z06 vs modena

[VenomInMyVeins]

How much is a z in norway? And what about a modena? I'm guessing that a modena's still going to be a good 125 even in europe... and a z if it's 56k here.. it's prolly what.. 65-70 there? 0-60 does have to do with a car's performance on the track... if a car can't accelerate worth a damn, then how's it going to get out of a corner quickly? to fully understand a car's acceleration of course you need to look at more than 0-60.. that's why most people examine 0-30 all the way to 0-120 or so.. but we don't have the data for all of this, so 0-60 is a number most people use to judge acceleration. The 1/4 mile is also another way to judge acceleration.. and that is posted as well. And a good lap time in a hard course can be an indicator of good handling. Of course a good lap time is a combination of a lot of factors including acceleration, skidpad, handling, gear ratio's, power, torque.. but without very good handling none of the others matter. A car w/ the rest set up right, but the handling sucks is what we like to call a dyno queen.. or a drag car. And modena, and z06 are neither of these

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

That neither proves nor disproves either point. Look, believe what you like, I'm going to stick with what makes more sense and until the SAE puts up an article telling me i'm completely wrong, that' how it's going to be. Don't however, assume you're correct, I simply can't find any websites (cause we know they're always right) saying what everyone already knows, OHV is a pushrod design where OHC is an overhead cam design.

Fine by me.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

They made 900 HP because they ran much higher compression ratios and had quite a bit of displacement on the LS6. I've never seen any flow benches on these heads though if you can find one I'd be indebted to you, I've been wondering how well the ford cammer heads flow for a while now.

Yeah, I would love to see some results from a flow bench on both those heads as well. However; I should point out that the Cammer with the SOHC made about 650HP and the Hemi DOHC made 900HP. Then again, since they were very limited I guess they were poor examples.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

lol, more parts don't mean more friction now? no, not diectly, but considering the parts added to a DOHC setup (mostly the 3 cams, rockers and springs, which ARE high friction pieces) it's fairly obvious which has more frictional loss. It's seeing twice the spring load, transferring power through twice as many rockers and has 4 times the cam bearing contact area, there isn't getting around that friction.

Exactly, more moving parts does not ALWAYS mean more friction. You have to look into the design of the parts as well, not just how many there are.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

Valve overlap? what, you're going to take your chain/belt off and change the timing gear settings? that's EASILY as involved as changing a cam on a pushrod engine seeing as how you have 4 gears to adjust and all I have to do is take a few covers off and slide the cam out. A pain yes, but not impossible, and if you spec the cam right the first time you won't HAVE to change it, so where's your point here?

My point was that changing a cam isn't cheap while changing the timing is free if you know what you're doing. Also, to the amateur mechanic changing the timing would be a lot easier than changing a cam.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

OHC engines over OHV ones, with no real proof of either being better.

Why do I have to prove they are when it is my opinion? I never stated that they were for a fact. That is my opinion, which I have stated plenty of proof as to why I think they are better.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

When did the 360 come out? the Z06's chassis was designed in the mid to late 90's, whch makes it pretty damn old.

GM has MUCH, MUCH more money to throw into R&D, and they have a much larger engineering department which is capable of some of the best designs around, if htey're allowed. GM chose to let them design the corvette instead of the bean counters this time, and it shows. Ferrari's design team is very talented, anyone saying otherwise is a fool, but that doesnt mean everything that they make is better.

First off, I already told you that you can't write off the Modena as old technology because it was designed in 1997. The car that holds the record on your precious Nuremberg ring is by far older than either of these cars. Also, like I said, Lotus has some old platforms that still hold against some of the newest; so don't use age as an argument point because it holds no water.

Second, GM might be one of the largest corporations in the world, but that doesn’t mean they have more money. I would be willing to bet that Ferrari has more money than Chevy does. Remember that Chevy is simply a division of GM and has a certain budget they don’t share all of GMs earnings. Ferrari on the other hand can focus earnings wherever they want to and with how much they can afford to pay Ralph, I would bet it is A LOT.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

Here's my problem with your entire argument, I'm well aware that an enzo or a mclaren would beat a Z06. BUT, you have no professional laptimes, nor did you place a few reasons WHY. In this case, it's not so necessary as the enzo is a completely different type of car, but with the 360 the lines are close to the point where simply saying the ferrari name will not get you anywhere.

If you were “well aware” then why did you make the statement that the Z06 could run with the finest sports cars? That would include cars like the F1, the Enzo, the Zonda, and the Mosler. I don’t post lap times because they are worthless and you seem to think they are the holy grail of handling. Yet the lap times you do post hold no water because they are run on a track were there is no sanctioning body to make sure cars are completely stock, the weather conditions might have been different because they were run on different days, and to top it all off they were all run with different drivers. They are meaningless and have no reflection on how much better one car on the track is over another. My problem with your argument as that is ALL you have to back it up and even those I have to take your word on, you have no proof. At least my crap in Motor Trend can be seen by others.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

You didn't provide jack for technical backing and I didn't retort with any because there wasn't a technical argument going on. If you're going to claim that the Z06, which has proven itself on the track, is inferior you better come up with a reason why. I.E.- It's suspension can't control camber over rough roads (which it can, perfectly) or it has a poor weight distribution (which it has a closer to 50/50 then the 360) or it's suspension doesn't have enough travel or camber control through it's travel, or it has large amounts of bodyroll, etc.

I already posted why I think the Z06 is inferior, and I never said that I think the Modena would murder it on the track. I simply think that since the Viper beats the Z06 on the track that the Z06 can’t beat the Modena on the track, stock for stock, because I don’t think the Viper can beat the Modena on the track either.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

Having personally witnessed a bone stock 2003 Z06 run a 12.3 @ 118 MPH, that I rode down to the track in, know the owner as he's my good friend and well aware that the car is bone stock, I really don't need to go find a magazine as they won't be able to reproduce that time. I couldn't find a magazine that will do much better then that time, even though I know the cars could, so whichever, we'll work with it, again what does that prove? I hope youre not sticking with the "it has more torque so it should be faster" bullshit.

The thing I love here as that you simply expect me to believe that because you said so, something you mocked me for. I am not saying that the Z06 isn’t faster in the straight line, because it is, but it isn’t that much faster like some people are making it out to be. These seem to be the only numbers that you can prove to me.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

No, actually I did. The SRT-10 brakes better, turns as well and has a large acceleration advantage, it would beat a Z06 around a track. Also, C6-R driver? I'm not poking at any typos, I'm jsut curious if anything new has been announced about the C6-R program, the last I saw they were sticking with the current C5-R drivers.

Sorry, I don’t know why I said C6-R, Justin Bell is a C5-R driver.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

Uh, actually they were driven by their respective companies representatives, the porsche driven by a winning lemans driver and the Z06 by a test engineer. How does having different drivers prove ANYTHING? It doesn't, its one more attempt for you to bullshit your way out of the fact that the Z06, driven by someone who can operate it to it's full potential, out lapped a 911 driven by someone who took it to it's full potential. Having the same driver would have done nothing but hurt the times, end of story.

Having different drivers is a huge deal. One driver’s ability can far exceed the others. This is not a fair test as the results are unbalanced. Also, You keep talking about this and you have NO PROOF. This is just something I have to take your word again like in EVERY argument anyone has ever had with you.

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

Sorry, but all you've proven is you can sit there and tell me the ferrari is a better can because you say so, you've not shown one design flaw in the Z06's performance to discredit it's laptimes. You've blatantly ignored laptimes because they don't support your argument, yet haven't come up with replacements. Remember YOU are the one making the accusations, it's up to you to prove your point, it's not my job to prove you wrong, GM has already done so.

Once again, you’re being a hypocrite. Also, you’re having a debate with me, and the point of debating with someone is to prove them wrong, so don’t argue with someone if you don’t plan to try to prove them wrong.

Originally Posted by VenomInMyVeins

Wow.. this is getting pretty damned heated. Someone turn the hose on these boys. Chill guys, the 360 has a slower slalom time a worse skidpad worse weight distribution slower accel slower 1/4 mi time, a pricier tag, less horsepower and torque... where's the contest? Can this be over now? Or do I actually have to go find the stats on the cars again?

Modena
0-60: 4.3
1/4: 12.8
400hp
275 lb-ft torque
skidpad: .96g
slalom: 67.4
top speed 189

Z06
0-60: 4.2
1/4: 12.5
405 hp
400 lb-ft torque
skidpad: .98g
slalom: 70.3
top speed: 171

The only thing the modena beats the z06 in is top speed, and I don't know anyone that has run their z06 to 170mph. Can we be done with all of the arguing now? This is getting rediculous. It's totally sounding like we're in kindergarten again.

Skidpad numbers and slalom times don’t reflect true handling ability. Also we are having a discussion, not flaming each other. Why is it every time someone is having a discussion someone has to come in and tell that we’re acting like children?

Also, this is not a price debate, this is a discussion of which is the better performer, so drop it.

[justacruiser]

Wow, this has been an interesting thread.

Check these sites out:

http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/ohv_vs_ohc.htm

http://theautoindex.com/makes002.php/Engines/auto/index

THIS is an interesting site indeed:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/L...lutionpg2.html


Anyways, my .02 is, the Z06 is by far the best bang for the buck, any car that can keep up with or beat cars that cost 2-5 times as much? I'll take it. Especially since even if I was rich, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would ever spend that much money on just a car. They sure as hell didn't cost that much to build and i could spend 30,000 extra for a custom interior with sound deadening for the Z06, plus extra performance goodies. The Ferraris are cool, but way to goddamned much money for something that only amounts to an ego toy.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Wow, this has been an interesting thread.

Check these sites out:

http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/ohv_vs_ohc.htm

http://theautoindex.com/makes002.php/Engines/auto/index

THIS is an interesting site indeed:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/L...lutionpg2.html


Anyways, my .02 is, the Z06 is by far the best bang for the buck, any car that can keep up with or beat cars that cost 2-5 times as much? I'll take it. Especially since even if I was rich, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would ever spend that much money on just a car. They sure as hell didn't cost that much to build and i could spend 30,000 extra for a custom interior with sound deadening for the Z06, plus extra performance goodies. The Ferraris are cool, but way to goddamned much money for something that only amounts to an ego toy.

Indeed, those were some great sites, good read.

I won't argue with anyone on that point though, the Z06 is by far the best bang for the buck.

[VenomInMyVeins]

Polygon. What makes you so confident that a 360 can beat a srt-10? Stock a 360 could've beaten a generation 1 viper and probably been fairly equal if not beaten a gen 2, but the srt-10 has been moved pretty high up the totem pole.

[FYRHWK1]

Originally Posted by Deakins

#1: @ this thread...
#2: @ MT performance numbers...
#3: Price, the Z06 might be dirt cheap in the US, but the difference is not that big ever here.
#4: Whoever said the Z06 have better weight balance, how?
#5: The Z06 have not been independantly tested by any renown European car magazine agains it's competitors.
#6: How is a cars acceleration from zero relevant to a cars performance on a track?
#7: Good laptimes does not equal good handeling.
#8:

'Prove it sparky, it should be interesting'

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

Unlike you, I can actually post proof of what I read, I'm still waiting for the 7:52 murcielago lap. . .

1 & 2 arent worth my time, #3 well that's too bad, but thankfullly it means you probably won't own one. #4 because it's engine is in the front and the transmission is in the rear unlike the modena which has the entire driveline at the rear wheels. 53/47 for the Z06, 43/57 for the 360, now who's closer to 50/50?

http://www.gmcanada.com/english/vehi...html#technical

http://www.ferrari.co.nz/models/360m/

reknown european magazine? strange, we just call them toilet paper over here.

Acceleration does matter, though not as much as some say. And, if good handling doesn't equal good track times then you're either seriously underpowered or you really don't handle well.

Exactly, more moving parts does not ALWAYS mean more friction. You have to look into the design of the parts as well, not just how many there are.

There isn't any way to get around double the spring pressure, 4 times the cam friciton and double the rocker loss, an OHC setup DOES have more friction, assuming both valvetrains are built well.

My point was that changing a cam isn't cheap while changing the timing is free if you know what you're doing. Also, to the amateur mechanic changing the timing would be a lot easier than changing a cam.

That may be true, but how many amateurs truly understand overlap, and how many should be doing it? It's a very serious change, I don't think I would build a cam without talking to someone about it, let alone changing stock cams overlap.

Why do I have to prove they are when it is my opinion? I never stated that they were for a fact. That is my opinion, which I have stated plenty of proof as to why I think they are better.

Thats my mistake, I read it as you were saying they were better, not that it's your opinion, apologies about that.

First off, I already told you that you can't write off the Modena as old technology because it was designed in 1997. The car that holds the record on your precious Nuremberg ring is by far older than either of these cars. Also, like I said, Lotus has some old platforms that still hold against some of the newest; so don't use age as an argument point because it holds no water.

I never said it should be written off, I was making a point that the C5 is roughly the same age as the 360, I'm well aware that older chassis can perform well, I wouldn't have chosen a car designed in the late 70's/early 80's if I thought differently.

And by the way, Nuremburg was the place of famous world war II trials, the Nurburgring is the track.

Second, GM might be one of the largest corporations in the world, but that doesn’t mean they have more money. I would be willing to bet that Ferrari has more money than Chevy does. Remember that Chevy is simply a division of GM and has a certain budget they don’t share all of GMs earnings. Ferrari on the other hand can focus earnings wherever they want to and with how much they can afford to pay Ralph, I would bet it is A LOT.

GM is the largest maker, they also own stock in many other companies who provide parts and services, such as allison, to my knowledge the largest heavy duty automatic transmission supplier in the world, easily the largest in the US either way.

The point is that chevy is just a brand name, they're part of a massive company with money to throw around, if GM decides that they want to put their money behind it, which they obviously did, then it's not a matter of brand name. They have a certain budget? where'd you read this? Seems to me like it's up to GM to decide how much they want to spend designing a car on a singular basis.

Having different drivers is a huge deal. One driver’s ability can far exceed the others. This is not a fair test as the results are unbalanced. Also, You keep talking about this and you have NO PROOF. This is just something I have to take your word again like in EVERY argument anyone has ever had with you.

Follow my link above, a 1.9 second road course difference between the Z06 and the 911. And, if you believe me to be talking out my ass, you're welcome to prove it, when it comes to any argument.

You'll also see that both drivers were chosen by their own company, now tell em, would they choose less then the best they could find for a comparison? Sorry, your argument doesnt hold any water here.

If you think price has no meaning in a performance comparison you must either be really rich or don't plan on ever buying either car.

[vette boy02]

i love vettes and ferraris equal i just think that people need to see vettes for their potential as seen somwhere above a z06 and 360 are tight and thats the way it should be vettes, and ferrari i say to hell with the rest. ive seen some wild vettes on the road latley and an increasing number of ferraris in my area. i just dont have a thing for porsch dont get me wrong thoug.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Wow, this has been an interesting thread.

Check these sites out:

http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/ohv_vs_ohc.htm

http://theautoindex.com/makes002.php/Engines/auto/index

THIS is an interesting site indeed:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/L...lutionpg2.html


Anyways, my .02 is, the Z06 is by far the best bang for the buck, any car that can keep up with or beat cars that cost 2-5 times as much? I'll take it. Especially since even if I was rich, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would ever spend that much money on just a car. They sure as hell didn't cost that much to build and i could spend 30,000 extra for a custom interior with sound deadening for the Z06, plus extra performance goodies. The Ferraris are cool, but way to goddamned much money for something that only amounts to an ego toy.

Good sites.

[Polygon]

I just looked at that Motor Trend article and I must say that I was dissapointed that the Viper was not able to run the test with the others, but I am impressed that the Vette did manage to beat the 911.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by Polygon

I just looked at that Motor Trend article and I must say that I was dissapointed that the Viper was not able to run the test with the others, but I am impressed that the Vette did manage to beat the 911.

I would of never thought the Z06 would beat the 911 if anyone would of asked me beforehand, and yes it does suck that the Viper was not able to run the test. This only leads me to further believe in the potential of the Z06.

About that ACR, I do have a video of them comparing it to the Cobra R, and the Z06. On the coarse the Z06 outran the viper by 2 seconds, and the Cobra R by one. So by using that as a reference, maybe the Viper would of been behind both of them on the track. But its not concrete, its only a possible assumption given the different conditions.

Heres a link to the video:
http://www.brisbaneperformance.com/video.php
scroll down about 1/3, its their.

Now if this was an SRT-10, things could be different.

[VenomInMyVeins]

In the video there was no actual race by the cars, and the z06 now has more hp, and different suspension. Also I want to see an actual car comparison.. not just 0-60 times and 1/4 mi times. The driver also looks like he's driving like a c*nt. It doesn't look like he drives very agressively. I do want to say that I am a die-hard viper fan, and I do wanna see a race between the z and the viper. Anyone that has a legit vid should post it.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by VenomInMyVeins

In the video there was no actual race by the cars, and the z06 now has more hp, and different suspension. Also I want to see an actual car comparison.. not just 0-60 times and 1/4 mi times. The driver also looks like he's driving like a c*nt. It doesn't look like he drives very agressively. I do want to say that I am a die-hard viper fan, and I do wanna see a race between the z and the viper. Anyone that has a legit vid should post it.

Well its the only video i can find, and I usually prefer seeing a video over a posting in some magazine. If you can find anything better, be sure to post it.

[VenomInMyVeins]

Sorry.. I sounded like I was saying you're a cock. It's a mediocre vid, but that site is great... everyone should download the lancer video. This french guy has amazing drifts, and then he sort slides into a puddle of water, and at those speeds... Boom.. he flips like a mother

[Deakins]

Originally Posted by FYRHWK1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

And this is what? The Corvette lapped it 0.7 seconds faster, ok. But what track wast that? Final time? Limited to 120 mph top speed?

Unlike you, I can actually post proof of what I read, I'm still waiting for the 7:52 murcielago lap. . .

http://www.deakins.org/lamborghini_m...otorvision.asf

#4 because it's engine is in the front and the transmission is in the rear unlike the modena which has the entire driveline at the rear wheels. 53/47 for the Z06, 43/57 for the 360, now who's closer to 50/50?

And since when did a 50:50 front:rear weight distribution become perfect?

reknown european magazine? strange, we just call them toilet paper over here.

And the fact that most americans only speak one language might have something to do with that. Your opinion on this matter is worthless.

And, if good handling doesn't equal good track times then you're seriously underpowered...

Thank you for proving my point,.

[FYRHWK1]

Originally Posted by Deakins

And this is what? The Corvette lapped it 0.7 seconds faster, ok. But what track wast that? Final time? Limited to 120 mph top speed?


http://www.deakins.org/lamborghini_m...otorvision.asf


And since when did a 50:50 front:rear weight distribution become perfect?


And the fact that most americans only speak one language might have something to do with that. Your opinion on this matter is worthless.


Thank you for proving my point,.

You obviously didn't read the article very well, they simply had a MINIMUM 120 MPH speed to reach at one of their test tracks straightaways, whereas they required a much higher one for the tuned cars. There was no maximum speed, what do you think, they simply let off the gas if they reached it?

The track is unimportant, though if you had the magazine you would see it's a fairly decent ~1.2 mile roadcourse with plenty of different turns, and since i'm not about to scan the page, you can find that for yourself. And, for the record, the corvette finished the roadcourse a full 1.9 seconds faster, it finished the entire track, including the high speed area, 0.7 seconds faster.

There is no one perfect weight distribution, however a 50:50 distribution offers the best compromise between loading during braking and acceleration. Go ahead and prove that the 360 benefits from its rear heavy design.

It's more to do with the fact that I have more automotive knowledge in my left testicle then the collective european magazines that sets me off. If they could drop their bias and ease up on the dash grabbing, and attend a few automotive schools, I might care what they bleated out.