 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Porsche / Porsche Cars / January 2004GT3 Vs. GT40 Vs. F360 Stradale
Anyone else seen this article? I believe it's this month's cover article in Road and Track. The GT40 won outright, which I thought was underserved considering it's company. But the GT3 pulled 1.03 g on the skidpad, the 2nd highest rating ever recorded by the magazine, behind only the Ferrari Enzo. On top of that, Car and Driver's writeup of the GT3 from a few months ago showed a 4.0 second 0-60 time. Next time the Corvette boys come trolling about the Z06, throwing around it's 0-60 times and 1.0 g skidpad performance, I guess this will just have to be their medicine. I also hear that suspension revisions have taken place in the "new" more powerful GT2, hopefully it's skidpad numbers will be as high or higher than the GT3s. <Next time the Corvette boys come trolling about the Z06, throwing around it's 0-60 times and 1.0 g skidpad performance, I guess thiswill just have to be their medicine.> (Tears coming down cheeks) Wahhhhh, wahhhhhh, my Z-06 is cheaper! Cheaper I tells ya! Who cares about our shitty build quality and dodgy interiors. WE ARE CHEAPER!!! Signed mullet wearing Vette driver! > Anyone else seen this article? I believe it's this month's cover article in > Road and Track. The GT40 won outright, which I thought was underserved [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > taken place in the "new" more powerful GT2, hopefully it's skidpad numbers will > be as high or higher than the GT3s. > (Tears coming down cheeks) Wahhhhh, wahhhhhh, my Z-06 is cheaper! Cheaper I > tells ya! Who cares about our shitty build quality and dodgy interiors. WE > ARE CHEAPER!!! drives a 10 year old audi derivitive...guess audi924 boy would be the one to tell us about cheap from experience. LOL > Signed mullet wearing Vette driver! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > will > > be as high or higher than the GT3s. << drives a 10 year old audi derivitive...guess audi924 boy would be the one to tell us about cheap from experience. LOL >> I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls. And I certainly didn't start this thread with the intention of starting an argument. But you're a moron of the highest order. The fact of the matter is that Porsche designed the 924, and there's no two ways about it. They may have designed it originally to be sold as an Audi, but it was still designed by THEM. The only Audi part about that vehicle was it's engine, which was heavily modified over time and eventually replaced in the 944. The 944 has been hailed as a best buy for years, as long as you can find one in good shape. A 1989 951 gets you 50/50 weight distribution and 0-60 in 5.5 seconds for under $20k. I've posted links to articles about the 944 from Automobile and other magazines, but you don't pay attention. Hell, I guess if GM fans could read, they wouldn't be GM fans, would they? > << drives a 10 year old audi derivitive...guess audi924 boy would be the one to > tell us about cheap from experience. LOL >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > attention. Hell, I guess if GM fans could read, they wouldn't be GM fans, would > they? Not feeding trolls is one theory. Another is hitting them right between the eyes with the facts until they get it straight. There's something to be said for the latter....... just wait til the c6 comes out, better quality and performance than porsche, you guys will be up a limb. LOL > Anyone else seen this article? I believe it's this month's cover article in > Road and Track. The GT40 won outright, which I thought was underserved [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > taken place in the "new" more powerful GT2, hopefully it's skidpad numbers will > be as high or higher than the GT3s. > just wait til the c6 comes out, better quality and performance than porsche, > you guys will be up a limb. LOL Corvette hasn't gotten the quality part right in 50 years. Why is this version any different? You must have and driven both cars already to make such a bold statement. Chevrolet has said they're going to fix the Corvette's notoriously cheesy interior. We'll see........If they get that part right then they can start working on body panels that line up and bumper paint that matches the rest of the car. This also coming from an "expert" that can't even spell "genius". What is it about these uneducated retards that they think they can come in here and make their "points" yet it is painfully obvious that they haven't got a 3rd grade education? I laugh at the hicks and let them go...if they want to buy a Vette, fine, it gives us people to laugh at. > > just wait til the c6 comes out, better quality and performance than porsche, > > you guys will be up a limb. LOL [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can start working on body panels that line up and bumper paint that > matches the rest of the car. > This also coming from an "expert" that can't even spell "genius". What is it > about these uneducated retards that they think they can come in here and > make their "points" yet it is painfully obvious that they haven't got a 3rd > grade education? I'm guessing tecwhiz has a new handle...... > I laugh at the hicks and let them go...if they want to buy a Vette, fine, it > gives us people to laugh at. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>can start working on body panels that line up and bumper paint that >>matches the rest of the car. I've owned a 77 911 S, 1981 911 SC 1982 911 SC, and have driven the modern variants. I've also owned a 99 Corvette C-5. If money is no object, the modern 911 (993/996) are built better than the Corvette. If money is an object, the Corvette is a far better buy in the sense of "more bang per buck". If exotic is what you're after..... Any 355 or 360 Ferrari is way more exotic than either. I could happily have another 911 Porsche, Z06 Vette or C-6 Vette, but if money were no object, I'd buy the most Ferrari 355 or 360 I could afford. And I'd get the Spyder, not the Stradale. > > just wait til the c6 comes out, better quality and performance than porsche, > > you guys will be up a limb. LOL [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can start working on body panels that line up and bumper paint that > matches the rest of the car. << just wait til the c6 comes out >> We don't have much choice. I can't make it come out NOW can I? << better quality and performance than porsche >> Better quality than any other Corvette, I'll believe. Better quality than a Porsche is a pipe dream. The Caddy version of the C6 Vette' (XLR?) was compared via Car and Driver several months ago to upscale competition from MB and others. The unanimous verdict was that while the Caddy offered bang for the buck, it could not match or come close to the overall fit/finish or quality of it's German competition. If GM's "premium" model can't compete for quality with the German cars, what makes you think the Chevy version can? As far as performance goes, the C6 will probably not have any problems dispatching Boxsters and 996 generation Carreras, and I admit it. But we're approx. a year away from 997 variant Carreras, which will probably boast either a V8 or a new flat six making close to or over 400 Hp. Keep in mind, the Carrera is a lighter car and makes more effecient use of it's power than a Corvette. The 360Hp GT3 is as fast to 60 as the 400Hp Z06, it pulls more Gs on a skidpad, is faster around a racetrack, has a far nicer interior, better build quality, and a higher resale value. I think that merits the extra expendeture. << you guys will be up a limb. >> I feel like climbing a tree everytime I see a Corvette. But it's mostly just because I don't want to be near a Corvette. GM got lucky with the Z06, it took the sportscar world by surprise, and they got their pat on the back for it. It won't happen again. > << just wait til the c6 comes out >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > around a racetrack, has a far nicer interior, better build quality, and a > higher resale value. I think that merits the extra expendeture. Steve, the GT3 is actually listed as 380 HP, I think. The next Corvette is due around September 2004 as a 2005 model and will reportedly get an engine bump to 6 liters and around 400 HP. The next Z06 will supposedly follow in a couple more years (if Chevrolet follows past practice) and be around 500 HP, possibly out of a 6.3 liter. With Viper and the Ford GT both at 500 HP Chevrolet will have to go there to keep up. Chevrolet supposedly has a 600 HP Corvette in the works for when Viper/Ford up the ante. Horsepower wars are the coming thing. The BMW M5 will supposedly go to 500 HP and they're going to introduce an M6. The M3 will reportedly get a V8. My 320 HP Carrera is going to be giving up a lot of displacement and HP to the new cars, and I don't care. I don't race the car and she's more than adequate to get us from here to there quickly and comfortably. But this is an exciting time if you like performance cars. > << you guys will be up a limb. >> > > I feel like climbing a tree everytime I see a Corvette. But it's mostly just > because I don't want to be near a Corvette. GM got lucky with the Z06, it took > the sportscar world by surprise, and they got their pat on the back for it. It > won't happen again. I'm no Corvette fan, but I would have to disagree on the lucky part. The Corvette produces good raw performance numbers for the money - that has always been the car's strong point. The shortcomings of the car have been pointed out by enthusiast magazines, you, me, Devils944 and a host of others. If you want a fast new car and have $55K to spend, the Corvette is a good deal. The Mustang Cobra, Subaru Sti and Mitsubishi Lancer EVO are better deals. > I'm no Corvette fan, but I would have to disagree on the lucky part. The > Corvette produces good raw performance numbers for the money - that has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Corvette is a good deal. The Mustang Cobra, Subaru Sti and Mitsubishi > Lancer EVO are better deals. I would disagree about the Mustang Cobra. There is a big difference between the 'Vette and the current Mustang in chassis development. The STi and EVO - I agree with. Ron. >>I'm no Corvette fan, but I would have to disagree on the lucky part. The >>Corvette produces good raw performance numbers for the money - that has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the 'Vette and the current Mustang in chassis development. The STi and EVO - > I agree with. > Ron. The Mustang Cobra is quicker than a regular Corvette to 60 MPH and through the 1/4 mile, and it's not far off a Z06 in both categories. Agreed that the chassis is not as sophisticated as a Corvette, but the car does have an independent rear suspension unless I'm mistaken. The supercharged engine is also relatively easy to modify for more horsepower if the reports I've heard are accurate. For $15+K less than a Corvette the Mustang seems pretty good....... << Agreed that the chassis is not as sophisticated as a Corvette, but the car does have an independent rear suspension unless I'm mistaken. >> It does have independant rear suspension, and it makes quite a difference. Beyond that, as you said, the Mustang Cobra is actually faster than a standard Corvette (closer to 996 C2 times from 0-60) and costs far less. The local Ford dealer near me is selling them for approx. $35k. Compare that to the $42-44k price tag of the slower base Corvette and the $46-50k price tag of the Z06. Beyond that, the Ford interior is actually nicer than what the Corvette comes with, with higher quality plastics and leather seating covers. It's still not on par with what you'd get in an Audi or BMW, or even in certain VWs, but it's better than the GM nonetheless. << The supercharged engine is also relatively easy to modify for more horsepower >> Much like the 911 TT and even the Corvette, the Cobra's new engine is fairly easy to get a lot more power from. Most of the high-power Saleen tuned Stangs' had superchagrers added to them to bring output up, the new model has a supercharger from the factory. And keep in mind that while the Vette is sticking it out with an OHV engine, and the Mustang GT has an SOHC layout, the Mustang Cobra is using an all aluminum DOHC engine with 4 valves per cylinder. If bang for the buck is what you're after than the Mustang Cobra has it all over the Corvette. > << Agreed that the chassis is not as sophisticated as a Corvette, but the > car does have an independent rear suspension unless I'm mistaken. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If bang for the buck is what you're after than the Mustang Cobra has it all > over the Corvette. And if I'm not mistaken, the Mustang Cobra has Brembo brakes.... > << Agreed that the chassis is not as sophisticated as a Corvette, but the > car does have an independent rear suspension unless I'm mistaken. >> > > It does have independant rear suspension, and it makes quite a difference. > Beyond that, as you said, the Mustang Cobra is actually faster than a standard > Corvette (closer to 996 C2 times from 0-60) and costs far less. Faster where? Not around any race track that has turns both ways. > The local Ford > dealer near me is selling them for approx. $35k. There is a reason for that. > Compare that to the $42-44k > price tag of the slower base Corvette and the $46-50k price tag of the Z06. I am not in the market for any of these cars - but it does not surprise me that the 'Vette is more expensive, just as it should not surprise you that a 911 is more expensive than a 'Vette. > And keep in mind that while the Vette is > sticking it out with an OHV engine, and the Mustang GT has an SOHC layout, the > Mustang Cobra is using an all aluminum DOHC engine with 4 valves per cylinder. So what? If technology for technology sake was that important the 911 would not have stayed rear engined. The current small-block is an engine that provides a lot of power and performance in a relatively small physical size. Why is it that big of a deal that it is OHV? > If bang for the buck is what you're after than the Mustang Cobra has it all > over the Corvette. If you are willing to live with a chassis designed in 1979, it sure is. There is more to life than raw numbers as Porsche people usually tell Corvette people. Ron. (Not a 911, Corvette or Mustang owner). <Why is it that big of a deal that it is OHV?> More moving parts, more to go wrong, more to keep lubricted, less efficient. I do agree however about your price statements...cheaper is cheaper for a reason. I will definitely take quality over bang for the buck any day, because bang for the buck only goes so far and quality lasts. I used to have this argument with my old boss all of the time...which is cheaper, one $100.00 unit over 10 years or a $55.00 unit replaced every 5 years. > > << Agreed that the chassis is not as sophisticated as a Corvette, but the > > car does have an independent rear suspension unless I'm mistaken. >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Ron. (Not a 911, Corvette or Mustang owner). << Faster where? Not around any race track that has turns both ways. >> The performance numbers I've seen indicated the Mustang to be faster under accleration testing than a C5 Corvette. I've not seen track times to indicate which car would be faster in that arena, but I'd be interested to see them if you do. All I know is what I seen, and what I seen is the Mustang posting faster numbers. << There is a reason for that. >> I'm just not sure what it is. The Mustang Cobra is nicer inside and far better built to my eye than a Corvette. It posts faster accleration numbers and will probably hold better resale value. If the only thing making the Corvette a more expensive car are marginally faster track times (which are as yet unsubstantiated on this NG) than it's a pretty hard sell in my eyes. Most drivers aren't paying much attention to track times. << but it does not surprise me that the 'Vette is more expensive, just as it should not surprise you that a 911 is more expensive than a 'Vette. >> I can physically see and feel what makes a Porsche more expensive than a Corvette. The same can't be said of the Mustang/Corvette comparison. << So what? If technology for technology sake was that important the 911 would not have stayed rear engined. >> I disagree. I think the fact that the GT3 can post 1.03g on a skidpad with a rear engined layout is a marvel of modern technology. Technology and engineering are what make a GT3 with displacement and horsepower disadvantages faster around a track than a Z06, which has every advantage on paper. << The current small-block is an engine that provides a lot of power and performance in a relatively small physical size. >> I wouldn't call 350 cubic inches small. It may be small compared to "big block" American V8s, but it still has a significant size advantage over Porsche's largest flat six. Volkswagen's VR6 fits your description better than Chevy's 350 does, and the 3.2 litre version is reportedly good for *at least* 280Hp before adding turbochargers. << Why is it that big of a deal that it is OHV? >> It's old school technology. GM refuses to move into the 21st century, and I think it's funny. Ford and Daimler-Chrysler are finally making the transition into the modern world and GM seems to want to stay back. << If you are willing to live with a chassis designed in 1979, it sure is. >> I'm hardly a Mustang fan. But the 2003-2004 Mustang has little or nothing in common with the 1979 variant. The Corvette fans are always screaming about bang for the buck, meanwhile they ignore the Mustang Cobra as well as small European entries like the Lotus Elise, now coming to the states with a sub 5 second 0-60 time and a sub $35k price tag. << There is more to life than raw numbers as Porsche people usually tell Corvette people. >> And I whole heartedly agree, but see my above statement. > << Faster where? Not around any race track that has turns both ways. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you do. All I know is what I seen, and what I seen is the Mustang posting > faster numbers. Every weekend at your local SCCA solo-2 parking lot you will be able to see it. I remember R&T (or was it C&D) where one was done and the 'Vette was much faster. Even your faster numbers claim is doubtful - see http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?ID=28 Here are some other comparisons from the media (not that it matters that much): http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=3883 > << There is a reason for that. >> > > I'm just not sure what it is. The Mustang Cobra is nicer inside and far better > built to my eye than a Corvette. It posts faster accleration numbers and will > probably hold better resale value. A lot of talk about subjective evaluation (which is OK - the nicer inside, etc... - I find the ergonomics on the Mustang horrid, so even if the material quality is better, which I doubt, it does not matter), some speculation (probably hold better resale value) that does not seem anywhere like what I have seen in the real world. > If the only thing making the Corvette a more > expensive car are marginally faster track times (which are as yet > unsubstantiated on this NG) than it's a pretty hard sell in my eyes. Most > drivers aren't paying much attention to track times. No. It is a much nicer car to Drive. The track times are what confirms that. Drive them both and see for yourself. Some people will prefer the Cobra, that's sure - but Chevy would not have been able to price the 'Vette where they priced it, and have it so succesful if there were not a lot of people that belive the same. (Just as Porsche would have been out of business - because you can easily get Porsche performance for a lot less than Porsche money). > << but it does not surprise me > that the 'Vette is more expensive, just as it should not surprise you that a > 911 is more expensive than a 'Vette. >> > > I can physically see and feel what makes a Porsche more expensive than a > Corvette. The same can't be said of the Mustang/Corvette comparison. Did you drive them both? I am not in the market for either - but it was clear to me. (FWIW - I do not care about the Ford vs. GM, if anything - my sport car is Ford powered). > << So what? If technology for technology sake was that important the 911 would > not have stayed rear engined. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > engineering are what make a GT3 with displacement and horsepower disadvantages > faster around a track than a Z06, which has every advantage on paper. So you prove my point - despite the fact that the 911 uses an outdated drivetrain layout it is a great car, just as Chevy uses a lot of modern technology than enables an outdated engine valve actuation technique to make a great engine. If we are talking about building the best of the best, you want the best modern technology for everything (which is why Porsche chose a mid-engine layout for the CGT, which they technically call a 911) - but for street applications and fun - you do not need it - it is not such a big deal. The 911's chassis is a good modern one despite the fact that it does not start with the optimal initial layout, and the 'Vette's enging is a good modern one despite the fact that it does not start with the optimal initial technology. > << The current small-block is an engine that > provides a lot of power and performance in a relatively small physical size. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 350 does, and the 3.2 litre version is reportedly good for *at least* 280Hp > before adding turbochargers. Please read what I have said - I talked about the "Physical" size. Despite the fact that the engine has a lot of displacement, it is physically a compact unit for it's potential. OHC usually require more space than OHV designs - everything is a compromise, and with all due respect to the Ford's OHC engine - I honestly think that GM's current 'Vette OHV is a match for it with no problems. Just like Porsche used a lot of technology to go around the rear-engine layout deficiency, GM used a lot of technology to go around the compromises that come with the OHV design. > << Why is it that big of a deal that it is OHV? >> > > It's old school technology. GM refuses to move into the 21st century, and I > think it's funny. Ford and Daimler-Chrysler are finally making the transition > into the modern world and GM seems to want to stay back. For someone that admires a vehicle with old school technology chassis layout - you sure are critical. Hypocricy might be a better word. > << If you are willing to live with a chassis designed in 1979, it sure is. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > entries like the Lotus Elise, now coming to the states with a sub 5 second 0-60 > time and a sub $35k price tag. The 2003 -2004 Mustang uses a chassis designed in 1979 (The Fox platform) that has an IRS grafted on it. These are the facts and Ford does not deny it. If you read my original reply to this matter, I agreed that the Evo and STi provide better bang for the buck than the Corvette, but I still disagree about the Mustang - with well documented information above. I am not sure what this vendetta you have about 'Vette owners - but when people are than passionate against something - there is usually a reason for it, in my experience. As for the Lotus Elise (once again, not my argument, but a nice try to divert attention to something unrelated) - it will be around $40K, and with all due respect - it might be a performance match to many cars - but living with a Lotus as a daily driver is a hard thing to do - not so much with a Corvette. I do not own an Elise, but as a 7 owner - I have first hand experience about Chapman's (and his succesors) way of designing cars - and you have to be a hardy fellow to be able to live with one as your main car - I sure can not. I am sure that the Elise is more refined and reliable than a 7 - but I am also sure that it will be far away from the practicality of any of the other cars we discussed here. (Compromises, compromises). > << There is more to life than raw numbers as Porsche people usually tell > Corvette people. >> > > And I whole heartedly agree, but see my above statement. I have seen it, and I fail to see where you actually made a logical argument backed by anything other than gut speculation, half truths and subjective assesment. Ron. << Every weekend at your local SCCA solo-2 parking lot you will be able to see it. >> Amateur and semi-pro drivers having weekend fun isn't what I would call professional testing. If we're going to throw this kind of stuff into the mix, you and I may as well go out to do our own tests in front of the local Dairy Queen. << I remember R&T (or was it C&D) where one was done and the 'Vette was much faster. >> I remember the C&D article quite differently. With the Mustang Cobra posting faster acceleration numbers and getting bonus points for it's lower price. << Even your faster numbers claim is doubtful - see http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?ID=28 >> This page compares the power output of the Cobra to the Z06, and then compares their respective 1/4 times without giving any detail as to how the cars were raced. Beyond that I never claimed that a Cobra was faster than a Z06, only the "base" Corvette. Please keep your links relevant to the discussion. << http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=3883 >> This test compares the Viper, a car we aren't even discussing, aganist the Z06, a model variant we are debating over, to the outdated Cobra R, which is actually *slower* than a 2004 Mustang Cobra. Theoretically, anytime you link in a posting, the link should be relevant to the discussion and have some ability to back up your position. << A lot of talk about subjective evaluation >> Subjective evaluations are 90% of what sells new cars. How the car looks inside and out, how the materials feel, etc... All of it is factored into how much you want any given car. << I find the ergonomics on the Mustang horrid, so even if the material quality is better, which I doubt, it does not matter) >> The Z06 is cramped and has poor seats. I'm not sure how the ergonomics of the Mustang could be any worse. I've driven a 2002 Mustang GT, which shares it's interior with the Cobra and found it liveable, although not fantastic. The material quality of the Mustang is in fact better than that of the Corvette. And they way you phrased the above statement leads me to believe you've never sat in a Mustang before or given any close examination to the materials used within it. Therefore I can extrapolate that you have no real world experience to draw your opinion from. << some speculation (probably hold better resale value) that does not seem anywhere like what I have seen in the real world. >> Than your version of the real world is different from the real world the rest of us live in. Regularly reasonable demand for Mustangs both new and used keep it's resale value fairly high as far as American Coupes are concerned. The Corvette loses value at an astonishing rate, see the 1994 ZR1 as an example, now avaliable for about the same money as a 1989 944 Turbo. << No. It is a much nicer car to Drive. The track times are what confirms that. This makes no sense. The only thing faster track times would confirm is that the Corvette has faster track times. My mother's Lexus is "nicer" to drive than a GT3, that doesn't mean anything else. << Drive them both and see for yourself. >> I have, I did. << but Chevy would not have been able to price the 'Vette where they priced it, and have it so succesful if there were not a lot of people that belive the same >> Some people would rather have a new Suzuki than a used Honda. They pay no attention to the Honda's higher reliability, better safty, and equally good gas mileage. They're only interested in owning a new car. << Did you drive them both? >> I've driven a 2002 Mustang GT a 2001 Mustang Cobra and a 2003 Corvette z06. << So you prove my point - despite the fact that the 911 uses an outdated drivetrain layout it is a great car >> The rear engined layout is not outdated by any means. It's simply odd-ball because no one else uses it. The front-engine, rear-drive layout is the oldest of all. If any of them are outdated, that's the one. << just as Chevy uses a lot of modern technology than enables an outdated engine valve actuation technique to make a great engine. >> But it's *not* a great engine. It's a mediocre engine with a lot of horsepower. The M3's 3.2 I6 is a *great* engine. The 3.5 litre Ferrari V8 is a *great* engine. Chevy has no claim there. << If we are talking about building the best of the best, you want the best modern technology for everything (which is why Porsche chose a mid-engine layout for the CGT, which they technically call a 911) >> The Carrera GT is *not* called a 911. Technically, calling anything newer than the original car a 911 is a mis-nomer. 996 is the proper designation number for current Carreras, it was 993 before that, and 964 before that. 911 is simply the spiritual name for the car. << Please read what I have said - I talked about the "Physical" size >> I *did* read what you said. 350 cubic inches or 5.7 litres (if you prefer) are numerical representations of that powerplants PHYSICAL SIZE. It's only small compared to bigger V8s. It is NOT a small engine. << Despite the fact that the engine has a lot of displacement, it is physically a compact unit for it's potential. >> If you're trying to say that the 350 can produce Hp numbers well beyond it's size in cubic inches, you're correct. But the same can be said of the 911 Turbo, which can produce in excess of 600Hp from 3.6 litres. That's a much bigger technical achievement than squeezing 500Hp from a 5.7 litre engine. << and with all due respect to the Ford's OHC engine - I honestly think that GM's current 'Vette OHV is a match for it >> The Ford engine is not OHC. The V8s offered in the Mustang comes in 2 varieties, SOHC and DOHC. The Conra's is a DOHC engine. << Just like Porsche used a lot of technology to go around the rear-engine layout deficiency >> More class and overall victories than any other manufacturer at LeMans. Record worthy wins at ALMS and in the Rolex Series. These are but three of the major acomplishments of Porsches throughout the years. While predominantly using a drivetrain layout you continually insist is "outdated" and a "deficiency". You've got no way to back those claims up, and it's obvious. << For someone that admires a vehicle with old school technology chassis layout - you sure are critical. Hypocricy might be a better word. >> Get a dictionary, and a clue. You sound like another Corvette maniac in hiding. Either find some actual evidence that my claims are bogus or shut the f.ck up. << The 2003 -2004 Mustang uses a chassis designed in 1979 (The Fox platform) >> The Fox platform has been updated so many times throughout the years that any similarities it has to the version used in 1979 are minimal at best. Chevrolet has made no major changes to the Corvette's basic packaging system since the car was introduced in the 1950s. << with well documented information above >> Well documented? Your so called "documentation" consists of blatherings about parking lot racing and a couple of links to outdated articles containing irrelevant information. << I am not sure what this vendetta you have about 'Vette owners >> They regularly crawl out from the woodwork and from under their stones only to come to this *Porsche* NG and start trolling around. I'm sick of them and the car. But this thread was not started as an attack on them, it was simply a thread about a magazine article. << As for the Lotus Elise (once again, not my argument, but a nice try to divert attention to something unrelated) >> I get accused of trying to distract people with irrelevant information by a guy who posted 2 links which had nothing to do with our discussion. The point was clear as day bud. Corvette maniacs only have one Ace to hold, and it's that the Z06 is less expensive than the Carrera. The Elise will offer Corvette level performance for tjousands of dollars less! << it will be around $40K, >> Every price estimate I've seen is between $31 and $35k. Even at $40k it'd be thousands less than a comperable Corvette. << and with all due respect - it might be a performance match to many cars - but living with a Lotus as a daily driver is a hard thing to do - not so much with a Corvette. >> B.S. You and I have never driven the Elise, and I'm sure of it. How would you know how easy it is to live with? And when did the Corvette become an "easy" car to drive every day? Much like any other sports car, certain people will *put up* with it as a daily driver. But it's hardly easy! << I have seen it, and I fail to see where you actually made a logical argument backed by anything other than gut speculation, half truths and subjective assesment. >> You're so full of crap I can smell your signature on every post. Get lost or start posting relevant information. > << Every weekend at your local SCCA solo-2 parking lot you will be able to see > it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you and I may as well go out to do our own tests in front of the local Dairy > Queen. Who cares if Montoya can get a certain car faster by a 0.01 of a second compared to another. It is the general public that buys these cars, and if in these people's hands the 'Vette is faster - that's what is important. > << I remember R&T (or was it C&D) where one was done and the 'Vette was > much faster. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and out, how the materials feel, etc... All of it is factored into how much you > want any given car. True. So I do not understand why you carp so much about the Corvette which has been a huge sales success for Chevy. > << I find the ergonomics on the Mustang horrid, so even if the > material quality is better, which I doubt, it does not matter) >> > > The Z06 is cramped and has poor seats. I'm not sure how the ergonomics of the > Mustang could be any worse. I've driven a 2002 Mustang GT, which shares it's > interior with the Cobra and found it liveable, although not fantastic. I found it exactly the opposite. > The > material quality of the Mustang is in fact better than that of the Corvette. > And they way you phrased the above statement leads me to believe you've never > sat in a Mustang before or given any close examination to the materials used > within it. Therefore I can extrapolate that you have no real world experience > to draw your opinion from. I have autocrossed several of these cars in the region. In the short amount of time I spent in them - the Z06 was faster, more comfortable and did not strike me as less well built than the Mustang. > << some > speculation (probably hold better resale value) that does not seem anywhere [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Corvette loses value at an astonishing rate, see the 1994 ZR1 as an example, > now avaliable for about the same money as a 1989 944 Turbo. According to the KBB, a 2001 Mustang Cobra lost more of it's resale value than a 2001 Z06.($16K vs. $12K). > << No. It is a much nicer car to Drive. The track times are what confirms that. > > This makes no sense. The only thing faster track times would confirm is that > the Corvette has faster track times. My mother's Lexus is "nicer" to drive than > a GT3, that doesn't mean anything else. When I am talking about nice when regarding a sport car, I am talking about the feel of the car when driving it - to me, the Corvette feels a lot nicer than a Mustang. > << Drive them both and see for yourself. >> > > I have, I did. OK. I guess that we do not share the same ideas about cars. It's subjective. > << but Chevy would not have been able to price the 'Vette where > they priced it, and have it so succesful if there were not a lot of people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > attention to the Honda's higher reliability, better safty, and equally good gas > mileage. They're only interested in owning a new car. So? What is the point? There is a large enough market that belives that the Corvette is worth the premium over the Mustang, and I am one of them. > << Did you drive them both? >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > because no one else uses it. The front-engine, rear-drive layout is the oldest > of all. If any of them are outdated, that's the one. The rear engine layout is outdated - or Porsche would have continued to use it in their ultimate sport cars, a thing they no longer do. > << just as Chevy uses a lot of modern > technology than enables an outdated engine valve actuation technique to make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The M3's 3.2 I6 is a *great* engine. The 3.5 litre Ferrari V8 is a *great* > engine. Chevy has no claim there. We disagree. It is a great engine - it is reliable, cheap, powerful and has tons of potential. > << If we are talking about building the best of the best, you want the best > modern technology for everything (which is why Porsche chose a mid-engine [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > current Carreras, it was 993 before that, and 964 before that. 911 is simply > the spiritual name for the car. According to Porsche (See the latest Autoweek, I belive) - it is considered the same model as the 996 - that for all purposes everyone calls 911. The same way that a C5 is not a C4 is not a C3 but is still a Corvette. > << Please read what I have said - I talked about the "Physical" size >> > > I *did* read what you said. 350 cubic inches or 5.7 litres (if you prefer) are > numerical representations of that powerplants PHYSICAL SIZE. It's only small > compared to bigger V8s. It is NOT a small engine. No. It describes the physical size of the combustion chamber. Not the physical size. The size of the box you put the engine is describes the physical size of the engine. The LS1 is a small engine (physically) that is also rather light for it's potential. > << Despite > the fact that the engine has a lot of displacement, it is physically a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Turbo, which can produce in excess of 600Hp from 3.6 litres. That's a much > bigger technical achievement than squeezing 500Hp from a 5.7 litre engine. Once again, you are stuck on the displacement, not physical size. Not what I was talking about. << and with all due respect to the Ford's > OHC engine - I honestly think that GM's current 'Vette OHV is a match for it >> > > The Ford engine is not OHC. The V8s offered in the Mustang comes in 2 > varieties, SOHC and DOHC. The Conra's is a DOHC engine. You just said that it is not OHC, and continued to tell me that it is OHC with either one or two cams. Make up your mind. (BTW, the answer is, yes, it is OHC). > << Just like Porsche used a lot of technology to go around > the rear-engine layout deficiency >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > drivetrain layout you continually insist is "outdated" and a "deficiency". > You've got no way to back those claims up, and it's obvious. I have a very simple way to back it up - it was not used with any measure of success (since the 1930's) in the top ring of racing - a place where optimal layout is used (F1, in other words). If this does not make it proof - nothing will. Le Mans, with all due respect, is not a place where optimal performance formula was a priority for many years, and when prototype classes there did permit it - even Porsche went with mid-engine layout. It is easy to see through the half truths. > << For someone that admires a vehicle with old school technology chassis > layout - you sure are critical. Hypocricy might be a better word. >> > > Get a dictionary, and a clue. You sound like another Corvette maniac in hiding. > Either find some actual evidence that my claims are bogus or shut the f.ck up. We start with the swearing. Typical when logic fails. Never owned a Corvette. Never owned a Mustang. Never owned a 911 (but I can see myself in one when I get older). Not a Corvette maniac - just someone that does not see the world through the eyes of the fanatic. > << The 2003 -2004 Mustang uses a chassis designed in 1979 (The Fox platform) >> > > The Fox platform has been updated so many times throughout the years that any > similarities it has to the version used in 1979 are minimal at best. Chevrolet > has made no major changes to the Corvette's basic packaging system since the > car was introduced in the 1950s. I guess that when nothing else fails, you decide to ignore the facts. The Chassis of the Corvette has been updated a lot more often with a greated degree than the Mustang's. > << I am not sure > what this vendetta you have about 'Vette owners >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > car. But this thread was not started as an attack on them, it was simply a > thread about a magazine article. > << As for the Lotus Elise (once again, not my argument, but a nice try to > divert attention to something unrelated) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Every price estimate I've seen is between $31 and $35k. Even at $40k it'd be > thousands less than a comperable Corvette. So what? I never said that the Corvette was the best price/performance out there. I just did not agree about the Mustang comparison. > << and with > all due respect - it might be a performance match to many cars - but living [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > B.S. You and I have never driven the Elise, and I'm sure of it. How would you > know how easy it is to live with? Because I have seen them in the latest Lotus club track day and I sat in one. Not that different from my 7. I also talked to a fellow 7 owner that did drive one, and he confirmed it. > And when did the Corvette become an "easy" > car to drive every day? Much like any other sports car, certain people will > *put up* with it as a daily driver. But it's hardly easy! Compared to a minimalist Lotus it is. I know. I own one. It is that simple. > << I have seen it, and I fail to see where you actually made a logical argument > backed by anything other than gut speculation, half truths and subjective > assesment. >> > > You're so full of crap I can smell your signature on every post. Get lost or > start posting relevant information. Personal attacks, and get lost. I just love Zelots. Ron. << Who cares if Montoya can get a certain car faster by a 0.01 of a second compared to another. It is the general public that buys these cars, and if in these people's hands the 'Vette is faster - that's what is important. >> How fast the Vette was under testing in an article by C&D is muc more important to me than what some moron in a parking lot produced. Why? C&D will give me a full list of data to go along with the 0-60 times, like air temp. altitude, and other relevant testing conditions, including how hard they had to drive the car to produce those numbers. The performance numbers presented by Jow Schmo are not relevant to me, as I have no idea what other factors whent into that test. Besides, if one driver is better than the other, the Mustang and Corvette could easily swap being a faster or slower than each other. When the same driver tests both cars, it levels the playing field and gives me a more accurate number to work with. << True. So I do not understand why you carp so much about the Corvette which has been a huge sales success for Chevy. >> I carp about it *because* subjective judgements are so important in buying a car. Subjectively, I find the Vette' outdated, unattractive, and poorly built. I think that's reason enough not to like it! << In the short amount of time I spent in them - the Z06 was faster, more comfortable and did not strike me as less well built than the Mustang. >> The plastics and seating surfaces used in the Mustang strike me as much nicer than what's included in the Vette'. I find it hard to believe you honestly felt otherwise, but I'm not here to try and dispute your personal opinion, only the facts. Beyond that, your own personal autocross numbers are hardly relevant for a number of reasons. First and most important of which being that my only claim about the Cobra was that it's faster than a "base" Corvette in a straight line. Why you think this has anything to do with the Z06 is beyond me. Apprently you're unable to seperate one version of the Corvette from another. << According to the KBB, a 2001 Mustang Cobra lost more of it's resale value than a 2001 Z06.($16K vs. $12K). >> Again with the Z06! The Z06 is the more desireable of the Corvette models, and is far more expensive than a Mustang Cobra. It's not relevant! << So? What is the point? There is a large enough market that belives that the Corvette is worth the premium over the Mustang, and I am one of them. >> At one time a large portion of the world's population believed not only that the Earth was flat, but that is was the center of our universe. Children all over the world believe Santa Claus is coming tonight to deliver them gifts. Are those things true too? Belief and reality are two seperate things. << The rear engine layout is outdated - or Porsche would have continued to use it in their ultimate sport cars, a thing they no longer do. >> You're utterly daft, aren't you? The GT2 (rear engined!) was their ultimate car till' the development of the Carrera GT. The Carrera GT started out it's life as a GT1 racecar, and the mid-engined layout was used so that the car could qualify for GT1 class racing. When Porsche decided to drop the GT as a race car and pan it out as a road car instead, the mid-engined layout got carried over. I'll say it again, the front engined, RWD layout is the oldest one around, if any drivetrain type could lay claim to outdated, that's the one! << We disagree. It is a great engine - it is reliable, cheap, powerful and has tons of potential. >> If this is the definition of what makes a great engine, the 2.0 litre I4 in Honda's S2000 is an *amazing* engine! << According to Porsche (See the latest Autoweek, I belive) - it is considered the same model as the 996 >> I smell bullshit abound. I can;t find any proof of this *anywhere*, why don't you prove it? The 996 and the Carrera GT have about as much in common with each other as my dog has in common with my Volkswagen. << The same way that a C5 is not a C4 is not a C3 but is still a Corvette. >> A C4 is always a Corvette, but never a C3 or a C5. And you would never call a C4 a C5, would you? So why the hell would you call a Carrera GT a 911? << You just said that it is not OHC, and continued to tell me that it is OHC with either one or two cams. Make up your mind. (BTW, the answer is, yes, it is OHC). >> OHC and SOHC are not the same thing. Do some research. > << You just said that it is not OHC, and continued to tell me that it is OHC > with either one or two cams. Make up your mind. (BTW, the answer is, yes, it > is OHC). >> > > OHC and SOHC are not the same thing. Do some research. OHC = Over Head Cam SOHC = Single Over Head Cam DOHC = Double Over Head Cam A SOHC is a OHC engine (or specifically, a OHC engine with one cam for all the valves), a DOHC is a OHC engine (or specifically a OHC engine with two cams for all the valves). What next, an Apple is not a fruit? Ron. What about V8s? If there's one on each bank is that a single or a dual? What about two on each side? Is that quad? A peanut is not a nut. >><< You just said that it is not OHC, and continued to tell me that it is > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ron. > What about V8s? If there's one on each bank is that a single or a dual? > What about two on each side? Is that quad? To the best of my knowledge the single/double definition defines the number of cams per head - so a V engine with one set of cams for the intake and exhaust valves should in theory be defined a SOHC (despite the fact that you will have 2 cams), not DOHC, and an engine with 2 cams (one for intake, one for exhaust) per head should be called DOHC (despite the fact that you have 4 cams) - but I belive that this is a murky issue with some marketing departments - Porsche's original Carrera and Carrera 2 cars (the 356) were referred to as quad-cam because they had 2 cams per each cylinder bank and I have geard Cadillac refer to their DOHC Northstar as quad as well. See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/camshaft2.htm for simple text about the subject. At the end of the day however - SOHC is a specific kind of a OHC engine and a DOHC is a specific kind of a OHC engine - so they are both OHC designs. Ron. << A peanut is not a nut. >> He doesn't understand, and probably never will. << OHC = Over Head Cam SOHC = Single Over Head Cam DOHC = Double Over Head Cam >> Sadly, it's not as simply as knowing what the acronyms stand for Ronny. I sugest you do some reasearch and figure out why OHV and OHC are not the same thing. Why OHC and SOHC are not the same thing. And what makes a DOHC engine different from a quad-cam unit. Motor Trend publishes a nice little automotive dictionary, try picking up a copy! In the mean time, I'll forgive your obvious misunderstanding of the technical workings of an engine, and forget you posted this. =) Sound good? << What next, an Apple is not a fruit? >> Oh, if only this were relevant! > << OHC = Over Head Cam > SOHC = Single Over Head Cam [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > misunderstanding of the technical workings of an engine, and forget you posted > this. =) Sound good? Let's try to make it simple. Please explain to me why a SOHC engine is not a OHC engine. How about that? Ron. > << Who cares if Montoya can get a certain car faster by a 0.01 of a second > compared to another. It is the general public that buys these cars, and if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to produce those numbers. The performance numbers presented by Jow Schmo are > not relevant to me, as I have no idea what other factors whent into that test. When these Joe Schmo's are the people who do the national championship of the SCCA - a once a year event, run by people that are often a lot more talented than your average autojournalist (no disrespect), and the results are repeated year in and year out - it is clear to come to a conclusion. > Besides, if one driver is better than the other, the Mustang and Corvette could > easily swap being a faster or slower than each other. When the same driver > tests both cars, it levels the playing field and gives me a more accurate > number to work with. Your answer is somewhat true when you are limited to small samples, but if you are using large samples, the laws of statistics actually turn the table on this argument, even if you do not use the same subjects (people) for the test. An argument can be said (and is actually used in statistics all the time) that one driver could be more comfortable in a specific car over another (maybe because of his height, body build or experience) and will thus have more influence on the real results. There is a reason that science does not use this method to prove hypothesis - but a measured statistical sample (equivalent to the use of a large sample of results from the national SCCA championships) is used. > << True. So I do not understand why you carp so much about the Corvette which > has been a huge sales success for Chevy. >> > > I carp about it *because* subjective judgements are so important in buying a > car. Subjectively, I find the Vette' outdated, unattractive, and poorly built. > I think that's reason enough not to like it! That's fine. Don't buy it. > << According to the KBB, a 2001 Mustang Cobra lost more of it's resale value > than a 2001 Z06.($16K vs. $12K). >> > > Again with the Z06! The Z06 is the more desireable of the Corvette models, and > is far more expensive than a Mustang Cobra. It's not relevant! OK. I repeated the test with a regular Corvette, and it shows that a 2001 Corvette lost $14K of it's value. Still less than what the Cobra lost, and a lot less from a percentage point of view. > << The rear engine layout is outdated - or Porsche would have continued to use > it in their ultimate sport cars, a thing they no longer do. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll say it again, the front engined, RWD layout is the oldest one around, if > any drivetrain type could lay claim to outdated, that's the one! Did you check the layout of the original Benz? If so you will see that your argument is wrong about the oldest layout, but this is not relevant to the argument. The relevant thing is to make the analogy between optimal technological element of a car's design to it's overall capability. A mental leap that you seem unable to perform. > << We disagree. It is a great engine - it is reliable, cheap, powerful and has > tons of potential. >> > > If this is the definition of what makes a great engine, the 2.0 litre I4 in > Honda's S2000 is an *amazing* engine! I am a big fan of this engine and the S2000 - but it does have some disadvantages as well. Including the fact that it is physically about the same size and weight as the size of the Corvette's engine (not to mention being very tall). As I said before - there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. Displacement and power per cc is just one argument in the design of an engine. The torque and power curve are an important one to, and packaging consideration are important as well. When you add price, character and reliability you will see that the being hung over the displacement and valve actuation is a poor measure of an engine's sophistication. Life is more complicated than declaring that the LS1 is a poor engine because of this, or decalring that the S2000 is amazing because it gets a lot of power from a small displacement. > << The > same way that a C5 is not a C4 is not a C3 but is still a Corvette. >> > > A C4 is always a Corvette, but never a C3 or a C5. And you would never call a > C4 a C5, would you? So why the hell would you call a Carrera GT a 911? Because Porsche does. In http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&loc_code= index&content_code=01946176 they specifically refer to having 3 model lines, with the 911, Boxster and Bell Pepper - you can choose yourself where to classify the CGT. Likewise, from http://www.fast-zi-nation.de/ (See the News section) "Porsche is going to announce a 4 door luxury saloon as its fourth model line in early 2004, as a German business magazine says. The S-class competitor is said to be produced at Porsche's premises in Leipzig" Once again, if the 4-door luxury saloon is their 4th model line, this means that the CGT is not considered a stand alone model, but is one of the 3 mentioned above - when the car uses the same name (Carrera) as 911 models - it only makes sense to consider it as the same model. Don't blame me, blame Porsche. Ron. << Your answer is somewhat true when you are limited to small samples, but if you are using large samples, the laws of statistics actually turn the table on this argument, even if you do not use the same subjects (people) for the test. >> Unfortunately, the laws of sampling are not really relevant in road tests were factors don't remain constant and driver skill makes a big difference. I might be a better driver than my brother. If he and I tested the same car, even if conditions remained constant, we might get 2 very different numbers. Which number is correct? It's important that numbers are produced under fair testing conditions. This requires that the same driver or group of drivers drives each car. Also keep in mind that automotive magazines do not perform a simple single pass when attempting to aquire performance data. The data presented in the magazine is gathered by making several runs in every categorey and measuring with advanced electronic equipment. People driving around in a parking lot, no matter how skilled, usually cannot create the same kind of relevant performance data a magazine can. Of course, all of this is assuming that the avergae person gives a sh.t about race-track performance. I have neighbors who own 996 Carreras, BMW M5s, Lexus GS430s, and so on. All of these represent some of the best performers in their respective classes, but they were purchased more for the snob appeal than because of their performance. > > Unfortunately, the laws of sampling are not really relevant in road tests were > factors don't remain constant and driver skill makes a big difference. This is exactly why statistics are used, in order neutralize the problems you mention. Statistics 101. > I might > be a better driver than my brother. If he and I tested the same car, even if [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > best performers in their respective classes, but they were purchased more for > the snob appeal than because of their performance. I give up. All I have heard is how every link or piece of information I provide is not relevant, and got ambigius references to "do my homework". Please provide links or references that will "prove" your point. Otherwise - let's just call it a day - you will be right in your mind, I will be right in mine - and we the world will continue to go around. Ron. << All I have heard is how every link or piece of information I provide is not relevant >> You post links to websites about autocrossing, articles about the Z06, and some no-name site with dynographs and 1/4 performance with no added information on how those 1/4 times were acheived, when, or where. I'm sorry I was forced to call those out, but I did. The one semi-relevant link you did post was to a Road and Track article bashing the Mustang's tranny and interior. I simply responded by posting a link to a C&D article where the writer felt differently. The only thing this proves is that I was right when I said subjective judgements sell cars. << and got ambigius references to "do my homework" >> If I post something and you choose to challenge what I say, you're going to need to come with some proof. You can argue that you don't like the Mustang, or that it's not the "all around" performer a Corvette is, and I'll probably agree with you. But when the Mustang offers 9.5/10 of the Corvette's performance for $5 grand or more less, there's no way you can argue that the Mustang isn't a better value. << Please provide links or references that will "prove" your point >> My only real "point" this whole time is that the Mustang Cobra is a better value than the Corvette. If there were a link I could use to back this up, I would! Sadly, the C&D comparison I remember reading between the C5 Corvette and Mustang Cobra doesn't seem to be avaliable online. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But focus on that rather than degrading into silly arguments about which is the most outdated drivetrain design and such things. FWIW, The following is the only media conducted online comparison of a recent SVT Cobra (2003) to a Corvette (2003) of any kind that I could find - not that it is worth much - but since Mr. Grauman seems to put so much weight into media comparison - let's look at it - it can be found at http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0305_cobvet/index.html - and in it the reviewers found the Mustang's interior to be "long in the tooth and is in serious need of the forthcoming '05 upgrade. Grain and color matching of plastics is good, but it still looks at least five years old, fresh from the factory." They also found the following to say about the shifter feel of the two cars: "Unlike the near-perfect shifter feel in the Corvette, the Cobra's T56 stick feels like it came straight from a '56 F-100 pickup--long throws to third and fifth gears literally have you stretching out of the seat to get the shifter into the gate." Just as I claimed about the ergonomic design of the Mustang, the reviewers have the following to say: "the Mustang's seat/wheel/control relationships are all out of whack, and the ergonomics show their age." They also found that the Corvette (regular one, not Z06) was slightly faster even for simple acceleration tests: "On paper, the Cobra's supercharged 4.6-liter/390-horsepower/390-lb-ft DOHC V-8 looks to defeat the Vette's normally aspirated 5.7-liter/350-horse/375-lb-ft OHV V-8. But, given the Fords' 532-pound weight disadvantage and rear-wheel hop, the Corvette proves slightly quicker off the line. The Cobra lagged just 0.14 second to 60 mph and 0.10 second and 0.01 mph covering the quarter mile." They also found that the Corvette was faster through the slalom: "Since both cars wear nearly identical rubber and ride on four-wheel independent suspensions, we anticipated a fair fight through the slalom cones. Again, the Corvette prevailed at 2.3 mph faster" They did find that the Mustang came to a stop faster than the Corvette, but to the best of my knowledge, the Z06 has better brakes than the standard Corvette. (Not to mention that all other performance tests will just increase the Z06's advantage over the Mustang). All in all, it seems that I am not as dillusional as our zealot friend tries to paint me, and it also shows that the Corvette's success in the hands of "amateurs and semi-professionals" is a good way to get an idea of a car's potential, unlike the claims made by the same individual. I will repeat my conclusion - the Cobra Mustang might offer a lot of performance for the dollar, but it is not in the same league as modern super-coupes and as such I really do not see it as a real player in this company. I will reiterate what I said in my original answer to Jim - I agree with everything he said about the Evo and the STi. It is just the assesment of the Cobra as a real competitor in this league that I do not agree with. When Chevy had a detuned Corvette engine in a Camaro I did not think that it was in the same leauge, and the same is still true with the Mustang. If Ford have done their homework - the next one might be a legitimate alternative, but until then... Ron. Gee, and here's a portion of one of the C&D articles I remember reading: "Road trips are also made pleasant by the unique leather furniture, which has suede inserts and Cobra insignia, and by the white-face instrumentation, which is electroluminescent and very evenly lit. The usual Fox-platform ergonomics prevail, but the shifter moves smoothly, the metal-trimmed clutch and brake pedals operate with a clear sense of engagement, and the steering provides better path control than that of earlier Mustangs." Seems like they liked it just fine, even the shift action! Find it at: http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1881&page_number=1 Want "real world" data? Motor Trend said: "Our seat-of-the-pants impression is that anything less than a Viper or a Corvette Z06 may be in the slow lane next to the new Cobra." Find the review here: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0203_cobrain/index2.html The Cobra's sub-5 second 0-60 is right on top of the Vette's. I see it ranging from 4.9 down to 4.6 or so, making it right about on par with the Vette's 4.8 second time. >><< Agreed that the chassis is not as sophisticated as a Corvette, but the >>car does have an independent rear suspension unless I'm mistaken. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Faster where? Not around any race track that has turns both ways. As I said the first time, faster to 60 MPH and the quarter mile, (despite an approximate 500 pound weight penalty over the Corvette). 0 - 60 MPH has been a yardstick for American car performance for ages....... >>The local Ford >>dealer near me is selling them for approx. $35k. > > There is a reason for that. The sticker on the car is about $35K. >>Compare that to the $42-44k >>price tag of the slower base Corvette and the $46-50k price tag of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the 'Vette is more expensive, just as it should not surprise you that a > 911 is more expensive than a 'Vette. The Corvette mantra has always been "bang for the buck". The Mustang outbangs the Corvette. >>And keep in mind that while the Vette is >>sticking it out with an OHV engine, and the Mustang GT has an SOHC layout, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So what? If technology for technology sake was that important the 911 would > not have stayed rear engined. While the rear engine configuration of the 911 is not the optimal one in terms of neutral handling, the rear weight bias does permit capable drivers to utilize the car's understeering traits to great advantage. The newest 911s (993/996) have largely had the understeer engineered out of them until the car is pushed to 10/10ths. The 911 has won rallye and road course competitions and remains competitive to this day. The current small-block is an engine that > provides a lot of power and performance in a relatively small physical size. > Why is it that big of a deal that it is OHV? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ron. (Not a 911, Corvette or Mustang owner). Ron, your points are well taken, but, again, we were talking "bang for the buck". The Mustang is cheaper and faster than the base Corvette to 60 MPH and through the quarter mile, and not far off the Z06 in either. With a sticker price $15K - $17K below the Z06 the car is a better performance bargain. >While the rear engine configuration of the 911 is not the optimal one in >terms of neutral handling, the rear weight bias does permit capable >drivers to utilize the car's understeering traits to great advantage. >The newest 911s (993/996) have largely had the understeer engineered out >of them until the car is pushed to 10/10ths. The 911 has won rallye and >road course competitions and remains competitive to this day. I never said otherwise - but the Corvette's engine, OHV and all, has also been very succesful in races as well and permits capable drivers to take advantage of it - it has tons of low-end torque which is very useful on tight tracks - it has even been succesful to some degree on open tracks like Le-Mans. All I did was present an analogy showing that it is useless to get hung over one non-optimal feature of a car to dismiss it, as our learned friend has done. > Ron, your points are well taken, but, again, we were talking "bang for > the buck". The Mustang is cheaper and faster than the base Corvette to > 60 MPH and through the quarter mile, and not far off the Z06 in either. > With a sticker price $15K - $17K below the Z06 the car is a better > performance bargain. I will agree with this statement if performance was really just a 0-60 measure. If it is not - my statements still stand. The real comparison have always been between the Camaro and the Mustang - this is what GM had when it was fighting Ford in this segment of bang for buck, not the Corvette. FWIW - A Subaru Forrester XT is also a great performance bargain if you are looking at 0-60 numbers. I doubt that anyone would expect one to match a proper sport car chassis on the track, or even on the street. Ron. << All I did was present an analogy showing that it is useless to get hung over one non-optimal feature of a car to dismiss it, as our learned friend has done. >> All you've done is present of bunch of semi-facts twisted to your point of view in an attempt to make me look wrong/bad. The non-optimal OHV design of the Corvette's engine is one of only *many* reasons I dislike the Corvette, and I've listed some of the other for you. If you're to dense to read what I write, that's one matter, but don't you dare start accusing me of doing things that I most certainly have not. << I will agree with this statement if performance was really just a 0-60 measure. If it is not - my statements still stand. >> The only place you statements stand is in your own mind. The Mustang Cobra offers performance *very* close to if not better performance than the standard C5 Corvette for a *minimum* of $5,000 less. Despite your feelings and the off-keel ramblings of one R&T staff writer, the Mustang has a pretty decent interior and Car and Driver as well as several other publications agree with me there. If you don't think that this qualifies as better bang for the buck, than there's something wrong with the way you judge value. We've agreed that subjective judgements sell cars, and it's OK if subjectively, you dislike the Mustang. But simply because you dislike a car does not make it a poor value! << FWIW - A Subaru Forrester XT is also a great performance bargain if you are looking at 0-60 numbers >> The Subaru is a great performer considering it's price. But it's less than wonderful ride, cheap interior (yes, *worse* than the Ford's) and a myrid of other small things keep it from being an overall great value. Certain distinctions need to be made when heving these discussions, distinctions you fail to make at every turn. >>While the rear engine configuration of the 911 is not the optimal one in >>terms of neutral handling, the rear weight bias does permit capable [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Ron. Certainly the Mustang - Camaro comparison is more apples to apples, but now the Camaro is dead and there's a Mustang variant that can hold its own with the base Corvette in a straight line for thousands less. You're absolutely correct that performance is more than 0 - 60 MPH, but that and the 1/4 mile have been the American standards for years, as narrowly defined as that may be. The overwhelming majority of speed contests (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. are essentially drag races, whether limited to a 1/4 mile or not. I don't think we're that far apart on most of this stuff - you don't think the Mustang should be considered in the bang for the buck comparison and I do. Fair enough. I think it compares more closely to the Corvette (front engines, rear wheel drives, two doors) than the Subaru STi and Lancer EVO (front engine, all wheel drive, four doors) which we've already agreed are performance bargains. You've correctly pointed out that the basic Mustang platform is dated, but even with an aging product the Mustang Cobra is credited with .90g lateral acceleration to the base Corvette's .89 (.92 in a convertible) per Road & Track. R & T also had the Cobra with an identical 0 - 60 time (4.9 sec) and better 1/4 mile time (13.3 @ 108 vs. 13.4 @ 101 for a Corvette Coupe and 13.6 @ 105.7 for a convertible). The coupe speed should probably be about 105 - 106, but they published 101. To be fair, Motor Trend compared Cobra and Corvette convertibles and found the Corvette slightly quicker to 60 MPH, through the 1/4 mile and on the skidpad. My point is that you can match base Corvette numbers with a Mustang for thousnds less. I've beaten this one to death. The last word is yours. Happy Holidays! > To be fair, Motor Trend compared Cobra and Corvette convertibles and > found the Corvette slightly quicker to 60 MPH, through the 1/4 mile and > on the skidpad. My point is that you can match base Corvette numbers > with a Mustang for thousnds less. I've beaten this one to death. The > last word is yours. Happy Holidays! If the last word is mine - it is that I am glad to have an intelligent conversation with someone on this subject in the newsgroup - a rare commodity at times. As you have said - we are probably not as far away in our opinion from each other. Happy holidays to you too. Ron. > >>I'm no Corvette fan, but I would have to disagree on the lucky part. The > >>Corvette produces good raw performance numbers for the money - that has [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > horsepower if the reports I've heard are accurate. For $15+K less than a > Corvette the Mustang seems pretty good....... My wife has the 4.6 GT convertible Mustang, and I had the 99 C-5 Vette (lease was up). The Cobra may have independent rear suspension, but the GT does not. There is a substantial difference in the chassis dynamics. However, if you're just out for a hop and a ride in the sunshine, the live rear axle with the manual stick in the Mustang, can be a great deal of fun. In some ways MORE fun than the more compliant and better suspension and chassis of the newer cars. Back to back rides in a buddy's 02 Ferrari 360 Spyder and the wife's 00 Mustang GT Convertible on the same road gave a greater sense of involvement at 60 mph on the twisties in the Mustang. There's "work" involved in driving the "lesser" car that you can't get out of the Ferrari (Porsche or Corvette) at those speeds. It becomes something of a "where and at what speed" do you ride comparison, I think. << Steve, the GT3 is actually listed as 380 HP, I think. The next Corvette is due around September 2004 as a 2005 model and will reportedly get an engine bump to 6 liters and around 400 HP. >> You're right about the GT3, it was a typo. But the point I was trying to make was how much more effecient the Carrera is than the Z06. With a 3.6 litre, 380Hp flat six, the GT3 can produce accleration numbers identical to the Z06, which uses a 5.7 litre, 400Hp V8. I'm sure that Porsche is well aware of the upcoming C6's potential, which is why they're seriously considering the use of a V8, perhaps based on the Cayenne's 4.5 litre mill, to power the 997s. Performance numbers are all a portion of the story though, build quality and fit/finish come into play, and the German marques have the Americans beat in this arena. I think it's fair to say we're in for an interesting competition. << The BMW M5 will supposedly go to 500 HP and they're going to introduce an M6. >> The M6 is going to be a lot more relevant to 911/Corvette cross-shoppers than the M5. The RS6 is currently the world's fastest sedan, with a 0-60 time of 4.2 seconds. But it's not a true sports car, and it's stuck with an $80k price tag. I hear that Audi has some pretty heft plans in store for thier next gen. S6/RS6 as well. << My 320 HP Carrera is going to be giving up a lot of displacement and HP to the new cars >> This is true. But keep in mind, you'rs is the outgoing version, slated for replacement. I've heard that the 996 will be bumped to 3.8 litres with somewhere between 345 and 380 horsepower in the interim. The current 320Hp car has been clocked down as low as 4.4 seconds to 60, a 3.8 litre 380Hp engine should bring it right down into Z06 territory. > << just wait til the c6 comes out >> I think that merits the extra expendeture. This is the key. If one has the money for top of the line Porsche or Ferrari (both purchase and running costs) they build a better quality car. If one wants the most bang for the buck, any C-5 or now C-6 Vette is the answer. This is very cost dependent for most of us. I make a pretty good living, but as much as I would love to own a $100,000 plus F-355 or F360 Ferrari Spyder, I can't and won't give myself permission to pay that kind of money. For around $40,000, one can now buy a two year old Covette Z06 and have most of the same fun for about 150,000 miles that the high end Porsches and Ferraris give. That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference. For the difference of $40,000 (Porsche) or $60,000 plus (Ferrari) one can buy a college education for a kid, or a golf course membership to be with friends, and still enjoy driving a fast, fun car. Just my .02 >If one wants the most bang for the buck, any C-5 or now C-6 Vette is the >answer. Bang for the buck is somewhat subjective here though. I equate build quality to be part of the "bang". And you get so much more of it with the Porsche, it's easy to see where the money went. If 0-60 is all you want, this argument becomes moot. Going to the used car market or buying into something like Subaru's WRX STi is going to give a lot more performance for your dollar than any Porsche, Ferrari, or Chevy. > >If one wants the most bang for the buck, any C-5 or now C-6 Vette is the > >answer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Subaru's WRX STi is going to give a lot more performance for your dollar than > any Porsche, Ferrari, or Chevy. As much as I would love to have an STI, it should never be mentioned in the same breath as Porsche or Ferrari Tonyrama >As much as I would love to have an STI, it should never be mentioned in the >same breath as Porsche or Ferrari It depends on what else that breath is carrying. If 0-60 is all that matters to you, than an STi represents a much better value than anything currently avaliable from Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Chevrolet, Audi, or practically anyone else. The Lotus Elise is a better value still, so is a Caterham Super 7 SV with the 200Hp Zetec engine option, or a Westfield with the Hayabusa engine. In the real world, a C5 Z06 or Carrera would probably easily outrun an STi around a paved race track, but knowing that comes from more in-depth analisys than what many buyers are willing to do. 0-60 is what rules buyers minds these days, and it's what often dictates mass perception of bang for the buck, in which case the STi wins out. Because at 0-60 in around 4.2 seconds, it's as quick or quicker than many "exotics". The 2004 Carrera can post 0-60 in 4.4 seconds...will you notice .02? Not a chance, but seeing it on paper helps sell the STi. > >As much as I would love to have an STI, it should never be mentioned in the > >same breath as Porsche or Ferrari [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > seconds...will you notice .02? Not a chance, but seeing it on paper helps sell > the STi. Plus the STi will KILL every other car on this list on an UNPAVED track. I'd love one, but I think they are identified with people many decades younger than me. >Plus the STi will KILL every other car on this list on an UNPAVED track. I agree 100%. And I like rally, but when I buy a sports car, paved track performance is more important to me than how the car will perform on a gravel road. VWVORTEX and it's counterpart website SUBDRIVEN (dedicated to Subarus) took the WRX STi, Lancer EVO, and Golf R32 to the Tire Rack's testing facilities and ran tests. The Tire Rack's drivers got to do some driving and analisys as well. When all was said and done, the Lancer and STi posted faster 0-60 times, but they all agreed that the R32 had the best suspension for track use. The only thing holding it back were the sub-par tires that VW put on the car, which could be easily replaced, allowing the R32 to post equivalent or faster track times than either of the Japanese cars. The problem is that people don't care if the R32 is a more competant track machine, what they care about are 0-60 times, and that's why Subaru will sell more STi's than VW will R32s. 0-60 my BMW k series smokes all of em. I usually do not drive on gravel roads. Here in th USA, gravel roads are not the norm.Gravel, rock, and sand washes I usually take my SUV . > >Plus the STi will KILL every other car on this list on an UNPAVED track. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > don't care if the R32 is a more competant track machine, what they care about > are 0-60 times, and that's why Subaru will sell more STi's than VW will R32s. >0-60 my BMW k series smokes all of em. I usually do not drive on gravel K series? That must be one of BMW's motorcycles. > Here in th USA, gravel roads are not the norm I'm well aware, as was my point. The day I start driving more on gravel than I do on paved roads is the day I might start caring about the STi's off-road performance. Otherwise, I'm sticking to the Porsches. > >0-60 my BMW k series smokes all of em. I usually do not drive on gravel > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do on paved roads is the day I might start caring about the STi's off-road > performance. Otherwise, I'm sticking to the Porsches. My first motorcycle upon re-entry in 95 was a BMW K. Pretty slow, actually. For a motorcycle. My last motorcycle, sold a few months ago, was a Suzuki GSXR 1000 K3. I frankly never intend to go that fast again, without a steel cage around me. I threw away a Ducati 900 SS CR several years ago, with the high side injuries one might expect. I'm getting too old to spend a lot of time on healing broken bones. I did my gravel roads on a Triumph Tiger, but I wouldn't mind having a rally car, anyway. Just not practical for anything I'm doing now. Still.....awfully nice cars at a very reasonable price. >My first motorcycle upon re-entry in 95 was a BMW K. Pretty slow, actually. >For a motorcycle. I've always said straight out that a motorcycle is a much better deal than a car if 0-60 is your main concern. However, safty and comfort issues can come into play, as you commented on in your post. But somthing like a CBR 1100XX or GSXR represents a much better bang for the buck than a car when it comes to pure accleration games. >I wouldn't mind having a rally >car, anyway. Neither would I, but it certainly wouldn't be my daily driver. However, there are a small number of great used cars one could get a great deal on for rally use. The Mazda 323GTX and Audi Coupe Quattro GT of the late 1980s are two such examples. Even cars like the 1991 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4, Eclipse GS-X and Isuzu's Impulse RS Turbo could make decent rally cars for comparitively little money if one knew what they were doing and how to source parts. >Still.....awfully nice cars at a very reasonable price. I guess it depends on what you mean by nice. The STi and EVO offer great straight line and "gravel road" performance combined with unique looks and "racy" interiors without having to spend a fortune. However if I had a choice, VW's R32 would be mine. It's far more comfortable and seemingly of much higher quality (at least when it comes to the quality of interior plastics) than the Japanese cars and represents the best option for paved road exhibitions. Although it will lose in a 0-60 drag race if that's all you care about. > I guess it depends on what you mean by nice. The STi and EVO offer great > straight line and "gravel road" performance combined with unique looks and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Japanese cars and represents the best option for paved road exhibitions. > Although it will lose in a 0-60 drag race if that's all you care about. With all due respect to the VDub, given their awful reliability record (Not talking about the R32 specifically, but the Brand as a whole) I do not subscribe to the idea that they are more of a quality car than the Scooby. The interiors are very ni |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message