That may be true in sales metrics. But lets be honest here... The real base is just an LS3 coupe.

The GS is what became of the Z51. The C7 doesn't have a GS, so it has the Z51 again.

I have no problem comparing the C6 GS with the C7 Z51, but petermj just is trolling and doesn't actually believe the C6 will be faster than the C7.

 

I do not believe C6 will be faster than C7? Do you need more meds?

 

 

200mph? No.

195-ish? Yes.

Will any of us every verify it? No.

Is it just a talking/bragging point? Yes.

 

make reading comprehension your friend.

 

LOL.............math is math yes....but common sense abounds......C7 wont keep up with the base C6...uh?....its already stated to be quicker than the GS....and that comes from the horses mouth.....

 

How do you know it weighs more then the last C6? Do you know something we don't? They didn't release the cars weight yet, nobody knows if it's heavier or lighter.

 

How is it exactly quicker? It cannot be quicker in 0-60 and top speed at the same time. 14 hp can only go so far, no matter how short the gearing becomes or has GM defied the laws of physics and managed to bypass air drag somehow? Maybe this will be the way GS was quicker, by the way of wider and stickier tires good for about 3k miles? Good thing that the C6 did not run on bicycle tires, then C7 would be way faster.

 

The same way others think it weighs less. Too much hardware on the car to be lighter, not to mention the heavier STEEL torque tube GM was forced to use. That 99 lbs alleged frame weight savings can only go so far.

 

A C7 will not go 200 MPH stock. Takes a heck of a lot more power then the car has now.

200 MPH. You need close to 600 HP IMO. You need a ZR1. IMO

 

Well if you lose the outside mirrors, Stingray decals, go with narrow tires, and anything else you can think of to reduce Cd then 200 MPH might be possible.

If it will run 100 MPH with the engine producing 55 HP then you probably will make it. Doubling the speed requires about 8 times the horsepower, actually a bit more to make up for additional friction loss in the moving parts. Diminishing returns in terms of increased horsepower set in rapidly when the goal is maximum speed.

 

Then it's realistic to assume it may be heavier. Not sure how much. It may be insignificant. Still don't know the power numbers either. I personally think/hope the numbers are gonna be close to 480hp, give or take a few. When ever they "estimate" power numbers, they tend to be a bit on the conservative side like with the ZR1 and ZL1 camaro. I'm hoping it follows that trend.

 

C7 uses narrow tires, they were moved out to increase the track for better stability. When the tires are within the body, they create less lift, it may be difficult to go with wider tires on C7 without having them stick out.

 

Not true at all. The Ferrari F40 did 202 mph with 471 hp. The E60 BMW M5 did 205 mph with 500 hp and that was a big *** sedan. It's all about aero and gearing. The ZR1 has far more drag than the base C6 (something like 0.34 vs 0.28), which is why it needed 600+ horsepower to break 200.

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/2014...#axzz2LpHH3INY

Same drag as the C6, and for the hundredth time weight doesn't matter here.

First through sixth are the same as the C6, seventh is just tacked on up top.

 

Oh poo So now we got 2 over drive gears? I guess they're trying to achieve a certain mileage on the highway.

 

You profess to be an expert on aerodynamics which is laughable.

Have you ever tried to run with an umbrella?? Just imagine what kind of a wind block the front grill area is on a C6... Now imagine removing that wind block by ducting the excess air right out through the hood. A person of your self proclaimed expertootalidge should know that there are substantial improvements to be had in aero efficiency by improving air flow in one of the most critical parts of the car. Especially given the fact that the front facia and grill area on the C6 are the least aero efficient parts of the C6 design.

If you were such an aero dynamics expert you would realize that the faster you go, the more impact that ducting will have., Forget horsepower, that ducting alone has the ability to have a substantial impact on top speed and acceleration as the speed increases. This isn't rocket science. Less drag = greater efficiency and the grill area on the C6 creates much more drag that you apparently realize. The C7 mitigates that with the use of the ducting. You can doubt or deny it's impact all you want but it's there for good reason and not just gimmicks.

I won't even bother to get into other aspects of the C7's design which will insure it performs better in every area compared to the base C6. If you think otherwise, you are either naive or kidding yourself.

So to those who are really wondering, the base C7 will be faster than the base C6 both in 0-60 and top speed. There are no if's and or but's about it. Dispute that all you want but plain and simply, you ARE wrong.

 

Weight does matter actually, not in top speed but in acceleration, basic laws of physics say so. The past generation M5 motor was apparently underrated a bit? Interestingly enough, the current one beats the previous one in 0-60 but has a lower top speed

The Cd I have seen for C7 was 0.30 until this announcement? This would be a good thing considering the frontal area is larger than on C6 and the actual drag force will be greater even if Cd is the same. So no, the drag is not the same, you may want to understand how this works before trying to correct others.

If the top speed of this C7 is higher than C6, we really need some tests to verify it, the numbers do not add up, no matter how much you want to bend them.

 

Never claimed to be an expert, simply pointing out BS. Once again, learn to understand the difference between the drag COEFFICIENT and the actual drag FORCE. Apparently this is rocket science for you.

 

Okie dokie..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

Pretty simple stuff if you took some physics and fluid dynamics. Never too late to learn, beats serving as a poster child for ignorance