[Z06] Z06 vs. F430 vs. 997TT....*C&D TEST*[mergedx3]
07-20-2006, 01:54 PM
#181
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by WeaponsGradeTorque
Got news for ya, I had 4 years of Physics and got A's in every one of them. There is no way to know 100% for sure without having the acceleration data what is really going on. One thing I know for sure that will impact acceleration is gearing, i.e. the Torque multiplication factor, and the Z06 has better gears for higher MPH. The evidence is in the fact that the Z06 does 198 MPH (drag limited) and the 911 is gear limited at 185 mph. I am not sure of the exact # of car lengths, but it is not as small as YOU think. 1.5s is quite a bit at those speeds and I am assuming the difference gets wider based on te London Speed test. At 150 MPH, the cars are moving ~220 ft per second, so take tht for what it is worth. This is NOT advanced Pyhsics here. It's D = RT. In other words, Distance = Rate * Time.
Note to all: To learn more applied and relevant physics than you probably ever did or ever will.. wade through all the pages of this GOLDMINE thread (ALL of the pages):
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1333971
...ignoring the morons, making sure to may close attention to the dialogue between myself, retired GM engr, aharte, glass slipper, and slgz06.
Andi
07-20-2006, 02:02 PM
#182
Drifting
Member Since: Feb 2005
Location: Huntington Beach California
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
Originally Posted by Bwright
So now the Z06’s performance sweep is essentially complete and a matter of history.
For Porsche, the $123,695 Turbo has fallen in all relevant performance respects. The marque’s defense now falls to the 997 GT2, a car that will likely cost $190,000. There are those here who question the supposed "bashing" of their marque by Corvette fans. But if the Z06 had been defeated by a base Boxster in those tests what level of crowing would be appropriate from Boxster fans? Price wise whither Porsche? Corvette fans have earned their right to crow. And from a price standpoint some hard and honest questions need to be asked by even Porsche’s staunchest defenders.
For the Ferrari the destruction was shocking in its violence. The 0-150 mph gap staggers the mind. I do wonder though why they used old acceleration numbers. Did the Ferrari break or did Ferrari step in as per normal and forbid acceleration testing? In any event, having long since ceded acceleration prowess to the Corvette, Ferrari’s supporters have resorted to claiming that the Vette is a one-trick pony that would fall flat on a track. The implied car-length gap over the Ferrari on this small track was 17. There is nothing small about that. As someone here rightly observed, if the Z06 did this on a small track a big track will be worse. Much worse.
So now supporters from both competing camps are reduced to making excuses for the Z06’s tested opponents. These excuses run the gamut from the usual desperate it-costs-more-therefore-it-is-and-you-wouldn’t-understand (haughty and pretentious sniff) from those whose lives are such that they easily see the necessity of a social crutch and so on and so on. All these excuses and untenable subterfuges boil down to a single undeniable fact. By any objective measure of performance the Z06’s expected worthy performance opponents were emphatically rubbed out. It is going to take a lot deeper reach into the opposition’s respective triple-digit cost arsenals to retaliate. For Porsche, the aforementioned upcoming GT2 while for Ferrari I cannot imagine. The 599 will not be any more nimble than the F430 though it should undoubtedly be better in a straight line.
So why the rankings in Car and Driver? It’s actually painfully simple. Car and Driver runs a business. That business is dependent on generating attention grabbing headlines at all costs. Italian marques do that more than anyone else because they are gratuitously expensive and, as such, relatively rare. To tell the truth about the way the cars should have been ranked as a totality, not just on performance, would have likely meant that Ferrari and possibly Porsche would be less inclined to submit cars for further comparison testing. Ferrari for one is famous for having done this before. When nobody else will compete then there will be fewer headline grabbers as everyone will already know the likely outcome and the marketing schemes of the European marques will unravel. For another example of the sort of gerrymandering businesses do when this sort of situation arises simply review the events in the GT1 class at the recent ALMS "race" in Utah.
On road and on track the Corvette’s dominance is now essentially complete. From a heritage, technology and performance standpoint there are really no more practical worlds left to conquer and nothing left to prove.
Well done GM. Well done.
For Porsche, the $123,695 Turbo has fallen in all relevant performance respects. The marque’s defense now falls to the 997 GT2, a car that will likely cost $190,000. There are those here who question the supposed "bashing" of their marque by Corvette fans. But if the Z06 had been defeated by a base Boxster in those tests what level of crowing would be appropriate from Boxster fans? Price wise whither Porsche? Corvette fans have earned their right to crow. And from a price standpoint some hard and honest questions need to be asked by even Porsche’s staunchest defenders.
For the Ferrari the destruction was shocking in its violence. The 0-150 mph gap staggers the mind. I do wonder though why they used old acceleration numbers. Did the Ferrari break or did Ferrari step in as per normal and forbid acceleration testing? In any event, having long since ceded acceleration prowess to the Corvette, Ferrari’s supporters have resorted to claiming that the Vette is a one-trick pony that would fall flat on a track. The implied car-length gap over the Ferrari on this small track was 17. There is nothing small about that. As someone here rightly observed, if the Z06 did this on a small track a big track will be worse. Much worse.
So now supporters from both competing camps are reduced to making excuses for the Z06’s tested opponents. These excuses run the gamut from the usual desperate it-costs-more-therefore-it-is-and-you-wouldn’t-understand (haughty and pretentious sniff) from those whose lives are such that they easily see the necessity of a social crutch and so on and so on. All these excuses and untenable subterfuges boil down to a single undeniable fact. By any objective measure of performance the Z06’s expected worthy performance opponents were emphatically rubbed out. It is going to take a lot deeper reach into the opposition’s respective triple-digit cost arsenals to retaliate. For Porsche, the aforementioned upcoming GT2 while for Ferrari I cannot imagine. The 599 will not be any more nimble than the F430 though it should undoubtedly be better in a straight line.
So why the rankings in Car and Driver? It’s actually painfully simple. Car and Driver runs a business. That business is dependent on generating attention grabbing headlines at all costs. Italian marques do that more than anyone else because they are gratuitously expensive and, as such, relatively rare. To tell the truth about the way the cars should have been ranked as a totality, not just on performance, would have likely meant that Ferrari and possibly Porsche would be less inclined to submit cars for further comparison testing. Ferrari for one is famous for having done this before. When nobody else will compete then there will be fewer headline grabbers as everyone will already know the likely outcome and the marketing schemes of the European marques will unravel. For another example of the sort of gerrymandering businesses do when this sort of situation arises simply review the events in the GT1 class at the recent ALMS "race" in Utah.
On road and on track the Corvette’s dominance is now essentially complete. From a heritage, technology and performance standpoint there are really no more practical worlds left to conquer and nothing left to prove.
Well done GM. Well done.
07-20-2006, 02:06 PM
#183
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by Verrückt
:sigh:
Could a Z06 owner who has a basic understanding of physics please step in here?
Andi, where are you?
Could a Z06 owner who has a basic understanding of physics please step in here?
Andi, where are you?
For example the relative 1/4 mile (fixed point) numbers for the Z06 (11.7 @ 123 mph) to F430 (12.5 @ 116mph).
Figure the time gap between the two cars: 12.5 - 11.7 = 0.8 secs.
Then determine the rate at which the Z06 was covering ground when it blew by that marker: 123 mph = 179.58 ft./sec.
Multiply that by the gap of 0.8 secs: = 143.66 ft.
Convert that distance to inches by multiplying by 12: 1,723.96 inches.
Then divide by the known length of the Z06 (175.6 inches): = 9.81 car lengths.
Did I miss anything beyond the minor assumption that all acceleration ceased at the 1/4 mile? If not, what did I win?
Like Andi said, if the 150 mph gap was at a fixed point Frank's right.
Last edited by Bwright; 07-20-2006 at 02:10 PM.
07-20-2006, 02:07 PM
#184
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Dec 2003
Location: Hillsborough NJ
Posts: 7,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Verrückt
How did you guys pass grade school physics?
There is a big difference between "time to distance" measurements (quater mile) and "time to speed" measurements.
There is a big difference between "time to distance" measurements (quater mile) and "time to speed" measurements.
Apparently, they haven't studied calculus and understand rates of change.
07-20-2006, 02:12 PM
#185
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by Andi
Don't kid yourself. This is off topic and wrong. Verrückt is right. While the Z06's gearing isn't that widely spaced, the Porsche's very tight 6-speed gearbox makes sure to wring every last horsie out of that little 3.6L, always keeping the little boxer in the powerband and the turbos on the boil.
Note to all: To learn more applied and relevant physics than you probably ever did or ever will.. wade through all the pages of this GOLDMINE thread (ALL of the pages):
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1333971
...ignoring the morons, making sure to may close attention to the dialogue between myself, retired GM engr, aharte, glass slipper, and slgz06.
Andi
Note to all: To learn more applied and relevant physics than you probably ever did or ever will.. wade through all the pages of this GOLDMINE thread (ALL of the pages):
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1333971
...ignoring the morons, making sure to may close attention to the dialogue between myself, retired GM engr, aharte, glass slipper, and slgz06.
Andi
You don't KID YOURSELF. I said you can't know the exact number without seeing the exact acceleartion data. Unfortunately we don't have it so we can speculate all we want. I don't need to learn more applied physics because I know it. As far as the gearing an torque multiplication factor, I have not gone through the math but I suspect it has more of an effect than you give it credit for. A better measure of the cars performance at higher speed would be to pick a distance and see what the elapsed time is (say like a 1/2 mile) and see what the elapsed time is...just like we do in the quarter.
07-20-2006, 02:18 PM
#187
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by The DBK
Ever driven an F430? There's a reason it's universally lauded as the most exciting, most exhilirating, most telepathically communicative car on earth. It's not snobby in the least to say an F430 is way better than a C6 Z06. For christ sakes, the car cost almost 150k more, it damn well ought to be better!
Originally Posted by The DBK
There is no doubt the Z06 will utterly smash an F430 in many statistical performance categories, but you're doing yourself a disservice as a car freak if you don't understand the reasons it is the better overall car. Performance per dollar the Z06 simply cannot be beat and if you're only objective is to have the faster car it is the surefire winner, but money no object really tell me which car you'd rather have (having driven both)....
07-20-2006, 02:24 PM
#189
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by dietrich
Drive one.
Next.
07-20-2006, 02:34 PM
#190
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Las Vegas NV
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 996TTx50
In particular, the 997TT was the fastest to 100 mph . . . 1/2 second faster than the C6ZO6 ..... Given that most car owners spend the vast majority of their driving time below 100 mph, the quicker jump of the 997TT to 100 mph may be more desirable to some than the tremendous top end pull of the C6ZO6.
996TTx50
996TTx50
Z. The 0-100 time in this test, is slower than other tests performed. The driver may not have had much Z time under his belt.
07-20-2006, 02:34 PM
#191
Team Owner
Stunning performance from the Z. I would have expected a much closer fight, although to be fair, shame on C&D for using previous accel numbers for the Ferrari rather than same day, same conditions. 
The F430 has been in the high 11s with a trap of around 120 mph in some tests, those where the F1 tranny was used to its full advantage.
There's no question which order I would buy these in a perfect world (Ferrari, Porsche, then Z06) but the Z06 puts TRUE supercar performance in the hands of a successful (but not necessarily well off) American, in a damn sexy package, which deserves kudos.
The F430 has been in the high 11s with a trap of around 120 mph in some tests, those where the F1 tranny was used to its full advantage. There's no question which order I would buy these in a perfect world (Ferrari, Porsche, then Z06) but the Z06 puts TRUE supercar performance in the hands of a successful (but not necessarily well off) American, in a damn sexy package, which deserves kudos.
Last edited by BoostManiac; 07-20-2006 at 02:37 PM.
07-20-2006, 02:44 PM
#192
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by Futfixr
Again, This is not an accurate representation of the ability of the
Z. The 0-100 time in this test, is slower than other tests performed. The driver may not have had much Z time under his belt.
Z. The 0-100 time in this test, is slower than other tests performed. The driver may not have had much Z time under his belt.
Bone stock (including factory ECU tune).
0-100, ~7.8 sec.
Magazines give you real 1/4 mile trap speeds, dragstrips average it over the last 60 feet, which hurts your trap by a mph or two..
Andi
Last edited by Andi; 07-20-2006 at 02:47 PM.
07-20-2006, 02:51 PM
#193
Instructor
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: San Francisco CA
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Verrückt
:sigh:
Could a Z06 owner who has a basic understanding of physics please step in here?
Andi, where are you?
Could a Z06 owner who has a basic understanding of physics please step in here?
Andi, where are you?
07-20-2006, 02:56 PM
#195
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Miami FL
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zred06
Pretty cool that an owner of the "best sports car in the world" will have to bow to the C6Z when he pulls up next to one knowing that he will get dusted. I love it!
07-20-2006, 02:58 PM
#196
Instructor
Member Since: Aug 2002
Location: Issaquah WA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone notice that 2 of their rolling acceleration tests are completely wrong?
Notice 0-100 for the Z06 is 8.3 seconds
and yet, somehow 30-50 is 9.1 seconds !!!???? --- i think my moms van does 30-50 quicker
and also 50-70 is 9.0 seconds.
all of that while 0-100 is only 8.3...............
Notice 0-100 for the Z06 is 8.3 seconds
and yet, somehow 30-50 is 9.1 seconds !!!???? --- i think my moms van does 30-50 quicker
and also 50-70 is 9.0 seconds.
all of that while 0-100 is only 8.3...............
07-20-2006, 03:07 PM
#197
Racer
Member Since: Mar 2006
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KNanthrup
Did anyone notice that 2 of their rolling acceleration tests are completely wrong?
Notice 0-100 for the Z06 is 8.3 seconds
and yet, somehow 30-50 is 9.1 seconds !!!???? --- i think my moms van does 30-50 quicker
Notice 0-100 for the Z06 is 8.3 seconds
and yet, somehow 30-50 is 9.1 seconds !!!???? --- i think my moms van does 30-50 quicker
07-20-2006, 03:09 PM
#198
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by KNanthrup
Did anyone notice that 2 of their rolling acceleration tests are completely wrong?
Notice 0-100 for the Z06 is 8.3 seconds
and yet, somehow 30-50 is 9.1 seconds !!!???? --- i think my moms van does 30-50 quicker
and also 50-70 is 9.0 seconds.
all of that while 0-100 is only 8.3...............
Notice 0-100 for the Z06 is 8.3 seconds
and yet, somehow 30-50 is 9.1 seconds !!!???? --- i think my moms van does 30-50 quicker
and also 50-70 is 9.0 seconds.
all of that while 0-100 is only 8.3...............
With the Ferrari the disparity is likely the result of the F1 system's software refusing to go to top gear at such low speed. Not sure what the Porsche's excuse is. If it was a tip then the plot thins but if not I am not certain.
07-20-2006, 03:15 PM
#199
Drifting
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Bwright
The 30-50 mph numbers you reference were obtained using top allowable gears, which would be 6th for the Vette. Hence the reason for the times.
With the Ferrari the disparity is likely the result of the F1 system's software refusing to go to top gear at such low speed. Not sure what the Porsche's excuse is. If it was a tip then the plot thins but if not I am not certain.
With the Ferrari the disparity is likely the result of the F1 system's software refusing to go to top gear at such low speed. Not sure what the Porsche's excuse is. If it was a tip then the plot thins but if not I am not certain.
