Fixed.

I know this is what you mean, but the words you used give the wrong message.

That is perfectly put thank you ;)

I believe the corvette is the best handling American made car.

I don't know about that. The Camaro is built on the Australian monaro VXR chassis so it's excluded, but I'd have to guess the ford GT would do better than the Corvette. But the best is most likely the Cadillac CTS-V because of it's European inspiration.

You always need to look at the tires on the cars in the comparisons. They are tested as they come from the factory, and if you want to ace the test, put sticky tires on the car. Think about a track day with 300 treadwear tires vs something like a Michelin Super Sport, Hancook RS3, Yoki Advan, or any other sub 200 tire. The tires can make seconds of difference on equal cars. Ever notice that Porsches take Porsche versions of tires (Type N)? That maintains the Porsche performance experience.

ive never been a fan of vettes but the new top of the lines are impressive. imo i dont think any sports car should get an auto trans but im not trying to start a war here. i love the 458 and not that i could buy one but it angers me that you cant have it in a stick.

anyway power and handeling dont always go hand in hand (lotus). god i want one of those

Actually Mike I disagree with you here. Contrary to popular internet belief electronic aids are not just about "covering up drivers mistakes" or "driving for someone". They allow an otherwise very good driver to perform even better than he would otherwise. There are things like active differentials that provide a stability and traction advantage which cannot be added by a driver regardless of skill.

I would also disagree with the often held belief on this forum that numbers are totally pointless and don't matter. That is frankly wishful thinking. Yes... I have seen skilled drivers in cheaper, underpowered cars (most often Miata's) turn faster lap times than less experienced/skilled drivers in more powerful platforms. Having a superior platform doesn't mean you have the ability to use it, but it also doesn't negate the advantages the platform gives you.

While driver skill is not something you can easily measure, it can easily be seen in the top level lap times of the respective platforms. Driven by equally "top of the pack" drivers a Corvette will be stupidly faster than an RX-8/Miata etc to the tune of 10-12 seconds a lap which is an eternity in racing terms. If anything what is more surprising is how close a car like the Corvette can come when driven by a professional to far more expensive and sophisticated cars despite its H-pattern gearbox and simplistic suspension.

On one hand, I agree with you. Electronic aids do indeed allow for very good drivers to drive even faster. However, I disagree that this is in contradiction to what I stated.

(Note* I am excluding things which are simply part of how the car works. An active diff is NOT a 'driver aid' to me any more than a coilover is.)

As noted elsewhere in a discussion around ABS vs non-ABS, they can quanifiably show that a non-ABS car CAN stop faster than an ABS car (of the same weight, make , model, tires, etc...). However, the ABS car will consistently produce faster lap times simply because the driver can bring the brake system right against the threshhold repeatedly, time and time and time again without destroying the tires due to locking. This is what I am referring to here. ABS is valued, it is desired, it is good to have. But it is still fundamentally covering up a driver 'mistake' in the form of excessive brake pressure. It allows the driver to consistently ignore the effect of exceeding the threshhold, because the driver aid prevents that from destroying the tires.

I'm not advocating removal of them, but fact remains that electronic driver aids exist for the sole purpose of allowing the driver to drive closer to the edge with a more reduced chance of making catastrophic mistakes.

This would be a difference in articulation.

Numbers do indeed matter. No one here fundamentally disagrees with that point. However, the degree of impact each metric makes changes dynamically for each individual's decisions, their enjoyment, their life.

Take horsepower. Take the number used. Lets call it 420hp. Is the car really making 420hp? Is it making it all the time? Is it even making it consistently? No, no, and no. It's an accurate number indicating the engine performance at a very specific point in time under those environmental conditions as measured by a human calibrated machine. So, very precise for what it is, but at the same time it is ENTIRELY subjective.


And then there are the other people that only care about putting a smile on their face. Some of the numbers associated with getting that smile there are quantifiable, and can be listed, but in the end, it's not the numbers we care about, it's the fact that the smile exists. If helping that smile stay there motivates you to constantly improving the numbers on your car, that's perfectly fine. But even for you, it's not actually the numbers that matter. :)




These are the two basic thoughts behind everyone that says "numbers don't matter".

Are you sure that's the Camaro or the GTO? I'm pretty sure the GTO shares the chassis with the Monaro. CTS-V is a lot heavier than the corvette, It was criticized for it's weight actually and I don't believe it has a true 50/50 weight distribution. I'm sure it's good for a sedan but there's no way it handles better than a proper sports car despite it being European inspired. Its just an CTS with an ls motor. Ford GT is really heavy and overall a bulky car. I believe in a straight it would kill the corvette but not in twisties.

I've owned a ctsv and they handle well for what they are but they still weigh 4000 lbs. Definitely not the best handling American car.

:wallbash: A ctsV isn't just a cts with an ls motor. There's actually a lot of differences.

And a Ford GT weighs a lil under 3,500 lbs, not really that bulky and it wouldn't 'kill' a corvette, at least not a Z06 in a straight line. I've seen Z06's with faster 1/4 mil times and 0-60 times than the GT.

Yeaaaaa CTS-V? I don't think so.

Besides the newer vettes or the Ford GT, maybe a Saleen s7, who knows but definitely NOT a CTS-V.

The GTO is a rebadged monaro. The Camaro is built on the same platform. Or so I've read in a magazine a long time ago lol.

This thread has nothing to do in the "smiles per minute" metric everyone seems obsessed about. We're talking about handling, speed, and performance. This thread was specifically made to respond to comments about Corvette's being slow. It has nothing to do with how happy the driver is...The truth is Corvettes are surprisingly fast compared to the more exotic machinery their regularly compared against. I still wouldn't own one, but I won't argue they are slow.

People seem to get into a defensive mode about other cars on this forum. Nobody is attacking how much fun anybody has in their car... its just a simple fact that the Corvette is faster around a track. Considering the difference in numbers it would be appalling if it wasn't.

For me numbers are a simple way of improving aspects to the car while I improve my driving skill. Both aspects are important and both are fun to improve which helps with the "smiles per minute". I try and keep a healthy distance between the discussion of how much I love my car and how fast it is... the two sides are not necessarily connected.

I agree that smiles per mile isn't the point of the thread.

You brought that up in response to NYCGPS's comment, but applied it to the forum as a whole, and I was just providing a clearer definition of the mentality behind the comment. Even if inaccurate in regards to race results, NYCGPS's comment illustrated my point. Figure 8 skidpad numbers mean nothing. Winning races does. And the whole point of that article in the OP is figure 8 skidpad numbers. Which is incredibly subjective even to anyone that wants solid numbers to be able to produce a podium finish.



At no point am I arguing against the Corvette's performance stats or it's effectiveness.

Well said man.

Fair enough, and I certainly agree that many of the metrics taken as proof positive of a cars performance are totally ludicrous. In an effort to find standard benchmarks to compare vastly different platforms with different tires/drivers etc we are left with either:

0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, Sustained g-forces, figure 8/slalom times or things like 'Ring speed records. The closest I've seen to measuring accurately the performance of cars is having the competitors driven by the same professional driver on the same track on the same day and comparing notes in addition to the lap times and data. A good example although by no means perfect is something like the DSPORT New Car Guide where they combine drag/time trial times with tested 0-60 times, corner balanced weight, price-as-sold etc to give you as close as you can get to an apples to apples comparison. Even that doesn't help once you start modifying the platforms as some cars are extremely easy to extract performance from and others struggle to gain any noticeable changes.

As we've all seen though, sometimes the numbers on paper are not the only measure of a car's performance. The peak power numbers may be high, but the power under the curve isn't, or the power is there but the car is too heavy to use it nimbly. Maybe the engine/drivetrain is great, but the suspension was the same one used on the Ark. Lots of elements go into making a fast car, and that's before even getting into the personal element. I just get a little annoyed when people make blanket statements like "it's the driver not the car that matters." It's both... a hamfisted driver will turn the fastest race car in the world into a nightmare while even the fastest driver in the world cannot pass other cars with a '97 Geo Prism automatic. :sad:

That's partially true.
The corvette is fast when it has to follow its own rules. The engine displacement is so big that comparing it to a 4.5l ferrari (and it still loses) is pointless, in real competition the 'vette would be racing against the 6 litre counterpart, and the differences would be even more marked.

The truth is that the 'vette performs very well for the price but is a step behind the competition everywhere. Chassis, suspension, engine whatever.

The GTO and the 5th gen Camaro do not share the same chassis. The Camaro is in fact based on a redesigned Holden chassis, but it's a generation newer... think Pontiac G8 (Commodore VE) with a shortened wheelbase.

The GTO's chassis design roots are from Europe. Remember the Cadillac Catera (Opel Omega) from the late 90's? The GTO has that chassis. Go look at the door handles from a Catera and compare them to the GTO's. Scary, eh?

Just wanted to clear that up... carry on.

Come on, man. Rules? The LS3 in the Vette costs $6500. You're right, you CAN'T compare a relatively cheap, push rod V8 to the world record holding Ferrari engine. It's beyond pointless... it's f'ing ludicrous.

How does the LS3 make 430hp for that cheap??? Displacement and a smart, optimized design that's easily mass produced. That's an accomplishment in and of itself. To not appreciate the Corvette and piss on it like it's trash shows how little you appreciate sports cars in general.

There's still a corvette in every neighborhood. What's your point?

2008 GT-R? I guess, Nissan don't want to push it too far. too many new designs. needs time to figure out what's good what's bad.

2012 GT-R ? Hello Z06. and oh yes, 2012 GT-R with street tires and brakes owned Z06. but honestly it's just another "my penis is bigger than urs" contest. they make updates/tweaks to it every year, and BOOM. time decreased again.

Corvette is not slow, any car with couple hundred horse will automatically turn into a "fast" car. but does it mean anything? to some ppl, not to me.

totally. :SHOCKED:

OOOOO

MMMMM

GGGGG

:naughty::aroused::yumyum:

:scratchhe

For me to keep this thread on topic, I'd have to start blabbering on about the Mclaren F1(which I have zero experience with). But instead, I'll say this: My C5 Z06 Handles significantly better than my Rx8 did. I had a C5 before my Rx8, I enjoyed the RX8, but it was never as good. The Rx8 is a great little car......but I went back to a corvette.