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.
At first it was anything under 3.0 seconds was General Motors lying to us. Then 2.9 was fake, 2.8 recorded by two major auto publications was then immediately written off as some procedural mistake by BOTH testing teams, 2.7 seconds was rationalized by tail wind or defective on board timing systems, and 2.6 was achieved on the streets of San Francisco.
Same denial as seen with other generations just a greater delta.
Why are no stones thrown at the guy who posts a 3.1 for his C8? Denial manifests itself in strange ways.
Zero spin
2 people inside the car
From first try launching the car
Using paddle shifters I think it is faster than automatic mode
Impressive! https://youtu.be/uWaYmAMxDN8
Hmm, prepared track after and NHRA National event? Where if you try to walk without picking your feet vertically up before moving forward you'd fall (been there done that!) Then a ~5000 rpm launch may do it!
Also agree, starting at the top of a hill in SF will get you there! Good brake test as well!
Looks like 0-60 in 2.8sec is 31.43 ft/(sec**2) acceleration
and every 1 degree down hill adds 0.56 ft/(sec**2) to that
We get, for small angles, every 1 degree decline knocks off 0.05 sec from 0-60
So 2.6 sounds possible for 4 degree hill
( over simplified I know ) https://www.calkoo.com/en/acceleration-calculator
At first it was anything under 3.0 seconds was General Motors lying to us. Then 2.9 was fake, 2.8 recorded by two major auto publications was then immediately written off as some procedural mistake by BOTH testing teams, 2.7 seconds was rationalized by tail wind or defective on board timing systems, and 2.6 was achieved on the streets of San Francisco.
Same denial as seen with other generations just a greater delta.
Why are no stones thrown at the guy who posts a 3.1 for his C8? Denial manifests itself in strange ways.
Seriously folks -- who gives a rat's bottom. There's way too many unknown factors here that aren't explained or negated.
Some people care, some don't. Pretty safe to say at this point that Tadge was not lying about the "sub 3 second" mark although there are a number of very vocal fist pounders here who scream to the contrary. Quite unlikely that GM was lying or the car magazines were engaged in some orchestrated falsification in concert with scores of private owners running down hills or exploiting faulty timing equipment.
The base C8 is a damn fast car, faster than most of us expected and that is whether die hard C7 or various import owners like it or not.
Most of us know it takes a normal woman nine months to have a baby; but know nine women can't make a baby in one month.
In the Olympics they have asterisks for "wind assisted" records, thus the contribution to elevation answers a lot of questions and adds credibility.
I guess we are looking for the facts, and from other very credible resources, we doubt that reflexes associated with paddle shifting the dual clutch vs. launch mode are unlikely, let alone having to accelerate the mass of a passenger.
Let's just have one Dragy used to show anything close to a run this quick.... 150 bucks for it and it incorporates video.
then we can go have GM hire these amateur children to drive their flagship car THE RIGHT WAY... and get these awesome acceleration results for the next model..
The first car ever created to be faster on the street than a prepared dragstrip. Nothing fishy going on here.
Drag radials skinnies up front on a 100 shot sprayed out of the hole. Why can't even this car match the kids in the video? She weighs 95 pounds.
That's about the time in this vidoe if you want to watch it. And listen to what happens. 2.70 on a radial and skinny on a 100 shot with 104 octane on the dragstrip driven by a 95lb female. This car is a low 3 second to 60 car with perfect condition maybe it'll hit a 2.9. To gain that kind of et at that acceleration rate requires a TON of power to move that weight. The gearing argument is moot.. nobody changed the gears.... You don't fluctuate .2.3.4 and more in an NA mid engine car based on the premise of a 1g launch..
No tire slipping here. Hence the slower 60mph time. These 2.5 2.6 2.7 and 2.8 0 to 60s are a result of the 2 3 shift spinning that tire enough to prematurely trip the incar timer.
why do I say that?
Only explanation for this.
Member here who was nice enough to post his pdr run. this is from the same continuous video. He Gained .25 seconds a quarter of a second from 60 to 100 on the same stretch of road.. same place.
Look at the 0 to 60 and compare to 0 to 100. The timer showing 2.94 (with a 1ft rollout so say a 3.2 or 3.3) and 100 on 7.19 is the accurate run. The 2.70 and 7.20 to 100 is the flawed 0 to 60 one with the credible 0 to 100 run.
Tire slip into 3rd is only reasonable explanation for that discrepency.
Debate the point? We all have opinions. That's mine.
The haters just keep moving on to more ways to believe they are right. At first it was "we'll believe it when somebody posts a PDR video". Then someone did and it was "ahhhh, it was going downhill with a tornado chasing it, and a 30 foot sail attached, and ahhhhh......." Now no matter how many post, they are all lies too. The doubters will NEVER be man enough to say I was wrong.
Let's just have one Dragy used to show anything close to a run this quick.... 150 bucks for it and it incorporates video.
then we can go have GM hire these amateur children to drive their flagship car THE RIGHT WAY... and get these awesome acceleration results for the next model..
The first car ever created to be faster on the street than a prepared dragstrip. Nothing fishy going on here.
Drag radials skinnies up front on a 100 shot sprayed out of the hole. Why can't even this car match the kids in the video? She weighs 95 pounds.
That's about the time in this vidoe if you want to watch it. And listen to what happens. 2.70 on a radial and skinny on a 100 shot with 104 octane on the dragstrip driven by a 95lb female. This car is a low 3 second to 60 car with perfect condition maybe it'll hit a 2.9. To gain that kind of et at that acceleration rate requires a TON of power to move that weight. The gearing argument is moot.. nobody changed the gears.... You don't fluctuate .2.3.4 and more in an NA mid engine car based on the premise of a 1g launch..
No tire slipping here. Hence the slower 60mph time. These 2.5 2.6 2.7 and 2.8 0 to 60s are a result of the 2 3 shift spinning that tire enough to prematurely trip the incar timer.
why do I say that?
Only explanation for this.
Member here who was nice enough to post his pdr run. this is from the same continuous video. He Gained .25 seconds a quarter of a second from 60 to 100 on the same stretch of road.. same place.
Look at the 0 to 60 and compare to 0 to 100. The timer showing 2.94 (with a 1ft rollout so say a 3.2 or 3.3) and 100 on 7.19 is the inaccurate run. The 2.70 run and 7.20 to 100 is the faulty one.
Tire slip into 3rd is only reasonable explanation for that discrepency.
Debate the point? We all have opinions. That's mine.
get a Dragy and prove or disprove it.
I can’t come up with conclusion from single run! we saw lot of horrible numbers from heavily modified cars.
I don’t think Emelia was running 100 shot until 3rd gear! and PDR video showed 2.70 in her 10.9 run so definitely she got like 2.5 sec in her 10.7 run and I’m sure she has room for improvement. The PDR might prove that radials has no advantage over stock tires if stock tires get enough traction in good surfaces like this vid I posted with ZERO spin
I don’t know also if the PDR MPH data is taken from the ECU/transmission or GPS generated? cause she is running different tires size and I’m not sure how that will impact her PDR data?
Chevy dude is about to share 1/4 mile test run! Hopefully we will see some interesting PDR data
Some of you doubters and conspiracy theory nuts.......sorry, but I just can't relate to all the negativity. Like a bunch of spoiled rotten kids saying in a condescending voice..."prove it, prove it." If I had a C8 and I posted a time, I would just post it and if you don't take my word for it.....tough s**t. This is just a car forum, not a pissing contest. We should be men of our words and not have to purchase some $150 instrument for all the doubters. As Corvette forum members we should all recognize the fact that the timer on the car is not an absolute. My C7Z made many 10 second runs, but the PDR only showed always showed a time that was .2 seconds slower than what the track timer showed.
04-19-2020, 06:55 AM
0-60 in 2.6 seconds !
