Daily sports car? | Page 10 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Daily sports car?

I think what could be defined as a "sports car" is more of a spectrum than a hard definition, as seen in the many posts arguing over seat count or power numbers. As someone said above "I'll know it when I see it" in that it's a combination of various factors and a consideration of the whole package rather than specific ingredients. I would say, beyond engine size/position and seat numbers, I would say "sports cars" are designed more for enjoyment and/or performance rather than another function, such as towing or moving people.

Even if you ask a large group of people to pick a photo of a beautiful woman (or guy), you're going to get a variety of answers. You'll get some overlap in what features they have, but there will be a spectrum in the body types and general look they have based on tastes and what each person prioritizes.
This is what i'm trying to get to, the metrics people are using are so flexible it's impossible to draw a line in the sand.
 
> So a 2+2 car by design cannot have excellent handling? I'll challenge you on that all day.

Nimble handling. You're not going to make even a great GT car like mine compete with a Miata or a Super 7 on a tight parking lot slalom. Road courses tend to be more about corner speed, grip and power than about handling, FWIW. Think about transitions, tight corners and tricky, tight back roads - those are where sports cars come alive.

> Are these things trapping 130s on regular 91 pump gas?

My Turbo S trapped 135.99 on Canadian Tire 91 with the manual in the glove box and the toolboxes in the frunk. It won't go much over 130 or so with the worn, OEM tires I have now, it just spins too much, all four tires slip. I'm going with some Michelin P4S for my next tires.

> I think what could be defined as a "sports car" is more of a spectrum than a hard definition

That's an opinion, and an incorrect one. "Sports car" is a definition. Don't go to Webster for it, though. People seem to think that a great car should be called a "sports car" because it's fast or something - but that isn't the case. There are many, quite slow, sports cars. Bugeye Sprite, several of the older Super 7s, Triumphs, etc. are not fast cars - but they will hold very good corner speed and they are a joy to drive in that the driver very much can find the limits and exploit them. GT cars are all about power, grip and relative practicality ... a sports car can actually be a GT car but a typical GT car isn't a sports car ... 2+2 seating is usually the reason.
 
Are these things trapping 130s on regular 91 pump gas? I know that with the C7 Z06 they lose a lot of power on 91 vs the 93 they get in the eastern/southern states almost a 60 rwhp difference on dyno
I've only used 91 in mine. Hard to believe 60?
Next time I straight line it, I'm going to try 94.
 
I've only used 91 in mine. Hard to believe 60?
Next time I straight line it, I'm going to try 94.
Make sure you switch early. I'm not sure how long the Corvette takes to compensate, but apparently VW takes a tank or two to adapt to higher octane fuel.
 
Make sure you switch early. I'm not sure how long the Corvette takes to compensate, but apparently VW takes a tank or two to adapt to higher octane fuel.
Yes, thanks. I had planned on running it near dry, filling with 94. Run that down to half, and fill with 94 again. Then burn half that off, and run it.(lighter).
I think the fuel mgmt compensates on the fly, but not sure.
I'm not going to try, but a tank of 87 would let you know in a hurry, I think.
 
Yes, thanks. I had planned on running it near dry, filling with 94. Run that down to half, and fill with 94 again. Then burn half that off, and run it.(lighter).
I think the fuel mgmt compensates on the fly, but not sure.
I'm not going to try, but a tank of 87 would let you know in a hurry, I think.
It should respond much faster going down than up. The knock sensor will quickly pull timing (almost instantly). Going the other direction, the computer keeps adding a little bit of timing then watching, then adding, etc until the knock sensor hits.
 
I've only used 91 in mine. Hard to believe 60?
Next time I straight line it, I'm going to try 94.

Indeed, thing with petro 94 is I've read it's all show no go, it's been shown to be no better than 91 according to some Subaru STI owners on their forums
But who knows every car's different it might just work well in the C7Z

here's a link to the dyno I referred to:

Took my 2017 Z06 to the Dyno! Got vids & #s... - CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion

That 91 octane run is still better than a N/A vette but not significantly better which is how a C7Z should be, Those things really do need better fuel

As for Shamans 911 that is good trap speed on 91 octane almost no difference compared with higher octane runs

Too bad they don't sell E85 up here, these cars can pick up some signficant amount of power tuned for it
 
Last edited:
Too bad they don't sell E85 up here, these cars can pick up some signficant amount of power tuned for it
Do they have enough fuel pump and injection for E85? Again, in the VW world, to run E85, the north american guys are adding multiport injection to supplement the DI and upgrading both fuel pumps. Huge numbers in the end but tons of money and work.
 
Ultra 94 sucked a couple mph out of my trap speed, actually. It's lower in energy density than 91 Canadian Tire - which is 100% gasoline, no ethanol. Additionally, I believe the CT is more than 91 octane, to be sure that they don't face liability questions... ;)

Either way, my car works best on 91 octane pure gasoline. Ultra 94 is something I use when I get it... but independent testing from Porsche tuners in Canada says that Ultra 94 has similar knock characteristics to pure 91 octane pump gasoline (from Shell, but that's no longer a sure thing either, apparently).

When I put some 91 octane in the tank from McKewens, I had the car pull ALL power when I put my foot down entering the 401, presumably because of detected knock. That was interesting for more than one reason.
 
Ultra 94 sucked a couple mph out of my trap speed, actually. It's lower in energy density than 91 Canadian Tire - which is 100% gasoline, no ethanol. Additionally, I believe the CT is more than 91 octane, to be sure that they don't face liability questions... ;)

Either way, my car works best on 91 octane pure gasoline. Ultra 94 is something I use when I get it... but independent testing from Porsche tuners in Canada says that Ultra 94 has similar knock characteristics to pure 91 octane pump gasoline (from Shell, but that's no longer a sure thing either, apparently).

When I put some 91 octane in the tank from McKewens, I had the car pull ALL power when I put my foot down entering the 401, presumably because of detected knock. That was interesting for more than one reason.
So you were down to 300 hp?

Since your car seems like a good fuel test bed, how is Costco 91?
 
OMG. Use oil.

Yes it's a definition. Been around a long, long time. And yes it's been listed in motorsports on many occassions. No idea who is doing so now. Remember, if everything is a sports car, nothing is a sports car.

I haven't tried Costco 91 in it. I think I was more likely down to about 20hp when the ECU pulled all power. I mean, the car fell on its face. Without the turbos it probably makes about 400hp... it's fun trying to stay completely out of boost and still dramatically out-pace traffic. On boost, though, the car really comes alive in terms of *torque*.
 
The C8 is a looker, that’s for sure. Out of my price range though. Saying that I’d be perfectly happy these days with a C5.

Built a base 4cyl Camaro with trackpack online for shitzengigglez. $40 k lol.
 
Loved my aunt’s 92 C4 ZR1. Sure, the C5 and newer base engine has more power but, the memories of driving the Florida coast back in the day still bring plenty of smiles.


Cheap to obtain a decent clean example today. Wife won’t let go of the MGB.....lol. So it will remain trying to go fast in a slow car for awhile yet!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_F
Vette's I think have always been sold at a loss to GM?
dollar for dollar, they have always punched above their weight

but I'd have a really hard time buying anything from GM now
 

Back
Top Bottom