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.
SALES are all they care about, that's the truth, but that doesn't mean one car is 'better' than another because it outsells it. BUT, that still doesn't take away the fact that manufacturers are NOT in business to LOSE MONEY. If GM thought the sales of the C7 sucked, they'd probably make a bigger attempt to fix whatever was wrong and to get that ring time...so CLEARLY by their actions the bragging rights don't mean much to them at the moment, because sales are GOOD.
The Corvette model has been a car biz success for more than 60 years of uninterrupted production.
Name another foreign or domestic car that can say that...
The Mercedes's time shows what a front engine car can do. No reason for GM to go mid engine with the Corvette. Just get the C7 to go around the track in 7 minutes 10 seconds. Mercedes just showed GM that it can be done in a car that has an almost identical layout to the Corvette.
Right now, GM is having trouble getting the C7 around the Ring faster than the obsolete C6 has done. They need to fix that little problem before going with another platform.
The AMG has a space frame, lighter and stiffer than the Vette. Also has active aero and 4 wheel steering. I've commented on the Vette chassis and suspension several times.
Since the C5, Corvette have mounted the upper A arms, front and back, in a way that can't possibly work properly. In roll you get a satisfactory camber gain on the outside wheels but the inside wheel continues to gain negative camber which destroys any kind of camber thrust.
The sooner you power out of the turn, the more work there is for the driver to control oversteer. A simple gear shift out of the turn will upset the car which would be even worse with the e diff opening with the lift off the gas pedal.
Mind boggling that this geometry exists on a modern car.
Check the AMG upper A arm. Check the massive negative camber in full droop on the C7 on the lift.
See the upper A arm on the C5 chassis. There is plenty of space to correct this almighty screw up.
The AMG has elected to actively control toe.
The Maserati suspension below uses the Michelin multi link system which is desperately needed on the Vette rear end.
There is simply no excuse for this error. It's not even a cost saving consideration. Simple to fix even in Solid Edge, shucks.
Multi link would be more difficult and expensive in production.
The AMG has a space frame, lighter and stiffer than the Vette. Also has active aero and 4 wheel steering. I've commented on the Vette chassis and suspension several times.
Since the C5, Corvette have mounted the upper A arms, front and back, in a way that can't possibly work properly. In roll you get a satisfactory camber gain on the outside wheels but the inside wheel continues to gain negative camber which destroys any kind of camber thrust.
The sooner you power out of the turn, the more work there is for the driver to control oversteer. A simple gear shift out of the turn will upset the car which would be even worse with the e diff opening with the lift off the gas pedal.
Mind boggling that this geometry exists on a modern car.
Check the AMG upper A arm. Check the massive negative camber in full droop on the C7 on the lift.
See the upper A arm on the C5 chassis. There is plenty of space to correct this almighty screw up.
The AMG has elected to actively control toe.
The Maserati suspension below uses the Michelin multi link system which is desperately needed on the Vette rear end.
There is simply no excuse for this error. It's not even a cost saving consideration. Simple to fix even in Solid Edge, shucks.
Multi link would be more difficult and expensive in production.
Interesting.
I wonder if the C7.R's homologation might play a part....
The Corvette model has been a car biz success for more than 60 years of uninterrupted production.
Name another foreign or domestic car that can say that...
The AMG has a space frame, lighter and stiffer than the Vette. Also has active aero and 4 wheel steering. I've commented on the Vette chassis and suspension several times.
Since the C5, Corvette have mounted the upper A arms, front and back, in a way that can't possibly work properly. In roll you get a satisfactory camber gain on the outside wheels but the inside wheel continues to gain negative camber which destroys any kind of camber thrust.
The sooner you power out of the turn, the more work there is for the driver to control oversteer. A simple gear shift out of the turn will upset the car which would be even worse with the e diff opening with the lift off the gas pedal.
Mind boggling that this geometry exists on a modern car.
Check the AMG upper A arm. Check the massive negative camber in full droop on the C7 on the lift.
See the upper A arm on the C5 chassis. There is plenty of space to correct this almighty screw up.
The AMG has elected to actively control toe.
The Maserati suspension below uses the Michelin multi link system which is desperately needed on the Vette rear end.
There is simply no excuse for this error. It's not even a cost saving consideration. Simple to fix even in Solid Edge, shucks.
Multi link would be more difficult and expensive in production.
Thank you for agreeing with me. Both the GTR and the Z06 do have almost identical layouts. Both have a unibody construction with a space frame(GTR's being lighter just shows you that they put more effort into their design to save weight, and even the C6 Z06/ZR1's space frame weighs 37 pounds less than the C7's space frame).
They do have the same layout. Both are front engine(both have V8's and forced induction). Both have carbon fiber torque tube(and Mercedes was first to use carbon fiber for their torque tube even though Tadge claimed he was first). Both have a rear transaxle(even though Mercedes uses a much superior 7 speed DCT). Part of the better front/rear weight distribution with the GTR is that the Z06 has a heavy clutch mounted up front on the flywheel, whereas the GTR as it's twin clutches in the rear of the car as part of the transaxle).
I said that GM could do better. Both cars have dual wishbone suspensions. The GTR has adjustable coil overs(which GM could also use instead of it's leaf springs as the aftermarket has had them available for the Corvette for decades). The actual suspension geometry is a matter of design choice between the two cars, and GM could have done better.
As for the active aero, neither car has an automatically adjustable rear wing, etc. The GTR has louvers behind the grille(GM has had that feature on the Cruz Eco for years, thus nothing that GM couldn't do to the Z06). BUT with the cooling problems that the Z06 has, auto closing louvers would be a bad idea(The GTR's body design is much superior as it will allow for closing of the louvers without causing the car to go into limp home mode half way around the track). The other active aero that the GTR has is a partial belly pan behind the front fascia that lowers at higher speeds to decrease the amount of air flowing under the car(Even my 1999 Mercedes has this partial belly pan to lower aero drag, but my 4 door sedan does not have the mechanism to lower it at speed). Again, that is something that can be added to the Z06 in it's present configuration. Mercedes was able to increase downforce without adding a bunch of aero drag, thus it can get by with less horsepower than the Z06.
As for the rear wheel steering, that is also something that can be added to the Z06 in it's present configuration. The rear wheel steering probably works better than GM's eLSD and probably weights less than the 44 pounds that the eLSD added to the weight of the Z06. Of course rear wheel steering is not something that GM has never thought of using before(they used in on their GMC trucks).
All those "improvements" that the GTR has that the Z06 does not have can be added to the Z06 in it's present front engine, torque tube, rear transaxle/drive layout. Mercedes added them to the base GT and the 7:10 time proves they worked. Mercedes did not design a new mid engine car to get a 7:10 run, but improved their existing front engine layout.
Everyone keeps talking about a new mid engine AWD Vette as if that layout is required in order to get a decent time at the Ring. I said that Mercedes just proved that a mid engine layout isn't needed. Just better engineering using the front engine layout will do the job(while allowing for a lot of cargo space for those two week long road trips that are very popular with the old, fat, bald headed Corvette owners that can afford $100,000+ toys).
And the Mercedes's coefficient of drag must be lower(and that's good) than the Z06s, as the GTR has a top speed of 198 with 77 less horsepower, yet has enough downforce to get around the curves at a fairly nice clip.
Actually, GM did produced 44 1983 MY Corvettes(and they had VINs). Too many problems arose and GM decided to hold off until the 1984 MY to produce cars for sale.
GM crushed all but one of the 1983 cars and it is now in the Museum. GM did produce the 1983 MY Corvette but they never sold any of them to any of their dealers.
Thank you for agreeing with me. Both the GTR and the Z06 do have almost identical layouts. Both have a unibody construction with a space frame(GTR's being lighter just shows you that they put more effort into their design to save weight, and even the C6 Z06/ZR1's space frame weighs 37 pounds less than the C7's space frame).
They do have the same layout. Both are front engine(both have V8's and forced induction). Both have carbon fiber torque tube(and Mercedes was first to use carbon fiber for their torque tube even though Tadge claimed he was first). Both have a rear transaxle(even though Mercedes uses a much superior 7 speed DCT). Part of the better front/rear weight distribution with the GTR is that the Z06 has a heavy clutch mounted up front on the flywheel, whereas the GTR as it's twin clutches in the rear of the car as part of the transaxle).
I said that GM could do better. Both cars have dual wishbone suspensions. The GTR has adjustable coil overs(which GM could also use instead of it's leaf springs as the aftermarket has had them available for the Corvette for decades). The actual suspension geometry is a matter of design choice between the two cars, and GM could have done better.
As for the active aero, neither car has an automatically adjustable rear wing, etc. The GTR has louvers behind the grille(GM has had that feature on the Cruz Eco for years, thus nothing that GM couldn't do to the Z06). BUT with the cooling problems that the Z06 has, auto closing louvers would be a bad idea(The GTR's body design is much superior as it will allow for closing of the louvers without causing the car to go into limp home mode half way around the track). The other active aero that the GTR has is a partial belly pan behind the front fascia that lowers at higher speeds to decrease the amount of air flowing under the car(Even my 1999 Mercedes has this partial belly pan to lower aero drag, but my 4 door sedan does not have the mechanism to lower it at speed). Again, that is something that can be added to the Z06 in it's present configuration. Mercedes was able to increase downforce with adding a bunch of aero drag, thus it can get by with less horsepower than the Z06.
As for the rear wheel steering, that is also something that can be added to the Z06 in it's present configuration. The rear wheel steering probably works better than GM's eLSD and probably weights less than the 44 pounds that the eLSD added to the weight of the Z06. Of course rear wheel steering is not something that GM has never thought of using before(they used in on their GMC trucks).
All those "improvements" that the GTR has that the Z06 does not have can be added to the Z06 in it's present front engine, torque tube, rear transaxle/drive layout. Mercedes added them to the base GT and the 7:10 time proves they worked. Mercedes did not design a new mid engine car to get a 7:10 run, but improved their existing front engine layout.
Everyone keeps talking about a new mid engine AWD Vette as if that layout is required in order to get a decent time at the Ring. I said that Mercedes just proved that a mid engine layout isn't needed. Just better engineering using the front engine layout will do the job(while allowing for a lot of cargo space for those two week long road trips that are very popular with the old, fat, bald headed Corvette owners that can afford $100,000+ toys).
And the Mercedes's coefficient of drag must be lower(and that's good) than the Z06s, as the GTR has a top speed of 198 with 77 less horsepower, yet has enough downforce to get around the curves at a fairly nice clip.
Thanks for proving your point. Will we be seeing less of you here, so you can dedicate more keyboard time to the Mercedes forum?
Thanks for proving your point. Will we be seeing less of you here, so you can dedicate more keyboard time to the Mercedes forum?
I see that you are not capable of debating the two cars but want to make it personal.
So, I'll do the same. I'll spend as much time of the Corvette Forum and the Mercedes Forum in the ratio of my current automobile ownership. Will you do the same?
Since I presently own three Corvettes and one Mercedes, I'll spend 75% of my time on the Corvette Forum and 25% of my time on the Mercedes Forum.
So, what percentage of your time will you be spending on the Corvette forum and how much of you time on the KIA Forum(or what ever other brands you have in your garage)?
If you want to go back to post #1, let's discuss the C7's ability to NOT put in a Ring time. According to LG Motorsports, GM made four attempts to get a a time with the C7(and we haven't seen a single one, even though Tadge said he was going to put up a video over a year ago.). By the way, Lou Gigliotti does have some long time experience with racing Corvettes(he was one of the original drivers in the 1988/1989 Corvette Challenger series). If he says GM tried four times, I'll accept that number.
Thanks for proving your point. Will we be seeing less of you here, so you can dedicate more keyboard time to the Mercedes forum?
Shocking. How does one respond to these statements?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Both the GTR and the Z06 do have almost identical layouts.
Both have a unibody construction with a space frame.
Both have carbon fiber torque tube.
Both have a rear transaxle.
The GTR has adjustable coil overs(which GM could also use instead of it's leaf springs as the aftermarket has had them available for the Corvette for decades).
As for the rear wheel steering, that is also something that can be added to the Z06 in it's present configuration. The rear wheel steering probably works better than GM's eLSD and probably weights less than the 44 pounds that the eLSD added to the weight of the Z06. Of course rear wheel steering is not something that GM has never thought of using before(they used in on their GMC trucks).
Everyone keeps talking about a new mid engine AWD Vette as if that layout is required in order to get a decent time at the Ring. I said that Mercedes just proved that a mid engine layout isn't needed. Just better engineering using the front engine layout will do the job.
It looks to me that the Benz has a full cage installed. Those do wonders for chassis rigidity. Just some food for thought..
Food for thought is that you don't know what you are taking about(or what you think you are seeing). The Benz in the video does not have a full(or even a partial) cage installed.
While you were straining your eyes watching the video and searching for a roll cage that isn't there, so you can have an excuse, did you notice that the Benz was passed, and not by a Z06, but still hit 302kph(187.65 MPH). If I remember correctly, the 2012 C6 ZR1(with PDE) hit 183 MPH. The Benz can haul *** with only 577 HP which shows that it has really great areo.
This is the state of the art in rear suspension design found in a lowly Mustang. Even the front with it's strut employs sophisticated multi link geometry to control the friction circle. Tadge had the tools to design the C7 suspension properly, but elected not to.
i had both...at the same time...and regularly drove back-to-back. C7Z is a far superior car. But, my C7Z isn't in the same league as my McLaren. Of course, my opinions are as irrelevant as yours.
Opinions are never irrelevant and are fun to share. We just need to remember that like body orifices everyone has one, so we need to expect diversity.
The Corvette model has been a car biz success for more than 60 years of uninterrupted production.
Name another foreign or domestic car that can say that...
I think the Suburban has been around since 1935, uninterrupted.
i had both...at the same time...and regularly drove back-to-back. C7Z is a far superior car. But, my C7Z isn't in the same league as my McLaren. Of course, my opinions are as irrelevant as yours.
actually 1938 to 2003 in continuous production somewhere in the world. 65 years.
Originally Posted by JoesC5
Actually, GM did produced 44 1983 MY Corvettes(and they had VINs). Too many problems arose and GM decided to hold off until the 1984 MY to produce cars for sale.
GM crushed all but one of the 1983 cars and it is now in the Museum. GM did produce the 1983 MY Corvette but they never sold any of them to any of their dealers.
Originally Posted by JoesC5
I think the Suburban has been around since 1935, uninterrupted.
I see that you are not capable of debating the two cars but want to make it personal.
So, I'll do the same. I'll spend as much time of the Corvette Forum and the Mercedes Forum in the ratio of my current automobile ownership. Will you do the same?
Since I presently own three Corvettes and one Mercedes, I'll spend 75% of my time on the Corvette Forum and 25% of my time on the Mercedes Forum.
So, what percentage of your time will you be spending on the Corvette forum and how much of you time on the KIA Forum(or what ever other brands you have in your garage)?
If you want to go back to post #1, let's discuss the C7's ability to NOT put in a Ring time. According to LG Motorsports, GM made four attempts to get a a time with the C7(and we haven't seen a single one, even though Tadge said he was going to put up a video over a year ago.). By the way, Lou Gigliotti does have some long time experience with racing Corvettes(he was one of the original drivers in the 1988/1989 Corvette Challenger series). If he says GM tried four times, I'll accept that number.
Why are you fixated on a Ring time? Do you race there? I have no doubt the GT R is fast, but its Ring time was conducted by a magazine and not Mercedes...and appears to have been a prototype car. Surely you do understand that Ring times are often disregarded as being irrelevant, because so much 'cheating' goes on. One of the more widely known examples is that the 918 time was achieved by a car with a fake roof. Remember the claims that Dodge changed the gears before the ACR's vaunted run there?
As a McLaren owner, I understand and respect the fact that the company sees no value in chasing the Ring. In fact, no owner I know cares what their $300K-2M model does at the Ring because it doesn't relate to real life. Moreover, having now owned 2 C7Z's and a ZR1, nary a thought has been paid to how fast Jim Mero can sling a sorted car around the Ring. Remember people complaining that his heft would surely add to the clock? However, I do share the concerns others have about cooling issues of the cars, given the way GM marketed the Z.
I own many cars, and a Kia is not among them. However, I would be careful to denigrate them, as I'm sure there are folks here that do. So what? Are you suggesting that owning three Corvettes and a Mercedes is a crowning achievement Obviously, it's something to be proud of, but so too is owning any C7 and a Kia. Billions of people on the planet could only dream of having the means to own those two cars...
PS - If track times are really important to you, why not focus on the Z's times at VIR, Sachsenring, Willow Springs or Nevers Magny...they are no joke...assuming all cars have cheated equally and the driver's had to weigh in
12-14-2016, 08:29 PM
Apparently I got the Benz mistaken for the Lexus LF-A 'Ring Edition which had a full cage installed. Carry on.. 
