YukonCornelius

In regards to the Motor Trend article I posted earlier... Here is a link to the mag pics. They're not the best quality, but feel free to grab 'em. I'll have them up for a day or two.

http://www.graciano.com/mt

Enjoy!

Another Yellow

Thanks. Quality is just fine.

The DBK

Excellent! Thanks a lot, those are good scans...

TheDarkKnight

Hmmm this one says each side was flared out only 1.5 inches.

That may require me to alter earlier statements about the in-person difference being glaringly different than the 3" per side would be.

Looks like it will be definitely visibly but not as much as previously thought. hrmmm. Kind of a bummer. Less obvious but easer to thread through the slalom.

YukonCornelius

At first I thought they were supposed to be nearly 3" in the rear and just under 2" up front... Guess we'll just have to settle for 3" overall. Like you said, easier to slalom!

Alex1217

Thanks for posting this info. We learn more about the C6 Z06 every day. Still not sure they got the price right though.

FNC80

Thanks!

SuperFast80

YukonCornelius

It's the least I can do... I've taken alot more than I've given on this forum.

TheDarkKnight

Hmmm so the alleged carbon fiber body panels didn't provide a net loss according to this article?

Or are they not there? If not there, than 75K is looking a bit less realistic (if it was to begin with). I mean if CF wheel wells can save 2.2 pounds, then the savings for whole panels should be much more ... unless they were too expensive for their price point. Really wierd part is they say the fronts are CF in one of the pics ... and that they are so light they have to be clamped down to be painted, but no weight loss as a result? Really fishy or a big gaffe in printing?

It also indicates run-flats, and that the Al chassis dropped 137 pounds: the largest share of listed weight loss. I love my PS runflats but ... why RF on a Z? Especially for the added weight and lower performance compared to non-RF?

The exhaust weighs more than the std C6. Wonder why Ti was not (apparently; I could be wrong) used?

Oh, interesting the mag shocks went away. Not good enough they say for heavy track use.

The (est) performance numbers do smell like a Ford GT was targeted.
So number crunchers ... can the new Z as we see it here break 200MPH?

4DCYKEY

Thanks for the pictures...

strato1958

That is cool! the price is killing me though...
I dont know if i'd ante up that kind of coin.....

Scissors

We've known about the runflats for a while. Ever since the pictures of them came out in, as I recall, late October or early November.

TheDarkKnight

I am saddened and relieved at once. On the one hand the look of it woudl have been just .... holy sh1te batman!

But then I was thinking of my C5 in the slaloms and around the cones of an Autocross course and then envisioning it 5" wider ... not a pretty thought.

So I guess I'll give the nod to the slalom over the aggressive style it sounded like earlier. Such is life.

FNC80

Weight penalty for the rear mounted battery is 8.8 pounds, but only 6.2 for the larger wheels and tires?

TheDarkKnight

See what burying one's self into one's work does for you? You miss out on the info in a timely manner.

But still, any word word as to why?

Hurricane

Thanks!

AP

Since you can't host forever ... I can for a few weeks or months so:

Credit goes to: YukonCornelious over at CF ...

Here they are:

http://vorlon.case.edu/~aap8/gallery/c6z06spy/

AP

68roadster

Thanks Yukon and AP! Great job! Looks like a mag worth buying.