BlueOx

OK, I'm not much of a techie so I am asking a technical question to those who are knowledgeable about engines/performance issues. I'm NOT asking if you want to see AWD or your opinion of AWD.

So, let's assume that the LT1 engine we have seen would indeed get from 0-60 in under 4 seconds with the base C7. Lets also assume that base C7 is right at 3000 lbs. NOW, lets assume you added an AWD system that is similar to the Ferrari FF that adds approx. 120 lbs to that car.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/funky-f...-drive-system/

Now, given this scenario, what might the 0-60 number be with this new C7? The quarter mile? BTW, the FF gets to 60 in 3.5 seconds and is about a two ton car with 650 hp and less than 400 ft lb of torque.

Please...no arguments just an interesting discussion of potential. Can you tell I'm bored waiting for the 15th??

Jinx

Does anything under four seconds matter? I don't think so. I think once you get down to four seconds 0-60 you should take that measurement off the table and move to something like 0-100 or quarter-mile. The amount of variation in conditions and drivers makes sub-four-second 0-60 times distinctions in search of differences.

I think the AWD edition would be a skosh quicker in the quarter mile, assuming stock "Z51" street tires at touring conditions. Could purpose-built 1/4mi tires make the 2wd C7 just as quick as an optimally-tired AWD edition, given the still-modest power? I don't see how that question can be answered without descending right back into the depths of "is or is not AWD superior to RWD off the line" hell with its Guibo and 911 references... but I wish y'all luck.

BlueOx

Well, whatever measurement floats yer boat...I'm just curious what the difference would be or not. Given that AWD would mostly work from the initial acceleration, I was thinking 0-60 was a reasonable measure to start with.
Trust me, I'm the last guy who really cares about 0-60 in my day-to-day Corvette existence.

John T

A 911 has inherently good traction , the Corvette does not. This is coming from a guy with a Goodyear shod Z06. My dickweed neighbor had a Ford GT that I was afraid to run because of my lack of traction issues.

Maybe the weight balance shift in the C7 will dramatically change things..

Jinx

Well, the FF does 0-60 in 3.5 and the F12 does it in 3.1. The F12 is apparently not so traction-limited that it can't ace its AWD brother. You could point out that it's not a fair comparison, not apples-to-apples enough, but that's the fundamental dilemma of this hypothetical -- not enough apples. The same old 911 traction discussion is inevitable.

BlueOx

FF - 4,150 lb - 651 HP V12 - 0-60 in 3.5
F12 - 3,362 lb - 730 HP V-12 - 0-60 in 3.1

I'd love to see a stripped down (to 3,400 lbs) FF take on a F12..just for fun.

BlueOx

OK, now if anyone who really is a techie has an idea about this, I'd love to hear from you.

MikeV

I think your best comparison would be an older GTR with a claimed 470 HP and a C6Z06. With the GTR weighing over 500 pounds more but the HP being underrated, they run almost the same ET. Just remember if the cars aren't driven by a driver with drag race experience, "Your results may vary" http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...Turbo_data.pdf

Mike V

Jinx

How much will this theoretical RWD C7 be traction-limited off the line, and how much will the Ferrari FF type AWD system improve matters? How many ticks off the quarter-mile time?

BlueOx

I don't know. How much does the 750+ pound advantage and almost 100 more HP of the F12 only buy it a .4 second advantage in 0-60 over the underpowered and way heavier FF?

JoesC5

Well, when TV Tommy Ivo decided he wanted to accelerate quicker, he went from a heavy 4 engine AWD dragster to a lighter single engine rear wheel drive dragster.

Jinx

But it still buys an advantage. Come on, it's your topic, stick your own neck out. How many ticks do you see your hypothetical AWD C7 taking off the quarter-mile time?

Jinx

Also, "only .4" -- see my first msg about the limited value of 0-60 comparisons below four seconds. Or look at "only .4" another way and recognize that the F12 is over 11% faster to 60 than the FF.

BlueOx

Well, it is my QUESTION and I should have expected the argument I asked not to have from YOU. Where is your technical expertise to actually answer the question I asked?

Jinx

Oh, I see. "Only post if you have the kind of answer I'm wishing for." You know that's not the way this forum has ever worked. We're all bored waiting for the 13th.

Does the AWD version need to be any faster to make you happy? I thought it was the four-seasoning of the FF that tickled your fancy.

235265283...

Blue Ox,

This is yet another response to your OP that doesn't provide the simple number estimate thst you are seeking.

Sorry, but, IMHO, your OP is in fact a classic example of a simple question that doesn't have a simple answer. So please indulge me a non-simple non-answer.

My experience dabbling in drag racing decades ago has left me highly skeptical of the accuracy of published 0-60 times of less than about 5 seconds for any car. That's because, for cars this fast, seemingly little details affecting traction can affect the 0-60 time by at least +/- 1 second. What kind of tires and tire pre-conditioning? More importantly, what kind of track surface -- a dusty seldom-used back road or a VHT-preped drag strip at an ideal tempeasture or something in between?

Consider this article about a "stock" Ford Mustang (factory-produced rear-wheel drive drag race Mustang with supercharged 5.4-L and AT) that does 0-60 in 1.52 seconds:

http://www.dragracingonline.com/feat...-butner-1.html

As stated in the article, the all-wheel drive Bugatti Verron supposedly does 0-60 in 2.57 seconds.

My intuitive answer to your OP question is something like: On a typical city street, a hypothetical AWD C7 with an extra 120 pounds would probably be at least 0.5 seconds faster 0-60. On an ideally prepared drag strip and if the RWD C7 had ideal tires, my guess is that the AWD C7 would still be faster 0-60, but perhaps by as little as 0.1 or 0.2 seconds.

BlueOx

Thanks. In my theoretical situation, I am assuming all other things are equal beyond the extra 120 lbs (again theoretical) and the AWD. Give them the same tires, track, day, weather, gas, etc. It would be interesting to have this computer modeled...

OnPoint

I think in short distance, straight line (like a 0-60), same power, same tires, same surface, same driver capability, same hp/torque, same gearing, 120lb penalty for the AWD. . .

that the AWD platform would be .2 - .3 quicker.

Whether that would hold thru the 1/4 (and farther) or whether it would be a benefit/penalty on road course would get even deeper into the weeds into gearing and hp/torque per pound for the former (i.e. whether one can stay in the sweet spot of the torque curve to overtake that extra 120 lbs in the 1/4) and into the weeds on chassis characteristics for the latter.

Just a guess based on gut and experience. Would be fun to model it.

BeaZt

Ox, I am thinking in the 3-3.25 range for 0-60 in AWD form. The 60ft time would be dependant on launch rpm and driver skill but I bet it would trap high and still be a very low 10 second car. Thanks for causing me to speculate and dream about this now. LOL

flange

what about the C7 second year imaginary add of VWD( variable wheel drive), which allows the LFS(launch faster system) to utilize all four wheels to get going, monitors rear wheel spin, and shifts to rear wheels only in 27 milliseconds on cue? allegedly cuts 86/100ths of a second off 0-75 times in my dreams.