When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've read and have been told for years that most cars require thousands of miles to completely break-in.
MPG and performance gains are not uncommon as the miles increase. Is this no longer true? Or is this an old "wives tail" that a cars performance increases over time?
Seems to me the performance number this car generated would or could be some of the best for that year, model and options?
I've read and have been told for years that most cars require thousands of miles to completely break-in.
MPG and performance gains are not uncommon as the miles increase. Is this no longer true? Or is this an old "wives tail" that a cars performance increases over time?
Seems to me the performance number this car generated would or could be some of the best for that year, model and options?
I believe this car had 15,000 miles on it. May of not been properly broken in, had required oil change, and excessive tire wear.
I've read and have been told for years that most cars require thousands of miles to completely break-in.
MPG and performance gains are not uncommon as the miles increase. Is this no longer true? Or is this an old "wives tail" that a cars performance increases over time?
Seems to me the performance number this car generated would or could be some of the best for that year, model and options?
Their complaint with the car had nothing to do with engine performance, it had to to with handling. Between it being a base suspension, and probably run-flat tires with a lot of wear on them, that would be the issue with them testing a rental.
BTW, I sent them an e-mail too. Sounds like they didn't pick mine to print
Their complaint with the car had nothing to do with engine performance, it had to to with handling. Between it being a base suspension, and probably run-flat tires with a lot of wear on them, that would be the issue with them testing a rental.
BTW, I sent them an e-mail too. Sounds like they didn't pick mine to print
They really shouldn't have even tested the vette if their only choice was a rental. I have detailed cars for years, treat all my own like my children, but get me in a rental vette and I would flog it to hell and back. C&D should have known to either get a non-rental or not include the vette. There is no excuse for a 10 best winner for the last 8 years to place last in a 4 way comparo with a freakin TT as a contender!
my favorite letter to them was the comparison they did of the base or Z51,Z06 and the ZR1 to each other and the letter writer complimented their major restraint on not naming a BMW the winner.....
my favorite letter to them was the comparison they did of the base or Z51,Z06 and the ZR1 to each other and the letter writer complimented their major restraint on not naming a BMW the winner.....
That is a great letter and not to far off from the truth.
The mag has a serious bias towards anything American.
Who really cares what they think. They (the editors and publishers) are just like you and I and have opinions/biases just like you and I do. I don't buy things based on what others think of them, I buy them based on what -I- think. .
The OP wrote the rental was obviously abused; how do we know this? Bald tires don't indicate this. Many of us run our cars hard, is it only abuse when someone else does it?
Also many showroom cars are driven hard (not as many miles). Heck how do they sell most of these Vettes?... On the test drive the salesman takes you to some open space and it's usually followed up with the 'ole "floor it" comment. Someone will buy that car too.
Our vettes to breakdown or weaken after 15,000 miles, if they did we wouldn't buy 'em. I bought it to drive and drive fast!
Cheers from Streamwood...I'm right around the corner.
The OP wrote the rental was obviously abused; how do we know this? Bald tires don't indicate this. Many of us run our cars hard, is it only abuse when someone else does it?
Also many showroom cars are driven hard (not as many miles). Heck how do they sell most of these Vettes?... On the test drive the salesman takes you to some open space and it's usually followed up with the 'ole "floor it" comment. Someone will buy that car too.
Our vettes to breakdown or weaken after 15,000 miles, if they did we wouldn't buy 'em. I bought it to drive and drive fast!
Cheers from Streamwood...I'm right around the corner.
It would be next to impossible to have a rental Corvette with 15,000 miles on it that was not abused.
Let's be honest folks. We all have rented before. We know the game. We have rented cars that the dashboard lights up because the car is do for a oil change. We know what people will do with a 430HP car they do not own.
The OP wrote the rental was obviously abused; how do we know this? Bald tires don't indicate this. Many of us run our cars hard, is it only abuse when someone else does it?
Also many showroom cars are driven hard (not as many miles). Heck how do they sell most of these Vettes?... On the test drive the salesman takes you to some open space and it's usually followed up with the 'ole "floor it" comment. Someone will buy that car too.
Our vettes to breakdown or weaken after 15,000 miles, if they did we wouldn't buy 'em. I bought it to drive and drive fast!
Cheers from Streamwood...I'm right around the corner.
hello fellow Streamwood vette owner!
"obviously abused" referred to the likely condition of tires as the handling not power were what C&D blasted the vette on. I don't think anyone rents a corevette for the removable top and basic transporation and I'd bet most do for the chance to drive a car they may likely never buy. Logically on can deduct the 15000 miles were hard driven miles with many wot runs from stoplights. Certainly we expect our vettes to hold up as we all push them at times but if the tires are worn cetainly the car is not in optimum conditon to be tested against some of the world's best. I'm still conviced C&D, who know this, only went forward with the test and poor results more as a dig towards GM which did not provide a top condition vette as they normally do.
Pure bias plain and simple. They'll take a tweaked, boosted ringer GTR from Nissan accompanied by techs everywhere, and still include it in a test even after the dyno shows the car to be making 100HP more than stock, but they use an abused renter on the worst tire / suspension package when it comes to the Corvette.
And like other fools, they believe no one notices.
Typical Car & Driver import jock-sniffer journalism. No one's surprised, no one's impressed, and most won't even notice because no one reads that rag. Let's move on.
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.