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.
The biggest problem corvette has had was never the location of the engine.
It was the engine power/torque characteristics over powering the chassis and this was a side effect of increased weight and dimensions. This again was due to GM trying to build this car to be jack of all trades to please different market segments.
You simply cannot add size, weight, and counter it with power at levels Corvette has been and have a good result. C7 is a very unbalanced car in Z06 and ZR1 trims.
Take a look at a GT3 or GT3RS with less than HALF of the torque and 250 less hp beating a ZR1 in a road course. When will you guys see this? These cars are not/cannot be the track warriors. GM needs to build a lighter, N/A, smaller car to compete with a proper GT class car.
Watch any ZR1 track videos and do the same for GT3. Watching ZR1 is like a driver constantly fighting the car. Watching GT3 is like pure synchrony.
OK please enlighten me. What is "pure synchrony"? BTW I've been to Watkins Glen on many occasions over the years and I have seen many GT3s vainly attempt to keep pace with Z06s. So a Z06 may not have "synchrony" but it still gets the job done.
I think some have gotten lost in the trees of the forest. The real advantage of moving mass inboard of the axles is to make it a little easier on the tires to turn without so much leverage resistance saving the temp/wear for a few more good laps. Also, unsprung weight.
My posts get deleted yet posts like this are allowed to stand.
Well, let me throw this at you; back to the airplane. Let's make it a fighter plane with a 2000# ordinance located 8' under the right wing and 1000# located 16' under the other wing. Will the airplane rotate just as quickly into the left banking roll and into the right banking roll? (It is up to the pilot to release both at the same time) I find it hard to believe that a true ME 50/50 behaves any differently if the engine is in front or the rear when simply floating the throttle through a turn.
6 years in the air force retired. How much combat experience have you had, son?. How many chassis have you designed and built? Please stop with the nonsense.
6 years in the air force retired. How much combat experience have you had, son?. How many chassis have you designed and built? Please stop with the nonsense.
Oh, I know you really like me. You just have a difficult time showing it. But, you have peaked my curiosity. You suggest that perhaps you have designed chassis. How successful were they and are they still being utilized?
OK, how did I sell Jim short? I just pointed out that I would expect somebody in his position to have a loyalty and a fondness for the product that he helped develop. I think I was giving him pretty high praise, but explain to me where I failed in your opinion.
To suggest that Mr. Mero has a biased opinion about one platform over another just because he spent so much time on one particular platform is to impugn his intergrity as an objective, professional engineer; an engineer with more track time in different cars than most anyone else on this forum will see in their lifetime. Your speculation is abhorent or to chose another term, "tacky". Yeah, you are selling him short in your own mind with that baseless accusation about his motivation for his opinions. I think I'll put stock in Jim's opinions.
The biggest problem corvette has had was never the location of the engine.
It was the engine power/torque characteristics over powering the chassis and this was a side effect of increased weight and dimensions. This again was due to GM trying to build this car to be jack of all trades to please different market segments.
You simply cannot add size, weight, and counter it with power at levels Corvette has been and have a good result. C7 is a very unbalanced car in Z06 and ZR1 trims.
Take a look at a GT3 or GT3RS with less than HALF of the torque and 250 less hp beating a ZR1 in a road course. When will you guys see this? These cars are not/cannot be the track warriors. GM needs to build a lighter, N/A, smaller car to compete with a proper GT class car.
Watch any ZR1 track videos and do the same for GT3. Watching ZR1 is like a driver constantly fighting the car. Watching GT3 is like pure synchrony.
To suggest that Mr. Mero has a biased opinion about one platform over another just because he spent so much time on one particular platform is to impugn his intergrity as an objective, professional engineer; an engineer with more track time in different cars than most anyone else on this forum will see in their lifetime. Your speculation is abhorent or to chose another term, "tacky". Yeah, you are selling him short in your own mind with that baseless accusation about his motivation for his opinions. I think I'll put stock in Jim's opinions.
You're kidding, right? You think engineers never have biased opinions? I think maybe you haven't spent a lot of time talking to engineers. They are like most people: they tend to prefer certain methods and processes, especially the ones they are familiar with. I have yet to meet a Boeing engineer who says he really wished he worked for Airbus because their designs are so much better and vice versa. Jim can probably give a cogent reason for why he thinks that the FE layout is still viable, and if you talk to McLaren engineers, they might disagree and it has nothing to do with integrity. With a compromised machine like a street car there are no absolutes.
I really don't think there's any serious doubt among automotive engineers that the FE platform is still viable for a high performance vehicle. The Corvette decision was made more on the basis of marketing, AKA stimulating new sales because of a growing perception among enthusiasts that ME is more desirable in a sports car.
The biggest problem corvette has had was never the location of the engine.
It was the engine power/torque characteristics over powering the chassis and this was a side effect of increased weight and dimensions. This again was due to GM trying to build this car to be jack of all trades to please different market segments.
You simply cannot add size, weight, and counter it with power at levels Corvette has been and have a good result. C7 is a very unbalanced car in Z06 and ZR1 trims.
Take a look at a GT3 or GT3RS with less than HALF of the torque and 250 less hp beating a ZR1 in a road course. When will you guys see this? These cars are not/cannot be the track warriors. GM needs to build a lighter, N/A, smaller car to compete with a proper GT class car.
Watch any ZR1 track videos and do the same for GT3. Watching ZR1 is like a driver constantly fighting the car. Watching GT3 is like pure synchrony.
I would say that probably one of the trickiest aspects of driving a car like the Z06 and ZR1 vs a Porsche or some other car with a smaller, higher revving engine IS the big hit of torque that you get right off idle. With the smaller engine, the torque curve starts much lower and is less able to spin the tires whereas with the Corvette engines, you can spin the tires at anything much above idle. This seems to be what a lot of Corvette drivers expect, but it creates an added burden on the driver, especially if they are driving without aids. Spinning tires don't produce much acceleration or lateral grip, obviously. In NASCAR one of the important skills drivers need is the ability to accelerate without spinning tires; not so easy in a 3400 pound 800 hp car with narrow tires and it's really obvious on restarts when somebody goes over that line.
I really don't think there's any serious doubt among automotive engineers that the FE platform is still viable for a high performance vehicle. The Corvette decision was made more on the basis of marketing, AKA stimulating new sales because of a growing perception among enthusiasts that ME is more desirable in a sports car.
While I usually agree with most of what you write, your statement re: marketing is out in left field, sir. That's not why the decision was made. Belief to the contrary is: ignorance (see a previous post of mine). The FE platform has too many challenges when it comes to high performance race track driving that the rear-ME doesn't have. Or, more accurately, those issues are significantly reduced in the rear-ME.
We want our next gen car to be a better performer than the last gen car, correct? Answer: yes. So how do we do that given today's C7? Throw piles of money into weight reduction? That's not a very easy thing to do, much to the dismay of a lot of folks. Even the "pros" here who think they know better than the GM engineers do. Adding lightness to the car is monumentally difficult and stupendously expensive. So, the other answer: increase torque output of the motor. Cool. No one's going to argue with more torque, correct?
Well... the rear tires might argue with it! And that's the crux of the problem. The more torque you throw into an FE or front-ME car, the more likely it is you're going to turn those rear steamrollers into very expensive smoke, rather quickly. This becomes a further challenge when trying to get out a corner on the track, at higher speeds. You won't necessarily light the rears up (hopefully!?) but there's a much higher likelihood of losing rear grip under throttle.
So how do we solve that problem? More aero. We saw that with the Z06 and again with the ZR1. The problem with more aero is that it's A)cumbersome to add to the car, B)cumbersome for the owner to deal with it off-track, and C)fairly expensive. Further, it combines together to produce some fairly bad fuel econ numbers at the end of the day.
All of these challenges can be solved in an FE car, of course. But does it produce a car you want to buy? And does it produce a car you can afford to buy?
I'd strongly encourage those who are ignorant enough to continue spouting, "It's a marketing thing!" to stop. You're basically shitting on the hard work that the team of engineers at GM are doing. In essence, you're saying they can't come up with "something better" to supplant the C7, so they're following what the rest of the market is doing. Were I a member of the team, I'd probably be insulted by that.
While I usually agree with most of what you write, your statement re: marketing is out in left field, sir. That's not why the decision was made. Belief to the contrary is: ignorance (see a previous post of mine). The FE platform has too many challenges when it comes to high performance race track driving that the rear-ME doesn't have. Or, more accurately, those issues are significantly reduced in the rear-ME.
We want our next gen car to be a better performer than the last gen car, correct? Answer: yes. So how do we do that given today's C7? Throw piles of money into weight reduction? That's not a very easy thing to do, much to the dismay of a lot of folks. Even the "pros" here who think they know better than the GM engineers do. Adding lightness to the car is monumentally difficult and stupendously expensive. So, the other answer: increase torque output of the motor. Cool. No one's going to argue with more torque, correct?
Well... the rear tires might argue with it! And that's the crux of the problem. The more torque you throw into an FE or front-ME car, the more likely it is you're going to turn those rear steamrollers into very expensive smoke, rather quickly. This becomes a further challenge when trying to get out a corner on the track, at higher speeds. You won't necessarily light the rears up (hopefully!?) but there's a much higher likelihood of losing rear grip under throttle.
So how do we solve that problem? More aero. We saw that with the Z06 and again with the ZR1. The problem with more aero is that it's A)cumbersome to add to the car, B)cumbersome for the owner to deal with it off-track, and C)fairly expensive. Further, it combines together to produce some fairly bad fuel econ numbers at the end of the day.
All of these challenges can be solved in an FE car, of course. But does it produce a car you want to buy? And does it produce a car you can afford to buy?
I'd strongly encourage those who are ignorant enough to continue spouting, "It's a marketing thing!" to stop. You're basically shitting on the hard work that the team of engineers at GM are doing. In essence, you're saying they can't come up with "something better" to supplant the C7, so they're following what the rest of the market is doing. Were I a member of the team, I'd probably be insulted by that.
I guess your guess is as good as the next guy's guess....in this guessing game of thrones.
If you live in a market based Country, your marketing based customers buy goods and services based on marketing research. The research has determined that marketing a ME Corvette is their direction at this time. Doesn't matter how it's engineered. That's engineering's problem. Sales and marketing control everything at GM. Jim Mero is worried about engineering with good reason, not sales and marketing.
.
Last edited by Skid Row Joe; 07-06-2019 at 02:32 PM.
While I usually agree with most of what you write, your statement re: marketing is out in left field, sir. That's not why the decision was made. Belief to the contrary is: ignorance (see a previous post of mine). The FE platform has too many challenges when it comes to high performance race track driving that the rear-ME doesn't have. Or, more accurately, those issues are significantly reduced in the rear-ME.
We want our next gen car to be a better performer than the last gen car, correct? Answer: yes. So how do we do that given today's C7? Throw piles of money into weight reduction? That's not a very easy thing to do, much to the dismay of a lot of folks. Even the "pros" here who think they know better than the GM engineers do. Adding lightness to the car is monumentally difficult and stupendously expensive. So, the other answer: increase torque output of the motor. Cool. No one's going to argue with more torque, correct?
Well... the rear tires might argue with it! And that's the crux of the problem. The more torque you throw into an FE or front-ME car, the more likely it is you're going to turn those rear steamrollers into very expensive smoke, rather quickly. This becomes a further challenge when trying to get out a corner on the track, at higher speeds. You won't necessarily light the rears up (hopefully!?) but there's a much higher likelihood of losing rear grip under throttle.
So how do we solve that problem? More aero. We saw that with the Z06 and again with the ZR1. The problem with more aero is that it's A)cumbersome to add to the car, B)cumbersome for the owner to deal with it off-track, and C)fairly expensive. Further, it combines together to produce some fairly bad fuel econ numbers at the end of the day.
All of these challenges can be solved in an FE car, of course. But does it produce a car you want to buy? And does it produce a car you can afford to buy?
I'd strongly encourage those who are ignorant enough to continue spouting, "It's a marketing thing!" to stop. You're basically shitting on the hard work that the team of engineers at GM are doing. In essence, you're saying they can't come up with "something better" to supplant the C7, so they're following what the rest of the market is doing. Were I a member of the team, I'd probably be insulted by that.
I did not mean to imply that better performance was not a big part of the decision or that marketing reasons were the only reasons for the decision. There is a reason why perceptions of what a great sports car should be have shifted to the ME configuration, which is obviously the performance advantages. Given that customer preference and better performance are in synch in this case, it obviously makes most sense from a marketing perspective to go that way.
In cases where marketing reasons outweigh performance, marketing usually wins. In this case, marketing and performance reasons are in synch.
While I usually agree with most of what you write, your statement re: marketing is out in left field, sir. That's not why the decision was made. Belief to the contrary is: ignorance (see a previous post of mine). The FE platform has too many challenges when it comes to high performance race track driving that the rear-ME doesn't have. Or, more accurately, those issues are significantly reduced in the rear-ME.
We want our next gen car to be a better performer than the last gen car, correct? Answer: yes. So how do we do that given today's C7? Throw piles of money into weight reduction? That's not a very easy thing to do, much to the dismay of a lot of folks. Even the "pros" here who think they know better than the GM engineers do. Adding lightness to the car is monumentally difficult and stupendously expensive. So, the other answer: increase torque output of the motor. Cool. No one's going to argue with more torque, correct?
Well... the rear tires might argue with it! And that's the crux of the problem. The more torque you throw into an FE or front-ME car, the more likely it is you're going to turn those rear steamrollers into very expensive smoke, rather quickly. This becomes a further challenge when trying to get out a corner on the track, at higher speeds. You won't necessarily light the rears up (hopefully!?) but there's a much higher likelihood of losing rear grip under throttle.
So how do we solve that problem? More aero. We saw that with the Z06 and again with the ZR1. The problem with more aero is that it's A)cumbersome to add to the car, B)cumbersome for the owner to deal with it off-track, and C)fairly expensive. Further, it combines together to produce some fairly bad fuel econ numbers at the end of the day.
All of these challenges can be solved in an FE car, of course. But does it produce a car you want to buy? And does it produce a car you can afford to buy?
I'd strongly encourage those who are ignorant enough to continue spouting, "It's a marketing thing!" to stop. You're basically shitting on the hard work that the team of engineers at GM are doing. In essence, you're saying they can't come up with "something better" to supplant the C7, so they're following what the rest of the market is doing. Were I a member of the team, I'd probably be insulted by that.
You have some good points, and I am not saying that the new ME may become a better car than the C7 Z cars. But I take some issue with some of your remarks pertaining to weight. Now my '19 M7 Z06 has certainly reaped some of the developmental benefits in cooling, rear gearing, fuel pump delivery, paint, etc from the first C7 Z's in '15. But she is a fat lady. Mine weighed in at 3534 lbs on race shop scales with 3/4 tank of fuel. My C6 Z06 was a good 450 lbs lighter. You say it takes a lot of dough to take weight off, and you are right - especially when some of the weight reductions could have been engineered from the start, or made as reasonably priced performance options when manufactured taking advantage of economies of scale. And, IMO, that should have been done.
I am keeping my '19 Z06, last of the manuals, last and best of the FE Z06s. So for me, the following are worthwhile investments. Today, I replaced the overly heavy cheap wheels (of which two bent on track outings) with true forged wheels saving me about 30 lbs of unsprung rotational weight. My cost was several thousand, rewards - tangible in terms of performance. In two weeks, I will be replacing the stock exhaust with a full Ti exhaust netting a bit more power, and another 30 lb. weight reduction. My C5 Z had a Ti exhaust, but not this car. How many C7 Z's were built - 10,000? Would it not have been better if these things were offered as performance options from the factory - the economies of scale for say making 2,000 sets of these items would have drastically reduced the prices I paid. I bet some other items to lighten the car could have been engineered from the start and brought this car down another 50-75 lbs to under 3,400 lbs.
Supposedly DSC MSRC programming reduces the rear wheel tendencies somewhat to break away under full acceleration. Also, rating the gas pedal with more sophistication than treating it as an "on-off" switch would be prudent in a 650 h/p car. So what I am saying is, more could have been done by the factory to extract even more balanced performance here - and this is not rocket science. Even as is, the current C7 Z outperformed the Ford GT and many other very expensive high performance cars (including MEs) in the Car and Driver One Laps tests - and of course, the ZR1, even more so.
None of this is to say the new ME may well eventually eclipse the last FEs. I may buy an ME in the future, but it will have to clearly outperform my current Z (which I will keep anyway), and do so for not too terribly much more than the $76k I paid for my '19 2LZ. But, in our haste to grasp the next new shiny bright thing, it is sometimes useful to reflect a bit on what we have now. And let's not kid ourselves here about what the move to an ME is about. It is about a combination of factors, not one. Yes, engineering is one, but moving the engine back 5 feet or so is not just for the small percentage who track their cars, or allowing drivers with lower driving abilities to drive a little faster a little more comfortably, or trying to score some more wins in professional racing series (even though those are heavily "managed" to reduce differences between competitors), or marketing - it is about all of those things.
You have some good points, and I am not saying that the new ME may become a better car than the C7 Z cars. But I take some issue with some of your remarks pertaining to weight
Cool. This'll be fun.
But she is a fat lady.
And why is that?
My C6 Z06 was a good 450 lbs lighter.
Again, why was it so much lighter?
especially when some of the weight reductions could have been engineered from the start, or made as reasonably priced performance options when manufactured taking advantage of economies of scale. And, IMO, that should have been done.
You kind of veered off course a bit here because you make it sound easy and inexpensive. It is neither. I've gone over that multiple times on Corvette Forum. "Reasonably-priced options" are anything but when it comes to things like over-lightened bits and pieces. I can assure you that "economies of scale" actually work against you here, not for you. And, as it turns out, they end up working against everyone else that doesn't want those options, too. See, GM has to make a forecast for their suppliers each year about what parts they need to buy for the Corvette (annnnd every other car they make). They get discounts for those parts and pieces, and they're really good at calling those forecasts out. It's part of why our options generally don't cost an arm and a leg... and other body parts. They can easily forecast how many folks are going to choose Option X over Option Y, and order accordingly.
Your suggestion is that there should be an Option Z for some of these things, and because of "economies of scale" it would be "reasonably priced". It won't. How many folks are going to choose that Option Z over X or Y? Specially if that Option Z causes less comfort or less overall utility in the car? Either way, GM has to figure that out, which means less parts for Options X and Y. Which means those options go up in price because GM isn't going to eat that loss in discount. They're going to pass it on to us.
Adding lightness is neither cheap nor easy. Keep reading.
In two weeks, I will be replacing the stock exhaust with a full Ti exhaust netting a bit more power, and another 30 lb. weight reduction. My C5 Z had a Ti exhaust, but not this car.
GM dumped the Ti exhaust because A) it was too expensive, and B) it shifted mass towards the front by lightening up the rear. While everyone thinks the Ti exhaust is a massive weight saver and a great idea, it's simply not either of those. And it mucks up the car's weight balance. That's why GM moved away from them after the C5 Z06.
Also, rating the gas pedal with more sophistication than treating it as an "on-off" switch would be prudent in a 650 h/p car.
Um. Huh? I do hope you weren't aiming that at me because I've been driving on the race track in Corvettes since 1996. I know how to use the go pedal. :-)
So what I am saying is, more could have been done by the factory to extract even more balanced performance here
Not really, and not for the prices you seem to think. Further, I'd recommend you drive a ZR1 at speed on the race track to get a feel for what big(ger than you have) HP cars can do. Yes, the car is super-capable on the track, but it's not doing that through any massive amounts of rocket science. It's some of Jim's most excellent chassis calibrations, and a whollllle lotta aero. That's not in any way to say...
and this is not rocket science. Even as is, the current C7 Z outperformed the Ford GT and many other very expensive high performance cars (including MEs) in the Car and Driver One Laps tests - and of course, the ZR1, even more so.
...that the Z06 or ZR1 are bad cars or incapable cars. They're superb performers. Hell, I wouldn't have purchased a Z07 if I didn't think it was a fantastic car. But it would behoove you and others to recognize realistic limits to the architecture. And further to understand that minuscule increments in performance generation over generation won't work. They have to be awe-inspiring differences. The kinds of things you're suggesting above are the former. By a long shot.
None of this is to say the new ME may well eventually eclipse the last FEs.
There's no "eventually" about it. The C7 Z07 driver is going to be watching his mirrors very closely for the Z51 C8s. Take that to the bank. Once GM releases whatever they're calling the "Z06" car, it'll flatten today's Z07 and probably start making today's ZR1 driver watch his mirrors. Don't try to talk yourself into believing otherwise. It's just simply the way progress works.
Jees, so much to respond to. I don't want to bother my brain with it right now. Since the C5, My pet beef since the C5. Corvette engineers have seen fit to have suspension geometry that causes some handling issues and loss of grip on the inside tires.. Even with a clean sheet of paper, this has been carried over to the C8. Eccentrics, my God. ediff? Alignment for track? Never seen it on any car. I fixed it on my C6Z. What were they thinking.
You kind of veered off course a bit here because you make it sound easy and inexpensive. It is neither. I've gone over that multiple times on Corvette Forum. "Reasonably-priced options" are anything but when it comes to things like over-lightened bits and pieces. I can assure you that "economies of scale" actually work against you here, not for you. And, as it turns out, they end up working against everyone else that doesn't want those options, too. See, GM has to make a forecast for their suppliers each year about what parts they need to buy for the Corvette (annnnd every other car they make). They get discounts for those parts and pieces, and they're really good at calling those forecasts out. It's part of why our options generally don't cost an arm and a leg... and other body parts. They can easily forecast how many folks are going to choose Option X over Option Y, and order accordingly.
Your suggestion is that there should be an Option Z for some of these things, and because of "economies of scale" it would be "reasonably priced". It won't. How many folks are going to choose that Option Z over X or Y? Specially if that Option Z causes less comfort or less overall utility in the car? Either way, GM has to figure that out, which means less parts for Options X and Y. Which means those options go up in price because GM isn't going to eat that loss in discount. They're going to pass it on to us.
Adding lightness is neither cheap nor easy. Keep reading.
GM dumped the Ti exhaust because A) it was too expensive, and B) it shifted mass towards the front by lightening up the rear. While everyone thinks the Ti exhaust is a massive weight saver and a great idea, it's simply not either of those. And it mucks up the car's weight balance. That's why GM moved away from them after the C5 Z06.
Um. Huh? I do hope you weren't aiming that at me because I've been driving on the race track in Corvettes since 1996. I know how to use the go pedal. :-)
Not really, and not for the prices you seem to think. Further, I'd recommend you drive a ZR1 at speed on the race track to get a feel for what big(ger than you have) HP cars can do. Yes, the car is super-capable on the track, but it's not doing that through any massive amounts of rocket science. It's some of Jim's most excellent chassis calibrations, and a whollllle lotta aero. That's not in any way to say...
...that the Z06 or ZR1 are bad cars or incapable cars. They're superb performers. Hell, I wouldn't have purchased a Z07 if I didn't think it was a fantastic car. But it would behoove you and others to recognize realistic limits to the architecture. And further to understand that minuscule increments in performance generation over generation won't work. They have to be awe-inspiring differences. The kinds of things you're suggesting above are the former. By a long shot.
There's no "eventually" about it. The C7 Z07 driver is going to be watching his mirrors very closely for the Z51 C8s. Take that to the bank. Once GM releases whatever they're calling the "Z06" car, it'll flatten today's Z07 and probably start making today's ZR1 driver watch his mirrors. Don't try to talk yourself into believing otherwise. It's just simply the way progress works.
Thanks for your detailed response and expressing your points of view. Will be packing for an unpleasant work related trip this afternoon, but I did want to address some of your points. And do it fairly quickly. Like you, I have been tracking cars for a while - I believe we both had C6 ZR1s also... I don't want to get into an never ending forum back and forth dialogue, so these will be my last post on this particular subject.
1. C5 Z06 - loved mine and did not know that the rear-most part of the exhaust caused some weight imbalance in of itself. However, to improve weight balance, I installed an LPE rear battery relocate kit in the trunk of my car (excellently engineered kit as typical of LPE) to improve handling. Surely in all of their testing of the C5 Z06, GM could have opted to do the same. Again, not rocket science, and not that expensive when costs spread out over the C5 Z06 run. Proof in the pudding is that they did finally relocate the battery in C6 and C7 generations. Could have, should have been done. But it was not done, I suspect because GM perceives (perhaps rightly) that most of their buyers use their cars to haul golf clubs and hard park at cars & coffee events.
2. Reduction of unsprung rotational weight with forged wheels. I am sure that as a fellow track person, you recognize the significant value of reduction of un-sprung rotational weight in track performance. I had a standard Shelby GT350 for a while, interesting car but too many problems, so it went OTD in one year. My car had the extremely heavy cast wheels. One of my friends had a GT350 R and let me do a few laps - noticeably different feel all the way around. Why? Carbon fiber wheels that weighed about half what the wheels on my Shelby weighed. Ford went to a literal backyard Australian manufacturer of carbon fiber wheels, got them up to specified quality and volume requirements and mounted thousands of sets of these wheels of Shelby GT350Rs. If Ford could do that with such an esoteric carbon fiber wheel, you are telling me that GM could not easily spec out considerably lighter forged aluminum wheels from one of the many existing wheel manufacturers and include it as part of the Z07 package? Sorry, but your argument just doesn't wash here. Most people who are buying Z07 with its extremely expensive ceramic brakes are not going to take a pass when be charged another 3000 or so bucks for lightweight forged wheels, produced in the thousands over an entire model run. Z07 buyers for the most part, are track oriented.
3. The Ti exhaust I am buying will be the entire system from headers back, so there will be weight reductions throughout the car from just in front of the driver. Another 30 lbs saved, a bit more h/p, sound I happen to like in an exhaust (had one in my C6 Z06). Save 30 lbs. here, 30 lbs. un-sprung weight with the wheels, and some other areas, starts adding up. I am not trying to make this car a Miata, but let's again deal with reality and recognize that the trend here is towards heavier and heavier performance cars. IMHO, that is not a good thing. And yes, I realize govt regs have contributed to this, but the car manufacturer's performance models (this includes Porsche as I understand the 2020 911 weighs in at a portly 3500 lbs and is heavier than its predecessor). Just saying, that personally, I don't see these creeping weight gains as progress.
4. My comments re the handling of the gas pedal were not directed at you personally. But let's be frank here, we both know people who want to mat the throttle, sometimes even on cold tires, then bitch that the tires cannot hook-up right away. That's just a stupid expectation.
5. Perhaps a C7 Z07 driver (Grand Sport model) may be watching his mirrors, but unless it is a manual C7 Z06 on a very short technical course, my guess is the C8 Z51 should be watching his mirrors. On any course that is more open and not basically an overgrown autox track) - disagree.
And finally, the C8 ME will undoubtedly outperform its C7 counterpart model for model. And yes, I would expect the C8 Z06, or whatever they call it equivalent, will outperform my '19 Z06. And if I can eventually get one of those for a discount off of MSRP to bring it within $10k of the $76k I paid recently for my '19 2LZ, I will make space for it. Again, IMO - the price of that performance is going to be a lot higher in the future, and quite possibly there will be a lot fewer ME Z06's roaming the streets.
Undoubtedly, with your connections, you know more about the new car - but until the rubber hits the road, none of us will really know what will happen.
And finally, I like Shaka's pictures, but not sure I understand all of them - I am not an engineer by trade. I need pop-up illustrations with detailed explanatory text.
07-05-2019, 09:04 AM
I think some have gotten lost in the trees of the forest. The real advantage of moving mass inboard of the axles is to make it a little easier on the tires to turn without so much leverage resistance saving the temp/wear for a few more good laps. Also, unsprung weight.
I find it hard to believe that a true ME 50/50 behaves any differently if the engine is in front or the rear when simply floating the throttle through a turn.
