C6ZO6

FastDriver · Dec 7, 2006

geoffsgt said:
PS.
I have a feeling (well, honestly, I know for a fact) that if Chevy comes out with this new Corvette above the Z06 that I've read about, Chevy will take the top of the mountain. Just not yet.

PPS.
Bowtie lovers go home! :SNSign:

Can you say C5-R or C6-R? Something tells me the consistent Le Mans GT class winners for years wouldn't have a hard time outrunning a Ford GT.

Nevertheless, it's still a vette. The GT is just sexy. I don't have the money to compare the two cars because I might afford one some day, but doubt I'll ever have the money to go out and flog it on an open road course next to other race cars.

Sure, I'm building a cheap 8 second turbocharged fox-body.... that doesn't make it better than a GT or a Z06... just different. (I like it better than a Z06!)

Chris

Uncle Meat · Dec 7, 2006

Funny all these comparisons about the GT500 vs the C6 ZO6. A better comparison would be the GT500 vs the C6 Z51. Unfortunately the GT500 loses in that battle too. C'mon Ford, get it together!

U.M.

RICKS · Dec 7, 2006

GeoffsGT, we're going in circles on most points, so I'm less inclined to think we're disagreeing, more inclined to think we're misunderstanding.

I was only making the point that there's more to cars than performance data. I like the way things are designed, built, materials, engineering, execution, race car technology, etc...

That's why the Corvette is a worthy product at its price, and yet further up the ladder of exotic design, materials and execution, you've got the Ford GT. All worthy cars, all incredibally "trick" with NO engine installed. With a Mustang, we're all well aware, there's nothing trick about the basic car itself. What's trick about the Mustang IS the engine, and all the other bits bolted to it to make it do what it does with such a pedestrian core. It's a completely different approach.

So I hate saying "better" or "worse", because what we're talking about is "different", period.

BTW, I know how humidity kills, I race in Gainesville, FL. During the summer, it's pointless to waste the fuel on racing. And next time, forget your friend's advice. The only way you'll learn how to drive fast at the track is to go at it with a vengeance, beat the car like a red-headed stepchild. You only get so many passes on a busy night or afternoon, make each one count.

Uncle Meat · Dec 7, 2006

RICKS said:
BTW, I know how humidity kills, I race in Gainesville, FL. During the summer, it's pointless to waste the fuel on racing.

Funny you mention this... I was just bragging to some of my Northerner friends about how I love this particular time of year in central Alabama. I got up on Sunday and the DA was -1800! My Terminator loves those early morning jaunts to Starbucks on a cool crisp morning... like having an extra 50+ RWHP.

Like you I also hate driving my car in the summer here... there is a very noticeable decrease in performance and heat soak sucks balls...

U.M.

RICKS · Dec 7, 2006

Boosted car + sticky summer air = PIG. Can't tell you how many times I've been asked to join-in a trip to the track in the middle of July, to which I reply "why would I abuse my machinery just to run crappy slugg-o worthless e.t.'s?". My chipped & mass-aired Lightning would drop from 13.20's to 13.70's going cold/dry to hot/sticky, so where's the fun in running a half-second slow. If I go in the heat, I go as a spectator and drink alot of cold beer....

Uncle Meat · Dec 7, 2006

RICKS said:
Boosted car + sticky summer air = PIG. Can't tell you how many times I've been asked to join-in a trip to the track in the middle of July, to which I reply "why would I abuse my machinery just to run crappy slugg-o worthless e.t.'s?". If I go, I go as a spectator and drink alot of beer....

You sound an awful lot like me!

U.M.

MarSaleenMustan · Dec 10, 2006

Racer X said:
Well other then the 1st MotorTrend test of the Ford GT the two cars have been within 2 tenths of each other in everyother head to head 1/4 mile runs.
I was simply saying that after driving both they feel pretty much equal in the power department. I would love to line them up and find out, but my friends GT is a garage queen.. he never drives it... just like most of them!!! My Z06 is on the road everyday.

tell that to the guys at FordGTForum.com

MarSaleenMustan · Dec 10, 2006

ammatic said:
So you are saying that stock to stock the GT will run right with the Z??? What magazine says that it will run trap of 127 to 132???
The best i seen the GT run was 12.2 stock
and the best i seen the Z run stock was 10.85 trap at 129.5>>>on DR. and Ranger did that.

hmmm, so you take the worst time you can find on a GT and the best(with DRs no less and a great driver)... I wonder what the times would be like if it were the other way around... very biased to say the least.

BLUE03GT · Dec 12, 2006

Best documented time for a Ford GT STOCK = 11.3 @133mph
Best documented time for ZO6 STOCK = 11.7-11.9@125-127mph

STOCK none of this DR bull****.... give the Ford GT some DR's and see what happens.... its called MPH

ammatic · Dec 12, 2006

BLUE03GT said:
Best documented time for a Ford GT STOCK = 11.3 @133mph
Best documented time for ZO6 STOCK = 11.7-11.9@125-127mph

STOCK none of this DR bull****.... give the Ford GT some DR's and see what happens.... its called MPH

Ranger did 11.2 @126 mph on stock tires,,, put a average in the cars and it will be in the high 12's

FastDriver · Dec 12, 2006

The GT is the faster car stock... Around a track or in a drag race, it doesn't matter. The GT traps better and being mid-engine will launch better. It has a better weight distribution, more power/weight, and a more advanced suspension.

Modify the Corvette and it changes everything, but I don't think that's a fair basis for comparing the two.

ammatic · Dec 12, 2006

FastDriver said:
The GT is the faster car stock... Around a track or in a drag race, it doesn't matter. The GT traps better and being mid-engine will launch better. It has a better weight distribution, more power/weight, and a more advanced suspension.

Modify the Corvette and it changes everything, but I don't think that's a fair basis for comparing the two.

I agree the GT is faster all I'm saying that a average driver will not get great times in either car.

RICKS · Dec 12, 2006

ammatic said:
I agree the GT is faster all I'm saying that a average driver will not get great times in either car.

I don't understand what your point is in all of this... So Joe Blow Sixpack with 2 left feet and a total lack-of-knack in the coordination department can't drive ANYTHING worth a damn... What does that have to do with the cars??

In my decent breadth of experience, and having owned and raced a laundry list of factory performance vehicles since obtaining my license in '83, I find that...

1. Magazine 1/4 mile performance times DO REFLECT what the "average driver" could expect to achieve after several passes on a decent track at a proper facility (i.e. not Billy Bob's raceway up in the hills, with gravel on the launch pad and a curve in the middle of it....).

2. As-such, I've never owned a new car that I didn't go out to my local drag-strip bone-stock (I ALWAYS base-lined my cars at the strip totally-stock prior to doing any mods) and better all of the published magazine times. I've never seen a magazine time that I couldn't beat, bone-stock, by a tenth or two.

3. I've had a ton of friends through the years who have taken their new cars out to see what they could do. Most of them, by the end of the night, came away within a 10th faster or slower of the aggregate magazine times. In short, the times were reasonably achievable.

4. And then I've had some inept friends, and of course I've witnessed hundreds of people I didn't know making passes in stock new cars, that just couldn't run a good time if you shot them out of a cannon. I do not consider these folks to be "average drivers", but I'm certain that they CONSIDER themselves as-such.

No, I'm afraid that if you take a stock car to the track, any car, with decent conditions (80 degrees or cooler, 70% humidity or better), an average driver should be able to get damn close, if not eclipse, the numbers that the magazines put up. Magazines intentionally do not speed-shift. Every time I've read an article where they explain their testing procedures, they ALL state that they run the acceleration tests in a manner that can be consistently duplicated in the interest of consistency on their part, in the interest of standardization of testing on their part (so that when you're comparing performance results between two different cars from two different issues, you're hopefully comparing apples-to-apples within a reasonable range..), and in the interest that they publish times that the "average driver could reasonably expect to realize should they purchase said vehicle".

In short, if a magazine runs 11.7 @ 126 in a new Z06, and you see someone at the track on a crisp night that can't break into the 11's with his, you're looking at two options:

1. the car's a dud
2. the driver's a dud

I remember the first time I tracked my '93 Corvette 6-speed, I won fast-trophy that night on a 13.29 dial. Another guy there that night with the exact same car ('93 6-speed) couldn't break into the damn 13's whatsoever, and kept asking me what I had done to my car (ummm, drive it correctly?? )

I also remember the first time I baselined my '96 Mystic Cobra, there was a guy there with MT's on a white '96 Cobra who's best time of the night was just north of 14.60. After two practice runs, I settled into consistant 13.80's on my stock P.O.S. B.F. Goodjunks...

Sorry for the rambling, but average drivers SHOULD be able to come close to magazine times..

ammatic · Dec 12, 2006

RICKS said:
I don't understand what your point is in all of this... So Joe Blow Sixpack with 2 left feet and a total lack-of-knack in the coordination department can't drive ANYTHING worth a damn... What does that have to do with the cars??

In my decent breadth of experience, and having owned and raced a laundry list of factory performance vehicles since obtaining my license in '83, I find that...

1. Magazine 1/4 mile performance times DO REFLECT what the "average driver" could expect to achieve after several passes on a decent track at a proper facility (i.e. not Billy Bob's raceway up in the hills, with gravel on the launch pad and a curve in the middle of it....).

2. As-such, I've never owned a new car that I didn't go out to my local drag-strip bone-stock (I ALWAYS base-lined my cars at the strip totally-stock prior to doing any mods) and better all of the published magazine times. I've never seen a magazine time that I couldn't beat, bone-stock, by a tenth or two.

3. I've had a ton of friends through the years who have taken their new cars out to see what they could do. Most of them, by the end of the night, came away within a 10th faster or slower of the aggregate magazine times. In short, the times were reasonably achievable.

4. And then I've had some inept friends, and of course I've witnessed hundreds of people I didn't know making passes in stock new cars, that just couldn't run a good time if you shot them out of a cannon. I do not consider these folks to be "average drivers", but I'm certain that they CONSIDER themselves as-such.

No, I'm afraid that if you take a stock car to the track, any car, with decent conditions (80 degrees or cooler, 70% humidity or better), an average driver should be able to get damn close, if not eclipse, the numbers that the magazines put up. Magazines intentionally do not speed-shift. Every time I've read an article where they explain their testing procedures, they ALL state that they run the acceleration tests in a manner that can be consistently duplicated in the interest of consistency on their part, in the interest of standardization of testing on their part (so that when you're comparing performance results between two different cars from two different issues, you're hopefully comparing apples-to-apples within a reasonable range..), and in the interest that they publish times that the "average driver could reasonably expect to realize should they purchase said vehicle".

In short, if a magazine runs 11.7 @ 126 in a new Z06, and you see someone at the track on a crisp night that can't break into the 11's with his, you're looking at two options:

1. the car's a dud
2. the driver's a dud

I remember the first time I tracked my '93 Corvette 6-speed, I won fast-trophy that night on a 13.29 dial. Another guy there that night with the exact same car ('93 6-speed) couldn't break into the damn 13's whatsoever, and kept asking me what I had done to my car (ummm, drive it correctly?? )

I also remember the first time I baselined my '96 Mystic Cobra, there was a guy there with MT's on a white '96 Cobra who's best time of the night was just north of 14.60. After two practice runs, I settled into consistant 13.80's on my stock P.O.S. B.F. Goodjunks...

Sorry for the rambling, but average drivers SHOULD be able to come close to magazine times..

I glad that you went into detail about the average driver, I did not know

mattkimsey · Dec 13, 2006

FastDriver said:
The GT is the faster car stock... Around a track or in a drag race, it doesn't matter. The GT traps better and being mid-engine will launch better. It has a better weight distribution, more power/weight, and a more advanced suspension.

Modify the Corvette and it changes everything, but I don't think that's a fair basis for comparing the two.

Few points...the Z06 has about 49/51 weight distribution compared to 43/57 for the GT. The 1/4 and road course with equal drivers is a toss up. As far as suspension, I don't know, but the fact that a Z06 matches the GTs lap times with 50+ less HP speaks well for the design.

Here is a test done in Germany of all the major super/exotic cars. The test were done using multiple GPS systems to make it as fair as possible.

View attachment 417481

After 18.2 seconds, the Z06 and GT were seperated by 1 mph.

RICKS · Dec 13, 2006

It is a common assumption that 50/50 fore/aft weight distribution is optimal for handling... There's ALOT MORE TO IT than that, it's not that simple. Secondly, it is absolutely incorrect to compare weight distribution of a front-engined vehicle to a mid-engined vehicle. They are two totally different animals, and the optimal distribution that works for one, would cause the other to be a death trap, and vice versa.

The measurement is taken while the car is static. When you're racing, that balance varies depending on whether you're accelerating, decelerating, or maintaining constant speed through a corner. If you're driving a Z06 for instance through a high-speed corner, the only way you keep that almost equal 49/51 "balanced" ratio is to maintain an absolute constant speed in that corner. But If you're accelerating through the corner, or if you're braking into the corner, the effective live balance changes. That's why engineers use real race drivers to help develop platforms, as they work together to create a chassis balance that works well in application, under-power, not just sitting still on a scale.

Anyhow, most Formula 1 race cars (which you could argue represent the pinnacle of racing and handling technology and development) are set up with a 43/57 front-rear distribution, such that they balance-out powering through corners. The Ford GT has the same f/r rear weight distribution as an F1 car.... THAT is why the GT is always praised as having superior DYNAMICS in the corners to the Z06. It's set up just about perfectly for racing and balance in corners UNDER POWER. Remember that super-cool TV commercial Ford did a couple years back, showing a Ford GT screaming through a high-speed corner, in a slight drift, with both rear wheels smoking, held in perfect balance??? Just try that in a Z06 and see where that gets you... Where the Z06 has slightly less-desireable dynamics, it compensates with more lateral grip, less body roll (it's stiffer, which makes it not as nice to live with during the day), and more aggressive shock valving. It keeps up with the Ford GT, but with a different recipe. It is positively wrong to think it's "more balanced" just looking at the static weight distribution.

With the engine in the rear, you want the front end to be lighter, such that when you lay on the power, the front and the rear want to grip laterally equally. If you had a heavier front end, the rear end would swing-out first, and you'd be in big trouble. The GT IS BALANCED when it's moving and when you're in the power. The weight distribution is only one factor, of many, that results in cornering balance.

With front engined cars, the optimal weight distribution depends alot on where the engine is situated relative to the front wheels. But in any case, you just can't compare front-engine balance to rear engine balance. Once you lay into the gas pedal, everything is different between those two layouts, and they each have different optimal balances, which is where tire width front-to-rear and suspension tuning carries the rest of the story.

F1 43/57
Ferrari F360 and F430 43/57
Ford GT 43/57

Of interesting note, the new front-engine Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano has 47/53 balance, closer to the Z06. Obviously, Ferrari knows a thing or two about handling and balance, and they purposefully dial in a bit of lightness up front to allow for better under-power balance.

mattkimsey · Dec 13, 2006

RICKS said:
It is a common assumption that 50/50 fore/aft weight distribution is optimal for handling... There's ALOT MORE TO IT than that, it's not that simple. Secondly, it is absolutely incorrect to compare weight distribution of a front-engined vehicle to a mid-engined vehicle. They are two totally different animals, and the optimal distribution that works for one, would cause the other to be a death trap, and vice versa.

The measurement is taken while the car is static. When you're racing, that balance varies depending on whether you're accelerating, decelerating, or maintaining constant speed through a corner. If you're driving a Z06 for instance through a high-speed corner, the only way you keep that almost equal 49/51 "balanced" ratio is to maintain an absolute constant speed in that corner. But If you're accelerating through the corner, or if you're braking into the corner, the effective live balance changes. That's why engineers use real race drivers to help develop platforms, as they work together to create a chassis balance that works well in application, under-power, not just sitting still on a scale.

Anyhow, most Formula 1 race cars (which you could argue represent the pinnacle of racing and handling technology and development) are set up with a 43/57 front-rear distribution, such that they balance-out powering through corners. The Ford GT has the same f/r rear weight distribution as an F1 car.... THAT is why the GT is always praised as having superior DYNAMICS in the corners to the Z06. It's set up just about perfectly for racing and balance in corners UNDER POWER. Remember that super-cool TV commercial Ford did a couple years back, showing a Ford GT screaming through a high-speed corner, in a slight drift, with both rear wheels smoking, held in perfect balance??? Just try that in a Z06 and see where that gets you... Where the Z06 has slightly less-desireable dynamics, it compensates with more lateral grip, less body roll (it's stiffer, which makes it not as nice to live with during the day), and more aggressive shock valving. It keeps up with the Ford GT, but with a different recipe. It is positively wrong to think it's "more balanced" just looking at the static weight distribution.

With the engine in the rear, you want the front end to be lighter, such that when you lay on the power, the front and the rear want to grip laterally equally. If you had a heavier front end, the rear end would swing-out first, and you'd be in big trouble. The GT IS BALANCED when it's moving and when you're in the power. The weight distribution is only one factor, of many, that results in cornering balance.

With front engined cars, the optimal weight distribution depends alot on where the engine is situated relative to the front wheels. But in any case, you just can't compare front-engine balance to rear engine balance. Once you lay into the gas pedal, everything is different between those two layouts, and they each have different optimal balances, which is where tire width front-to-rear and suspension tuning carries the rest of the story.

F1 43/57
Ferrari F360 and F430 43/57
Ford GT 43/57

Of interesting note, the new front-engine Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano has 47/53 balance, closer to the Z06. Obviously, Ferrari knows a thing or two about handling and balance, and they purposefully dial in a bit of lightness up front to allow for better under-power balance.

I agree with this, but I didn't want to type it all

RICKS · Dec 13, 2006

Don't be too spooked, I'm just a real fast typist, not a closet-case obsessed freak...

Racer X · Dec 14, 2006

BLUE03GT said:
Best documented time for a Ford GT STOCK = 11.3 @133mph
Best documented time for ZO6 STOCK = 11.7-11.9@125-127mph

STOCK none of this DR bull****.... give the Ford GT some DR's and see what happens.... its called MPH

That 133 mph was a pre-production car. Since then in real production cars it has never topped 128 that I have seen!!!!! I have several mags in hand that have the two within 2 tenths and 1-2 mph in head to head runs.
But listen to me when I say this.... I am a Ford guy. I am not a Chevy fan. I am simply trying to give you guys my personal opinion after driving both. I bought the Z06 because it is simply the fastest car I could afford. If I had an extra $95k over what I spent on the Z06 would I have got the GT... I still think not. BUt it is one bad MoFo!!!!

Chietala · Dec 19, 2006

BLUE03GT said:
i dont care what the Ford GT costs.... its sexy... its MID-ENGINE... and its clearly faster anyway u slice it... and its always going to be more capable of faster times than the ZO6 due to the fact it is MID-ENGINE...

just because a car costs less doesnt mean that it is better... ill take a McLaren F1 or Veyron anyday i dont care that it costs 10 times as much as something that might keep up....

I don't know what videos or BS your listening to but I slice it right up the middle and The GT is NOT clearly faster than the z06. I understand what it's like to be a fan of somthin but somtimes you just gotta let go.

"and its always going to be more capable of faster times than the ZO6 due to the fact it is MID-ENGINE" lol ok... What about the Z06's 3100lbs and 427ci???

And by the way whats Ford got the blowers up to these days?? 2.0,2.2??

No I'm just pullin your leg... The "mid-engine" makes it way faster!! pfffff

C6ZO6

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

Uncle Meat

Banned

RICKS

New Member

Uncle Meat

Banned

RICKS

New Member

Uncle Meat

Banned

MarSaleenMustan

MarSaleenMustan

BLUE03GT

New Member

ammatic

New Member

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

ammatic

New Member

RICKS

New Member

ammatic

New Member

mattkimsey

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

RICKS

New Member

mattkimsey

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

RICKS

New Member

Racer X

Chietala

New Member

Similar threads

C6ZO6

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

Banned

New Member

Banned

New Member

Banned

New Member

New Member

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

New Member

New Member

New Member

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

New Member

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency