robvuk

What an idiot.

GN1270

Does he actually think the body panels help stop the car in an accident? Does he know that Indy cars are made from Carbon Fiber and it does not crumple either?

c2jones

Indeed, this is sharp. But I would say that this would take it well beyond the "up to the European league" status; I think it would take it even further, to a top Euro car at that. This interior looks like Bentley or Aston Martin or better.

But this would bring the price of Corvette way up and out of the price market its intends. One could always go to Caravaggio, but if this raised the price beyond that of those comparable Euro cars of similar styling and category, then it would begin to defeat the point somewhat.

I have a sample question: Bearing in mind the unfair bashing that ZR1 in particular and Corvette in general are taking in this Benz forum (http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...0#post2783510), I wonder if I could assemble an example-purposes ZR1 and give it all the luxury trim the Euro people seem to demand (even if the other aspects of the build quality, like reliability, have been atrocious of late with MB), and see if this can be kept beneath the price of the SL65 for which the ZR1 is being compared to in this thread.

http://www.mbusa.com/models/main.do?modelCode=SL65

Here is a SL65 vs. Z06. ZR1 should do the trick easily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9tQUgrO1yE

MB is also offering SL65 Black Series soon:

Notice how the SL's folding roof has been replaced by a fixed carbonfibre assembly; removing the electric motors that operate the roof and the folding mechanism helps to save weight. Can anyone say ZR1?

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/17/m...-black-series/

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080416....details-emerge

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...enz-SL/231872/

I guess I would need either a quote from Caravaggio, or a specific interior pricing guide from their site or catalog. I would not need the top interior, just one matching SL65, just to make this point. I am a MB enthusiast and have owned plenty, but these vanity driven MB loyalists can be very thick. Some seem to have a real block towards appreciating Corvette (as one can see in the MB forum thread).

The Caravaggio angle could be just what the doctor ordered indeed.

c2jones

Precisely. I tried to make this point to some of these people, but as I said, they're thick and ridiculously stubborn.

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...4&postcount=45

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...6&postcount=53

Dr Feelgood

Wasn’t the 90-95 ZR1's in the $60,000 price range?

So the $100,000 for a 2008/09 ZR1 isn't so shabby after all. I think in 18 years our technology, quality, and drivability has improved. Just look at all the high tech stuff the new ZR1 has and for the price...

MB's are nice, but I bet you could rock a ZR1 for a full year and only take it in for oil changes, the MB however.. as far what I know and have looked into, warranty work becomes your cars hobby, and driving a loaner becomes yours.

With the ZR1, who cares about interior quality.. Just make sure your passengers are sitting on a trash bag

c2jones

See this posting and see that link. This Corvette stood the test indeed.

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...3&postcount=85

ETM

One of those Benz owners typed that he liked having his butt massaged at 150mph. WTF? I was embarassed for him.

c2jones

Notice how SL65, a heavy luxury GT cruiser (which is really not looking to compete as a supercar whatsoever - its a power hardtop convertible), but does have big power (604 HP), is now looking to add SL65 into the supercar segment with its "Black Series," http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/17/m...-black-series/ by mirroring techniques like carbon fiber components ALA the ZR1, as noted just above. (Mercedes does have a supercar, the SLR, but it costs a half million dollars.)

So, we see techniques being duplicated (and bringing the price up even more) of these heavy luxury cruisers towards getting performance attributes akin to ZR1, but yet these same MB enthusiasts will chastise Corvette for having "cheap" construction and materials (beyond interiors), referring to fenders and overall body parts. The irony is striking.

Therefore, while adding a Caravaggio interior to ZR1 up to SL65 levels would elevate the total price, this would still be less that the added pricing for SL65 Black Series which incorporates ZR1 type composite construction. In the end then, all things now being equal, the ZR1 is still the better overall value. (Of course, the safety aspect would still lean towards MB.)

c2jones

Can you imagine? I think he was trying to make a point about luxury, but he picked a bad example. Did he ever. I told him so, too.

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...8&postcount=80

Bwright

Dude, I read the MB thread and am astonished at your patience. Despite sound and solid arguments those guys by and large seem to need to cling to their beliefs however unsound. Really sad but I genuinely admire your tenacity and grasp of the facts.

I wonder how many of those Benz supporters thought to question Mercedes' use of cheaper steel in the frame where GM went with a far more expensive lightweight aluminum frame on the Z06 and ZR1? They should check the spot prices of aluminum vs. steel for a guide to just raw material price differences. Have them also look into the cost of carbon fiber and ask why it is that this material, which is standard on F1 and Lemans cars, is not standard throughout MB's lineup which is by and large vastly more expensive than Corvette's. How is it that the ZR1 has carbon ceramic brakes standard when only MB's hugely expensive sales dud the SLR has them? BTW, the brakes on the ZR1 are shared with the FXX and Enzo where they are a $25,000 replacement part.

Ferrari has effectively licensed the Corvette's run-flat tires as an option on the F430 and the Magnetic Suspension system for use on their flagship 599. Out of sheer curiosity what technology does Ferrari license from MB or even directly share with them at present? Since MB is supposedly so superior I would expect a laundry list.

But I am also curious how it is that since speed costs money why GM's base Corvette C6 Z51 can show all but an SLR the way home on a track. I'm also curious as to why virtually every MB which can seriously challenge a Corvette around a track is so shockingly heavy and comes with a gas-guzzler tax where the Vette does not. Must be that vastly superior Mercedes engineering and materials quality.

c2jones

Its sometimes an exercise in futility. Many of them seem to have an emotional neediness (vanity, identity) to elevate themselves through their cars. Many badly look down on Corvettes and hold onto a dated, almost primitive mindset ("Corvettes are only fast in a straightline but could fall apart by the end of the run," etc.), yet see themselves as prestigious and well-informed, when too often, nothing could be further from the truth. One would think that education and intellect would run high in a MB forum, but sadly, I witness surpluses of immaturity and tunnel-vision loyalty akin to people in a cult or something. In truth, as I see here with your very ample and insightful posting, this "cheapo build quality" Corvette forum has some of the better minds to be observed anywhere. Your points below confirm this mightily.

They see steel as safer, less likely to "shatter on impact" upon contact (opposed to "cheap fiberglass"), as flawed as that is. This is an example of what I'm referring to with them. I did respond. http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...6&postcount=52

Moreover, let me tell you, you have made some very valid points here, that, with your generous permission of course, I would like to humbly borrow towards this angle over in the MB forum. I'm sure I'll get more of the steel versus fiberglass argument, and your points here firmly meet that challenge. Thank you in advance.

Another solid point. I will do just that. Thanks.

I got into the brake issue only to a minor extent, but as of yet, no responders there. Should have known. http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...7&postcount=89

Wow. This is a point of points. (BMW also also recently fancied the Magnetic Shocks which I mentioned on that forum. Again, no response there either.) I will digest these tenets you make and have them handy. I might even pose these questions directly, to the self-ascribed "more studied" ones. I'm always hearing how Ferrari and Porsche have the world-class technology that Corvette can only dream of. They cite how Corvette is using a dated pushrod engine as if Porsche (928) had not been using their pushrod V8 for just as long. I have countered many times, but each time we get into the details, they retreat.

They would point to the safety aspect. Safer construction is heavier and being safe applies weight. They regard Corvettes akin to old-style, very dangerous "tin cans" with low weight and big power, but one is taunting the undertaker by even driving everyday, but especially at advanced speeds. Mercedes' motto is safety first, even with SLR, which is far more refined, composed (exception possibly Veyron) and certainly safer than anything else of its supercar like. Essentially, Mercedes allows one to go faster, safer, than anyone else. I have cited the gas-guzzler's angle. Can you guess? No takers.

Again, Bwright, you offer some very strong and pertinent points to be levied. I will be sure to make use of them, respectfully. You are surely an asset to this forum and truly reinforce what I refer to when I say that the modern Corvette enthusiast is no backward simpleton as the Euro elites infer. In fact, the modern Corvette enthusiast/owner is as well-rounded and aware as any, if not more. Thanks again.

robvuk

You might also mention that there's nothing new about 4 valve OHC engines. Fiat first went into production in 1914.

c2jones

Fiat/Ferrari. Yes, indeed another valid point. This forum is in the groove.

Bwright

Please feel free to use absolutely anything I write anytime.

On the subject of safety their ignorance is so fundamental that it is actually sad in an adult. First, safety is a two-pronged issue. The most important safety feature in a car (ex-driver) is the vehicle’s dynamic ability to AVOID a crash in the first place. This is a function of its acceleration, braking and handling. Since in every single respect a Corvette model can meet or exceed the dynamic envelope of anything currently offered by MB for road use, that overwhelmingly addresses the most significant vehicle specific component of safety.

The second part of safety is the purely static ability to tolerate a crash when one is unavoidable. This aspect of crash analysis is the easiest for those whose comprehension of the subject is otherwise limited. A few things of note here; first, as documented in All Corvettes are Red, the C5 Corvette benchmarked the Mercedes SL of the time for structural integrity. The hydroformed structure of the C5 was so strong that it not only handily exceeded the resonant frequency stiffness of the SL but actually had to be softened after initial crash testing showed that it was not deforming enough to absorb crash forces in side collisions.

Today, the C6 convertible requires no additional structural bracing in its convertible form and its soft top roof was designed to meet Federal standards for a rigid roof car EVEN THOUGH THE VEHICLE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BY LAW. GM was in effect given a loophole which they not only declined to take but met the SL’s engineering standard with a soft top. The C6 Corvette has been extensively crash tested with more than twice the number (45) of crash tests as the C5. As is noted in Corvette C6 by Phil Berg, the Corvette’s structure is designed such that the car can technically be driven with no body panels attached and still effectively meet Federal crash tests. Those who look at a Corvette’s body panels and question the vehicle’s strength only give voice to the depths of their ignorance.

Beyond that, NHTSA has not crash tested any late model Corvettes or Mercedes coupes or convertibles back through 2005 when the current model Corvette was introduced. Absent these independent empirical tests, speculation on the vehicles relative safety is exactly that. Both vehicles meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable at the time of construction and sale.

Post crash, both vehicles offer safety systems designed to immediately communicate the vehicle’s distress and summon help. So I am hard pressed to see what empirically measured material advantage or disadvantage there is for the two cars in question.

c2jones

Bwright,

Thanks for your permission with regard to your comments. The safety posting comments are also top shelf. Many solid points there. The body frame structuring versus the outer panels is truly an item of interest.

Now, elsewhere, I saw a posting you made in another thread regarding the 3LT interior appointments...

Can you tell me more about this Draexlmaier? Are they the people at the point of Maybach and Veyron interiors, and to what extent? If the same vendor is involved, this would enhance a so-fitted ZR1 mightily.

Bwright

Dräxlmaier' website: http://www.draexlmaier.de/index_en.htm

Navigation - Products - Interior: http://www.draexlmaier.de/lang_en/Pr.../interieur.htm

"Complete interiors by Dräxlmaier are featured in the BMW Z8, the Mercedes-Benz CLK, the CL Coupe, the SL, the Maybach and the Bugatti Veyron."

Motor Trend noting Draexlmaier's enlistment for the 3LT upgrade.

The ZRI incorporates a costly aluminum frame, costlier carbon fiber panels the paint on which is said to weigh more than the panels themselves. As an aside, those panels are essentially made by hand and take quite a bit of time each (will try to find the article which detailed the time taken). Each ZR1 and Z06 engine is handbuilt. Brembo then supplies carbon ceramic rotors shared with the FXX race car and Enzo road car. In fact, the rotors are also shared with the almighty Veyron.

And yes, the upgraded interior is done by no less than the interior decorators of the Veyron and Maybach. GM has spared virtually no reasonable expense and has sought out only the best in their respective fields to assemble and supply this car. Assertions to the contrary are factually incorrect. Short of the SLR, which will likely fail to defeat the ZR1, which roadgoing Mercedes can match the component specification of the ZR1?

Bwright

Give Corvette engineers a dollar and they try to figure how to get two dollars worth of performance out of it. Give Mercedes engineers a dollar and they will set about designing a power glovebox and dual reclining cupholders.

1985 Corvette

I've never understood the "Ancient technology" argument against pushrod engines. Nor the "They use leafsprings on trucks" argument.

If you told me someone made a sportscar that used a hamster running on a wheel chasing after a carrot and that engine produced 400+ hp, I'd be applauding not scoffing. If it gets the job done the same way a complex high tech 5 valve per cylinder engine produces 400+, then what's the big deal?

Though, I gotta say, I'd be laughing my butt off at a car with that type of design I described. I'd still respect it though.

c2jones

This posting is the most helpful tidbit I have had yet towards redeeming the overly critiqued Corvette interior. This new Dräxlmaier 3LT option, which the MB people are calling a "plastic dash disguised by a low quality leather outer wrap," given the truth is quite to the contrary and I can demonstrate this here, is just the smoking gun I sought and the primary purpose of initiating this very thread in the first place! Just superb! Thanks a million - let me tell you!

Hand made panels, just like an ultra exotic or 'fine motor carriage' that even the Brits would be proud of. Another gem.

Just like AMG. (I always had the "mass-produced GM crap" debate to counter with the MB guys. With Z06 and ZR1 anyway, that angle falls completely down. I'm not even sure if MB has models (apart SLR) with handmade panels as indicated above. So, if that's the case, ZR1 may be less mass-produced than any MB (except SLR).

They have not commented on this. (I think its finally dawning on some of them that they're over their collective heads and they have to admit to themselves that they really don't know and understand Corvette, ZR1 in particular, anywhere near what they felt they did, if at all.) Many of the Euro elites from that forum are convinced that all Corvettes, ZR1 included, resemble 60's musclecars in that they are low-grade crates with powerful engines and little more. So primitive their mindsets are.

This is simply stupendous in intellectual value to me. Just what the doctor ordered. I have a tank to bring to their petty pellet gun debate.

The SLR 722 Series (RennTech cooperative production package) with its 650 BHP and advanced weight distribution will be tough to beat, but ZR1 might just do the trick.

http://www.rsportscars.com/mercedes-...r-722-edition/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMGKbZWcBbE

To your point, component to component, I do believe that ZR1 would feature more (technical) components. I have stood tall defending these advanced features en route with ZR1 (and even from Z06 and Z51 to some degree). Power hardtop convertibles (which MB drops for their upcoming SL65 "Black Series") and heated massaging seats aside, the list for ZR1 is a long one. Their performance cars are automatics with a nice 7-speed transmission; a good feature for the casual GT driver. However, paddle shifts are more the performance fancy of the exotics where ZR1 is looking to draw attention.

I would have to concur. I will pose this question to them.

Thanks again. Check's in the mail.

robvuk

If it's physically smaller, lighter, less complex, cheaper to build and produces the same or more power, IT IS SUPERIOR. Regardless of how many liters, valves, cams, pushrods or hamsters!

Yes, the leaf spring thing. I'm just at a loss for words every time I hear someone like the guy from Top Gear make jokes about it. A spring is a spring. They all have the same laws of physics to follow. Pounds of force and spring rate. I also think the first spring ever invented was a coil spring. I just don't know where or why they think the technology of leaf springs can't advance as much as coil springs. I think the transverse leaf is a very clever design and probably weighs less than coils.