Can a car that is being assessed in a single car review have flaws? If so, why would comparing this car to another car in a two car comparison mean that the flaws are either not there anymore, or off limits in terms of writing about them?

I'll take the Corvette and with the extra money buy a repo'd, short sale condo in Las Vegas...............close to Spring Mountain race track:steering:

..............and then blow the rest on the ponies!! https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-p...lycavalier.gif

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/foru...conflicts.html

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/foru...hijacking.html

:iagree: for the cost you can have a GS and a new Camaro ZL1!!

:iagree: And neither one will be ugly!

So again, maybe I'm stereotyping and it doesn't help that I had a friend that backs me up. I don't think there's a lot of people that buy Vettes because of status, but more because they love cars and love driving them. Porche on the other hand is a big status symbol. For example I had a friend that bought a boxster not because he loved cars, but because he wanted to look cool. That came right out of his mouth. On top of that he sucks at driving. When we went autocrossing he got beat by a Camry and was the only person who I know that can spin a boxster out twice in one day while going slow enough to lose to a every car but 1. That's just the way I see it. Now I know every car has it's die hards and wanna bee's, but I think the percentages are higher wanna bee's for porche, bmw, MB, etc than a Corvette.

:iagree: Very well said.

Not always, but usually, a Corvette buyer will not consider buying a Porsche and vice versa. Buyers of these cars are pretty loyal to their brand! I have been a Corvette lover since I was a kid and would never even consider buying a Porsche.

Porsche are among the ugliest cars on the planet!! Right up there with the Volkswagen beetle and the Audi TT!!!!! IMO

:iagree: And overpriced...:ack:

9x out of 10 these match ups aren't match ups at all. A $130K Porsche against a $70K Corvette. Let's put money on money and see what happens. Or handicap the more expensive car in a compensatory way.

Of course the vette will come out on the short end of the deal. The money was not invested to make it compete. The vette is half the price. Come on.

Craig

:iagree: But in the real world it is amazing at how well the Corvette did against a car costing $50,000 more.

:iagree: But in the real world, it is amazing at how well the Corvette did against a car costing $50,000 more.

Yes, I think you are overly stereotyping. There are people that buy the Vettte for status, and there are people who buy the Porsche for status. I personally think it is OK if someone wants to buy either car because of its status "value".

Using different cars and applying the same ""status" criteria, I would offer that if someone drove a Ferrari 458 or a Lambo Gallardo and decided that they liked the way one of these drove, performed, and looked better than any other sports car offering out there, and they could afford any of the cars being considered, then letting a perception that others buy the car because of "status" stand in the way of buying the car they wanted would not be very logical.

How much of the cost of each of those cars ($130k and $70k) is attributable to their options list?

Doesn't matter.

It does when there are those that focus on the $60k difference, when the non-optioned difference may not in fact be $60k.

Doesn't matter. Price is, what price is.

There shouldn't even be 6 pages to this thread. The MT comparison is sheer nonsense.

When you cut all the bullcrap, the single most important factor in 99.9% of car purchases on this planet is Price of Admission. It comes down to bang for the buck. When comparing two cars wherein one is nearly double the price of the other, then the most basic equality factor you need to input is: Amount of points garnered in test divided by the differential in price. Simple.

If $100k car A scores 200 points and $50k car B only musters 100 points, then we have a tie. That was nowhere near the case in this test. It all goes out the window.

Why don't we line up an RS6 and a Passat for the next MT test. Same car, right? :rolleyes:

I could matter if any or all of the options were what changed the overall assessment of either or both cars, just like it could matter if none of the options impacted the overall assessment of either or both cars.

For example, if the specific qualities of the Porsche that gave it the edge over the Vette were qualities associated with one or more of the options installed on the car, then the cost of those options would be appropriate to include in the overall price difference between the two cars. However, if the specific options installed on the Porsche had no impact on the assessment outcome, then a base 991 S would have had the same assessment as the $130k 991S and the discussion here would not be "$130 Porsche vs a $70k Vette". It would be something like "$98k Porsche vs a $XXk Vette (XX used because I don't know what the options cost on the Vette, and you have to apply the same logic to its options list). In other words, the price difference between the two cars in stock form (no options) is probably not $60k, and the question that needs to be asked is would the outcome have been different if two no-option cars had been used.

While there is no question that the 991 S is more expensive than the GS, I think it is important not to focus on the tested $60k difference (that is the installed options) when this difference may not have had any impact on the outcome.

Price as tested, is price as tested, sorry.

I know plenty of sports car owners who do not buy based on some kind of "bang for the buck" formula.

............and they option their cars to the hilt, so price tested is price tested, thank you.

:iagree:

Even more amazing if you consider that a base Vette performs almost as well as a GS and the cost difference could be as much as 80K more.

So had the 991 S tested had a $15k "paint to sample" option, you think this would have had an assessment impact?

I don't do "if's" sorry.

Sweet looking 911.....:leaving:

Everyone always get butt-hurt over Corvette vs "XYZ" car..and usually its because the Vette is tested against much higher priced competition. Which is a good thing, because the Vette is THAT good for the money.

But, anyone who has owned a Porsche, Ferrari, etc- knows the Vette does not stack up fit, finish, ride or technology wise.

A lot of what you get in the higher MSRP of the Porsche is what I just stated above. Get in a Porsche, and it screams hi-tech, beautiful fit and finish, devoid of rattles, beautiful leather, a NAV system that is world class, etc.
If you can get by the odd shaped body..The exterior is every bit as nice as the inside..I love the fit and finish of the Porsche, and the tasteful LED lighting on the outside.

As an aside.. I mean, seriously..a damn Hyundai comes with LED tailights these days for 16K...why not the flagship of the GM lineup? Lets not even discuss the NAV and Stereo. Inexcusable.

Jump in the Vette..and its a "who's who" of generic carry over parts from other GM cars. Thats not "flagship" to me..and the resale value confirms it.

But..the Vette has a proven drivetrain..Joe Mechanic can tinker with it (for the most part), it doesn't have to be serviced for an arm and a leg, and its American made. The V-8 sound and torque simply can't be replaced, or the big azz grin on my face when I nail the throttle.

For all its flaws, its still a helluva car for the money.

Thats why I bought one. :rock:

No you don't. Prove it. I can blow the next hour pulling up surveys about demographics of car owners, and how the huge majority of America buys the best thing they can comfortably afford.

Like 99% of us, if money is a factor in your purchase and you can get a car that does 94% of what you want for 60% of what you can comfortably afford, you won't spend %100 of what you can afford for a car that does 96% of what you want. See what I'm saying?

To say you know plenty of car owners that dont think to themselves "I am going to try and get the most car I can for the best overall value", you'd be talking silly.

Even rich people don't typically write blank checks. At least not the ones who were rich 2 years ago and intend to still be in 2 more.

People who buy high end sports cars are not the "huge majority of Americans".

Certainly anyone who can afford to buy a new 991 S can also afford to buy a new GS Vette. Using your logic, none of these wealthy people would buy a 991 S. You know this is not the case. If "bang for the buck" were the overriding factor influencing buying decisions for wealthy buyers, then Porsche, MB, Audi, and Ferrari would not be selling any sports cars.

Actually, it IS the case. Look at how many people on this forum have Z06's, ZR1's, etc. The "huge majority" of them can also afford a 911. I'd implore you to start a poll here asking the 1st-owners of either of those two cars whether or not they could have landed a 911 with their money. The overwhelming response will be "Yes, but why pay that much when I can get almost all of what it offers for 1/2 to 2/3 the price?".

This is the same reason that most owners of a new 911 Turbo could have sprung for a GT3, but didn't. For them, it wasn't a cost-effective decision. If you've got the means to purchase a car near $100k, you can probably swing $150k as well. But most won't.

Most people that own high end cars are wealthy enough that if they felt like putting a dent in their normal quality of life, they could pull the funds together for the next echelon. CF is an example. A lot of the people in these threads fit that profile.

:iagree: Outstanding points.:thumbs:

Is this the Porsche Notch is referring to with the paint option?

Yes, it was...........best looking P car I have seen to date. :cool:

:iagree: Ask me, I fit that demographic, I will answer why I have a ZR1 instead of a Porsche.......


Why pay that much when I can get almost all of what it offers for 1/2 to 2/3 the price?" Plus, for me, ugly doesn't make the cut when I am looking to purchase a vehicle.
...and yes, I do have an F-car, but it is pretty. :cool:

I have a ZR1 and a 911 S so I know. P car has a nicer interior in terms of materials with supple leather , alcantara roof liner, real carpet, better fit , no rattles, no brake squeal. Those are facts. It handles like a go cart . It is an enthusiasts car and is among the very best out there. P cars, like vettes and most other cars, can have plenty of issues. That said, i think the comparison was unfair and the P car should have been compared to a ZR1 given the as tested prices. ZR1 is a completely different car and we all know how good it is. I'm glad i have both.

The 997 Turbo is more expensive than the GT3. People buy the GT3 for reasons that are different than the reasons people use to buy the Turbo, even thought they could probably afford either car, or could even afford to buy a car more expensive than the Turbo.

All the people I know that own expensive cars would not be putting a dent in their lifestyles to move to a higher price point.

The key here is the are lots of people who do not make their sports car buying decisions based on purely performance metrics (a.k.a. "bang for the buck"). There is plenty of perceived value in cars that is not stopwatch based, and lots of people use these values as the basis for their buying decision. There are also obviously people who make their car buying decision based only on "how much performance can I buy for the money I have available to dedicate to a car". There is nothing at all wrong with this approach either. These people may not give a hoot how the car actually drives. I've been on test drives with people and asked them "what do you think about the steering feedback", only to have them ask me "what are you talking about?". I may also ask them "what do you think about the brake response and brake pedal effort" only to again have them ask "what are you talking about?". There are just simply some things that are lost on some drivers, and for them there isn't any reason in the world to spend money on a car that might have better driving dynamics and better control response/feedback because it would be something they would never appreciate. But there are many people who do find enough value in things other than purely performance numbers to justify paying more for a car that has lower specific performance numbers than another car that is less expensive.

OK, then the base 911S is $96.5K the base GS is$56k it is still $40k difference!!! A base Z06 is only $76.5k.. there is just no doubt by price the Porsche should have been compared to at least the Z06, more appropriately the ZR1. If you want to compare a GS to a Porsche it should be a Cayman, and the base Vette coupe should be compared to the Boxster, they are the same price range.

There are 2 issues here with the member you're debating. 1, The Corvette is American made. 2, The car compared was a Porsche. It really is that simple. You can make sense all day long, and prove your point from here to Germany and it won't make a bit of difference.

What????

In short I agree with you. Please re-read the entire thread and comment.

I like your choices in cars, nice motorpool! The best of both worlds. :thumbs:

Okay. Whatever the respective MSRP's are, I was mistaken. But I think you understood the point.
^You're shooting yourself in the foot here. That is exactly proving my point. If they had the means to buy the next best car up the rung, then why didn't they?

VALUE.

They only spent what they needed to get what they wanted. Which is why so many owners of $75-100k Vettes are also capable of a $125-$150k Porsche.

Anyways, back to my original point: This test is retarded. The most important defining aspect of how the two cars measure up against each other is their bang-for-the-buck, despite what you say... Yet MT completely dismisses any relative importance thereof and declares the doubly-expensive car the winner when it bests the other in actual parameters by only fractions, if at all.

Ahh!! I get it.. The way you worded I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing.

:thumbs::cheers:

Even though I think it was a bad to compare to the GS because of the money difference, I was really waiting for the test on the track to compare the two.

Bummer, there was no test. :D

when C&D tested the 2010 GS at VIR they got a 2:58.8 and with the 2010 911 turbo S they got 2:57.5 of course that is $160k base. I can't find where anyone has put a newer 911S on a track.

That 911S listed for over twice what I paid for my GS. I know I'm cheap, but really. I doubt they discount the 911S much like a vette.

Does Porsche make beer?

I like beer.

:iagree:

The listed price for the 911S is $36K over what I paid for my deeply discounted ZR1.

Even if it was an American car built in North America (my criteria), I would chuckle at the comparison as I already am...:lol:

A Porsche never has been and never will be a poor man's car.

Generally if someone is spending over 100k on a vehicle the price isn't of much concern. You can either afford it or you can't. 36k won't make much of a difference if you can REALLY afford it.

With that said, there's no comparison between the performance of the ZR1 and the 911S.

Porsche is not a bang for the buck car like the Corvette. You need a 911 Turbo S to run with the ZR1 and you're paying 50k more for it, but you get the "whole package" rather than just performance like the ZR1.

I love both cars and really enjoy what both bring.

The Corvette will NEVER be beaten in performance at the same price point. I believe that.

The Porsche is the driver's supercar and is much cheaper to maintain and more dependable than a Lambo or Ferrari.

Both are great cars and for different reasons. They simply can't be compared seriously at price-point.

Agreed :canadaflag:

That is a very well produced video, though it wasn't actually informative, it was just pretty. The host is also peculiarly confrontational with the viewer throughout the whole of it. I felt like he was scolding me.

Also there's no denying it... The 998 is pretty good. Still overpriced, but... Wow is it gorgeous!

I don't think they are the same market, same class on the track, so why even compare? Let's show the latest from Porsche and rip on the vette? At least put it on the track and show me the performance for 130K +.

Maybe Porsche has improved a lot like everything else, but I rode in a 911 to college everyday. There was always something going wrong with it.

You are over thinking it.

It's a $75K car being compared to a $130K car.

It's really that simple.

If Angus had compared it to the ZR-1, I would have no complaint.

But of course, why would he do that since the P car would have had it's ass kicked ?

:iagree: You bet. Why make it fair when you're already biased against the Corvette?

Wow dude. I can't believe you would say that.

See how much effort you have to expend to try to validate something that can't be validated??

:iagree:

So let's compare the base ZR1 against the base P 9XX car and see how they compare?

Deal ?

Oh... but that wouldn't be fair.:lol:

I'm liking the odds in that race...:D

I have no problem with that at all; however, the results of a comparison that only included objective performance numbers is a no brainer, as it is obvious that the ZR1 has better numbers all the way around. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how the subjective assessments turned out, and how they might influence the overall assessment of each car.

Forum 168 - Notch 0 :rofl:

Unless you're racing, isn't evaluating a Corvette based on 0-60 and 1/4 mile times and lap times a little childish?

Every Corvette built in the last 20 years has enough power to easily break the law in every country on earth.

For me, I think the Corvette has more than enough power and handling for anything on the street.

Where it falls down, compared to a 911, or an Aston or an Audi or a Lambo or a Ferrari is steering feel, interior quality, fit and finish and wheel hop.

Yes, we all now that its a great bargain. But that doesn't make the problems go away. We live with them because it fits the budget.

How can anyone honestly deny this?

I must know at least 50 guys that could afford any of the cars you mention x 10. Yet they chose the Corvette. It has absolutely nothing at all, even in the slightest with their budget.

I agree. Those cars don't reflect my past, nor can I relate to them. I would expect cars costing 130K plus to excel in the interior over the vette.

:iagree:

For $50,000 or even $10,000 you would at least hope for a better interior.

As much as I like a nice interior (for me the Vette is fine), that is the last thing I have ever bought a Corvette for.

I don't race anymore but that is important to me, as is looks etc. I don't think that is the main argument here, not sure why you thought it was?

Really? There couldn't be a more apples and oranges match up!! Match the ZR1 up against the Porsche - I am quite sure that it would be a much closer result.

Precisely! Excellent post.

I've owned them all (C6 Grand Sport, C6Z06, 996 Turbo, 997S, CaymanS) and there is no denying two facts -- the Vettes are tremendous values for the money. The seats suck ass, the smell of glue is overwhelming inside, the plastic pieces inside look terrible. The widebody styling is absolutely gorgeous The Porsche has it all day long and then some on build quality, steering feel, communication from road to the steering wheel, fit and finish, interior quality. I happen to love the exterior styling of the 911 just like I do the widebody C6 Vette. You just have to make the decision which is more important and what you want out of the car. If it's the latter of the two above, you will pay more.

I wanted performance and build quality but didn't want to pay the price of the new 911's as I do think they are overpriced, so I bought an E92M3. Not the fastest car I've ever owned (Z06 wins there) not the best handling (CaymanS wins there) but the best combo of those two. I'm really looking forward to the C7 to see if Government Motors finally addresses the interior issues and can twist my arm to looking at a Vette again.

I understand what you are saying and I agree that subjective points should be considered as well. We all know that the ZR1 will smoke the P car in all performance categories.

How about load each one up with luggage and take the wife on a 2000 mile trip? Let's also consider amount of luggage that will fit, fuel economy and travel comfort.

How about maintenance costs and mechanical reliability on each car when they have 100K miles on them.

I am a little tired of the interior bashing of the Vette. I have owned quite a few cars myself, including the one right before I bought my current 2012, a Mercedes SL600. For a car that listed for almost twice the price of my 2012 GS, the interior was nothing special. I happen to think that the Vette interiors look great and are comfortable for a sports car. Just saying....... :flag:

I really love my ZR1's two tone interior with leather dash etc. :cool:
I upgraded my steering wheel with an Apsis one but other than that, no changes needed or wanting to do.
Is it as nice as my Ferrari interior.............no, am I complaining the least little bit..............no.

If you think for a moment that the interior and crappy ass seats in a $75K Z06, let alone in a $100K+ ZR1, is acceptable, then I will just stop my part of this conversation here as I obviously am not dealing with rational thinkers. The 4LT "leather" dash is of the absolute shittiest quality I've seen in an automobile. The full leather interior in my former E60 M5 was in a different hemisphere in comparsion.

Be honest fellas, the Vette interior can be AND SHOULD BE so much better than it is.

I would have to assume the C7 interior will reflect some of the capabilities GM has demonstrated in the Cadillac. The CTS interior is well designed with what seems to be high quality materials.

Ok, I will be honest, yes the seats could have more bolstering, but here is my honest answer.........I have no problem with my two tone interior in my ZR1, no problem at all. My leather dash looks just fine, again, does it look like my Ferrari's leather dash? No, but why would I compare the two? My wifes Vette was all Ebony and no leather, yes, it was too bland, and I took care of it, but since I am talking about me car, I like my interior and my proof is, I have done nothing to it except for the steering wheel.

I have absolutely no problem with adding these to the mix, although both fuel economy and luggage space ("trunk size") assessments already exist in test protocals. Also, some magazines do "long term" reviews of cars and maintenance costs and mechanical reliability are included in these articles. So really the only thing missing from your wish list is the "2000 mile drive with the wife" assessment.

I "honestly" disagree...

BTW, who really cares what your opinion is anyway. Of course you're going to side with a crappy Bimmer (see your avatar...:U). Bimmer's interior are far from special, in fact they're uncomfortable as hell and that's from the $40K-$100K models, so what's your point? Be honest with yourself dude...

The interior and seats of my 3ZR (3LZ,4LT) interior is tastefully appointed and very accommodating/comfortable to both driver and passenger.

Excellent statement:thumbs:

:iagree:

But many parrot the bias of the auto magazine writers. It is as clear as the day is long that many auto writers are indeed biased. You have to understand, it is assumed by some that because a guy writes for a auto magazine he is somewhat intelligent. Therefor to parrot what the writer says makes some think they are also intelligent. :eek:

I'm happy with the 3LZ & 4LT interior. Is the interior leather as good as my Mercedes? Not at all. Do I want it to be? Not at all again...We already have members crying and complaining about the cost of a Corvette now. Can you imagine if Chevy put Porsche/Mercedes quality interior in a C6 or C7 Corvette how much it would cost? The forum would be blown up with complaints...the interior is great but it's too expensive blah blah blah....:ack:

:lol::lol::lol:

So, now that you have been proven wrong...............now what? :lurk:

:iagree:

Look at the quality ratings of BMW compared to industry average.:eek: BMW quality is listed below Chevrolet and even KIA.:ack:

BMW with (164) Chevrolet (156) Kia (160)

Bringing up the rear in this year's study is Mini, with 221 problems per 100 vehicles. That's not good. BMW's smallest brand is followed by Jeep (214), Land Rover (212), Dodge (206) and Chrysler (202). The study also ranks individual models in each category

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/17/j...incoln-best-b/

I dislike BMW interiors with a passion...............:ack:

As I posted in reply to you earlier in the thread, what Porsche charges for their cars is not an accurate reflection of what it cost them to build the cars. So I believe you and others that try to make a correlation between MSRP and interior quality are missing the point.

To build and bring to market a 997 Turbo (2009 data), it costs Porsche less than $10,000 more per car than it does to build and bring to market a Boxster. Obviously, not all of that $10k difference goes into the building of the car, as the costs of bringing the car to market is included in that $10k. And after the "bringing to market" costs are subtracted, what's remaining of the $10k is not solely associated with the interior (the cost of the Turbo's engine consuming a large portion of the remaining money difference). So when you look at the MSRP difference between a 997 Turbo and a base 987 Boxster, you can see that attempting to make a direct correlation between interior quality and MSRP is not very useful.

Can you imagine if Chevy put Porsche/Mercedes quality interior in a C6 or C7 Corvette how much it would cost?

:iagree::ack:

I really don't have any idea what it would cost. I know (as I posted above) that you can't use Porsche's MSRPs as a measure of what their interiors cost to build.

We also have an SL and I would never say the Vette has a fit and finish and quality of materials equivalent to the Merc.

Great. Now all you have to do is get them to post backing you up.

Oh, and just how do you know they could afford a 458 but "choose" to drive a Corvette.

Stop making this stuff up.

Couple of observations, you want him to back up what he says, but I see no back up whatsoever from what you have been saying. :confused2:

I see you mentioned Ferrari's, BMW's in general etc etc and when he said he knows guys that can afford those cars, you immediately come back with the 458 specifically. :rolleyes:

Also, since I can and do own a couple of the cars HE was talking about, I can and will back him up. :thumbs:

You can have your Vwubs and your BEEMERS. :cheers:

:iagree: They are nothing special IMO, very bland. Audi actually have one of my favorite interiors (quality and looks). I would never own a Cayman/Boxster/Panamera because the way the rear end looks or a Cayenne because how it looks from the front. The GT-R is just ugly from any view IMO. I cannot believe Top Gear didn't say anything about its looks when they pretty much ripped up the Gumpert for its looks.

Obviously you must care otherwise you would not have responded then would ya?

I stated the facts because I have owned the cars we are talking about. Have you?...... I didn't think so.

The seats in my M3 are light years ahead of the seats in ANY Corvette. I will promise you that. If you can sit there and tell me that LaZBoy recliner pleather sidded sh1t they shove in the Corvette is better, then you are either a complete moron or an absolute liar....or perhaps both. Hell, the seats/interior in a 1 series BMW is better than the top of the line Corvette.

Those are just the cold hard facts.

OR a 20 mile drive with one of Racer's avatar models :yesnod:

:iagree:

Funny how he wants us all to know that he used to own a E60 M5. And boy am I impressed!

:lol:

I don't see why everyone is so down on the Vette interior.. My 11 2lt with sport seats, is the 2nd nicest interior of any vehicle I have ever owned. and as comfortable as my 99 Acura,, the only car I've ever had that was nicer (and not by that much IMHO) and more comfortable was my 04 Acura TL.

Just another a$$ ugly beemer. :yesnod:

jealous much?

You homers keep accepting the **** that Government Motors throws at you. Keep drinking the Kool Aid.