Live: 2014 Corvette Revealed!

[D23]

Forum Sponsor

I think the point that's getting lost is that 0-60 time is not a great metric of "pure sports coupe".

That's why I included the 1/4 time where again, the Audi is faster.

Again, that's all that was being compared. Nobody claimed the S8 was a track day car or even claimed it was a Sports car for that matter.

Keep going on about how acceleration is irrelevant to performance all you want though.

Just for fun........ C7 stopping distance vs. S8 stopping distance. Dead even. (107 feet from 60-0) So, since the S8 is stopping 1700 more LBS, I'd say it's better. Brake fade is pretty much a no brainer since that would be carbo ceramic vs. steel rotors so.... yea.....

I guess now, braking won't be a performance measure either.

 

[Snobike Mike]

As a long time reader (over 25+ years) and reading various in-depth articles about how they test vehicles and invest in cutting edge data measuring equipment, I can assure you that Car and Driver takes accurate performance measurements very seriously and arguably do it better than any car mag on the planet.

not so impressive -----> 0-60 in 3.9 and the 1/4 in 12.2

Impressive -------> 1.08g's on the skidpad

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-specs.pdf

And as I've already mentioned the C&D test was done under GM supervision and with a test mule, not a production car. Have a peak at the C6 fast lists I posted and there are some stomping times from lowly bone stock C6's.

Any 0-60 time under 4 seconds is impressive but it still doesn't define a car. A true sports car needs to go, stop and turn, only some of which the S8 does well. The new E63 AMG barge will also be in the neighbourhood of the S8 for 0-60 times but it's still a barge.

I'd also like to see real world roll on performance specs because most AWD cars will pull good 0-60 compared to any RWD car.

It's braking test is also impressive, now do that for 20 laps around your favorite track and lets see whose brakes are smoking at the end, the s8's or the C7's (it'll be the s8's if they even last 20 laps....).

Cars are getting close to the limits of physics for acceleration/braking/cornering. Because of that you will continue to see a wide variety of vehicles all narrowing into the same envelope of specs for performance tests.

The S8 is impressive but to make a cart blanche statement that all other cars now suck because the S8 is a heavy pig and "beats" other cars in certain specific one-off tests is ridiculous.

 

[Snobike Mike]

That's why I included the 1/4 time where again, the Audi is faster.

There are lowly c6's going faster in both than the s8 so one test does not prove your point.

Again, that's all that was being compared. Nobody claimed the S8 was a track day car or even claimed it was a Sports car for that matter.

And yet you write that the corvette sucks because a barge happened to post better numbers in one single test against a GM controlled test mule in the hands of C&D. Is the S8's0-60 and 1/4 times impressive? Absolutely YES. Does that make the C7 a piece of junk that GM should be embarrassed about? Um, nope.

Keep going on about how acceleration is irrelevant to performance all you want though.

It's not irrelevant and I have never said such. What I have said is that 2 spec's don't make a car, nor do they make all other cars that don't match them garbage.

Just for fun........ C7 stopping distance vs. S8 stopping distance. Dead even. (107 feet from 60-0) So, since the S8 is stopping 1700 more LBS, I'd say it's better. Brake fade is pretty much a no brainer since that would be carbo ceramic vs. steel rotors so.... yea.....

So the S8 and C7 are a push on braking, not better, not worse. Just because it stops more weight in the same distance doesn't make it better, impressive? yes, but not better.

C7 base car doesn't have carbon brakes so what are you saying? Since nobody has tested the C7 on the track lap after lap I can only say that I bet the C7 will have less brake fade than the S8.

I guess now, braking won't be a performance measure either.

It sure is, but it's only 1 spec and in this case is the same, and uh oh, S8 70-0 braking 169 feet and the C7, wait for it, wait for it.....155 feet (now see how the weight IS a factor.....). I guess the S8 must now be junk right???

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Cars are getting close to the limits of physics for acceleration/braking/cornering.

Not even close.

Ariel Atom = 2.9 (Atom 500 - 2.3)

X-Bow matches the Vette @ 3.9, and that's from a little 237HP 2.0L inline 4.

Hell, Audi even offers a station wagon that will pull the Vette! LOL

2014 Audi RS6 Avant 0-60 mph 3.7 Quarter Mile 11.9

 

[Snobike Mike]

Not even close.

Ariel Atom = 2.9 (Atom 500 - 2.3)

Yep, an Arial Atom is also an apples to apples (not) comparison to a daily driver/enclosed/comfortable car. There are a lot of bikes on this form that can't do 0-60 in under 3 seconds and certainly won't corner like and Ariel as well. They must all be junk.

X-Bow matches the Vette @ 3.9, and that's from a little 237HP 2.0L inline 4.

Why not throw a formula 1 car into the mix. Picking weird/obscure/low production vehicles and comparing them to a mass produced sports car available at your local dealership is flawed logic at best.

Hell, Audi even offers a station wagon that will pull the Vette! LOL

2014 Audi RS6 Avant 0-60 mph 3.7 Quarter Mile 11.9

I certainly hope its faster to 60 than a base vette especially since it has 100 more HP and AWD. But how can your super Avant be about the same speed or slower as a really junky C6??

Showroom Stock C6 LS3 (2008 - 2013)
11.718 @ 119.94 - AndrewZPSU - 08 M6 - (2586)
11.806 @ 118.82 - Gmrulz - 08 A6 Z51, NPP - (3478)
11.974 @ 116.98 - Proney - 08 M6 Z51, NPP - (4652)

Yep, one spec really does make all other vehicles that don't match it complete junk.

PS, You can keep your station wagon.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Hell, Audi even offers a station wagon that will pull the Vette! LOL

2014 Audi RS6 Avant 0-60 mph 3.7 Quarter Mile 11.9

It ain't beatin any of these bone stock vettes:

The C6 Z06 Fast List
Last Updated: July 1, 2013

==================
Bone-Stock on Stock Tires
==================
Rank~~ E.T.~~ Trap~ 60'~ Driver~~~~~ M.Yr. Details Thread Video
1~~~~ 10.981 128.90 1.77 Jamie Furman~ 2006 details~~ thread
2~~~~ 11.025 127.25 1.70 Ranger ~~~~~ 2006 details~~ thread video
3~~~~ 11.177 127.08 1.79 walterm32~~~ 2008 details~~ thread
4~~~~ 11.242 122.38 1.68 Dr.Ron ~~~~~ 2006 details~~ thread
5~~~~ 11.311 122.89 1.80 BLU-BY-U ~~~ 2006 details~~ thread
6~~~~ 11.349 124.97 1.75 zosix427 ~~~~ 2006 details~~
7~~~~ 11.392 124.84 1.92 C5 Frank ~~~~ 2006 details~~ thread
8~~~~ 11.429 124.88 1.86 dgdoc ~~~~~~ 2006 details~~ thread video
9~~~~ 11.443 125.93 1.95 O7zeeO6 ~~~~ 2007 details~~ thread
10 ~~~ 11.458 124.13 1.80 layjzay~~~~~~ 2006 details~~

11~~~ 11.488 123.86 1.80 Z06kait ~~~~~ 2007 details~~ thread
12~~~ 11.506 123.95 1.91 Burnin4~~~~~ 2006 details~~ ~~~~ video
13~~~ 11.512 124.39 1.85 forcefed281~~ 2009 details~~
14~~~ 11.545 123.16 1.83 dpracing ~~~~ 2007 details~~
15~~~ 11.554 124.13 1.86 jtfx ~~~~~~~~ 2007 details~~
16~~~ 11.557 126.68 1.95 Incon306 ~~~~ 2007 details~~
17~~~ 11.560 124.53 1.85 Zlicious ~~~~~ 2006 details~~ thread
18~~~ 11.592 125.94 1.95 Goatts ~~~~~~ 2009 details~~
19~~~ 11.607 122.99 1.87 Frozen~~~~~~ 2008 details~~
20~~~ 11.627 121.67 1.83 BLK BZT~~~~~ 2006 details~~

21~~~ 11.638 122.46 1.88 Chempwr~~~~ 2007 details~~
22~~~ 11.641 120.71 1.78 svt2z06 ~~~~~ 2008 details~~
23~~~ 11.682 127.70 2.05 Rusc6z06 ~~~~ 2008 details~~ thread video
24~~~ 11.687 121.41 1.97 linuxrepublican. 2008 details~~
25~~~ 11.695 122.44 1.93 vredvet~~~~~~ 2008 details~~
26~~~ 11.705 126.13 2.12 dpracing~~~~~ 2009 details~~ thread
27~~~ 11.709 121.78 2.06 Armalite~~~~~ 2011 details~~ thread
28~~~ 11.709 121.41 1.86 JWGJR ~~~~~~ 2007 details~~ thread
29~~~ 11.770 121.00 1.97 D-Rod~~~~~~~ 2006 details~~
30~~~ 11.821 123.75 2.11 USMCFRC ~~~~ 2008 details~~

31~~~ 11.839 125.31 2.08 AirBusPilot ~~~ 2009 details~~
32~~~ 11.859 117.86 1.82 '06QuicksilverZ06 2006 details~~ thread
33~~~ 11.876 119.43 1.99 saleentim ~~~~ 2009 details~~
34~~~ 11.946 122.49 2.02 Cyphear ~~~~~ 2007 details~~ ~~~~ video
35~~~ 11.982 122.52 2.10 CivEngineer~~~ 2006 details~~
36~~~ 11.991 122.52 1.96 cr133r ~~~~~~ 2006 details~~ thread video

 

[FullMotoJacket]

You can keep your station wagon.

I'd rather have the wagon. For starters, I wouldn't be taking it back to the dealer @ 40,000km to have rattles and squeaks addressed every other week (and don't try and claim it's not a common complaint/problem for C5s and C6s).

 

[infernobuster]

I'd rather have the wagon. For starters, I wouldn't be taking it back to the dealer @ 40,000km to have rattles and squeaks addressed every other week (and don't try and claim it's not a common complaint/problem for C5s and C6s).

Its not.
Ive yet to hear of any vette owner with a c5 or c6 complain of such a thing.

But carry on ..

 

[Hype R]

I havent read through all of the posts in here but it looks fugly to me. Maybe it needs to grow on me but my impression of it is not good.

Its a cross between the front end of the new Viper and the back end of the Camaro. Also, a 427 Motor producing that kind of power is not at all impressive to me when you can get that kind of power out of a smaller motor. This is technology not at its work.

For example, and im going to shoot at an SUV for this, the 2014 SRT-8 Cherokee has 470HP and 465ft.lbs with a 392 where the just regular Corvette 427 has 430HP and 424ft.lbs and the Z06 version has 505HP and 470ft.lbs. Not the greatest comparisons but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[Hype R]

I havent read through all of the posts in here but it looks fugly to me. Maybe it needs to grow on me but my impression of it is not good.

Its a cross between the front end of the new Viper and the back end of the Camaro. Also, a 427 Motor producing that kind of power is not at all impressive to me when you can get that kind of power out of a smaller motor. This is technology not at its work.

For example, and im going to shoot at an SUV for this, the 2014 SRT-8 Cherokee has 470HP and 465ft.lbs with a 392 where the just regular Corvette 427 has 430HP and 424ft.lbs and the Z06 version has 505HP and 470ft.lbs. Not the greatest comparisons but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[sal]

I'm sorry but that post reaked of armchair racer. If you're hobby is cliche acceleration and braking stats comparisons, you're missing what performance cars are about.

So what was claimed then was that a really expensive (more than double the cost), AWD, heavy car can out accelerate from a dig and brake equally (once) to a lighter, cheaper, RWD car ? Woop tee doo. Like I said before, nice observation but it really doesnt say much about anything.

That's why I included the 1/4 time where again, the Audi is faster.

Again, that's all that was being compared. Nobody claimed the S8 was a track day car or even claimed it was a Sports car for that matter.

Keep going on about how acceleration is irrelevant to performance all you want though.

Just for fun........ C7 stopping distance vs. S8 stopping distance. Dead even. (107 feet from 60-0) So, since the S8 is stopping 1700 more LBS, I'd say it's better. Brake fade is pretty much a no brainer since that would be carbo ceramic vs. steel rotors so.... yea.....

I guess now, braking won't be a performance measure either.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Its not.
Ive yet to hear of any vette owner with a c5 or c6 complain of such a thing.

But carry on ..

LMAO

One of many.

http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112476

 

[sal]

People get caught up on displacement related efficiency but it doesnt really matter.

What matters is weight of the powerplant, power produced and amount fuel used. By those metrics, the GM LS series engines are quite remarkable. If you look up HP outputs between similar cars to a Vette, you will find that the Vettes do really well despite the much larger engine and much smaller price tag.

430hp 6.2L V8 Corvette - $60k
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32370.shtml

400hp 3.8L Flat 6 - Porsche Carrerra S - $100k
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32379.shtml

I havent read through all of the posts in here but it looks fugly to me. Maybe it needs to grow on me but my impression of it is not good.

Its a cross between the front end of the new Viper and the back end of the Camaro. Also, a 427 Motor producing that kind of power is not at all impressive to me when you can get that kind of power out of a smaller motor. This is technology not at its work.

For example, and im going to shoot at an SUV for this, the 2014 SRT-8 Cherokee has 470HP and 465ft.lbs with a 392 where the just regular Corvette 427 has 430HP and 424ft.lbs and the Z06 version has 505HP and 470ft.lbs. Not the greatest comparisons but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[Snobike Mike]

I'd rather have the wagon. For starters, I wouldn't be taking it back to the dealer @ 40,000km to have rattles and squeaks addressed every other week (and don't try and claim it's not a common complaint/problem for C5s and C6s).

Cuz Audi's have such an exceptional track record they are never at the dealership.......

 

[Snobike Mike]

I havent read through all of the posts in here but it looks fugly to me. Maybe it needs to grow on me but my impression of it is not good.

The rear certainly is a disaster.

Its a cross between the front end of the new Viper and the back end of the Camaro. Also, a 427 Motor producing that kind of power is not at all impressive to me when you can get that kind of power out of a smaller motor. This is technology not at its work.

You should drive a 427 or an LS3 and then get in a M3. Yep, the M3 and the LS3 make similar HP but there is a big difference in power delivery. I'll take big HP AND Big Torque any day over a high strung smaller engine (kinda like 600 vs 1000 comparisions).

For example, and im going to shoot at an SUV for this, the 2014 SRT-8 Cherokee has 470HP and 465ft.lbs with a 392 where the just regular Corvette 427 has 430HP and 424ft.lbs and the Z06 version has 505HP and 470ft.lbs. Not the greatest comparisons but hopefully you get the idea.

Um, there is no "regular" 427 that makes 430hp, It's the 378 LS3 that makes those numbers. The 378 LS9 makes 621 hp.

The NA 427 makes 505 hp.

The new C7 engine is also 378 and it makes 460 hp so it's smaller than your SUV comparison but makes very similar power.

 

[SunnY S]

And as I've already mentioned the C&D test was done under GM supervision and with a test mule, not a production car.

.

No, in your post, you said......

Please show me where. GM has estimated that time, until it's in the hands of real people running the car that number is just BS.

.

Car and Driver actually used a "real person" and strapped test equipment to the car and conducted real world performance tests.

Looking at the drivers notes, it appears to be a full production version with all the toys and options. Even the VIN is there. This is far from a "production mule."

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray.pdf

The reason the car is so "slow", is because its a porky beast that weighs more than the last gen.

 

[infernobuster]

LMAO

One of many.

http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112476

Never heard of it, till today.

But i guess all your cars have been completly perfect, coming off the production line.

 

[Snobike Mike]

No, in your post, you said......




Car and Driver actually used a "real person" and strapped test equipment to the car and conducted real world performance tests.

Looking at the drivers notes, it appears to be a full production version with all the toys and options. Even the VIN is there. This is far from a "production mule."

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray.pdf

The reason the car is so "slow", is because its a porky beast that weighs more than the last gen.

It WAS GM's estimated times, and C&D's test was done under GM's control and all prototype cars have VIN's. That car wasn't sold at a dealership to the public.

And as already proven many many times, production purchased public C6 cars are posting quicker times than GM published numbers and also what the trade rags got.

For $56K the C7 is pretty cheap performance. It is similar weight and has more power, especially under the curve.

If you don't like it, don't buy it or read about it or anything else.

 

[Gary]

No, in your post, you said......




Car and Driver actually used a "real person" and strapped test equipment to the car and conducted real world performance tests.

Looking at the drivers notes, it appears to be a full production version with all the toys and options. Even the VIN is there. This is far from a "production mule."

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray.pdf

The reason the car is so "slow", is because its a porky beast that weighs more than the last gen.

If that's a 'real' VIN, Rick Hendrick is going to be very upset. He paid $1M at the January Barrett Jackson for VIN ending "00001"
Assembly line "Production" (test mules aside) does not commence until Aug 5th 2013.

 

[Snobike Mike]

If that's a 'real' VIN, Rick Hendrick is going to be very upset. He paid $1M at the January Barrett Jackson for VIN ending "00001"
Assembly line "Production" (test mules aside) does not commence until Aug 5th 2013.

There is a difference between the production/for sale VIN's and the non-production/prototype, etc cars. Unfortunately most mules with non-production VIN's end up as small square boxes once GM is done with them.

Forum Sponsor