Top gear Vette, crossfire and CTS vids

Man they really dont like American cars do they?
awfully bad reviews and I dont think they had thier facts 100% accurate.

CTS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhqkV6iRbE0&search=top%20gear
Crossfire:
http://www.car2max.com/video/Top%20Gear%20-%20Chrysler%20Crossfire.wmv
Corvette C6:
http://www.erwindesign.com/video/Top%20Gear%20-%20Chevrolet%20Corvette%20C6.wmv

i think that corssfire is incredibly ugly.

and yes, we brits do have an anti-american ca bias. our roads aren't smooth or straight enough for american cars. and our fuel price is very high, so big engines are so good for some.

the bit with the atlas in the CTS-V one is so funny, i almost fell off the chair.

Well the bit about the leaf spring suspension on the Vette cant be right! the C6 uses Mcphearson struts in the rear!

i dunno, it's still loading.

the main reasno we don't have many american cars imported mainstream here is because we need right hand drive cars. and few american cars accomodate that.

that TVR owned the 'vette.

why wouldnt they get a zo6?

Well the bit about the leaf spring suspension on the Vette cant be right! the C6 uses Mcphearson struts in the rear!
The Corvette has a double–wishbone suspension with leaf springs. The Corvette has transverse composite springs one in the front and one back with the ends attach to the bottom wishbones. You can see the end of the spring in this picture:
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Chevrolet-Corvette-C6-rear-suspension-1024x768.jpg

The Corvette’s springs are lighter and put the cars weight lower to the ground then coil springs. Top Gear could say this, but Top Gear is going for entertainment and is more entertaining to bash the Corvette suspension as old tech then explain why the Corvette has leaf spring and that there not like the springs you find on the back of a pickup.

Also the drag race was bad driving on Hammond’s part. An NSX is not faster then a C6 Corvette in the 1/4 mile.

why wouldnt they get a zo6?
It wasn’t out yet.

yes the corvette does have leaf springs, but they are really not the same thing as you expect, as stated above. the car handles incredibly, if the suspension was so bad then the corvette wouldnt win at lemans...

I think Clarkson is just sore against the Corvette because for a third of the cost it can run circles around his precious little DB9.
seriously it runs the DB9 flat out on any track. so neener neener neeener :flipa:
and yeah they deliberatley lost the 1/4 mile run against the NSX. for fucks sake, my car runs the 1/4 mile faster then an NSX. :screwy:

i think they should've compared like-for-like with the CTS-V, the audi didn't have the same amount of pwer as the caddilac, they should've used an E39 M5.

i think they should've compared like-for-like with the CTS-V, the audi didn't have the same amount of pwer as the caddilac, they should've used an E39 M5.

yeah but even still the Audi costs much more then the Cadillac and for that its a good comparison. Its like why pay so much when a car like this for less buck will out do you.
same case with the M5.

I do like the end though where they give thier "top-gear tip".
- If your gonna buy a Cadillac, buy a Holden! :icon16:

I think Clarkson is just sore against the Corvette because for a third of the cost it can run circles around his precious little DB9.
seriously it runs the DB9 flat out on any track. so neener neener neeener :flipa:
and yeah they deliberatley lost the 1/4 mile run against the NSX. for fucks sake, my car runs the 1/4 mile faster then an NSX. :screwy:

I agreed with you up to that point... cause, no your car doesn't run faster than the NSX in the 1/4 mile. The older versions with the 3.0 liter V6 maybe, but not the last version with the 3.2 liter. They'd run in the region of 12.8 @ 107-110mph with a driver who knows his stuff.

The LS2 GTO ET's in the 13.3-13.5 range, mainly due to the weight of it and traction issues with the IRS. But they'll trap in the 107mph range just cause of the shear HP advantage over the NSX... which is obviously lighter and breed to go fast in all directions... which is why it only has two seats, has a fully aluminum chassis and was designed with F1 driver Ayrton Senna.

Anyways.. I'm not going to belittle the GTO with NSX facts... I love both the cars. They're in different classes to begin with.

It's obvious that Richard Hammond sand bagged the Corvette in the race.

I'd like to see them race the new Z06. But something tells me they'll pass it up... despite the performance/price bargin that it is.

^Are you frigging serious!
I was told by one of the techs at the honda dealership that the 3.2 ran 13.6!
12.8....thats not fucking bad at all.
shit my bad I had no idea. and yeah ive seen the older model 3.0s running kinda slow at the track.

^Are you frigging serious!
I was told by one of the techs at the honda dealership that the 3.2 ran 13.6!
12.8....thats not fucking bad at all.
shit my bad I had no idea. and yeah ive seen the older model 3.0s running kinda slow at the track.


:lol: Are you going to trust a Honda tech at a dealership? Or me...? c'monnn!!!:lol:


Nah, it's cool... the later versions of the NSX with the 3.2 were fuggin wicked... of course still rated at 280hp in Japan. I wonder what they really made. Like the R34 GTR, it was rated at the same 280hp, but in reality made upwards of 330hp.

Not to say the GTO isn't slow, they're plenty fast for a 4 seater GT car.

my friend's brother bought an R34 Gt-R totally stock, dyno'd the engine and got some 360bhp at the flywheel. it had been overhauled but not modiefied in anyway, used all genuine nissan parts.

I think Clarkson is just sore against the Corvette because for a third of the cost it can run circles around his precious little DB9.
I’m sure 50% of it is Clarkson is bitter about America cars beating British cars and the fact British car industry is almost completely dead wall the Americans are still going. The other 50% is that it is a scripted show and they rip on American cars because it plays well to there British/Europan audience.

I remember there review of the new Mustang where they ripped on it for having live-axle and bashed it’s handling even know they didn’t take it around the track to test it’s handling.

I agreed with you up to that point... cause, no your car doesn't run faster than the NSX in the 1/4 mile. The older versions with the 3.0 liter V6 maybe, but not the last version with the 3.2 liter. They'd run in the region of 12.8 @ 107-110mph with a driver who knows his stuff.
Where are you getting that number from?

Where are you getting that number from?


Well, despite it being in several magazines, you can find stock times for just about any car at http://dragtimes.com/

NSX (http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura--NSX-Drag-Racing.html) times here.
GTO (http://www.dragtimes.com/Pontiac--GTO-Drag-Racing.html?resultpage=2) times here.

Well, despite it being in several magazines, you can find stock times for just about any car at http://dragtimes.com/

NSX (http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura--NSX-Drag-Racing.html) times here.
GTO (http://www.dragtimes.com/Pontiac--GTO-Drag-Racing.html?resultpage=2) times here.
Looking at your links the fastest time I could find for the NSX stock was 12.9 listed as being from Car & Driver: http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura-NSX-Timeslip-6671.html As far as I can tell that time is a fluke. In this article (http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/1823/acura-nsx.html) C&D says the lightened Alex Zanardi version they tested ran 13.2.

Fastest stock time I could find for the GTO was this: http://www.dragtimes.com/Pontiac-GTO-Timeslip-7953.html

Looking at your links the fastest time I could find for the NSX stock was 12.9 listed as being from Car & Driver: http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura-NSX-Timeslip-6671.html As far as I can tell that time is a fluke. In this article (http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/1823/acura-nsx.html) C&D says the lightened Alex Zanardi version they tested ran 13.2.

Fastest stock time I could find for the GTO was this: http://www.dragtimes.com/Pontiac-GTO-Timeslip-7953.html


A fluke?... well a single tenth of a second isn't what I'd call a fluke. More like a variable... now if it was .2-.3 tenths then I may question it.

And the Alex Zanardi NSX was a 1999 model, which was a 3.0 motor. A bit lighter yes, but didn't have the overall grunt of the 3.2. From what I've gathered it's a night and day difference between the two motors in overall performance.

A fluke?... well a single tenth of a second isn't what I'd call a fluke. More like a variable... now if it was .2-.3 tenths then I may question it.
I’m not saying fluke as in 12.9 vs 12.8, I’m talking fluke as in most stock 3.2L NSX will run 13.3-13.4. A little slower then the 6.0L GTO.

And the Alex Zanardi NSX was a 1999 model, which was a 3.0 motor. A bit lighter yes, but didn't have the overall grunt of the 3.2.
The Alex Zanardi NSX has the 3.2L. The NSX got the 3.2L in 1997: 1998 NSX on Ebay. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998-ACURA-NSX-T-23-000-miles-Modified-Mint-Condition_W0QQitemZ4636831243QQcategoryZ5337QQssPa geNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

Hmmm... you're right the NSX did get the 3.2 earlier than I said... my bad, had a brain fart on that. For some reason I was thinking they got the bump when the new body style came about.

I should of payed more attention to my Best Motoring dvds... Tsuchiya loves his NSX's. :p

they made a Alex Zanardi edition with a 3.2 liter? whoa i never even knew that. i always thought they were like 93 models with the 3.0 liter and 5 speed.

they made a Alex Zanardi edition with a 3.2 liter? whoa i never even knew that. i always thought they were like 93 models with the 3.0 liter and 5 speed.
Hear is all the info: http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/modelinfo/zanardi.htm