Corvette C6 Topgear Track time.

[sikx5]

the little skit at the end, u know before the stig lap time, but his reviews in general 8)

[mindgam3]

Im guess we're gonna have to wait for thee 5th gear review then...

Either way, bottom line is, its still not good enough to sell very many if any at all in Europe, there's far better options for the money, or if money isn't a concern then theres always a 911. Lets face it the only reason it sells in the US is because its American and its got history along with it, no matter how shit it is, it will always sell in America.

[LotusGT1]

Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by LotusGT1 Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by 5vz-fe You gotta be kidding me right?...the rear suspension uses leaf-springs??? :shock: Well - it beat the GT3 around the Nurbergring... There has never been a Corvette that beat a GT3 around the Nordschleife. The old GT3 did 7:56 (back in 2000), the new one is faster... You are wrong. In 2003 the 2004 Z06 ran the Nurbugring in 7:56 during official and recognized GM testing - using stock suspension settings and stock tyres - and without using a local driver. Local track knowledge probably has MORE to do with very fast times on that track than the car alone. One would hope that the "new GT3" would show some improvement for the money - and especially with a local track guru at the wheel.

Wrong.

The GT3 doesn't have any fancy tires or custom setup's either. I'm sure GM did some extensive testing before going for such a laptime. It's not like there was a noob behind the steering wheel.

And factual, there has never been a faster time reported than 7:56, so while the Z06 might be faster, it never has been proven. That's a simple fact. The only way you can back up that claim is when they drive both cars under the same conditions with the same driver.

Nevertheless, calling a Porsche 911 GT3 a limited-edition, hand-made, premiere, no-holds-barred, no-expense-sparred, trimmed-down, light-weight, racer-wannabe uber-sportscar is comical, and couldn't be farther from the truth. Childish might be a better word.

@Guibo. Laptimes between a Z06 and the GT3 are compared. The comparison between the laptimes of the C6 and the GT3 were purely based on misinformation by some guys here.

@graywolf624. For the record, the Exige was faster. The C6 did 1.26.8, 0.4 seconds slower than the Exige. And how much power is the Exige down on a Corvette ?

LOL@the acceleration test they did on Top Gear. I've never seen a NSX outaccelerate a Corvette.

LOL@the leaf springs comment. The corvette uses double wishbones in the rear with a transverse leaf spring; that has almost nothing in common with the leaf springs you find on a truck.

Everything is based on personal preference. It's just what suits you best.
And I wonder, how much profit does GM make on a Corvette ?

[666fast]

Now that I've actually seen the review, I feel as if I can take part in this conversation. Or arguement, whatever you want to call it.

The Top gear review wasn't that bad. They definately could have done better, but of course, they would have had to like the car in the first place. The over exaggerating of the gear changes and firmness could have been done in any car. I can make it sound as if a M3 has clunky gear changes and a far to stiff suspension if I wanted too.
Was it just me, or was Hammond really trying to drive the point home to Jeremy that the car was fast after stating the laptime. Even with the shitty attempt on the Stigs part, it still ran a very respectable time. That wasn't going to change Jeremy's opinion though. After all, it's still an plastic american car with Vietnamese suspension. Lets not mention the crash regs and the fact that the "leaf spring" is transversly mounted and made out of composite materials.

Wanna know what the Telegraph had to say about the C6, well, it's pretty much the opposite of Top Gears evaluation.

Little red Corvette (Filed: 31/07/2004) America's greatest sports car is turning its sights on Europe. As Peter Hall discovered, Chevrolet's new C6 Corvette is more compact, more powerful and more refined - and an absolute bargain "I ran a C4 as everyday transport about 15 years ago. It was a great car..." Cor 'Vette: the 186mph C6 offers great sound and keyless start We were at the opening of the new Cadillac Experience Centre in Dusseldorf for the European relaunch of two of America's most iconic brands, and I was about to tell the vice-president of General Motors my favourite Corvette stories. The ones that proved its practicality, about how the boot could swallow a complete small-block Chevrolet engine and four jerrycans of fuel, or about the morning I carried a professional caterer girlfriend and a pre-prepared feast for 80 people to a posh wedding reception in London (and maybe even the one about the night before, when her ex-boyfriend had burst into her flat and stamped on the beautiful salmon centerpiece and ended up in hospital). And how the glass-fibre bodywork survived without a scratch when a zombie flesh eater walked up the bonnet one night at the Elephant and Castle. And how the seats were the most comfortable I've ever encountered before or since, and how it cost less than £100 to service, and how, despite hard use on road and track, it only ever failed to proceed once, when the little plastic safety switch under the clutch pedal failed, and how it was brilliant fun on snow, and how awesome its sound system was, and how it was never broken into despite someone's attempt to drill the locks in a station car park, and how the company accountants eventually sold it for £4,000 because they thought that a car with 50,000 miles on the clock was virtually worthless even though it was good for 250,000 and really only just run-in, and how if I'd known they were going to give it away I'd have bought it myself because I absolutely loved that car... Bob Lutz wasn't impressed. "Forget that," he said, with a contemptuous wave of his hand. "Have you driven a C5?" "Yes, I drove one from London to the Nürburgring and back a while ago," I said, glancing at the magnificent C5 racer parked a few feet away, the very car that won the GT class at Le Mans in June. "It was even better." "Well, when you drive the C6, the C5 will seem like a piece of ****." That the new Corvette was intended to be a big improvement over the outgoing model was already clear as I perused the press pack on the flight to Germany, where I was to drive the only example in Europe. Anticipation was high, not least because the drive had been postponed twice by GM's European agents. We had warned them not to give the car to BBC Top Gear first because they'd wreck it, and sure enough, as a result of their antics (see tomorrow night's programme) the car went back to the workshop in Dusseldorf with a stripped clutch, four bald tyres and damaged bodywork. I was impatient to get behind the wheel at last, but I was also prepared to be disappointed. Sure, it had a new and even bigger engine, an aluminium-alloy, six-litre pushrod V8 developing 400bhp and a whopping 400lb ft of torque, offering 0-62mph in just 4·2 seconds and a top speed of 186mph - true supercar territory. But talk of increased refinement and traction control systems suggested that the simple, elemental appeal of America's one true sports car might have been diluted for the modern world. And then there were the press photos, which gave the impression that the traditionally dramatic styling had been eroded. In the composite flesh, that impression persists. According to chief engineer Dave Hill, the stylists' aim was to create something that was recognisably a Corvette "from 100 yards", and they have certainly succeeded; save pop-up headlamps, absent for the first time since 1962, all the old visual cues are there: the flat rear deck, the round tail lamps, the glassy rear hatch and laid-back cockpit, the sharky extractor vents aft of the sharply defined front wings, the bonnet bulge, the aggressive snout; there's even an egg-crate grille, albeit invisible from most angles. But what has really altered the car's physical presence is a reduction in overall size; although the wheelbase has been increased by an inch, it is an inch narrower and crucially five inches shorter than its predecessor thanks to reduced front and rear overhangs. Roofless fun: a convertible is due next year In fact the new C6 is the same length as a Porsche 911 - compact even by European standards - and only fractionally more than three inches wider. This is most obvious at the front; the characteristically long bonnet has been chopped, with the result that the rear half of the car looks uncomfortably massive from some angles. It's as if Jeremy Clarkson had revealed a previously unsuspected degree of insecurity and emerged from plastic surgery with Michael Jackson's nose. Maybe GM lost its nerve in its attempt to make its all-American hero a European contender. It certainly wants a lot more European sales - 2,000 per year - than it achieved with the C5. The designers might boast of "tighter, more athletic dimensions", but a heavyweight boxer could still find a comfortable driving position in the neat and well-finished cockpit. It's as spacious as ever, and provides a surprising amount of storage space (including "high-performance cupholders"). Air conditioning is standard, as you might expect, and the centre console incorporates a satellite navigation and audio system screen. Access is via wide-opening, keyless doors; the car recognises the fob in your pocket (which carries a conventional key for emergency use) and unlocks itself as you approach; the only drawback with this system, of course, is that the doors unlock themselves when you go back to check that they're locked... Starting is by a button next to the steering column and you are required to push the clutch all the way to the floor as a safety precaution; leaving the gearlever in reverse when you switch off is an additional security measure that shuts down all unnecessary electrical circuits and minimises battery drain. The rear hatch, meanwhile, is unlocked by a button on the facia (or remotely by the key fob) and opens to reveal a vast load area. This is compromised if you wish to stash away the one-piece roof panel (an easy three-catch-and-lift job, although if that's a struggle there is also a convertible version) but sufficient room remains underneath it for several squashy bags and there is additional storage space concealed beneath the floor; as the Goodyear tyres incorporate 200-mile run-flat technology, there is no spare wheel. It is surprising that no cover is fitted to hide your luggage from prying eyes, however, and more anchorage points for loose items would be useful. The seats are not as wonderful as those I remember from 15 years ago, but they provide good support, with 12-way electrical adjustment, and the steering wheel offers variable reach and rake. My immediate impression was of sitting on the car rather than in it - perhaps a consequence of that diminished nose - but a comfortable driving position was easy to find. That said, I spent some time unsuccessfully trying to gain a clear view of the green-illuminated head-up display projected on to the bottom of windscreen, and found that the only way I could see the whole thing was to recline the seat to a less than ideal, straight-arm driving position. I later discovered that the height of the display was adjustable, but it was no great loss as the comprehensive and permanently back-lit analogue instruments are perfectly clear. For what it's worth, the head-up display offers two modes: Street includes a range of information such as speed, turn indicators and audio settings (plus gear selection on the automatic model), while Track includes speed, revs, engine gauges and lateral g in corners. The latter in particular might inspire some of the most boring pub conversations in automotive history; the fact that you normally generate about 0·5g while negotiating a suburban roundabout is of little interest to anyone I know, and the only way to guarantee beating your mates at this particular game is to run head-on into a tree at 186mph. Not that any sane driver is likely to do so in the C6. Despite the irresistible thrill of unleashing 400 horses and roaring towards the horizon with a thunderous exhaust note that makes the Ford GT tested last week sound like a Scalextric car, the massive tyres (245/40ZR on the 18x8·5in front rims, 285/35ZR on the 19x10in rears) offer prodigious roadholding. However, this is not a boring machine of the type described by James May, because there is ultimately more power than grip. And, happily, the anti-lock brakes and switchable traction control and active handling systems have been designed with the sporting driver in mind. Bob Lutz likened such active safety measures to a rectangle superimposed on a vehicle: "Mercedes-Benz and BMW draw it well within the parameters of the car. Ours is within a couple of millimetres of its capabilities, so the driver can really enjoy it, as long as he's safe." What this means in practice is that the systems intervene later and more discreetly than many high-performance cars, braking individual wheels or reducing torque only when excessive wheelspin is detected; the definition of excessive is generous, so you can unstick the tyres in a standing start or a tight turn without feeling that your enthusiasm is being curbed. In that sense, it is reminiscent of Ferrari's adjustable system. The completely revised suspension, still based on a high-tech composite transverse leaf spring at the rear, may be adjusted via the optional (£1,800) Magnetic Selective Ride Control, first seen on last year's 50th Anniversary Corvette and claimed to be the world's fastest-reacting system. It reads the road surface and adjusts itself accordingly by means of dampers that employ magneto-rheological fluid rather than mechanical valves; the driver is also given a choice of Tour and Sport settings. A stiffer, track-orientated set up is offered with the Z51 Performance Package, which also includes racier gear ratios, coolers for transmission and power steering and bigger, cross-drilled brake discs (13·4in front/13in rear, as opposed to the standard 12·8in/12in items, which are the same diameter as those on the C5 but two pounds heavier at the front for greater durability and reduced heat and fade). All in all, then, the new Corvette is a pretty sophisticated mix, but the proof of the pudding is in the mile-eating. Setting out from the Dusseldorf dealership, it immediately felt at home, easy to drive and surprisingly wieldy in heavy traffic, giving the impression of being bigger on the inside than on the outside. The ride quality (with Magnetic Selective Ride switched on) was supple over most surfaces and although its underlying firmness was revealed by the way the car would crash into unexpected potholes with a bang, there was surprisingly little shock transmitted to the cabin. Heading out of the city on to the autobahn, the flexibility offered by all that torque was delightfully relaxing - at a very laid-back 2,000rpm in top gear you're travelling at almost 90mph - but the temptation to floor the throttle was ever present. Stuck in the heavily populated area between Dusseldorf and Cologne, the traffic density rarely allowed such freedom and despite massive acceleration my best attempt to hit maximum speed was cut short at a measly 130mph by a wandering hatchback. All I can say is that the C6 felt supremely stable, comfortable and more than willing to reach 180-plus with nonchalant ease. Wind and tyre noise were also remarkably subdued. Peeling off on to lesser roads in search of corners was scarcely less frustrating; this part of Germany is not ideal driving country. Nevertheless, the Corvette proved itself to be an effective B-road tool, gobbling up the short straights between pretty villages and displaying a very satisfying agility on the few twisty bits. The steering is meaty, accurate and quick, and with such enormous reserves of grip at both ends it was necessary to really chuck the car into roundabouts and tight, traffic-calming chicanes to go beyond neutral handling for a taste of electronically limited oversteer. On these smooth surfaces, the ride was predictably excellent, so I look forward to trying it on a typically bumpy British lane; I suspect it would be less of a white-knuckle ride than a Porsche 911 GT3, for example, even though its performance is very similar. One of the most attractive aspects of the Corvette is that this performance is delivered in such deceptively lazy fashion. It can cover great distances in relaxing style and having so much torque means that gear changing is rarely necessary; despite a shortened travel, the six-speed shift is not lightning quick, particularly between fourth and fifth, but it is fingertip light. The brakes are very strong indeed, and offer good feel. Perhaps most noticeable of all is the feedback offered by the chassis; it was possible to sense the road surface through the front and the rear wheels, a degree of communication that is sadly lacking in the Ford GT. But will it be well received in Britain? Bob Lutz conceded that engineering a right-hand drive conversion would be "tough" - although it is being investigated - but in any case left-hand drive is less of a disadvantage than is often supposed, especially on congested roads, and wise road positioning (holding back for nearside views, for example) combined with effortless performance can overcome most overtaking problems. You get used to it, and on the open road it hardly matters. In fact, it has some advantages: it is easy to park close to the kerb and you can simply open the door and step out on to the pavement rather than taking your chances with passing traffic. The Corvette is also a good deal more practical than many of its rivals, certainly more reliable than some and, with an urban fuel consumption estimated at 23mpg, slightly less thirsty despite all that cubic capacity (for which there really is no substitute; if you are concerned about fuel economy, you shouldn't be looking at a supercar anyway). Its one outstanding advantage, however, is price. This will be confirmed in September, but is expected to be about two per cent higher than the outgoing C5; based on current German prices, that means about £41,500 for the coupé automatic, rising to about £46,500 for the convertible manual; the car tested here would be £44,500. With its competition in terms of performance (Aston Martin DB9, Ferrari 360 Modena and Porsche 911) costing more than twice as much and only a couple of TVRs available for less - as they should be, given their relative lack of refinement - the Corvette therefore represents an awful lot of car for the money. I'd certainly think twice about paying another 40 grand for right-hand drive. Along with the September price announcement, GM is expected to unveil its plans for Cadillac and Corvette sale and distribution centres in the UK. If there's any common sense in the world of high performance cars, they should be busy places. The queue starts here. Chevrolet Corvette Price/availability: To be confirmed; coupé from about £41,500, convertible from about £45,500. On sale September 2004 and first quarter of 2005 respectively. Engine/transmission: 5,970cc pushrod V8, SOHC, two valves per cylinder; 400bhp at 6,000rpm, 400lb ft of torque at 4,400rpm. Six-speed manual or four-speed automatic gearbox, rear-wheel drive. Performance: top speed 186mph, 0-62mph in 4·2sec. EU fuel consumption n/a; estimates converted from US gallons to imperial are 23mpg city (auto 22mpg), 34mpg highway (auto 30mpg), 28mpg combined (auto 25mpg). CO2 emissions n/a. We like: Storming performance, agility, entertaining yet safe handling, comfort and refinement, reputation for durability, unbeatable price (compare alternatives, below). An awful lot of car for the money. We don't like: Styling slightly unbalanced by shorter bonnet, no cover over rear luggage deck, supercar thirst. Left-hand drive might deter some. Alternatives: Lamborghini Gallardo, from £117,000. Ferrari 360 Modena, from £103,275. Aston Martin DB9, from £103,000. Porsche 911 Turbo, from £90,360. Honda NSX, from £60,013. Maserati 4200GT, from £56,650. Mercedes-Benz SLK AMG 55, from £49,570. Noble M12, from £48,500. TVR Tuscan, from £40,048.

[666fast]

Sorry about posting two replies, I didn't want to hit the character limit and have to do it all over again.

Here is an excellent post about Top Gears review from pistonheads.com

With Clarkson, it's any excuse to say something for effect - the witty put-down. Well that honour went to patrick Kielty who said to Jeremy "The trouble with you is that you confuse fact with your own opinion". Thanks, Patrick, you played a blinder (sorry about the Cayenne and the DeLorean though...) The leaf springs that Clarkson equated to a Silver Cross pram is in fact a transverse composite plastic spring. Old technology that like a pushrod V8 has been brought sceaming and kicking into the 21st Century and guess what...it works. They use them because they're traditional, cheap and also take up a lot less space under the bodywork - important when you've got a 6.0 V8 and a rear transaxle to package. Just like a pushrod engine doesn't have all the height of an ohc design. They have got this suspension right on the C5 Z06 but they're presumably keeping it for the next Z06. Other suspension solutions are going to be expensive and probably not a whole lot better. Clarkson keeps missing the point (except when it comes to the Ford GT) - this car is CHEAP to buy in the US. It's owned by 20 year old students in the US who run it by working in MacDonalds. That's why everything about it has to be built down to a price and why they're working on a Supervette. It's more expensive here in the UK of course but blame the Government for that. What annoys me about Top Gear is that when you analyse it, the criticism doesn't really hold water but the overall impression you get is that it's a bad car. For example, I can't detect stones beneath the tyres of my Z06 and I find the suspension pretty supple for a sports car - just a cheap exaggeration. I've driven an Elise and that crashes into drains like Lesley Whittle (No Jeremy, you can't use that one). The cheap interior. Have you seen a Lotus Elise or Vauxhall VXR interior - naff as Lego and nearly £30k. Best idea for the Corvette seems to be don't fit an interior at all. Just leave all the hydroformed chassis and technologically advanced sandwiched floor exposed. Pliable rear panel. Crash regs - wouldn't want a direct hit on the hydroformed solid chassis. The Vette will absorb and shrug off dents. A Lotus will explode into a million pieces of glassfibre which will penetrate your eyeballs and cost a minimum of £3000 to repair. Leaf springs - well, whatever else, they seem to work to the tune in 1:26.8 round the track despite trying to harness a heavy V8 engine and the laws of physics. I seem to recall a TVR 350C having a lot of trouble turning in a good time. Perhaps they should try leaf springs? Heavy clutch? Is Hammond real? My Z06 hasn't got a heavy clutch at all. Granted the gearbox is a little agricultural but a Hurst shifter can be fitted in half an hour and for those of you who don't get it, GM leave you to finish the car yourself via the aftermarket. In the meantime, you can still afford a 400bhp car. The drag race. Can Hammond drive? I say this because if you look at any American road test, the car will run the quarter in the 12's and the NSX runs it in 13.4. I'm not going to argue about the TVR as that was devastatingly quick but they quietly ignored the slaying of the Porsche didn't they? I'm sure the mid-engined NSX is easier to get a good time out of but ultimately, I think the Vette would take it but then I'm not making excuses, if it lost on the day, it lost. I'm still not quite sure why a £37000 Holden VXR is "great value" and a £40000 C6 is a "sports car with Vietnamese suspension". I'll have to work on that one. Inconsistency is a great journalistic trait. Still, we did get away without a single reference to cowboy hats, line dancing and the Dukes of Hazzard.

What do the guys who know Corvettes in and out have to say about all of this, be prepared to be not surprised:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=874885

Fact is, they didn't like it so they trashed it. Hardly a fair and balanced review, with a cleaner lap, it could have been a bit quicker. Last I checked, locking up the brakes, generous oversteer and driving on the grass didn't make for an excellent lap time.
Hopefully this time around, the Z06 will be sold in Europe. All it has to do is knock 4 seconds off of it's time on the Top gear track to beat the Ford GT. Then Jeremy would have to eat his shoe. Sadly, even if it was, it would get the same treatment the normal C6 got.

As for this whole C6 versus 911 stuff, for me, I'll take the Vette. Screw the badge and screw the interior. I'm not looking to fiddle with some buttons, I'm going to be watching the road, looking take down some 911's.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by LotusGT1 Nevertheless, calling a Porsche 911 GT3 a limited-edition, hand-made, premiere, no-holds-barred, no-expense-sparred, trimmed-down, light-weight, racer-wannabe uber-sportscar is comical, and couldn't be farther from the truth. Childish might be a better word.

WTF are you rambling about now?

The GT3 is NOT the base model porsche - and is in fact a premiere model that is lighter and more specially tuned and designed and built - specifically with competition in mind and costs a shit load more than the regular 911.

You are so hell bent on arguing for argument sake you glance right over the facts ...

Now I see you argue semantics - the Z06 ran 7:56... why not admit that is a seriously good time at the Nurburgring for a non-local driver in a non-Porsche.

[LotusGT1]

Which facts did I miss or didn't I adress to ? LOL, you guys fall right over laptimes without knowing under what conditions they were performed...

LOL, I'm stating my opinion and write down facts, you're the one seeking the discussion. I only corrected some misconceptions. Have you EVER seen a laptime of the Z06 on the 'Ring faster than the GT3 ? Didn't think so either.....

About the Z06's great time, did you ever see me claim otherwise ? I merely state the facts, something you seem to have difficulties with sometimes...

Get over it :roll:

[T-Bird]

So Lotus you like to get your facts straight then why did you state that the Exige got .4 seconds faster than the C6 when in fact the Exige got a 1.26.9 and the C6 1.26.8

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by 666fast Sorry about posting two replies, I didn't want to hit the character limit and have to do it all over again. Here is an excellent post about Top Gears review from pistonheads.com

But don't you think they're going to write that all anyway, considering that the writer owns a vette, and the vette forum is obviously going to be biased anyway.....

I can't see how they they are gonna sell the corvette in Europe any more than the C5.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by LotusGT1 Which facts did I miss or didn't I adress to ? LOL, you guys fall right over laptimes without knowing under what conditions they were performed... LOL, I'm stating my opinion and write down facts, you're the one seeking the discussion. I only corrected some misconceptions. Have you EVER seen a laptime of the Z06 on the 'Ring faster than the GT3 ? Didn't think so either..... About the Z06's great time, did you ever see me claim otherwise ? I merely state the facts, something you seem to have difficulties with sometimes... Get over it :roll:

I notice how you just gloss over the fact that the GT3 IS a special edition 911.

You also gloss over the fact that the GT3 did post a 7:56.. and so did the Z06.

The semantics of calling it "matched the GT3 time" or "beat the GT3 time" is of little consequence on a track like the 'Ring.

And for fucks sake - I AM making a point of commenting on the conditions under which the time was set and how they can affect lap times - which pretty much negates your "knowing under what conditions they were performed..." comment.

The simple facts are that the laptime set for the Z06 on the Nurburgring was with the car setup as it would be delivered to a customer - these are the rules set up by GM for allowing GM to quote their own test results for marketing etc.

Where as the GT3 time (and other car make/model times) could have been set after some adjustment and tyre changes (which of course is what a customer would do - so is not really cheating) - we (the automotive general public) have never ever had confirmation that the times set were with the car "as delivered".

Not only that - but the driver, while a pro race driver, was [b]NOT a local Nurburgring specialist.

The significance of the local track knowledge is one of the very important contributing factors to the superb speeds the Porsche's achieve each time they are tested.

The very same way the times that "the Stig" achieves are all over the place - because the weather, track AND car conditions are all over the place. This we are well aware of - "track and test condition" obviously impact resulting times. :roll:

[TT]

Dang, it's incredible how such (useless ) discussion always goes on forever... the C6 is maybe a good car (anyway w/o actually testing it, we all talk about other people opinions) or a crap car.. but that's not the point.. we could say the same about the GT3, the M5 or the Kia Picanto!

The main point is that this C6 probably as the previous models isn't really a car that will be a bg hitter in Europe.. no idea really why, probably we are simply different, but I'm sure people will go on buying 991s for instance here in Europe and only a VERY few of them will even just consider the Vette... it's like that and discussing about lap times, bang for the buck or whatever, will never lead anywhere

[RC45]

Originally Posted by TT ... it's like that and discussing about lap times, bang for the buck or whatever, will never lead anywhere

Yet that's why we are auto enthusiasts - right?

[TT]

LOL I guess so

BTW, another MAJOR point why Vettes never sold well here and never will probably: displacement... 6 liters... noway in hell taxes here would be crazy! Even a 3.6 Porsche and anything above 2 liters is expensive, but a 6 liters will put down MANY potential buyers right away...

[LotusGT1]

Originally Posted by T-Bird So Lotus you like to get your facts straight then why did you state that the Exige got .4 seconds faster than the C6 when in fact the Exige got a 1.26.9 and the C6 1.26.8

Wow, the list on page one clearly states 1.26.4 :roll:

Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by LotusGT1 Which facts did I miss or didn't I adress to ? LOL, you guys fall right over laptimes without knowing under what conditions they were performed... LOL, I'm stating my opinion and write down facts, you're the one seeking the discussion. I only corrected some misconceptions. Have you EVER seen a laptime of the Z06 on the 'Ring faster than the GT3 ? Didn't think so either..... About the Z06's great time, did you ever see me claim otherwise ? I merely state the facts, something you seem to have difficulties with sometimes... Get over it :roll: I notice how you just gloss over the fact that the GT3 IS a special edition 911. You also gloss over the fact that the GT3 did post a 7:56.. and so did the Z06. The semantics of calling it "matched the GT3 time" or "beat the GT3 time" is of little consequence on a track like the 'Ring. And for fucks sake - I AM making a point of commenting on the conditions under which the time was set and how they can affect lap times - which pretty much negates your "knowing under what conditions they were performed..." comment. The simple facts are that the laptime set for the Z06 on the Nurburgring was with the car setup as it would be delivered to a customer - these are the rules set up by GM for allowing GM to quote their own test results for marketing etc. Where as the GT3 time (and other car make/model times) could have been set after some adjustment and tyre changes (which of course is what a customer would do - so is not really cheating) - we (the automotive general public) have never ever had confirmation that the times set were with the car "as delivered". Not only that - but the driver, while a pro race driver, was [b]NOT a local Nurburgring specialist. The significance of the local track knowledge is one of the very important contributing factors to the superb speeds the Porsche's achieve each time they are tested. The very same way the times that "the Stig" achieves are all over the place - because the weather, track AND car conditions are all over the place. This we are well aware of - "track and test condition" obviously impact resulting times. :roll:

Read for crying out loud.

You claimed the Z06 beat the GT3 on the Ring - FALSE, it never did. It possibly could, but it has never been proven. Do you know under what conditions the GT3's time was set ? You don't have to explain me the importance of drivers and conditions, I never disputed that, did I ? LOL, I even agreed with you.

I wasn't the one that kept comparing the C6 with the GT3, but since some dipshits don't pay attention and think the GT3's TG time was on a dry circuit, instead of soaking wet, that's how the GT3 got into this discussion. Of course I'm aware the GT3 is a stripped down hardcore 911.

So learn how to fucking read or shut up, you're getting tiresome.

[RC45]

LOL I guess so

BTW, another MAJOR point why Vettes always sold well here and always will probably: displacement... 6 liters... hell YES!! gas prices here are cheap! Even a 3.6 Porsche and anything below 2 liters is for pussy's// - but a 6 liters will attract MANY potential buyers right away...

- Couldn't resist the rewrite sir..