Sorry to hear that. Any reason you didn't go foreign?

Just curious. The vette is a great car but it's not my style.

There are a few minor upgrades compared from the CTS and the CTS-V but the major improvement is the supercharged LS motor. The brembos, etc are to be expected with a 600hp+ car weighing over 4,500lbs. I'm not hating on the CTS-V, I was just pointing out there is no possible way a CTS-V can handle better than a corvette. But if you were comparing a Ford GT with a corvette, it'd most likely be the ZR-1 as the FORD GT is around double in price of even the ZR-1.


+1

The three cars I have the most interest in and love the most in my price range are the Evo IX MR, R35 GT-R, and C6Z06. All of them are serious performers on the track, but Corvettes are just too common for me... I see 10+ a day even in winter. During the summer I feel like there are more Corvettes on the road than any other car. NASA track events feel the same way, they are EVERYWHERE. A lot of the reason for that is the incredible performance to cost ratio. It's simply a smart choice, but I just couldn't bring myself to buy one.

The R35 GT-R is a brilliant car and checks a lot of the boxes for me. I personally think its beautiful (although I know opinions vary) and its hard to argue with the power, grip, and handling it has out of the box. The problem for me is the cost of owning it is high enough that I wouldn't be able to race it. Tires/brakes/fluids/insurance are all so high the total cost to track it is more than double my already high track bills. Also, with the GT-R I don't think I could bring myself to gut it, cage it and mod it. Not even counting the mindblowing cost of modifications, the value of the car would basically hit zero if I gutted it.

The Evo is just about perfect for me. I absolutely LOVE how they look, the small displacement high revving turbo motor rocks, AWD grip, and compared to a heavy-weight like the GT-R, its small and agile. It's inexpensive enough that I can invest money in modifications with minimal guilt, and feel no remorse about gutting/caging it. Hell, the Mitsubishi interior sucked anyway... and I don't need air conditioning. :lol:

Anyway, we're diverging off into the "smiles per mile" tangent. Suffice to say, Corvettes are fast... it doesn't necessarily mean you should buy one, but be ready for a fight if you run into one on the track.

Dont take what I posted out of context blackenwings. When I mentioned drivers are what makes a car fast, i also mentioned that I wasnt talking about skilled professional drivers. i was talking about the backyard joe doing hpde's.
Is the Corvette a fast car--hell yea it is. Is it a fast car for the adverage Joe to take out for a hpde session? He better know what the heck he is doing and have a good instructor!
Power cars are usually more difficult to handle because you have to think about the throttles affect in what you are doing. Momentum cars throttle input usually doesnt upset the chassis that much so the throttle doesnt affect the handling as much.
But I think the thread morphed from " how does it handle" to "how fast it is". There is a big difference between those two thoughts. Handling well does not automatically mean a lower lap time. It depends what kind of track its on for example.
So does the Corvette handle well? That depends on how the driver handles it. Does it have the capacity to be a good handling car---heck yea! Is it agile...No.. it is not a tossable car like a Lotus or the Rx8. But--it is one hell of a ride.
Evos are cool too. I dont know if everyone has seen the seats that are in the EVO MR, but MAN those are nice! Much better than the R3's

That's exactly what I was saying. I've owned a CtsV and I was saying there's no way they are the best handling American made car. The CtsV weighs over 4,200 lbs and the Z06 is around 3,200 lbs, so obviously the Z06 will handle better than the V.

I was comparing the Ford GT to a Z06 hence the Z06 stats and GT stats.

For the same reason most performance enthusiasts chose the vette. Performance per dollar. Also once you know what you are doing they are very easy to work on and upgrade.

Make no mistake though, I'm no import hater. The only car currently I'd take over my vette though is a GTR. I just couldnt quite fit a GTR in my budget yet. I fully plan to own a GTR in the next few years. Either I'll trade my vette for a nice low mileage 09 GTR or I'll build an 89 R32 when they become legal here in the states in 2014.

I totaly understand Blackenedwings thing about seeing too many. Thats why I went for the C5 Z06 instead of a C6 coupe. It seperates me a bit from all the coupes and verts here in Florida. I see 4-5 of those on my way to work. I see a Z06 maybe twice a month :)

Well yeah, your average HPDE driver with a powerful car is the problem there. Many of the more expensive/powerful cars tend to attract a very specific market of driver. Many of the lower level HPDE Corvette type driver are middle-aged white dudes with more money than sense who want to show off their overpowered toy. They normally aren't fast despite the platform. Every good HPDE driver has stories of lapping far more powerful/expensive cars. It's not because the platform isn't fast or because it can't handle... the driver just has fists of ham.

Good handling is also a vague term... what constitutes good handling? Is it lateral g's, total grip, cornering speed? Is it purely the ease with which you can enter and exit turns? I would argue what people who have driven an RX-8 often mean with an RX-8 is "easy to drive at the limit", "predictable", "tolerating of mistakes". In terms of sheer grip, laterial g's, and total cornering speed my RX-8 was never remotely close to my Evo... however, I would say that the RX-8 was far more forgiving and controllable. I have to use more technique and control to enter corners with the Evo and its more liable to bite back if I take advantage of it. What gets a lot of Evo drivers in trouble is relying in all that mechanical grip and being in a really bad way when it finally runs out. I've taken the RX-8 far closer to its mechanical limit and felt safe than the Evo who's limit is far higher, but trickier to reach.

I think the Corvette is much the same way. The total grip, cornering speed, and ability to move the car around a track is far superior to many cars, but requires a LOT of driver skill to do so effectively. It will most definitely bite your head off if you take advantage and even popular shows like Top Gear comment on this. When they compared the Corvette to the Audi R8 they stated "you or I could probably get the Audi around in about this time... but the Corvette requires someone like the Stig to get that kind of time out of it." In that particular case the Corvette was significantly faster than the Audi, but required expert level driving to get the most out of it. So I guess that's the question... what is handling? The Corvette is not a forgiving car to drive at the limit, not even particularly predictable at speed, but its exceptional grip, weight, and power allow it to corner ludicrously fast. Does that mean it has "good handling"?

Hehe, Mawnee and I also go way back because we've both been through the FI RX-8 thing and found another platform to move on to. For what its worth Mawnee, I do love Corvette's and I did seriously think about building up a C6Z06... but I <3 boost. Who knows, maybe someday we'll both have GT-Rs. :rock:

I would interpret the measure of a car's "handling" to be something other than stats. I believe that when people talk "handling" they are inherently referring to how the car behaves in their hands. "It handles well." The driver is handling the car in a somewhat physically inverted perspective from how a delivery company handles a package. Delivery companies can measure the weight, length, height, and width of a package, and get a general idea of the center of gravity on a package. But I'm sure the people actually carrying the packages prefer some shapes and sizes over others. Probably hate boxes that have all of their weight in one part of the box and not much in the rest. Hate oddly shaped or hard to grasp packages. Etc... Not quite a perfect analogy, but close enough.

Straight line speed requires no hand input, neither does constant radius lateral G on the skid pad. To me, "handling" is how the car reacts to the driver's hand inputs on the steering wheel and how the hands feel what the car is doing. It refers to when the state of the car is in flux. How well it moves from one state to the next (which ends up translating to how it moves from one corner to the next). "Good" handling opinions have a much closer link between the car's behavior and the driver's hands in a 2-way communication than "poor" handling opinions, which separate that communication (either no communication or only 1-way to the driver or 1 way to the car). "Good" handling also means that the car is working with the driver and not fighting it. You can "tell" a dump truck what you want it to do around the track all you want, but it sure as hell is going to fight you every step of the way.


In the end though, anyone who states that one car "handles" better than another car can ONLY be speaking from their perspective. And much like the appearance of a car, the next person in line will have a different opinion, because their perspective is different. This is where people like Randy Pobst are valuable, someone who can drive multiple different cars and give fairly accurate feedback as to the differences.

"Good" is still subjective, as you will always find people willing to give the worst POS car's a value of "good" in handling, simply because they have never felt better. And you will always find people who won't give anything a "good" value in handling unless it's a stripped, caged, corner balanced, and wearing sticky tires.

And every point inbetween.

I also believe you can measure this "handling." Cars are inherently mechanical and working without the realm of physics. Metrics to measure it such as: Poler inertia, lateral grip, antidive, center of gravity, wheel base, LSD settings, steering wheel radius, steering assist levels, steering gear ratios, alignment settings, corner weight balance, etc...

The problem in turning these metrics into a single value goes back to how subjective it is, changing from one person to the next, and how various widely different combinations of metrics can have roughly the same result in feel.

Entry, apex, exit speed and amount of steering input are good measures.


edit: And the look of "OH SHIT" on the driver's and/or passengers face.

good discussion.
The trouble with measurements, to some degree, is measurements are numbers. Handling is a subjective term in which numbers play a limited part. As someone else said, It is that persons opinion.
For example, most people will say that a rwd car will outhandle a fwd car--but does it? Hard to say.
People will say a rwd car will handle better than a 4wd car---but does it? Again hard to say.
But I believe the OP's oridginal intent was that the Corvette is actually a better car than some believe. Once they get the interior fixed i will agree with that.

Ignorance is alive and well. Prior to the C5 in 1998 the gold chain mentality may have flown, but not since.

A C5 Z06 is one of the most phenomenal factory-stock cars I have ever owned and raced for the money. Paid about mid $30k for one in 2003 with only 1500 miles on it.

A C6 Z06 is better still. Of course they cost a lot more now.

Agreed it is a good discussion! I think there are lots of metrics that might be used to equate to "good handling" but I think we are all agreeing that each of those metrics has a different weighted value to the person with the butt in the driver's seat. A perfect example in fact is my opinion on handling is largely based off cornering speed, sustainable g's, and exit speed. If I can go into a turn with ludicrous entry speed, get the car turned in and get on the power early I'm inclined to like the handling of the car. The more tight and responsive the steering is the better I will like it. The steering ratio of the Evo is frustrating in parking lots because it has the turning radius of a barn... but on the track it feels like a scalpel. However, my car still tends to push mid-corner especially during decreasing radius turns. That behavior would probably make some drivers consider the handling to be worse than a car that did not exhibit that behavior... even if the other car traversed the corner SLOWER.

The main things that make me unhappy about handling boils down to steering input/response as much as the chassis/suspension. I want to be able to feel the movement of the car as soon as I affect that movement with the wheel. I hate slop in the steering, or overly long ratios on the wheel. Corner entry understeer is miserable, and overly twitchy cars that tend to quickly snap oversteer. Cars that combine the two are especially bad. Excessive body roll and weight transfer is also a no no. Weight in general affects the feeling of the vehicle a lot, both placement and total amount. I simply can't see myself ever racing a car much over 3000 lbs regardless of power.

What about you guys? What do you look for or avoid in handling characteristics?

a 1954 Belair chev does not handle well. Anywhere.
A 1951 Packard straight 8 rides as straight as an arrow--but I have seen John Deere tractors turn better.
A CJ5 with 36" multimiles tires and air suspension doesnt handle well on the road, but at speeds less than 10 mph and a gradient angle of more than 45 degrees (straight up and down) it does great.
An MGA MKII is the bomb on the backroads of Jamaica --great driving/experience--rattles like you have never heard.
A ford Contina with the twin cam engine also does pretty good there.
The 55/57 Chev--worse handling cars ever.
a 1949 flat head v/8 ford actually handles pretty good--but will not stop.
1969 Corvette has some of the worse chassis flex you have ever felt--uncontrollable and dangerous.
a 1989 BMW 535 with Alpina suspension and MoMo mags rides on the rails--anywhere. Its the closest car to the RX8 i have ever driven.--It just ate up front tires in 15K miles.

I could go on and on--i have owned a good number of cars.

Handling definition for me is pretty simple--the car goes where I turn it. All the rest I think is just personnel preference?

Mazda MX-5 and RX-8 did pretty well to come in at #3 in 2008-9 in MotorTrends Best Drivers and Best Handling.....beat the Corvette,,,,, then. and GTR..:)

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p..._8_bmw_m3.html

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...x_5_miata.html

How VERY TRUE..

To me it is ALL about HOW any car (Sports Car) makes you FEEL.... in your ass, down your legs to your feet, arms, hands, heart and your 'sensual' head/mind.

Numbers and Horsepower means NOTHING, unless naturally you are in Competition Track Racing...sometimes I wonder with some of you guys, jeez you would not last 5 minutes down under, you would be locked up and in the slammer with No Drivers Licence...:)

But I digress, yes all about how it makes you feel....I am talking a car you use regularly, NOT a museum piece or poser car....which says more about the owner than the car.

i agree 100%. same thing here in EU....(except for SOME German Highways)

Here's an idea for a good experiment:

Record the fastest time for a given car around a given track, in the hands of a pro with tons of experience with that car and track. This would be your theoretical best possible time for that car in that track. Now put 10 noob/amateur drivers in the same car and track, with no experience in that car, and average all their best times. This would be your "every-man's" time. Now subtract the difference between the pro and amateur times. I think this would be a very good measurement of a car's handling.

I think the RX-8 and Miata would score very high in this test. That is why I bought an RX-8, very easy to learn to be a better driver with. As blackenedwing stated, its a lot easier for an average driver to push an RX-8 close to its limit than it is to push a corvette to its (much higher) limit.

By that thinking a golf cart would be the "best handling" thing on the track. Times would be very consistent......

If I could I would get a newer zo6. I've seen of couple of modified z06s around where I live and they look rather nice.

Well it would certainly be the easiest to push to its limit.

So an rx8 is better than a vette because its slower. And a golf cart is better still.
The new benchmark for performance vehicles:

Attachment 238012

I kid. I get your thinking. I owned a pair of sportbikes over the years. One was a stock cbr600 f4i. The other a highly souped up cbr 954rr. Looking back I found the 600 more fun because I could take it on the twisties and wring its neck without worrying it would bite my head off. The 954rr was amazing but would loft the front wheel with the slightest throttle tiwtch. Pushing it to the limit was a blast, but almost nerve wrackingly intense.

Eric Gustafson, editor of the late Sports Car International, came up with "The Gustafson Five" – his top five best handling cars – back in 2008.

"The Gustafson Five
Mazda hasn't updated its RX-8 model since its debut five years ago, so until a few weeks back, it had been roughly that long since I'd driven one. While its distinctively smooth and ultra-high revving rotary engine left a lasting impression, I'd forgotten what a great-handling car it is. The RX-8 has all the classic traits: It is exceedingly well-balanced, with virtually no understeer; the steering is responsive, quick and feelsome; it's light on its feet, instilling this Mazda with an eagerness that makes me want to keep driving and wish the road never unwinds. The RX-8 is, by my estimation, one of the best-handling sports cars currently available."

He went on to talk about his top five best-handling cars (in no particular order):
-Mazda RX-8
-Porsche Cayman
-Nissan Nismo 350Z
-Lotus Elise
-Audi R8

The Corvette didn't make it. Nice handling car, not one of the five best, in his opinion.

What would you consider the top five today?

^^^ way to go... dig up your post from over three years ago.

Come on, man. That's one random data point from a magazine that's no longer in print.
I guess he screwed up by not including any coverage of the Corvette.

Ridiculous.

Let's see here...

Technically it is easier to know where the tires are being placed in a c6 z06. The rx8 is more squishy, which is why track people have to do suspension mods and such on the rx8 to firm it up. But even so, I think some of that has to do with ride height. In comparison to the rx8, the z06 has the driver sitting much lower, feels like almost on the concrete.

But at the same time the rx8 can be driven with more confidence around turns, even though in skilled hands a z06 can put out better turning numbers. It's all about skill level and confidence here. If you were a race car driver, the z06 might feel perfectly planted to you, all depends.

I used to be an armchair corvette hater, but things look different in real life versus the internet. In real life, the old corvette drivers only prove how durable that gm engine is, (they have been building it for like 50 years or something). I bought a new rx8 at 24, a used c6 z06 at 29. If I'm still driving it by 50, it's a good engine. I'm almost certain there will be 0 rx8 in drivable operation 20 years from now.

Also in real life, my rx8 is used for storage (old exhausts), but my c6z06 is in the repair shop for water pump replacement today (leaking coolant on floor, work is completed but insurance offices closed today for holiday).

Nothing is really as it seems in the shiny world of magazines and stat racing.

Here's a nice article on a Z06 suspension upgrade and how it did/feels vs the stock system.

http://www.vetteweb.com/tech/vemp_11...n/viewall.html