|
The c7 z51 with MRC rocks! 200
|
The video was impressive but I was a little disappointed again to learn the Vette is tail-happy (on entry) and needs the computer to make you look good on exit. I wish it had a curvy hood like the Ferrari but it was an impressive showing, I still may buy one.:yesnod::cheers:
|
Originally Posted by Shaka
(Post 1585005105)
The MO of MT since it's inception is to accept large payments from Porsche. It is by far the worst car magazine.
That's funny because I hear the same thing about Car & Driver except it's BMW.:willy: |
Originally Posted by Carnut12
(Post 1585005302)
I am sure it has nothing to do with them preferring the Car..........here we go again.
Did you read this part of the Article- Remember, if you could boil down what we're looking for when it comes to a Best Driver's Car, confidence might be the ultimate factor. The 911 has it in spades. Explained Lago, "There always seems to be more grip in the front tires, and you can get away with utterly nonsensical speeds through corners. Never tells you anything's going to go wrong, only tells you to go faster." Evans said more or less the same thing. "After talking to Randy, I think the car is so good that it no longer really challenges you with its own flaws. Instead, it challenges you with your flaws." The 911 C4S proves you really and truly can drift an AWD car. Did you skip these sentances- The new Corvette absolutely rocks. Around Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, I found it nearly as planted as the 911. That said, I believe the 991 iteration of the 911 has the best suspension damping in the history of the production car. Why can't some of you just accept that they are all great cars and some people including Magazines professional drivers will prefer one over the other. |
Originally Posted by Snorman
(Post 1585017680)
Lee...he doesn't have any, but he once drove a V6 Mustang rental car in 2005.
:lolg: S. |
1:38 is frighteningly fast. I was at Laguna in the last 30 days and not one person went that fast in any car when I was there. That means you can pick up a C7 from the dealer and be the fastest guy on a weekend track event.
It really doesn't matter that the F car was .2 sec faster. That's nothing, when: A: you will never run into an F12 wheel to wheel racing on a closed course B: driver skill trumps all by a factor of 1 million |
Originally Posted by SBC_and_a_stick
(Post 1585022309)
1:38 is frighteningly fast. I was at Laguna in the last 30 days and not one person went that fast in any car when I was there. That means you can pick up a C7 from the dealer and be the fastest guy on a weekend track event.
It really doesn't matter that the F car was .2 sec faster. That's nothing, when: A: you will never run into an F12 wheel to wheel racing on a closed course B: driver skill trumps all by a factor of 1 million |
Originally Posted by Turbooo2u
(Post 1585022365)
Not if you're up against a slower car with a better driver.:D
|
Originally Posted by Turbooo2u
(Post 1585021632)
The video was impressive but I was a little disappointed again to learn the Vette is tail-happy (on entry) and needs the computer to make you look good on exit. I wish it had a curvy hood like the Ferrari but it was an impressive showing, I still may buy one.:yesnod::cheers:
Only a few month back people - not you, btw - complained that the hood of the C7 was too curvy! :D |
Originally Posted by Turbooo2u
(Post 1585021632)
The video was impressive but I was a little disappointed again to learn the Vette is tail-happy (on entry) and needs the computer to make you look good on exit. I wish it had a curvy hood like the Ferrari but it was an impressive showing, I still may buy one.:yesnod::cheers:
I look at it like this, whether it's in the office or on the football field in the NFL. As a team, you don't go out with the bravado and attitude of, "well, let's give it our best effort and hope to come out on top", if the goal is to be number one. In the NFL, if a team has an intimidation factor of the opposing team, even before they step on the field, and don't believe that they can win and that their the better team, they will probably lose! What does this have to do with Corvettes? To me, it's not good enough to be second to the 911 or or almost as good as the 911. That's not a success, IMO. That's not a win. It's like when you throw a ball in baseball: You don't throw at the target, you throw past the target. You should act like you belong there, that you are the best. I love Corvettes and I wouldn't feel as strongly about them being a better car than the 911 if I didn't feel they were close. The gap has shortened. I get that the 911 is the standard. I respect it. But I think these engineers are smart and resourceful enough to remedy these issues and give it another go. |
Originally Posted by CorvetteFerrariFTW
(Post 1585024219)
It won't change how I choose with my wallet, but I really hope they minimize or fix it in this generation. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I wonder if the problem is inherit to the design of the car. In other words, you turn off all the electric nannies in this car, what is its natural behavior? The SLS AMG Black Series is a front-engine car that was applauded by MT, 2nd in their 2013 Best Driver's Car Competition. I haven't checked the numbers, but I think the MB might be lower, wider, and longer, and I think it has a longer hood, similar to the F12 or Viper. The goal should be still the same, though, match or exceed the 911.
I look at it like this, whether it's in the office or on the football field in the NFL. As a team, you don't go out with the bravado and attitude of, "well, let's give it our best effort and hope to come out on top", if the goal is to be number one. In the NFL, if a team has an intimidation factor of the opposing team, even before they step on the field, and don't believe that they can win and that their the better team, they will probably lose! What does this have to do with Corvettes? To me, it's not good enough to be second to the 911 or or almost as good as the 911. That's not a success, IMO. That's not a win. It's like when you throw a ball in baseball: You don't throw at the target, you throw past the target. You should act like you belong there, that you are the best. I love Corvettes and I wouldn't feel as strongly about them being a better car than the 911 if I didn't feel they were close. The gap has shortened. I get that the 911 is the standard. I respect it. But I think these engineers are smart and resourceful enough to remedy these issues and give it another go. i mean while we're on sports analogies.. :D |
dumbest test yet!
i'll wait for MIT to do a real scientific comparison.
MT should have thrown in a viper and gt-r into this mix and match comparison. oh heck, they may as well have just included a veyron. UNLESS, they thought they wouldn't get the results they wanted. nah, would MT ever do that? really! |
Originally Posted by Snorman
(Post 1585021160)
Putting you on ignore is useless when you derail and wreck nearly every thread in which you and your alter ego participate.
We already know you glean all of your info from magazines and internet searches, so you have nothing of interest to say to those of us who have and race various cars and can read it on our own if we are interested. Most of us aren't interested in the rambling, multi-paragraph clusterphucks you post here for the apparent sport of trying to prove your opinion correct. I suppose you don't post on Rennlist or 6speed because the owners of the cars you worship would likely run you off the board or ban you. Here, they're much more tolerant, to the dismay of many of us. S. You 'race' your cars on a road course in bone stock form? BS you do. I don't post on Rennlist or 6speed because a) I have no real interest in buying a Porsche b) those folks already have an idea of what a car is worth in the grand scheme of things (and in case you missed it, it's not just about track times). It is now you who is derailing this discussion, turning it into a strangely personal vendetta rather than focusing on the cars being discussed. |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585025194)
You 'race' your cars on a road course in bone stock form? BS you do.
There's no "vendetta". I and a great many other people in this section are tired of watching you ruin perfectly good threads with your nut-hugging bullsh*t. Especially now that our cars are being delivered. You are, for all accounts, a useless nuisance on this board. And you driving a 2005 V6 Mustang rental car doesn't qualify you to comment on the handling characteristics of Boss, GT500 and other variants built 8-9 years later. This same philosophy applies to just about everything you post, except to an even greater degree. S. |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585021489)
No, I'm saying that I would sacrifice cargo space, NAV, a sunroof and other non-performance enhancing dodads for a fast car, I didn't really think my original statement was so vague. :confused:
|
Originally Posted by Snorman
(Post 1585025254)
Again, a clearly ignorant statement. Yes, I do. Bone stock car, OEM tires the only thing changed was the brake fluid and oil during normal fluid changes. I even run OEM brake pads.
There's no "vendetta". I and a great many other people in this section are tired of watching you ruin perfectly good threads with your nut-hugging bullsh*t. Especially now that our cars are being delivered. And you driving a 2005 V6 Mustang rental car doesn't qualify you to comment on the handling characteristics of Boss, GT500 and other variants built 8-9 years later. This same philosophy applies to just about everything you post, except to an even greater degree. S. And yet those handling characteristics were echoed by another member in that thread, as well as by professional car testers themselves. It's not a coincidence. I didn't say it made me qualified to comment (notice how many people here have probably never even driven a Ferrari F12, yet you don't challenge them on their qualifications) on a GT500. I just said I can get where Pobst was coming from. It's not a trait I've found in other modern cars and Pobst didn't find it in the other cars he tested either. Coincidence?? |
The F12 and our C7's engines sounds like a Choir of Angels!
|
Pobst Corners Corvette!
He said the C7 wasn't yet the best Vette to him. Which Vette was the best Vette the one he helped bash because of its tire packing prowess:
Chevrolet decided to offer slicks as an option for the 2012 model year, and our Corvette came so equipped. In the Corvette's defense, the Porsche GT3 RS also came packing basically the same sticky Michelin Pilot Sport Cups. However, they're different spec, and the autobahnstuermer's tires had tread all the way around. Not the 'Vette's meats. A quarter of the enormously wide 345s had no tread at all. The refrain then became, "Sure, the 'Vette's fast. But put those tires on the LFA, and let's see what's what." Still, the grip was epic. Markus explained, "Heroic tire grip better matches the 7-liter's big-lunged, basso, boffo performance, allowing mere mortals to safely and confidently explore a tiny bit more of the car's enormous performance envelope." Moreover, this Z06 performed the shortest stop we've ever tested: 60-0 mph in 94 feet. It also posted the fastest figure-eight time, well, ever. But no one would credit the car for either excellent stat, only the tires. Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...#ixzz2g737wWrf The GT3 had a wing and was said to be a handful, but, that makes it a real mechanical machine: You're paying for it, but the GT3 RS is the real deal, most hardcore 911 ever developed for the street. Said Randy, "The grip, the tire grip, incredible. The braking, incredible. I mean, just in another league. It is that close to a race car. Really so familiar. The steering is absolutely perfect. That's about it, real pure driver's car. Race car. Race car!" In fact, the magic might be in the flaws. Yes, the engine's slung way out back and, despite Porsche's iron-headed best efforts, the GT3 RS will still spin you into a tree if you lift mid-corner. Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...#ixzz2g73s7v00 RANDY POBST IS A TRAITOR!:willy: |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585025309)
Really, you raced? What did you win? And how do you know the other guy was equally skilled? You don't. If that brake fluid didn't come on the car from the showroom, it's not bone stock.
Gee, I suppose folks aren't supposed to change their oil or clutch fluid or coolant as it ages either.....................:crazy: |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585025265)
And which car from GM fits that bill? I know it's not the Corvette, because it has plenty of cargo space, NAV, a targa top and other non-performance enhancing doodads. Speaking of Miatas, what you're describing sounds like a spec Miata, the drivers of which I'm guessing would burn plenty of people's asses in their C7s. You can pick these up for $10-30k all day long.
I don't care about cargo space, a sunroof, NAV or other non go fast options, that's what I have 8 other cars for, in my sports car I want performance and that's it, I couldn't care less about the harshness of the ride, if it's a stiff as a board but handles like it's on rails so be it. Admittedly I also want a great sound system because for me it enhances the drive, you can keep your 3LT, I chose the 2LT because I get all that I want and none of what I don't. |
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
(Post 1585025735)
What an inane statement, apparently made just for the sake of trying to win an argument purely on the basis of semantics. :willy:
Gee, I suppose folks aren't supposed to change their oil or clutch fluid or coolant as it ages either.....................:crazy: The other variables we're not even discussing is alignment and tire pressures. Mags tend to test at the factory recommended pressures, unless told to do so differently by an engineer (which for this test, GM was on hand while Ferrari and Porsche were not). In past MT BDC comparos, they've arbitrarily raised the tire pressures on all of the cars, regardless of whether the car would benefit from it or not; in the past Ferrari and Audi have chimed in to suggest lower-than-stock tire pressures, and if you understand how tires naturally increase in pressure as they heat up, it's easy to see why). So with such factors unaccounted for, how much importance should be placed on these numbers? |
Originally Posted by Turbooo2u
(Post 1585021632)
The video was impressive but I was a little disappointed again to learn the Vette is tail-happy (on entry) and needs the computer to make you look good on exit.
Originally Posted by CorvetteFerrariFTW
(Post 1585024219)
It won't change how I choose with my wallet, but I really hope they minimize or fix it in this generation.
The car doesn't "need a computer to make you look good on exit". It has a wonderful bit of new tech in the eDiff... it allows you to put the power down earlier and get a higher exit speed. The Porsche is a rear engined AWD machine which is very different that front-mid with RWD. Normal RWD porsches have off-throttle oversteer and aren't nearly as stable in high speed stead-state cornering (an area where the Vette shines). The car they tested was AWD for a reason... it helps offset the oddities of the rear engine and makes it easier for the average Joe to drive. End of the day the C7 was faster... there's nothing to "fix". |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585025778)
I really don't think you're understanding what I'm saying:
I don't care about cargo space, a sunroof, NAV or other non go fast options, that's what I have 8 other cars for, in my sports car I want performance and that's it, I couldn't care less about the harshness of the ride, if it's a stiff as a board but handles like it's on rails so be it. Admittedly I also want a great sound system because for me it enhances the drive, you can keep your 3LT, I chose the 2LT because I get all that I want and none of what I don't. I fully get your personal preference. I understand that. But can you understand that your own personal preference doesn't determine the price of a car? Can you understand that GM is trying to woo German car buyers, and that they've been marketing the Corvette as a luxury sports car since at least the C6 generation? |
Originally Posted by Snorman
(Post 1585025254)
Again, a clearly ignorant statement. Yes, I do. Bone stock car, OEM tires the only thing changed was the brake fluid and oil during normal fluid changes. I even run OEM brake pads.
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585025309)
Really, you raced? What did you win? And how do you know the other guy was equally skilled? You don't. If that brake fluid didn't come on the car from the showroom, it's not bone stock.
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
(Post 1585025735)
What an inane statement, apparently made just for the sake of trying to win an argument purely on the basis of semantics. :willy:
Gee, I suppose folks aren't supposed to change their oil or clutch fluid or coolant as it ages either.....................:crazy:
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585025830)
It depends on what they change it to. If it's designed to withstand higher temperatures than the stock fluids, then it's not going to perform exactly as if it were showroom stock. His posts suggested that only the tires and brake pads were OEM. Not the fluids.
I'll bet he probably snuck some Marvel Mystery Oil in there too, and THAT'S what accounted for the performance he claims.........:D |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585025871)
Seems to me like only the Porsche was the one that handles like it's on rails, in this test. Perhaps luckily for the Corvette, this test did not delve too deeply into everything else that makes up a car.
I fully get your personal preference. I understand that. But can you understand that your own personal preference doesn't determine the price of a car? Can you understand that GM is trying to woo German car buyers, and that they've been marketing the Corvette as a luxury sports car since at least the C6 generation? |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585025925)
But I don't care about what GM is doing, how they got the price so low or why they did it, I just care about the fact that I (and so many others) finally can afford a brand new world class sports car that offers everything (for the price) that I could possibly want. Now that may all change as the years go by but for now, at this point in time, the C7 fits me and my situation perfectly and the fact that I fell in love with the Corvette a decade ago makes it all that more great.
:cheers: |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585025925)
But I don't care about what GM is doing, how they got the price so low or why they did it, I just care about the fact that I (and so many others) finally can afford a brand new world class sports car that offers everything (for the price) that I could possibly want. Now that may all change as the years go by but for now, at this point in time, the C7 fits me and my situation perfectly and the fact that I fell in love with the Corvette a decade ago makes it all that more great.
"I don't want a sports car losing points [in their test]* because it lacks cargo space or there's no NAV included in the price, that's all BS." *my edit and emphasis You have 8 other cars...is any of them a pure sports car with none or few of the compromises for practicality and refinement? |
It's Simple!
GM's not going to make a Z52, since; they have a perfect excuse to make a Z06 now. A Z52 would be too easy and wouldn't net them much$.
So buy a wing and aero for the weekends. Add those bolt-ons which don't affect your warranty for around 40hp. Have an extra set of wheels and track tires. Then you will be able to turn-off the electronics if you want, and be able to eat up a GT3. Guaranteed!:thumbs: :rock: |
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
(Post 1585025920)
It depends on what you choose to interpret his original statement as meaning. Try rereading it again, as quoted above. He clearly said "brake fluid and oil during normal fluid changes". What does "normal fluid" mean to you?
I'll bet he probably snuck some Marvel Mystery Oil in there too, and THAT'S what accounted for the performance he claims.........:D It would have been just as easy to say "with OEM fluids," but I'd consider that possibility. In the larger picture, what "racing" did he do? On the road course? What did he win? Even if he won something, we now have only one data point, among the hundreds of thousands of thousands of luxury sports car buyers out there. I've never said that fractional objective differences matter to no one. I have been pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem to matter, especially to Ferrari buyers. |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585026112)
He didn't just say "normal fluid." He said "during normal fluid changes." "During normal fluid changes" could mean at the recommended service intervals. Ie., he didn't change them right after he got the car. If a car is delivered with a street alignment, and the customer asks a race/track alignment at the first routine inspection, then the car got a change "during routine inspection service." Whether it performs exactly as it had with a pure road or aggressive road alignment is something else.
It would have been just as easy to say "with OEM fluids," but I'd consider that possibility. In the larger picture, what "racing" did he do? On the road course? What did he win? Even if he won something, we now have only one data point, among the hundreds of thousands of thousands of luxury sports car buyers out there. I've never said that fractional objective differences matter to no one. I have been pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem to matter, especially to Ferrari buyers. |
Quite a spirited thread.
I happen to be one of those guys that has raced a Spec Miata for years and as the chief driving instructor for a large HPDE club have had the opportunity to drive dozens of high performance cars on the track. My DD is an '07 1LT Z51 and it wouldn't go on the track without swapping the brake pads and replacing the stock brake fluid for ATE Super Blue or Motul. To go fast, good braking is mandatory and the most cost effective mod to make. Also the best safety insurance to bring your baby back home in one piece. As for performance on the track, as someone mentioned experience is everything. Randy has the experience to drive these expensive cars fast and consistent with very little possibility of wadding one up. Most of us don't have that level of experience or confidence. So when the weekend warriors get their new C7's out on the track I think it will be much more important to get a good feel of the car, improve on-track ability and HAVE FUN. Don't try and match Randy's lap time. :p |
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
(Post 1585026157)
OK, you "win", your use of semantics is better than the rest of us........................:willy:
|
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
(Post 1585025920)
It depends on what you choose to interpret his original statement as meaning. Try rereading it again, as quoted above. He clearly said "brake fluid and oil during normal fluid changes". What does "normal fluid" mean to you?
I'll bet he probably snuck some Marvel Mystery Oil in there too, and THAT'S what accounted for the performance he claims.........:D Claiming that altering tire pressure renders the car non-stock..:rofl: |
Originally Posted by Lavender
(Post 1585026371)
Ive heard the same argument from Notch...:rofl:
Claiming that altering tire pressure renders the car non-stock..:rofl: |
Originally Posted by Shaka
(Post 1585005105)
The MO of MT since it's inception is to accept large payments from Porsche.
|
Originally Posted by CorvetteFerrariFTW
(Post 1585024219)
It won't change how I choose with my wallet, but I really hope they minimize or fix it in this generation. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I wonder if the problem is inherit to the design of the car. In other words, you turn off all the electric nannies in this car, what is its natural behavior? The SLS AMG Black Series is a front-engine car that was applauded by MT, 2nd in their 2013 Best Driver's Car Competition. I haven't checked the numbers, but I think the MB might be lower, wider, and longer, and I think it has a longer hood, similar to the F12 or Viper. The goal should be still the same, though, match or exceed the 911.
I look at it like this, whether it's in the office or on the football field in the NFL. As a team, you don't go out with the bravado and attitude of, "well, let's give it our best effort and hope to come out on top", if the goal is to be number one. In the NFL, if a team has an intimidation factor of the opposing team, even before they step on the field, and don't believe that they can win and that their the better team, they will probably lose! What does this have to do with Corvettes? To me, it's not good enough to be second to the 911 or or almost as good as the 911. That's not a success, IMO. That's not a win. It's like when you throw a ball in baseball: You don't throw at the target, you throw past the target. You should act like you belong there, that you are the best. I love Corvettes and I wouldn't feel as strongly about them being a better car than the 911 if I didn't feel they were close. The gap has shortened. I get that the 911 is the standard. I respect it. But I think these engineers are smart and resourceful enough to remedy these issues and give it another go. :iagree: That snap oversteer has to be fix if not next year in the 2014 best driver car the C7 is going to finish again behind the 911. And in the more track oriented Z06 or Z07 that simply can't happen because the GT3 handles even better than the 911S. I will like to know what Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter would have to say about this. |
The other thing is Randy posted its best lap time with the Sports setting, then what is the use of the Race mode?
If you can't put a better lap time in that mode with the stiffer shocks settings.. |
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585026711)
:iagree:
That snap oversteer has to be fix if not next year in the 2014 best driver car the C7 is going to finish again behind the 911. And in the more track oriented Z06 or Z07 that simply can't happen because the GT3 handles even better than the 911S. I will like to know what Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter would have to say about this.
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585026803)
The other thing is Randy posted its best lap time with the Sports setting, then what is the use of the Race mode?
If you can't put a better lap time in that mode with the stiffer shocks settings.. Probst ran the car with PTM in race mode. |
Originally Posted by ELP_JC
(Post 1585026677)
If you can afford them, I doubt you'd choose the Vette :D. The only way one can honestly say the Vette is the better driver's car is if you'd choose it at the same price. And the answer from the ultra great majority of people would be NO :yesnod:.
I don't find that to be true. And I've observed numerous others who apparently didn't either. People choose their steeds for any number of reasons. Looks, interior, styling, ride, performance, price, maintenance, enjoyment of taming a rear engine sports car, enjoyment of taming a front engine RWD car, perfecting the drive in an AWD car etc, etc. As a result of that, some choose Porsche. Some choose Corvette. Some choose GTR. Etc. |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585026048)
Like I said, I get that. I understand that that is your personal preference. It just seemed to me like your were criticizing how Motor Trend ran their test and what they prioritize in a sports car:
"I don't want a sports car losing points [in their test]* because it lacks cargo space or there's no NAV included in the price, that's all BS." *my edit and emphasis You have 8 other cars...is any of them a pure sports car with none or few of the compromises for practicality and refinement? |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585025925)
But I don't care about what GM is doing, how they got the price so low or why they did it, I just care about the fact that I (and so many others) finally can afford a brand new world class sports car that offers everything (for the price) that I could possibly want. Now that may all change as the years go by but for now, at this point in time, the C7 fits me and my situation perfectly and the fact that I fell in love with the Corvette a decade ago makes it all that more great.
And we can even order it in a red that is close to the Ferrari color.:rock: |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585026451)
I don't recall Notch's statement on that issue, but let's say that, during a magazine test, the magazine (without input from the manufacturer) adds pressure from stock to one car's tires. Let's say that within the same test, another car's engineering team is actually on hand, they know the track conditions, they recommend lowering the tire pressures from stock for their car. Are you quite sure the two cars now perform the same way relative to each other as if they were both at stock tire pressures?
|
To all on CF: As I've followed this thread, I have been blessed to not read Guibo's inane, petty and argumentative posts since I added him to my ignore list a few months ago. It really makes life soooo much better. :woohoo:
I only see his bovine deification now when one of you quote him to continue to debate this "person". If all of you add him to your ignore list, you will not have to read his crappy post. Your enjoyment level on CF as we discuss our cars will increase dramatically. And your BP will go down 20 points, so there are health benefits to taking this action. :thumbs: Everyone's choice, of course, but I have not missed reading his crap one iota during the past several months. :D Now back to the topic. :cheers: |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585027080)
You are correct, I was criticizing MT as well as other magazines, not necessarily on this comparison but others in the past where they chose "better" cars based on a point system where cargo volume, fit and finish and other non driving factors were included. To me the size of one's trunk has nothing to do with how a car handles or drives or performs.
You have 8 other cars...is any of them a pure sports car with none or few of the compromises for practicality and refinement? |
Originally Posted by Lavender
(Post 1585027139)
I can't recall speaking to you by the way..:rofl:
|
"And your BP will go down 20 points, so there are health benefits to taking this action. :thumbs:"
:rofl: |
Originally Posted by CorvetteFerrariFTW
(Post 1585024219)
... but I really hope they minimize or fix it in this generation. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I wonder if the problem is inherit to the design of the car. In other words, you turn off all the electric nannies in this car, what is its natural behavior? ....
You are probably too young, by 40 years or so, to understand the 911 was a car that would kill you in a split second. Turn off the nannies in the current Porsche 911 variant and most of the world's serious car drivers would not care for its "natural behavior" either.
Originally Posted by CorvetteFerrariFTW
(Post 1585024219)
... What does this have to do with Corvettes? To me, it's not good enough to be second to the 911 or or almost as good as the 911. That's not a success, IMO. That's not a win. ....
:cheers: |
Originally Posted by travisnd
(Post 1585026916)
There is no snap oversteer... S2000s have snap oversteer, Z3 BMWs have snap oversteer. Corvettes don't. The car has some corner entry oversteer by design
Probst ran the car with PTM in race mode. Read more: http://forums.motortrend.com/70/9567...#ixzz2g7ygnFIa Randy time was in Sport Mode. |
So in the interview Randy said the car felt soft and had "a lot" of body roll by comparison.
Then in the write up it says the car is too stiff... Which is it now? |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585027337)
It doesn't, but here's the thing: One car could handle just as well as another but if its trunk is large enough and its fit & finish is better, then that deserves some consideration in their test. It is they, after all, who is doing the test and not you. Just as with the general population, outright handling, power, or track times is not the only consideration, nor should it necessarily be for what are still essentially road cars. Not race cars. Which leads into my question, which I'll repeat:
You have 8 other cars...is any of them a pure sports car with none or few of the compromises for practicality and refinement? As for my 8 other cars, not one of them is a pure sports car, my two Corvettes (well one now) were the closest I've got to having a pure sports car and when my C7 arrives it will be a pure sports car. |
Originally Posted by VIN666
(Post 1585027592)
So in the interview Randy said the car felt soft and had "a lot" of body roll by comparison.
Then in the write up it says the car is too stiff... Which is it now?
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585026803)
The other thing is Randy posted its best lap time with the Sports setting, then what is the use of the Race mode?
If you can't put a better lap time in that mode with the stiffer shocks settings.. |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585027747)
Could be a lot of body roll by comparison to the Porsche. And too stiff in that setting for the damping.
Race mode could be optimal for an even smoother track, or autocross. For people who like a racier feel on a smooth road, it could also be a benefit. IIRC, when C&D first tested the ZR1, it was faster in the softer mode than in the hardest suspension mode. |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585027720)
Well then you might as well add some other criteria that has nothing to do with performance like which one looks better, which has the better exhaust note, or who's rims are more sparkly.....and you're right, I'm not doing the test, they are, so what makes their opinion any more valuable than mine, or the next guys? When they base their opinion on things that are subjective which in turn determines the out come then the whole testing procedure in bunk, doesn't hold water, but hey, if you agree with them good on ya, I reserve the right to choose my own winner based on my own tests.
As for my 8 other cars, not one of them is a pure sports car, my two Corvettes (well one now) were the closest I've got to having a pure sports car and when my C7 arrives it will be a pure sports car. What maybe makes their opinion more valuable is that they have tested all three of these cars over the same roads and on the same track at the same time, so (perhaps?) with 4-5 editors' opinions, plus that of a hired racing driver, they may have some basis by which to assess relative value. As to the previous question of who cares what journalists think, GM certainly cared enough to hire journalists to critique their newer models. Aston Martin cared enough to call in Evo Magazine when they gave a less than stellar review of one of their cars. McLaren cared enough to call in the same magazine when its MP4-12C was beaten by the Ferrari 458. Pure sports car...with power windows, power seats, power mirrors, A/C, sound system, AFM, cupholders, remote keyless entry, etc. |
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585027781)
Okay and which mode they use for the hot Nurburgring lap times?
|
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585026711)
:iagree:
That snap oversteer has to be fix if not next year in the 2014 best driver car the C7 is going to finish again behind the 911. And in the more track oriented Z06 or Z07 that simply can't happen because the GT3 handles even better than the 911S. I will like to know what Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter would have to say about this. |
Originally Posted by VIN666
(Post 1585027592)
So in the interview Randy said the car felt soft and had "a lot" of body roll by comparison.
Then in the write up it says the car is too stiff... Which is it now? |
Snap oversteer seems to be a new buzzword.
Best to just forget about it... Reminds me of torque steer on the SRT4 forums... Good lord. |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585027906)
Some tests do add those criteria. And even more. Ride quality (some German mags even test it with and without passengers), gearbox smoothness, wet traction, engine NVH, interior noise levels, etc. That's because all of these manufacturers take all of these into consideration when developing their cars. We're not talking about Caterham and Ariel here. You're not just buying a raw set of numbers. You're buying a car (and for some people, an entire experience). And the customers look at those things too.
What maybe makes their opinion more valuable is that they have tested all three of these cars over the same roads and on the same track at the same time, so (perhaps?) with 4-5 editors' opinions, plus that of a hired racing driver, they may have some basis by which to assess relative value. As to the previous question of who cares what journalists think, GM certainly cared enough to hire journalists to critique their newer models. Aston Martin cared enough to call in Evo Magazine when they gave a less than stellar review of one of their cars. McLaren cared enough to call in the same magazine when its MP4-12C was beaten by the Ferrari 458. Pure sports car...with power windows, power seats, power mirrors, A/C, sound system, AFM, cupholders, remote keyless entry, etc. Yes pure sports car, just because it happens to have those things doesn't make it any less of a sports car. I didn't realize that a sports car had to be an F1. |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585028281)
So you buy your cars based on what journalists think, wow, interesting, I for one don't, I'm fully capable of making up my own mind.
Yes pure sports car, just because it happens to have those things doesn't make it any less of a sports car. I didn't realize that a sports car had to be an F1. Neither a Caterham nor an Ariel are F1 cars. But it is a fact that GM markets the Corvette as a luxury sports car. As such, it is perfectly reasonable IMO to evaluate how it compares not only as a sports car, but also as a luxury item. Those things I mentioned clearly are not there to make the car go faster; indeed, their aggregate weight probably makes the car go slower. And the Porsche has even more of that stuff, yet is able to lap within 0.72 seconds on a 1:38 lap. That's smaller than time differential that C&D found between Pirelli PZeros and Michelin Pilot Super Sports using a control vehicle on a 60-second autocross course. |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585027337)
I
You have 8 other cars...is any of them a pure sports car with none or few of the compromises for practicality and refinement?
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585027720)
As for my 8 other cars, not one of them is a pure sports car, my two Corvettes (well one now) were the closest I've got to having a pure sports car and when my C7 arrives it will be a pure sports car.
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585027906)
Pure sports car...with power windows, power seats, power mirrors, A/C, sound system, AFM, cupholders, remote keyless entry, etc. Heck, even many pure race cars have A/C these days! |
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
(Post 1585028549)
Me thinks Guibo wants a MG TD.:D
Heck, even many pure race cars have A/C these days! |
Originally Posted by gthal
(Post 1585028081)
Part of the issue is that the car has so many modes it probably takes some time to get the settings right for how you prefer them. Also, didn't someone say that this pre release car was reprogrammed by the engineers there and they got better results?
Originally Posted by Motor Trend
As to the second post, when the Corvette went back out to try a different suspension setting, we didn't have time left in our track day to rig it up with all the equipment. It was either go now or forget about it. We decided to go, and one editor's stop watch said it was quicker, but that's hardly scientific. He's usually pretty good, but we don't actually know whether the Corvette matched the Ferrari's lap time or not.
I'd also like to address this recalibration that he brings up. The Corvette engineers informed us there was a software update they'd like to install and we let them do it, but it was not a night-and-day change. |
Originally Posted by tuxnharley
(Post 1585028549)
Me thinks Guibo wants a MG TD.:D
Heck, even many pure race cars have A/C these days! |
Originally Posted by jackhall99
(Post 1585027467)
I take this statement as a "slap" at the C7's mid-corner handling comment. If I am incorrect, I apologize. The C7 uses some nannies, and it is an awesome car because of them.
You are probably too young, by 40 years or so, to understand the 911 was a car that would kill you in a split second. Turn off the nannies in the current Porsche 911 variant and most of the world's serious car drivers would not care for its "natural behavior" either. Everyone has their own opinion. God bless America. :flag: The C7 is a winner to almost everybody who 'gets' sports cars. If you don't believe this car is not a winner, OK. :cheers: By the way are you aware your last comment is a double negative? |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585028467)
No, I don't buy my cars based on what journalists think. I never said that. The question was asked: What makes their opinion any more valuable? I've given some reasons why their opinions may have more value, as well as examples of how the manufacturers themselves value their input. This is not to say that they don't get input from individual owners who track their cars, but if you haven't talked to them...
Neither a Caterham nor an Ariel are F1 cars. But it is a fact that GM markets the Corvette as a luxury sports car. As such, it is perfectly reasonable IMO to evaluate how it compares not only as a sports car, but also as a luxury item. Those things I mentioned clearly are not there to make the car go faster; indeed, their aggregate weight probably makes the car go slower. And the Porsche has even more of that stuff, yet is able to lap within 0.72 seconds on a 1:38 lap. That's smaller than time differential that C&D found between Pirelli PZeros and Michelin Pilot Super Sports using a control vehicle on a 60-second autocross course. |
To all the Randy Porsches of the World!
AWD and AWS are nannies!:thumbs: The C7 has 140lb more torque then the 911S!:toetap: I think it is reasonable to think the macho stuff might be out dated if one was really trying to go head to head!:eek:
:withstupid: |
Originally Posted by Carnut12
(Post 1585028789)
They did not have any of the "Nannies" on in the test. You do not need them in the 991, your talking about the old 930 which in its time dominated everything, but you did have to respect the power.
By the way are you aware your last comment is a double negative? And thanks for the English lesson. How about a spelling lesson for you. Your should be you're. :D :thumbs: :cheers: |
Originally Posted by jackhall99
(Post 1585029183)
No, I was NOT talking about the 930, a turbo introduced in 1975 or so. I was mentioning the 911 from 1964 or '65 on, a killer if manhandled. I'm sure when you dig, you will find the Porsche sold today has nannies just like most other cars.
And thanks for the English lesson. How about a spelling lesson for you. Your should be you're. :D :thumbs: :cheers: |
If they are testing for best drivers car then they should set the cars to for that and let the times be secondary. I bet the Vette still would have been ahead!
|
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585029005)
And my reply was what makes their opinion the correct one when they add subjective criteria to determine a winner ie steering feel, or pedal placement, sight lines, cargo volume, etc......what may be a good feel for you may not be good for me. My whole point was when I buy a sports car I don't care how many duffle bags it can hold or how user friendly the NAV system is both of which journalists use to determine winners in their comparisons.
Again, you are approaching this from your own personal point of view. As I've said, I already get that. But can you even acknowledge that that is not all that customers, journalists, and the manufacturers themselves care about? I mean seriously, what % of miles on your bone stock road car is even spent on the track, nevermind going for a 10/10ths lap pace like these journalists and race drivers? |
The 911S roll angle in degrees measured by MT was 0.8 degrees that is almost no body roll at all.
:eek: |
Did not realize how much the F12 weighed..........why were some of the Vette guys up in fits about the C7's weight again?
|
Originally Posted by jackhall99
(Post 1585029183)
No, I was NOT talking about the 930, a turbo introduced in 1975 or so. I was mentioning the 911 from 1964 or '65 on, a killer if manhandled. I'm sure when you dig, you will find the Porsche sold today has nannies just like most other cars.
And thanks for the English lesson. How about a spelling lesson for you. Your should be you're. :D :thumbs: :cheers: |
Still the C7 finishing 3rd in this group is impressive.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...car_aftermath/ |
It makes sense for MT to use the 991 4S in this comparison since it was used in the Best Driver's Car test that did not include the C7 (this was a chance to see how the C7 would do against the Best Driver's Car winner); however, had they used the 991 S, it would have likely scored higher than the 4S in handling/steering assessments, as well as in objective assessments (including lap time), as the 991 S is RWD.
|
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585029797)
The 911S roll angle in degrees measured by MT was 0.8 degrees that is almost no body roll at all.
:eek: The 911 Carrera S with PDCC With the optional Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) for the S models of the 911 Carrera, these characteristics can be further accentuated: the vehicle holds the road even better and delivers even sportier performance. PDCC is an active anti-roll system that suppresses lateral body movement during cornering the 911 Carrera S with PDCC It’s easy, and even makes sense, to carry on in your usual way, but what happens if a sudden change of direction leaves you thrown off course? Then, it all comes down to personal strength. With the optional Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) for the S models of the 911 Carrera, these characteristics can be further accentuated: the vehicle holds the road even better and delivers even sportier performance. In addition, it minimizes the lateral instability of the vehicle on uneven ground. This effect is achieved with the aid of hydraulic stabilizing actuators in the form of cylinders designed to optimize camber. Lateral roll is counteracted by forces generated at each individual wheel, based on steering angle and lateral acceleration. The results are improved dynamic performance and increased ride comfort at all speeds, as well as optimized turn-in and stable load transfer characteristics. http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/91...etail/chassis/ |
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585030131)
Still the C7 finishing 3rd in this group is impressive.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...car_aftermath/ |
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585030131)
Still the C7 finishing 3rd in this group is impressive.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...car_aftermath/ |
Originally Posted by Notch
(Post 1585030205)
It finished 4th (with rounding).
|
Originally Posted by Notch
(Post 1585030205)
It finished 4th (with rounding).
I didn't know that this Mercedes SLS was this good. |
Am I the only one here that prefers a tail happy driving experience?
It instantly makes the cars more fun at lower speeds and imparts a very safe feel in general. Also, when the frame is good and stiff, it allows the suspension to be softer and work better. |
These cant can't be turned off either
Dynamic engine mounts You don’t have to take the 911 onto the racetrack. But you can, more so than ever, because dynamic engine mounts are now included as part of the Sport Chrono Package. The electronically controlled system minimizes the oscillations and vibrations of the entire drive train, especially the engine, and combines the benefits of a hard or soft engine mounting arrangement. A hard engine mounting delivers optimum dynamic performance because it offers the highest degree of handling precision possible. Soft engine mounts, on the other hand, minimize oscillations and vibrations. While comfort is improved on uneven road surfaces, this comes at the expense of dynamic performance. Our engineers have solved this problem by enabling the engine mounts to adapt their stiffness and damping properties to changes in driving style and road surface conditions. This has been achieved by use of a fluid with magnetic properties in interaction with an electrically generated field. For the driver, the results are tangible. Handling is perceptibly more stable under load change conditions and in fast corners. Whenever a less assertive driving style is adopted, the dynamic engine mounts provide a higher level of comfort. http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/911-carrera-s/ |
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585030233)
Of the staff of seven five pick the C7 at #3.
|
Originally Posted by DREAMERAK
(Post 1585030181)
Porsche PDCC, and it can't be turned off
The 911 Carrera S with PDCC It’s easy, and even makes sense, to carry on in your usual way, but what happens if a sudden change of direction leaves you thrown off course? Then, it all comes down to personal strength. A Porsche has a clear sense of purpose and is the embodiment of strength. It demonstrates this with sporty and precise handling and excellent road holding. With the optional Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) for the S models of the 911 Carrera, these characteristics can be further accentuated: the vehicle holds the road even better and delivers even sportier performance. PDCC is an active anti-roll system that suppresses lateral body movement during cornering the 911 Carrera S with PDCC It’s easy, and even makes sense, to carry on in your usual way, but what happens if a sudden change of direction leaves you thrown off course? Then, it all comes down to personal strength. A Porsche has a clear sense of purpose and is the embodiment of strength. It demonstrates this with sporty and precise handling and excellent road holding. With the optional Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) for the S models of the 911 Carrera, these characteristics can be further accentuated: the vehicle holds the road even better and delivers even sportier performance. PDCC is an active anti-roll system that suppresses lateral body movement during cornering maneuvers. In addition, it minimizes the lateral instability of the vehicle on uneven ground. This effect is achieved with the aid of hydraulic stabilizing actuators in the form of cylinders designed to optimize camber. Lateral roll is counteracted by forces generated at each individual wheel, based on steering angle and lateral acceleration. The results are improved dynamic performance and increased ride comfort at all speeds, as well as optimized turn-in and stable load transfer characteristics. http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/91...etail/chassis/ |
Originally Posted by Notch
(Post 1585030281)
With one picking it 6th and one picking it 5th, for an average finish of 3.71
Even for 2nd place SLS it was 4 out of 7. |
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585030296)
I check when they tested the Z06 and the body roll was 1.6 degrees which is pretty darn good. My guess is that the C7 Z51 must be over 2 degrees..
|
Originally Posted by DREAMERAK
(Post 1585030379)
Even with MRSC?
Here is the Z06 Z07 in the 2011 best driver car comparison it finished 6th. http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...r/viewall.html |
Originally Posted by Guibo
(Post 1585029539)
I didn't say it was the correct one. You asked why their opinion has value, and I've stated why. GM certainly seems to care about their opinion, as they've hired journalists as paid consultants in the past. GM also cares about subjective qualities of steering feel (having benchmarked the 911), pedal operation (going to a bottom-hinged mount like Porsche and BMW), interior craftsmanship, and seat support. As for duffle bags and NAV, I've never seen them declare a winner over a Corvette on the basis of that. But if GM develops a nav system and puts it into the Corvette, you can bet someone's going to use it, so why not compare it?
Again, you are approaching this from your own personal point of view. As I've said, I already get that. But can you even acknowledge that that is not all that customers, journalists, and the manufacturers themselves care about? I mean seriously, what % of miles on your bone stock road car is even spent on the track, nevermind going for a 10/10ths lap pace like these journalists and race drivers? I'm buying a C7 for the following reasons: Price......objective Looks.....subjective Performance.....objective Interior...subjective Note: Everybody pretty much thinks it's a bargain, not everybody likes the looks, everybody is pretty much happy with the performance, not everybody likes the interior, so that being said, I don't care about what people's opinions are, I like it and it's my personal point of view, not everybody is going to share my viewpoints. |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585030459)
Of course I am, why, because I'm the one buying the car....if you're buying a car what you do you care about other people's opinion of it? And since a lot of their "opinion" goes into judging these cars, if you buy one based on what the journalists say, then that's pretty much what you're doing, buying a care based on someone else's opinion.
I'm buying a C7 for the following reasons: Price......objective Looks.....subjective Performance.....objective Interior...subjective Note: Everybody pretty much thinks it's a bargain, not everybody likes the looks, everybody is pretty much happy with the performance, not everybody likes the interior, so that being said, I don't care about what people's opinions are, I like it and it's my personal point of view, not everybody is going to share my viewpoints. |
All very fascinating and insightful comments here. I know they are technologies that cannot be turned off, but PDCC and Dynamic Engine Mounts and how it performs its wizardry is simply brilliant. Strangely, the Engine mounts use the same properties as the magnetic shocks on the Corvette. I would welcome these technologies on the Corvette, but that's just me.
As far as the SLS, here is more from Scott of MT: OK (assuming you're still answering questions, and thank you for doing so), poor choice of words on my part. I meant to ask you what do you feel the SLS AMG Black Series did better, from a "confidence" POV. For example, did it exhibit less body roll than the C7 but more than the 911 4S? Was it less tail-happy? Was its ride harsher than the 911 or C7? Regarding this confidence factor, I wanted to quote Randy on what he thought of the GT3 RS during a past Best Driver's Car Competition: "You're paying for it, but the GT3 RS is the real deal, most hardcore 911 ever developed for the street. Said Randy, "The grip, the tire grip, incredible. The braking, incredible. I mean, just in another league. It is that close to a race car. Really so familiar. The steering is absolutely perfect. That's about it, real pure driver's car. Race car. Race car!" In fact, the magic might be in the flaws. Yes, the engine's slung way out back and, despite Porsche's iron-headed best efforts, the GT3 RS will still spin you into a tree if you lift mid-corner." This car has a fixed wing, which, to me, is no different than the C6 Z06 w/Z07 Package and semi-slicks -- you can say let's put a fixed wing on the LFA or Corvette and see what's what, too. More importantly, it sounds like it was a handful. Would you say, then, that 997 GT3 RS does not inspire confidence on the same level as the 991 C4S? The difference in confidence with the SLS is that it had way more power but was nearly as stable and neutral as the 911. On the road, you could drive the hell out of it and never be worried that it was going to come loose and head for the trees. That's saying something with over 600 hp on board. The ride was harsher, no doubt, but it only affected ride quality, not road holding. There was less body roll than either the C7 or 911, and it was less tail happy than either of those cars. The only person who really got the tail to move around was Randy, but he drives the cars harder than any of us are capable. His impression of the car wanting to snap oversteer at the limit was news to the rest of us, but it had a part in keeping the SLS Black in second, not first. As to the GT3 RS, no, it didn't inspire confidence like the 991. As Randy said, it was a race car with turn signals. It drove more like a classic 911, in that it was tail happy, especially if you made the fatal mistake of lift-throttle oversteer. For a race car driver like Pobst, who used to race 911s, it was fantastic. For the rest of us, it was a little too much of a handful. Read more: http://forums.motortrend.com/70/9567...#ixzz2g9VVHfzm |
Originally Posted by ivanjo11
(Post 1585030340)
Instead of average my calculation would be more from the percentage standpoint 5 out of 7 is 71%.
Even for 2nd place SLS it was 4 out of 7. |
Originally Posted by DREAMERAK
(Post 1585030606)
Faster in a straight line, faster around the road course, 60-0 in 95 feet!.
|
Originally Posted by Notch
(Post 1585030639)
If marginally faster on a track is more important to you than other assessments, then the C7 may be the best choice for you.
|
The 991 is more refined and expensive, the c7 more raw and untamed. Whichever direction you lean, there will be times you want a little bit more of the other.
|
Originally Posted by JerriVette
(Post 1585030770)
I'd say being faster on the track is important to many here and that's the point of corvettes iconic history.
Lets face it, there is no loser in this bunch, buy any of the 3 and you have one of the most capable cars on the track and street, but only 2 can realistically be driven daily in fair weather and that is the Vette and 911. I guess the Ferrari could, but I do not know any owners that do so. |
Originally Posted by Reciprocal
(Post 1585030821)
The 991 is more refined and expensive, the c7 more raw and untamed. Whichever direction you lean, there will be times you want a little bit more of the other.
:iagree::cheers: |
Originally Posted by CorvetteFerrariFTW
(Post 1585030610)
All very fascinating and insightful comments here. I know they are technologies that cannot be turned off, but PDCC and Dynamic Engine Mounts and how it performs its wizardry is simply brilliant. Strangely, the Engine mounts use the same properties as the magnetic shocks on the Corvette. I would welcome these technologies on the Corvette, but that's just me.
As far as the SLS, here is more from Scott of MT: OK (assuming you're still answering questions, and thank you for doing so), poor choice of words on my part. I meant to ask you what do you feel the SLS AMG Black Series did better, from a "confidence" POV. For example, did it exhibit less body roll than the C7 but more than the 911 4S? Was it less tail-happy? Was its ride harsher than the 911 or C7? Regarding this confidence factor, I wanted to quote Randy on what he thought of the GT3 RS during a past Best Driver's Car Competition: "You're paying for it, but the GT3 RS is the real deal, most hardcore 911 ever developed for the street. Said Randy, "The grip, the tire grip, incredible. The braking, incredible. I mean, just in another league. It is that close to a race car. Really so familiar. The steering is absolutely perfect. That's about it, real pure driver's car. Race car. Race car!" In fact, the magic might be in the flaws. Yes, the engine's slung way out back and, despite Porsche's iron-headed best efforts, the GT3 RS will still spin you into a tree if you lift mid-corner." This car has a fixed wing, which, to me, is no different than the C6 Z06 w/Z07 Package and semi-slicks -- you can say let's put a fixed wing on the LFA or Corvette and see what's what, too. More importantly, it sounds like it was a handful. Would you say, then, that 997 GT3 RS does not inspire confidence on the same level as the 991 C4S? The difference in confidence with the SLS is that it had way more power but was nearly as stable and neutral as the 911. On the road, you could drive the hell out of it and never be worried that it was going to come loose and head for the trees. That's saying something with over 600 hp on board. The ride was harsher, no doubt, but it only affected ride quality, not road holding. There was less body roll than either the C7 or 911, and it was less tail happy than either of those cars. The only person who really got the tail to move around was Randy, but he drives the cars harder than any of us are capable. His impression of the car wanting to snap oversteer at the limit was news to the rest of us, but it had a part in keeping the SLS Black in second, not first. As to the GT3 RS, no, it didn't inspire confidence like the 991. As Randy said, it was a race car with turn signals. It drove more like a classic 911, in that it was tail happy, especially if you made the fatal mistake of lift-throttle oversteer. For a race car driver like Pobst, who used to race 911s, it was fantastic. For the rest of us, it was a little too much of a handful. Read more: http://forums.motortrend.com/70/9567...#ixzz2g9VVHfzm Interesting anwser it took Randy to discover the SLS snap oversteer but by their data the 911S has less body roll than the SLS 0.8 vs 1.8 degrees. |
Originally Posted by DREAMERAK
(Post 1585029934)
You are :D 100% correct, the old Porsche's could be diabolical for someone who didn't understand their handling characteristics and know how to drive around them, the unpredictable power of the 930 was only part of the problem, the heavy turbo rear mounted engine made the front end even more prone to under steer or snap over steer, and the rear trailing arm suspension geometry changes coming off or on the power could catch even expert driver by surprise. You'd better know what the hell you are :D doing.
:cheers: |
Originally Posted by themonk
(Post 1585030459)
Of course I am, why, because I'm the one buying the car....if you're buying a car what you do you care about other people's opinion of it? And since a lot of their "opinion" goes into judging these cars, if you buy one based on what the journalists say, then that's pretty much what you're doing, buying a care based on someone else's opinion.
I'm buying a C7 for the following reasons: Price......objective Looks.....subjective Performance.....objective Interior...subjective Note: Everybody pretty much thinks it's a bargain, not everybody likes the looks, everybody is pretty much happy with the performance, not everybody likes the interior, so that being said, I don't care about what people's opinions are, I like it and it's my personal point of view, not everybody is going to share my viewpoints. |
Originally Posted by DREAMERAK
(Post 1585030606)
:iagree:...lets also remember automotive journalism is a business, these reviewers are not monks living in a monastery, they have their biases like everyone else. Just look at the stats, Faster in a straight line, faster around the road course, 60-0 in 95 feet!.
Originally Posted by Notch
(Post 1585030150)
It makes sense for MT to use the 991 4S in this comparison since it was used in the Best Driver's Car test that did not include the C7 (this was a chance to see how the C7 would do against the Best Driver's Car winner); however, had they used the 991 S, it would have likely scored higher than the 4S in handling/steering assessments, as well as in objective assessments (including lap time), as the 991 S is RWD.
C2S - 1:12.0 C4S - 1:11.7 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:50 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands