Go Back   Corvette Forum > C7 Corvette > C7 General Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
C7 General Discussion
General C7 Corvette Discussion not covered in Tech Sponsored by
Kerbeck Corvettes

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C7 Parts & Accessories
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
C4 Parts & Accessories
C3 Parts & Accessories
C2 Parts & Accessories
C1 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-26-2013, 08:29 PM   #1
tail_lights
CF Senior Member
 
tail_lights's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: SE TEX
Default I have to give it to Chevy......

At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers
tail_lights is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 08:34 PM   #2
Sp00ky
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: May 2011
Default

I honestly think some people were expecting near Z06 numbers with a car that has 50 less hp and heavier. Chevy didn't want to amaze people with straight line performance with this car. They wanted to make a RWD sports car that be driven to the limit much easier than past generations. You can toss the car around and know what exactly it will do next and they have succeeded. All of the mag reviews summed up, say they love the way this car drives and thats what matters.
Sp00ky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 08:35 PM   #3
Michael A
CF Senior Member
 
Michael A's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Default

It was explained by Edmunds that Chevy uses a 1 foot rollout in their numbers, while some of the mags do not. Personally, I could care less about 1 foot rollout times. Give me the real deal from a standing start.

Michael
Michael A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 08:42 PM   #4
1985 Corvette
CF Senior Member
 
1985 Corvette's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2004
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Send a message via AIM to 1985 Corvette
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tail_lights View Post
At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers
I liked them, car sounds amazing. What were you expecting right out the gate with the entry level? What 0-60? What trap? That's not sarcasm....just trying to get a feel for the disappointment in current times. What mph trap through the quarter in your opinion would be the threshold between great and disappointing?

Sounds like the car is pretty nimble. I think for street driving, it will fit the bill for everyone short of those looking for roll ons.
1985 Corvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 08:43 PM   #5
Punishermach
CF Senior Member
 
Punishermach's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tail_lights View Post
At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers
WTH? C7 runnin some weak *** times for a vette,especially for the new latest and greatest. Looks like GM is just trying to drop the ball in all areas, lets see, well thers the design and man that thing is has some serous design flaws in my opinion, such as the whole back half of the car just dosent look right to me. And Now the performance with these released 1/4 mile times being a joke. I don't know if i will ever be lucky enough able to own a vette, but man i know one thing it will not be a C7. C6 FTW all the way around! Just my opinion!
Punishermach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 08:52 PM   #6
mpuzach
CF Senior Member
 
mpuzach's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2005
Location: La Center WA
Default

Exactly what times were you disappointed in? 3.9 sec.? 12.1 sec.? 93 ft.? All that for $51,995? Sounds pretty good to me.
mpuzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 09:03 PM   #7
Sin City
CF Senior Member
 
Sin City's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpuzach View Post
exactly what times were you disappointed in? 3.9 sec.? 12.1 sec.? 93 ft.? All that for $51,995? Sounds pretty good to me.
...
Attached Images
 
Sin City is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 09:11 PM   #8
adamsocb
CF Senior Member
 
adamsocb's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Upland CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tail_lights View Post
At least with these disappointing rag times we know they didn't give 'em ringers
Where have you guys been for the last 20 years? The mags NEVER get the most out of these cars. They get a few hours with a pre-production car they are not supposed to break. Getting the best 0-60 and 1/4 mile times and trap speeds take the practice of many, many runs and likely full-on, no-lift, speed shifting these mag guys just can't do.

The mag stats are useful if you want to compare the C7 to other cars tested by the same mag, but even then air and track conditions will cause at least a couple of tenths and MPH variance from one test to another. The only valid comps are when the cars are tested by the same crew, at the same track, on the same day.

Finally, once these cars are in the hands of real owners who practice drag racing them, the times will come way down. For example MT tested the 1999 C5 Hardtop and Hatchback with the following results:

Quote:
The new-for-1999 Hardtop with its fixed roof makes for an even stiffer structure than its Coupe or Convertible siblings. As our test numbers bore this out, the Hardtop (which comes standard with the race-style Z51 suspension system) whipped through the 600-foot slalom at an average 68.1 mph, the quickest we've gotten out of a C5 Vette. On the other hand, the improved structural rigidity did nothing to enhance straight-line performance. The 0-60-mph time of 4.8 seconds was identical for both cars and the quarter-mile times were actually better for the Coupe (13.2 seconds at 109.6 mph versus 13.3 at 108.6).

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2aCbczlUs
Then look at this thread see what Forum members have been able to do in stock C5s with run-flats. 12.8 @ 109-110MPH Much better than MT!
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...imes-list.html
__________________

2014 LB/Brownstone Z51 Coupe

...
1999 Coupe SOLD ............| Thunder Roadster SOLD...........| Super Truck for the Track.........| 2008 Jetstream Blue Convertible SOLD
C5 Parts For Sale
adamsocb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 09:35 PM   #9
Snorman
Deal with it.
St. Jude Donor '13-'14
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Member Since: Jun 2005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Punishermach View Post
WTH? C7 runnin some weak *** times for a vette,especially for the new latest and greatest.
In your opinion, exactly how fast should a base C7 have been to be acceptable?
They have already tested a few tenths faster than the outgoing C6's. While I'm sure GM could have gotten more out of the LT1, they're not going to put out a C7 that's as fast as a C6Z for $52k (especially with how C6Z sales tanked the last few years).
IMO, once in owner's hands the C7's will routinely be running high-11's, maybe a touch quicker at a sea level track in the northeast...say...this November or December. I hope to have my car by late September, and it'll be at Atco right after that.

S.
Snorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 09:41 PM   #10
Snorman
Deal with it.
St. Jude Donor '13-'14
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Member Since: Jun 2005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsocb View Post
The mag stats are useful if you want to compare the C7 to other cars tested by the same mag, but even then air and track conditions will cause at least a couple of tenths and MPH variance from one test to another. The only valid comps are when the cars are tested by the same crew, at the same track, on the same day.
Exactly.
Take Road & Track for example. They ran a 12.2 at 117 in 77* air, 62% humidity, at an elevation of 994' and likely on an unprepped surface. They do NOT correct for weather/DA using NHRA correction factors.
Anybody who thinks these cars won't pick up a few tenths and a few mph at tracks like MIR, Etown, Atco, HRP, etc. in decent air is crazy.
S.
Snorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:36 PM   #11
DREAMERAK
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '12-'13-'14
Support Corvetteforum!
 
DREAMERAK's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorman View Post
Exactly.
Take Road & Track for example. They ran a 12.2 at 117 in 77* air, 62% humidity, at an elevation of 994' and likely on an unprepped surface. They do NOT correct for weather/DA using NHRA correction factors.
Anybody who thinks these cars won't pick up a few tenths and a few mph at tracks like MIR, Etown, Atco, HRP, etc. in decent air is crazy.
S.
...look as some of the video, you can see the dust being kick up behind the cars, defiantly some time left on the table. some of the posts above are just trolling, they are here just to stir the pot. I can't wait for Probst at Laguna Seca AND C&D Lightning Lap.
DREAMERAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:38 PM   #12
tail_lights
CF Senior Member
 
tail_lights's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: SE TEX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp00ky View Post
I honestly think some people were expecting near Z06 numbers with a car that has 50 less hp and heavier.
Anyone though (without the blinders on) should be able to see what this car was capable of. Chevy has fallen way short in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp00ky View Post
Chevy didn't want to amaze people with straight line performance with this car. They wanted to make a RWD sports car that be driven to the limit much easier than past generations. You can toss the car around and know what exactly it will do next and they have succeeded. All of the mag reviews summed up, say they love the way this car drives and thats what matters.
But why??? After so many on here were bashing the he!! out of the GTR for making it too easy now Chevy is trying to do the same? Yet the same bashers are going to be swingin' and singin' the praises of the C7
tail_lights is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:40 PM   #13
tail_lights
CF Senior Member
 
tail_lights's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: SE TEX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael A View Post
It was explained by Edmunds that Chevy uses a 1 foot rollout in their numbers, while some of the mags do not. Personally, I could care less about 1 foot rollout times. Give me the real deal from a standing start.

Michael


Lined up at a streetlight vs any other car- "I get a 1' foot rollout because the mag said so"
tail_lights is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:49 PM   #14
mpuzach
CF Senior Member
 
mpuzach's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2005
Location: La Center WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tail_lights View Post
Anyone though (without the blinders on) should be able to see what this car was capable of. Chevy has fallen way short in my opinion.

But why??? After so many on here were bashing the he!! out of the GTR for making it too easy now Chevy is trying to do the same? Yet the same bashers are going to be swingin' and singin' the praises of the C7
Since you didn't respond the the first time I asked, I'll ask again: what numbers are you disappointed with? What level of performance would have earned your approval?
mpuzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:49 PM   #15
Sin City
CF Senior Member
 
Sin City's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2013
Default

1) 0-60 around 4 seconds is quick enough for 99% of the people who want this car, including me.

2) who cares about numbers? It's the driving experience that's important. If you want numbers, go to the aftermarket. That's what it's for. Personally, how the car performs in the grand scheme is what makes a car great or not. I couldn't care less about the "Godzilla" machine. It's not my cup of tea even if it went 0-60 in 1 sec.
Sin City is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:53 PM   #16
mpuzach
CF Senior Member
 
mpuzach's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2005
Location: La Center WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sin City View Post
1) 0-60 around 4 seconds is quick enough for 99% of the people who want this car, including me.

2) who cares about numbers? It's the driving experience that's important. If you want numbers, go to the aftermarket. That's what it's for. Personally, how the car performs in the grand scheme is what makes a car great or not. I couldn't care less about the "Godzilla" machine. It's not my cup of tea even if it went 0-60 in 1 sec.
Winnahhhh!!!!
mpuzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:53 PM   #17
tail_lights
CF Senior Member
 
tail_lights's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: SE TEX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1985 Corvette View Post
I liked them, car sounds amazing. What were you expecting right out the gate with the entry level? What 0-60? What trap? That's not sarcasm....just trying to get a feel for the disappointment in current times. What mph trap through the quarter in your opinion would be the threshold between great and disappointing?

Sounds like the car is pretty nimble. I think for street driving, it will fit the bill for everyone short of those looking for roll ons.
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.
tail_lights is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:56 PM   #18
tail_lights
CF Senior Member
 
tail_lights's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: SE TEX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sin City View Post
...


But that's the problem. It is just good. It could have been great
tail_lights is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 11:01 PM   #19
Sin City
CF Senior Member
 
Sin City's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tail_lights View Post


But that's the problem. It is just good. It could have been great
Everything can be better. I wished I had designed it. I would have made it better looking IMO. You would probably disagree with my design because we all have different tastes and thoughts of what is and isn't great.

But, I didn't design it and every car is a compromise. Is the C7 great? I don't know yet as I haven't driven it. I sure like what I see though.

I can tell you I don't think the Ferrari 458 is great either. Life is full of compromises, even for a car costing a quarter million.

If you want perfection, you have to make your own car from scratch -- and probably never make it street legal. Otherwise, work to appreciate what others have done to solve the problems you never faced.

Last edited by Sin City; 07-26-2013 at 11:03 PM.
Sin City is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 11:02 PM   #20
tail_lights
CF Senior Member
 
tail_lights's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: SE TEX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsocb View Post
Where have you guys been for the last 20 years? The mags NEVER get the most out of these cars. They get a few hours with a pre-production car they are not supposed to break. Getting the best 0-60 and 1/4 mile times and trap speeds take the practice of many, many runs and likely full-on, no-lift, speed shifting these mag guys just can't do.

The mag stats are useful if you want to compare the C7 to other cars tested by the same mag, but even then air and track conditions will cause at least a couple of tenths and MPH variance from one test to another. The only valid comps are when the cars are tested by the same crew, at the same track, on the same day.

Finally, once these cars are in the hands of real owners who practice drag racing them, the times will come way down. For example MT tested the 1999 C5 Hardtop and Hatchback with the following results:



Then look at this thread see what Forum members have been able to do in stock C5s with run-flats. 12.8 @ 109-110MPH Much better than MT!
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...imes-list.html
I absolutely agree with this. I realize that some drivers will destroy the magazine times. (However) To me though it seems the mags are more on the mark with what the average Joe runs though. The track I run at is not one of those magical tracks where you can run half a second faster because of the DA on any given winter outing. A C7 at my local track will probably run close to what these magazine times are, time shall tell.
tail_lights is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 11:02 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C7 Corvette > C7 General Discussion
Reload this Page I have to give it to Chevy......
 
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What could you give up for the rest of your life. CP Off Topic 45 04-18-2014 09:31 AM
This video is awesome deadsexyii C6 Corvette General Discussion 2 02-08-2014 12:10 PM
Happy Thanksgiving! BeaZt C7 General Discussion 29 11-28-2013 10:06 PM
Happy Thanks Giving OT peter pan Off Topic 9 11-28-2013 01:56 PM
An Idea to End the Shutdown 85 Dave Politics, Religion & Controversy 1 10-04-2013 09:10 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Emails & Password Backup

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2