I was going to reply to this and then changed my mind... I'd rather think about how fun and fast I will be on the track in this car riding closely behind the Z06's (maybe not passing them) and blowing by pretty much everything else out there! Have fun Sam.

I will still put money on the 427 Dan. Many more $$$'s on a C6 Z06!:yesnod:

Im not a stay at home mom...I have to work.:D

Holy ****! That looks like a stock C7! Can I order that **** on mine?

Good numbers. I think the driving impressions will only continue to impress.



Haters, where are your Gods now?



C7 = Enemy of the Same

C7 Doubters = Friends of the Same

Dude, please....compare apples to apples! Piss ur pants now cause you are so happy. True accurate test will be out down the road.

Looked damn identical to me!!!:rofl::rofl:

Yeah but the GS still looks way better than the Pontiac C7.

Let the fan bois take it in......60% are poser's...not even buying the damn car!

So, Sam please explain how these numbers are not accurate? Or is that smoke I smell blowing again... wait, don't answer that, I know the answer :thumbs:

P.S. Notice that most of those who have challenged the C7 have acknowledged the performance numbers in this thread... other than you, that is? Hanging on for dear life, aren't you :lol:

And you are different how? Pot meet kettle.

Don't forget about those skinny tires!

Awe man, parents are letting kids play on the "internet" again. :(

:ack: Well, it was fun for a while :cheers:

Why would I upgrade for 24 hp and slightly better performance? For the tail lights... the skinny tires...the botched rear end?? Please!

Very nice times!

Something I'm equally surprised about is that the current ZL1 camaro pulled very similar times on the same track.

Chevy has two potent vehicles in it's stable for the coming years.

You got that part right! Behind the C6Z.

Man you quote fast, I edited my post in about 15 seconds!

:cheers:

Gtahl....if I'm really worried about the C7 I could buy a ZR1 tomorrow and embarrass a C7. I do want to see the Z version of the C7. Do you really thing I am tied to my GS? I could get rid of it tomorrow and not bat an eye. Just remember....there is always something and someone faster....enjoy that while you can for about a year or so!

They look great huh?

Like all the kids that joined in 2013 after the reveal with no intentions of buying? Still waiting for pics of your Vette.

That's your opinion, Sam.
Here's something that's not your opinion...
GM just announced that the C7 has run 119 mph in the quarter mile. I'm betting we'll see cars running low-120's.

Just think, Sam, some mid-50 year old woman on her way to the country club in an A6 C7 could probably bust your ass from a stoplight. But hey, you have wide tires and your car looks like a Z06 (but is slower than a base C6).
:lolg:
S.

You like saying that don't you... it must really piss you off that GM's new design is actually attracting a whole pile of new enthusiasts into the Corvette club.

I'd much rather have a bunch of new members in a forum that are here to celebrate a great car that is putting up numbers to match while having productive and fun discussions than hanging around with folks who have nothing better to do with their time than try to pick the car apart for some unknown reason... maybe I'm just weird?

If you wanted a faster car, why would you buy a slow Grand Sport? My bet is that you bought what you could. :yup:
S.

Wow, this thread is pretty darn funny. Both the C7 Haters and Fanboys.

The C7 is right where it should be, it sits right between the C6 Base/GS and C6 Z06. This is exactly where GM wanted it to be and this is exactly where it should be. This is the standard manufacturers strategy when it comes to handling varying models.

The new model is better than its older trim equivalent but sits below the older model's upper trims. Porsche has the playbook already written on how to manage multiple tiers within a model line. Just look at how they manage the 911 lineup. GM is using that same playbook.

Any C7 haters who can't get over the fact it is quicker than your C6 Base/GS, get over it. Its been done. The C6 Base/GS is a fantastic car and the performance is great. It just so happens that the C7's performance is greater and is clearly a step forward for the brand.

And any C7 fanboys who keep trying to ride the C6 Z06 coat tails, keep dreaming. It sits firmly behind the Z06 in terms of performance. The performance delta between the C6Z and the C7 is even greater than that of the delta between the C7 and GS. Just like how the C7 is a clear step ahead of the GS, the Z06 is a clear step ahead of the C7. It will be the C7 Z model equivalent that will compete and exceed the C6Z, not the base C7. It was never intended to.

And funny enough, it would be foolish to think or expect otherwise. This is exactly what GM wanted. Kudos to GM for the fine execution. They got it right.

I've probably pissed off both sides of the camp, but I don't care. I'm just telling it like it is.




0-60 -
C6 Base - 4.2
C6 GS - 3.9
C7 - 3.8
C6 Z06 - 3.7

Quarter Mile -
C6 Base/GS - 12.2@117
C7 - 12.0 @ 119
C6 Z06 - 11.7 @ 127

HP -
C6 Base/GS - 430/436hp
C7 - 455/460hp
C6 Z06 - 505hp

Weight -
C6 Base - 3200~
C6 GS - 3350~
C7 Z51 - 3350~
C7 - 3300~
C6 Z06 - 3150~

So the prerequisites to liking or talking about the C7 is to currently have a previous generation? Brilliant!

Objective numbers? From GM? http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/...o_risatina.gif

I'd remind everyone that GM still boasts on its Website that the Grand Sport can go 0-60 in 3.95, yet I've never seen a magazine break 4.2.

I'll look forward to independent reviews. So far, the tracking time sounds good.

I agree. They absolutely got it right from a myriad of perspectives and it fits exactly where it should for the standard car. Even if you adjust the GM/Mero time at VIR for what C&D will likely achieve, it is still in the range of the top 10 to 15 fastest cars ever on that track. That is nothing short of fantastic for a car that was $56K as tested!!

If GM announces it, it must be true. :lol: And what did GM announce as the "showroom stock" GS's 1/4 mile time?

So if I have this correct the numbers posted are by Mero who we all know can wheel, he most definitely has more seat time (track wise) than any other person.

Point being (and correct me if I'm wrong) all the times posted earlier in this thread are mag guy driven. That could easily mean the mag guy times in the C7 are off by a fair amount from what GM posted with Mero driving. So the question is are we considering these numbers real or when the mag guys get a car to run?

You're right, I'm sure they're lying and misrepresenting the car's performance.
That would work out so well for them.
:lolg:
S.

Well, you can do what you want but if we knew the standard C7 Coupe's numbers, we could compare them to this...2013 Corvette Coupe which has a 0-60 time of 4.2 sec. As of right now, we can only compare the 2013 C6 GS Coupe's 3.95 sec to the C7 Z51's 3.8. Call it semantics if you want to but that is GM's way of putting it historically.

The GM number is real but you need to compare GM test driver numbers with GM test driver numbers because they will get more from the car. I still believe that the C7 will allow the mag guys to be closer to the GM test driver numbers because of the technology (which makes it easier to extract performance) than previous generation cars.

Having said that, Mero ran a 2:54.5 in a GS and 2:50 in a Z06.

Even when you add 3 to 4 seconds to the GM times (which is what you might guess C&D will achieve given they aren't professionals or as familiar with the car), the C7 is still in the top 10 to 15 cars ever tested at VIR and performing at a level higher than MUCH more expensive cars.

Well, you're the guy who just called the Grand Sport "slow." Here is GM's own Website claiming the GS is faster than the base:

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/6342/ppkd.jpg

So who is misrepresenting, GM, or you? If it's GM, then we can't believe their C7 numbers. If it's you, then rhetorical fail on your part and stop posting. :lol:

I think a best posted time on the Fast List of 12.3 @ 115 mph speaks for itself. You can dwell on 0-60 times all you'd like, but they are meaningless to most people. What did GM claim for the GS quarter mile performance?
And yes, 12.3 is slow considering base C6's have gone well into the 11's.
S.

Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but you weren't a debating champ at Harvard, were you? :crazy2:

The point being, since you completely missed it, is, GM's own numbers have been suspect in the past. GM claims the GS was faster than the base (for some strange unknown reason, GM no longer lists 1/4 mile times on their Website, hmm.) Your own links suggest that might not be true (although 3 random CF guys might be too small of a sample). Ergo, perhaps GM's marketing department is not the best source for reality-based performance numbers of their own cars, i.e., take the C7 numbers with a grain of salt.

And 0-60 times are not irrelevant to 1/4 mile times. GM did claim the GS was faster than the base model in the 1/4 too, but those numbers are now MIA. If I could just find that brochure I got from the dealership 2 years ago, I will scan it.

I didn't miss your point, you missed mine. Because the GS has a larger tire on it, it's possible that GM may have claimed a quicker 0-60 time, which would not necessarily translate to a quicker ET or trap speed once weight, drag and frictional losses are taken into account. As was pointed out by another member earlier in another thread, typically, GM's quarter mile performance data is conservative.

No offense taken, because I'm sure you're Harvard educated and all, which is why you drive a Grand Sport. :lol:
S.

That's what I was looking for, thanks Heath.:thumbs:

That thread of yours was quite surprising in favor of the Stingray's sprinting times, and good to see you giving kudos.....however brief it may be before whacking the Stingray on the nose again.:rofl: Now we just need to go ahead and get Sam ordering one of these coming months, and we're making some serious progress towards bipartisanship in this section.:D

You mean whacking it on those hideous fangs. :lol: Sorry I couldn't resist but am just kidding.

Sam is not a base model kind of guy, he like myself would only go
hi-perf if we did anything at all.

I have some good sources though don't I?:D

Snorman, you do know there is someone always faster right? Even than you!:cheers:

I dont even hit the tracks. Just didnt want a narrow body and wanted an auto.

I agree....could not have said it better!

Mero said the C7 is a lot more confidence inspiring to drive with much better driver feedback and steering. That usually means the car is easier to drive fast. I bet most people will feel more comfortable and confident in the C7 and be able to drive it faster. They will be able to extract more performance because the car will be more confidence inspiring to drive. Drivers will be able to do more with less. I agree, the C7 is among the performance elite at any price point.

Gotta drum up business some way.

Someone just got owned!

Because C7 is HEAVY!

Not everyone can be a Baller like you.

Or Killed if you were standing in front of the C7 instead of the C6 when stopping!

The base car? No way! Maybe a Z version.:thumbs:

Really, Sam?
Let's talk about those puffed up GM performance claims.
GM stated the C6 Z06 was good for 11.7. One went 10.98 and a slew went low-mid 11's.
GM stated the C6 ZR1 was good for 11.3. They've gone 10.6.
GM stated the C6 LS3 was good for 12.4. Well...they've gone 11.7's.

Tell me again how GM exaggerates Corvette performance data.
S.

Gee Sam, I thought you "wanted an auto".
:lol:
S.

I do and hope they have an auto in the Z version....many people want that.

You should buy an A6 C7 now rather than dreaming about an automatic Z in the future. It'll kick your GS's ass at the drag strip and on the road course.
:yesnod:
S.

I will take my chances and wait. Plus the 2nd and 3rd year cars are always better.

I am very impressed. :cool: I won't be trading my 427 vert in on one because I still don't like the looks and it's a one year only, but the numbers on the C7 are outstanding. Then again, when the C6 came out I didn't like the looks of it either and now I've owned two of them.

Hmmm....:leaving:

Motor trend got a 3.9 0-60 with a GS, maybe they can get a 3.7-3.6 with the new C7?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

:thumbs: :lol:

Sure you will, Sam.
:lolg:
S.

OK, so on Planet Genius, where you are from, cars that are faster 0-60 are "slow." :crazy2:

Bull$#!t. Any sentient being knows GM has inflated its numbers in the past.

Again, a debating champion on display. What point are you even trying to make here?

I drive a Grand Sport because it's the best-looking Corvette ever made, and the top comes off. And with about 150 more RWHP than a Z06, it sure as hell isn't a "slow" car. http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/...spari_nono.gif

Now he is gonna tell you how any of his 25 Baller cars could drop yours like a bag of dirt and his wife in a base C7 will smoke you. Just watch, it's coming!

You do understand the concept of traction and how it relates to short times and launching a car, right? You also understand that while a car may achieve ~60 mph within less than 100', the quarter mile encompasses an additional 1220', correct? So while it does not surprise me that GM claimed the GS would be quicker to 60 mph, I would guess that the additional weight, tire drag, etc. would overcome any gearing advantages over a non-GS C6. And also note the link above where MT got a comparible result to GM's 0-60 claims for the Grand Sport.
Perhaps you'd like to point out when GM has inflated Corvette performance claims. See my above post that speaks to this.
I'm laughing at you, nothing more. Don't be offended.
And since when do Grand Sports have "about 150 more RWHP" than Z06's? Oh wait...your heavily modified and probably supercharged or turbo'd Grand Sport makes more power than a stock Z06? Wow...that's great. I'm very impressed. And that has great relevance to this discussion.
:thumbs:
Maybe you should keep trying the personal insults, they've worked so well for you thus far. What's next in your limited repertoire...the "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" line?
S.

Man, I'm thinking you gents should all get in the shower together and have a soap dropping contest.

Oh Sam, you're so pathetic. But admittedly, you've come so far from just a couple of years ago and your puke green LX with 4-lug wheels. Just think, now you're on the cusp of buying a C7 Z-variant (as long as it comes with an automatic). Life is good (as long as you aren't planning on racing any C7's, but you don't go to the track, so no worries there).
S.

You forgot the 03 Cobra.

It depends on what you mean by "win". Chris states that if you delve deep into the driving experience, the 911 is the best car in the test. He picked the Jag only because it had better "showroom appeal".

That's great, Sam. You have any pictures of it?
But I predict within the next few months, when you are too cowardly to insult actual C7 owners, you won't be posting much in this section.
:yesnod:
So enjoy your now-limited stay or plan on changing your tune.
S.

:iagree: The results are GREAT:rock: :rock: :rock:

Im excited to get the C7 out this fall when its cool and try to put in a good 1/4 #. Mine has Z51 and NPP and is an Auto. I would be happy to pull off a 11.9 but we will see. I run at Zmax in Charlotte NC which is state of the art but has questionable prep on street car days. So I think a 11.9 will be possible with a good 60ft. There is a 1/8th near me that has perfect prep so my goal there im thinking should be 8.2ish@89 based on a 12 sec 1/4

As for comparing it to a GS vette...ive ran a few of them and they usually would come up in the higher 12s at 114ish in just an average any day of the week run. so I hope the C7 is a bit better

Did they ever confirm if these #s were done on a Manual C7? Auto has LC or not? The Auto 2013 C6 doesnt right? I know this GS used it against me but im not sure how well it works

Wow. This thread blew up fast. I got 3 pages in.

Anyway, I'm not at all disappointed with the times. I was expecting 11.7-11.8 for the 1/4 mile, but I'm sure that the numbers will be better than advertised.

Either way, I doubt I'm taking my C7 to the strip. I don't care about drag racing.

Good god a new model outperforms an outgoing one and suddenly it's a shiz storm?!? Has common sense really flown the coup here?!? Geez kids get your panties out of a bunch...

Instead, lets just focus on real life, unbiased comparisons, and lets think of some original ones shall we? For instance, how would a 2009 z51, bone stock with super sport tires, fair against this z51? Maybe with the better tires, the grandsports added size/weight wouldnt help.

It's a comparison we wont see with everyone so wrapped up in z51 vs GS, but thought provoking none the less. I'm sure the c7 would whip the c6 thoroughly, but with the more equal power to weights, and even tires, it might at least be interesting to watch.

Call me crazy, and I like the widebody looks better, but even with the introduction of the GS, am I the only one that thinks it would have been nice to see them keep making the z51? I know financially it wouldn't have made sense, but I'm sure some would have loved the suspension upgrades without the added bulk of the giant fenders/wheels/tires.

Anybody have anything else constructive to add?

Now it seems like GM has made a better sports car with handling and feel that you need for confidence for good laptimes. I am so happy that they did not listen to "Dragster buyers" demanding fatter tires, more power, and generally brainless way to trying to make car faster("gt500 way"). Now it is more "European" and I like it :) Price just might be too much for me(compared to 997 turbos and Z06s here)

You might be able to get one imported rather than buying one directly there. I don't know what the import/export fees are in Finland, but I know that the C7 will be roughly 170-180% the cost there than it is here.

Drag strip because of the ability of a better weight transfer at launch due to a softer suspension. On a road course,the Z51 equipped car will dust a non Z51 car.

Yes. I will have do some calculations on costs from different sources. But for US cars I have wait that light(yellow rear indicators) and other conversion kits arrive so that. But if value of your dollar sinks to 1.4 $/€, US import may be the best option. 2nd option is to import from Germany a eurospec car. At this point I only know that in Germany the price is 69k€ for our base car which includes z51, MRC(euro tune) and likely 2lt. There will be at least 40k€ taxes from import. 2008 z06 in plates here costs about 74k€ (compared to that German price without tax is high)

I know that this car is a really good deal, but those taxes make it sound like a rip off. I hope you get the car you really want!

dupe

I don't think so. GM ran a 2.52xx in a Camaro ZL1 and C&D ran a 2.57xx. Both cars have the same Gen 3 MSRC/PTM,but the 5 sec gap remained.

Don't know much about all the Euro requirements, but I do know even the US C7 has yellow turn indicators (finally. I hate cars with red indicators because in traffic you can't tell if they are pumping the brakes or trying to switch lanes - not that anyone uses indicators over here anyway).

OK, sorry for the rant. Point is, perhaps the conversion to Euro spec would be less for the C7 than previous versions, because I think GM is finally serious about competing there with the likes of Porsche and others.

-T

For those looking for VIR lap time comparisons, the following numbers are from the bash video, all internal GM testing (likely that means Mero at the wheel for all):

C6 GS with Goodyear Gen1 = 2.58
C6 GS with Goodyear Gen2 = 2.54.5
C6 Z06 with Goodyear Gen2 = 2.50
C6 ZR1 with Mich PS2 = 2.48
C6 ZR1 with Mich PSC = 2.45

C7 Z51 with Mich PSS = 2.51.8

Also, looking at C&D lightning lap results we see a ~1 second difference between Sport Cups and PS2's for the ZR1. We also see a ~3 second difference between the Z06/Z07 and the ZR1 with PSC.

The point of all this is to try and figure out how much the tire impacts the times, because it is pretty easy to go out and put whatever tire you want on the car.

So, GY Gen1 is baseline
GY Gen2 = -3.5 seconds over Gen1
M PS2 = about the same as GY Gen2

I am estimating this because there is a two second gap between Z06 on GY and ZR1 on PS2, but a 3 second gap between Z06 and ZR1 when both are on PSCs (from lightning lap results). So, if there is a roughly 3 second gap between the cars for C&D on the same tires, that means a 2 second gap for GM would indicate the tires aren't significantly different. Hence, GY Gen2 is roughly equivalent to PS2

Finally, PSC = -3 seconds over PS2

If we assume that the PSS on the C7 are somewhere between the PSC and PS2 (lets say 1 second better than PS2 based on other bash info where they compared a Z06 with PS2s to the Z06 with C7 tires), then we have:

PSS = -1 second over PS2 or GY Gen2 tires.

So, subtracting 1 second from the Z06 and GS times above:

GS on PSS (estimate) 2:53.5
C7 on PSS (actual) 2:51.8
Z06 on PSS (estimate) 2:49.0

So, the C7 falls between the other two, but is closer to the GS performance than the Z06 performance assuming similar tires on all cars.

-T

The c7 z51 with MRC priced at around 56 grand kicks serious @ss!

Just as we predicted the performance was near the already impressive c6 z06...

The performance of the 455 hp 460 lb ft of tq is as so often been stated identical to the also impressive 427 convertible.

You got to love when a project comes together to improve on Americans iconic sports car...

Still digging my z51 436 hp c6 m6 with NPP but hot dam if the new next generation car has almost every red blooded American pumped to see and get their hands on one of these insanely quick new c7s!.

What The Flock???!!! What are those 'steamrollers' for??? :rofl:

It really IS the White Loafer!:D

Just wondering if they tested the early C6's with a modded seat and harness and released those figures as official performance times?

Where did it say a 'modded' seat? They said it was a racing seat.
I will give you this...if their new 'competition' seat is so great, why didn't they use it?

I answered that here

Why call it a 'competition' seat if it doesn't allow for a 5 point harness?
Hey, at least it LOOKS kinda competitiony.
http://www.ebaymotorsblog.com/wp-con...1/P1139706.jpg

That is 99% marketing and 1% different than the base seat.

They can call it what they want but the safest way to use a 5/6pt harness is with a fixed back seat (which you won't see in a production car since it is not adujstable) and a pass through for the sub belt.

I know everyone is excited about the C7's numbers and so am I. :yesnod: However, keep in mind that it's not easy to just hop in a Corvette and it instantly gets those numbers. Just ask anyone on the forum that does track their car or runs it at the strip how diffilcult it really is. Look at the C6 1/4 mile times and compare them, stock, with the published so called numbers out of the box. But, that not withstanding, the C7 has fantastic potential! :woohoo:

He's a poser. Thats why he talks about performance all day.. but he bought a GS instead of a Z06 :)

Atleast he has the "look".

Cant say I agree.

Considering the C7 can be ordered the automatic transmission.. I'd think those 12 flat @ 119mph times would be pretty consistent. Might take a couple of tries to get it right.. but as long as the track has decent grip its pretty much point and shoot.

At least he is being honest now. The meats are for added 'girth'.:D

People run track days all the time with factory seats - even factory seats that aren't being marketed as "competition seats".

It's actually possible that GM has internal safety standards that require them to use a true racing seat and harness during testing. I remember an article a while back that Ford has a policy of what type of tires can and cannot be used during factory testing.

I think both you and Racerns are both right. They used the fixed-back seat for safety, and they likely have some stringent safety stds they use. Mero does this for a living, and he (and GM) will reasonable mitigate the risks involved. Just like when Johnny O'Connell took me for a ride in my Z at the Autobahn raceway, I was not allowed to drive the car with him in it (which would have been the coaching opportunity of the century for me), but I could ride in my car with him driving (which still was quite a coaching session as it turned out). Company policy. Just like the race seat in the C7, no doubt. Reasonable mitigation of risk.

Spoken like someone who has never done it.

With all the "nannies" and launch control, it's getting easier to be consistent, but the really fast guys are very talented - even if it's an automatic.

I agree, but manufacturers have to standardize it somewhere. Undoubtedly, some cars will be slower and some cars will be faster based on driver, track conditions, DA, etc..
S.

It doesn't take anywhere near as much talent to get an automatic car down the track as it does a manual, especially when you start getting into 450-500 hp cars on factory radials.
S.

All about the looks.:D
I would love to hit a track or auto x, just don't think the A6 would be to happy. Next ride will be track capable whatever it is.

Chrome wheels are the epitome of Poser!

Me to but with a vert it just doesn't seem possible. That's one of the big reasons I want to get a coupe this time.