The Corvette fills a niche that no other car does IMO. The combination of price, looks, performance, comfort, reliability, efficiency, heritage, mod-ability, etc. It has no equal.

 

Good right-up but the Cobra R was only made in 2000, not 2004 and it was 65 more bhp not 70.

 

I dunno, I think that Jag rag top shown earlier might have something to say about the vette.

Well we both know it won't be priced in anything under stratospheric but it sure looks hawt.

To me the best two cars being made overall though in the Performance market are the Stang and the Vette for the reasons you already listed. Aesthetics, Mod Capability, out of the box performance, durability, and efficiency. The heritage isn't as big of a deal for me yet, other than the stand point that Corvette in every generation (even the C2 which I'm not all that fond of) has a car that I would definitely not kick out of my garage if I had one.

 

I remember seeing some for sale at our local Ford dealer as 04s. Hence the error. Thanks for the correction though

 

Are you maybe thinking of the plain Cobra which yes were made up to 2004? The Cobra R was a track use only model in 2000 in which 300 were made. A supercharged 5.4L (think SVT Lightning) making 385 horses and 385 lb/ft of torque, a hell of a car back in the day. The regular Cobras made only 320 bhp while the GT's made 260.

 

I'm pretty sure it was an SVT. It had the big *** wing and had the sticker claiming it had 390 ponies written on the windshield.

http://www.moddedmustangs.com/2003-2...erminator.html yeah here it is. supercharged 4.6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVT_Cobra

I remember also reading about it in Mustang and Fast Fords, and they raced one against an SLP SS Camaro, where it only beat the Maro by 3 tenths. And one of the testers admitted they botched a shift on their best lap in the Maro, and then went on to gush about both cars almost pornographically for three pages.

 

The only thing that competes with a C7 is a C6.

 

My heavy right foot.. >)

 

This is a video compairson of styling between the C7 and the GTS Viper. Best played in full screen mode. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to each his own opinion.

 

Such a sad existence. There are so many nice cars made throughout the world, why limit yourself to only one country?

Rivals to the Corvette? Honestly, every sports car. (this from a consumer market, not from a professional racer. In that case, it would have to be anything that beats it at the track, which is not much, but it's also not a real race car in stock form)

 

How fortunate we are to live in a country that builds some of the most beautiful machinery in existence. It's a shame the Ford GT is no longer made. That car was also insanely gorgeous.

Maybe once the GT500 gets beat up on some more maybe Ford will roll something out in the GT's vein again.

Vette, Viper, Stang, and Caddy's CTS V coupe. Just amazing cars no matter how you cut it, or in this case what view on the turn table they are.

 

Uhhh since the current generations of the XK, XF and XJ and now this!

Beautiful car! This was my first choice before I saw the C7, but I have to say I like the C7 much better. I think the Jag might be just slightly (very slightly) too small. Plus I think Jag should have made the V6 Supercharged with the 380 HP as the base engine and moved up from there. Nevertheless it's a beautiful car inside & out!

 

This XF?
And this XJ?



They just don't do it for me like that roadster does. That roadster hits every little "omg" spot I have as far as the aesthetics are concerned.

I think the 2 door Jag and the Vette definitely hit it right out of the park right now. Holy crap.

 

 

It's pretty obvious that YOU have no understanding of what I wrote when you somehow translated interior and seats to OVERALL PROBLEMS.
Where in your link does it say that BMW sold 19k M3s in the same period it took GM to sell 200k+ C6 Corvettes?

 

I would say the 911, GTR, R8 ,F Type; I see these cars in the Corvette's swim lane. To me it is all about image and performance. The Shelby does not have the image and I think the new Corvette will eat the Mustang alive even though it has 200 fewer horses.

 

US market may be largest but not for long. But that doesn't really mean much. Any company that plans a model for only the current single largest market is doomed to lost marketshare in emerging markets (gee, why did GM use their international design centers for the C7 again?).
Focusing on thousandths of a second on a 13-mile track with conditions that vary from lap to lap is retarded. You can have the same driver in the same car record lap times 10s apart! It depends on the conditions and what the driver is willing to risk with regard to conditions. GM and Nissan didn't even have the same , LOL.
The supertest is the most respected test of Nurburgring lap times there is. Part of this is because the NRing lap is only one set of tests. They test the acceleration, braking, and handling performances of all of the cars, to confirm that nothing is "funny" about power or tires. Unlike any of the manufacturers, or any other magazine, they've started publishing measured alignment specs in case any of the manufacturers send cars with pure racing alignments. The cars are also tested on a wet course. I don't say that any of the manufacturers are cheating, but based on only a watching a video, you'd never know.
You think 6s is a huge difference from Porsche's time (which came at the end of a few hours worth of lapping) vs HvS (who did his time in only one flying lap)? Then how do you explain the 12-15s differences between GM's claimed times for the base C6 and the ZR1? Why is it so impossible that a car that can do 0-150 in the 14's (where the ZR1 is normally in the 16's) would be that fast on one of the fastest tracks on the planet? One that's also 600-900m above sea level which favors turbocharged cars...
I noticed you did not address those other lap times. That suggests you agree they are legit.
Define for me "everybody". Thousands is not really anything when you consider there are 1 million cars sold in one year in the US alone.

 

No crack pipe here. I'll concede to your expertise in that regard.

The current Autoweek has a review of the C7 styling. Generally favorable, except regarding the rear end: "I'm not sure the flagship model should take any cues from the Camaro"

I am in total agreement.

 

When you begin "optioning out" competitors in the performance category, nothing beats the Corvette.

 

Wrong. Have you ever even driven a 60's car? Usually radically different in NVH to today's cars. What you haven't figured in are 2 major things:
1) Government regulations with regard to emissions and safety, and
2) Today's drivers who want more of everything in their cars
These things together have contributed to the weight of today's cars, and what people expect in terms of refinement.

Again with the crap about your obsession with lap times. You haven't brought forth a modded Mustang with the overall feel, quality, and fit & finish and safety of the M3, probably because you cannot find even one example. Marble?? How many people really want to drive around with marble in their cars? The fact that you have bring up chintzy-looking interior trinkets and aftermarket mods proves my point: BMW did more to make the M3 a complete package than Ford did with the Mustang. So why wouldn't they charge more, especially when you factor in the huge differences in labor between the US and German autoworkers?
As for the Goat, just look at the thing. Boring as f*ck to most people who want a muscle car, and still too unrefined and uncommunicative for those who wanted a legit German alternative. It was also close to $5k more than the Mustang GT, as I recall.
A Mustang is more aggressive, but that doesn't mean it looks better to everybody. Some people want a more classy design, not something that is so blatantly attractive to hormone-riddled teenage boys.




It's called subtle menace, and it's something that has shown to be successful for BMW. The latest Mustang is much more sleek than the '05, having adapted some cues from the Giugiaro concept (yes, that would be European), and the 2015 is looking even more sleek and less overtly aggressive. I know you are probably incapable of understanding this, but aesthetics is hugely subjective. So is the value of premium customer service. So is the value of included maintenance. Your comment about BMWs not lasting 100k miles without major work is largely unfounded. There are plenty of M3s dating back to the E30 that have done high miles without major work, and yes, many are tracked. For competitive club racing, sure, upgrades are needed. But for hard street driving, generally not.

I don't know where you're getting off on "chromed over plastic." The M3 can be had with real aluminum (not something you get on the C6). You can have a variety of leathers, piano black, or wood too if you wish. You probably think a Fox-platform Mustang looks better than the M3, right?
The CTS-V isn't promoted like a sports car? Is that why GM brags about its Nurburgring-honed suspension and lap time? It has its own bold design, but it's not American design. That "art and science" sharp edge design came from a Brit. Face it, buddy. The CTS-V is more expensive than a Corvette, and it's slower. And it's nowhere as low-slung and sleek. Yet you give it a free pass. Hypocrite much?

Jackie Stewart worked with Crapyear because that's what GM used. He didn't have a say in that. He was merely trying to make the best of the hand that was dealt to him. 45 years old is hardly THAT old. That's about 10 years younger than the typical Corvette buyer.