you dont get out much.

 

No, some of us get out PLENTY. Out to the drag strip where the earlier statements in this thread have already LONG since been PROVEN that is.

1) Not sure how those magazines got their Corvette test figures but my bone stock C6 LS2 regularly ran 12.5/12.4 second quarter mile times with a best of 12.21 at almost 116mph.

2) You're showing test sheets from a 2005 base model Corvette LS2, a model that now in 2012 uses the LS3 (since 2008 actually) and is notably faster than that (they've gone 11.7/11.8s at over 119mph in the 1/4 mile).
You're also showing a 2006 model Mitsubishi, a car that is now also MUCH heavier and slower than the one tested there.
The reference/comparison mentioned by 'Endeka' was about new/current (2012) cars, not ones carefully/conveniently selected from older, quicker and more favorable test results LOL.

3) Even if those Corvette results could be considered accurate, in what part of the world is a 13.4 second 102mph 1/4 mile ET anywhere in the same stratosphere as a 12.7 second 112mph 1/4 mile time anyway?
Even the 0-60 times (which I'm sure is the point you might be be trying to make here) is still showing a huge gap, at least for anyone that truly knows anything about just how many car lengths that .4 seconds really is.
Have you ever done any drag racing?

 

The irony of that statement... Because I'm sure I'm out in my Z06 schooling 4-bangers that think they're fast without even racing 100x more than you.

And that comparison is retarded. Lets use it for this purpose though... My car (a stock 2003 Z06) hits 100MPH in less than 8 seconds. It takes that GSR 12 (almost 13) LONG seconds to get there... So more than 4 seconds ago I was nearly 10 bus-lengths away from the GSR. Something's fishy here. Do I have AWD? No... I wonder what that is then... Gosh... I just don't get it.

SOMEONE help me out here. I'm lost.



EXACTLY! Thank you.

 

My point being, if you think an EVO doesn't get close to a corvette in performance you are either seriously uninformed or just letting your own biases get in the way, you would know that if you ever got onto a REAL race track with an EVO.
But I forget all anyone on Corvette Forum knows anything about is boring drag racing.

 

I have friends with evos and subarus. You are out of your damn mind if you think any of them are in the same ballpark as a c6. I am no stranger to Japanese cars. I have owned a streetport twin turbo rx7, a turbo nissan 240sx, and a drift corolla in the past. Stock for stock there is no comparison.

 

Drag strips are also real race tracks, and going fast even if it's for only 10 or 11 seconds is never boring.
I've been on road courses and autocrossed regularly for many years.
And there are some guys on this Corvette Forum that have forgotten more about road racing in just the last month than you apparently might ever learn in your entire lifetime LOL.

1) The debate (not very much of a debate even needed actually) here was because he said 1/4 mile acceleration, not handling/road course times.And 2) depending on the type/style of track, even on that road course the now 3500+ pound Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X is going to struggle with a base C6.
On a tight, slow speed autocross course it might be different though. They are very good handling cars no doubt, even as they're getting clobbered by a Corvette.

 

lets hope it looks like this.

 

Oh look, the one millionth "Theres no way (*insert car you've never owned*) can be as fast as a corvette!" post.

Well along with my 07 vette, I have owned an 04 STI and an 06 EVO GSR, so I think Im qualified to give an objective instead of a subjective opinion. And yes, a base corvette is faster than a STOCK (like any of them are stock) EVO, but they are definitely in the same "ballpark". But then again, my GSR listed for $10K lest than a base model C6 so its not exactly apples to apples now is it?

And seriously, for all the cars Ive owned, and all the forums Ive been on, Ive never met a group that got their collective egos bruised as easily as corvette owners. Look guys, its okay to acknowledge that there are fast japanese cars out there, it doesn't make any of you little snowflakes any less special, alright?

Anyhow, whenever you guys want to get off the internet feel free to come out to Thunder Hill with us and actually drive your cars on a track. We have a good mixed group that tries to get out once a month, weather permitting. Just dont be surprised if you get passed by an EVO, theres some pretty fast ones out there

Cheers


EDIT: Wow. So even though I own a corvette and been an active member on this forum for the last SIX YEARS, Ive just been informed that Im being reported for trolling ...For suggesting that EVOs were fast.

You have got to be kidding me! And thank you for proving my point, LOL!

 

i must say, off topic, the FRC in your signature looks pretty good

 

You may be on here six years, but you are acting like the petulant CF member.

Nobody has said the EVOs can't be fast. All we have stated was that Endeka's post "Do you enjoy having your $60,000 sports car legitimately rivaled in a quarter mile by a $35,000 four cylinder Japanese sedan?" is not true. Even you say the stock C6 is faster than a stock EVO.

Introducing a modded EVO into the discussion as you also state above is . Not apples and oranges at all.

Also, you bring up the $10K difference as unfair, but Endeka brought up that point.

 

Thank you. She's my 3rd Corvette, and by far the fastest street car I've ever been in, let alone driven or owned. Traction is kind of a joke with 800hp without drag radials.

 

[/QUOTE]

I think the problem with the jalopnik drawing is the exaggeration of vents. I think if they made the vents on the side of the car, front/rear more subtle it would have a better appeal to it. Also that raised cowl with the small louvers doesnt do it much justice either. There is another comparison picture where you can clearly see the difference from the drawing that the front nose is slightly longer than the spy photo. As someone said earlier in this thread, jalopnik may have had acces to the spy photos before anyone else and came up with their own rendition (i.e the drawing). Just a thought to ponder.

 

Remember the the jalopnik drawing is the high end vette ZR1 version, the base model will not have this package with all these vents.

 

I'd say a 1-second distance is a legitimate rivaling, not in terms of beating the C6, but in terms of a close race. By this logic, the base C6 is "nowhere near in the same stratosphere" as the Z06, because the Z06 is more than two seconds faster in the quarter mile. Do you feel like the base C6 is unworthy of comparison to the Z06 in any way because of that difference? That it is "not even in the same stratosphere?"

Now, throw in a little rain, and the 1 second gap between the C6 and the Evo will likely evaporate. I'm not saying the C6 base isn't better than an Evo in almost every way; that'd be crazy. What I'm saying is that if a 4-seat 4-banger with AWD can come within 1 second of the Corvette because of AWD, imagine how much better the Corvette would do with AWD vs every other car? The addition of launch control and very expensive, short-life, dry-weather-only tires allowed the 2012 Z06 to beat the 2013 GTR; imagine if they stopped slapping band-aids on the problem and just gave it normal performance tires and AWD. It would still beat the GTR, and be able to be driven in the rain.

Is it a virtue that the ZR1 potentially looks worse than the base model?

 

If you want AWD, buy a Rally car or a GTR. The Corvette isn't for you.

 

This is what I was saying earlier. If people had had this attitude in the early 80's, the C3 diehards would have said, "If you want a fast car that doesn't handle like crap, go buy a Porsche; we like our inexpensive, body-roll-tastic C3 just the way it is," and the FRC, Z06 and ZR-1/ZR1 would never have existed. Somebody listened to the people agitating for change, and we got the C4, C5, and C6, and people around the world started paying attention, because the Corvette could roll with the best in the world. I don't want to see the design get dug in, get long in the tooth, and become irrelevant on the world stage again, like the Corvette pretty much was in 1980.

I love the Corvette, that's why I want it to keep up. Sure, most Corvette owners want the car to stick with tried-and-true tradition, but most Corvette owners (if the cars on the dealer lots are any indication) also like 4-speed slushboxes, so their opinion on sports cars is utterly worthless anyway; they'd take whatever crap GM shoveled onto their plate with a smile on their face and call it the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its the people who are shopping for the best car that they need to worry about placating, because they're the ones who are going to compare an inferior-performing GM car to a superior-performing car from another brand, and leave GM for that other brand. Right now, the C6 is pretty much top dog in its price bracket; with the GTR and maybe the GT 500 as its only legitimate rivals. I'd like it to stay that way.

 

What corvette do you own that cant keep up with it's competition? Do you even understand the performance capabilities of the c6? Outside of the Gt-R, there isnt anything in their price range that comes close to competing with them.

Maybe you havent heard, but there was a new record made with a bone stock zr1 in the quarter mile. 10.33 with just drag radials, nothing else done.

 

1) a base vette isnt 2 seoncds slower then a z06.
2) Yes a second is a big deal in a quarter mile, if you dont think so you dont race your car. A 14.0 is a big gap from 13.0 and it only gets worse. A 10.0 is a HUGE gap from a 11.0
3) If you want to argue your fake point, then sure, an ls2 vette isnt in the same ballpark as a z06.
4) To point out to you that an EVO and STI stock are NOT in the same ball park as an ls3 or even 2 vette accelleration wise, my lt1 auto vette with a catback and intake has raced multiple EVO's and STI's... on the fly shall we say. Modded loud ones have beat me. Stock ones? Nope. Been there done that plenty of times. Dont jump me off the line then theyll probably loose. And If they run me from 40+mph, their awd/short gearing advantage is gone. I raced an EVO X very shortly after the dual clutch ones came out to a very high speed, and I actually amazed myself how much I pulled on him.
5) I drive my c4 in the snow... with serious summer tires on it... for 3 years now. Rain I'm not worried about almost ever. And fact is, the GTR and EVO and STI all come with serious summer tires that wear out fast too. Dont be confused about that.

This is rediculous. They are not bad cars at all. And being turbo'd they make stupid power with cheap mods. But you guys now want to compare racing in the rain/snow and modded vs stock. They arnt in the same price range for a reason, you two are the ones comparring them and coming up short. Dont be mad the vette outperforms them, it costs more. Not a big deal unless you make it one. 2 different cars for 2 different targets. Once you mod, all bets are off.

 

Some people are out of their mind in here.

I got into my C6 from a built 20g Scooby, I'm plenty familiar with Evos, and have had/built everything in between. As this WHOLE forum is telling you, a weak 12.7 example is not even the same league as an optimistic 13.4 second example. Nor is the nearly-half-second 0-60 measurement.

And as far as drag racing? Please, basic monkeys can be taught enough throttle modulation to keep the *** end planted coming off an apex just as easily as somebody can figure out how to minimize the inherent push and understeer of stock Evos and STIs.

I don't know how many ImportTuner or SuperStreet magazines are crammed between some of your toilets and sinks, but you're reading into them a little too...vehemently.

NO. THEY. DO. NOT. GET. CLOSE. IN. PERFORMANCE. Invisiguard's post just accidentally quantified this.

 

Look, forget about the Evo thing everybody. You guys are really missing the forest for the trees here. Nobody was saying that a 4-cylinder car was better than a Corvette. What I was saying is that if AWD can make a car that is as deficient in power and as heavy as an Evo perform that well, it would probably do just as much for the Corvette in terms of boosting performance. The only area of the drive where the Vette is really struggling is on launches from a stop, and in inclement weather. AWD solves both of these problems. Yes, it adds weight, but by employing more CF in the body, lighter seats, not offering it on non-hard top models (so the extra weight of the strengthening beams is removed), and maybe looking into getting OZ Ultraleggera HLTs or similar as the stock wheels rather than the cheaper ones it comes with now, and replacing the big, heavy suspension with lighter coilovers could go a long way towards mitigating that problem for just a couple thousand extra dollars (plus the cost of the AWD). Even if the AWD system added 400LBS to the Z06, it still wouldn't be a heavy car, and there are ways that it could mitigate the weight, as I mentioned above.