is not entirely accurate. Good low to mid RPM torque is extremely beneficial to an auto-X oriented vehicle for low speed acceleration and corner off acceleration, especially in a vehicle that weighs 3000 plus lbs. A F1 car weighs around 600kg (1320lbs) and does not require high torque numbers.

 

No need to be facetious - it is an obvious typo.

And for someone supposedly informed about Corvette specs, all 4 shocks were changed in 2004 (actually midwya through 2003 as 2004 builds)

And I again - yes - when I switched my 2001 C5 Z06 (still stock engined at the time) to the 2004 shocks U immidiatly oticed an improvement in the cars handling - it was instantly noticeable and I was able to exploit the cars handling and be faster.

In those days I did not have incar video or the telemetry that I have now, so sorry I cant produce the "in car video" of my before and after laps at Texas World Speedway, but I was able to lap faster with the new shocks - hell I was able to lap faster once I installed headers and had the car tuned, I noticed the extra 30+rwhp and 30 +rwtq at the track instantly.

The car was more stable everywhere. And its not the 20bhp that you would notice, it is the extra 20ftlb of torque that will serve you better.

The car came out of the corners harder and pulled through the gears faster.

Interesting that now you are "done" simply because you dont believe things are a certain way.

If you have not upgraded your 2001 C5 Z06 to the 2004 shocks and have not had the car tuned and added headers to free up at least 30ftlb of torque then you are missing out a lot.

If you are able to push your car hard at the current time, then you will be faster with the new shocks and extra torque - if these chnages did not make the car faster, the changes would never have been incorporated into the car from the factory.

 

c6zo6 blows it into the weeds bro.. did you not see all the test and video? road coarse footage?


check it out
2 stock cars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec-ZDGjPFfg
just blowin it away.. I like how the ferrari was like damn traffic but the z was waiting LOL... and then blew it away more.

and I was talking handling road coarse... straightline its not too bad.. pretty close.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMqP...eature=related


c5z and c6z both pull a 1.1g skidpad stock.. you need to LEARN and RESPECT the handling capabilites of this car with the right driver. Pushed to the limit it is one of the best.. just harder to drive and get to that limit without killing yourself.

 

I wasn't. I assumed he was serious. But I'm glad you agree that what he typed is incorrect.

It means our arguement really can't go any further because we disagree on something that neither of us can prove. But I'll tell you what, why don't I go over to the autocross and roadrace section and post a thread asking if a 2004 Z06 is faster than a 2001 Z06 on a 1:14 roadcourse by 2 seconds? I'll even make it a poll. Would you agree to the results of the poll?

 

I take it you own a 2001?

 

Drag racing hands down goes to the C5Z:

Bone stock C5Z times:

1--11.783 @ 116.90--1.818--J-Rod---------'02
2--11.818 @ 117.26--1.783--Ranger--------'02 11/03 Slip
3--11.844 @ 117.91--1.761--Gary2004Z06--'04 11/07 Post 229, Slip
4--11.93x @ 119.xx--1.xxx --Esoteric-------'0x
5--11.97x @ 118.80--1.90x--GMHTP--------'04 03/04
6--11.99x @ 117.61--1.xxx --02Z06Racer---'02
7--12.048 @ 115.92--1.866--pwrshfd-------'02 12/03
8--12.08x @ 115.95--1.83x--Pray ----------'02 01/06 Slip
9--12.09x @ xxx.xx --1.79x--UVETTA -------'03
10-12.205 @ 117.96--1.91x--Nat04Z06 -----'04

 

Not a typo after all. Here are the lap times.

Top Gear Track
Z06= 1:22.4
F430= 1:22.9

Hockenheim Short
Z06= 1:11.5
F430= 1:12.7

Vairano Handling Course
Z06= 1:19.523
F430= 1:17.373

Bedford Autodrome West Circuit (pre 06/2008)
Z06= 1:24.45
F430= 1:24.20

Oschersleben
Z06= 1:40.57
F430= 1:41.89

Papenburg Handling Course
Z06= 1:15.85
F430= 1:18.20

Autozeitung test track
Z06= 1:39.4
F430= 1:38.1

SportAuto wet handling test
Z06= 1:32.7
F430= 1:38.2

You win some, you lose some, you tie some = comparible cars. One does not blow the other into the weeds.