[Z06] Tomorrow night (7/16) we'll know for sure!
07-19-2005, 10:04 PM
#81
Drifting
Targets are marketing terms---beleive it or not--not every Corvette buyer is out looking for 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times (at least 95% don't give a damn). GM marketing has identified the Corvette buyer and potential Corvette buyers with demographic studies pointing at some guy with 60k to spend. the 'sports car guy' is looking at a C6 or a basic Porsche in the general 2 seater category....a 'marketing' perspective is different than a street race perspective....C6 sales overseas have doubled with the C6 and the buying market they are looking at is full of 'basic' Porsche buyers... the Z06 will set its sights on 911 and 911 turbo etc folks...but for MASS high volume sales...it is another world--GM is looking beyond 'stealing' 100 former Viper buyers..and they have no illusions of taking buyers away from Ferrari..the demographics of those buyers/sales is entirely different...they want to be in the shootouts to show they can compete performance wise with Ferrari, Porsche, Lambo...so they can sell the little guy on the idea that he is buying Ferrari (name your favority exotic) performance for a fraction of the cost--back to the term "value" being used in every GM speech about the Vette....
07-19-2005, 10:17 PM
#82
Drifting
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: Carolina
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Michael A
If the Boxster and Cayman are their targets, they are a bit low. The Boxster and Cayman don't have anywhere near the power of the Corvette. Porsche publishes the 0-60 of the Cayman S at 5.1. What's the C6? 4.3? A comparable target would be the 911S, which is what they are matching now with the 7:59 time. Even then, the Corvette has better acceleration than a 911S once underway (911S has great off the line acceleration due to its rear engine weight bias, but can't match the Corvette on rolling starts). If Chevy wants to show the world they can build a world class handling car, they have to beat the 911S. They have to show they can build a car that outhandles the competition with the same power. It's a tall order. Think about it. The 911S gets around the track with the same time as the 2006 C6, and it has less power, horrible weight distribution, and McPherson struts on the front! Those Porsche engineers are no slouches.
Michael
Michael
C6 Z51 first three gears are short but a taller fourth gear sacrifices high speed acceleration ....
07-20-2005, 11:38 AM
#84
Intermediate
Member Since: Aug 2000
Location: Napa, CA, USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 04retro
Lastly-I brought up the internet "Ring" list that has "DAVE HILL" running the Ring at 7' 56" in a C6...He looked shocked at first then shook his head saying-"I'm not qualified to run a car at Speed at the Ring. NO! I have NOT run the ring for time in a Corvette."--he was very direct and specific on that point with a look on his face that I - I repeat "I" took to mean (my interpretation-NOT HIS STATEMENT) what idiot thinks I'm running Corvettes at race speeds on the ring.
When Corvette want official Ring times-they have a professional race driver do it (as all manufacturers do).
07-20-2005, 06:35 PM
#85
Drifting
Originally Posted by vetterlatethannever
Anyone else notice now that the new Z is coming out they finally admit the base Vette is not as fast as the previous gen's Z?
Now, I'm a C5 guy and own an 04 Z06 after 'rejecting' the looks of the 2005 C6 but pleaseee...a 3 second difference between the 04 Z06 and the 06 C6 Z51 on a road course like the Nurbergring (sic) is tiny...and that 3 second difference was achieved by a professional racecar driver of the highest level---ie NO ONE on this Board has that level of talent.
I strongly suspect if you took the stock runflats off the 2006 C6 and put 04 Z06 rubber on it you would see the 3 second margin disappear.....
07-20-2005, 07:52 PM
#86
Racer
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 261
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 04retro
From day one--every article quoting Chevy/GB stated the C6 had 3/4 of the performance of the 04 Z06 (and that is being very kind to the C5 Z06). At no time has Chevy said the C6 was 'faster' than the 04 Z06.
Now, I'm a C5 guy and own an 04 Z06 after 'rejecting' the looks of the 2005 C6 but pleaseee...a 3 second difference between the 04 Z06 and the 06 C6 Z51 on a road course like the Nurbergring (sic) is tiny...and that 3 second difference was achieved by a professional racecar driver of the highest level---ie NO ONE on this Board has that level of talent.
I strongly suspect if you took the stock runflats off the 2006 C6 and put 04 Z06 rubber on it you would see the 3 second margin disappear.....
Now, I'm a C5 guy and own an 04 Z06 after 'rejecting' the looks of the 2005 C6 but pleaseee...a 3 second difference between the 04 Z06 and the 06 C6 Z51 on a road course like the Nurbergring (sic) is tiny...and that 3 second difference was achieved by a professional racecar driver of the highest level---ie NO ONE on this Board has that level of talent.
I strongly suspect if you took the stock runflats off the 2006 C6 and put 04 Z06 rubber on it you would see the 3 second margin disappear.....
I've wondered also about the tire difference. I don't suppose there were any magazine tests (like Corvette Quarterly?) that took this into account.
07-20-2005, 11:18 PM
#87
Burning Brakes
3/4 of the 04 Z06 performance
Originally Posted by rockettc
IMHO, the "3/4 of the performance 04 Z06" doesn't make any sense at all. Isn't more like 98-99%? I can't understand where GM came up with this 3/4. Unless the C6 had like a 300HP engine, I don't get the 3/4. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.
I've wondered also about the tire difference. I don't suppose there were any magazine tests (like Corvette Quarterly?) that took this into account.
I've wondered also about the tire difference. I don't suppose there were any magazine tests (like Corvette Quarterly?) that took this into account.
When the magazines reported that the C6 performance was 3/4 that of the 04 Z06, they were not reporting correctly. The press in general is known for that kind of thing. Never take for granted that what you read is accurate information. That is why I always avoid talking to a reporter. They seem to either distort the information to suit the story or they completely get it wrong too many times.
07-21-2005, 01:14 AM
#88
Racer
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 261
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Marina Blue
That statement by GM means that the C6 makes up 3/4 of the performance difference between the base C5 and the C5 Z06.
When the magazines reported that the C6 performance was 3/4 that of the 04 Z06, they were not reporting correctly. The press in general is known for that kind of thing. Never take for granted that what you read is accurate information. That is why I always avoid talking to a reporter. They seem to either distort the information to suit the story or they completely get it wrong too many times.
When the magazines reported that the C6 performance was 3/4 that of the 04 Z06, they were not reporting correctly. The press in general is known for that kind of thing. Never take for granted that what you read is accurate information. That is why I always avoid talking to a reporter. They seem to either distort the information to suit the story or they completely get it wrong too many times.
07-21-2005, 11:05 AM
#90
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Kennesaw Georgia
Posts: 2,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scissors
Glad to hear that they have an official time for a production C6 now. 
So now the official 'Vette list is:
8:18 - C5
7:59 - C6
7:56 - C5 CE Z06
7:43 - C6 Z06
So now the official 'Vette list is:
8:18 - C5
7:59 - C6
7:56 - C5 CE Z06
7:43 - C6 Z06
7:43 is a SUPER lap time for the new C-6 Z06 !!!About what most of us expected/hoped for!!!
Wonderful info on the C-6 Z51... officially turning a 7:59 ! Never was the C-6 driven at the Ring for time by David Hill!!!
Last edited by Mr Mojo; 07-26-2005 at 07:45 AM. Reason: inappropriate comment
07-21-2005, 11:30 AM
#91
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2000
Location: pa
Posts: 8,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vetterlatethannever
Anyone else notice now that the new Z is coming out they finally admit the base Vette is not as fast as the previous gen's Z?
07-21-2005, 04:46 PM
#92
Drifting
Again guys--your taking 'numbers' and trying to beat them to death or twist some type of meaning out of them that was never intended..."3/4 of" or "85%" etc...what THE MARKETING FOLKS AT GM were trying to say was that the 2005 C6 was WAY better -ie an improvement over-than the C5 that it replaced and almost as good as the C5 Z06....3/4 or 85% etc is just an indication of how close to the Z06 the 'common' C6 was getting--putting some quantative figure that "Joe Public" could grasp-----GM had 2 goals here--sell the new C6, get the hype up but at the same time not 'destroy' sales of the remaining C5's and C5 Z06's still on dealer lots.
For goodness sakes it was never intended to be an 'exact' measurement or statment...it was just for MARKETING perspective ...telling folks that the performance was getting close.
And now with the C5's OFF the lots and at least a 'year old' GM is going to try and raise more interest/hype with the C6 program in 2006 with the new Z06 and the fact that the 2006 C6 has been improved over the 2005 model--and has show this with that 7' 59" run...but for the nit pickers...the C6 Z51 that ran the 7' 59" was a 2006 model which has been 'improved' over the 2005.....how much improved..totally unknown and open to wild speculation as GM per Dave Hill claims to have never run the 2005 C6 at the Ring for time.....and if you wait to buy a 2007 C6 you'll find it improved over the 2006 model--etc etc
For goodness sakes it was never intended to be an 'exact' measurement or statment...it was just for MARKETING perspective ...telling folks that the performance was getting close.
And now with the C5's OFF the lots and at least a 'year old' GM is going to try and raise more interest/hype with the C6 program in 2006 with the new Z06 and the fact that the 2006 C6 has been improved over the 2005 model--and has show this with that 7' 59" run...but for the nit pickers...the C6 Z51 that ran the 7' 59" was a 2006 model which has been 'improved' over the 2005.....how much improved..totally unknown and open to wild speculation as GM per Dave Hill claims to have never run the 2005 C6 at the Ring for time.....and if you wait to buy a 2007 C6 you'll find it improved over the 2006 model--etc etc
Last edited by Z06LUST; 07-21-2005 at 04:50 PM.
07-25-2005, 01:44 PM
#93
Safety Car
Originally Posted by Crash99
E) I don't think the air inlet in the nose of the car is really going to amount to much as it is so small; it might cool the engine compartment a bit but none of that air is getting into the combustion chambers.
Crash
This one is for Scissors ! May he reflect upon his words from June ... and realize he was had.
07-25-2005, 02:31 PM
#94
Safety Car
Originally Posted by 90 Corvette ZR-1
They never said it was. If I remember correctly gm said that the C6Z51 was 85% of what a C5 Z06 was.
It was some of this Forum's most notorious members ... who seemed to want the C6 base car to be equal to ( if not faster ) than the C5 Z.
Those of us who have driven Both ... always knew that was not the case.
07-25-2005, 07:35 PM
#95
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Kennesaw Georgia
Posts: 2,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, it's GOOD to be an instructor !!! Also was fun.... Playing with Scissors & Ivan !!!
Anyone who would believe David Hill would risk his life...driving a C-6 Vette at the Ring for time....
07-25-2005, 08:02 PM
#96
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Jan 2005
Location: Libertyville IL
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 04retro
Again guys--your taking 'numbers' and trying to beat them to death or twist some type of meaning out of them that was never intended..."3/4 of" or "85%" etc...what THE MARKETING FOLKS AT GM were trying to say was that the 2005 C6 was WAY better -ie an improvement over-than the C5 that it replaced and almost as good as the C5 Z06....3/4 or 85% etc is just an indication of how close to the Z06 the 'common' C6 was getting--putting some quantative figure that "Joe Public" could grasp-----GM had 2 goals here--sell the new C6, get the hype up but at the same time not 'destroy' sales of the remaining C5's and C5 Z06's still on dealer lots.
For goodness sakes it was never intended to be an 'exact' measurement or statment...it was just for MARKETING perspective ...telling folks that the performance was getting close.
And now with the C5's OFF the lots and at least a 'year old' GM is going to try and raise more interest/hype with the C6 program in 2006 with the new Z06 and the fact that the 2006 C6 has been improved over the 2005 model--and has show this with that 7' 59" run...but for the nit pickers...the C6 Z51 that ran the 7' 59" was a 2006 model which has been 'improved' over the 2005.....how much improved..totally unknown and open to wild speculation as GM per Dave Hill claims to have never run the 2005 C6 at the Ring for time.....and if you wait to buy a 2007 C6 you'll find it improved over the 2006 model--etc etc
For goodness sakes it was never intended to be an 'exact' measurement or statment...it was just for MARKETING perspective ...telling folks that the performance was getting close.
And now with the C5's OFF the lots and at least a 'year old' GM is going to try and raise more interest/hype with the C6 program in 2006 with the new Z06 and the fact that the 2006 C6 has been improved over the 2005 model--and has show this with that 7' 59" run...but for the nit pickers...the C6 Z51 that ran the 7' 59" was a 2006 model which has been 'improved' over the 2005.....how much improved..totally unknown and open to wild speculation as GM per Dave Hill claims to have never run the 2005 C6 at the Ring for time.....and if you wait to buy a 2007 C6 you'll find it improved over the 2006 model--etc etc
04Retro definitely gets it.
07-26-2005, 07:39 AM
#97
☠☣☢ Semper Ebrius ☢☣☠
Originally Posted by bernrex
This one is for Scissors ! May he reflect upon his words from June ... and realize he was had.
07-26-2005, 07:43 AM
#98
☠☣☢ Semper Ebrius ☢☣☠
Originally Posted by trumper Z06
About what most of us expected/hoped for!!!
Wonderful info on the C-6 Z51... officially turning a 7:59 ! Never was the C-6 driven at the Ring for time by David Hill!!!
CROW is best eaten, Quickly & Cold, Scissors , U Dunce!!!
07-26-2005, 09:51 AM
#99
Safety Car
Originally Posted by Scissors
So post a link to your prediction. Unless by "us" you mean "others but not myself," or unless you're postdicting.
Crow for what? I never stated that Dave Hill drove the car. In fact, I've stated just the opposite several times. But your personal attack is quite endearing and lets us all know what your emotional and mental age is.
Crow for what? I never stated that Dave Hill drove the car. In fact, I've stated just the opposite several times. But your personal attack is quite endearing and lets us all know what your emotional and mental age is.
Scissors, don't have a Heart Attack ! We just love pulling your chain. We ALL think of you like a brother --- that constant ebb and flow thing between bros. You know ... that Gotcha game. Admit it, you occasionally get your "facts" bassackwards.
07-26-2005, 09:57 AM
#100
☠☣☢ Semper Ebrius ☢☣☠
Originally Posted by bernrex
Admit it, you occasionally get your "facts" bassackwards.