Ok, ok, enough with the EVOs, talk about controversy. Let's move on, and for this comparison I ask that you please pay not attention to price. Just look at each vehicle for what they are, and that is awesome performance vehicles. The 2006 Dodge Viper SRT-10 GTS, the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06, and the 2005 Ford GT represent 3 of the most lethal American supercars. These cars are a step above the rest, they're all world renowned for their awesome performance, and all three of them have atleast 500HP. I've been waiting a long time for the day when I could truly compare 3 American supercars to their European counterparts, has this day arrived? Regardless of price, how do the American supercars compare to the 2005 Ferrari F430 F1, 2005 Lamborghini Gallardo, and the 2004 Porsche 911 GT2. Despite the leap and bounds of the American supercars, are the European cars still superior to their American competition? If you believe this is not the case please explain why? Which of these cars do you believe is the best in this comparison, regardless of price? Can the American match not only the performance, but the style of the European supercars? You can place the cars in order from the best performance to worst performance if you like?

2006 Dodge Viper SRT-10 GTS
8.3L
10-Cylinder
6-Speed Manual
3450Lbs
500HP@5600RPM
525TQ@4600RPM

vs.

2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
7.0L
8-Cylinder
6-Speed Manual
3150Lbs
500HP@6200RPM
475TQ@4800RPM

vs.

2005 Ford GT
5.4L
Supercharged 8-Cylinder
6-Speed Manual
3470Lbs
550HP@6500RPM
500TQ@3750RPM

vs.

2005 Ferrari F430 F1
4.3L
8-Cylinder
6-Speed Auto-Clutch Manual
3200Lbs
483HP@8500RPM
343TQ@5250RPM

vs.

2005 Lamborghini Gallardo
5.0L
10-Cylinder
6-Speed Auto-Clutch Manual
3560Lbs
493HP@7800RPM
376TQ@4500RPM

vs.

2004 Porsche 911 GT2
3.6L
Twin-Turbocharged 6-Cylinder
6-Speed Manual
3180Lbs
483HP@5700RPM
472TQ@4500RPM

In case you wondering, all these cars are capable of running 11s (with the exception of the Lamborghini Gallardo). My list goes like this-

#1- 2005 Ferrari F430 F1
#2- 2004 Porsche 911 GT2
#3- 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
#4- 2005 Ford GT
#5- 2006 Dodge Viper SRT-10 GTS
#6- 2005 Lamborghini Gallardo

As you can see, I still rate the European cars ahead of the American cars, what do you guys think?

Why would you put the Z06 above the Ford GT and Viper. We have seen photos and specs but it hasn't been tested yet. I think it will be fast but not faster than the Ford GT or Viper.

My list:
1. Ford GT
2. Ferrari F430
3. Viper SRT-10
4.Corvette Z06
5.911 GT2
6.Lambo Gallardo

I wasn't real sure were to put the GT2 or Z06. But I would realy like to see the F430 and Ford GT head to head. I think it would be close, but Road and Track tested the F430 0-60mph 3.5 and Ford GT 3.3. The F1 transmision gives it a pretty good advantage and it has a shorter stroke just put the pedle to the floor and tap a hand pedle to shift.

While the Ford GT is I sure harder to drive if you get it right it can be fast. All the torque and no traction control it is easy to light up the tires on the star.

I think the 0-60 for the Viper is 3.6 ish. And I've heard it can from 60 in less than 100'.

The Z06 if it is what they say will probley be faster than the GT2 witch off the top of my 0-60 in 4.2? And you know the Z06 will probley be able to handle realy well.

As for the Gallardo I have no clue realy but I know the Ford GT is faster so I left it were you had it.

Man this was long and I know there is more than 0-60 times, but they are the easiest to remember so I don't have to reaserch.

You could also throw in the Saleen S7 but that not realy a prodution car and there probley haven't been 200 made yet in over year, but it would dominate all even the Enzo.

...this is not a flame.....

but
i think that something has to be done about the 'bigger for cheaper' mentality in the american psyche.

by far the biggest difference between the american top end cars and the european top end cars is the quality of materials and finish.
if the american car companies actual recognise this and even make a half arsed attempt to make a true 'quality' car then it would once and for all shut everyone up.
the Z06?
possibly the best american car of that type
(esp if you agree with the car press over here)
BUT if the C6 is anything to go by, not the best 'dressed'....

y'know, if it is supposed to be a flagship top end performance car, then make the effort.
the excuse of it being 'affordable' comapred to say a ferrari is, i think pointless.
after all, that's not stopped the order books being full when a new car comes out has it?

it has been said before by many people,
faster doesn't always mean it's better.
as the ever popular EVO debates have brought to light, it's not exactly a car for those who don't have a dental plan and well, they try their best to not mention the dash.

it has been said that in a corvette, the point is to drive fast so the quality of the interior doesn't matter.
but then what about the times when you're not?
what about when you're stuck behind a tractor on your favourite b road and you start to notice the things around you?

in a ferrari, you start to appreciate the lovely and soft hand stitched leather of the steering wheel a little more.
you notice the way the leather is joined in all of them panels to perfectly fit the dash console.
at that point, when you're not thrashing the pants of it, it is clear why you bought a ferrari:
because it is a true top end performance car.
it's not just fast but with the exception of the stripped out bare minimum cars, quite a luxurious proposition
(confort issues aside...)

the thing is, we don't all go and buy the very latest car at the drop of a hat.
we all like to own the 'perfect' car and the interior, like it or not, is part of the car as a whole.
call me picky but i think i'd prefer to have car in which just as many good things can be said about things like the interior, exterior, technology as is said about the way it drives.

i'll let someone else argue ove the 'tech' behind american cars.
personally, whilst i'm not a big fan of 'oversized' engines (i.e 8.0 litre V8....) but i think that is part of the character of the car.
pesonally, i'm more a fan of the perfectly and meticulously engineered engines.
best example is the little flat 6 as seen in the GT3 or the 4.2V8 of the F430.

so superior in terms of what?
numbers? racing times?

you wanted an opinion.
here's mine.
as a machine, in terms of quality of production, as an object by itself and as something to drive,
i think the european cars are still better.

You could also throw in the Saleen S7 but that not realy a prodution car and there probley haven't been 200 made yet in over year, but it would dominate all even the Enzo.


So why was Ferrari forced to sand bag the crap of the MC12 if the S7 is so superior to the Enzo?

I'd take

1)Ferrari
2)Lambo
3)Ford
4)Dodge
5)Chevy

If this was not about money...if it was...then it would be a different list...but if money is no object...then this is my list

So why was Ferrari forced to sand bag the crap of the MC12 if the S7 is so superior to the Enzo?

I'm talking about street performance the 0-60 time for the S7 is around 3.1 and the Enzo is aruond 3.3. I don't fallow racing to much so I don't know the story behind the MC12 platform why you elaborate more for us who don't know. :smile: And I would bet that the S7 can stick to the road just as well as the Enzo.

....sigh.....
i try to put a little effort and 'passion & soul' into this and the kids all race on here with their 0-60 times......

^like I said in my first post there is alot more to a car than 0-60, but I use it more because it is harder to remember all the other specs for all these cars I'm got some but not all.

I would pick the Ford first and the GT2 second based on soul and character. I like some individuality in my car, but the Ferrari, Lambo, and Viper all remind me of the kind of owner who wears alligator shoes and checks his hair in the mirror before backing out of the drive.

When I think of a car cruising down Rodeo Drive or crusing by the beach in Miami I think Viper or Lambo, and to some extent Ferrari with their increasingly over the top styling. 9someone at Ferrari needs to look back at the 355 and F40 for inspiration) When I think of LeMans or the Ring that is where Porsche's or GT's are easy to envision for me.

And, I much prefer the GT to the S7. Saleen's supercar is just overwrought when compared to the cheaper GT. It's like an American car maker decided to do a Lambo.

y'know,
of the cars listed, i think i would either choose the GT or the Gallardo as my top car.....

the GT because i have a passion for all things GT40 shaped.
the Gallardo because it kinda makes sense to me as an everyday car.
if i had to choose a car to own if these two, it'd be the Gallardo.
in Blue metallic.

the main reason for not chosing the others is not that I don't like them but that there are probably other cars from the makers that i'd much prefer to have.

in the case of ferrari, i'd much rather have a 288 GTO, 365 boxer or 246 Dino.
porsche GT3 (first one) appeals to me more.
i can't honestly say that the american offerings appeal to me at all.

the Gallardo, in my opinion, sits quite nicely next to an LP400 countach.....

IMHO, the Z06 is not a supercar, more like a fast sports car. A supercar has to be three things 1. Fast, 2. Expensive, 3. Built in small numbers. The only catagorey the Z06 satisfies is fast, hence I'm going to leave it be.

Now as for the rest of the cars:

F430: Fast, extremely fast for that matter, yet more usable on road than any small Ferrari that went before it, it's expensive but you certainly get what you pay for, things like an Active differential, revised sequential transmission, a beautifully crafted interior with little or no plastics and quite possibly the worlds finest engine behind you. I guess I also forgot to mention that the 360 Modena was the handling template for the Ford GT, so the F430 should be an evolution of that.

Viper Coupe: This is kind of like what a Supercar should be in a way, it's a modern day Shelby Cobra, which is why it's one of my all-time favourite cars. It's unforgiving if you push it too hard, the old one had the worlds most unergonomical interior and was uncomfortable (Can't speak for the new one), it has a monster of an engine that has enough potential to blow anything into the dust and it looks brilliant. In a way it has the perfect "Hey buddy don't fuck with me" attitude, so much so that it doesn't bother me one bit that it lacks the finesse of the Europeans.

Porsche 911 GT2: As much as I like this car, the GT3 is a better track car IMHO. I really don't have much to say about it, the 993 was much nicer and had much more character, this car leaves me cold.

Ford GT: It's the best looking, it's fast and it handles well (Though the understeer in the hammerhead corner of the Top Gear test track was alarming, but could have been how the Stig (IIRC, the real life guy behind the Stig was a would-be F1 driver) was driving it), but realistically it's a last ditch effort by Ford to try and rescue thier deteriorating brand image and try put themselves in the black ink for once. Things were much more interesting back in the late 60's......

Lamborghini Gallardo: Not a genuine Lamborghini, just a fancy Audi. Audi forgot to realise that Lamborghini's are not supposed to be reliable, easy to drive and over-engineered like all the rest of Audi's cars, Lamborghini's were unforgiving harsh and brute-like and that's why everyone loved them. It's a good car, just not a good Lamborghini.


So the final ranking:

1. Ferrari F430
2= Dodge Viper SRT10 Coupe
2= Ford GT
4. Porsche 911 GT2
5. Lamborghini Gallardo
6. Chevrolet Corvette Z06

Why would you put the Z06 above the Ford GT and Viper. We have seen photos and specs but it hasn't been tested yet. I think it will be fast but not faster than the Ford GT or Viper.


Actually Manufactuer tests have claimed 1/4 Mile time of 11.7@127MPH. I feel like that time is pretty much accurate and may even be faster when looking at power to weight the Corvette (6.3) has a better power to weight ratio then both the Viper (6.9) and GT (6.309). The Corvette also has shorter gearing than the Viper. I have very high hopes for the Corvette and have no doubt it will be the better of the Viper and possibly the GT, because it was built with the intentions of beating the Viper.

To me it was very close between the Z06 and GT2, somebody mentioned that the GT2 0-60 time was 4.2 Seconds, perhaps they mistook it for the GT3 which does 0-60 in 4.2 Seconds. Motor Trend tested the 456HP 2003 GT2 at 3.8 Seconds and Road and Track tested the 2003 model at 3.6 Seconds to 60 MPH. The 2004 483HP version should be even quicker.

IMHO the Z06 will be very lucky to outrun the Viper, and does not stand a prayer against a GT. And in truth, I am glad GM is building the Z06 because this car is going to show people why the torque rating is just as important a judge of acceleration as horsepower rating.

The Zo6 has a peak hp rating the equal of the Viper and Vette. Wether actual hp is the same will have to wait for Z06 dyno runs though as the GT is seriously under-rated by Ford (nearly 100hp under-rated) and the Dodge boys sand-bagged the Viper too. That said, even with equal hp the Z06 is going to give up a lot in torque.

But, back to hp and torque rating in general though they both really tell you the same thing, but the different way they show this information gives you a better idea of acceleration accross the power curve. The Viper beats the vette on low-end torque, and the GT just slays it in this respect. Ford GT's have run as fast as 11.2 through the 1/4, I would not expect a 500hp n/a production Vette to be able to do the same.

"Porsche 911 GT2: As much as I like this car, the GT3 is a better track car ....."

and much less likely to kill you.

"Lamborghini Gallardo: Not a genuine Lamborghini......"
and for some bizarre reason, it's kinda why i like it.
as you said it's a good car and that's all i'm looking at.
personally, there are only two lamborghini's worth having and surprisingly, they're both LP400.....
as i said, the Gallardo, to me, is just a very nicely built fast car and in a ways, that's quite attractive as a package.
easy to drive it maybe but then that means being to wring every ounce of it relatively safely.

i also much prefer the look it (esp in that blue metallic i've seen) to any of the others listed
(GT not included..... but i'd probably want to get a GTD 40 or something instead of the new GT)

The F430 is up there on my list because I think it's one of the best Ferrari has done. It has a great look and it's fast, plus it doesn't have a v12. I know your not sopose to pay attention to price but for $175,000 you get F1 transmision and ceramic breaks. I think the price would have been lower but with all of these cars coming out that are faster or almost as fast: Ford GT, Viper, and Z06 for less money they are trying to compeat more.

And I think I'll put the GT2 above the Z06. I did get it confused with the GT3. Saw a TV show with both of them a long will back and got mixed up.

IMHO the Z06 will be very lucky to outrun the Viper, and does not stand a prayer against a GT. And in truth, I am glad GM is building the Z06 because this car is going to show people why the torque rating is just as important a judge of acceleration as horsepower rating.

The Zo6 has a peak hp rating the equal of the Viper and Vette. Wether actual hp is the same will have to wait for Z06 dyno runs though as the GT is seriously under-rated by Ford (nearly 100hp under-rated) and the Dodge boys sand-bagged the Viper too. That said, even with equal hp the Z06 is going to give up a lot in torque.

But, back to hp and torque rating in general though they both really tell you the same thing, but the different way they show this information gives you a better idea of acceleration accross the power curve. The Viper beats the vette on low-end torque, and the GT just slays it in this respect. Ford GT's have run as fast as 11.2 through the 1/4, I would not expect a 500hp n/a production Vette to be able to do the same.

Sigh, if only things were so simple, look the Ferrari out guns the Viper and it has 343TQ compared to the Vipers 525TQ. The Ford GT has been tested at 11.2 only once, all the other tests of the car have placed it at mid to high 11s (I guess we should just disregard all of that).

^There is one of the big differences between American and European supercars. European cars have short stroke and run higher Rpm's. While here in America it's longer stroke by and inch in some cases. Giving it that higher torque for harder more powerful feel down low in the Rpm range.

I understand what you are saying, but the way syr74 put it, it seemed like he was saying the Viper will easily best the Corvette Z06 just because it has alittle more torque. It is never that simple, especially when you factor in the power to weight and shorter gearing of the Z06 compared to the Viper. I hope everyone understands that there is no simple formula when it comes to acceleration. If I asked which car can tow a boat the best than I'll give the edge to the Viper. But if asked which car accelerates the quicker, I'm sorry but I'm going with the car that A) has the better power to weight B) shorter gears C) was created to beat the Viper

First of all, the GT was tested at 11.2 seconds through the 1/4 mile twice, not once. And, both of those 11.2's were accomplished in production car.

Second, the majority of those high 11-second 1/4 miles times were generated by pre-production GT's, not the production car. The pre-production GT runs high 11's and the production car seems to run low 11's. Which one actually matters???

Lastly, the Viper generates more than just a "little" more torque than does the Z06. The LS7 found in the Z06 cranks out a maximum of 475lb-ft tq @ 4.800rpm. That is giving up 50lb-ft to the Viper's peak of 525lb-ft, and 50 lb-ft is more than just a little.

Not to mention the Z06 is down to making just 400lb-ft of torque at 4400rpm. That is 125lb-ft less torque at an rpm that is still 300 higher than the Viper's peak. This tells us two things. First, the Z06's torque production looks to be very, very "peaky" and not all flat. Second, even it's maximum torque is left wanting when compared to the Viper. I would hate to see your description of a large torque advantage if this is what you call a little.

Now, to be fair the Z06's 500hp at 6200rpm could be considered advantageous when compared to the Viper's 500hp @ 5600rpm.The Viper runs out of steam first in the hp dept., but this simply does not compare to an over 125 lb-ft disadvantage in torque at certain rpms. Likely, the disadvantage will be closer to 200lb-ft or more looking at how quickly the torque drops as the revs go down on the Vette.

That said the Viper does have a weight disadvantage in current production for when compared to the Z06. The Viper weighs 3,380lbs and the Z06 weighs 3,130lbs, for a Z06 weight advantage of 250lbs.

Basic math says you need a torque advantage of about 25lb-ft to overcome this (looks like the Viper has this covered ;) ), and this is using the Viper roadster weight figures. According to Doge the Viper Coupe that is soon to reach production will weigh...about what the Z06 does and have a bit more hp too.

The Z06 is using shorter gearing because it has too in order to be competitive with that peaky engine. And, I did not say the vette would not ourun the Viper, just that it would be extremely lucky to do so, and did not stand a chance against the GT. I'll stand by both of those statements.

The Porche GT does 0-60 In under 4 seconds as well, so i would put it ahead of the Z06 because the Z06 does 0-60 In over 4 seconds.
The lambo does it in just under 4 seconds as well, the viper does it in under 4 seconds, the ford does it in under 4 seconds...

^I have seen est. for the 2006 Z06 0-60 in 3.5 seconds by motor week. We realy won't know until they are out.

.....so are you guys only judging/ranking the cars by their 0-60 times and their 1/4 mile times?

.....so are you guys only judging/ranking the cars by their 0-60 times and their 1/4 mile times?


Nope, case in point.....Even though I think the Vette will not be quite as fast as a Viper GTS coupe, I would still prefer to have the Z06 in my garage given a choice between the two. I prefer the original Viper over the current model even as "over the top" as that original car was. Largely, because the new Viper just reminds me of a Vette based kit-car of the original Viper! It's like they sucked all of the soul right out of the styling.

That said, while I have never had the pleasure of driving any of the three, the GT is IMHO the only real "supercar" here. I have said before that I belive the term supercar has been thrown around too much, and while the Viper and Z06 are both awesome, they are not really super-cars.

I also think the GT is by far the best looking, and has the most chracter by a mile.

how far has america come?
Well the Ford GT .... but realistically its just an improved rebuilt old car. I'd be just as happy with one of the old ones in new condition.... actually, i'd be happier.

basically i don't think far enough, but it's nice to see the Z06 moving in the right direction, handling!

You guys are forgetting one of the best American supercars and one of the most under-appreciated, the Panoz Esperante. It uses the supercharged 4.6L DOHC motor that's in the SVT Cobra, and we know how strong that motor is. Plus it uses space-age technology to achieve a very low curb weight and optimal weight balancing. I'm not sure how it stacks up to the Viper, but I'm sure it could dust a Z06. The top of the line GTLM model isn't cheap at $125,000, but the performance is excellent.

is this only mas production cars?

if not, what about the shelby series 1

First of all, the GT was tested at 11.2 seconds through the 1/4 mile twice, not once. And, both of those 11.2's were accomplished in production car.

Second, the majority of those high 11-second 1/4 miles times were generated by pre-production GT's, not the production car. The pre-production GT runs high 11's and the production car seems to run low 11's. Which one actually matters???

Lastly, the Viper generates more than just a "little" more torque than does the Z06. The LS7 found in the Z06 cranks out a maximum of 475lb-ft tq @ 4.800rpm. That is giving up 50lb-ft to the Viper's peak of 525lb-ft, and 50 lb-ft is more than just a little.

Not to mention the Z06 is down to making just 400lb-ft of torque at 4400rpm. That is 125lb-ft less torque at an rpm that is still 300 higher than the Viper's peak. This tells us two things. First, the Z06's torque production looks to be very, very "peaky" and not all flat. Second, even it's maximum torque is left wanting when compared to the Viper. I would hate to see your description of a large torque advantage if this is what you call a little.

Now, to be fair the Z06's 500hp at 6200rpm could be considered advantageous when compared to the Viper's 500hp @ 5600rpm.The Viper runs out of steam first in the hp dept., but this simply does not compare to an over 125 lb-ft disadvantage in torque at certain rpms. Likely, the disadvantage will be closer to 200lb-ft or more looking at how quickly the torque drops as the revs go down on the Vette.

That said the Viper does have a weight disadvantage in current production for when compared to the Z06. The Viper weighs 3,380lbs and the Z06 weighs 3,130lbs, for a Z06 weight advantage of 250lbs.

Basic math says you need a torque advantage of about 25lb-ft to overcome this (looks like the Viper has this covered ;) ), and this is using the Viper roadster weight figures. According to Doge the Viper Coupe that is soon to reach production will weigh...about what the Z06 does and have a bit more hp too.

The Z06 is using shorter gearing because it has too in order to be competitive with that peaky engine. And, I did not say the vette would not ourun the Viper, just that it would be extremely lucky to do so, and did not stand a chance against the GT. I'll stand by both of those statements.

First of all the only publication that ever tested the GT at 11.2 was Motor Trend (which has a tendency to test way fast, hint the 13.0 they got out of a 2003 EVO) and I wonder where you got the second test, please share, inquiring minds wonder where you pulled that out of your ass.

Second of all the most recent test of the GT was what a month ago by Automobile Magazine, in which they ran a 12.2 1/4 Mile time trapping in the low 120s, was that model pre-production??? No it wasn't.

Third of all I already told you that the Viper has more torque, woopie freakin' doo, are you going to sit on your bias ass and completely ignore power to f*ckin weight, shorter gears, and etc. Then by all means go ahead, but you aren't swaying my opinion with your worthless arguments of more torque always means better, which has been proven countless numbers of times to be WRONG! Please take your basic math back to school and know something about what your talking about. Where is your basic math with the Porsche that not only is quicker, but also traps higher than the Viper. Please there is nothing basic about acceleration, so STF up.

You know what, just believe what you want, all of this arguing is kind of off subject and we will see in a couple of months when the first official testing of the Z06 comes out who is right.

can't you kids ever post without being offensive?
anyway.
having a better power to weight doesn't automatically mean it's going to be better/faster.
there's still the matter of how much grip/traction it has.

the tvr T350R has more bhp/ton that an elise 111R has but it'll have a hard time beating the elise on a track.....

straight line stuff?
M coupe has 228 bhp/ton 0-60 in 4.3
M3 CSL has 255 bhp/ton 0-60 in 5 ish

The difference between 'american supercars' and 'european supercars' is the one category in which the european styled supercars don't include.....value.

Otherwise, the performance for the most part (excluding the likes of the Enzo, and Carrera GT) is pretty much on the same bar.

Mmm I Got An Article At Home Where A Porsche Turbo Beats A Skyline Gt-r A 5th The Price On A Bang For Your Back Comparison. That Sure Must Be A Nice Car!

The Difference Between Europtean Supercars And American Supercars Is The Fact That Aside From Small Consistencies Like Having Wheels, They Continue To Utilise Upcoming Technologies While U.s Vehicles Persist With The First Thing That Beat A Horse Cart Around The Farm, Two Valve Per Cyl Pushrod Front-rear Vehicles That Usually Weigh Too Much Which Hampers Their Performance Even With The Massive Displacement Of Their Engines.

Have You Noticed That When Ford Wanted To Build A Real Supercar To Beat Ferrari They Had To Resort To Being Very Unamerican? Mid Rear Euro Styled And Techno Advanced....

Latest C&D has the new Viper Coupe weighing in at 3,450 lbs, and the Z06 at 3,130 lbs. So the Corvette maintains a pretty big weight advantage over the Viper. C&D also pulled together some times for these cars. They have the Corvette doin 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, 0-100 in 7.7, and 1/4 mile in 11.7, while the Viper Coupe does 0-60 in 3.9, 0-100 in 8.5, and 1/4 mile in 12.1. I tend to doubt C&D's accuracy, especially since neither of the times are from tests, but its still better then internet speculation. Even if the times are inaccurate enough to swing towards the Viper, I believe the price difference on the Z06 will MORE then make up for it. If I had a choice between these two cars, I would definitly take the Z06.

Many Europeans laugh when people mention the Viper. "You mean that engine only gets 61hp/L" is something I've heard more then once.

As far as European supercars v. American ones, I'd say that the Americans are getting pretty close to Europe in the straights, and have a definite advantage in price, but Europeans still have a have the advantage in styling and handling. If I had the money, I would much rather one of the European cars then the American ones.

My favorites
1) Ferrari F430 (Ford makes a Ferrari killer, but this time Ferrari responded)
2) Ford GT (better then 360 Modena, but not the F430)
3) Porshe GT2 (a 997 GT2 would probably make 2nd place)
4) C6 Corvette Z06 (great car for the money)
5) Lambo Gallardo (never liked Lambo since the Countach)
6) Dodge Viper SRT10 (never liked any Viper, I'd rather a Carrera S)

can't you kids ever post without being offensive?
anyway.
having a better power to weight doesn't automatically mean it's going to be better/faster.
there's still the matter of how much grip/traction it has.

the tvr T350R has more bhp/ton that an elise 111R has but it'll have a hard time beating the elise on a track.....

straight line stuff?
M coupe has 228 bhp/ton 0-60 in 4.3
M3 CSL has 255 bhp/ton 0-60 in 5 ish

Not trying to start an qrgument, but where did you get the M3 CSL doing 0-60 in 5.0 Seconds? That is what the base M3 does, the more powerful and lighter M3 CSL is much quicker.

EVO.

i'm not sure about it myself that's why i put the 'ish'.
the M Coupe times seem to vary between mags as well, going from 4.3-5.1
i wasn't actually going to use these figures but i wanted an example of cars from the same company.
and from what i gather, the CSL isn't all that much faster in terms of pure numbers.
what it does boast is much more grip but then again, that's mostly attributed to the tyres.

BUT

if you want another type of example,
then we can always talk about how a heavier four wheel drive car can get to 60 before a rear wheel drive car even if it has the same power but weight disadvantage (i.e less bhp/ton)

check the figures for the 996 GT2 and turbo.
one has a massive bhp/ton advantage but they pull the same times.

even more skewed examples?
the gallardo is heavier but has more power, more torque, four wheel drive, and a greater bhp/ton than a 911 GT3 RS but again, they seem to pull the same times..... except on a track where the GT3 RS has a definite edge.

which goes back to the age old point.
numbers mean nothing.
it's all do to do with what you do with the numbers.

as to the thing about value.
bear in mind that value isn't just about how much it costs to buy.
cars being what they are, also have a resale value attached to them.
as of now, an old style 2003 porsche boxter S still costs more than a brand new boxter S (on order).
in a year, i don't think you can say the same for your american car of similar type.
so which one has more value?

cheap doesn't automatically mean that it has 'value'.

also, don't forget that your american cars are only cheap in the US
(cos you don't have to ship them and pay extra taxes and all that).
In the Uk, the standard C6 is listed at around £60,000;
that's more than a base carrera.

I agree with pretty much all you have said in theory, because what are you saying is just how complicated acceleration can be. Something as simple as tires can make a huge difference. A point that I was trying to make for my compadre syr74 who is stuck on this more torque automatically equals better trip.

Also when looking at acceleration numbers it always important to look at trap speeds of cars. Yes you are correct, the GT3 and Gallardo seem to be running similiar times, but the Gallardo traps at 116-118MPH compared to the GT3s 114-116MPH, so in theory the Gallardo is the faster car.

but i think the GT3 can hold higher speeds through turns and corners.....
on a track, that's pretty useful.

so who's faster now?
as i and many others keep saying, numbers don't mean too much when we're trying to determine the better car.
again, something i've asked before, is the faster car automatically the better car?

as the mod pointed out, out of things such as looks, speed, handling and value what do you think is more important?

personally i think that handling is probably up there at the top and handling can't really be measured in numbers,
which is why i guess the kids don't seem to talk about this much......
because they can't just give a number and 'win' the argument.

or is that me being too cynical again?

personally i think that handling is probably up there at the top and handling can't really be measured in numbers,
which is why i guess the kids don't seem to talk about this much......
because they can't just give a number and 'win' the argument.

or is that me being too cynical again?

One of the greatest comments I've ever read. I agree with you so much, handling is very hard to measure, it is no where near as simple as Skidpad and Slalom numbers. That is what makes cars like the EVO and STi so interesting, people love to compare numbers, but then realize they are a full second behind on a race course, where are your numbers now. Did anybody see the Best Motoring Video in which a stock EVO and stock Skyline stayed on a Porsche GT3's ass in a tight cornering couse, in theory, if you just look at numbers the GT3 should have left the EVO and Skyline behind, this was not the case (Although in the straights of Fuji Speedway, it was no contest, the GT3 was a monster). I hate it when people are way to simple minded, there is a hell of a lot of technology and planning that goes into these high performance vehicles from the EVO VIII, to the Ferrari F430, and to the Corvette Z06.

The Difference Between Europtean Supercars And American Supercars Is The Fact That Aside From Small Consistencies Like Having Wheels, They Continue To Utilise Upcoming Technologies While U.s Vehicles Persist With The First Thing That Beat A Horse Cart Around The Farm, Two Valve Per Cyl Pushrod Front-rear Vehicles That Usually Weigh Too Much Which Hampers Their Performance Even With The Massive Displacement Of Their Engines.

You are saying that American cars are still using the same technology when the Ford GT uses all alum. engine with DOHC. And the Z06 has an all titanium lower internals.

As I Said Ford Had To Go Unamerican... But Alloy Blocks And Heads Are Hardly New Technology. The Z06 Is The Fist Decent Corvette In A Long Time And Its Significantly Different To The Last Few Generations.... Seems Much Smaller And Better Balanced... More Euro Than American...
Incidentally... With A V8 Engine Shouldn't The Ford Be Quad Cam?

As I Said Ford Had To Go Unamerican... But Alloy Blocks And Heads Are Hardly New Technology. The Z06 Is The Fist Decent Corvette In A Long Time And Its Significantly Different To The Last Few Generations.... Seems Much Smaller And Better Balanced... More Euro Than American...
Incidentally... With A V8 Engine Shouldn't The Ford Be Quad Cam?

Firstly I would like to point out that you don't have to put a capital letter in every single word. (it just makes it weird to read :) ) As far as american brand cars (cars of the big 3), in a sense it would seem they are going unamerican, but also realize the change in consumer demand. The US market is actually begining to demand cars of different stature vs. previous models. The new trend is in. Out with the old, in with the new.

OHC engine's I would like to point out are not new technology themselves. The pushrod engine has always worked well with the Corvettes, its almost their trademark. The ZR-1 was a great attempt with a Lotus backed DOHC, but I feel the pushrod has always offered a better setup that works for the Vette.

On a side note: What I meant about the value of 'american supercars' (if thats what you want to call the Vettes, and the Vipers..) was their price point. Sure a ferrari offers a good value, but their price point is considerably more. You get quality fitted materials, precision engineering, and whichever the likes. Thats just the way they are. The Corvette has always been a value in price, so I wouldn't know what to say if their was one designed with a high degree of class.

mmm well value is dependant on price and here a corvette is comparable to a 911, and a viper, well.... so the value aspect is a lot different.

OHC might not be new, in fact its OLD, but its a lot newer than pushrod, really though cars of that stature should have variable cams...

it's good that the U.S. market seems to be cottoning on to the euro style cause seems to produce better cars, hopefully the U.S passenger car market will catch on to and we can stop seeing abominations like the taurus and lumina trying to replace decent cars in other markets... think about this for a minute, in Australia the lumina level family car car is a RWD 4 door pontiac GTO, sure it's not a corvette, but it's not a lumina! (basically Aussie cars are euro cars fitted with U.S engines...) anyway hopefully the trend keeps up and rather than protecting its domestic market, the U.S domestic market (across the range) can start building some better cars that are worth selling elsewhere, maybe one day i'll buy one.

yesterday i got to drive a supra, it's a good example of U.S trends on international cars, the steering has no feel, the car is bulky, and the wraparound dash is disfunctional, but theres heaps of space, and decent power. I'll stick to my MR2 turbo, i can feel everything, it responds dramatically from only minor input, has great balance, sure it's small, but parkings easy and i get better than 30 MPG even after putting the occasional wanker in an IROC in his place... straight line.

Here's my take on the Corvette: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sure, they could develop an all-new motor with DOHC and all the latest technology. Sure, they could develop an all-new suspension that doesn't use components that haven't seen the light of day in any other car for decades. But what would be the point? To improve 0-60 times by .2 seconds? To improve skidpad figures by .02g? You can do that with an upgraded set of tires. Meanwhile, the price of the car jumps $20,000 due to all the R&D costs, and you have a whole slew of kinks to work out of the new system. The Corvette has been using OHV since it came out, and it's been using leaf springs since the early 60's, and guess what? It's the fastest car you can buy for $50,000 hands down, it gets at least 25 MPG on the highway, and the components are so tried-and-true that they're virtually bulletproof. I don't see what anyone is complaining about.

really though cars of that stature should have variable cams...


Aaa who needs a variable cam when you have 6 liters? :lol:

You'll have plenty of torque across the rpm band, and all the sufficient power. Variable cam would just be overkill :)

First of all the only publication that ever tested the GT at 11.2 was Motor Trend (which has a tendency to test way fast, hint the 13.0 they got out of a 2003 EVO) and I wonder where you got the second test, please share, inquiring minds wonder where you pulled that out of your ass.

Second of all the most recent test of the GT was what a month ago by Automobile Magazine, in which they ran a 12.2 1/4 Mile time trapping in the low 120s, was that model pre-production??? No it wasn't.

Third of all I already told you that the Viper has more torque, woopie freakin' doo, are you going to sit on your bias ass and completely ignore power to f*ckin weight, shorter gears, and etc. Then by all means go ahead, but you aren't swaying my opinion with your worthless arguments of more torque always means better, which has been proven countless numbers of times to be WRONG! Please take your basic math back to school and know something about what your talking about. Where is your basic math with the Porsche that not only is quicker, but also traps higher than the Viper. Please there is nothing basic about acceleration, so STF up.



Alright dumbass, since the mods have seen fit to let you throw your uninformed little temper tantrum I guess it's open season.

First of all, if you had any idea what you were talking about (it is pretty obvious that you don't ), then you would understand that torque was simply one facet of the argument I presented for why the Z06 is unlikely to be faster than the Viper. However, citing a 200lb weight difference and "shorter gears" (like your ignorant ass understands the first thing about gear ratios...yeah) as the infallible reason for why the Z06 is just going to haul five kinds of ass compared to other cars demonstrates fully your total lack of knowledge regarding the finer points of this debate.

I'm going to give you a little lesson in gear-ratios and the effect they have on a given car/powertrain which will hopefully explain to you why the grown-ups around here can properly frame a debate, and you apparently cannot. A side-effect of the Vette's "shorter gearing" as you refer to it is that each gear has a lower top speed. Now, that might seem like a no-brainer to some of us, but those who have actually done some drag racing like me understand that this can be bad as well as good.

Why? Well Einstein, when a car like those discussed has a high enough top-speed in 3rd gear you might not have to shift into fourth to complete the 1/4-mile. As the drag racers around here are going to know, this potentially makes a huge difference in acceleration for two reasons. First of all shifting takes time and takes away acceleration no matter how good you are. Secondly, if the car requires a shift into fourth that usually means you will have to shift right before the end of the 1320 in cars as powerful as these.

Here you are in a car that is already feeling the effects of aerodynamics on it's acceleration no matter how "aero" it might be, and you just shifted into a gear which not only wasted some time, but also almost certainly put you into a very "tall" overall gear intended more for highway cruising and to skate the epa than acceleration. (since you like the word short so much I thought using tall here would help you absorb this through that cement skull of yours.)

Low and behold do the math on the new Z06 and guess what I found? The Viper crosses the end of the 1320 at about 122-123mph which is right about where it's 3rd gear tops out taking axle-ratio, tire-size, etc. into consideration. The Z06 on the other hand tops out at about 114mph in third gear. Now, even somebody like you can figure out that a 114mph trap speed is not going to get you through the 1/4-mile in under 12 seconds in a production car on factory rubber. This means that unless you want to cruise down a good portion of the 1/4-mile pegged against the redline you are going to have to shift. But, now you have lost time be having to make an extra shift which the viper does not need, and on top of that you are now in a gear much higher than either the Vette's or Viper's third gear.

The above is but one aspect of why I said the Vette is unlikely to outrun the Viper. I took many things into consideration including torque, weight distribution, tire size...the list goes on. And, even though I seriously doubt that there is a prayer in hell of you understanding it, things like the gear-ratio explanation above make a difference.

As far as my "biased ass" goes, I said that I would pick the Z06 over the Viper, this is of course assuming the Z06 does not have some strange and as yet unknown known flaw that I just could not live with. I am not a Viper fan, but unlike your baggy-pants, bench-racing self when it comes to speed I generally call them like I see them based on knowledge, not what my buddy with a fifty shot on his 87 Corolla told me. And put simply, the Vette would seem to have more to overcome than does the Viper to run the times people seem think it will. It may well outrun the Viper, but the information we currently have sure as hell does not point to this in any conclusive way.

Finally, Tom Lancord reported an 11.2 second 1/4-mile after having driven/tested the new GT writing for New Car Test Drive's web site. There are other instances of GT's running these times, (private owners, etc.) but if you are too stupid to even use a search feature then I am not going out of my way to find them for your ignorant, lazy ass. As far as having "pulled this from my ass" goes, when you pry your pointy little head out of yours, try and make a good debate....and stick your stfu up there instead.

Another award-winning post from syr74. :):):)

i am not biase, but i just want to say this. When a car is consider Super car, it's engine must pact the most extream technology...at the very least 100hp/L. The car must handle like if it was on rail. pull and unbelieve number of Gforce on corner. the aerodynamic that glue the car to ground. and interior that are as exoitc as possible. I and sorry to say non-of thoes american car can do this, except the ford GT.

Just because you can go fast don't make you a super car. Technology, exoticness and the quality make it super car. American i think is still very very far behind...... even the GT (lets all don't forget where they took that engine from...F-150 lighting....a truck's engine will never be a super car's engine).

I'm sorry you feel that way about the Corvette's engine, but tell me another engine that makes 400 horsepower, 400 ft-lbs of torque, and has an EPA rating of 18 city/28 highway. There aren't many.

The car must handle like if it was on rail. pull and unbelieve number of Gforce on corner. the aerodynamic that glue the car to ground. and interior that are as exoitc as possible. I and sorry to say non-of thoes american car can do this, except the ford GT.

I hate to break it to you, but the C6 Corvette goes through the slalom at 68.6 mph and pulls 0.96g on the skidpad -- and that's just the base model. The Z06 should be even more sick. And yes, I realize these numbers aren't as good as those of, say, the NSX Type R or the Ferrari F430, but take a look at the price difference. And besides, there's much more to handling than just numbers; you really can't compare cars' handling abilities over the internet, it's the kind of thing you do in-person on a road course.

Alright dumbass, since the mods have seen fit to let you throw your uninformed little temper tantrum I guess it's open season.

First of all, if you had any idea what you were talking about (it is pretty obvious that you don't ), then you would understand that torque was simply one facet of the argument I presented for why the Z06 is unlikely to be faster than the Viper. However, citing a 200lb weight difference and "shorter gears" (like your ignorant ass understands the first thing about gear ratios...yeah) as the infallible reason for why the Z06 is just going to haul five kinds of ass compared to other cars demonstrates fully your total lack of knowledge regarding the finer points of this debate.

I'm going to give you a little lesson in gear-ratios and the effect they have on a given car/powertrain which will hopefully explain to you why the grown-ups around here can properly frame a debate, and you apparently cannot. A side-effect of the Vette's "shorter gearing" as you refer to it is that each gear has a lower top speed. Now, that might seem like a no-brainer to some of us, but those who have actually done some drag racing like me understand that this can be bad as well as good.

Why? Well Einstein, when a car like those discussed has a high enough top-speed in 3rd gear you might not have to shift into fourth to complete the 1/4-mile. As the drag racers around here are going to know, this potentially makes a huge difference in acceleration for two reasons. First of all shifting takes time and takes away acceleration no matter how good you are. Secondly, if the car requires a shift into fourth that usually means you will have to shift right before the end of the 1320 in cars as powerful as these.

Here you are in a car that is already feeling the effects of aerodynamics on it's acceleration no matter how "aero" it might be, and you just shifted into a gear which not only wasted some time, but also almost certainly put you into a very "tall" overall gear intended more for highway cruising and to skate the epa than acceleration. (since you like the word short so much I thought using tall here would help you absorb this through that cement skull of yours.)

Low and behold do the math on the new Z06 and guess what I found? The Viper crosses the end of the 1320 at about 122-123mph which is right about where it's 3rd gear tops out taking axle-ratio, tire-size, etc. into consideration. The Z06 on the other hand tops out at about 114mph in third gear. Now, even somebody like you can figure out that a 114mph trap speed is not going to get you through the 1/4-mile in under 12 seconds in a production car on factory rubber. This means that unless you want to cruise down a good portion of the 1/4-mile pegged against the redline you are going to have to shift. But, now you have lost time be having to make an extra shift which the viper does not need, and on top of that you are now in a gear much higher than either the Vette's or Viper's third gear.

The above is but one aspect of why I said the Vette is unlikely to outrun the Viper. I took many things into consideration including torque, weight distribution, tire size...the list goes on. And, even though I seriously doubt that there is a prayer in hell of you understanding it, things like the gear-ratio explanation above make a difference.

As far as my "biased ass" goes, I said that I would pick the Z06 over the Viper, this is of course assuming the Z06 does not have some strange and as yet unknown known flaw that I just could not live with. I am not a Viper fan, but unlike your baggy-pants, bench-racing self when it comes to speed I generally call them like I see them based on knowledge, not what my buddy with a fifty shot on his 87 Corolla told me. And put simply, the Vette would seem to have more to overcome than does the Viper to run the times people seem think it will. It may well outrun the Viper, but the information we currently have sure as hell does not point to this in any conclusive way.

Finally, Tom Lancord reported an 11.2 second 1/4-mile after having driven/tested the new GT writing for New Car Test Drive's web site. There are other instances of GT's running these times, (private owners, etc.) but if you are too stupid to even use a search feature then I am not going out of my way to find them for your ignorant, lazy ass. As far as having "pulled this from my ass" goes, when you pry your pointy little head out of yours, try and make a good debate....and stick your stfu up there instead.

Wow dude, you wasted a lot of space to basically put out BS again. Nothing you said proved absolutely anything, I mean anybody truly reads your post can see just how completely stupid it is (it's filled with insults and proves nothing). Your one of those people who talk a lot to cover up the BS they speak. Read your most recent thread it's just crap, you proved nothing.

First of all if you do not think that shorter gears does not effect 1/4 mile drag racing, then you seriously need to stop BS everybody. Cuz your ass has never seen a drag strip let alone raced on one. If you did, 16s and 17s were norms for you right?

Second of all where the f*ck did your BS ass get the info that the new Z06 3rd gear goes to 114mph, or did you pull out of your ass, like the 11.2 new car test drive website (the absolute authority on cars). Please provide a link so that I may check out that site. You typed three or so paragraphs on made up or unsubstantiated info to prove a point, which wasn't even proven because the information your using isn't even legit. Even if it was (which it's not), still didn't prove anything other than fact that the Z06 might have to shift four times instead of three, so what? I still believe it will be faster than Viper even with a fourth shift. But like I said your info is not legit, and I would never put out info, like you do unless it has been substantiated.

Like I said, the argument is stupid because we will see in a couple of months who is right and who is wrong. I'm just amazed that you typed such a long ass post filled with utter pointless BS. What a waste of time you are.

Another award-winning post from syr74. :):):)

Award winning, what a bunch of BS and insults? Please I hope you find another person who is atleast knowledgeable to become a groupie for.

sry74- I went to new car test drive website, and funny thing, no where in the story by Tom Lankard (correct spelling of his last name) does he mention a 11.2 1/4 mile time for the Ford GT, so I was right, you are pulling things out of your ass.

His post seemed pretty knowledgeable to me, seeing as how you don't have an answer for anything he posted; all you can do is say "I'm right, you're wrong". Prove it. And you insulted him first.

guys, settle down a bit, it's getting a bit "spirited" in here.

Wow dude, you wasted a lot of space to basically put out BS again. Nothing you said proved absolutely anything, I mean anybody truly reads your post can see just how completely stupid it is (it's filled with insults and proves nothing). Your one of those people who talk a lot to cover up the BS they speak. Read your most recent thread it's just crap, you proved nothing.

First of all if you do not think that shorter gears does not effect 1/4 mile drag racing, then you seriously need to stop BS everybody. Cuz your ass has never seen a drag strip let alone raced on one. If you did, 16s and 17s were norms for you right?

Second of all where the f*ck did your BS ass get the info that the new Z06 3rd gear goes to 114mph, or did you pull out of your ass, like the 11.2 new car test drive website (the absolute authority on cars). Please provide a link so that I may check out that site. You typed three or so paragraphs on made up or unsubstantiated info to prove a point, which wasn't even proven because the information your using isn't even legit. Even if it was (which it's not), still didn't prove anything other than fact that the Z06 might have to shift four times instead of three, so what? I still believe it will be faster than Viper even with a fourth shift. But like I said your info is not legit, and I would never put out info, like you do unless it has been substantiated.

Like I said, the argument is stupid because we will see in a couple of months who is right and who is wrong. I'm just amazed that you typed such a long ass post filled with utter pointless BS. What a waste of time you are.

The calculations for top speed in each gear are a simple calculation based on red-line rpm, axle ratio, gear ratio, and tire size. No magic here just math..................you do know what math is right? The only thing worse than an irgnorant ass is somebody who is so ignorant that they don't even know they are an ignorant ass.

And here is the link for the GT acceleration times since you apparently really cannot use the search feature. JBC car pages uses a lot of New Car Test Drives articles, (see the new car test drive logo at the beginning of the article?), but they include better specs from the tests. Look and what do we see?....virtually identical acceleration times to what Motor Trend found. However, they actually got the car to hold quite a bit better on the skidpad, but they didn't quite get as much top speed out of it.

This shows consistency in the vehicle's acceleration when driven well, if not it's handling between these two magazines which further proves my point. btw, Motor Trend actually drove a GT to two 11.2 second 1/4 mile times on different occasions. Do want me to find that for you as well. :rolleyes:


http://ford.jbcarpages.com/GT/2005/index4.php

It's Interesting That This Is All Comparing "supercars" When I'd Say That The Cars We Are Talking About Are High End Sports Cars But Definately Not Supercars. Although The 1/4 Mile Times Might Suggest Otherwise, Theres Definately More To A Car.
11.2 On A Quarter Is Faster Than Some Times I've Seen For The Mclaren F1, I Guess There Is A Lot More To A Supercar Than 400m. Oh And The Bmw V12 Used In The F1 Was Also In A Truck, Well An Suv, The X5 Lemans, Aparently It Really Is A Supurb Engine For A Range Of Uses. I Know I Know Price.... But We Can't All Have Supercars Can We? Lets Not Pretend.

It's Interesting That This Is All Comparing "supercars" When I'd Say That The Cars We Are Talking About Are High End Sports Cars But Definately Not Supercars. Although The 1/4 Mile Times Might Suggest Otherwise, Theres Definately More To A Car.
11.2 On A Quarter Is Faster Than Some Times I've Seen For The Mclaren F1, I Guess There Is A Lot More To A Supercar Than 400m. Oh And The Bmw V12 Used In The F1 Was Also In A Truck, Well An Suv, The X5 Lemans, Aparently It Really Is A Supurb Engine For A Range Of Uses. I Know I Know Price.... But We Can't All Have Supercars Can We? Lets Not Pretend.


There is obviously more to a supercar than acceleration. However, there is really no perfect litmus test for what makes a car a super-car and what does not as you obvoiously know. Maybe the truest definition of a super-car I know of is a car in which the company used every resource pheasible to build the fastest car they could muster up.

By that standard none of the above would qualify, and only the GT even gets close. In that rarified air only cars like the Mclaren F1, Porsche 959, and Ferrari Enzo qualify.

This shows consistency in the vehicle's acceleration when driven well, if not it's handling between these two magazines which further proves my point. btw, Motor Trend actually drove a GT to two 11.2 second 1/4 mile times on different occasions. Do want me to find that for you as well. :rolleyes:




Again with the changing story. Who cares, this argument doesn't matter, we will see in a couple of months who is right and who is wrong. It's like arguing about who has the best football team, when they play we find out. Please stop with the math equations, you look even dumber.

His post seemed pretty knowledgeable to me, seeing as how you don't have an answer for anything he posted; all you can do is say "I'm right, you're wrong". Prove it. And you insulted him first.

Still a groupie, sad, answer for what, BS. Please like I said anybody can spout BS, I guess I can include you in that group. Which questions of his did you want me to answer, the fact that he is making stuff up and pulling it out of his ass.

His link is to another page for the GT, and who the f*ck said they even tested the GT at 11.2. No where in the article does it say they hit 11.2, dude this guy is making sh*t up. They could have simply used the time from Motor Trend which got the exact same time. You see I take the time to read articles unlike this dumb ass. Enough, were off subject, I refuse to argue with people who make sh*t up.

First of all if you do not think that shorter gears does not effect 1/4 mile drag racing, then you seriously need to stop BS everybody. Cuz your ass has never seen a drag strip let alone raced on one.

Alright, lesson two on why "shorter gears" are not always better. A very good friend of mine has a Supra Turbo (MkII) with a fair amount of upgrades done to it. Right now, he is at about the 400hp mark, but even after a dyno run the numbers are not exact changes because he is always trying something new.

That said, his combo is particularly torquey even at the low end. As a amtter off act he made more peak torque last time I watched him dyno his cfar than hp, whhc would not be unusual except it was nice and flat from about 1500rpm to about 4000rpm. Factories do this all the time, but it is rare to see an modified/aftermarket turbo setup set up exactly this way. In truth, he came upon this combo by accident, but he liked it so much he has built around this setup now.

Now, on to the point, if you have ever driven a MkIII Supra you will have noticed that first gear is intended to help a 210hp turbo car with the expected lag accelerate better in the low end. Well, this works great, except that by the time you have a 400hp/400+ lb-ft tq car running through this first gear one word comes to mind.....useless.

Even on cheater slicks the car just wont hook up like it should with the rear tires just rolling in smoke more often than not. And, I have never driven another car where you have to shift so quickly after the initial launch either. It does not matter how well you drive the car, it is always faster launching out of second gear than first.

That deep first gear ratio really helped move this car out of the hole at 210hp, and was still useful even when it was making more like 300hp. Once that torque got up there a bit more however, it became nothing but a nuisance. In another car with a different style of power delivery they might work great, but not here.

As I tried to explain to you earlier, wether or not "shorter gearing" helps has a lot to do with the way that power is delivered. In cases like the Ford GT and the Viper, when run on street tires the potential added acceleration gained by shorter gearing is often more likely to make the tires go up in smoke than it is to make you go down the track.

Your posts continually demonstrate that you don't know much about cars in general. Yet somehow, you really think nobody around here sees this and that you can fake it. You can't kid, when somebody knows what they are talking about it shows and others who know immediately recognize it ...and it is blatantly obvious that you don't know.

No crime in that, but it is pretty pathetic that you keep trying to fake it. Your posts read like a cut and paste of the latest issue of Import Tuner. This is like learning a foriegn language, you simply will not ever fully understand it by reading about it. Sooner or later you have to do it to gain a real, working knowledge of why things are the way they are.

His link is to another page for the GT, and who the f*ck said they even tested the GT at 11.2. No where in the article does it say they hit 11.2, dude this guy is making sh*t up. They could have simply used the time from Motor Trend which got the exact same time. You see I take the time to read articles unlike this dumb ass. Enough, were off subject, I refuse to argue with people who make sh*t up.

Well, as I was once an English major and can tell you that for them to have "borrowed" this from Motor Trend without proper credit could resort in some very serious legal ramifications for no real gain...well lets just say I am going to give them more credit for being smart than I give you. ;) Secondly, all the results in this are not the same as in Motor Trend so if it is not there own stuff they indeed just "made it up"

Lastly, this was written for New Car Test Drive just as I orginally said that it was and is very easy to find for those with an IQ higher than their shoe size. But, sure I could see how they would give NCTD credit to avoid legal ramifications, but then not give credit to Motor Trend for perfromance numbers they supposedly borrowed, but then misquoted.......roflmao

I can see the vast global conspiracy emerging to prove you wrong, everyone is in on it. Hell, aliens could be doing the testing for all these cars magazines as most times they don't explicitly claim to have tested the car themselves or even on that day. Maybe we should have them all revamp to meet your stingent standards.

You get more out there every time you post. Has it ever occured to you to keep your mouth shut and let other people think you are stupid rather than open it and prove them right?

Performance*

0 - 60 mph [secs] 3.3
0 - 100 mph [secs] 7.4
1/4 mile [secs at mph] 11.2 at 131.2

Top Speed [mph] 200
Lateral acceleration [g] 0.99

Fuel Economy [City/Hwy in mpg] 14 / 21

Hmm, a list of specs from the site where accleration is the same as MT found, but not skidpad, top speed, or even mpg.

More evidence of the vast conspiracy...lol

I'm suprised to see nobody took vehicle aerodynamics into consideration. Lets not forget that drag is proportional to the cd, frontal area, and the square of speed. A car going 120mph will have 4 times the drag of a vehicle moving at 60mph. Another factor associated with aerodynamics is lift. Lift results from a negative pressure resulting in the varying speeds of air flowing above and below the vehicle. A good cd will only go so far until you need to compensate for the adding lift at speed. To keep a car 'glued' to the ground you need to create some downforce. Things such as adding a wing help keep the rear end on the ground. You have air dams, ground effects, smoothing of the undertrays, diffusers. These all help smoothen the flow of air producing downforce and limiting lift, but this all comes at a price (usually an increase in overall cd). So to sum it up, trying to achieve the lowest cd possible and maintain highspeed stability will help determine how much hp you will actually need to go a specific speed.

A stock C6 has a cd of .28 vs. the .34 on the Z06. So theoretically the standard C6 has less drag to fight against, but the Z06 upped the cd in order to maintain stability at higher speeds. I tell you its a cat and mouse game! :)

Things such as weight distribution and layout also change the aeodynamic features of a vehicle. So everything needs to be accounted for when designing the best workable setup. MR, RR cars have more weight in the back giving them an advantage against FR, FM vehicles against rear end lift (which is a serious spot for lift). This only further shows the dynamic differences in different layouts.

This is pretty basic, but I hope it helps anyone out. There are a ton of variables involved so this isn't what I would call concrete and sound (since I am not an engineer).

So, which car will be faster? Heck I don't know? My almighty biased wisdom is telling me it will be the Z06 :lol: .

Well, as I was once an English major and can tell you that for them to have "borrowed" this from Motor Trend without proper credit could resort in some very serious legal ramifications for no real gain...well lets just say I am going to give them more credit for being smart than I give you. ;) Secondly, all the results in this are not the same as in Motor Trend so if it is not there own stuff they indeed just "made it up"

Lastly, this was written for New Car Test Drive just as I orginally said that it was and is very easy to find for those with an IQ higher than their shoe size. But, sure I could see how they would give NCTD credit to avoid legal ramifications, but then not give credit to Motor Trend for perfromance numbers they supposedly borrowed, but then misquoted.......roflmao

I can see the vast global conspiracy emerging to prove you wrong, everyone is in on it. Hell, aliens could be doing the testing for all these cars magazines as most times they don't explicitly claim to have tested the car themselves or even on that day. Maybe we should have them all revamp to meet your stingent standards.

You get more out there every time you post. Has it ever occured to you to keep your mouth shut and let other people think you are stupid rather than open it and prove them right?

I'm just pointing out the fact that they never mentioned doing any acceleration tests, and plenty of websites use others publicated tests, sh*t we both are doing that right now. No more arguing, we will see in a couple of months.

Performance*

0 - 60 mph [secs] 3.3
0 - 100 mph [secs] 7.4
1/4 mile [secs at mph] 11.2 at 131.2

Top Speed [mph] 200
Lateral acceleration [g] 0.99

Fuel Economy [City/Hwy in mpg] 14 / 21

Hmm, a list of specs from the site where accleration is the same as MT found, but not skidpad, top speed, or even mpg.

More evidence of the vast conspiracy...lol

Come on dude, your gonna sit here tell me that both Motor Trend and your so called authority on cars web site tested the Ford GT with identical times. Please do not be so ignorant. Go on people, believe this BS if you want, I'm not fooled, and in a couple of months when they start testing the Z06 we will see.

Performance*

0 - 60 mph [secs] 3.3
0 - 100 mph [secs] 7.4
1/4 mile [secs at mph] 11.2 at 131.2

Top Speed [mph] 200
Lateral acceleration [g] 0.99

Fuel Economy [City/Hwy in mpg] 14 / 21

Hmm, a list of specs from the site where accleration is the same as MT found, but not skidpad, top speed, or even mpg.

More evidence of the vast conspiracy...lol

As for the specs not matching up it is a little weird that 0-60 did but noting else, but you have to consider that they are not tested in the same place like skidpad could be efected if it was on fresh concreat for one and old ash fault for another. Wouldn't it be true there would be less grip one the old ash fault? And for top speed also depends on the tracks like a read Jay Leno said he got to test it at the Ford proving grounds and got up to 214Mph (before it was governed) and MT tested it at 200.1Mph (the car is governed at 205Mph). I think that the Ford GT would be a little faster in acceleration if they put a little bit of traction control on it. Or it might not be who knows.

There is alot of inconsistancy between magazines if in the same magazines. Some time they'll same one number and another time they say something else. It probley depends on how much the company give them in advertising. :lol:

And for drag on a car in MT they tested the Enzo, Ford GT, and Carrera GT and at 200Mph the Enzo had 837 lbs of drag. The Ford GT had 874 lbs, and the Carrera GT had 889 lbs of drag. Just some info.:)

Which questions of his did you want me to answer, the fact that he is making stuff up and pulling it out of his ass.

He's given two perfectly legit examples in which taller gearing helped a car go faster, but you haven't done anything to defend your side except accuse him of BSing, accusations which he soundly thwarted. I'm only being a "groupie" for him because you're being a rude, arrogant asshole, and I don't like people like that. You started the insults, and then your simple-minded logic got taken apart, so just quit now.

And for drag on a car in MT they tested the Enzo, Ford GT, and Carrera GT and at 200Mph the Enzo had 837 lbs of drag. The Ford GT had 874 lbs, and the Carrera GT had 889 lbs of drag. Just some info.:)

the reason why the downforce is greater on the GT and the Carrera GT then the Enzo is because the Enzo has a active aero system. the car will adjust its aerodynamics to reduce drag from around 180mph + to achieve a higher top speed. so of course at 200mph it will have less drag. that is also why it has a considerable higher top speed.

jut so you know for future use....

ash fault=asphalt

^lol ya I had a hard time trying to find how to spell that and never got it right. Darn schools.:lol

...don't worry about it.....
i mean, i got a typo in that post too......
just thought it'd be good to 'correct' you before somone picks on it vindictively.

He's given two perfectly legit examples in which taller gearing helped a car go faster, but you haven't done anything to defend your side except accuse him of BSing, accusations which he soundly thwarted. I'm only being a "groupie" for him because you're being a rude, arrogant asshole, and I don't like people like that. You started the insults, and then your simple-minded logic got taken apart, so just quit now.

You see that's where you are wrong, yes I did say taller gearing does make a car go faster, but the question was acceleration, and I'm sorry but a 1/4 mile drag race is a test of ACCELERATION. Now that is one example, where is the other? You see it's trouble arguing when people like you and syr74 completely skip the points and go onto something else such as top speed or competely change your stories, or skirt the facts into your favor. You know what, what ever, thank you and syr74 for ruining my thread. In a couple of months we will see, and kman10587 for once in your life be your own man.

Well, first you said this:

Third of all I already told you that the Viper has more torque, woopie freakin' doo, are you going to sit on your bias ass and completely ignore power to f*ckin weight, shorter gears, and etc.

And then you said this:

You see that's where you are wrong, yes I did say taller gearing does make a car go faster, but the question was acceleration, and I'm sorry but a 1/4 mile drag race is a test of ACCELERATION.

You clearly said in the first post that the Viper's torque advantage is offset by the Z06's shorter gearing, and now you're saying that taller gearing will make a car go faster in the quarter mile. Don't accuse syr74 of changing his story when you're doing the exact same thing.

And since when is a quarter mile a test of acceleration? It's a test of how fast you can cover a quarter mile length track, and if you have to compromise acceleration a little bit by lengthening your gears to get down the track faster, so be it. If a quarter mile run was a test of acceleration, then I guess that Supra that syr74 talked about should have started in 1st gear, since it gives better acceleration than starting in 2nd gear...wait a second, that didn't help him at all, it slowed him down because he was smoking his ass off.

i see you guys calmed down a bit
lets not get to out of hand


and i thought they ran the ford gt at the fastest 11.6?

i need to catch up on the super car scene

You see that's where you are wrong, yes I did say taller gearing does make a car go faster, but the question was acceleration, and I'm sorry but a 1/4 mile drag race is a test of ACCELERATION. Now that is one example, where is the other? You see it's trouble arguing when people like you and syr74 completely skip the points and go onto something else such as top speed or competely change your stories, or skirt the facts into your favor. You know what, what ever, thank you and syr74 for ruining my thread. In a couple of months we will see, and kman10587 for once in your life be your own man.

You really just don't get it do you. The Supra I mentioned has to start shifting out of first gear before the sixty foot mark if that is the gear you start it in....well before actually. And, most of first gear is spent either smoking, or on a good running just hazing the tires. When you are smoking the hides that is forward motion wasted.

First gear is a shorter gear than second is in every car I know of, that is a fact. If acceleration always improves with shorter gearing then this car should be faster when launched in first. However, shorter gears don't do a damned thing to help acceleration if you are producing so much torque that you have to shift out of the gear before you even hook up in it! If you had done some drag racing instead of drag reading then you would know this.

Very torquey cars like the Viper and the GT likely cannot use a shorter gear to their advantage because they are just gonna smoke the hell out of the hides instead of getting any faster. Add that into the extra shifting you will liekloy have to do so that you could get those "deeper" gears and you can see where this takes you.

The Vette could make use of shorter gearing due to it's relatively high/peaky torque curve. But, to act like this would be a huge advantage for the Vette is ridiculous. To think that then you have to assume that the Viper and GT would also benefit from having lower gears than they do, and the manner in which their motors deliver that power makes that unlikely especially on street tires.

And, your comment that we were "discussing top speed" further shows that you do not understand what torque is, or how it is related to acceleration and hp. Torque is an engines ability to work, hp is an engines ability to do work over time. It might be easier to think of it like this..... imagine torque is how hard you punch, and hp is how many times you can throw a punch in an hour. That is essentially how hp and tq are related.

That said, I have never changed my story. It has remained the same since I began posting in this thread. Likely, you thinking I changed my story has more to dso with the fact that you simply do not understand what I am saying than anything else. The fact that you did not know that top speed in a gear can be calculated by using tire daimeter, axle ratio, and the gear ratio is kind of surprising. It's nothing more than basic Algebra. Half the guys on the forum can do the same thing I did.

I also don't have time to argue with you over topics you don't yet understand as classes started for me today. If you want to choose to continue to be ignorant and call everyone who proves you wrong or embarasses you because you are ignorant on a particular issue a liar then you are likely to have a good long life picking up cans on the side of the road. If you decide to open you mouth less, and your ears a lot more, you just might learn something.

And actually, as for the "deeper gearing" argument we were both wrong. I was wrong about what top speed was in each gear because Chevy changed the gearing for the Z06 which has not been in any press realeases that I have seen. You were wrong about the Z06 having significantly deeper gears, because again Chevy is not using the same tranny gear-ratios in the Z06 that they used in the standard C6. Or, at least it would appear they are not doing so because I stumbled accross a press release that noted a much higher first gear ratio than the standard C6 has. That said, by the time you factor this in with the axle ratio the drive-ratio in first gear works out to be about what the Viper's is.

Did you pull the Z06's supposedly shorter gearing out of your ass? It's apparently not actually the case, so can we assume now that you just made this up and are full of warm, brown, squishy stuff? The differene between the above statement and mine is I brought evidence of my statement that you chose not to believe. Lets see evidence of the Z06's significantly shorter gearing there slick. Show me anything on it. But remember, we need to see transmission ratios and axle ratio as this is what determines the real gear ratio and wether or not the car has steeper gears.

And now that I think of it, if lower gear ratios would absolutely make the car accelerate faster why on earth would Chevy change them out for higher ratios? Surely they would not do something to make the C6 accelerate slower would they? And, increased top speed is not the answer as this body and this motor are going to run into drag related problems up there before they seriously get hampered by gearing. Just some food for thought there.

So anyways does anyone think that different types of sufaces the cars are tested on could make a difference of.09g on a skidpad. Or also the different size of the skidpad like ford example a 400 foot slalom vs. a 600 foot slalom.

don't think the size of the skidpan would do much, temperature, tyres, surface... could all change the skidpan value. don't know how much by though.

how far has america come?
Well the Ford GT .... but realistically its just an improved rebuilt old car. I'd be just as happy with one of the old ones in new condition.... actually, i'd be happier.

basically i don't think far enough, but it's nice to see the Z06 moving in the right direction, handling!
do a little research before posting. gt is notbased on gt40 of 1960s. the only thing gt has common with it is the design. as i believe the gt40 had 7 liter v8 while this gt has 5.4L V8 with dry sump lubrication. and alumunium bdy. vette has titanium connecting rods and magnasium engine cradel. america has moved much further than before and new products are proof of that. from ur name i guess that u only like toyotas....

yep the concept is completely different... the old one was specifically designed for racing and performance, this one was designed for the road. and they look entirely different!! you have to acknowlege though that the new vehicle was designed to take advantage of the reputation the GT40's got like 40 years ago, and there has been nothing in that line in the 40 years since...

My name is cause i own a toyota, and i think their current line-up is crap! but hey i like cars that are reliable and have good build quality, and i don't have the cash for a nice BMW or Porsche.

i have to say that i was pretty dissappointed with the c6 z06 design, its easily the ugliest car of the group, or the least attractive. i saw it at the auto show, and it didnt look all that good in my opinion, i thought the rear fender flares were ugly, it didnt look like it even matched up with the body.

all the other cars are designed well in my opinion, they look right to me, although i might not find them all attractive, at least there isnt any akward looking designs that doesnt look like it matches up.

do a little research before posting. gt is notbased on gt40 of 1960s. the only thing gt has common with it is the design. as i believe the gt40 had 7 liter v8 while this gt has 5.4L V8 with dry sump lubrication. and alumunium bdy. vette has titanium connecting rods and magnasium engine cradel. america has moved much further than before and new products are proof of that. from ur name i guess that u only like toyotas....


do not bring back old threads. Locked.