z06 vs modena

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.

There is a bit of difference between static and dynamic balance.
Where do you want the weight while accelerating? Over the rear wheels right?
And where do you want it while breaking? Right again, 50% at the rear, and the other 50% at the front. It doesn't take a genious to figure out a rear heavy design will achieve better dynamic balance.
A mid engined car, like the 360, will also have more mass closer to the CG.


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.
So how many European languages do you speak?

There is a bit of difference between static and dynamic balance.
Where do you want the weight while accelerating? Over the rear wheels right?
And where do you want it while breaking? Right again, 50% at the rear, and the other 50% at the front. It doesn't take a genious to figure out a rear heavy design will achieve better dynamic balance.
A mid engined car, like the 360, will also have more mass closer to the CG.


So how many European languages do you speak?

having a static 50/50 balance is superior because of the effects of movement. You want the weight on the front wheels during braking and the rears during acceleration, how much depends on your setup and needs, a rear heavy desing is still going to want to lose the tail while entering a turn hard because of the extra lateral load placed on the rear tires.

You've no clue how far back the Z06's engine is placed in regards to it's CoG, there are many front engine designs which place the engine plenty far back in the chassis, and obviuosly the Z06's motor is fine just where it is.

None, actually.

Those Corvettes are such a piece of shit. I was drag racing one the other day and as soon as we got to 100mph his tail panel flew right off...that was so funny watching that cheesy plastic tail tumbling down the highway...what a piece of shit.

Well as far as this goes I haven't seen any evidence that would put the Modena on top as far as comparing these two on the track. Considering that everyone is so into the 'ring', the best time I could find for the 360 was an 8:09. The Z06 has completed this track in a sub 8 minute time (7:56). Other than that, I couldn't find any side by side comparison of the two. If anybody has a legit comparison between the two, be sure to post it. Now all in all we really can't state which is the better car, but we'll always be entitled to our opinions.

But I do not see how a static balance can be better than a dynamic balance. For instance if you were to balance your wheels, a static balance will correct the up/down bouncing of your wheels, whereas when your dynamically balanced, you've not only balanced the up.down bouncing of the wheels, but you've also balanced the side/side wobble of the wheels which can easily be detected by the shake of your steering wheel. Can you explain to me why it is better to be static balanced vs. a dynamic balance.

50/50 weight distribution will help you yes, but it also depends on where most of the weight is spread out, and suspension geometry and tuning. like a car with most of its weight in the middle has low inertia, look at f1 cars, they try to put all the weight near the center to help it go around a corner better. the z06 does have its engine pretty far back, and its transmission in front of the rear axle, so it does have a lot of its weight near the center, but the 360 has more of its engine and transmission near the center since its a midengined car, so it should have less inertia than the vette. i wouldnt call the modena a rear heavy car, its weight distribution isnt that far off, a porsche 911 would be considered a rear heavy car, but it still handles really good cause of good suspension tuning, and design. if you have most of the weight near the center of your vehicle it also helps braking, and acceleration.

But I do not see how a static balance can be better than a dynamic balance. For instance if you were to balance your wheels, a static balance will correct the up/down bouncing of your wheels, whereas when your dynamically balanced, you've not only balanced the up.down bouncing of the wheels, but you've also balanced the side/side wobble of the wheels which can easily be detected by the shake of your steering wheel. Can you explain to me why it is better to be static balanced vs. a dynamic balance.

Nobody is saying either balance is better, one cant be better then another, and we're not talking tire balance. It's the cars weight distribution over the front and rear tires.

nismo, less inertia? inertia is dependant on speed and weight, you can't say one car has less inertia then another because it changes with speed and even with losing weight through burning gas. Also, how could having the weight near the center help acceleration? except for traction (and having the weight near the front or back will help with traction, not near the center) weight placement has no effect on either.

Nobody is saying either balance is better, one cant be better then another, and we're not talking tire balance. It's the cars weight distribution over the front and rear tires.

nismo, less inertia? inertia is dependant on speed and weight, you can't say one car has less inertia then another because it changes with speed and even with losing weight through burning gas. Also, how could having the weight near the center help acceleration? except for traction (and having the weight near the front or back will help with traction, not near the center) weight placement has no effect on either.

lol... man,you take pyhsics at all? why dont you go learn about it. with most of the weight near the center, you basically get the best balance of acceleration, stopping, and turning. yea the corvette has good balance of 50/50 front to rear, but im saying by having more of the weight near the center with 50/50 front to rear, or near it, you get better steering response, and helps the car turn better. think of a stick with weights at the end, campared to a stick with more of its weight at the center, both 50/50 distribution. the one with more of the weight near the center will be easier to turn, or spin, than the one with the wieights at the end. think of both of them going in a straight line, then suddenly turning, the one with more weights near the center should change directions easier.

i can't believe i just went through this thread...
it's loosely veiled as a vette vs. ferrari thread, but there's so much extra...

so much of this trying to disprove someone's sources or definitions.

amazing.

i'm so sad i didn't get into this thread when it got started...
i'm so the life of these types of parties... ;)
and i know poly knows that..

lol... man,you take pyhsics at all? why dont you go learn about it. with most of the weight near the center, you basically get the best balance of acceleration, stopping, and turning. yea the corvette has good balance of 50/50 front to rear, but im saying by having more of the weight near the center with 50/50 front to rear, or near it, you get better steering response, and helps the car turn better. think of a stick with weights at the end, campared to a stick with more of its weight at the center, both 50/50 distribution. the one with more of the weight near the center will be easier to turn, or spin, than the one with the wieights at the end. think of both of them going in a straight line, then suddenly turning, the one with more weights near the center should change directions easier.

Perhaps you should take your own advice before making any comments.

You claimed the 360 would "have less inertia" and ended your sentence, you obviously dont understand inertia so I simply stated what you couldn't, that you cannot claim there is less ninertia anywhere because you do not have the speed at which they are moving, nobody does, it's constantly variable.

You get better steering response? if the wheels turn, and the car does not break traction, your car will turn as fast as you crank the wheel over, thats all there is to it. Having less weight to rotate around the center means it places less stress on the tires as they're turning, which is what you're blindly attempting to say, but it also means that there is less weight on those wheels, and weight is what gives you traction. So what helps a car turn better is properly loading all of the tires and not overcoming their grip, whether you do this with a front engine design or mid, it doesnt matter. Unless you're running a race bred car, sticking the engine in the middle behind the cabin won't give you all the magical gains you believe it will.

As for the sticks, your analogy is fairly good at describing inertia, too bad it doesn't take into account for a tires traction as well. besides that, the 360's drivetrain is not directly in the center either, it has a large amount directly above, or nearly above, the rear axle, making it a rear heavy car. Not so bad as a Porsche, but it is far from rotating evenly. The front has little traction due to the drivetrain being in the rear and the rear is loaded with weight. The Z06 places the engine up front centered at the front axle, and the gas tank & transmission at the rear, so instead of it all at the rear, there's only the transmission and tank, as to which setup has the mass placed further from the CoG, I don't know, but I'd much rather have it distributed across the whole car instead of being all placed in the ass.

Perhaps you should take your own advice before making any comments.

You claimed the 360 would "have less inertia" and ended your sentence, you obviously dont understand inertia so I simply stated what you couldn't, that you cannot claim there is less ninertia anywhere because you do not have the speed at which they are moving, nobody does, it's constantly variable.

You get better steering response? if the wheels turn, and the car does not break traction, your car will turn as fast as you crank the wheel over, thats all there is to it. Having less weight to rotate around the center means it places less stress on the tires as they're turning, which is what you're blindly attempting to say, but it also means that there is less weight on those wheels, and weight is what gives you traction. So what helps a car turn better is properly loading all of the tires and not overcoming their grip, whether you do this with a front engine design or mid, it doesnt matter. Unless you're running a race bred car, sticking the engine in the middle behind the cabin won't give you all the magical gains you believe it will.

As for the sticks, your analogy is fairly good at describing inertia, too bad it doesn't take into account for a tires traction as well. besides that, the 360's drivetrain is not directly in the center either, it has a large amount directly above, or nearly above, the rear axle, making it a rear heavy car. Not so bad as a Porsche, but it is far from rotating evenly. The front has little traction due to the drivetrain being in the rear and the rear is loaded with weight. The Z06 places the engine up front centered at the front axle, and the gas tank & transmission at the rear, so instead of it all at the rear, there's only the transmission and tank, as to which setup has the mass placed further from the CoG, I don't know, but I'd much rather have it distributed across the whole car instead of being all placed in the ass.

if you read my post again, i said it "should" have less inertia. you seem to think that im trying to compare a 360 to a z06, i did at first, but on my last post i was comparing a car with more of its weight near the center, to a car with its weight spread further apart.

as for inertia, and that weight over tires comment... do you know how to think?? how old are you? or are you not very smart? seriously, think about what you said. im not making this stuff up, go ahead and look up some info on it, or read some books about it. what you just said about no weight on top of the tires makes no sense, cause that would mean a front heavy car would oversteer based off your reasonings, cause omg, it would have insane amouts of grip with all that weight on top. it sounds retarded if you ask me. didnt you just say the cars constantly variable? did you forget the cars moving when cornering? have you ever thought about when you start turning hard, all the weight goes to the outside tires, usually most of the weight shifts to the front right tire when taking a hard left turn. if theres too much weight over the front, it will likely understeer when you overload the tires gripping limit. like i said, really think about it.

A front heavy car can still turn just as good any other car. Look at the skyline for instance, its a front heavy car, but it seems to handle very well in turns. Having more weight to your vehicle means you only need a greater force to make the car follow the curve.

Ex.
If you have two cars enter a curve, one is heavier and other is lighter, which car will most likely end up at the outside of the track? Either, the weight is only one determining variable in this concept.

For both cars to make the turn at the same speed each car will require the same force per pound of mass. This means the heavier car will need a greater force to follow the curve the same as the lighter car. The force provided by the (static) friction between the tires and the road surface given that the frictional force is proportion to the weight of the car will make the extra mass cancel out. This will allow the heavier car to corner just as well as the lighter car.

A heavier (more massive) car will have more inertia, so you will need to have a greater force to negotiate turns. It's not impossible, its only another variable that needs to be accounted for. I think that is what fyrhwk was going for with accounting the traction of your tires in inertia, because its a big factor.

if you read my post again, i said it "should" have less inertia. you seem to think that im trying to compare a 360 to a z06, i did at first, but on my last post i was comparing a car with more of its weight near the center, to a car with its weight spread further apart.

as for inertia, and that weight over tires comment... do you know how to think?? how old are you? or are you not very smart? seriously, think about what you said. im not making this stuff up, go ahead and look up some info on it, or read some books about it. what you just said about no weight on top of the tires makes no sense, cause that would mean a front heavy car would oversteer based off your reasonings, cause omg, it would have insane amouts of grip with all that weight on top. it sounds retarded if you ask me. didnt you just say the cars constantly variable? did you forget the cars moving when cornering? have you ever thought about when you start turning hard, all the weight goes to the outside tires, usually most of the weight shifts to the front right tire when taking a hard left turn. if theres too much weight over the front, it will likely understeer when you overload the tires gripping limit. like i said, really think about it.

I find it funny how the less educated of us here is the one throwing the insults around, especially about how much either of us knows.

You obviously don't understand where traction comes from so I won't be continuing any further then this. Have you ever ridden in a pickup truck driven hard? If so you'd know that when braking hard the rear end gets unloaded, which causes a severe lack of traction for the rear tires. Now since you won't be able to figure this out, I'll tell you why that is, there's less WEIGHT on the rear axle. The same goes for a high powered car coming off the line,weight transfer takes WEIGHT, a vital part of traction, away from the tires. If you don't know this simple fact then I don't know why you're trying to argue this point.

For your information, FWD cars DO have oversteer problems, as well as having too much of their weight on the front tires, which overloads them while entering a turn. It sounds to me like you're trying to say that the front wheels dont have more traction then the rears, hopefully you wouldn't say something that stupid.

What do you know, at least you get the fact that weight transfer to the outside tires happens during a turn, I'm glad for that much. Perhaps the outside front tire will be overloaded, or perhaps it will have enough traction to handle the lateral load because of the weight above it, which is the case with the front engine car here.

i'm amazed at the amount of theory that's going back and forth here.. i'm honestly impressed...

this thread has gone off topic in a positive direction (for once)

so what's the verdict on the incomparable cars here?

price tag distinguishes...

if you want an "inexpensive" fast car, you get the zo6.
if you want the car that has the "bling" factor with it's price tag, get the ferrari.

if you get the ferrari, you also get the 12000 dollar service fees when you get simple parts replaced, and that's no joke.

in that event, i'll take the zo6, b/c i'd be driving the car daily.

and this, of course, has nothing to do with the deep theory and performance of the cars, but it's all about practicality for me...

doug hayashi, from www.nsxfiles.com has some horror stories for pricing on getting his ferrari serviced...

i'll stick to the car that can be repaired with parts from autozone (not that i'd buy them there, but you know what i mean)

I find it funny how the less educated of us here is the one throwing the insults around, especially about how much either of us knows.

You obviously don't understand where traction comes from so I won't be continuing any further then this. Have you ever ridden in a pickup truck driven hard? If so you'd know that when braking hard the rear end gets unloaded, which causes a severe lack of traction for the rear tires. Now since you won't be able to figure this out, I'll tell you why that is, there's less WEIGHT on the rear axle. The same goes for a high powered car coming off the line,weight transfer takes WEIGHT, a vital part of traction, away from the tires. If you don't know this simple fact then I don't know why you're trying to argue this point.

For your information, FWD cars DO have oversteer problems, as well as having too much of their weight on the front tires, which overloads them while entering a turn. It sounds to me like you're trying to say that the front wheels dont have more traction then the rears, hopefully you wouldn't say something that stupid.

What do you know, at least you get the fact that weight transfer to the outside tires happens during a turn, I'm glad for that much. Perhaps the outside front tire will be overloaded, or perhaps it will have enough traction to handle the lateral load because of the weight above it, which is the case with the front engine car here.

i know what im talking about, do you? i never said fwd, or nose heavy cars will never oversteer. what you said about weights over the tires is that the more wieght you have, the more traction, which isnt true, cause you will eventually reach the tires gripping limit, and make it lose traction, you see what im saying? lets get back to what my original point was. lets say you had two cars that weigh the same, and one has weights at the end, the other has weights in the middle, both 50/50 balance, do you think they have the same amount of weight on top of the tires? which one should have less inertia through turns? which one should slalom better? now you re trying to explain it a little differently by talking about braking really hard, ok lets talk about it then. yea the weight shifts to the front, and cause the rear to have less traction, but when you reach the tires gripping limit, usually thats understeer in a front heavy car, oversteer for rear biased cars, or the car just slides sideways. thats why its better to brake in a straight line when goin fast or braking hard. im glad you understood at least some of what i said, but i feel that you dont completely understand that inertia thing, or what im trying to say to you about weights in the middle compared to weights at the end.

You want the weight on the front wheels during braking
A rear heavy desing is still going to want to lose the tail while entering a turn hard because of the extra lateral load placed on the rear tires.



Have you ever ridden in a pickup truck driven hard? If so you'd know that when braking hard the rear end gets unloaded, which causes a severe lack of traction for the rear tires.

And there you go..
A mid engined car with a static weight balance at ~40:60 will achieve dynamic balance under breaking, superior to a car with static 50:50 weight balance.


ut I do not see how a static balance can be better than a dynamic balance. For instance if you were to balance your wheels, a static balance will correct the up/down bouncing of your wheels, whereas when your dynamically balanced, you've not only balanced the up.down bouncing of the wheels, but you've also balanced the side/side wobble of the wheels which can easily be detected by the shake of your steering wheel. Can you explain to me why it is better to be static balanced vs. a dynamic balance.

I'm just going to quote this... :rolleyes:

And OoNismoO, the term you are looking for is 'polar moment of inertia'. A mid/rear engined car, like the 360 should have a lower polar moment of inertia compared to a mid/front engined car like the Z06. This should give it better steering respons, in theory.

heh yea i know...its polar moment of inertia... i realized that after my last post, but i got tired of editing, so i just left it the way it was. i figured that when someone else replies, and brings the thread back up, i could just say something about it.

And there you go..
A mid engined car with a static weight balance at ~40:60 will achieve dynamic balance under breaking, superior to a car with static 50:50 weight balance.

And OoNismoO, the term you are looking for is 'polar moment of inertia'. A mid/rear engined car, like the 360 should have a lower polar moment of inertia compared to a mid/front engined car like the Z06. This should give it better steering respons, in theory.

Sorry, but I hardly see how your 40:60 is anything special, mostly because it isn't. The amount of weight shifted forward is dependant upon the amount of braking done, deceleration in G force, the same goes for acceleration. But, if the numbers are anything like these 2 cars are capable of, that car would have less weight on the front tires during hard braking (whether that's good or bad I can't say, but with enough tire that would be inferior). Where it would fault is front tire traction during a turn exit, with enough throttle you could easily pull enough weight from them to understeer, and neither of these cars has the downforce to make up for that.

At least you said in theory, we don't all have millions in aerodynamic R&D giving us 7000 #'s of downforce at speed giving all the traction we could possibly need.

There are a lot of very valid points being made, but it still just isn't that simple or cut and dried. Rear/mid-engine rwd and front-engine rwd (or front/mid-engine which is exceedingly rare although some designs blur the line) both have enough respective benefits and liabilities that neither is simply "all around superior" as a street vehicle.

I have yet to even hear the term "roll center" come up and that is extremely critical to handling. Especially in a mid engined production car which often have issues with how "high" within the car itself the weight sits no matter how "low" the car looks.

Ferrari's own Testarossa, and the awesome cars later based on that chassis, suffered very weird handling quirks due to a top heavy rear end. Not too much weight in the rear, but too much weight too high in the rear. This was largely due to the boxer-style engines necessarily high placement in the chassis, partially explaining why the mid engine Modena and other mid engine cars following the Testarossa chassis packed V-8's instead of a Boxer.

In the 348/355/360 Ferrari did a great job of addressing this issue and not making the cars a mile long in the process.(An often found side effect of one of this problems solutions in rear/mid engined cars.) That is not the first, or last issue mid engine car designs face, and front engine designs have theirs as well.

The fact that companies like Ferrari, and Aston Martin still choose to build front engine sports cars only demonstrates that there are advantages to both. Enzo Ferrari and Carroll Shelby both thought that front engined cars were preferable as street vehicles........both know (And in Enzo's case knew..may he reast in peace) more than all of us put together. Lotus today, and it's founder Mr. Chapman back in the day, would disagree with Enzo and Shelby proving great minds apparently do not always think alike.

By the way I would prefer the Modena to the Z06 given the available bucks. The Vette is impressive, but I just cannot take the plastic interior's rendition of Darth Vader's bathroom, or the bland, and big back end styling. Not to mention the "I am a Japanese designer's version of a Vette" overall styling theme. Styling may seem a shallow deciding factor for the difference in bucks, but I cannot imagine spending even Z06 like money on a car I couldn't stand to look at or sit in.

i do agree that for street cars, front engine rear drive is better than mid rear, but for a pure racecar, i think id rather go with mid rear like f1. since i probably wont be racing like that anyways, id prefer front engined or front mid mounted rear drive cars. in f/r set up you usually get more room, especially trunk space to carry your luggage or whatever, and sometimes you can have back seats. i havent driven the z06 or the modena, but for now, id rather get the z06 if i could afford both.

I have been a long time reader of this forum, mainly for $hits and giggles but registered to chime in on this thread. I was surprised no one remembered the one head to head comparo of the Z06 and 360 I can remember. I have the bad habit of reading ~20 industry and gen pop car rags a month and seem to commit all of them to memory (I just usually can't remember which mag or year/month it was!), it took me a while to dig the article up but I did and was lucky that it is online as well.

R/T did their "Great Grip" article in 2002, the premise was to find the best road/track handling car, which included the 360 and the Z06, the 360 finished first and the Z06...fifth (ouch). As far as bang for the buck goes the Z06 also loses, the Lotus Elise took second, and the Elise will be available stateside in less than a year, with a more potent federal power to weight ratio, which well could have put it ahead of the 360 all for sub 40k. You wanted numbers, you have numbers, side by side, same day, same driver, the Z06 bested by a Ferrari, Lotus, 996TT and an Evo VII not even an VIII or FQ300 or Evo "8.5".

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=221&page_number=1

Vandy

PS I will take care of the "reasons" for you:

1. The 360 was an Enzo prototype, and Michael Shumacher pushed Herta outta the seat
2. Bryan Herta is a Viper guy so he sand bagged the Z06
3. The Z06 had a plug wire pulled, maybe two
4. The Z06 was running snow tires
5. Herta is allergic to fiberglass
6. insert your choice of bowtie drivel here ___________

thats a pretty cool comparo. didnt think that the evo 7 would beat the z06.

Nice. I'm lovin it... I have mucho respect for the elise. That's a great car. I really can't wait for the elise to hit state side.

I have been a long time reader of this forum, mainly for $hits and giggles but registered to chime in on this thread. I was surprised no one remembered the one head to head comparo of the Z06 and 360 I can remember. I have the bad habit of reading ~20 industry and gen pop car rags a month and seem to commit all of them to memory (I just usually can't remember which mag or year/month it was!), it took me a while to dig the article up but I did and was lucky that it is online as well.

R/T did their "Great Grip" article in 2002, the premise was to find the best road/track handling car, which included the 360 and the Z06, the 360 finished first and the Z06...fifth (ouch). As far as bang for the buck goes the Z06 also loses, the Lotus Elise took second, and the Elise will be available stateside in less than a year, with a more potent federal power to weight ratio, which well could have put it ahead of the 360 all for sub 40k. You wanted numbers, you have numbers, side by side, same day, same driver, the Z06 bested by a Ferrari, Lotus, 996TT and an Evo VII not even an VIII or FQ300 or Evo "8.5".

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=221&page_number=1

Vandy

PS I will take care of the "reasons" for you:

1. The 360 was an Enzo prototype, and Michael Shumacher pushed Herta outta the seat
2. Bryan Herta is a Viper guy so he sand bagged the Z06
3. The Z06 had a plug wire pulled, maybe two
4. The Z06 was running snow tires
5. Herta is allergic to fiberglass
6. insert your choice of bowtie drivel here ___________

:sleep:

You should've stayed a lurker.

:sleep:

You should've stayed a lurker.

You can thank yourself for my interjection of objective relevent information.

"You get better steering response? if the wheels turn, and the car does not break traction, your car will turn as fast as you crank the wheel over, thats all there is to it."

When you made statements like the above that fail to grasp some of the basic physics and dynamics of car handling it seemed important to help shed some light onto a relatively simple subject.

Lets take your above statement for example. A car among other things has what is called a moment of inertia. I=mr

Without delving into Newton's second law of rotation or parallel and perpendicular axis theorum too heavily it comes down to the farther away the average mass distribution from the center of rotation the more force it will take to accomplish this rotation. If you watch a figure skater as she spins in one place. she spins slowly when her arms are extended from her body, when she pulls them in (but adds no more energy to her spinning action) she speeds UP spinning much faster around her rotational center. This is the same with a vehicle, that is why you do not simply "turn as fast as you crank the wheel" each car will rotate at a different rate depending in large part to how far from the rotational center the avarage mass distribution is. The closer the average mass distribution is to the center the less resistance to the turning force will be present and the sooner and quicker the car will begin to rotatate on the axis. This is part of reason, for example, that a Lotus Elise needs less force to change direction than a Z06 and will turn quicker when it overcomes this moment of inertia. Of course another big issue is the much lower mass of the Elise along with suspension issues (I have not compared spring rates to mass etc for the Z06 and Elise, so this is an issue that may hurt or help the Elise or Z06, I just don't know). This is one of the reasons mid engine/rear drive cars have a design advantage as a track car. MR cars have the potential design advantage of locating the majority of the mass of the car near the axis of rotation, making it potentially more responsive and quicker around the track. F/R cars have to overcome this physics to compete.

The bottom line is the 360 starts with a chassis more condusive to good handling. The Z06 engineers due to its F/R layout had far more to overcome, they did an admiral job but just can't match a well sorted M/R chassis. There is no shame in what Chevrolet has done with the Z06, it is an excellent track car which is one of the value leaders in road going track cars in the WORLD. Eclipsed only in track "value" by cars such as the Elise and Vauxhall VX 220 turbo.

The LS6 is a marvel of pushrod technology, strong and tunable but Chevy is not an engine builder at the pinacle of engine building, case in point their defeated call to Cosworth to build a competative engine for IRL last season. For engine tech at the outer edge one must look to three companies, BMW, Ferrari (Fiat) and Mercedes. One needs look no farther than the gems these companies put in their F1 cars to see this.

The Z06 is a world class road going track car BUT fans should see and admit that it isn't the best, even at the price. As for the 360/Z06 comparison these cars are close at the track, really a drivers race, but the 360 has an advantage on most tracks, nothing for the Z06 to be ashamed of at 1/3 the price.

This all said if I were to buy a new track car for lapping but not racing in a strict class today, it would most likely be a Z06, this opinion will likely change when the federal Elise arrives on US shores.

Vandy

IR/IR04M3 let me be the first to say welcome to the forums....i was really impresed by your posts...very well written...well informed and easy to read...btw the skater analogy was perfcet

its also nice that you bring verifiable info and you are not biased(very rare araound here)

and i love the article you posted....the best comparisons are only side by side and with a profesional driver...

hope you stay around the forums

You can thank yourself for my interjection of objective relevent information.

"You get better steering response? if the wheels turn, and the car does not break traction, your car will turn as fast as you crank the wheel over, thats all there is to it."

When you made statements like the above that fail to grasp some of the basic physics and dynamics of car handling it seemed important to help shed some light onto a relatively simple subject.

Lets take your above statement for example. A car among other things has what is called a moment of inertia. I=mr

Without delving into Newton's second law of rotation or parallel and perpendicular axis theorum too heavily it comes down to the farther away the average mass distribution from the center of rotation the more force it will take to accomplish this rotation. If you watch a figure skater as she spins in one place. she spins slowly when her arms are extended from her body, when she pulls them in (but adds no more energy to her spinning action) she speeds UP spinning much faster around her rotational center. This is the same with a vehicle, that is why you do not simply "turn as fast as you crank the wheel" each car will rotate at a different rate depending in large part to how far from the rotational center the avarage mass distribution is. The closer the average mass distribution is to the center the less resistance to the turning force will be present and the sooner and quicker the car will begin to rotatate on the axis. This is part of reason, for example, that a Lotus Elise needs less force to change direction than a Z06 and will turn quicker when it overcomes this moment of inertia. Of course another big issue is the much lower mass of the Elise along with suspension issues (I have not compared spring rates to mass etc for the Z06 and Elise, so this is an issue that may hurt or help the Elise or Z06, I just don't know). This is one of the reasons mid engine/rear drive cars have a design advantage as a track car. MR cars have the potential design advantage of locating the majority of the mass of the car near the axis of rotation, making it potentially more responsive and quicker around the track. F/R cars have to overcome this physics to compete.

The bottom line is the 360 starts with a chassis more condusive to good handling. The Z06 engineers due to its F/R layout had far more to overcome, they did an admiral job but just can't match a well sorted M/R chassis. There is no shame in what Chevrolet has done with the Z06, it is an excellent track car which is one of the value leaders in road going track cars in the WORLD. Eclipsed only in track "value" by cars such as the Elise and Vauxhall VX 220 turbo.

The LS6 is a marvel of pushrod technology, strong and tunable but Chevy is not an engine builder at the pinacle of engine building, case in point their defeated call to Cosworth to build a competative engine for IRL last season. For engine tech at the outer edge one must look to three companies, BMW, Ferrari (Fiat) and Mercedes. One needs look no farther than the gems these companies put in their F1 cars to see this.

The Z06 is a world class road going track car BUT fans should see and admit that it isn't the best, even at the price. As for the 360/Z06 comparison these cars are close at the track, really a drivers race, but the 360 has an advantage on most tracks, nothing for the Z06 to be ashamed of at 1/3 the price.

This all said if I were to buy a new track car for lapping but not racing in a strict class today, it would most likely be a Z06, this opinion will likely change when the federal Elise arrives on US shores.

Vandy

Lets take a look at what I said, while everything you have posted makes sense, it still proves nothing. If you turn the wheels, and the car does not break traction, you WILL turn at the rate that you turn the wheel. There isn't any other option, because if the forward inertia is too much for the tires, then you'll simply understeer instead of turn. If it doesnt overload the front tires, then you'll turn at the rate dictated by their angle, there isnt another option.

Polar movement dictates how easily the car rotates, not whether it does and the rate of it. The physics article was nice, but it didn't prove anything.

Another thing that is never taken into account is the amount of traction each wheel has. No fan of MR seems to understand that there are sacrifices as well, and the only time MR really shows its inertial qualities is when you've got it in a racecar that has the aerodynamics to make up for the lack of front wheel weight. FR is far superior for a street car, unless you've got the aerodynamics of an enzo, you won't be seeing the great gains of MR because you'll be too busy correcting the understeer that comes with it.

GM went to cosworth because they can build small volume, specified engines, and last time I checked, GM began losing BADLY after htey went to cosworth, good job on their part. Before they went to them, the 4L (loosely) based northstar was beating everyone.

Both of you have great points, but I want to throw somethings in here.. first I=mr? I believe in my physics class it was I=mv.. Inertia=mass x the velocity of the mass... r.. is that maybe rate of motion?

The location of the center of gravity is the largest part of a cars rotational characteristics obviously. But right now we are considering the horizontal rotation only. Let me throw a wrench into the works. A mid engine sports car has the great advantage of having the rotational axis very close to the center of the car, and that's why in general the mr cars are the best handling. But between the z06 and the F360 the closest to the center weight distribution goes to the z06. (f/r) 43/57 (F360) 53/47 (Z06) Also we need to take a glance at the lateral (side to side) rotation. Ferrari has gotten so much better at this than in the past but there are still major problems with most of the MR cars in this aspect. MR cars the weight is higher up. I don't care that the F360 sits physically lower, because the weight is still higher up than the z06's. I think actually that one of the best cars in the lateral handling (IMO of course) is probably the viper. For a 8.3L v10 the weight is surprisingly low. But anyways back on topic. A car that has weight high up means that there is more movement because the axis of rotation is higher up. look at the difference between a jeep and a lotus.. the lotus won't flip nearly as easy as the jeep because the jeep has a higher center of gravity. There is more lateral movement when the jeep turns than when the lotus turns. So because the MR car has a higher center of gravity (weight placement/ rotational axis whatever the hell you want to call it) it will rotate more. So with more rotation there will me more of the weight pushed towards the outer wheel and so the friction won't be as evenly distributed. So because the center of gravity in the z06 is lower and closer to the center it should have better turning than the f360 modena. yes you just called my bluff.. it should have better handling, but the suspension and steering systems set up by gm pm the z06 (maybe even the tires?) are not nearly as well set up as the F360's set up. So the F360 should maintain the better handling. And yes the F360 doesn't have as much weight on the turning tires so it has more understeer than the z06, but then again it also has great downforce as said by FYRE, so that can make up for it. There's my 2 cents and I'm sticking to it. Cheers! :cheers:

If you turn the wheels, and the car does not break traction, you WILL turn at the rate that you turn the wheel. There isn't any other option, because if the forward inertia is too much for the tires, then you'll simply understeer instead of turn. If it doesnt overload the front tires, then you'll turn at the rate dictated by their angle, there isnt another option.


You obviously don't understand the concept of slip angles.


But between the z06 and the F360 the closest to the center weight distribution goes to the z06.

This still doesn't mean anything.


MR cars the weight is higher up. I don't care that the F360 sits physically lower, because the weight is still higher up than the z06's.

And you know this because?

I would think that both setups will have their different advantages. The easiest way to achieve a 50/50 weight balance would be using a FR setup, right. Wouldn't you usually get better even handling when your car is closer to 50/50? Now a car that is heavier in the front will have a larger slip angle compared to a car with a rear heavy design having more slip angle in the back. A car with a 50/50 balance will have less slip angle to the front and back due to its more even weight distribution right? So in this sense wouldn't a 50/50 design achieve better handling since it wouldn't be as prone to a front/rear biased setup to oversteer/understeer?

But a mid-engined car will have a better steering response and dynamic balance due to its lower polar moment of inertia and rear biased weight setup. Wouldn't that be mroe than enough to make up for its lack of even weight distribution?

I found a good site that relates to a lot of what its being discussed here

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/handling/tech_handling_4.htm

check it out

Wouldn't you usually get better even handling when your car is closer to 50/50? Now a car that is heavier in the front will have a larger slip angle compared to a car with a rear heavy design having more slip angle in the back. A car with a 50/50 balance will have less slip angle to the front and back due to its more even weight distribution right? So in this sense wouldn't a 50/50 design achieve better handling since it wouldn't be as prone to a front/rear biased setup to oversteer/understeer?


It's not that simple. A car with 50:50 weight distribution is only balanced at constant speeds.

[/quote] And you know this because? [quote]

I did a study on this for physics and I found information regarding the mounting of engines and drive trains in mr cars and I also found information about how older ferrari and lambo designers were having problems keeping the center of gravity low. Plus all you have to do is think about it. In a MR car all of the drivetrain and engine is in the back. In the FR it's spread from front to back. So where's all that extra stuff going to go? it can't go any further down or to the sides so it has to go up. "The output from the gearbox was transmitted back to the rear axle via a drive shaft locating underneath the engine, inside the sump. Inevitably, the engine had to be raised for a few inches to accommodate the drive shaft. As a result, center of gravity was raised, too." That's a quote from http://autozine.kyul.net/countach/countach_5.htm That's just one instance. Look around the net. You can find several more.

Kurt. Great site. Rotational Inertia didn't even cross my mind. It's all starting to come together

I believe it was a rhetorical remark Deakins

I did a study on this for physics and I found information regarding the mounting of engines and drive trains in mr cars and I also found information about how older ferrari and lambo designers were having problems keeping the center of gravity low. Plus all you have to do is think about it. In a MR car all of the drivetrain and engine is in the back. In the FR it's spread from front to back. So where's all that extra stuff going to go? it can't go any further down or to the sides so it has to go up. "The output from the gearbox was transmitted back to the rear axle via a drive shaft locating underneath the engine, inside the sump. Inevitably, the engine had to be raised for a few inches to accommodate the drive shaft. As a result, center of gravity was raised, too." That's a quote from http://autozine.kyul.net/countach/countach_5.htm That's just one instance. Look around the net. You can find several more.


This deserves a quote and a giant :rolleyes:
Are you really that stupid?

a quote and a giant?

a quote and a giant? what the hell are you talking about? And really.. do I sound stupid? You're not even proving how I'm really that stupid... show me up hot shot

This deserves a quote and a giant :rolleyes:
Are you really that stupid?

lol...

a quote and a giant? what the hell are you talking about? And really.. do I sound stupid? You're not even proving how I'm really that stupid... show me up hot shot

A giant :rolleyes:

Yes, you sound extremly stupid saying that.
Do you honestly believe car manufacturers stopped developing mid engine technology over 30 years ago?

Actually, first of all I must be invsisible as I was the first one who brought up the problem with high engine placement in mid-engine cars. And second of all, that guy is right about the mid-engine/rear-drive design's problem with weight high up in the car. Yes, it is still an issue engineers must overcome, and it is most noticeable in cars with larger engines.

How do I know it's still an issue? When Ferrari came out with the 348 after the Testarossa based cars it was well known that part of the reason for losing the Boxer (horizontally opposed to those who don't know) based engine and going to a V-8 in the new mid engine cars was a problem in the balance of the larger Testarossa based designs.

This was largely due to the boxer engines top heavy design aggravating an existing short coming in typical mid engine/rear drive cars. Too much mass too high up. The smaller the engine the less aggravation this problem tends to pose. And, engines facing east-west in the car (horizontally mounted) tend to pose fewer problems concerning this issue as well.

Did you think Lambo's are so long because they just felt like doing it that way? No, it's because they were stretching out the drivetrain in order to keep the mass, and therefore the center of gravity as low as possible.

Ferrari does a better job at this now than most manufacturers, but they changed some things and compromised a bit with displacement in order to get there initially. The end product is fanastic, but as with all chassis designs this one has it's shortcomings.

The best engine/driveline packaging I have seen in a streetable mid engine car goes to the original and new Ford GT's (or GT40) in a tie. Why? Because, nobody else has put engines that large in a mid engine car and kept the car that short without facing the balance problems cars like the Testarossa and 512TR faced.

Actually, first of all I must be invsisible as I was the first one who brought up the problem with high engine placement in mid-engine cars. And second of all, that guy is right about the mid-engine/rear-drive design's problem with weight high up in the car. Yes, it is still an issue engineers must overcome, and it is most noticeable in cars with larger engines.

It WAS a problem on some cars, yes. But there is a big defference between a Lamborghini Countach and a Ferrari 360.


How do I know it's still an issue? When Ferrari came out with the 348 after the Testarossa based cars it was well known that part of the reason for losing the Boxer (horizontally opposed to those who don't know) based engine and going to a V-8 in the new mid engine cars was a problem in the balance of the larger Testarossa based designs.

This was largely due to the boxer engines top heavy design aggravating an existing short coming in typical mid engine/rear drive cars. Too much mass too high up. The smaller the engine the less aggravation this problem tends to pose. And, engines facing east-west in the car (horizontally mounted) tend to pose fewer problems concerning this issue as well.

The fact that older Ferraris had a problem with a high CG does not mean the 360 have one.

And I don't see why you are bringing Lamborghinis and twelve-cylinder Ferraris into this, you said it yourself, 'The smaller the engine the less aggravation this problem tends to pose.' You are compairing apples to oranges here.

I am comparing apples to oranges, but only because much as the apple and the orange have things in common so do the 360 and mid engine cars with larger engines.

The 360 is still relatively top heavy in back by design, it is unavoidable. The problem just is not as aggravated as in the other designs mentioned exactly as I inferred in the above post.

I am certain that center of gravity on the 360 is great pretty good overall. Whenever you talk to someone that has driven any mid engine Ferrari I know of you will hear them almost always refer to the cars handling as at least a little "twitchy".

Matter of fact the first review I ever read regarding the new Ford GT they commented on how it was much more relaxed and not nearly as "nervous" (feel free to insert twitchy here as a substitute as desired) as the Modena. Anyone care to guess what that twitchiness stems from? :) Again, it is notable that the Ford GT seems to have largely avoided this issue, but it is always a packaging issue in these designs.

I am not slamming the 360 or mid engine cars. As a Ford guy I think the GT40 both old and new, but especially old, dang near hung the moon. I am just pointing out that every car design has it's drawbacks.

You rag on the 360 because of it's powertrain layout, but worship the GT when they infact have the exact same powertrain layout?
Doesn't that sound a wee bit odd to you?

the 360 modena is definately not top heavy, where are you getting this info? are you just looking at the engine and assuming it is? those two red things that says ferrari on top are just manifolds, most of the weight is down where the cylinders are, and if you actually looked at one in person, they re like a foot below the manifold, thats pretty damn low if you ask me. with the manifold, its not even that high either.

I don't remember where I got the info and I'll try to find it. but I read somewhere that the z06's center of gravity is about 4 inches lower than the 360's... I know. It's not a lot. The 360 modena is not top heavy by far. It's not going to flip going around a corner. I was just pointing out that the z06 has a better placement of the center of gravity, but obviously the 360 has better handling due to rotational inertia, suspension and I believe it has a wider wheel base too if I'm not mistaken.

Although a cars CG is very important to the handling abilities of a vehicle, their are still many other factors implimented into handling.

Corning speed is very important when refering to a cars handling. I'm sure everyone already knows this but when your cornering (depending on how tight you are cornering) the car's weight will transfer from the inside tires to the outside tires. To calculte this transfer it would look somthing like this. Weight transfer = (lateral acceleration * weight * height of CG) / Track width. So you see their are many different factors other than CG. When you have an even weight distribution this weight transfer to the outside wheels will be more balanced to the front and back wheel which should give you a better rate to cornering. Weight transfer will also effect a tires grip.

When the load on the outside tire increases (when your cornering) the grip on the outside tire will also increase, but your overall tire grip will decrease cause you will loose more grip from your inside wheels then you will gain from your outside wheels since their will be less weight on them.

This means to increase a cars ability of cornering grip you must decrease the cars weight transfer to increase grip. You can achieve better weight transfer in many ways like; reducing the weight of your car, lowering your CG, you could also increase your track width, but this would also increase the weight of your car. Now this is a faily basic explaination because their are still more factors that contribute to a cars cornering abilities like a cars downforce, weight distribution, suspension geometry, drivetrain, etc.

Although a Z06 may have a better CG, it doesn't necessarily mean its going to have better handling. Just like a Modena weights less than the Z06 (which will help to limit weight transfer) but it still doesn't mean it will handle better.

I don't remember where I got the info and I'll try to find it. but I read somewhere that the z06's center of gravity is about 4 inches lower than the 360's... I know. It's not a lot. The 360 modena is not top heavy by far. It's not going to flip going around a corner. I was just pointing out that the z06 has a better placement of the center of gravity, but obviously the 360 has better handling due to rotational inertia, suspension and I believe it has a wider wheel base too if I'm not mistaken.

you mean the engine sits four inches lower? if it does, that doesnt always mean it has lower center of gravity, unless they proved it by measuring the whole car accurately. it might be true that the engine is placed better cause it sits lower, but they have two different engines, and may have not measured it accurately.

I'm not sure whether it was the engine or cg, but I believe it was the cg. They do have a machine to test that... For double decker busses in england they test the bus' cg fully loaded on the top only and empty with a machine that tests rotational inertia vs weight to determine where the cg sits so that it doesn't flip.

You obviously don't understand the concept of slip angles.

You are in no position to attempt and say I don't understand anything. Great argument though, too bad you havent proven anything with that gem of yours. As to slip angles affecting the direction the car travels, the entire contact patch is affected by this, of course not evenly, nothing that will alter the cars steering either way.

You are in no position to attempt and say I don't understand anything. Great argument though, too bad you havent proven anything with that gem of yours.

How many times have I proven you wrong here at af?


As to slip angles affecting the direction the car travels, the entire contact patch is affected by this, of course not evenly, nothing that will alter the cars steering either way.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." W. G. McAdoo.

How many times have I proven you wrong here at af?



"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." W. G. McAdoo.

proven me wrong? I've yet to see you even come close. Thanks for the advice, but this is entertaining.

People in this forum need to either read the entire post, or read more carefully. I never ragged on the 360, and I do not "worship" any car.

What I did was point out an issue that the engineers on both these vehicles had to face, and a design "disadvantage" of mid engine/rear drive cars. Also, I pointed out that Ferrari IMO does a better than average job, and that IMO Ford has done an even better job.

Finally, I mentioned that I preferred the GT to the Modena, but I also mentioned that the Modena was a great car. I hope this clarifys things adequately.



You rag on the 360 because of it's powertrain layout, but worship the GT when they infact have the exact same powertrain layout?
Doesn't that sound a wee bit odd to you?

the 360 modena is definately not top heavy, where are you getting this info? are you just looking at the engine and assuming it is? those two red things that says ferrari on top are just manifolds, most of the weight is down where the cylinders are, and if you actually looked at one in person, they re like a foot below the manifold, thats pretty damn low if you ask me. with the manifold, its not even that high either.


Once again, respectfully, I am simply repeating what Ferrari themselves said in the past. Within the car itself the engine sits, relatively speaking, high within a mid-engined car. Please note that this takes into account how high the actual car itself is as well.

If you care to do the research, then you will see this is one of the reasons Ferrari gave for ditching the boxer style engine as it is was forced to sit even higher within the car due to it's greater width. I did not "Assume" anything.

The Modena and the earlier 348/355 overcame a lot of these problems by switching to a V design engine rather than the boxer's used by the Ferrari mid engine cars that were it's immediate predecessors.

People in this forum need to either read the entire post, or read more carefully. I never ragged on the 360, and I do not "worship" any car.

What I did was point out an issue that the engineers on both these vehicles had to face, and a design "disadvantage" of mid engine/rear drive cars. Also, I pointed out that Ferrari IMO does a better than average job, and that IMO Ford has done an even better job.

Finally, I mentioned that I preferred the GT to the Modena, but I also mentioned that the Modena was a great car. I hope this clarifys things adequately.

So exaggerated a bit, the point still stands.
Please explain why the GT/GT40's powertrain layout is better, or different for that matter.

Once again, respectfully, I am simply repeating what Ferrari themselves said in the past. Within the car itself the engine sits, relatively speaking, high within a mid-engined car. Please note that this takes into account how high the actual car itself is as well.

If you care to do the research, then you will see this is one of the reasons Ferrari gave for ditching the boxer style engine as it is was forced to sit even higher within the car due to it's greater width. I did not "Assume" anything.

The Modena and the earlier 348/355 overcame a lot of these problems by switching to a V design engine rather than the boxer's used by the Ferrari mid engine cars that were it's immediate predecessors.

ok so the older ferraris had this problem with its boxer style engine, but the modena basically overcame this problem, so what are you trying to say? i see that the older ferraris had this problem, but we re talking about the modena here.

For Deakins. It has been said more than once that compared to the Modena the GT is very calm and settled in the way it handles. This is notable because it was also pointed out that this is in contrast to that famous "twitchy" feel mid engine Ferrari's have due to what we have been discussing.

I hate to rely on an article, but this isn't a GTO And, considering I have heard this stated more than once by men whose opinion I respect I am willing to accept it. I would argue that I exaggerated the point as I clearly pointed out that the Modena was much better than previous Ferrari's, and only suffered from a mild case of "nerves".

As to what Ford did to Make the GT feel so "calm" compared to the Modena or other mid engine cars like it I cannot say. Nobody I am aware of has ever asked Ford how they approached that issue.

The reason I am so impressed by Ford SVT's apparent ability to overcome this issue is that the GT uses a larger and taller engine design than the Modena, which should accomplish the opposite of what was done with the GT's handling.

For Nismo, put quickly and simply, the Modena overcame some, even most, of the obstacles but not all as alluded to above. It is an awesome car that undoubtedly does everything quite well, but this is an issue every mid engine design faces. Yes, it is much better than previous mid engined Farrari's in this respedct, and IMO better than average.

I am not slamming any chassis design, I was simply pointing out that every chassis design has it's drawbacks...all of them. Occasionally, they are dealt with so well they are no longer noticeable as in the new GT. But, that does not mean that the engineers don't have to figure out how to overcome them in the first place..

Also, some people do like this "nervous" feel even though it is never going to help track times. (Not that there is anything wrong with the Ferrari's track times) Ferrari may even consider it something of a character trait of their mid engine cars by now.

well obviously there isnt enough of that issue, or even close to it, for the 360 to have that problem. from what ive read, its one of best performing midengined cars out there capable of achieving 1.50+g. if it even had the slightest bit of this problem, then they would of addressed it in almost every article, but its not even close, so they never say anything about it. i see what you re saying about the traits of midengined cars, but thats what almost all enthusiasts know about. i know that there are undesireable traits to midengined cars, but the 360 has one of the least undisired traits.

Umm.... 1.50G?? Are you kidding me Nismo? Try .96G. Still respectable, but a z06 (04 gets .99g) and srt10 (1.15g) get higher. But then again skidpad isn't everything as far as handling. But if you're going to compare it by skidpad there are many better, but does have one of the best skidpads ratings ferrari's ever gotten

IR/IR04M3 let me be the first to say welcome to the forums....i was really impresed by your posts...very well written...well informed and easy to read...btw the skater analogy was perfcet

its also nice that you bring verifiable info and you are not biased(very rare araound here)

and i love the article you posted....the best comparisons are only side by side and with a profesional driver...

hope you stay around the forums

I couldn't agree more. I hope you stick around as well, we could use someone like you. I would also like to say that you pretty much ended this debate.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." W. G. McAdoo.

How true, becuase they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience and then people somethimes have trouble telling the difference.

Umm.... 1.50G?? Are you kidding me Nismo? Try .96G. Still respectable, but a z06 (04 gets .99g) and srt10 (1.15g) get higher. But then again skidpad isn't everything as far as handling. But if you're going to compare it by skidpad there are many better, but does have one of the best skidpads ratings ferrari's ever gotten

calm down buddy lol..... i said its capable of 1.50g, those are from track ready modenas, they just modified them a bit for track use, kinda like those modified cars for driving schools. im sure the 360 challenge stradale can do 1+g though. yea i know there are more ways to measure a cars handling ability, but even that isnt always gonna tell the whole story.

We are comparing:
Ferrari VS GM
hahahhahahahahahahahaah......lol

We are comparing:
Ferrari VS GM
hahahhahahahahahahahaah......lol

Why do people insist that anything being compared to a ferarri is as absured of a comparision there can be? Sure it is a sports car built by a great company indeed, but mind you, there are many good sport cars out there capable of competing with the almighty ferarri. A Z06 is far from a ridiculous comparision against a 360 Modena. As different these two cars may be, their perhaps the closest you can get in comparision. I would still like to see a lap time for both of these cars if anybody can find one. I bet they would be very close.