200 mph run
Thread Starter
Racer
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 374
Likes: 92
Drifting
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,404
Likes: 7
From: Malverne New York
I feel like the car would of passed 200 mph if they kept in it. As soon as it hit 200, they stopped. And the C6 Z06 is just…. special lol. What that car does with 505 horsepower, it takes all other cars at least an additional 100 horsepower.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 998
Likes: 122
http://corvettec7fiasco.blogspot.com...d-is-only.html
post date was feb 5
Corvette C7 Stingray top speed is only 185 MPH!!!
No wonder +Tadge Juechter refuses to disclose it, it is 5 mph lower than LS3 base C6 Corvette and only 3mph faster than the previous generation Grand Sport. Oh and so much for competing with C6 Z06 and its 197 mph top speed.
185 mph top speed makes a lot of sense actually, considering Hennessey needed another 250 hp to cross the 200 mph mark. The inferior aerodynamics, larger frontal area and not enough power are responsible for this humiliation.
Considering the estimated 625 hp rating on the upcoming Z06, it should match the previous Z06 top speed but it will never come close to the last ZR1. Overall, this is pretty embarrassing situation for +General Motors. Oh and yeah Tadge, hush hush, let us not spread the bad news around....
Last edited by senah; Feb 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM.
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
The C6 LS2(400 HP) with a Cd of .287 had a top speed of 186 and the C6 LS3(436 HP) also had a Cd of .287 and had a top speed of 190 MPH.
He had a l-o-n-g run to get up to speed and he came over a rise and was going downhill when he recorded his 200.6 top speed. He was in 5th gear and if he had run it to the 6600 rev limiter setting he would have hit 216 MPH.
he didn't run out of room(he was on a open highway, not a airfield runway) so why would he cut it off before hitting a higher speed? Doesn't 205 or 210 or 215 MPH have more bragging rights than 200.6 MPH if you're trying to get advertising for your company?
Last edited by JoesC5; Feb 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM.
Drifting
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,404
Likes: 7
From: Malverne New York
Consider that the C6 Z06 has a Cd of .34 and the C6 ZR1 has a Cd of .35. Compare that to the C7's Cd of .29 and it makes 200 MPH look really weak.
The C6 LS2(400 HP) with a Cd of .287 had a top speed of 186 and the C6 LS3(436 HP) also had a Cd of .287 and had a top speed of 190 MPH.
He had a l-o-n-g run to get up to speed and he came over a rise and was going downhill when he recorded his 200.6 top speed. He was in 5th gear and if he had run it to the 6600 rev limiter setting he would have hit 216 MPH.
he didn't run out of room(he was on a open highway, not a airfield runway) so why would he cut it off before hitting a higher speed? Doesn't 205 or 210 or 215 MPH have more bragging rights than 200.6 MPH if you're trying to get advertising for your company?
The C6 LS2(400 HP) with a Cd of .287 had a top speed of 186 and the C6 LS3(436 HP) also had a Cd of .287 and had a top speed of 190 MPH.
He had a l-o-n-g run to get up to speed and he came over a rise and was going downhill when he recorded his 200.6 top speed. He was in 5th gear and if he had run it to the 6600 rev limiter setting he would have hit 216 MPH.
he didn't run out of room(he was on a open highway, not a airfield runway) so why would he cut it off before hitting a higher speed? Doesn't 205 or 210 or 215 MPH have more bragging rights than 200.6 MPH if you're trying to get advertising for your company?
Did you see the video of Hennessey's stock standing mile run? The car falls on it's face in the top end.
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
Reminds me of the C7's announcement last year when Tadge was telling us about all the items on the C7 that weighed less than the same items on the C6. BUT, he wouldn't tell us what the final weight of the car was.
Turns out the C7 actually weighed 90 pounds more than the outgoing C6, after he got through telling us about all the lightweight components. Maybe we aren't hearing all about the C7. Only the points they want us to hear.
Last edited by JoesC5; Feb 25, 2014 at 01:34 PM.
Safety Car
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 1
From: Danbury CT
Senah the new Z may not match the old Z top speed, it will all be based on how aggressive the aero package is. The ACR Viper as a for instance would only run around 180mph but beats everything at the Ring, the GTS would run 200 all day long but was much slower at the ring. Part of the reason the ZR1 was slower at the ring is it didn't have the aero even though its top speed was 25mph greater.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 123
From: Raleigh North Carolina
And I wouldn't say the car falls on its face on the top end; it is just the last decade we've all become spoiled with cars crossing 165+ like its a walk in the park when in reality getting cars to sustain those kinds of velocities is pretty impressive.
Pro
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 606
Likes: 7
From: Nashville, TN
I think there could be external factors involved like wind, temperature, tire pressure, fuel type, etc. I would tend to believe all other things being equal, the car with the highest power and lowest coefficient of drag should have the higher top speed. Or it could just not be geared optimally for top speed.
I only ever went 140 in my C6 so doesn't really bother me either way.
I only ever went 140 in my C6 so doesn't really bother me either way.
Drifting
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,404
Likes: 7
From: Malverne New York
I would like to see Motor Trend or Car and Driver test this like they do with other cars, like the 2013 GT500 and C6 Z06. I know many of you are gonna wanna crucify me for this, but I really think the LT1 should of had a bit more power than it does. Not that I'm not impressed, the engines torque is extremely impressive and it's efficiency is absolutely astonishing. I just wish it had that little extra oomph to make a more substantial difference from the LS3. Still plan on getting a 2016 model with hopes that a power bump is in the works.
Melting Slicks<br><img src="/forums/images/ranks/3k-4k.gif" border="0">
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 276
From: Enterprise AL
Specious argument. The C6Z couldn't do 200 mph...so it was an underpowered dump truck?
The double ton is only useful for bragging at cars and coffee meets and the occasional 1/2 mile or Texas Mile style events. Not like you can find one every weekend. And if it is that important, a few more grand will get you supercharged or heads and cam.
As for weight, thank CAFE. The variable cam timing and cylinder deactivation all play a part in increasing the weight as do increasing safety regulations. A straight up V8 would eliminate a lot of weight as would reducing airbag counts. And of course, cars weighed less when there was only one speaker in the dash instead of 10 speakers and amps.
I'll stop with this. I don't doubt that there is some overhead in LT1 future outputs. The package we have was deemed reliable for 5 yrs and 100,000 miles with the development they were able to complete before production lockdowns. I would bet your money that there are LT1's now making more horsepower/torque in GM labratories and two years from now some making even more power/torque. If you care to wait until they do give you 200mph power that's a personal choice. Oh (I lied about stopping) since most dyno numbers are showing ~410 rwp, that equates to roughly 480 hp at the crank with a 15% loss.
The double ton is only useful for bragging at cars and coffee meets and the occasional 1/2 mile or Texas Mile style events. Not like you can find one every weekend. And if it is that important, a few more grand will get you supercharged or heads and cam.
As for weight, thank CAFE. The variable cam timing and cylinder deactivation all play a part in increasing the weight as do increasing safety regulations. A straight up V8 would eliminate a lot of weight as would reducing airbag counts. And of course, cars weighed less when there was only one speaker in the dash instead of 10 speakers and amps.
I'll stop with this. I don't doubt that there is some overhead in LT1 future outputs. The package we have was deemed reliable for 5 yrs and 100,000 miles with the development they were able to complete before production lockdowns. I would bet your money that there are LT1's now making more horsepower/torque in GM labratories and two years from now some making even more power/torque. If you care to wait until they do give you 200mph power that's a personal choice. Oh (I lied about stopping) since most dyno numbers are showing ~410 rwp, that equates to roughly 480 hp at the crank with a 15% loss.
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
Specious argument. The C6Z couldn't do 200 mph...so it was an underpowered dump truck?
The double ton is only useful for bragging at cars and coffee meets and the occasional 1/2 mile or Texas Mile style events. Not like you can find one every weekend. And if it is that important, a few more grand will get you supercharged or heads and cam.
As for weight, thank CAFE. The variable cam timing and cylinder deactivation all play a part in increasing the weight as do increasing safety regulations. A straight up V8 would eliminate a lot of weight as would reducing airbag counts. And of course, cars weighed less when there was only one speaker in the dash instead of 10 speakers and amps.
I'll stop with this. I don't doubt that there is some overhead in LT1 future outputs. The package we have was deemed reliable for 5 yrs and 100,000 miles with the development they were able to complete before production lockdowns. I would bet your money that there are LT1's now making more horsepower/torque in GM labratories and two years from now some making even more power/torque. If you care to wait until they do give you 200mph power that's a personal choice. Oh (I lied about stopping) since most dyno numbers are showing ~410 rwp, that equates to roughly 480 hp at the crank with a 15% loss.
The double ton is only useful for bragging at cars and coffee meets and the occasional 1/2 mile or Texas Mile style events. Not like you can find one every weekend. And if it is that important, a few more grand will get you supercharged or heads and cam.
As for weight, thank CAFE. The variable cam timing and cylinder deactivation all play a part in increasing the weight as do increasing safety regulations. A straight up V8 would eliminate a lot of weight as would reducing airbag counts. And of course, cars weighed less when there was only one speaker in the dash instead of 10 speakers and amps.
I'll stop with this. I don't doubt that there is some overhead in LT1 future outputs. The package we have was deemed reliable for 5 yrs and 100,000 miles with the development they were able to complete before production lockdowns. I would bet your money that there are LT1's now making more horsepower/torque in GM labratories and two years from now some making even more power/torque. If you care to wait until they do give you 200mph power that's a personal choice. Oh (I lied about stopping) since most dyno numbers are showing ~410 rwp, that equates to roughly 480 hp at the crank with a 15% loss.
After all, 10.86956% of 460 horsepower is 50 horsepower and 50 horsepower subtracted from 460bhp = 410 whp.
Melting Slicks<br><img src="/forums/images/ranks/3k-4k.gif" border="0">
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 276
From: Enterprise AL
Actually, I think that SAE rating is for the MINIMUM power rating obtained through testing X number of production engines. If GM got a few more hp after they got that rating and all the advertising material was printed/distributed, I'm not complaining.
Lets see, 505 horse power Z06, -15% = 430. My Z06 dyno'd at 431 SAE RWHP. 15% has been a widely used yardstick estimate for a number of years. Some people insist that its more like 18% but that seems high.
Lets see, 505 horse power Z06, -15% = 430. My Z06 dyno'd at 431 SAE RWHP. 15% has been a widely used yardstick estimate for a number of years. Some people insist that its more like 18% but that seems high.
Drifting
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,404
Likes: 7
From: Malverne New York
Actually, I think that SAE rating is for the MINIMUM power rating obtained through testing X number of production engines. If GM got a few more hp after they got that rating and all the advertising material was printed/distributed, I'm not complaining.
Lets see, 505 horse power Z06, -15% = 430. My Z06 dyno'd at 431 SAE RWHP. 15% has been a widely used yardstick estimate for a number of years. Some people insist that its more like 18% but that seems high.
Lets see, 505 horse power Z06, -15% = 430. My Z06 dyno'd at 431 SAE RWHP. 15% has been a widely used yardstick estimate for a number of years. Some people insist that its more like 18% but that seems high.
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
Actually, I think that SAE rating is for the MINIMUM power rating obtained through testing X number of production engines. If GM got a few more hp after they got that rating and all the advertising material was printed/distributed, I'm not complaining.
Lets see, 505 horse power Z06, -15% = 430. My Z06 dyno'd at 431 SAE RWHP. 15% has been a widely used yardstick estimate for a number of years. Some people insist that its more like 18% but that seems high.
Lets see, 505 horse power Z06, -15% = 430. My Z06 dyno'd at 431 SAE RWHP. 15% has been a widely used yardstick estimate for a number of years. Some people insist that its more like 18% but that seems high.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/e...#ixzz2uMwMkRRk
http://www.teamzr1.com/ubbthreads/ub...at&Number=2481
Last edited by JoesC5; Feb 25, 2014 at 03:49 PM.
Racer
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 398
Likes: 3
Call me special, and I might be wrong on my .02 cents, but the Hennessey C7 is not RWHP of 700 HP but rather to the crank?
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
That's 62 horses at the crank above the ZR1 but 5 MPH under the ZR1's top speed.
And the reported .29 Cd of the C7 is lower than the .34 Cd(Z06) and .35 Cd(ZR1).
Not actually bragging numbers to be proud of.