More like significant digits. Tenths of seconds are significant data points in lap times, and to round up to the nearest second is not appropriate for data interpretation/dissection in this case. Just look how lap times are taken these days, down to the thousandths of a second in most cases. Take the Nürburgring for instance, a 13 mile circuit where lap times are posted in MM:SS:XX, which means they’re recorded in thousandths of a second and rounded up. For more common 1.5-3 mile circuits, the appropriate method for general discussion would be to round to the tenth of a second, but in more specific cases (high speed lap times) a hundredth of a second would be significant, just as most lap times are reported. It’s apparent you want to make the C7 look as good as possible, but to have a creditable argument you have to use the appropriate math skills even if they don't support your opinion.

 

Believe me, I agree with the tenths being important, but YOU do not have the tenths for the time the Z06 ran. For all we know, the C6Z may have ran a 2:50.8 as well. That's my point that you seem to be misunderstanding.

 

I fully understand the point you're trying to make . Regardless, if NO ONE has the tenths for the Z06, why are you rounding the numbers in a way that favors the C7 (Oh never mind, I know that)? After all following your math “logic” applied to both vehicles, the C7 ran a 2:52.

 

I was showing you the OTHER extreme of your view. It's simple. You stated it was 2.8 because there was no tenths. I stated it was 2 because there is only a tenths place for the C7. ANY time there's a tenths place for one and not the other, AND the tenths place is greater than 0, the advantage immediately goes to the other number.

So that being said, either keep your lowest denominations common, or don't compare the numbers in a fashion that requires both numbers to have the lowest common denominator.

Simple.

 

Yes it is simple; use the same standards and practices when comparing data vice presenting it to favor your position/opinion. If you round one set of numbers to a particular precision, you apply that rule to all sets. Normally, it would be to the least number of significant digits available in the data sets, i.e, if you round one lap time to whole seconds, you do the same for all lap times (or delta lap times) for a fair comparison. And I never said 2.8 seconds or anything of the kind for either vehicle, that was in your comments. I was only pointing out that one should use common data formatting (number of significant digits) appropriate for the comparison of different data sets.

And common denominators have to do with division and fractions, not the amount of significant digits that apply .

Enough of this..

 

For the GTR comparison.

Put any novice driver in both cars and the GT-R will kill just about anything out on a road course.

You all talk about pro drivers, well there are probably 4-5 pro drivers on this entire site.

The GTR is stupid easy to drive on a road course. I've driven on, point and shoot and you can be a REALLY bad driver as my student was and still pull off amazing times.

Here is the truth, not many on here would drive there cars at 9/10's to even come close to those numbers. Talking numbers is nice, throwing 60-70K around a track with no insurance is another matter.

I prefer to look at how fun a car is to drive. Most would say on a road course that a C6 Z06 is very fast but the early ones were a lot of work to drive. My RX7 was awesome but would scare the crap out of you to get a fast lap.

The GTR was too easy. Look at what they are saying about the new Viper, very fast but bring extra underwear.

I hope they build something enjoyable to drive where I can go have fun and not worry about wadding up a brand new car in search of a mythical .4 seconds I'll never hit.

 

You responded to a post I made, quoting the following post. That's where the 2.8 came from.

 

WOW !
Should have known better to light a fuse like this and then not check on it for a couple of days !

Can't post all my favorite responses, but this one is typical of them....THANKS ! The purpose of my question was not to throw dirt, it was to learn.

Sounds as if all any C6 pilot needs to do is get sticky tires and a bit (not even a lot) more power and you are easily in the game....for a fraction of the price a C7 would cost.

If you reply as if I am dumb, I'm cool with that- so long as you are educating, feel free

 

I thought it was just me but CRASH argues the stupid side of a discussion with everyone. Hey CRASH, being contrarian when you are wrong is not cool. Let see, the engines, auto trans, and ecm's have very much in common with the trucks.

 

Or you could just buy a C5 Z06, do the same, and compete with C6 Z06's. See how that argument works?

 

Guess they never tested them at night...with the air dams up.

 

Very true!! Remember in modded form look at the One Lap of America results GTR's have beaten everything for 3 years in a row with some of the fastest lap times ever recorded. No modded ZR1, modded Viper, modded Porsche touched the top modded GTR's and if that's not a testament to a 3800lb car I don't know what is.

Add to that more 8 second cars every month which is as rare as a pink whale in the modded ZR1 world.

Yeah, I nuthug a little I know an fwiw stock for stock ZR-1 all the way, but modded I'll take a GTR

 

OP, I'll try to answer your question. The C6 Z06 is severely limited at launch because of the torque and less than spectacular tires (until the Michelin PSCs came out). So GM conservatively lists 0 to 60 MPH time as 3.7 s. It's capable of better but very difficult. R&T got a 3.4 s 0 to 60 MPH time (link below).

I developed a model with decent accuracy but it only works when comparing two similar cars or comparing before and after performance of one car with mods. What I really like about it is that torque is accounted for (unlike pure weight to power). Torque is key; an E46 M3 is a perfect example, people can easily coax out 340 to 350 hp but the torque is abysmal, so it's not going to lay down times like a 3400 lb car with an LS1.

I take hp, torque, weight, and do the following:

C6 Z06 hp: 505
C6 Z06 torque (ft-lbs): 470
C6 Z06 weight (lbs): 3200 (as a rough average)

A = weight to blended hp and torque ratio (no units) = (3200)/((505 + 470)/2) = 6.56

Assuming the C7 Z51 will weigh about 3400 lbs, the same calculation gives us: B = (3400)/((460 + 465)/2) = 7.35

Here's where it gets cool. We calculate a multiplication factor C needed to get from A to B: C = B/A = 7.35/6.56 = 1.12

The meat of the model is that multiplying an actual acceleration time by C is what you achieve for the other car. So:

C7 Z51 0 to 60 MPH time = (C)(3.4 s) = 3.8 s

Not convinced? Let's throw one more at it, we can estimate the C6 GS time using the Z06 info; C6 GS: 436 hp, 428 ft-lbs, 3300 lbs:

(3300)/((436+428)/2) = 7.64
7.64/6.56 = 1.16
1.16*3.4 s = 3.94 s (GM lists 3.95 s for the GS)

It gets even better. Let's say the Z06 0 to 60 time (3.4 s) is completely worthless, way too infeasible. We can estimate C7 performance with the same model using the GS data, per above:

GS ratio = 7.64
C7 Z51 ratio = 7.35
7.35/7.64 = 0.96
0.96*3.95 s = 3.8 s [same result, different baseline car]

The funny part is that since hp and torque units are completely different, blending them is actually phunky physics!

http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...Turbo_data.pdf

 

I believe we should not compare the C7 Z51 vs a C6Z. Top of the line (excluding ZR1) vs a base car with a "package". If its within seconds on a track or within a half second on a drag strip... The C7 is a winner all around. Then, all waiting on on a C7 Z or equivalent surely will be happy

 

Stop smoking crack, buddy. I never said they weren't similar. In fact I said they were the same architecture over and over. You said they put LSx motors in trucks and I corrected you. Then instead of admitting you were wrong you continued to tell me how I know nothing about cars because somehow that's affected by you building a couple of motors in the past. (whoopy)

BTW, my favorite comment from you was when you said they put 243's in the trucks. *drep*