"Blue Devil" News: Test Details Roll In

[Greycap]

This is getting alarming. In not a single sentence have I said that the ZR1 isn't a good car, what I'm trying to say is that it could be even better. As a result I'm being accused for saying things I never did and getting shown facts that have nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

People can drive huge engined gas guzzlers all day long if they want to, not my business if they can afford it, but I'm sure there are people who would like to get the same peak power ouf of an engine that could also be used like a small city car engine with the fuel consumption of one. Whatever floats the boat of the buyers though, I simply can't be bothered to care seeing the response. I probably should have understood that the Corvette isn't to be criticized.

This is getting nowhere on my part, keep going. I won't.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

This is getting alarming. In not a single sentence have I said that the ZR1 isn't a good car, what I'm trying to say is that it could be even better. As a result I'm being accused for saying things I never did and getting shown facts that have nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

People can drive huge engined gas guzzlers all day long if they want to, not my business if they can afford it, but I'm sure there are people who would like to get the same peak power ouf of an engine that could also be used like a small city car engine with the fuel consumption of one. Whatever floats the boat of the buyers though, I simply can't be bothered to care seeing the response. I probably should have understood that the Corvette isn't to be criticized.

This is getting nowhere on my part, keep going. I won't.

M-Spec just showed with his comparison that the Corvette is pretty efficient when compared to his Z4 which has a "small engine." Squeezing more power out of a smaller displacement engine does not seem to equal better fuel consumption, at least when applied to "sports cars."

By having a big engine the Corvette is able to have a pretty flat torque curve and have good fuel economy in the city by being able to deliver the power at low revs.

 

[Leonidae]

By having a big engine the Corvette is able to have a pretty flat torque curve and have good fuel economy in the city by being able to deliver the power at low revs.

biggest contributor to that MPG rating is the light weight and tall gears.

 

[Azuremen]

Gearing is fairly key on the fuel economy as well, and wide flat torque curves let you stretch the gears more.

Most of the last 40 or so posts have argued something I think I've seen discussed in length. And apparently the most verbal people often have the least understanding of what they are talking about.

///M-Spec has it more or less correct though, so listen kids. Listen well, so we don't have to deal with the rabble of OHV vs DOHC, hp/l debate, and torque vs hp rants anymore.

Srsly.

EDIT: I will add this - The 'Vette isn't really that light, compared to a truly light car. It just happens to be light compared to things like the GT-R

 

[Tornado]

biggest contributor to that MPG rating is the light weight and tall gears.

So?

 

[Leonidae]

I know that kids learn by asking questions, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Tornado]

Well, if you are going to act as if getting MPG through gearing is somehow an incorrect way to do it, you could at least explain the reasoning behind such a statement. So far you have just rattled off things that other companies have done and then said that the Corvette way is inferior. Since we already know that the Corvette way works regardless, what is your point?

 

[Leonidae]

I've been through this before, and as someone said, things that have been said are not worthy of digging up AGAIN. Thus, I'll just let this thread go on..

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Gearing is fairly key on the fuel economy as well, and wide flat torque curves let you stretch the gears more.

That's what I was implying.

 

[///M-Spec]

This is getting alarming. In not a single sentence have I said that the ZR1 isn't a good car, what I'm trying to say is that it could be even better.

You're trying to deflect the issue.

Whether or not you think the ZR1 is a good car is not the point. Honestly, I don't really care if you like it or not.

It's not even about the ZR1 or any Corvette, per se. It's about this silly notion that horsepower per liter is particularly relevant in the real world.

As a result I'm being accused for saying things I never did and getting shown facts that have nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

Let me tell you all the different ways I find this statement (and really, your entire post) irritating.

You are implying that someone in this thread --and I'm going to assume me-- has misrepresented you.
You are implying that someone (me) did so because we're (I'm) some kind of Corvette nut-huggers that argue using emotion and bias rather than facts and reason.
You are implying that on top of being deceitful, someone (I) is sufficiently stupid enough to make arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I really only have one response to this. It's hard to articulate, so I'm going to get some help from Tommy Lee Jones on this one.

People can drive huge engined gas guzzlers all day long if they want to, not my business if they can afford it, but I'm sure there are people who would like to get the same peak power ouf of an engine that could also be used like a small city car engine with the fuel consumption of one.

I put in an order for a 650 hp sports car that returns 60 MPG last week. It also comes with Scarlett Johansson in the passenger seat, a 2 gallon container of Astroglide and is invisible to cops.

Sadly, they were all out of those over at La La Land.

Whatever floats the boat of the buyers though, I simply can't be bothered to care seeing the response.

Good, because I can pretty much guarantee they are similarly unconcerned with your response.

I probably should have understood that the Corvette isn't to be criticized.

Another irritating statement, implying that anyone who disagrees with your assessment of the ZR1 is irrationally overprotective of it. See Tommy.

The interior is still chintzy. The seats suck. The shifter is a blunt instrument rather than a precision tool. Still not enough steering feedback.

Those are all perfectly legitimate criticisms of the current Corvette. The notion they are inefficient gas sucking dinosaurs, however, has no merit. NONE.

This is getting nowhere on my part, keep going. I won't.

It's going nowhere because you refuse to tackle the topic head on and deal with the issues. Instead, you are playing like you're the victim of a fanboy attack. See Tommy.

Just so we can pull the plug on that notion: I don't own a C6. I have no particular allegiance to Corvettes. I could easily afford to own one, but I choose not to (for the time being). I do, however, recognize they are well engineered, very capable and tremendous value for the money. They do not deserve the stigma attached to them and I speak in their defense for the sake of intelligent conversation, not because I'm a GM jock-sniffer.

Do as you wish, but if you post on this topic again, I would appreciate the courtesy of not being presumed either stupid or deceitful.


M

 

[YSSMAN]

As the resident GM guy, let me pass through this with a bit of rational thought...

Like it or not, the Corvette is here, and it won't be likely to change for anyone. With more than a half-century of history behind it, many aspects of the car are quite literally set in stone. That being said, I would be completely dishonest if I didn't point out the faults in the car, which much like M-Spec has pointed out, mainly lie with the interior and the otherwise "crude" nature of the car compared to other standards like the 911. That, however, is the nature of the vehicle... And if you don't want to buy the fastest car available for $50K, then you are more than able to make that decision.

The fact of the matter is this; Although I may love every aspect of the Corvette and generally prefer it over the overwhelming majority of the competition, I try my very best to learn and understand why things the way they are, and preferably experience them, so I can make the best judgment as to what is good and what is not. I'll be happy to point out that rampant fanboyism on both the Corvette and the GT-R (something of which particularly parties are guilty of here) are indeed pointless, and as always, they go to the same basic arguments... You aren't going to win others over by beating the same dead horse.

I may not particularly like the GT-R (or insert other rival sports car here) in all aspects, but I respect them, and I'm always impressed by the engineering that went into them. The difference here is that you seem to be incapable of doing the same with the Corvette, or generally anything distinctly American for that matter, and I do find that disappointing. I love a good arguement with reasonable points, but things like this, always deserve a facepalm indeed.

 

[Azuremen]

A lot of awesome wordage


Some more awesome wordage
M

I'm leaving the picture in because it just works so damn well for where this thread is going. Especially with the way some people keep ranting.

M, I give you props for, as so often, creating a genius and entertaining wall of text that I actually read.

Congrats

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

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.

Oh, so that's why the SLR Mclaren "Supercar" was an absolute boat? The SL65 AMG has way too much power for what the chassis can handle? Mercede's cars get beaten by cars with 200+hp less, and 200+Nm less. Yes, their engines are good, no, their cars are not.
If you seriously believe that torque means nothing then crawl out of your rock and have an epiphony. Trucks are crap because they weigh over 2 tonnes, and their engines are optimised for low end grunt for towing. But then there is the Ford Lightning that despite being a truck gets to 100km/hr in something like 5sec.
F1 cars? Are you serious with that comment? They weigh around 500kg. They deliver their torque incredibly well. Grow up, you sound like a ricer.

 

[Jim Prower]

Do we need to take up a "Zero Tolerance for Asshattery" policy in this thread, too?

 

[///M-Spec]

M, I give you props for, as so often, creating a genius and entertaining wall of text that I actually read.

Congrats

Thank you, sir. 👍 Glad it was worth a read. Tommy Lee Jones FTMFW.


M

 

[Leonidae]

Do we need to take up a "Zero Tolerance for Asshattery" policy in this thread, too?

+1 on that. that should be automatic procedure for threads that are likely to attract strong clashes between opinions..

 

[Azuremen]

Oh, so that's why the SLR Mclaren "Supercar" was an absolute boat? The SL65 AMG has way too much power for what the chassis can handle? Mercede's cars get beaten by cars with 200+hp less, and 200+Nm less. Yes, their engines are good, no, their cars are not.
If you seriously believe that torque means nothing then crawl out of your rock and have an epiphony. Trucks are crap because they weigh over 2 tonnes, and their engines are optimised for low end grunt for towing. But then there is the Ford Lightning that despite being a truck gets to 100km/hr in something like 5sec.
F1 cars? Are you serious with that comment? They weigh around 500kg. They deliver their torque incredibly well. Grow up, you sound like a ricer.

And you sound like a hick. It's epiphany, just so you know the next time you try to sound clever.

The Lightning made nearly 400 HP, just so you know.

And Formula One engines are peaky as hell and produce all their power through revving. Thus the 19,000 RPM limit. The 200-300 ft-lbs they generate is not what makes them fast; it's the fact that they produce their power above 14,000 RPM. The weight helps, but it isn't the only thing making them fast. You put a similarly designed, high revving engine in anything and it will be fast.

Educate yourself before you attempt to educate others, please.

 

[McLaren]

Oh, so that's why the SLR Mclaren "Supercar" was an absolute boat? The SL65 AMG has way too much power for what the chassis can handle? Mercede's cars get beaten by cars with 200+hp less, and 200+Nm less. Yes, their engines are good, no, their cars are not.
If you seriously believe that torque means nothing then crawl out of your rock and have an epiphony. Trucks are crap because they weigh over 2 tonnes, and their engines are optimised for low end grunt for towing. But then there is the Ford Lightning that despite being a truck gets to 100km/hr in something like 5sec.
F1 cars? Are you serious with that comment? They weigh around 500kg. They deliver their torque incredibly well. Grow up, you sound like a ricer.

Um, their cars are fantastic, and they handle pretty well in reality. The big reason SLs get beat is because their bodies aren't designed like the competitors.
However, that doesn't stop the fact that in a run from 40-150Mph, the SL65 AMG can actually blow away some competitors like the Gallardo.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

And you sound like a hick. It's epiphany, just so you know the next time you try to sound clever.

The Lightning made nearly 400 HP, just so you know.

And Formula One engines are peaky as hell and produce all their power through revving. Thus the 19,000 RPM limit. The 200-300 ft-lbs they generate is not what makes them fast; it's the fact that they produce their power above 14,000 RPM. The weight helps, but it isn't the only thing making them fast. You put a similarly designed, high revving engine in anything and it will be fast.

Educate yourself before you attempt to educate others, please.

Do you enjoy trying to pick on me? I heard F1 cars develop 300Nm. They weigh around 500kg right? 3Nm/5kg. For record a Bugatti Veyron has around 3.3Nm/5kg. An Enzo Ferrari has 2.4Nm/5kg. I admit I am yet to understand how power actually helps, but are you going to sit there and tell me its good acceleration is all from power when presented with figures like that?
Do your research before attempting to teach me please.

PS- I didn't really care what the exact figures were for the Lightning, and I wasn't telling him how to spell epiphany so rack off. Being nitpicky like that shows how lame and immature you are capable of behaving.

Um, their cars are fantastic, and they handle pretty well in reality. The big reason SLs get beat is because their bodies aren't designed like the competitors.
However, that doesn't stop the fact that in a run from 40-150Mph, the SL65 AMG can actually blow away some competitors like the Gallardo.

I never said they were bad in a straight line. I just don't think they are anywhere near as good at handling as most other companies. Maybe if they made their cars capable of fully turning off driver aids they would be better.💡 I saw the bouncy bouncy behaviour on Top Gear. That's got to affect tyre grip in corners big time.

 

[Venari]

Ah, horses for courses time out.

Gallardo = designed to go around corners.
AMG = designed to just about contain torque without killing occupant.

Or, in other words, the Gallardo is a sports car, the AMG is a German Department-of-Transport-approved hotrod.

Let's move back to a more sensible discussion. Here's an interesting compare and contrast of luxury branding with large 2-seat GT Coupes. I know PWR figures aren't the be all and end all, but indulge me.

Bog stock C6 Coupe = 285hp/tonne for $47,000
Aston Martin DBS = 285hp/tonne for $265,000

C6 Z06 = 350hp/tonne for $73,000
Aston Martin Vantage RS (if it gets made with 600hp) = 350hp/tonne for ~$300,000

C6 ZR1 = 400hp/tonne for $103,000
What Aston Martin?

Next up, you have the AM DBRS9, with 440hp/tonne for $400,000 - and try making that road legal in the US. And turn the aircon on and listen to the radio.

ZR1 = Bargain hypercar. If I could liquidate my entire collection of old cars tomorrow, and then went and smiled sweetly at the bank, I could just about afford one at US prices. (Not imported, with duty and VAT though.)

You guys get all the good stuff.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

ZR1 = Bargain hypercar.

You quote the ZR1 as a hypercar. Is it really a hypercar or a supercar? It's a fine line to tread, and to some a non-existent one. I can't tell the difference.

 

[McLaren]

I never said they were bad in a straight line. I just don't think they are anywhere near as good at handling as most other companies. Maybe if they made their cars capable of fully turning off driver aids they would be better.💡 I saw the bouncy bouncy behaviour on Top Gear. That's got to affect tyre grip in corners big time.

I think you might want to go see what a Black Series model is like then. The suspension in the CLK63 AMG BS is just as advanced as Porsche's RS models.

 

[Onikaze]

600+ Hp, 200+ Mph...

Am I talking about a Porsche Carrera, Mclaren F1, Zonda F, or a ZR1?

Hypercar is just a term applied because some cars are so ridiculous they made the older established supercars look pedestrian.

Either way the ZR1 is pretty damn cool, and a ridiculous amount of car for 100 grand.


As for the F1 car, horsepower is only a measurement of work done.

It is an after the fact, it is a bastard child of torque.

Torque is what moves you.

Grab your wrist.

Twist at it, torque is what gives you the indian burn, horsepower is just a measure of how much indian burn you gave yourself.

There is a reason people quote horsepower numbers, they're sexy, and easy to relate too. They don't really mean a whole lot though.

So again: Torque is how hard you're actually working, Horsepower is how much work you did with that Torque.

 

[YSSMAN]

The CLK Black (and most likely, the SL Black) are absolutely amazing pieces of engineering from Mercedes, there is absolutely no questioning that. In terms of a car that for the most part costs more and is in the end slower than a ZR1, I'd nearly have the Black instead -- just because its so outrageous.

 

[Azuremen]

Do you enjoy trying to pick on me? I heard F1 cars develop 300Nm. They weigh around 500kg right? 3Nm/5kg. For record a Bugatti Veyron has around 3.3Nm/5kg. An Enzo Ferrari has 2.4Nm/5kg. I admit I am yet to understand how power actually helps, but are you going to sit there and tell me its good acceleration is all from power when presented with figures like that?
Do your research before attempting to teach me please.

LOL wut? 300Nm is, oh wait, 221 ft-lbs. Which is less than a WRX and a little more than a GTi. Massive amounts of torque, and I am sure the GTi delivers it some 10,000 RPM sooner as well.

You sound like any other person that doesn't want to step away from OHV and just argues torque, torque, torque. Torque is great, provided you want to pull trees out of the ground. Torque is basically how much force you can put out, and power is how fast you can do it. By your logic, electric motors would be the best thing for racing, ever, because they generate peak torque at virtually zero RPM.

An F1 car is fast because of the some 800 HP it makes around 18,000 RPM, not because of the 200 ish ft-lbs of torque. Or its weight so much even. It would still be fast if it weighed twice as much.

EDIT: Figure I'd add this fun fact in: The Cummins diesel Dodge 2500 makes 881 Nm of torque and weighs 2500kg. Oddly enough, its much slower than an Enzo, far more than the .6Nm/5kg might want to imply.

PS- I didn't really care what the exact figures were for the Lightning, and I wasn't telling him how to spell epiphany so rack off. Being nitpicky like that shows how lame and immature you are capable of behaving.

And the fact you that you had to point out my blunt sarcasm and such, and then provoke with genius insults such as "lame" and "immature" just works to validate yourself as such. You could have taken the high ground and ignored it

 

[Tornado]

Twist at it, torque is what gives you the indian burn, horsepower is just a measure of how much indian burn you gave yourself.

You could have taken the high ground and ignored it

And you could have not said it in the first place. That entire post was pure dickery, and your point would have come off much better had you not laced it with "sarcasm."

 

[Azuremen]

And you could have not said it in the first place.

Oh, I know. But then how else would I entertain myself?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

EDIT: Figure I'd add this fun fact in: The Cummins diesel Dodge 2500 makes 881 Nm of torque and weighs 2500kg. Oddly enough, its much slower than an Enzo, far more than the .6Nm/5kg might want to imply.

You mean 1.76?

 

[Tornado]

I've always looked at torque vs. power this way: Torque gets the wheels spinning on launch. Horsepower keeps the car going afterwards.

 

[Azuremen]

You mean 1.76?

the 0.6Nm/5kg is the difference between the Cummins 2500 and the Enzo. The ratio on the 2500 is 1.76Nm/5kg.

Also, a WRX is 1.1Nm/5kg. I'll keep producing more numbers to show how meaningless torque/mass is for performance figures.