When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
FWIW, the C7 Z06 did a hair under 7:14.
You're talking about nearly a 25 second jump over that car.
That would be a stellar time, but I wouldn't count on it....UNLESS the Corvette team did some really heavy duty aero work that isn't readily apparent at the moment.
The heatsoak is a substantial issue. It does go beyond that. On 91 octane I couldn't run the car at autocross without hitting the power limiting mode. The performance drop is so drastic the car would not be competitive even with a Z51 at that point. On the road course with 93-95 octane it stays out of the power limiting mode but at what cost? You save a few bucks on intercooling and buy a cheaper car with a lighter engine but you pay HEAVY at the pump. Mixing 100 octane and 91 octane doubles the fuel costs at the pump, which are already stratospheric give the way the C7 makes power: displacement plus TVS supercharger. How many fills later are the cost and density benefits outweighed? This is an important question.
As for race hours we should also discriminate between how the engines go. If you have an engine failure you might be fixing a whole lot more than just the engine depending how far the rods fly out of the block, whether bits get into the drysump, cats are ruined, etc. On the other hand if you have valve guide wear and you simply rebuild the head it's going to be substantially cheaper and safer.
If you have warranty on both, you might only care about the safety aspect.
More good points and within the context of this ‘clash” I tried to look at the implications of your considerations and put down some numbers to further explore the costs of tracking.
And yes I know, comparing fuel costs/consumption for tracking is “getting crazy”…
According to EPA fuel consumption this is how the “lesser” brothers stack up:
2017 C7 Z06
Premium Gasoline Premium Gasoline
Combined MPG:16 MPG
City MPG:13
Highway MPG:23
6.2 gal/100mi
2017 911 Turbo S
Combined MPG:21 MPG
City MPG:19
Highway MPG:24
4.8 gal/100mi
Cost to Drive 25 Miles $4.64 VS $3.54
This is EPA…(Sunday driving..) but we can speculate the C7 ZR1 would loose this track gas price compare with the GT2 and yes weight and method of making power makes a difference.
Within the context of cost impact to the overall costs of tracking I am not sure the $1.10 savings (can accept $3 for tracking with consumption and octane delta in favor of GT2) would offset the amortization of the enormous 200K delta between platforms.
In fact I am pretty confident it will not…the same way buying a 918 (with its 60 miles all electric per charge) starts saving you gas money after 33 years!
As per your octane and power limiting first hand experiences..they read as you have found a practical solution to the C7Z06 overheating debacle..(add more octane!) but more importantly I kindly ask you a simple question:
I read about “limp mode” “power limiting” and “heatsoak”
Limp mode is a OEM deliberate reduction of power to safeguard the system or to safeguard a warranty. Same as “power limiting”.
Heatsoak is the thermo mechanical loss of power and is not deliberate.
Notwithstanding the fact I truly believe the ZR1 has this covered (now that the “track” warranty is out of the window..)but a few will still try HARD with the “GOTCHAS!”..
Q: Is it possible to override the C7Z06 “power limiting”? or in other words (and hypothetically) could you (via tune) DISABLE the safeguard/warranty nannies and drive the car until you reach the “natural” heatsoak of the unit and determine actual power/performance loss?
"Mute?"
I suggest you go back and look at that list again, but this time do so CLOSELY.
Then we'll talk about the validity of the source.
So I don’t know about Levender but I did follow your suggestion and look at the list CLOSELY and this is what I found out:
On the 7:13.90 time: Sport Auto (8/2017), Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 ZP, manual.[44][45]
Wikipedia: sport auto is a German automobile magazine, established in 1969, published monthly by Motor Presse Stuttgart, based in Stuttgart.
Since I happen to know how automotive magazines source their funding through advertising AND Sports Auto office locations right in Mercedes and Porsche headquarters I invite you to validate the obvious conflicts of interest with such an arrangement.
I was not born yesterday.. ;-)
Last edited by Telepierre; 12-27-2017 at 06:03 AM.
"Mute?"
I suggest you go back and look at that list again, but this time do so CLOSELY.
Then we'll talk about the validity of the source.
You mean look at where it says Sport Auto and not General Motors conducted test? Yeah...I know that. Thats why I said it was not a..wait for it ...factory effort.
Yeah...please do take a closer look at my post and that list.
Since I happen to know how automotive magazines source their funding through advertising AND Sports Auto office locations right in Mercedes and Porsche headquarters I invite you to validate the obvious conflicts of interest with such an arrangement.
The same can be said regarding a manufacturer conducted test.
Unlike professional race series, there are no inspections of cars for Ring times.
The claim a car is "stock" is simply accepted and not put to a test.
I'm not suggesting those times are completely accurate.
No doubt there are ringers on there.
You probably noticed most of the times on the list were "validated" or "observed" by different magazines.
It doesn't mean the times "observed" reflect what cars off the showroom floor will actually achieve with any ol' driver behind the wheel.
All in all, the list, like any list from any track that logs track times of street cars, is unlikely to be 100% truth.
But it's all we have...it is what it is.
The same can be said regarding a manufacturer conducted test.
Unlike professional race series, there are no inspections of cars for Ring times.
The claim a car is "stock" is simply accepted and not put to a test.
I'm not suggesting those times are completely accurate.
No doubt there are ringers on there.
You probably noticed most of the times on the list were "validated" or "observed" by different magazines.
It doesn't mean the times "observed" reflect what cars off the showroom floor will actually achieve with any ol' driver behind the wheel.
All in all, the list, like any list from any track that logs track times of street cars, is unlikely to be 100% truth.
But it's all we have...it is what it is.
I'm not trying to get in the middle of this...but I think their main point was: A magazine (esp. at the Ring) is not likely to extract the maximum performance out of the car. There is likely a decent bit of time left in the Z06 at the Ring. Probably sub 7:10...But that part is speculation. So the delta is not likely 25 seconds...maybe more like 20 seconds, but who knows. Factories are usually faster than magazines.
Case and point: ACR-E at MRLS magazine test 1:30.xx vs. ACR-E at MRLS with DODGE 1:28.xx.
I believe the word you are looking for is "moot" not "mute".
P.S. My C7Z is pretty consistent at 11 gallons in 30 minutes on track or roughly 42 minutes until you need to pit for fuel. With the dual fuel injection on the C7 ZR1 I don't think it's going to make it much past a 30 minute session without needing fuel.
with the current z06 vs zr1 ring time comparisons and speculation i wonder if this is why GM didn't allow the z06 time and video to be released, remember a year or two back there was silence after Tadge said they were very happy with their z06 ring hot lap and would be releasing it soon. Say if it was a 7:07, that would make even a 6:57 zr1 time "only 10 seconds faster" than the z06 giving it less of a marketing impact in the eyes of many, while z06 sales weren't hurting back then to have needed a marketing boost.
put another way, Tadge went "mute" (different than "moot" lol)
I'm not trying to get in the middle of this...but I think their main point was: A magazine (esp. at the Ring) is not likely to extract the maximum performance out of the car. There is likely a decent bit of time left in the Z06 at the Ring. Probably sub 7:10...But that part is speculation. So the delta is not likely 25 seconds...maybe more like 20 seconds, but who knows. Factories are usually faster than magazines.
Case and point: ACR-E at MRLS magazine test 1:30.xx vs. ACR-E at MRLS with DODGE 1:28.xx.
The ACRE driver was the same person, Randy Pobst. He claimed conditions were worse for the MT test. Not saying you are wrong about anything lol, it was not quite the best thing to compare the C7Z argument to.
The same can be said regarding a manufacturer conducted test.
Unlike professional race series, there are no inspections of cars for Ring times.
The claim a car is "stock" is simply accepted and not put to a test.
I'm not suggesting those times are completely accurate.
No doubt there are ringers on there.
You probably noticed most of the times on the list were "validated" or "observed" by different magazines.
It doesn't mean the times "observed" reflect what cars off the showroom floor will actually achieve with any ol' driver behind the wheel.
All in all, the list, like any list from any track that logs track times of street cars, is unlikely to be 100% truth.
But it's all we have...it is what it is.
I basically agree with the above in that biased/partial/marketing coverage is still better than no coverage at all. I was only suggesting that the Wikipedia Nurb. list is but one of many sources (and methods) worth parsing to assess marketed performance. So in that sense it is really not “all we have”.
Wikipedia was just one of the seven/eight sources I used to really understand and visualize the Porsche’s 911 GT2 RS definition of “OEM delete” and “stock car” so I could appropriately compare with Chevrolet’s definition of “stock” when time comes...IF it comes..
To Wikepedia’s credit, the footnotes on the record time is what got the ball rolling for discovery..
The list is just a list.
Not a final authority, but it's all we have to work with.
Considering GM has decided not to release an official time, there isn't much more to say about the Z06 and The Ring.
I'm not trying to get in the middle of this...but I think their main point was: A magazine (esp. at the Ring) is not likely to extract the maximum performance out of the car. There is likely a decent bit of time left in the Z06 at the Ring. Probably sub 7:10...But that part is speculation. So the delta is not likely 25 seconds...maybe more like 20 seconds, but who knows. Factories are usually faster than magazines.
Case and point: ACR-E at MRLS magazine test 1:30.xx vs. ACR-E at MRLS with DODGE 1:28.xx.
Good summary of one of the points I was trying to make so.. by all means..thanks and welcome to the conversation. But for the Sport Auto video and print article on the C7 Z06 there is another subtle point that cements my experience (and distrust) of European’s auto magazines covering US cars.. You mentioned the C7 Z06 capable of 7:10..well, I don’t want to beat a dead horse since I documented my thoughts on that video but I think you are rationally right..what a coincidence then that the same article brings up the new AMG GT-R (two years after the C7 Z06) with a “better time” of 7:10..because apparently the C7 Z06 has a CD of 55! (pulled out of their rear) versus the uber aerodynamic GT-R at 35…and can’t go faster than 275 KM/H.!?...
I believe the word you are looking for is "moot" not "mute".
P.S. My C7Z is pretty consistent at 11 gallons in 30 minutes on track or roughly 42 minutes until you need to pit for fuel. With the dual fuel injection on the C7 ZR1 I don't think it's going to make it much past a 30 minute session without needing fuel.
No way the GT2 RS does much better, my RWD 911 turbo was a gas hog
on the track and daily driving.
The ACRE driver was the same person, Randy Pobst. He claimed conditions were worse for the MT test. Not saying you are wrong about anything lol, it was not quite the best thing to compare the C7Z argument to.
Point taken...and I agree conditions were not ideal from the article I read. But Dodge likely also brought engineers and a truck full of parts/tires that magazines don't have access to.
I'd be curious to know how many laps Pobst did for the magazine test vs. the Dodge factory test.
Good summary of one of the points I was trying to make so.. by all means..thanks and welcome to the conversation. But for the Sport Auto video and print article on the C7 Z06 there is another subtle point that cements my experience (and distrust) of European’s auto magazines covering US cars.. You mentioned the C7 Z06 capable of 7:10..well, I don’t want to beat a dead horse since I documented my thoughts on that video but I think you are rationally right..what a coincidence then that the same article brings up the new AMG GT-R (two years after the C7 Z06) with a “better time” of 7:10..because apparently the C7 Z06 has a CD of 55! (pulled out of their rear) versus the uber aerodynamic GT-R at 35…and can’t go faster than 275 KM/H.!?...
Pretty much the whole 3 second difference happened solely on the last long straight, prior to that last straight the Z06 and GT R were just a few tenths of a second apart.
12-27-2017, 01:59 AM
