Why is a Ferrari California so much faster than an LS3?
09-13-2009, 03:26 PM
#22
Race Director
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: Home of the VOLS ! Knoxville, TN. Tennessee
Posts: 12,952
Received 797 Likes
on
448 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13, '15, '16-'17-'18-'19
If you really want to compare cars at a price point, the Ferrari should have been compared to the ZR1 instead of a stock LS3.
Although the ZR1 is still cheaper then the CA, almost half, the numbers would be much closer if not better for Corvette. IMHO that is
Although the ZR1 is still cheaper then the CA, almost half, the numbers would be much closer if not better for Corvette. IMHO that is
09-13-2009, 04:00 PM
#26
Safety Car
based off weight & HP my guess is its a pretty dead heat. especially if the Vette has been tuned better then stock. I doubt the ferrari has been "detuned" and its set up for ***** out not good gas milage and emissions etc..
Tune the vette and its a dead heat i bet with same driver same track/day
Tune the vette and its a dead heat i bet with same driver same track/day
09-13-2009, 04:36 PM
#27
Yeah, it could even be 3 speed auto versus any speed manual, assuming the proper choice of rear axle ratio. The key is that the automatic is always going to shift faster and is always going to be more consistent. So the auto car is going to come off the line quicker, accelerate continuously without interruptions for manual shifting, and win the race.
09-13-2009, 04:52 PM
#28
Advanced
Member Since: Aug 2009
Location: Blacklick Ohio
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you take a realll.........good look at that Car and Driver chart? The Ferrari is a 262 cubic inch engine with a tranny that has a 4.44 rear axle ratio. Anndd... it got a whopping 11 m.p.g. for their 200 mile drive.
Nope, no more high strung, running on the ragged edge, heart attack induced repair bill exotics for me. I'll take my high torque, eat almost any normal production car alive, I can actually wrench on it, and 32 m.p.g C6 anyday.
Nope, no more high strung, running on the ragged edge, heart attack induced repair bill exotics for me. I'll take my high torque, eat almost any normal production car alive, I can actually wrench on it, and 32 m.p.g C6 anyday.
09-13-2009, 05:25 PM
#31
Safety Car
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: DFW This user does not support or recommend the product or service displayed in the ad to the right
Posts: 3,989
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Clearly the 7 speed F1 style trans combined with gearing set for all out performance and launch control in the Ferrari is the advantage. The C6 gearing is really poor for all out performance but avoids the gas guzzler tax by doing so.
09-13-2009, 05:26 PM
#32
Melting Slicks
Since they both trapped the same they are just as fast in the 1/4. The Ferrari got there quicker though due to traction and trans/gearing advantages.
A lot of people confuse fast with quick. There is several examples of high 11 vehicles trapping lower than that. That's a quick car not going very fast. On the flip side there's cars like my old one that ran an 11.7 at 140mph which is very fast but not so quick.
It's an apples to oranges comparison anyway. I would gladly trade any of my cars for a Ferrari California.
A lot of people confuse fast with quick. There is several examples of high 11 vehicles trapping lower than that. That's a quick car not going very fast. On the flip side there's cars like my old one that ran an 11.7 at 140mph which is very fast but not so quick.
It's an apples to oranges comparison anyway. I would gladly trade any of my cars for a Ferrari California.
09-13-2009, 05:27 PM
#33
Drifting
........but I'd also be very interested in what the rear end gears are in the California, maybe even more so than the 7 speed auto. Put some 4.11's in a C6 and see what the times are --- but also see what you'd lose in MPG and relaxed highway cruising....I'll take a 4.2 second 0 to 60 AND cruising along at 1,700 RPM AND 30 MPG over that extra .6 seconds to 60.
The Corvette is SLAVE to GM's need to keep it affordable and retain it's bragging rights of best Fuel Economy in class. The Ferrari has none of that to worry about.
Corvette LS3 gets 16/26
Ferrari Cali gets 13/19
Even the Z06 beats it with 15/24 and absolutely runs as fast if not faster than the Ferrari
What's gonna mess U up in the head is when people finally realize that the European Luxo makers are now exempt from EPA regulations while Cadillac, Lincoln, Lexus, Infiniti, and of course by default.. Chevy aren't.
Because they are a part of a maker that sells more than 400K units in the U.S. per year, while Benz, BMW... and yeas even Ferrari are exempt. Of course that might change for them since Fiat/Chrysler is now together.
09-13-2009, 05:30 PM
#34
Drifting
The Vette, even in Z06 or ZR1 forms is still a new Malibu or CTS-V away from being as expensive as the Ferrari.
If the Vette had that extra bit of R&D money to throw it's way... well U would have a... well U would have a ... U'd have a Z06 or ZR1 and enuff money to at least deal with a year in college for your kid
09-13-2009, 06:44 PM
#35
Advanced
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not disagreeing with what you are trying to say, but I am guessing that a whole lot more R&D money was thrown at the C5/C6 platform than one may think - especially after reading of "All Corvettes Are Red" - that doesn't mean the money was spent properly, of course.
I tend to agree that the difference is in engineering design goals (including emissions and MPG). The first 3 gears in the Z51 tranny should improve acceleration but don't seem to detract from the MPG rating, so I assume it's all a balancing act between gearing, traction, MPG, emissions, power, etc. The Corvette has a great balance but like any design, compromises were made to meet the platform goals.
I tend to agree that the difference is in engineering design goals (including emissions and MPG). The first 3 gears in the Z51 tranny should improve acceleration but don't seem to detract from the MPG rating, so I assume it's all a balancing act between gearing, traction, MPG, emissions, power, etc. The Corvette has a great balance but like any design, compromises were made to meet the platform goals.
09-13-2009, 07:17 PM
#37
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Mooresville (Race City USA) NC
Posts: 4,681
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Thank you for the responses. I think we are all aware of the variables introduced in not doing the tests the same day with the same driver, etc.
I am an engineer so I know that my original test assumption of "Assuming the numbers are fine, what is overcoming the power/weight disadvantage of the Ferrari?" is not really valid. That being said, and making the non-scientific assumption that the numbers are OK for the purposes of discussion (I know, I know - we could argue this even if we had tests on the same day because the next response would be that the test driver doesn't have as much experience in car X or is sponsored by the manufacturer of car Y, etc. etc.) - I was really trying to understand how the Ferrari could have overcome such an obvious Power/Weight disadvantage.
I would have expected it in the case of a car like the GT-R with AWD, but not in a rear-drive car like the Ferrari. Through this thread, I am beginning to realize how much transmissions and powerband can affect acceleration more than raw power. It seems to come down to clever manipulation of the application of power by engineering shift points / engine torque around the strongpoints of a particular car's package. I mean it really is a case of holistic car design rather than brute force.
Sorta like why you can't just put an LS3 in any car and get the Corvette's performance - you can put 450 HP in two different cars with the same basic platform (sports car, front-engine, RWD etc.) and have different performance because of gearing, transmission and power curves.
It's more complicated than what we make out to be sometimes.
I am an engineer so I know that my original test assumption of "Assuming the numbers are fine, what is overcoming the power/weight disadvantage of the Ferrari?" is not really valid. That being said, and making the non-scientific assumption that the numbers are OK for the purposes of discussion (I know, I know - we could argue this even if we had tests on the same day because the next response would be that the test driver doesn't have as much experience in car X or is sponsored by the manufacturer of car Y, etc. etc.) - I was really trying to understand how the Ferrari could have overcome such an obvious Power/Weight disadvantage.
I would have expected it in the case of a car like the GT-R with AWD, but not in a rear-drive car like the Ferrari. Through this thread, I am beginning to realize how much transmissions and powerband can affect acceleration more than raw power. It seems to come down to clever manipulation of the application of power by engineering shift points / engine torque around the strongpoints of a particular car's package. I mean it really is a case of holistic car design rather than brute force.
Sorta like why you can't just put an LS3 in any car and get the Corvette's performance - you can put 450 HP in two different cars with the same basic platform (sports car, front-engine, RWD etc.) and have different performance because of gearing, transmission and power curves.
It's more complicated than what we make out to be sometimes.
09-13-2009, 07:25 PM
#38
Burning Brakes
Since they both trapped the same they are just as fast in the 1/4. The Ferrari got there quicker though due to traction and trans/gearing advantages.
A lot of people confuse fast with quick. There is several examples of high 11 vehicles trapping lower than that. That's a quick car not going very fast. On the flip side there's cars like my old one that ran an 11.7 at 140mph which is very fast but not so quick.
It's an apples to oranges comparison anyway. I would gladly trade any of my cars for a Ferrari California.
A lot of people confuse fast with quick. There is several examples of high 11 vehicles trapping lower than that. That's a quick car not going very fast. On the flip side there's cars like my old one that ran an 11.7 at 140mph which is very fast but not so quick.
It's an apples to oranges comparison anyway. I would gladly trade any of my cars for a Ferrari California.
09-13-2009, 08:01 PM
#39
Drifting
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: Prescott AZ
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody has said the obvious. Motor Trend always gets faster times out of any auto than does Car & Driver get out of the same auto. Car and Driver has commented on this in the past and defended their data.
Last edited by Curtis A. Franz; 09-14-2009 at 09:17 AM.
09-13-2009, 08:15 PM
#40
Safety Car
Supercars.net shows 4.0 sec 0-60 for the California which is more believable. Some other tests show 3.8 and 3.9. Motortrend may need to calibrate their timing equipment.