"Blue Devil" News: Test Details Roll In

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> The price is not bad at all, the scary part are these dealerships WILL jack the price up like a mofo!

$200K 'Vette anyone?

 

[nissan tuner]

$200K 'Vette anyone?

what the.. more expensive than a Callaway C16?

 

[Joey D]

-> The price is not bad at all, the scary part are these dealerships WILL jack the price up like a mofo!

$200K 'Vette anyone?

I don't think it will get that high with mark ups but I am expecting $150k, which is still really poor on the dealers part.

 

[the Interceptor]

I'm going to post my rant form another forum here about this car discussing my dislike of GM's laziness by not refining its engines to use modern technology.

... and I'm going to post a shootout between the Audi R8 and the Corvette C6 from the latest issue of the German car magazine 'AutoBild Sportscars':

********************************************************

Watch out, Audi!

More displacement, more power, more driving pleasure: the renewed Corvette C6 blares to take on the well established competition. One of her first combatants is the Audi R8. How well will the rear wheel drive and the 437 hp of the American put up with the all wheel drive and the 420 hp of the German?

The stop light break as an inquiry in etiquette: don't forget the good manners just now. One who sits in the Audi R8 and, lost in thought, picks his nose right now has already lost. Everyone would see. Even after almost two years since it was first introduced, the sportscar from Ingolstadt still is a matter of public interest, stamped into aluminium and carbon fiber.

Despite the new V8 with 6.2 liters of displacement and 437 horses, enhanced steering and upgraded interior, the freshly reworked Corvette knows no such hype. Compared to the glorified-from-birth Audi, it had a heavy childhood. Since 1953, General Motors positions the Corvette to be an appropriate contender to European sportscars – always intending to build the best sportscar of the world. Always with limited success. From the beginning, the design fulfilled the attributes of a proper sportscar, yet the handling never held what the promising sound of the voluminous eightcylinders promised.

The critic always stayed the same. The handling: not sporty enough. The steering: too dull. The build quality: well, you know. And then there was the unfavorable preference of the red light district for the two seater from Michigan. Although the pimps of this world have long transfered to models from Stuttgart [ *coughMercedescough*], the bad reputation sticks to the Vette like super glue. However, the current generation is the best ever and serious competition for sportscars from good old Europe.

That basically is a sensation, given the antiquated design of the Corvette. After all, details such as leafsprings at the rear axle and a V8 with one central camshaft and pushrods [ come on, you knew they'd say the evil words] from a time when later foreign minister Joschka Fischer attended wild riots with the police [around 1968].

Who underestimates the Corvette out of an old habit will quickly be beaten by it. The new steering makes the C6 naviagte with unprecedented precision. Even the formerly critical corrections at the limit are noted well-tempered by the steering and the also reworked suspension. But woe you go overboard! Despite the active stability control, the rear kicks out quicker than you will say „ESP“ [ electronic stability program]. Deactivate the aide all along (there are three settings), and you'll soon find yourself drifting around every corner thanks to the exuberant torque of 575 newtonmeters. At all, the 6.2 liter V8 brings tears of joy to your eyes. Regardless of doing 5000 revs in secord or 900 in sixth – the engine responds to the throttle perfectly jerk-free, revs like a dervish and hammers an easy smile in your face that would put John Wayne to shame. What a bummer that the likewise reworked six speed manual still acts a tad too stiff.

Let's talk about the Audi. Despite its classically appearing, deliciously clicking, yet notchy gearbox with an open shifting gate, it appears to be a research lab on wheels compared to the sixties technique of the Corvette. Aluminium body, direct injection, adaptive damping, permanent all wheel drive – the R8 possesses almost all ingredients of a modern sportscar. And it drives like one, too. Thanks to the balancing mid-engine layout and the variable, yet always rear-biased all wheel drive (distribution: 10:90 to 35:65 %), the Audi sweeps a bend faster than the passenger wishes to.

Under full acceleration, the 100 [ km/h] fall after just 4.7 seconds and accompanied by suspiciously-Nascar-like V8-roar; another 12.9 seconds later the two-seater already does 200 [km/h]. Meanwhile, you can't help the odd feeling that the Audi could use at least 100 hp more. The brilliant traction and the excellent roadholding make the R8 feel slower than it actually is. The steering seems to be too easy and numb on the first meters, but soon works its way to the pilots heart through its immediate way and the felicitous feedback. Talking of hearts: if you intend to drift with the Audi, you need to be brave. Where other rear ends already peep around the corner, the R8 stays put even with a deactivated stability control. Only if you keep your foot down beyond what your mind tells you to do, the R8 allows its behind free play. Experienced drivers will pilot the Audi through the bends like this with suprising ease, beginners should let it alone in the first place. Or brake hard. The standard brake already bites like Mike Tyson, the ceramic stops in our test car (8820 Euros extra) glue whole swarms of flies to the cars tail. The breaking figures from 100 [km/h] to zero speak for themselves: 35.8 meters cold and 36.2 meters warm.

The Corvette proves that you can kill midges without racing equipment. Despite the lack of 40 millimeters disc size at the front and 26 millimeters at the back, the Yank [ no offense to be taken] only needs 0.2 meters more stopping distance when warm, and even beats the Audi by 1.1 meters when cold. Ouch! Just like the fuel economy. While the eight cylinders of the R8 proudly sing the song of good economy of direct injection, the Corvette uses a healthy 1.8 liters [covering 100 km] less. In the next moment, it hammers from 0 to 100 [km/h] within 4.9 seconds accompanied by a slightly disappointing V8-roar compared to the Audi. The fact that the Audi wins this race is down to its advantage on the first few meters due to its all wheel drive. Beyond highway speeds, the Audi has to admit defeat. The Vette reaches 200 [km/h] a whole 2.1 seconds quicker than Ingolstadt's citizen.

And wins this shootout in the end. When the Audi trumps with perfect bulid quality, noble leather, cool metal and close-locking switches, the Corvette saves itself with a sensational price performance ratio. With a base price of 65,290 Euros, the C6 just beats the Audi R8, which costs at least 106,400 Euros, by a hefty 41,110 Euros. Despite the grip-lacking seats, the inaccurately locking controls and the bad visibility of the body, you will not find any more bang for the buck in the world of sportscars.

That makes you relax, also at the stop light. There, the Corvette driver can sit back comfortably and watch the brouhaha around the Audi R8.

********************************************************

Coming back to your posting, I must say I don't see what's wrong with pushrods and lots of displacement. I mean sure, it might not be as modern and clever as many German engines are, but if it works well and doesn't give me any disadvantages - why should I be worried?

 

[V1P3R]

: shrugs: Meh, another Vette, whoopie...

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Coming back to your posting, I must say I don't see what's wrong with pushrods and lots of displacement. I mean sure, it might not be as modern and clever as many German engines are, but if it works well and doesn't give me any disadvantages - why should I be worried?

Pretty much, I think pushrod technology is working pretty well for the Corvette. It makes the car more affordable and people are buying it. I'm not sure if it would be wise for GM to develop a DOHC engine just to put in the Corvette. They're using similar technology in their race cars and it's working well enough. I say leave the technology for Cadillac. That's not to say that there is no technology in the Vettes.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I'm going to breakdown the C6 Corvette's engines versus the German's engines since you've singled out my countrymen--mainly stcking to the V8 models with one exception.

Engines:
GM 6.2L V8 = 437bhp (C6)
Audi 4.2L V8 = 420bhp (R8)
Porsche 3.6L F6 = 415bhp (997 GT3)

^ Almost the same power output yet Audi managed to use 2,000cc less displacement. And for grins the GT3 manages to use 2 less cylinders and almost half the displacement to produce almost the same bhp.

GM 7.0L V8 = 505bhp (C6 ZO6)
Mercedes-Benz 6.2L V8 = 507bhp (SLK63 AMG Black series)
Mercedes-Benz 6.2L V8 = 525bhp (S63/CL63 AMG)

^ With almost a full litre less MB managed to nearly equal the power output of the 7.0L GM engine while having more on another configuration of that same MB engine.

GM 6.2L V8 Supercharged = 620bhp (ZR-1)
Porsche 4.8L V8 Twin Turbo = 550bhp (Cayenne Turbo S)

^ What could Porsche do with the extra 1.4 litres if they had wanted to use them?

Well done for completely missing the point of the American engine.








Now go look up torque figures which day to day are more important and youll see the only one that beats it is the S63.

 

[Keef]

I'm going to breakdown the C6 Corvette's engines versus the German's engines since you've singled out my countrymen--mainly stcking to the V8 models with one exception.

Engines:
GM 6.2L V8 = 437bhp (C6)
Audi 4.2L V8 = 420bhp (R8)
Porsche 3.6L F6 = 415bhp (997 GT3)

^ Almost the same power output yet Audi managed to use 2,000cc less displacement. And for grins the GT3 manages to use 2 less cylinders and almost half the displacement to produce almost the same bhp.

GM 7.0L V8 = 505bhp (C6 ZO6)
Mercedes-Benz 6.2L V8 = 507bhp (SLK63 AMG Black series)
Mercedes-Benz 6.2L V8 = 525bhp (S63/CL63 AMG)

^ With almost a full litre less MB managed to nearly equal the power output of the 7.0L GM engine while having more on another configuration of that same MB engine.

GM 6.2L V8 Supercharged = 620bhp (ZR-1)
Porsche 4.8L V8 Twin Turbo = 550bhp (Cayenne Turbo S)

^ What could Porsche do with the extra 1.4 litres if they had wanted to use them?

I think your argument i a lot like comparing Honda's B18C to a K20. Both make nearly the same horsepower and torque at similar revs. But, in general (and with electronic controls and whatever notwithstanding, because everything is available for these engines) the B18 doesn't have nearly as much room for improvement because it's already more strung out than the larger K20. The 2 liter engine is wanting to suck that much more air and exhaust that much more, so it benefits much more from those improvements than the 1.8 liter. Every little modification makes a bigger impact on the bigger engine. Honda didn't push the K20 to its fullest because it simply didn't need to.

It's the same reason Hennessey can push the Viper's 8.3 liter to 1200hp and just as much torque and run all day, while the Corvette's 6.0 can only handle 1100 of each before flying apart after a few runs...

AMG's 6.2 will never be able to make as much power as the LS7. You can only fit so much air into 6.2 liters, ya know. I'd say approximately 6.2 liters. And the 7.0 will gain more power from an air intake system, or headers, or port and polish job, or higher compression, etc.

But you already know all of that because you're a Camaro fan.

Well done for completely missing the point of the American engine.








Now go look up torque figures which day to day are more important and youll see the only one that beats it is the S63.

The Vette's engine makes 10 more lb-ft of torque at 400 fewer revs. I can't find dyno graphs for either engine, but I'd bet the LS7's torque curve is quite a bit flatter than the AMG, too.

 

[McLaren]

-> The price is not bad at all, the scary part are these dealerships WILL jack the price up like a mofo!

$200K 'Vette anyone?

GM would put a stop to that, trust me. Just like people are saying, "Why would you pay $150K for a Nissan?", you'd be finding the same folks going, "$200K for a Corvette?!"

GM dealers know better than that anyways. If they were to price the ZR1 premiums that high, they'd be at the gigantic risk of losing customers to the Gallardo LP560-4, SL63 AMG, and even the 997 GT2.

 

[JCE]

... and I'm going to post a shootout between the Audi R8 and the Corvette C6 from the latest issue of the German car magazine 'AutoBild Sportscars':

I guess you don't goto Final Gear's forums? I posted a similar opinion there. And I'd take the R8 anyday over any Vette. Infact I'd rather spend my money on anything else in its competition range.

Coming back to your posting, I must say I don't see what's wrong with pushrods and lots of displacement. I mean sure, it might not be as modern and clever as many German engines are, but if it works well and doesn't give me any disadvantages - why should I be worried?

This is the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality that it seems American car companies are choosing. When fuel is $8 per US gallon do you want a 13 litre V8 Corvette with 655bhp that probably gets 27mpg? That's "settling" in my opinion if you say yes, you'd take the insane 13L V8 over a technological advance and that would be sad. Advancing in tecnology is what the world is about--especially now. They could infact pull of a hat trick if they wanted to. A high powered, low displacement engine, with good fuel economy--they really can if they wanted to. My point is they won't even TRY. And on that note I still maintain the interior is rubbish as well, I don't want a Cobalt or Neon interior in an expensive sports car. And of course the suspension while may "work" on the track for the ZO6 its still ancient and needs to be seriously upgraded. Again, think how much BETTER it would be with a more modern suspension. This is all done because of PRICE--which in turn is laziness. You know what, if GM came out and simply said "yes the Corvette is the budget sportscar for enthusiasts that focused on the art of driving" I'd be thrilled...but only if they ditched the leather, satnav, aircon, stereo, and the lot. You can't have a "budget" sportscar claim if you're asking more than $60,000 USD for it. C6 or TVR? I'll take the TVR, because they make no excuses of what they are--a brilliant sports car that's aimed at the driver.

Well done for completely missing the point of the American engine.

Whatever. I've lived here long enough to understand it fully--infact I've lived here 5 more years than you've been alive.

On that "American engine" point.. It does NOT mean they (American car companies) can't finally step into the 21st century along with the rest of the world. Ford's making progress--slowly. Chrysler's stagnet it seems. GM's thankfully nicking Euro cars--because they are infact better. I'd be curious to see how the much heavier Holden with the 7.0L does on a track compared to the ZO6. Yes it would be slower due to the weight, but probably by a respectable amount.

Now go look up torque figures which day to day are more important and youll see the only one that beats it is the S63.

Your point is fine, but the performance of these AMG cars and the Porsche are quite good with the torque numbers they do have. The C63 gets to 62mph less than 4 seconds just like the ZO6--yet its heavier and has much less power (451bhp)--AND has an automatic. Also, you didn't mention about ride comfort and or daily driving ability--something all Corvettes lacked in the entire history. R8 or C6 for everyday driving? R8. An AMG Merc or ZO6 for everyday driving? Merc. Porsche 911 Turbo or the ZR-1 for everyday driving? Porsche. Hell, since the GT-R is now here I'll take that over the lot--well maybe not the R8.

I think your argument i a lot like comparing Honda's B18C to a K20. Both make nearly the same horsepower and torque at similar revs. But, in general (and with electronic controls and whatever notwithstanding, because everything is available for these engines) the B18 doesn't have nearly as much room for improvement because it's already more strung out than the larger K20. The 2 liter engine is wanting to suck that much more air and exhaust that much more, so it benefits much more from those improvements than the 1.8 liter. Every little modification makes a bigger impact on the bigger engine. Honda didn't push the K20 to its fullest because it simply didn't need to.

It's the same reason Hennessey can push the Viper's 8.3 liter to 1200hp and just as much torque and run all day, while the Corvette's 6.0 can only handle 1100 of each before flying apart after a few runs...

AMG's 6.2 will never be able to make as much power as the LS7. You can only fit so much air into 6.2 liters, ya know. I'd say approximately 6.2 liters. And the 7.0 will gain more power from an air intake system, or headers, or port and polish job, or higher compression, etc.

But you already know all of that because you're a Camaro fan.

But also as a Camaro fan I understand the concept of getting more power with what I've got under the bonnet. If I had 7 litres to work with in my 1990 Camaro I'd get a damn sight more than 505bhp--and I'm "one man in a shed" as Clarkson would put it. I can achieve what GM can't, not being lazy and settling for a rubbish power number from such a large engine just because they feel "its enough", I will actually do more. Honestly, I do wholeheartedly agree that the 7.0L can be much more powerful than a 6.2L (even in pushrod form), but why didn't they do it? GM has the technology, and American engineers are intelligent dispite what the world says, so why are they being lazy about it? You guys are misconstruing what I'm saying--you are assuming I'm anti-American and instulting them. I'm actually doing the opposite--I KNOW they can do better. My issue is they choose NOT to. Other car companies all over the world do it, but GM US (and Chrysler) are the absolute worst.

 

[Joey D]

When fuel is $8 per US gallon do you want a 13 litre V8 Corvette with 655bhp that probably gets 27mpg?

If you have the money to blow on a $120,000 Corvette then you probably would have the money to put fuel in the tank. Even at $8.00 it still would only be around $100 to fill it up, which it what people with SUV's, trucks and vans are paying now. My dad has a G-Van and it costs him $130 every time he goes to the pump now and he only gets about 10mpg.

There is no reason to worry about efficiency with expensive cars because so few people will buy them and those who do can afford to fill them up. I agree engines need to become more efficient but with sports cars I really would rather car companies just do the easiest thing to make power and save the R&D dollars for something that matters.

 

[JCE]

If you have the money to blow on a $120,000 Corvette then you probably would have the money to put fuel in the tank. Even at $8.00 it still would only be around $100 to fill it up, which it what people with SUV's, trucks and vans are paying now. My dad has a G-Van and it costs him $130 every time he goes to the pump now and he only gets about 10mpg.

There is no reason to worry about efficiency with expensive cars because so few people will buy them and those who do can afford to fill them up. I agree engines need to become more efficient but with sports cars I really would rather car companies just do the easiest thing to make power and save the R&D dollars for something that matters.

I actually COMPLETELY agree with your post--infact every word of it. But, I only mentioned fuel economy because that's one of the main arguements people have when the Corvette gets mentioned in a negative light in terms of technology/etc.

 

[Keef]

Honestly, I do wholeheartedly agree that the 7.0L can be much more powerful than a 6.2L (even in pushrod form), but why didn't they do it?

It could be any number of reasons. Emissions constraints, or acceptable fuel mileage. They have to have a fleet average or whatever the NHTA mandates. They could be trying to make the car fit into a particular class (Z06 vs. F430), or they could be aiming for a certain amount of drivability or certain powerband characteristics. Naturally, the power peak will move higher into the rev range when you start adding power to the engine. Pretty soon you'll be building the engine to run 8500 rpm and make 700hp naturally aspirated. Which makes one consider how much all this stuff costs. Engine development is expensive, and they have to make sure every one of those thousands starts every time and never misses a beat, ever, unlike your huge garage-special camshaft that has a backfire here and there and idles at 1000rpm.

Pick your reason, because I'm sure there's a lot of them. All that stuff goes for every car maker around the world. I think the biggest ones for each company are emissions and fuel mileage requirements.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Honestly, I do wholeheartedly agree that the 7.0L can be much more powerful than a 6.2L (even in pushrod form), but why didn't they do it? GM has the technology, and American engineers are intelligent dispite what the world says, so why are they being lazy about it? You guys are misconstruing what I'm saying--you are assuming I'm anti-American and instulting them. I'm actually doing the opposite--I KNOW they can do better. My issue is they choose NOT to. Other car companies all over the world do it, but GM US (and Chrysler) are the absolute worst.

But how much power does the Corvette actually need? I think that 505 is enough for the Z06. They weren't aiming to create a drag car or some sort of huge grand tourer. Besides I'm not sure that the 7.0 can actually handle that much more power. I'm pretty sure that they had to make some compromises for reliability and "streetability".

 

[YSSMAN]

Rabble rabble rabble, same topics we've discussed before

You want to know why it doesn't matter?

- The small block is more reliable
- The small block will last longer
- The small block costs less
- The small block weighs less
- The small block is smaller (dimensionally)
- The small block is serviceable in more places and won't always require 1,000 computers to fix it

Seriously. Who honestly cares? If it works, it works. Its just as fuel efficent (actually, moreso), often faster, and in the end costs less. I don't understand why we keep re-treading the same discussion every damn time. If it really mattered that much, people wouldn't buy them, and they wouldn't win awards, and the Corvette would die a quiet death.

But that isn't happening, is it?

 

[JCE]

You want to know why it doesn't matter?

- The small block is more reliable - debatable
- The small block will last longer - debatable
- The small block costs less - R&D can solve this
- The small block weighs less - R&D can solve this
- The small block is smaller (dimensionally) - R&D can solve this
- The small block is serviceable in more places and won't always require 1,000 computers to fix it - possibly

Again, you're missing my point. The car could be so much better wth only a little effort. That's all I'm trying to say.

Seriously. Who honestly cares? If it works, it works. Its just as fuel efficent (actually, moreso), often faster, and in the end costs less.

I along with half of the world care. Like I said, you're missing MY point. And what you're essentially saying is: "if it ain't broke don't fix it" which I've been trying to point out. but, my main point is a bit skewed away from the others. I actually think the car could be much much better with only a little R&D. I mean take the 3.6L in the CTS, graft on two more cyliners and I'd bet you would get quite a bit more than 505bhp while still having good fue economy and performance. In the end, the transmission in the C6 is what gives that engine the fuel economy as much as the torque...or maybe more so.

Ok, I'm done. I agree to disagree and lets move on.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, its your lucky day then:

GM is taking the small block back down in size and adding DIG. They won't do DOHC (thank the lord above!), but that should have a 5.0L unit (give or take) making north of 400 BHP.

 

[Tornado]

- The small block costs less - R&D can solve this
- The small block weighs less - R&D can solve this
- The small block is smaller (dimensionally) - R&D can solve this

Actually, pushrods will always have those advantages. The only one that could probably swing to a narrower gap is cost. Though if it hasn't happened at this point, I doubt it ever will.

Again, you're missing my point. The car could be so much better wth only a little effort. That's all I'm trying to say.

Why does the car need to be any better? It already wins awards and/or acclaim in every test it goes in.

I along with half of the world care.

Everything I've read surrounding the car disagrees with you.

Like I said, you're missing MY point. And what you're essentially saying is: "if it ain't broke don't fix it" which I've been trying to point out.

The problem is, your point essentially goes on to say that that is a bad thing. Why exactly is it such a bad thing to use something that works and is cheap?

 

[the Interceptor]

I guess you don't goto Final Gear's forums? I posted a similar opinion there. And I'd take the R8 anyday over any Vette. Infact I'd rather spend my money on anything else in its competition range.

It's your preference and your money to spend. Still, the option you do not choose doesn't have to be bad just because you don't choose it.

This is the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality that it seems American car companies are choosing. When fuel is $8 per US gallon do you want a 13 litre V8 Corvette with 655bhp that probably gets 27mpg? That's "settling" in my opinion if you say yes, you'd take the insane 13L V8 over a technological advance and that would be sad.

You did notice this part in the review, right?

While the eight cylinders of the R8 proudly sing the song of good economy of direct injection, the Corvette uses a healthy 1.8 liters [covering 100 km] less.

That's 15.3 mpg for the Audi vs. 17.3 mpg for the Corvette.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Poorly argued rant

I was going to say what Holdenhsvgtsr said. Seriously, power means nothing, torque means everything. AMG make good engines, but put them in crap cars. Unless you start talking Zonda.

Well done for completely missing the point of the American engine.








Now go look up torque figures which day to day are more important and youll see the only one that beats it is the S63.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

But what's funny is the Ford Mustang GT500KR Super Snake has two supercharger options for the Ford 5.4L modular DOHC V8--one is the Eaton with 605bhp and the other is a Kenne Bell with 725bhp. So FORD is making more power with less when compared to the C6 ZO6 range. Drop these drivetrains I've just mentioned in the similarly weighted Ford GT and the GT would absolutely blow the ZO6 and ZR-1 away and leave it for dead.

Thing is...

Boosted is as boosted does, more boost is more power.

Guess who needs more boost?


Ford.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Thing is...

Boosted is as boosted does, more boost is more power.

Guess who needs more boost?


Ford.

/\ And that's coming from a Ford fan. Although in Australia the 5.4L unit does get 310kw in aspirated form. (Around 420hp). But still not as much torque as the Chev Small Block, and a less usable torque curve.

 

[Leonidae]

Thing is, they could do what they do now with less power and less torque, from smaller engines. All they need to do is change those ridiculous gear ratios. Z06 practically achieves it's top speed on 5th, and the 6th is there just to give good MPG at reasonable speeds. Same goes for Viper. Of course this is just my humble opinion, since most of europe doesn't have as much straight roads as most of the US does..

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Thing is, they could do what they do now with less power and less torque, from smaller engines. All they need to do is change those ridiculous gear ratios. Z06 practically achieves it's top speed on 5th, and the 6th is there just to give good MPG at reasonable speeds. Same goes for Viper. Of course this is just my humble opinion, since most of europe doesn't have as much straight roads as most of the US does..

It's also like that to limit wheelspin I think. I dunno, that's the way it seems to me. MPG was something they needed to keep up though due to CAFE. It pretty much maxes 5th on top speed, so I guess it's like a 5spd, with 6th gear to make fuel economy. That's why Corvette is one of the most fuel efficient supercars. It's not for the buyers though, it's for Chevy so one car doesn't ruin their CAFE.

 

[Joey D]

I was going to say what Holdenhsvgtsr said. Seriously, power means nothing, torque means everything. AMG make good engines, but put them in crap cars. Unless you start talking Zonda.

Aren't torque and power related?

 

[Leonidae]

Yes, they are. Otherwise Hondas would have more torque than any V8.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Aren't torque and power related?

Yeah, there's an equation that relates them. Power is basically a by-product of revs and torque. Higher revs means you're multiplying the torque figure by more, so the power figure gets bigger. Pushrod V8s don't rev much, nor does the Ford DOHC V8 (Guess Ford still wanted a low revving V8 roar). It's this reason that they have such low power figures in comparation to their torque. If GM say, went and made a 6.2L DOHC V8 that revved to 8500rpm, and had the same stroke and bore as the Chev Small Block, the power would theoretically be astronmical. I'd guess somewhere over/around 800hp, aspirated. Of course that engine would be bigger, heavier, and less reliable than the pushrod.

 

[Jim Prower]

You can do that. You just have to shorten the stroke: this reduces overall torque, but increases your ability to rev. You can do this with a production pushrod engine: what were the Ford 302 Windsor and Chevrolet Z/28 302s, but 350ci-class engines with shorter strokes? The Ford had a rev limiter...to save the BELTS.

 

[///M-Spec]

Why horsepower per liter is a pointless argument.

Most useless measurement ever conceived.

That is all.

Post I wrote about a year ago (ironically, responding to JCE) on the Corvette suspension.

Corvettes have had IRS since the C2 Maybe you were thinking Corvettes could use coil springs instead of leafs.

I don't believe the Corvette's suspension deserves the stigma it has: There are a lot of positive qualities of the composite transverse leaf springs and I don't think it would be fair to say that the entire suspension isn't modern. What most people don't realize is the C6 uses unequal length double wishbones on all 4 wheels; similar to an Indy or F1 car. Double wishbones are in fact more sophisticated than the McPherson strut used in the front axle of cars like the 911, M3, Evo and WRX STI.

The leafs are there simply to provide resistance; it's got the same job as a coil spring, except they weigh less than coil springs and are more compact. They are in fact, more expensive than coil springs and would probably save money if GM put steel coils in there. (though I doubt they would; the leafs are as much a part of Corvette heritage as the fiberglass body and pushrod V8)

Would a C6 handle better if it were converted to use coils? Maybe, though I wouldn't be quick to jump to that conclusion; it could just as well be some shock or bushing stiffness tuning the car needs.

EDIT: Sometimes I feel like we have the same damn conversations over and over again.

EDIT2: Oh wait. We do.


M

 

[forza2.0]

I was going to say what Holdenhsvgtsr said. Seriously, power means nothing, torque means everything. AMG make good engines, but put them in crap cars. Unless you start talking Zonda.

lol at teh crap at torque means everything and a even bigger lol that mercedes makes crap cars.

If AMG's are crap I wonder what word you use to describe 99% of the rest of the cars on sale today.

Trucks have gazillons of torque doesnt mean anything. F1 cars have hardly got any torque.