New Z06 News

White95Max said:
geez...0-60 in 3.7 while in 1st gear... :bounce
Click to expand...



Part of that is due to the 7,000 rpm redline. But of course tall gearing helps as well.



The ZR-1 would run to 56mph in 1st gear at 7,000 rpm, and 58mph if you run it to the rev limiter at 7,200 rpm. Without that shift, it would be close to a 4-second car. And the new Z06 has way more torque to pull off such gearing well. With as much attention as people pay to 0-60 times, Chevy made a smart move there. A time in the 3's gets some attention!



I will go out on a limb and say that was the highest revving Corvette motor? I think the LS7 may be the highest revving smallblock, though. But I can't recall what the original Z/28 302 spun to... And of course the LT5 wasn't a smallblock.



animes2k said:
hehehe I get a kick out of this, because for most dealerships I'd say the same thing, but I think museum delivery would be a different story.



I noticed the vettes (and even pickups and cheaper cars) outside the local Chevy dealer were swirl-free and very clean. The dealership also sells and services Lambo and Lotus and I saw a Ligenfelter Z06 (yellow, with the back in that matte black... mmmm) drive out of service while I was there. They know how to prep cars there. I think I'd be content with their prep.
Click to expand...



Your local Chevy dealer isn't the norm. You must be speaking of Criswell. I have heard rumor they are on a slide, though. Their Lambo franchise is being taken and moved to Ferrari of Washington. Apparently Lambo got some complaints from owners about service? I haven't been to Criswell in a while, but they were always top notch when I had my '87 vette.



I think the Z06 is a steal at the $65k price. The car is not just a motor, it's an aluminum frame, a wider body, all sorts of improvements. The brakes, wheels, body, etc is bigger, yet the weight of the car is still so low. It should be an amazing car.



The ZR-1 had an MSRP of about $65k ten years ago. So the Z06 isn't exactly pushing the envelope for high-performance pricing. It's definitely not your average Corvette (and a Corvette is hardly average, so that's really something!)
 
Deep_Freeze said:
Yeah, I have a tendency to like the more efficent cars also, don't usually subscribe to the "more cubic inches the better" crowd. I love the scream of a fast foreign car approaching redline.
Click to expand...

SpoiledMan said:
It's so much fun to take less and do more with it. I think that's why I've always loved the little 4 banger cars.
Click to expand...



Not to bust on your choice, but people use the word "efficiency" to describe specific output a lot. What is it you are being efficient with, though? If it were gasoline, then a valid comparison would be power vs mileage, or maybe acceleration times vs mileage. In almost all of those cases, big pushrod motors will own.



Efficiency of displacement seems like a very academic point. Why conserve displacement? Is there a shortage of it? Really displacement is just empty swept space. So who cares how much of it you use?



Compare the last Z06 to a WRX STi. Some people will say the subie is more "efficient", yet the Z06 makes 105 more horsepower and also has a higher highway mpg rating. Which is actually more efficient at the gas pump?



Low-tech NASCAR motors will run to 10 grand, the Z06 motor swings to 7. Small motors don't equal revs, nor do DOHC motors, though that valvetrain is probably better suited to very high rpms.



The motors with the highest specific output are big lumbering pushrod motors with hemi heads. A top fuel motor can make about 8-9,000hp from a 500 cubic inch motor.



Please don't misread. I can appreciate the smaller motors that wind, I have three DOHC cars, and one pushrod with a supercharger. All that matters is you enjoy what you have. But I don't like to read how "Detroit iron" or pushrod motors are stereotyped as being low-tech or inefficient. It isn't true. I would bet the pushrod LS7 has more technology in manufacturing and design than most other production engines out there. Just because it doesn't have a lot of moving parts doesn't make it low-tech or old-school.
 
Aurora40 said:
Compare the last Z06 to a WRX STi.
Click to expand...
OK, I will . . . the Vette has four too many cylinders, no forced induction, and not enough driven wheels. :D



:chill: everyone; I kid, I kid. I admire hp in all of its holy forms, but I'm an AWD turbo bigot when it comes to the cars that I drive. I understand why some folks love big iron, though. Nothing like low-rpm neck-snapping torque to force the corners of your mouth toward your ears (in more ways than one).



Tort
 
TortoiseAWD said:
:chill: everyone; I kid, I kid. I admire hp in all of its holy forms, but I'm an AWD turbo bigot when it comes to the cars that I drive. I understand why some folks love big iron, though. Nothing like low-rpm neck-snapping torque to force the corners of your mouth toward your ears (in more ways than one).



Tort
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much what I'm saying is to each their own. There really isn't some superiority of one general engine architecture to another. It's not unlike detailing products. You like something different than someone else, that's cool. But don't try to bash on something else just to try to elevate the thing you like. :)
 
I wasn't "bashing" any engine architecture at all. I do have to say that when you compare the number of high tech Japanese engines to American engines it's rather lop sided. With the small engine you can put around town and get killer mileage and still do pretty good on the highway. That's one of the nice features that you get with the variable timed engines.



I grew up on the big iron and still love the cars but for the 95% around town driving that I do their not efficient enough for me. I have a lot of fun in my car with the little engine that can and still get 20 mpg and that's with spinning the motor to 7-8k rpm often.
 
SpoiledMan said:
I grew up on the big iron and still love the cars but for the 95% around town driving that I do their not efficient enough for me. I have a lot of fun in my car with the little engine that can and still get 20 mpg and that's with spinning the motor to 7-8k rpm often.
Click to expand...



I know you weren't bashing them intentionally, but the implication was there that they are inefficient, one you are reinforcing with this post. Anyway, if you want to talk specifics, I never had a problem getting 20mpg in everyday driving with my '87 Corvette either.



Certainly a small non-powerful motor in a light car will get the best economy, like an econocar. But when you want to talk performance motors, a high specific output does not necessarily mean a high efficiency. Gasoline is the thing to be conserved, not displacement. So power vs economy is the real measure of efficiency, not power vs displacement.



As I said, let's look at three cars the car rags consider "efficient". A Subaru 2.5L turbo 4 that makes 300hp and gets 18/24 epa mpg in the WRX STi, a Mitsubishi 2.0L turbo 4 that makes 276hp and gets 18/26 mpg in the Evo, and a 2.2L naturally aspirated Honda 4 that makes 240hp and gets 20/25 mpg in an S2000. Now compare that to a Chevrolet 5.7L naturally aspirated 8 that makes 405hp and gets 19/28 mpg in a Corvette Z06.



Which of these engines is truely the most efficient? If you measure it in terms of power per displacement, can you explain the relevance of this metric? What does it indicate exactly? And which of these engines is more impressive? Which engine would make your car perform the best?



If I could make a motor that made 25hp from .1L, would you swap it into your car? If I made a motor that displaced 2,000,000 cubic inches, but made 250hp and got 30/40mpg, would it be wasteful? What exactly would it be wasting? If I made enough of them, would the world run out of displacement?



Certainly there are a lot of factors to liking/needing a particular car other than the engine, not to mention everyone has different preferences just within engines. I am certainly not saying everyone should drive Corvettes, nor am I saying they are the best engines around. Everyone has a different idea of what the best is. But I do think the idea of labelling large motors as inefficient and small motors as efficient is disingenuous.
 
I understand what you are saying aurora40. In your comparison, you are ignoring the price, as all the cars you compare the Vette to cost half as much. The Honda has a redline at 9000 rpms and the Subaru and Mitsubishi both have AWD at half the price, to each is own. You put the extra money you save with anyone of those cars to equal the price of the Vette, and they will kill it.



For what you spend, I agree the Vette is the best deal stock from the manufactor as far as performance probably anywhere. But more goes into buying a car than just looking at the horsepower and mpg ratings, or else noone would ever buy a Ferrari. Cars that I would compare to the Vette would be more like an M3 or Lotus Esprit. But from a true performance standpoint, the Vette is second to none.



Let's compare equal to equal on paper for a second. A Mustang GT and a Z can be equipped to be roughly the same price, with the Mustang being a little less money. Mustang has a V8 with 300 HP with 17/25, the Z has a V6 with 287 HP with 20/26. Which one is more efficient?? Well, it is a little more complicated than that. The Z is 250 pounds lighter, so it has the better power to weight ratio, which makes it win the matchup in both performace and mpg. Now the Subaru and Mitsubishi are both faster with AWD.



The Vette has great numbers, for that kind of money, I would like something a bit more rare, but that is just my own personal tastes. As for the low tech/high tech argument, sound and feel have alot to do with it, and what a particular person enjoys.
 
Aurora40 said:
Not to bust on your choice, but people use the word "efficiency" to describe specific output a lot. What is it you are being efficient with, though? If it were gasoline, then a valid comparison would be power vs mileage, or maybe acceleration times vs mileage. In almost all of those cases, big pushrod motors will own.



Efficiency of displacement seems like a very academic point. Why conserve displacement? Is there a shortage of it? Really displacement is just empty swept space. So who cares how much of it you use?



Compare the last Z06 to a WRX STi. Some people will say the subie is more "efficient", yet the Z06 makes 105 more horsepower and also has a higher highway mpg rating. Which is actually more efficient at the gas pump?



Low-tech NASCAR motors will run to 10 grand, the Z06 motor swings to 7. Small motors don't equal revs, nor do DOHC motors, though that valvetrain is probably better suited to very high rpms.



The motors with the highest specific output are big lumbering pushrod motors with hemi heads. A top fuel motor can make about 8-9,000hp from a 500 cubic inch motor.



Please don't misread. I can appreciate the smaller motors that wind, I have three DOHC cars, and one pushrod with a supercharger. All that matters is you enjoy what you have. But I don't like to read how "Detroit iron" or pushrod motors are stereotyped as being low-tech or inefficient. It isn't true. I would bet the pushrod LS7 has more technology in manufacturing and design than most other production engines out there. Just because it doesn't have a lot of moving parts doesn't make it low-tech or old-school.
Click to expand...



Aurora40, you make a great case! I like your style! :xyxthumbs
 
Deep_Freeze said:
But more goes into buying a car than just looking at the horsepower and mpg ratings, or else noone would ever buy a Ferrari. Cars that I would compare to the Vette would be more like an M3 or Lotus Esprit. But from a true performance standpoint, the Vette is second to none.



Let's compare equal to equal on paper for a second. A Mustang GT and a Z can be equipped to be roughly the same price, with the Mustang being a little less money. Mustang has a V8 with 300 HP with 17/25, the Z has a V6 with 287 HP with 20/26. Which one is more efficient?? Well, it is a little more complicated than that.
Click to expand...



Absolutely! The only point I wanted to address was the specific output and efficiency stereotypes about big motors. There is way more complication when you talk about what car to buy. And even when you talk about which motor you like more. :)



As to price, this is a fair point too. I think price of the motor is more interesting, though, than the price of the car. Say you had one car and any of those motors would fit in it. Which would provide the best power and economy then? Surely it depends on how heavy the car is, and all sorts of stuff. I woudl suspect, though, that the price of the LS6 and the price of the S2000 motor are reasonably similar.



And price makes a better case for the equal for equal comparo. Look at a 360 Modena. 400hp from 3.6L, but something like 11/15 mpg? Which engine would most people say is more impressive? Probably the Ferrari engine, but why? Is it smoother than the LS6? Probably not. Does it make more power, cost less, or use less gas? No on all counts. So from an engineering (not lust) standpoint, which is more impressive a feat?



Anyway, I think we are on the same page. I definitely don't mean to say the 'vette motor owns all or anything. All I mean is that stereotypes about engines, be it "ricers" or "big iron" or whatever, are usually all in the head. Car magazines apply these same stereotypes, and I think it's a shame. There is nothing inherently low-tech about a motor with a lot of output and good economy just because it's a relatively large displacement with pushrods. And there is nothing inherently high-tech about a motor with variable this and dynamic that if it doesn't have lots of output or doesn't have good economy. Ultimately 250hp will do 250hp worth of work. The fact that it came from an engine with pistons the size of my head, or an engine with pistons the size of thimbles, doesn't change how much work 250hp will do. And 400hp can do more work than 250hp can do. In my opinion, more horsepower is usually more desirable, and getting more without a sacrifice of fuel economy is impressive engineering. :)



But again, everyone likes what they like. I love hearing my car rev to 7 grand. If you gave me a naturally aspirated 350+ in^3 that made 400hp but revved to 5,500 rpm, I wouldn't trade my engine out for it. If it used the same amount of fuel, emitted as little pollutants, and cost a lot less, (and definitely if it used technology circa the late 1980's) I'd say that's an impressive motor and some great work, though. :xyxthumbs
 
To stay on the topic of the new Z06, has anyone seen this? http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6168&item=4557139821&rd=1



An auction to bid on the amount you'll pay over MSRP for this dealer's first allotment. I don't know what's up with the bidding. It was up over $10,000 at one point, and now seems to be at $1,000? I wonder if people didn't realize they weren't bidding on the actual car, but rather just on the markup?
 
Aurora40 said:
And price makes a better case for the equal for equal comparo. Look at a 360 Modena. 400hp from 3.6L, but something like 11/15 mpg? Which engine would most people say is more impressive? Probably the Ferrari engine, but why? Is it smoother than the LS6? Probably not. Does it make more power, cost less, or use less gas? No on all counts. So from an engineering (not lust) standpoint, which is more impressive a feat?



Anyway, I think we are on the same page. I definitely don't mean to say the 'vette motor owns all or anything. All I mean is that stereotypes about engines, be it "ricers" or "big iron" or whatever, are usually all in the head. Car magazines apply these same stereotypes, and I think it's a shame. There is nothing inherently low-tech about a motor with a lot of output and good economy just because it's a relatively large displacement with pushrods. And there is nothing inherently high-tech about a motor with variable this and dynamic that if it doesn't have lots of output or doesn't have good economy. Ultimately 250hp will do 250hp worth of work. The fact that it came from an engine with pistons the size of my head, or an engine with pistons the size of thimbles, doesn't change how much work 250hp will do. And 400hp can do more work than 250hp can do. In my opinion, more horsepower is usually more desirable, and getting more without a sacrifice of fuel economy is impressive engineering. :)
Click to expand...



Yeah, we are on the same page. There are just too many factors to decide from, power and mpg are a function of other things. Gearing has a HUGE effect on mpg, as the Vette is geared with a very low 6th gear, and gearing overall to provide its fuel economy. The final drive ratio for the Vette is down at 2.73, which is below sea level compared to the Modena's atmospheric 4.44. Of course the Vette will get better mpg, and since its power is lower in the rpm band, it can be geared that way and still have power. All Ferrari cares about is power and responsiveness, they could careless about mpg, heck if you have to worry about mpg, you can't afford a Ferrari anyway.



There is also body rigidity, reliability, interior design, rarity, sex appeal and such to consider when purchasing a car. It is MY opinion that the Vette doesn't rank high enough in other catergories for ME to spend my money on it, but that is just me. Not dogging the car, just stating why I think the way I do, I like Vettes alot just not my cup of tea. Most people just aren't honest with themselves when they buy a car, in my individual situation and price range, I respect the speed of a WRX or Evo, but I'm single with no kids and they just aren't sexy enough for me (not doging them in any way of course). Doesn't really matter how fast they are, lol, with my custom rims, women have humped my Z on several occasions. My car is still pretty fast and can be modded to be faster, but I gain intangibles in other areas, lol.



But I still say, that turning a Vette into a paint mixer is definitely attractive, lol. That would be sweet. :cool:
 
Hello,



I'm new to the forum and ran across this thread. First off I would like to say I respect everyones opinion.



I think GM has done a good job on setting the Z06 pricing.

I have one on order and will be taking delivery in the first quarter of next year.



I know what others are saying about most dealers prep work.

When my C6 order arrived at my dealer I didn't let them do any work on the car except unload it from the truck and park it until I was there to supervise. I even supplied the products for it's first hand wash and drying.



I think I will leave the Z06 stock. If I want to mix paint I fire up the Nova.



John



HELLROD004SM.jpg




HELLROD018SM.jpg
 
Haven't read through the thread, but I think the Z06 is a bargain. Good brakes, suspension, dry sump motor, relatively low weight. For a stock vehicle? At $65k? Fantastic.



Frankly I'm surprised about the comparisons with lower priced cars. This car can run with cars twice the price.



At the end of the day, not sure it will feel as communicative as some European sports cars, but I have to applaud GM for trying to be a world beater. Hell of a track car.



- J
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top