Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583734527)

Shakedown test between grand sport oem goodyears vs c7 245/285's yielded 1 second per lap faster time. Test car was c6 z06. Vir. They have been amazed by the michelin tire

Originally Posted by Jawnathin (Post 1583734609)

For clarity, they used the OEM 275/325 Goodyears on a C6Z, then switched to the narrower 245/285 Pilot Super Sports on the C6Z, which was then 1 second a lap quicker with the narrower Super Sports around VIR?

Very nice. I know both tires very well (I have PSS on my DD) and I can't say I'm surprised. The PSS is a VERY good tire. I can't wait until they make them in larger sizes for 19/20 setups. I still have my PS2s to burn through first.

Thanks for getting info. Looking forward to more updates.

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583734527)

Z51 4-5 seconds faster per lap at vir than prior z51 car. This is with c7 equipped with full datalogging equipment. Would not give exact time but it appears to be likely its 2:50 or 2:51

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583734686)

So the comparison had nothing to do with C6 vs C7, but just the differences in the tires.

I wonder if they also put a set of the new Michelins on the Z06, using the Z06 sizes and compared.

Originally Posted by Jawnathin (Post 1583734789)

Wish they were more specific with the results but that sounds pretty darn quick. Pretty impressive. A bit behind the ZR1 but a hair quicker than a ZL1 using GMs test results.

FWIW, here are some other tests around VIR... those early C&D Lightning drivers (2006-07) must have been really awful or had some really bad weather those days. I take the results with a grain of salt but the data points are interesting.

C&D is also about 5 seconds a lap slower than GM test in both the ZL1 and ZR1...

GM VIR Testing -
ZR1 (Cups) - 2:45.63
ZL1 - 2:52.38

C&D VIR Lightning Lap
ZR1 (Cups) - 2:50.7 (02/2012)
ZR1 (PS2s) - 2:51.8 (02/2010)
Z06 (Z07 PS2s) - 2:53.5 (02/2011)
Camaro ZL1 - 2:57.5 (02/2013)
Z06 - 2:58.2 (08/2007)
GS - 2:58.3 (02/2010)
Z06 - 3:01.1 (11/2006)
Z51 LS3 - 3:01.20 (11/2008)
Camaro 1LE - 3:01.5 (02/2013)
Z51 LS2 - 3:03.6 (08/2007)
Z51 LS2 - 3:09.3 (11/2006)

Originally Posted by jimmyb (Post 1583734976)

Are the GM times with Jim Mero driving?

Jimmy

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583734527)

Points of interest so far:

More to come. If youre curious about anything, post it and I will try to get an answer.

Originally Posted by Boo383 (Post 1583735268)

The LT1 power train session ends in a few minutes. Hopefully someone will post up some new info.

Originally Posted by C7envy (Post 1583735240)

There doesn't appear to be any new info here. Can we get some info on the power output, weight, and possibly exact 0-60 times?

Originally Posted by jimmyb (Post 1583734976)

Are the GM times with Jim Mero driving?

Jimmy

Originally Posted by JockItch (Post 1583735104)

I'm pretty sure the ZL1 time was with Camaro engineer Aaron Link. He's the same guy who ran the official GM time on the ring with the ZL1.

Originally Posted by LS1LT1 (Post 1583735542)

I have a feeling that we won't be hearing power numbers, weight OR final MSRP today. :nonod:

Originally Posted by travisnd (Post 1583735561)

I have to chuckle... the information given is of huge value to anyone who tracks these cars. You can see they made a massive effort to make this thing even better on track, yet people want HP figures and meaningless data points like 0-60 times.

Things like discussing the reduced thermal transfer to the hubs from the two-piece rotors is because the old single piece rotors allowed the hubs to get hotter which decreased their life-span and made the hub flange more prone to fracture. This is a big deal to those who track the cars.

The fact that they've re-designed the steering column, rack mount, rack, and spindles to be 5x as stiff is huge. It's these things that contribute to the overall driving "feel" of the car that so many say the Corvette lacks.

Good job team Corvette!

Originally Posted by travisnd (Post 1583735561)

I have to chuckle... the information given is of huge value to anyone who tracks these cars. You can see they made a massive effort to make this thing even better on track, yet people want HP figures and meaningless data points like 0-60 times.
Good job team Corvette!

Originally Posted by LS3_E85_Corvette (Post 1583734547)

Have they talked about the LT1 yet?

Originally Posted by RocketGuy3 (Post 1583734555)

Damnit, so still no word on the power output or weight?

Originally Posted by Jawnathin (Post 1583734609)

For clarity, they used the OEM 275/325 Goodyears on a C6Z, then switched to the narrower 245/285 Pilot Super Sports on the C6Z, which was then 1 second a lap quicker with the narrower Super Sports around VIR?
.

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583734686)

So the comparison had nothing to do with C6 vs C7, but just the differences in the tires.

I wonder if they also put a set of the new Michelins on the Z06, using the Z06 sizes and compared.

Originally Posted by C7envy (Post 1583735240)

There doesn't appear to be any new info here. Can we get some info on the power output, weight, and possibly exact 0-60 times?

Originally Posted by BERETTA (Post 1583735435)

I hope the convertible is there?

Originally Posted by travisnd (Post 1583735561)

I have to chuckle... the information given is of huge value to anyone who tracks these cars. You can see they made a massive effort to make this thing even better on track, yet people want HP figures and meaningless data points like 0-60 times.

Things like discussing the reduced thermal transfer to the hubs from the two-piece rotors is because the old single piece rotors allowed the hubs to get hotter which decreased their life-span and made the hub flange more prone to fracture. This is a big deal to those who track the cars.

The fact that they've re-designed the steering column, rack mount, rack, and spindles to be 5x as stiff is huge. It's these things that contribute to the overall driving "feel" of the car that so many say the Corvette lacks.

Good job team Corvette!

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583735703)

Just got out of there...



Only that fuel cutoff is 6600 and it will not be running on e85



That is correct...even Mero said he was surprised



In that particular conversation it did



There is not new info, but a ton more detail



It is

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583735758)

Fuel cutoff at 6600 RPM. That must be another big fat lie by GM at the Bash. Our resident Internet Engineer(JerriVette) said that the LT1 made it's maximum horsepower of 475 at 6600 RPM with a redline of 7100 RPM.

Now read my posts where I said the maximum horsepower is made at approximately 5900-6000 RPM with a redline of 6500 RPM and a fuel cut off at 6600 RPM.

I guess that makes me as big a liar as GM and didn't I also say somewhere that GM has not said anything about the GenV engines being FlexFuel.

Originally Posted by Shurshot (Post 1583735817)

For what reason are they NOT releasing power and weight numbers ? :toetap:

Originally Posted by Shurshot (Post 1583735817)

For what reason are they NOT releasing power and weight numbers ? :toetap:

Originally Posted by michaelinmech (Post 1583735830)

ummmmm . . . I'm confused . . . .what's your point here? :confused2:

Originally Posted by michaelinmech (Post 1583735830)

ummmmm . . . I'm confused . . . .what's your point here? :confused2:

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583735640)

I could care less about times around VIR. I want to know the times on the Tail of the Dragon, mixed in with the slow Harleys. the stupid crazy Sport Bikers, and the local SUV's and pickup trucks. That's where the action is.

BlueOx wants to know the time it takes to wax the C7.

Originally Posted by Shurshot (Post 1583735817)

For what reason are they NOT releasing power and weight numbers ? :toetap:

Originally Posted by Hemi Dave (Post 1583735861)

Thanks for all the info RC........ It's appreciated

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583735758)

Fuel cutoff at 6600 RPM. That must be another big fat lie by GM at the Bash. Our resident Internet Engineer(JerriVette) said that the LT1 made it's maximum horsepower of 475 at 6600 RPM with a redline of 7100 RPM. http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c7-g...al-number.html


Now read my posts where I said the maximum horsepower is made at approximately 5900-6000 RPM with a redline of 6500 RPM and a fuel cut off at 6600 RPM.

I guess that makes me as big a liar as GM and didn't I also say somewhere that GM has not said anything about the GenV engines being FlexFuel.

Did anyone ask the speaker if the pistons were cast or forged?

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583735740)

There was no validity to the claims of the unhackable ecu...they said like anything...it'll be hacked....probably

They said they DO have final power numbers and its more than 450...as we know

Originally Posted by travisnd (Post 1583735908)

I wish they used VIR Full course for the comparison... that's what nearly everyone races on and the majority of trackdays are run on. Mazdadrivers used to run the Grand Course configuration, but it's been a few years and NOBODY races the grand course configuration.

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583735873)

Just pointing out that JerriVette posted bad info about the LT1 and plenty of the slurpers were on my case when I posted facts, directly from GM, that proved him wrong, and now GM backs up what I said(and what they had been saying all along), at the bash.

Originally Posted by Chicago1 (Post 1583735935)

When you get your ass handed to at a light or drag you gonna brag how fast it goes around a track? Lol no like others I want to know hp numbers 1/4 0 to 60 etc.

Originally Posted by Chicago1 (Post 1583735935)

When you get your ass handed to at a light or drag you gonna brag how fast it goes around a track? Lol no like others I want to know hp numbers 1/4 0 to 60 etc.

Originally Posted by jimmyb (Post 1583735949)

If by "they" you're speaking of Car and Driver, I imagine they still run the Grand Course because all the Lightning Lap tests have been run there, and so the previous years of lap times have some meaning and some value for comparison to current lap times.

Jimmy

Originally Posted by DREAMERAK (Post 1583735934)

What about your posts that said 450 hp is going to be it for the Stingray? Or as you were so fond of saying "only a 14hp increase"

Originally Posted by travisnd (Post 1583735561)

I have to chuckle... the information given is of huge value to anyone who tracks these cars. You can see they made a massive effort to make this thing even better on track, yet people want HP figures and meaningless data points like 0-60 times.

Things like discussing the reduced thermal transfer to the hubs from the two-piece rotors is because the old single piece rotors allowed the hubs to get hotter which decreased their life-span and made the hub flange more prone to fracture. This is a big deal to those who track the cars.

The fact that they've re-designed the steering column, rack mount, rack, and spindles to be 5x as stiff is huge. It's these things that contribute to the overall driving "feel" of the car that so many say the Corvette lacks.

Good job team Corvette!

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583736063)

I said that GM said the estimated horsepower was 450. I also said that looking at the dyno graph GM published in 240C12.pdf, that at 6000 RPM(point at which the LT1's horsepower starts to drop off) the LT1 has approximately 20 lb-ft of torque more then the LS3 at that same RPM. Using the standard formula for converting torque to horsepower, that equates to a 23 HP increase above the LS3's 430, which would make the LT1 453 Horsepower. That's what I said. I used info supplied by GM, not some magical wishful thinking.

JerriVette never posted any official GM dyno graphs that said different. I also quoted the two main LT1 powertrain engineers(Jordan Lee and John Rydzewski) on what they said regarding the LT1's RPM and Jerrivette never posted any quotes from a single GM engineer that proved those two GM engineers were wrong.

He just kept foaming at the mouth about some BS.

Originally Posted by Hemi Dave (Post 1583735861)

Thanks for all the info RC........ It's appreciated

Originally Posted by BERETTA (Post 1583734920)

Thanks for the updates :cheers:

Originally Posted by Shurshot (Post 1583735817)

For what reason are they NOT releasing power and weight numbers ? :toetap:

Originally Posted by JerriVette (Post 1583736149)

I heard that son of a bitch Jerrivette was a horse thief too......oh wait that's me!:lol:

:iagree:

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583736240)

LOL..I think everyone was calling me the horse thief.

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583736456)

There is some issues with new regulated curb clearance standards (yet more regulated bs) that leads to how much the wheel can protrude from the body line or something along those lines....I am getting clarification tomorrow...but it seems it spells the end of wide bodies.

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583735740)

Z51 car with MR has launch control

Dual mass flywheel actually is smaller and has less total mass than c6 flywheel

There was no validity to the claims of the unhackable ecu...they said like anything...it'll be hacked....probably

Can run on 87 octane but premium rec....same as usual

Like. I said earlier...they specifically said NO ethanol beyond 10% mixes

They said they DO have final power numbers and its more than 450...as we know

Rev match paddles on the wheel both do same thing...shut system on and off...thats it. Just a way to share steering wheel with auto cars

Residual build up from direct injection on intake valves is a non issue with lt1. Pcv system is two sided, and there are aggressive measures taken to relieve block pressure and handle oil vapor

Originally Posted by gthal (Post 1583736515)

If the C7 Z51 lapped VIR 4 to 5 seconds faster than the C6 Z51 (GS I assume?)

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583736667)

There is no such thing (stock) as a "C6 Z51 GS". There is the Z51, and then there is the GS. Different suspension and tires sizes / type. What they are saying is: the C7 Z51 is faster than C6 Z51. This is consistent with prior info that the C7 Base will run about as good as the C6 Z51 and the C7 Z51 will be "competitive" with a GS (Tadge's statement).

Somehow, Tadge's statement got twisted around so that the forum conventional wisdom is that he stated a C7 Z51 will run with a C6 Z06. He never said that.

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583736667)

What they are saying is: the C7 Z51 is faster than C6 Z51. This is consistent with prior info that the C7 Base will run about as good as the C6 Z51 and the C7 Z51 will be "competitive" with a GS (Tadge's statement).

Originally Posted by sam90lx (Post 1583736682)

:lurk:This ought to be good!

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583736667)

There is no such thing (stock) as a "C6 Z51 GS". There is the Z51, and then there is the GS. Different suspension and tires sizes / type. What they are saying is: the C7 Z51 is faster than C6 Z51. This is consistent with prior info that the C7 Base will run about as good as the C6 Z51 and the C7 Z51 will be "competitive" with a GS (Tadge's statement).

Somehow, Tadge's statement got twisted around so that the forum conventional wisdom is that he stated a C7 Z51 will run with a C6 Z06. He never said that.

Originally Posted by DREAMERAK (Post 1583737120)

It was Mike Bailey, GM Vehicle Systems Engineer:Chassis, who said in the Car and Driver interview: "The guys who’ve run mules at VIR are getting lap times competitive with today’s Z06."

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...tingray-page-4

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583736924)

Found this:

C&D times around VIR

1 2:45.9 MOSLER MT900S LL3 11/08
2 2:48.6 DODGE VIPER SRT10 ACR LL3 11/08
3 2:49.8 MOSLER PHOTON LL5 2/11
4 2:49.8 CHEVROLET CORVETTE ZR1 LL3 2/10
5 2:51.8 LAMBORGHINI GALLARDO LP570-4 SUPERLEGGERA LL5 2/11
6 2:52.3 KTM X-BOW LLU 2/10
7 2:53.5 CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 (Z07) LL3 2/11 8 2:53.9 LAMBORGHINI MURCIÉLAGO LP670-4 SV LL5 2/10
9 2:54.6 FERRARI 430 SCUDERIA LL5 11/08
10 2:55.6 NISSAN GT-R LL3 11/08
11 2:55.9 PORSCHE 911 GT3 RS LL4 2/11
12 2:57.4 DODGE VIPER SRT10 LL3 10/07
13 2:57.5 PORSCHE 911 TURBO S LL4 2/11
14 2:57.6 ARIEL ATOM 3 LLU 2/10
15 2:58.0 MERCEDES-BENZ SLS AMG LL4 2/11
16 2:58.2 CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 LL3 8/07
17 2:58.5 CHEVROLET CORVETTE GRAND SPORT LL2 2/10
18 2:59.0 NISSAN GT-R (all-season tires) LL3 11/08
19 2:59.5 AUDI R8 5.2 FSI LL4 2/10
20 3:00.7 FORD GT LL4 11/06
21 3:01.1 CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 LL3 11/06
22 3:01.2 CHEVROLET CORVETTE (Z51) LL2 11/08
23 3:01.6 DODGE VIPER SRT10 LL3 11/06
24 3:01.8 PORSCHE 911 GT3 LL3 8/07
25 3:03.6 CHEVROLET CORVETTE (Z51) LL2 8/07

Or, presented another way:

4 2:49.8 CHEVROLET CORVETTE ZR1 LL3 2/10
7 2:53.5 CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 (Z07) LL3 2/11
16 2:58.2 CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 LL3 8/07

17 2:58.5 CHEVROLET CORVETTE GRAND SPORT LL2 2/10
22 3:01.2 CHEVROLET CORVETTE (Z51) LL2 11/08
25 3:03.6 CHEVROLET CORVETTE (Z51) LL2 8/07

#22 is a 08 NPP car (436hp), so if the above holds true, then the C7 Z51 should run about a 2:57.2-2:58 in the hands of a C&D driver. So it's a driver's race against the GS but appears to be slightly quicker given same driver - agin this is consistent with what we've been told. It remains far off the Z06 Z07 pace. A very respectable result nonethless. Again, the caveat being that these number have to hold up.

Keep in mind looking at this that LL2 results cannot be compared to LL3. LL3 adds a full second in this time range.

Originally Posted by michaelinmech (Post 1583736947)

So let me see if I can summarize so far:

1 - Bash is underway - folks are happy to be attending
2 - More Info on C7 is being provided
3 - Appears C7 is a handling 'machine' - VIR results based
4 - Weight, HP & Torque still not released - same ole conspiracy theories as to why not
5 - Steering feel WAY improved
6 - Somebody is a Horse Thief
7 - The new Michelin tires are awesome
8 - Nobody ever street races
9 - ZO6 in 2015 ?
10- RC is THE MAN on the scene providing all the scoops - THANKS :thumbs:

Originally Posted by WantaC7 (Post 1583737059)

You know I bet there is someone that is part of the bash (in charge of it) reading all this and busting up

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583737158)

Ah. Well if so, then those comments seem inconsistent with the VIR results.

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583737282)

This is what Jim was specifically referring to. He said DO NOT consider these numbers. He said they have no time in the cars and its a quick/dirty comparison. He posted his lap times for various cars and he has WAY faster z06 times than that.

He said you cant compare internal times, making laps over three days to the c&d quick andndirty times.

Originally Posted by DREAMERAK (Post 1583737302)

Well, if RC000E is right about a 4-5 sec lap improvement, that would be a lap of 2:57.2 to 2:56.2, using the times you posted in #78, Well ahead of the GS and other ZO6, except for the Z06(Z07)

Originally Posted by JoesC5 (Post 1583735640)

I could care less about times around VIR. I want to know the times on the Tail of the Dragon, mixed in with the slow Harleys. the stupid crazy Sport Bikers, and the local SUV's and pickup trucks. That's where the action is.

BlueOx wants to know the time it takes to wax the C7.

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583737339)

Trying to retrieve his times from this vid but its hard to see.

He has

c6 GS 2:54.xx
C6 zr1 cup tires 2:45.xx

He had more, but my friend didnt get a clear shot.

I gotcha TT...just didnt want people to start making false conclusions from your info. The time I have for c6 GS is accurate and most of us concluded it was (c7 z51) 2:50 or 2:51. He wouldnt specify though...but he did let us watch the run. The car is fast and turns in very nice.

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583737348)

As I indicated before, you cannot compare GS 2:58.5 in the LL2 configuration to Z06 2:58.2 running LL3. LL3 adds about a second, so if the Z06 were on LL2, it would run a 2:57.5. So it may be very close to an early Z06, but not "well ahead".

Originally Posted by RC000E (Post 1583737339)

Trying to retrieve his times from this vid but its hard to see.

He has

c6 GS 2:54.xx
C6 zr1 cup tires 2:45.xx

He had more, but my friend didnt get a clear shot.

I gotcha TT...just didnt want people to start making false conclusions from your info. The time I have for c6 GS is accurate and most of us concluded it was (c7 z51) 2:50 or 2:51. He wouldnt specify though...but he did let us watch the run. The car is fast and turns in very nice.

Originally Posted by BlueOx (Post 1583737363)

So did you ever get your expertise around a good 2006 C6 Z06 time at Road Atlanta? Surely you have buddies who did this in a stock Z? Why is this so hard for you to come up with? Seriously.

Here someone actually ASKS you for some of your Z06 track knowledge and you come up empty.

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583737348)

As I indicated before, you cannot compare GS 2:58.5 in the LL2 configuration to Z06 2:58.2 running LL3. LL3 adds about a second, so if the Z06 were on LL2, it would run a 2:57.5. So it may be very close to an early Z06, but not "well ahead".

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583737348)

As I indicated before, you cannot compare GS 2:58.5 in the LL2 configuration to Z06 2:58.2 running LL3. LL3 adds about a second, so if the Z06 were on LL2, it would run a 2:57.5. So it may be very close to an early Z06, but not "well ahead".

Originally Posted by DREAMERAK (Post 1583737455)

LL2, LL3 ect. are run groups, what do you mean by configuration?


http://www.caranddriver.com/features...r-times-page-8

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583737480)

No, they are track configurations, 1 thru 5. Go to VIR.com Track Maps.

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1583737480)

No, they are track configurations, 1 thru 5. Go to VIRclub.com, then see Track Maps.