Corvette Z06 pricing released today

[Layla's Keeper]

No kidding XC.

A while back, a few Honda fanboys were talking about how - on a road course - An Acura NSX would stomp on a Viper SRT-10.

After posting slalom speeds, skidpad numbers, and braking distances that buried the NSX, they still clung to the belief that the SRT-10 was the inferior handling machine.

So, then I simply pointed out this great little comparison.

NSX weight: 3,153lbs.

NSX tires: Front 215/40 R17 - Rear 255/40 R17

SRT-10 weight: 3380lbs

SRT-10: Front P275/35ZR18 - Rear P345/30ZR19

Now, here's where it gets fun. Time for Mathematics.

Weight ratio (NSX to Viper) 3153/3380, or expressed as a percent 100/107.2

Total Tire Width Ratio (NSX to Viper) 940/1240, or, expressed as a percent 100/131.9

In summation, the Viper has 31.9% more tire for only 7.2% more weight. There was no good pro-NSX argument for this.

Go ahead and try this for the M5 versus the F430. Divide the heavier weight by the lighter weight, then multiply your answer by 100. That'll give you the percentage by which the heavier car is heavier. (the lighter car's weight is our 100% in this ratio)

Now, remember which car was heavier, because you'll need to total its tire width. Take the first number from the tire size (it is, after all, the width in millimeters) and add it twice apiece for the tire sizes (remember, two fronts, two rears). Then, divide the heavier car's tire width by the lighter car's tire width and multiply your answer by 100. That'll give you the percentage more (or less) that the heavier car has against the lighter car.

Have fun.

 

[Ev0]

Math time.

BMW M5: Weight - 1755kg
Tires - 255/40ZR19
285/35ZR19

Ferrari F430: Weight - 1450kg
Tires - 225/35ZR19
285/35ZR19

Weight ratio (F430:M5) 1450/1755 = 100/121.01

Tire width ratio (F430:M5) 1020/1080 = 100/105.88

So, the M5 has ~6% extra rubber touching the road, but at a cost of carrying 21% more weight than the Ferrari.

And, I just found scans of the article.

http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac25bw.jpg
http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac38ml.jpg
http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac40gg.jpg
http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac54px.jpg
http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac68wz.jpg
http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac73hk.jpg

I'll post my thoughts once I'm done reading.

*EDIT* Okay, now that I'm done reading, my thoughts. That was one messed up article. Firstly, the author contradicts facts his own magazine publishes. He says near the end of the article that the Ferrari has poor low end torque, and that the M5 should be able to pull away from it easily using it's superior torque, and therefore superior acceleration. But, had this been a print version of the article, right on the page next to that very statement are the magazine's acceleration figures. Drum roll please...

M5 F430
0-60 4.6s 4.4s
0-100 9.8s 9.4s
0-150 21.0s 21.5s

Congratulations, your credibility is destroyed. The Ferrari outaccelerates the M5 to 60 and to 100mph, but once they hit 150, the M5 pulls ahead, most likely thanks to it's power advantage and it's 7 speeds, not due to it's torque.

Next up is the handling. The author states that even on twisty country roads, the M5 will keep up with, if not outpace the Ferrari. He insists that he is not lying, and repeatedly praises the M5 and it's excellent handling. Now, I'm not trying to say the M5 is a poor handling car, it's outstanding, especially given it's size. But I'm not in anyway convinced the M5 can outhandle an F430. The 300+ kg weight difference (Actually, if you use the magazine's weight figures, it's 380kg) simply can't be ignored. And, look at the dimensions of the cars: the Ferrari is shorter, wider, and has a smaller wheelbase than the M5, all of which play in the Ferrari's favor. Although the Ferrari does have superior aerodynamics, the M5 does have superior electronics by all indications. But, electronics are no substitute for weight, the physical size of a car, and inferior downforce. I'm sorry, but I believe the author is lying; according to basic car physics, the Ferrari should obliterate the M5 in handling. And seeing how he contradicted his own magazine's data before, I think I have good reason to believe so.

 

[///M-Spec]

The article appeared in autocar, but I have yet to read the article. If I can find scans somewhere, I'll post them here. I'd love to have a look at some of the factors at play in the test.

I agree with your summation of the article. And unless I'm missing a page, the "comparison test" was done on a road, not a circuit. It's all fine and good to say something about comparative performance on the street, but that sort of talk only takes you so far.

Until a more reputable source conducts a track test with a real pro driver, count me skeptical as well.

The tire width comparison was interesting. And I agree the tire is a huge factor. However, I think the M5's OE Contis are pretty close to the F430's Pirellis.

And the primary factors for determining mechanical grip is a little more complicated than just tire width vs. weight. Center of gravity vs. track is also a prime consideration when determining amount of grip and in that deptartment, it is safe to assume the Ferrari is superior as well.


M

 

[Dave A]

Autocar is credible, as for it contradicting itself, it's only contradicting it'self if you interpret it that way. The F430 can have low torque in lower rev's and it can hit 60 before the M5, but that doesn't meanit's always going to accelerate faster than the M5, for example if you accelerate with both cars from optimum rev's, the F430 is faster, do it from law rev's and the M5 is faster. Thats what was meant hence the reason he mentioned the rev's. As for the cars handling, until you've driven the cars yourself, don't comment, theres a lot of factors that can make one car handle better than another. 5th gear seems to agree on the handling being fantastic for any car, let alone a luxury saloon, but hhey didn't compare it to an F430. Let's see how it does on TopGear when you can compare lap times and see it then.

Anyway, this isn't a topic about the M5 or Autocar's credibility.

 

[skicrush]

I guess the new M5 would spank a new Z06...

....if the race was based on who could pick up the most bags of fertilizer at Home Depot.

Or maybe if the Z06 was being driven by a small, but determined monkey.

M

LOL! I AM NOT SMALL!!!

Did I say that I read that the M5 would destroy the Z06 on a BMW forum? I was about to do the weight/tire comparison with the vette and the M5 and the 430, but I realized that the vette weighs less and has more tire than either of them--the weight would be a + (over 100%) percentage, and the tire ratio would be BELOW 100%. Not just a comparative advantage, an absolute advantage. So, center of gravity and suspension setup come into play. Which has the potential to even the field with the F430 (handling wise), but the M5? Almost 900lbs heavier? OK, I give. Here are the numbers.

Z06/M5
weight 3130/4050= 100/129
rubber 1200/1080= 100/90

Z06/F430
weight 3130/3197= 100/102
rubber 1200/1020= 100/85

Z06/Carrera GT
weight 3130/3258= 100/104 (I've also seen 3042 as curb on the Carrera GT. 100/97)
rubber 1200/1200= 100/100

Z06/Enzo
weight 3130/3254= 100/104
rubber 1200/1180= 100/98

The M5 and F430 were too unfair, so threw the Enzo and Carrera GT into the pot. Am I still smoking crack when I suggest the Z06 could easily be in Enzo territory once we get some Nurb ring times??

Disclosure: Here's where I got my Carrera GT and Enzo numbers: http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_lemansintro/index5.html

 

[Dave A]

Yes, theres far more involved in making a car that quick, you're definitely smoking crack saying the Z06 is in the Carrera GT territtory, let alone the Enzo. You have to think about the stucture of the car as a whole, the chassis, the suspension, the aerodynamics above and below certain speeds, the gearing, the brakes, the weight distribution and much much more. some of you guy's are simplifying a cars performance to one or two factors, it's just not like that.

 

[Ev0]

Autocar is credible, as for it contradicting itself, it's only contradicting it'self if you interpret it that way. The F430 can have low torque in lower rev's and it can hit 60 before the M5, but that doesn't meanit's always going to accelerate faster than the M5, for example if you accelerate with both cars from optimum rev's, the F430 is faster, do it from law rev's and the M5 is faster. Thats what was meant hence the reason he mentioned the rev's. As for the cars handling, until you've driven the cars yourself, don't comment, theres a lot of factors that can make one car handle better than another. 5th gear seems to agree on the handling being fantastic for any car, let alone a luxury saloon, but hhey didn't compare it to an F430. Let's see how it does on TopGear when you can compare lap times and see it then.

Anyway, this isn't a topic about the M5 or Autocar's credibility.

Well, firstly, doing an acceleration test with cars that are out of their optimum rev range is pointless. Anyone remember when Top Gear did the Evo FQ400 vs Fiat Panda with both cars in top gear? Aside from giving us a good laugh and showing the effects of turbo lag, the test was completely and utterly useless.

Secondly, normally I'd agree with you with not commenting on handling until you've driven a car. Yet, for all of the reasons I listed, the M5 has to have inferior handling, unless the Ferrari somehow has a much, much worse suspension set up than the M5. Otherwise, BMW has somehow found a way to ignore or rewrite the laws of physics.

And like it or not, this has turned into a discussion on the M5 vs. the F430. This is what makes forums great; it's always fun to see where conversations and discussions can end up going.

 

[Dave A]

They didn't record the cars accelerating when not in their optimum rev's, it IS something thet they'll experience during the testing of both cars, and it IS something that will effect owners of the cars. When you pull out or leave the lights, you're not at optimum rev's, you're usually well below them, thats what the comment was on. It was in no way a contradiction to any other part of the test. You can believe what you want, I'l believe the people that have driven these cars, and thats not the only test of the M5 that desribes it like that.

 

[skicrush]

You must have missed it. BMW DID find a way to ignore or rewrite the laws of physics. http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=2012583&page=6

Posted by user bmw540i
"german technology will always be better than american technology. the SMG trans. in the M5 is the fastest shifting transmission in the world on a production car. the thing shifts in 50 milliseconds. M5 handles just as good as the c6 zo6 and it would still outrun it in a straight line. M5 any day. go find me a Z06 owner that can shift in 50 milliseconds."

"the M5 does handle as good as the Z06 ever will and has every bit of power + more in a straight line. V10+ 508hp+ 7 speed SMG (with a 8000 rpm redline= Z06 eater. go buy a german car instead of crappy american cars then you can tell me that german cars suck."

See? That PROVES IT! BMW MUST have an anti-mass device!

 

[TwinTurboJay]

What's funny is that that the XLR-V will be right up there with the Z06. Hell with a chip the XLR could own a C6, GM dumbed down the North Star so it didn't out run the C6.

But the new Z06 is one cool car, we are going to have one next week at work so I'm going to try to scam my way on to to one, for a drive or a ride.

Not that I severely hate you or anything...just a little jealous !

 

[///M-Spec]

What a poor, deluded fool.

But I've heard the same and worse from Corvette people and Skyline GT-R people... every make of car has it's share of clueless fanboys.


M

 

[Dave A]

I've heard much worse reasoning than that, doesn't excuse it though.

 

[Layla's Keeper]

Yes, theres far more involved in making a car that quick, you're definitely smoking crack saying the Z06 is in the Carrera GT territtory, let alone the Enzo. You have to think about the stucture of the car as a whole, the chassis, the suspension, the aerodynamics above and below certain speeds, the gearing, the brakes, the weight distribution and much much more. some of you guy's are simplifying a cars performance to one or two factors, it's just not like that.

Oh, I definitely know that's the case. Suspension geometry is one hellacious beast to get a grip on, especially when you're working with light weights and big tires.

Fortunately, I got a handle on it early on by assisting chassis legend Jim "Mr. Wizard" Bodnar design and build a few ISMA Supermodifieds. When you're working with 22in Hoosier slicks and a sub-2000lb minimum weight with driver, you get to play around a lot.

Here's the 1996 Bodnar chassis I assisted with. Its crowning achievements have been a 1-2 finish at the 2001 Hy-Miler Nationals, three straight MSA championships, two Sandusky Speedway track championships, two SMS series championships, and the track record at Berlin Speedway, M40 Motorsports Arena, and Mansfield Speedway.

 

[skicrush]

Well, come now, it's not like x% more mm of rubber actually = the amount of weight y% more weight represents. I'd suggest that each 1 mm of tire would actually support x pounds amount of extra weight when cornering for a given weight balance and suspension setup. Different suspension, different factor. But I'd also guess that relatively optimized suspension setups will yeild similar values.

Having said that, the bigger rubber, lower weight, and higher torque of the vette will have it running a lot closer to the ultra cars than you might think. And get double the gas mileage of the Carrera or Enzo. Not that mileage counts for a lot. When you're racing.

 

[Onikaze]

Just to say, Mileage counts in endurance racing, but anyways.

I love BMW's, I know the the M5 is a freaking amazing piece of machinery, but the F430 simply has it at too many disadvantages...perhaps the driver felt that the M5 was easier to corner hard in (known fact, the M5 makes you feel like a better driver than you really are, if not making you better) where the F430 leaves you more on your own until you get to about 7/10ths, then the nannies start to kick in.

The Z06 though...Front Mid Engine layout, didn't they say it was right at 50/50 balance, big stick rubber, buttload of horsepower, and measureable torque...

I already knew that it would make F430's and Vipers look silly, giving the GT a run for its money in the process...but I didn't realise just how well it stacked up against the big dogs in the game (Enzo/CGT)...


Come on Chevy, release an SS...2900 Lbs, 600+ Supercharged Horsepower...limited production run...PEOPLE WILL BUY THEM!

 

[James2097]

Hmm very interesting to find you guys have finally made (an attainable) sports-car that doesn't resemble the American automobile ideal of a giant sofa! Welcome to the world of corners!

No really, the new vette seems like a fantastic car for the money... Pity any economic advantage in purchasing one is lost when you live in Australia with fuel that costs approximately $1,000,000 every time you rev the engine higher than idle.

 

[Onikaze]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=216013

If that isn't the Blue Devil, then the Z06 ran a 7:40 at the Ring.

Either way, thats awesome.

 

[inferno]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=216013

If that isn't the Blue Devil, then the Z06 ran a 7:40 at the Ring.

Either way, thats awesome.

That is the blue devil.

One of the things that the corvett has going for it in terms of weight distibution is it's rear mounted transmission. And the LS engine is really tiny anyway. Yeah it's 7 liters but this isnt one of the big thumping Big block 427's from the 60's. The LS is based of GM's small block archetecture and the LS7 is no exception. Cast all in aluminum it weighs less than Nissans VQ series V6. I predict weight distribution of at least 50/50 if not a smal rearward bias.

 

[Joey D]

The blue car in over in Germany right now is the Blue Devil, I'm wagering the Z06 runs like a 7:50-7:55.

 

[Dave A]

That sounds about right, Blazin have you driven in or rode in a Z06 at all? I was wondering how much of an effect the run flats have on the cars cornering.

 

[skicrush]

Yeah, he's driven it, actually. But I think he's a little off in the Rign time dept. The OLD C5 Z06 Ran a 7:56. That's not much improvement for 50 lbs less and 100 hp more, besides all the other upgrades.

 

[Dave A]

I'd say 7'50-7'48 for the Z06, probably 7'50 and the 7'40 time for the BD. Anyway, I'm interested in what the tyres for the Z06 are like because they're run flats, and they don't normally offer you as good performance which would slow a ring time down a lot.

 

[Joey D]

I'm taking a stab in the dark at the ring times. No body in my office would know either, and I won't even be able to ask until next Monday since we are on shut down.

But I have driven the Z06 and it corners pretty good, the majority of the driving though was on the street. Still took corners nicely but I would say if you wanted to do some serious driving buy a set of Nitto 555 or BF Goodrich Tractions whatever.