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.
Put that up on a large poster in every Chevy dealershiip, and it might be valuable to those who are willing to spend a lot more.
Put it up in a Porsche, Mercedes, BMW. Ferrari, Bugatti or Lamborghini dealership, and it might be valuable to those who wish to spend less.
Last edited by Warp Factor; 02-18-2019 at 01:01 PM.
Oh that’s right. We don’t have C7ZR times for Nuburgring.
Chevy never reported the ZR1 times, so there is no official "factory" claim. "Bridge to Gantry" the unofficial ring publication reported times of 7:12. Guess the the car was not ready for prime time when it ran so Chevy did not want to go on record. Think the were looking for a sub 7.0 time.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 02-18-2019 at 02:08 PM.
The comment ya made was good lap times and beating 911s, being in the top 10 at Nurburgring is pretty good. Yes I see a 911 that is faster, for $350k and is a pretty rough daily driver, where is that ZR1 time? Shame on you GM. Beat many a 911 according to that list. Oh, and most Corvette owners couldn't give a damn anyway about a ring time. Lol Maybe watch times at the Rolex 24.
If the Corvette was slower around the track than a Mustang GT then the vette would end up getting a bad reputation.
Amongst whom? If a GT350R really went out there and ran better lap times, would the Corvette really have that bad of a repuatation? I admit, if your $30k base Mustang is beating up on a $60k Grand Sport in something like HP wars, you may have a marketing problem, but no, the overwhelming bulk of Vette buyers will never know or care.
So are you telling me GM and other companies are just throwing their money and time away spending their time testing and tuning their car on race tracks, like the Nurburgring for example? GM even built a mini Nurbugring in their backyard for testing so they don't have to constantly transport their cars overseas to test. Should they just forget about making the cars handle well, focusing on chassis and steering feel and driving dynamics then? If you say "no" then what was the point about trying to tell me all this?
What are the results of that Nurburgring ZR1 trip again? Have they ever been released? Are the lack of them hurting sales?
You do realize the bulk of track time goes to developing things like stability control, durability, powertrain tuning and such, right? Sure, it is great for the marketing guys if they can go blitz out some lap records in the process, but tracks are utilized for everyday testing and tuning.
And from what my coworkers who travel to the race tracks far more frequently than me say, VIR is actually preferred to most of the American manufacturers when they actually want to track tune over the Nurburgring.
You're confusing gear heads with hardcore track guys. There are plenty of gear heads that want a track capable car but also some luxuries with it. Or especially a married guy who's wife wouldn't enjoy a stripped out track car so he compromises with a track capable car that still is very street friendly (kinda like a Corvette...hmmm...)
And those gearheads aren't going to adopt or abandon the Corvette in any significant numbers because of track times.
Ironic, after all that you are shopping for a track capable car where laptimes (or rather capability) matter. And if the Corvette wasn't as good as it is you wouldn't have bought it.
Never claimed it wasn't good, nor did I ever claim my reason for buying one (especially a bargain priced, used hard and put away wet, C4) is what the folks lining up to plop down deposits on shiny new C8s have in mind with their new toy. I claimed the bulk of buyers couldn't care less about these metrics, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, a certain amount of competitive in class decision making went into my purchase, but it was utilized because I was buying my car for one primary, specific reason: autox. I certainly didn't compare C&D archived test data from 1992 Vettes, Miatas, 944s, and Mustangs on the drag strip or Nurburgring when making my decision.
The comment ya made was good lap times and beating 911s, being in the top 10 at Nurburgring is pretty good. Yes I see a 911 that is faster, for $350k and is a pretty rough daily driver, where is that ZR1 time? Shame on you GM. Beat many a 911 according to that list. Oh, and most Corvette owners couldn't give a damn anyway about a ring time. Lol Maybe watch times at the Rolex 24.
PC
Yes exactly, the vast majority of C7 owners could care less about a "Ring Time" including myself. 6:50, 7:05, 7:12, blah, blah, blah, BS. Who cares.
Hey, no need to get your knickers in a knot. Was just trying to help the conversation along based on this comment by a defender of the status quo.
So are you telling me GM and other companies are just throwing their money and time away spending their time testing and tuning their car on race tracks, like the Nurburgring for example? GM even built a mini Nurbugring in their backyard for testing so they don't have to constantly transport their cars overseas to test. Should they just forget about making the cars handle well, focusing on chassis and steering feel and driving dynamics then? If you say "no" then what was the point about trying to tell me all this?
Since someone mentioned Nurburgring thought it would be interesting to see how the big heavy DOHC engines would do where GM feels its important enough to test at that they went out & built their own copy.
Might hear more from GM if they get the ZR1 below 7 minutes flat. Would seem on first cut its not a brute horspower thing since the ZR1 was just slightly quicker then the Z06.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 02-18-2019 at 06:46 PM.
If you mean that most won't have the statistics memorized, that may be true. Many sports fans won't have team or individual player statistics memorized either, but will know who's been doing well, and that will matter to them.
If you mean that most won't have the statistics memorized, that may be true. Many sports fans won't have team or individual player statistics memorized either, but will know who's been doing well, and that will matter to them.
The only two production sports cars that use a pushrod engine both made the top 10 on arguably the most difficult/challenging race track in the world. On top of that they beat/hung with exotics for a fraction of the price. If that doesn't speak volumes I don't know what would. The Corvette and Viper, like always, punch way ahead of their weight class.
There is also the CarAndDriver lightning lap that has been going on for years, that the Corvette ZR1 beat everything except the $350K 911 GT2 RS Weissach, which is more than double the cost of the ZR1. Both the Viper ACR and Corvette Z06 place very high, beating Ferraris, Lamborghnins and Porsches, like usual. But whats more is the Camaro ZL1 1LE beats the McLaren 650S, 911 Turbo S, 911 GT3, Lambo Huracan 610-4 P, and Nismo GTR. Not bad for a budget muscle car with an "old tech" engine.
Oh yea, still waiting for you to answer my question. Can you not answer it?
What it means, Corvettes are fast, everyone knows they are fast, 95% will never push their Corvette to max Fast, then ya have the 5% that do and either total it or track it.
If a GT350R really went out there and ran better lap times, would the Corvette really have that bad of a repuatation?
Who said GT350R? Reread, I specifically said GT.
I admit, if your $30k base Mustang is beating up on a $60k Grand Sport in something like HP wars, you may have a marketing problem,
Or if it beats it where it actually counts, on the track, that would be a problem. That would mean the Corvette would also lose to anything else in its price range and above. The Corvette is known to punch way above its class and being a huge bang for its buck for a reason.
What are the results of that Nurburgring ZR1 trip again? Have they ever been released? Are the lack of them hurting sales?
For whatever reason GM never released official times, but it seems to dominate on just about every other track so that makes up for it. Do you think if the ZR1 was slower than the Z06 it would still sell as well? No? So laptimes DO matter huh? I think you confuse me saying laptimes with the actual "time" itself, I don't mean the time but rather how it compares to rivals and how capable it is. Its not that "I can lap X track in X seconds" its "I can beat every car under $100K at just about any track" that matters.
You do realize the bulk of track time goes to developing things like stability control, durability, powertrain tuning and such, right? Sure, it is great for the marketing guys if they can go blitz out some lap records in the process, but tracks are utilized for everyday testing and tuning.
Well according to you since no one cares about all that then they are wasting their time right?
In all seriousness they are tuning the suspension, chassis, brakes and powertrain for best performance and reliability. A large part of that performance aspect is how quickly the car can go around the track and how good it feels/behaves.
And from what my coworkers who travel to the race tracks far more frequently than me say, VIR is actually preferred to most of the American manufacturers when they actually want to track tune over the Nurburgring.
Yea refer to my post above for results, the lightning lap is held there.
And those gearheads aren't going to adopt or abandon the Corvette in any significant numbers because of track times.
So if GM decided to go soft with the Corvette and make its handling sloppy, brakes fade, and cut 200hp, everyone would just be cool with it then?
Never claimed it wasn't good, nor did I ever claim my reason for buying one (especially a bargain priced, used hard and put away wet, C4)
Im saying if the Corvette was not as capable as it is then you would not have bothered looking at them If they performed like minivans then you woulnd't be considering one for auto-x, no?
is what the folks lining up to plop down deposits on shiny new C8s have in mind with their new toy. I claimed the bulk of buyers couldn't care less about these metrics, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, a certain amount of competitive in class decision making went into my purchase, but it was utilized because I was buying my car for one primary, specific reason: autox. I certainly didn't compare C&D archived test data from 1992 Vettes, Miatas, 944s, and Mustangs on the drag strip or Nurburgring when making my decision.
So you chose the car based on performance right? Like how well it handles and performs? Like what Ive literally been trying to get across to you this whole time but somehow you are too dense to realize?
Well according to you since no one cares about all that then they are wasting their time right?
In all seriousness they are tuning the suspension, chassis, brakes and powertrain for best performance and reliability. A large part of that performance aspect is how quickly the car can go around the track and how good it feels/behaves.
I've never argues the car shouldn't be performance. You seem to think that because I hold the belief that 80% or Corvette buyers couldn't tell you a dang thing about Nurburgring or how it fared in a car mags tests they've never heard of, and performing poorly at either wouldn't significantly affect sales, that they'd accept it if you dropped in the engine from a Sonic. Two totally different arguments, one of which is ad absurdum, a game I dont play.
And yes, the testing and tuning that goes on at a track can have non-performance applications. We were sending full sized SUVs to race tracks to tune stability systems. Doubt you'll see any of those dropping stunning lap times anytime soon. The great thing about tracks? Its almost as if they're setup to test the limits of vehicles in a safe environment, and that makes them great for developing safety systems that keep people who have no business being behind the wheel of a 750hp car from killing themselves when they WOT it on a slick corner because an engineer sat at one hairpin on a racetrack for two days optimizing the TCS.
Im saying if the Corvette was not as capable as it is then you would not have bothered looking at them If they performed like minivans then you woulnd't be considering one for auto-x, no?
As a direct argument against that, show me ANY supercar list or tracktime leaderboard that has a Miata on it, which was my original target. I lucked into a great buy on the Corvette, a great car that serves my purposes. Thats the primary reason I have one instead of anything else. In fact, had I not bought this, a salvage title late model Mustang GT that came up a few weeks later would probably be sitting in my garage instead.
So you chose the car based on performance right? Like how well it handles and performs? Like what Ive literally been trying to get across to you this whole time but somehow you are too dense to realize?
Whatever dude. I bought my car specifically as a motorsports toy. I'm not dense enough to pretend my $5k motorsports toy budget is close to the average person dropping $75k on a new Corvette, who are not buying it to take to race tracks. Yes, people like performance. They like knowing they've got the HP, and when they hit the throttle they can spin the tires. No, few would notice or care if Corvette started getting its *** handed to it on every racing metric or Road and Track slammed it, because few follow any of that.
And if I didn't care about using it for autox and HPDE, I'd have bought a Spitfire anyhow.
The only two production sports cars that use a pushrod engine both made the top 10?
Actually there is only one left. The Viper went out of business, sales volume dropped like what is now happening to the Corvette. So what we have is #9 30 seconds behind the leader. The ZR1 maybe a few seconds faster then the Z06 but Chevy hid the results so we don't know.
Actually there is only one left. The Viper went out of business, sales volume dropped like what is now happening to the Corvette.
Viper sales were never high, and the car never made money for the company. The main reason for low sales was probably that it was very low on the user-friendliness scale, for street driving. The Corvette was much better for that.
Now 750 hp.
Power is power, doesn't matter whether is is achieved via N/A or forced induction. However, the 750 hp supercharged pushrod Chevy does happen to get better fuel economy.
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
You still questioning DOHC vs OHV? The Aventador was able to get around the ring 30 seconds faster with DOHC cylinder heads & no forced induction.
Why are you attributing that to overhead cams? Don't you think that the mid-engine, all-wheel-drive, all-wheel steering, active aero, and half-million dollar price tag might have been factors?
Have you considered that The Ring has no mechanism to determine whether or not these cars are actually stock?
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
1955 level
What, overhead cams? Actually they date back to around 1905.
Last edited by Warp Factor; 02-19-2019 at 08:15 AM.
The only two production sports cars that use a pushrod engine both made the top 10 on arguably the most difficult/challenging race track in the world. On top of that they beat/hung with exotics for a fraction of the price. If that doesn't speak volumes I don't know what would. The Corvette and Viper, like always, punch way ahead of their weight class.
There is also the CarAndDriver lightning lap that has been going on for years, that the Corvette ZR1 beat everything except the $350K 911 GT2 RS Weissach, which is more than double the cost of the ZR1. Both the Viper ACR and Corvette Z06 place very high, beating Ferraris, Lamborghnins and Porsches, like usual. But whats more is the Camaro ZL1 1LE beats the McLaren 650S, 911 Turbo S, 911 GT3, Lambo Huracan 610-4 P, and Nismo GTR. Not bad for a budget muscle car with an "old tech" engine.
You obviously have a pushrod fetish!
You should read this book re Rodger Penske finding a way around the Indy Car rules when they said a pushrod engine, that had been allowed for some time to have more cid than overhead cam engines (BECAUSE THEY ARE INFERIOR TO OVERHEAD CAMS) did not have to use a stock block! The Imore folks did a remarkable job of building this high revving "pushrod" engine that won Indy! Not quite your standard pushrod engine, more trick than a Chrysler hemi pushrod/rocker arm assembly! Book details the trial and tribulations of building this engine, in secret, in a very short time!
Load that video Link, interesting to watch the valve motion!
You should read this book re Rodger Penske finding a way around the Indy Car rules when they said a pushrod engine, that had been allowed for some time to have more cid than overhead cam engines....
Not applicable. Passenger car engines don't have the displacement restrictions than many racing engines do. Power is power, whether achieved via high rpm, large displacement, or forced induction.
One of the early adopters of overhead cams were aircraft engines. This was mostly to overcome a unique problem: Different thermal expansion and contraction of the cylinders and pushrods during wide temperature swings, with the result that valve lash could be all over the place.
Later, some bright guy invented the hydraulic lifter (a simpler and more compact way of addressing this), resulting in overhead cams falling out of favor for aircraft, replaced by lighter, more compact pushrod engines. Development continued, with the emergence of hydraulic lifters which were effective at very high rpms. Rpms of 6500 plus no longer required the use of solid lifters, as evidenced in some of the Chevy L series engines.
Sure, some of those World War One and Two era overhead cam engines are really cool, but it's old technology.
Last edited by Warp Factor; 02-19-2019 at 08:21 AM.
^^
Hmm, I think it's funny that Enzo Ferrari, the last to go to disk brakes, move the engine to the middle (where Dr. Porsche knew it was best in the 1930’s when he worked on the German F1 cars) used overhead cams in his first car! It had a 1.5 Liter Columbo V12 in 1947!
Yep the 502 cid pushrod BB in my Street Rod is just fine if you can live with ~10 mpg cruising and gas station to gas station when using the power! Probably build it with a Chevy 572 cid crate motor today. But the C8 needs something better than a big old tech engine!
Perhaps I could find one of those Columbo V12s, then I’d build something much lighter that handled well going around corners!
Yep the 502 cid BB in my Street Rod is just fine if you can live with ~10 mpg cruising and gas station to gas station when using the power!
If the engine is under 800 horsepower, I bet you could improve the fuel economy quite a bit with a well-tuned modern fuel injections system, and a modern transmission with one or two overdrive ratios, if fuel economy was important to you.
If the engine is under 800 horsepower, I bet you could improve the fuel economy quite a bit with a well-tuned modern fuel injections system, and a modern transmission with one or two overdrive ratios, if fuel economy was important to you.
I'm sure you're right BUT that is not why I built it!
Started when I semi-retired 19 years ago. It was to do one thing, go 0 to 60 in under 3.5 seconds. Had to swap the carb with an 850 double pumper and add two 50 cc accelerator pumps with the right pump cams to give a quick shot but not dump the full load. Eliminated the rear power valve as at high "gs" off the line it uncovered the opening letting in air and going lean! Also installed a jet extension in the rear bowl. Had to add an oxygen sensor and gauge to find all that! Many other things done as as well but now zero bog or hesitation. It more than met the objective without the Nitrous!
It mostly goes to Shows and although it comes home with a trophy I mostly now go only locally to see my other crazy car friends!
Also almost swapped it with a friend for a very good condition original '63 split window! Might just do that!
02-18-2019, 12:47 PM
