Check fastlaps I think some of your times are outdated.
Yes, tires matter the Z51 is coming with Super Sports, and the 911S has P Zeros (check them out)! They are only one thing and I am not going to go over all the C7's attributes with you.

 

The laptimes are from Wikipedia and there are lots more there so I only included some for reference... it has proven to be a very reliable source for 'Ring laptimes and is fairly complete along with details on the cars (like tires, driver, etc). I think many consider it to be one of the most reliable sources. Anyway, I digress.

Although the PSS would be better than P Zeros, they are similar tires performance wise and, therefore, the advantage the PSS would give the C7 is not huge. It isn't like we are comparing R compound tires with regular street tires.

I also have a very good understanding of all of the C7 attributes so I don't need a refresher But, even with all of these attributes, neither you nor I know how that will translate into a laptime. It is ALL speculation.

Don't get me wrong on any of these comments. I'm a huge fan of the C7 and cannot wait until I can get mine. I believe it will be a meaningful improvement over the C6 and a VERY capable car. However, 7:39 'Ring times are the domain of Z06s. GM has commented that the C7 Z51 will be better the C6 GS performance but I haven't seen a C6 GS hit a 7:39 on the 'Ring. Hence my prediction that the C7 Z51 will be fast on the 'Ring but not get to 7:39. I could be completely wrong and will be VERY happy if I am!!!

But "attributes" or not, neither of us know yet and all I'm saying is that will be a lofty goal and a huge improvement over the C6 Z51 time which I just can't see happening... again, I really, really hope I'm wrong.

Remember, everyone was VERY surprised by the 991 911S 'Ring time as it was putting the car in GT2/3 range. Let's wait and hope but also be a little realistic. So, when I say I think your prediction that the C7 will break 7:39 is wrong, I could be the one who is wrong If you are wrong, the C7 will still be very fast IMO just not 7:39 fast... if you are right then you and I are both winners and I am supremely happy to have egg on my face!!!

 

I think its biggest rival will be the C6. Steep discounts may keep some people buying 2013's. It has no American made rivals and very few people cross shop Corvette with Porsche.Nissan 370Z's maybe a few BMW M3's but for the most part Corvette buyers want Corvettes.

 

Check Car and Driver which states the C7 mules at VIR are competitive with todays Z06!

Tires Huge (check the surveys):

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ot+Super+Sport

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....reModel=P+Zero

 

I don't even have an M3. You know what they say when you assume.
Laguna Seca = road performance? The hell it does. Yeah, let's keep pretending that the tires are the same LOL.

I didn't say anything about cornering lamps. I said dynamic cornering lights, which are far brighter since they are the main beams. And I doubt your E55 nor your Thunderbird had these swiveling beams.

Who are you to define what a "real enthusiast" is? You seem to be an enthusiast about numbers. Not actually driving a car. Nice going on the reverse snobbery.

First of all, I'm not talking about well-optioned. A lot of those features I listed come standard on the M3. Secondly, the M3 offers the buyer, if he so chooses, an even wider array of options, and that's even before dipping into the Individual catalog, which quite a few people do. A really well-optioned M3 is quite a bit more than even a fully loaded GT500, I'd wager.
Thirdly, I never claimed the 3-Series is exclusive. In fact, it's the opposite: It sells even better than the Mustang, despite being slower and costing much more. This suggests exactly as I've claimed: most people buying an M3 don't give a sh*t about how fast a Mustang is. Sure, for M3 money, you could buy a Mustang. But your typical M3 buyer might be thinking: For M3 money, I could get a 335i with M package (mostly cosmetic) and a folding hardtop. For M3 money, I could get a certified pre-owned M5. Or a 550i.

You're proving my point: Even those people who care about magazine lap times (that's you) don't even give enough of a rat's *** to drive like that with their own cars (or they don't have the $$ to shut down a track to get the lap times).
And BMW has sold far more than that in M3's (nevermind the 335i verts and 550is in the same price class).
Sales volumes can make or break a car. Look what happened to the old Viper. Why did it die off temporarily, with Chrylser floating the company to the highest bidder (no takers)? Poor sales, despite its world-beating 7:22 on the Nordschleife. Why did Audi not produce the new Quattro concept? Not enough volume to justify the expense. Why do any of the car companies make any cars, if not to make money? Why do you suppose any of these companies make so many variants? Boss, Bullitt, GT500, ZL1, M3 Lime Rock, ACR, Grand Sport, RS, Black Series, GTO, Scuderia, Superleggera, etc? It's to milk money out of these platforms and maximize their investments. It sure as f*ck isn't because any significant portion of these buyers drive them like mag journalists or factory drivers.

No, I'm not on the east coast. Even if I were, I wouldn't give a crap about the track. I'm not the one saying an M3 is faster than a GT500 or ZL1 or GT-R, am I? And oh yeah, how are GT-R sales going.

 

I'm just getting a better sense of people's fixation with lap times (which seems totally unrooted in their driving habits). Did that totally escape you in this thread? If you have a problem with people carrying on a conversation about the M3 and making comments about the C6 that are up for dispute (in, you know, a forum), then by all means stop with your hollow threats and put me on ignore. Otherwise, go ahead and start slagging off other people who are likewise going "off topic."

Yes it did. That M3 was shod with the Continentals, which are a better all-around tire with wet performance in mind. The PZeros on the Mustang are a better dry-weather tire. This might be relevant if buyers really spend any significant amount of time on closed racetracks. In that very same test, they describe why they picked the M3.
You mean the GTO that was discontinued due to poor sales?

 

Not at all. I was merely addressing the issue of the seats and interior quality. Which GM apparently agrees with me enough to commit a lot of effort to improving (along with other subjective traits like feedback and involvement which breed confidence, and have named/bought specific examples for benchmarking). Meanwhile, there are people like you who have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, but would rather snipe from the sidelines.

 

I don't really pay attention to your posts because you're a troll, but I thought I glanced through one and saw that either you or one of the many other people with whom you argue stated that you had an M3.
So what do you drive?
Are you seriously going to keep using the "tire-excuse"? I see you using it in your post after this one, and it's pretty laughable. The Mustang GT was as fast on a track as the M3 because it had P-Zeros while the M3 had Continentals.
The option is often referred to as "cornering lamps", but you are still wrong. Yes...my E55 had "active cornering bixenon headlights (including the auto levelling system)". They were neat. And useful about nowhere. At speed, even on back roads, the amount that they moved was impercptible. But they looked cool pulling into or backing out of the garage. My wife's QX56 has them too. It's called the "Adaptive Front Lighting System". It's such a cool cutting edge technology.
But you're correct about one thing. My old Super Coupe many years ago just had cornering lamps.
I'm not trying to define "enthusiast", but I guess I'm not the kind of enthusiast who defines a performance vehicle by gimmicky options and places how it...lol...performs on the street.
Define "quite a bit".
I priced up a '13 BMW M3, interlagos blue with bamboo beige leather, Competition Package, Premium Package, Cold Weather Package and Enhanced Premium Sound. I left out stupid stuff on the "Accessories" menu such as a Carbon Fiber Rear Deck Spoiler ($590), iPad holder ($179) and embroidered floor mats ($141). MSRP: $72,345.
Since Ford is now in the '14 MY for Mustang, I priced up a '14 GT500 with the Track Pack, Electronics Pack, Glass Roof, Shaker Pro Audio and Recaros. I left out options on the Accessories section. MSRP: $69,555.
IMO, $2790 isn't much at a ~$70 price point.
Granted, the M3 has a few items such as Park Distance Control, rain-sensing wipers, headlight washers, etc. that the GT500 doesn't...but again, those are of no consequence to somebody like me.
I would submit that most people buying an M3 are doing it because they think it's a status symbol. It's not. It's a 3-series BMW. With the same leather seats that a 328i has, and some performance upgrades. Just like a GT500.
lol...I like how you twisted that. I care about performance, and magazine lap times are an indicator of a vehicle's capabilities. If it's fast on the track or at the dragstrip, it's going to be fast on the street. To claim otherwise is just ignorant.
The Viper was in serious need of an update, and even after that, I'm not sure many people are going to buy it. It's a brutish car, and it seems that more people prefer the more refined Corvette (ZR1) or a Z06 at a much lower price point.
Ford sells every GT500 that they build. Before the MY, they usually hint at how many will be built. In MY'13, the GT500's sold like hotcakes, with most of them selling at (or over) MSRP. Now that it's heading into the '14 MY, there are some GT500's sitting on the lots of dealers who tried getting ADM's for them...they'll sell too.
As with the GT500, Nissan determines how many cars they will sell ahead of time. There's obviously a much smaller market for a $100k car like the GT-R than there is a $60k car like the M3.
S.

 

You have an excuse for everything, don't you?

Like I said, I love BMW's. But this current version of the M3 is lacking in some ways, and it's not the tires. The engine is weak, despite being so high tech. The 3 series is bloated and more or less designed for women, since the majority of 3 series are sold to women. It's just not the razor sharp car it used to be.

Yes, the discontinued GTO from 1974.

 

Again, the M3 is no rival to a Vette. It doesn't even seem to be good meat for the ZL1. One really good reason is they have some really crappy Continental tires on it standard. They should be shot, and definitely not compared with Corvettes that have some of the best tires in the world available on them.

 

Belong with the freaking Cadilac's!

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....3&autoModel=M3 Coupe&autoModClar=Competition Package&tab=Survey

 

You don't pay attention to my posts because I'm a troll...yet here you are trying to answer post for post, point for point. Yeah, sure you don't. What I drive is not in the least germaine to this discussion. I could drive a Vespa and wouldn't change the validity of my points.

The tire was a good enough "excuse" when Porsche GT3s and Viper ACRs were beating the Corvettes on tracks. Why is it not good enough now?
There have been tests of the PZero vs those Continentals with a control vehicle that support my assertion. Deal with it.

I doubt you ever drove your car with the system disabled. You probably weren't even going fast enough. If it were so useless, nobody would buy it and the companies would no longer offer them as a result.
Since you're so stuck on lap times, tell me your wife's QX56 lap times. It's not like a QX56 is exactly low-tech or cheap either. A $60k SUV with plenty high enough seating position to see well ahead has a more advanced lighting system than a $60k Mustang designed for extremely fast driving...

Ehrrr...actually you are trying to define "enthusiast" and slagging off those who people who see value in those options. Don't try and pretend that you're not being a snob about that. If people use this on a daily/nightly basis, can appreciate it far more often than the 10/10ths lap time of a closed track that they themselves will never drive on, how is that anymore "gimmicky" than lap times?
Wow, imagine judging how a street car performs...on the street.

Tada! That's my point. They are of no consequence to you. Now option up that M3 like other people might. Plenty of people find the standard rims too small and many opt for the the dual-clutch transmission. Those two right there jack it up by another $4k.

I would argue that even a regular 3-Series is a higher status symbol than a base V6 Mustang. Care to disagree? But now you're getting to the crux of my point: If it's your assertion that most people buying an M3 do so because they see it as a status symbol, then what makes you think they give a flying crap about lap times? Oops! That's right: They don't. Even within BMW circles, most people no longer see the M3 as a product derived from motorsport (which the original M3 was). They merely see it as the top-of-the-line of the benchmark of the class, which the 3-Series is relative to the C-Class, A4, and whatever Cadillac and Jaguar have tried to throw its way.

I didn't twist anything. You were arguing the relevance of absolute 10/10ths performance differences between cars tested in mags as if that's somehow deeply relevant to why people choose the cars they do. You seriously think Ford would sell those GT500s at that price if it looked like a 1980's Hyundai?
Performance isn't purely objective, you know. When you enjoy your GT500 on the street, are you really enjoying a stat sheet number, or are you enjoying the accelerative force, the roar of the engine, the sensation of the scenery hitting warp speed? Would you really notice, or care, if the 60-120 time was .4s off that of another car? If there was no other car around, how would you know?

Why would it need an update, if objective track performance were so important like you claim it is? A ZR1 stickering as much as $120k isn't any lower than an ACR, yet in just about any year where they were sold side by side, the ZR1 demolished the ACR in sales (despite the ACR's faster lap times at that time).

Sold like hotcakes...anywhere near the 39k M3s reported up until 2010? I doubt that.
GT-R wasn't always $100k. There was a time when it was down around $70k. Not so far off a reasonably optioned M3. Nissan estimated they would have sold around 10-12k GT-Rs per year, but it's down to only around 4k per year. It's a fast car, no doubt. But people don't just buy for speed, especially in the $70-100k price range. I personally like the way it looks (not the size; it's huge), but many people are put off by it. They couldn't care any less if it's that fast on the Nurburgring or whatever; the looks makes it a non-starter for them. For the price, some expect at least Infiniti levels of customer service, not what you find in most Nissan dealerships.

 

It's not an excuse. Tire tests using a control vehicle have shown that to be true.
Did an M3 ever really have a strong engine relative to the Mustang? Back in the day, a $40k M3 with the 4-banger made only about 197 hp to the Mustang which was only about $17k and had 225 hp. The M3 engine experience is totally different. It's about revs and responsiveness, something that will go away when BMW goes back to the I6 but with turbos (which most likely won't give the instant response that a naturally aspirated engine with individual throttle bodies gives).
The GTO from '74 that was a rolling deathtrap by comparison and wouldn't pass the emissions standards all other modern cars have to pass. Great example. (And tell me that car's performance stats after the 1/4 mile.)
The 5-Series you're looking at is going to be pretty weak compared to a CTS-V, no? A wagon will probably burn your *** from the light. How embarassing is that going to be? Or do you even care...

 

Depends on what the supplier can provide at the time. BMW have worked with not just Continental, but also Michelin (PS2 and in some markets, the Cup+ as options). The Continental isn't better for dry lapping, but you have to understand that BMW is working with different parameters. It was developed in Germany, tested largely in Europe, where they see quite a bit of varied weather throughout the year. As such, they will provide the tire they feel is best suitable to the driving habits of their customers. We haven't even touched on other aspects of tire performance, like noise, harshness, economy, durability, sensitivity, etc.

 

I cannot believe the mods have let this thread go on so long.

 

Not good for a top seller! BMW is promoting pieces of crap and some people will buy OE no matter what. But, in retrospect the tirerack survey on the P-Zeros wasn't really any better.

The Super Sports are going to kick ***! And the new Goodyears have pretty deep and abundant rain tread along with their tread wear was probably their downfall to the Super Sport in regards to being the OE SPEC. Good!

 

When asked which car was the C7's primary ride and handling benchmark, the answer is unequivocal and comes without hesitation: "911." That might help explain why Goodyear has been kicked to the curb for the C7.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...rvette-c7.html

The 911S is at last handling! We will see what a MIN of 125-lb-ft of torque and 50hp does to the calculus!

 

Porsche, primarily. I would consider the Mustang a rival competitor for the time being, I think Ford has done a great job with the mustang and really pushed the envelope with the current platform. Great stance on the street and sounds just as fast as it goes. They offer a broad spectrum of Mustangs for every shade of performance enthusiast and have even pulled tuners into the mix, like Rousch.

For the time being, C7 will not touch a Viper or a Ferrari 458 in performance. I'm still amazed how much they squeeze out of that tightly wound 4 liter engine in the F car.... This is a completely different market than when the C4 or C5 was around. Seems like EVERY manufacturer has a potent offering that is upping the performance. I could see the, "You can't compare X car to a Vette" ten years ago. These days, that classic line doesn't hold water so much.

I for one would like to see Callaway twin turbo Vettes again through the C7. A guy can dream....

 

No, I don't care. Why would I? I'm not buying a performance vehicle, such as something like my Z06. Besides, I want a 2010, not the bloated and overpriced 11+. If I get bored, I'll install tuning upgrades to make it more exciting..

The 74' was a joke, in response to your totally irrevelent comment about being "discontinued". I was merely referring to the latest GTO, not that it matters as, on reflection, it's not a worthwhile comparison afterall.

And, yes, you are making excuses. The tires on the M3 are perfectly fine. It's just a bloated and weak car and you can't blame the tires. That solid axle rustang runs with it, and look at the handicap it has. It has a phenomenal engine and much lower relative price, and it's greater than the sum of it's parts. Unlike the M3, which is the opposite.

What made the prior M3's great were it's balance and *** kicking ability, despite only having a NA six.

 

And what would make you choose that '10 vs a regular CTS of the same year?
Not a worthwhile comparison because you recognize that GTO failed to live up to sales expectations and was subsequently killed off (despite being faster than the M3 and far cheaper).
I'm not aware that the M3s with the straight-6 kicked ***, especially for the price. Regarding balance, did you read the reviews of the E92 vs the Mustangs on the road? The solid-axle Mustang runs with it, so long as the track is smooth enough. On a truly gnarly track, it might not be the same thing. And, more relevantly to most driving habits, the road performance is not the same either.
Yes, the M3 is bloated since it has many of those goodies that the Mustang doesn't have. The Mustang is priced that way because it HAS to be. Otherwise, it would never hit its production targets (which are far, far lower than the 3-Series' targets despite being a much more expensive and generally slower car). The M3 comes from a premium-marque manufacturer, and they can charge premiums for a reason (ignoring for a moment the fact that German auto labor costs more than American auto labor). A CTS-V coupe starts at $64k...yet is it really faster than a Mustang GT around a racetrack? Is it faster than the GT500, which can cost just as much? Why doesn't Cadillac get slagged for its poor bang/buck ratio compared to a Mustang on this forum?