I have to give it to Chevy......
07-27-2013, 12:35 AM
#41
Instructor
Member Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i agree,the vette was never solely built for strait line performance, but these recent vettes c5 c6 do a dam good job at it.
07-27-2013, 12:38 AM
#42
Race Director
Thread Starter
Buyers are looking for more than just straight line numbers from the C7, I assume. I am. I don't drag race, I like to make runs through the local canyons and mountain passes and and sub 4/12 flat times are plenty, I'm more interested in keeping the car on the road through the curves. I like what I'm hearing from the reviews so far.
Maybe...... But when you punch it you can dam sure feel the difference in a 4.2 0-60 vs. a 3.7 0-60
Straightline acceleration FTW!!!!
07-27-2013, 12:39 AM
#43
Instructor
Member Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all buyers. I wanted better acceleration. I love the runs through the twisties and such but are you really going to say you can tell the difference in a car that runs 2 seconds quicker at Laguna Seca when you are out on those back roads with no timer?
Maybe...... But when you punch it you can dam sure feel the difference in a 4.2 0-60 vs. a 3.7 0-60 Straightline acceleration FTW!!!!
Maybe...... But when you punch it you can dam sure feel the difference in a 4.2 0-60 vs. a 3.7 0-60
Straightline acceleration FTW!!!!
07-27-2013, 12:44 AM
#45
Melting Slicks
Not all buyers. I wanted better acceleration. I love the runs through the twisties and such but are you really going to say you can tell the difference in a car that runs 2 seconds quicker at Laguna Seca when you are out on those back roads with no timer?
Maybe...... But when you punch it you can dam sure feel the difference in a 4.2 0-60 vs. a 3.7 0-60 Straightline acceleration FTW!!!!
Maybe...... But when you punch it you can dam sure feel the difference in a 4.2 0-60 vs. a 3.7 0-60
Straightline acceleration FTW!!!!
07-27-2013, 12:47 AM
#46
Race Director
Thread Starter
It's not a Mustang and doesn't need to follow those type of increases. You could argue that the power increase for the Mustang was exaggerated as that's where it should've been all along.
So going for broke on a base car doesn't make much sense to me. Reduces the degree to which they go above and beyond that for the hi-po model.
So we are giving Chevy a pass to make a ho-hum car just so the hi-po model can look that much better???
For shame Chevy, for shame.....
07-27-2013, 12:49 AM
#47
Race Director
Thread Starter
Where do you think you will feel the difference in the 12.5 to 12.0 the most? 60+mph or 0-60???
Edit: I do believe someone posted earlier "winnnnnahhhhh!!!"
07-27-2013, 12:51 AM
#48
Race Director
Thread Starter
Unless DREAMERAK, unless you got a shot in the line?
NNNNAAAAWWWWSSSSS!!!!!!
NNNNAAAAWWWWSSSSS!!!!!!
07-27-2013, 12:52 AM
#49
Melting Slicks
Tail lights, honestly I would have liked to see GM's official acceleration numbers beaten by independent test. As others posted above, I think we'll see that. From what i can find out, most of the real estate at Milford is dedicated to mimicking real world conditions on public roads, not performance competitions
07-27-2013, 12:53 AM
#50
Race Director
Thread Starter
07-27-2013, 12:58 AM
#51
Race Director
Thread Starter
Tail lights, honestly I would have liked to see GM's official acceleration numbers beaten by independent test. As others posted above, I think we'll see that. From what i can find out, most of the real estate at Milford is dedicated to mimicking real world conditions on public roads, not performance competitions
Unfortunately the tracks we run at down here are more real world than the tracks up on the East coast. That's why the magazine tests are disappointing to me. I can't take the mag time and think "oh, ok, I know now when I run it at my track it'll be .XX quicker.
07-27-2013, 12:58 AM
#52
Melting Slicks
When comparing straight line numbers, it doesn't really matter what people think, the numbers are the numbers and the C7 was five tenths quicker on a questionable surface according to Edmunds testing, than the C6 GS, that is a solid beat down.
07-27-2013, 01:01 AM
#53
Instructor
Member Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cant wait to see a certain stock GS with some tires give that C7 a solid beat down at the track lol
07-27-2013, 01:05 AM
#54
Burning Brakes
I appreciate this.
The car will be great on the street, track and even as a cruiser. I don't know if you are getting one but I hope you do and enjoy every second of it
I will admit, with the massive torque, I was hoping 0-60 times were a bit better, and thus everything that follows (60' although that would be before the 60mph mark, 1/4 mile, etc). I was hoping for more power so the trap could be higher. Not to start the trolling comments but I do have a C6 GS, and it has trapped 115.8 in less than optimum conditions. I was hoping the C7 would be in the high teens and maybe touch 120 and that in the initial testing that it was a solid 118-120 car, but it does not appear to be. I realize that some drivers will get it there, but the ones that run those numbers usually aren't in my neck of the woods.
The car will be great on the street, track and even as a cruiser. I don't know if you are getting one but I hope you do and enjoy every second of it
I will admit, with the massive torque, I was hoping 0-60 times were a bit better, and thus everything that follows (60' although that would be before the 60mph mark, 1/4 mile, etc). I was hoping for more power so the trap could be higher. Not to start the trolling comments but I do have a C6 GS, and it has trapped 115.8 in less than optimum conditions. I was hoping the C7 would be in the high teens and maybe touch 120 and that in the initial testing that it was a solid 118-120 car, but it does not appear to be. I realize that some drivers will get it there, but the ones that run those numbers usually aren't in my neck of the woods.
Combine that with a 3.8 0-60. Damn impressive.
Last edited by RocketGuy3; 07-27-2013 at 01:14 AM.
07-27-2013, 01:05 AM
#55
Race Director
Thread Starter
...... when Edmunds tested the C6 GS they got a 0-60 in 4.2 and 12.5 Q-mile, now with the C7 it's 3.8 and 12.0, a five tenths improvement or about five car lengths at these speeds in the Q-mileThat's a substantial improvement, though i don't expect a certain group to admit it.
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/cor...road-test.html
Dam my car is slow LOL.
07-27-2013, 01:07 AM
#56
Melting Slicks
07-27-2013, 01:11 AM
#57
Race Director
Thread Starter
I haven't seen any hit 119 yet. Link? And since my GS went (practically) 116, 117 is very disappointing. 3.8? With no rollout is getting there, but only have seen one say that (without the rollout) but with the others in the 3.9-4.1 range, again, not impressed.
07-27-2013, 01:11 AM
#58
Team Owner
Those of you looking for hero acceleration figures for a standard model Corvette... You have sorely missed Corvette history over the past 60 years...
If all you care about is 0-60, get an AWD car. Like a used GTR. The Corvette has always bee about far more than that.
07-27-2013, 01:12 AM
#59
Instructor
Member Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-27-2013, 01:14 AM
#60
Melting Slicks