What is best Sports Car buy around?

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Neema702 Plus... ur assumption that the Z06 did the 7:43 lap with run-flats is unsubstantiated.

No its not unsubstantiated - it has been verified. By the factory, by witnesses and the driver.

Originally Posted by Neema702 ive driven a 996 GT3 and a C5 Z06, and i gotta tell you, the porsche is def. superior when it comes to handling and grip.

Yet they are able to lap in the same times.

Originally Posted by Neema702 Plus you cant compare the C6 Z06 to the 996 porsche's or an F430 or 360 CS, wait until the F430 CS or the 997 GT2 comes out, then compare. your plain ol'logic seems a little off... id say a little biased... haha

Well the C5 Z06 already dances toe to toes with the F360Cs so thats taken care of.

And besides the C6 Z)6 vs the F430..

Ah screw this - its just the same thing all over again....

[Neema702]

RC: i think all the numbers there are correct... its just not a complete list... they're missing some times for sure...

question for you... do u think the Ferrari F430 CS or 997 GT2 will have a slower lap time then the Z06?

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Neema702 RC: i think all the numbers there are correct... its just not a complete list... they're missing some times for sure... question for you... do u think the Ferrari F430 CS or 997 GT2 will have a slower lap time then the Z06?

With 2 more years of development time and significant compromise in out and out street manners why shouldn't they be faster - and significantly more expensive to boot... the Gt2 would probably cost $60,000 more than the Turbo

[nthfinity]

tforth, many of those times are very innacurate; somewhere in JW, there is an image of the all time Sport Auto supertest results... much more trustworthy for comparison results. For example, I know many inside Ford's SVT department who were actually testing the FGT on NS asking about laps, development, and lap times... to which each and every one simply said "no hot lap was recorded" in multiple forms of responses. Horst Von Saurma lapped in 7:52, a still very impressive lap time.... and many other laps mentioned are equally off the mark.

Originally Posted by Neema702 You just made my point nthfinity... the fact that porsche claims a 911 can go around the NS 7 seconds faster due to 30-50 more HP is exactly what im saying. The Z06 has 100 more HP then a E46 CSL and it weighs less (225 pounds less!) then the CSL and the CSL still managed to get within 7 seconds. Plus... ur assumption that the Z06 did the 7:43 lap with run-flats is unsubstantiated.

The fact is an S model is far more then just 30-50 more bhp, it is a full package upgrade; and the point i'm proving is mine. Since when is a CSL a daily driver type car? Its bloody fast; sure... if you think 7 seconds is a small feat on NS, then think again... perhaps count aloud just to get an idea between the gap.

from C5 Z06 which tied the Mk1 GT3 996 on NS to the C6 Z06 coming down a remarkable 13 seconds in one generation is damnned impressive from an already VERY fast time. Yes, the porsche GT3 within the same era will out handle the Z06 by a small margin. That has never been the argumentative point, it is the degree of difference which you simply cannot seem to comprehend; it boggles my mind

And all this talk about taking 5 seconds off the Z06's time due to tires is also pure assumption. The 997 GT3 weighs 267 pounds more then a Z06 AND has 90 less HP but still managed to go around the track faster then the Z06. and since your so down to make assumptions, lets assume we gave the 997 GT3 90 more HP, it would blow the Z06 away on a track. No one said that all porsche or bmw cars would beat the Z06 around a track, i said they have far better handling, and i think the numbers show this. Plus... ive driven a 996 GT3 and a C5 Z06, and i gotta tell you, the porsche is def. superior when it comes to handling and grip.

wtf are you going on about? the fact is, the GT3 doesn't have that additional 90 bhp, it has the right amount for what the car is, unless you go to KORO A 2004 bouncy bit's Z06 is damn close, weather you can drive it like that or not. Have you put in any track time? Welcome to the exotic, and sports car driving club :roll:

Originally Posted by nthfinity so given similar tires, a C5 Z06 would've hit 7:50 (faster then a Ferrari 360 CS with semi slicks (which has an additional 25 bhp) equaled a Murcielago which has an additional 185 bhp, and been only 3 seconds off pace of a McLaren SLR which as 215 more bhp... We're talking about the Z06, BMW's, and Porsche's... NOT ferrari's, Lambos, and benzo's...

look at the time, compare vs. a Porsche and BMW CSL then the argument isnt changed, you just don't get it

The Z06 is a great car for 70K, amazing for that matter... but it is NOT up there with the 997 GT3's and Ford GT's. Plus you cant compare the C6 Z06 to the 996 porsche's or an F430 or 360 CS, wait until the F430 CS or the 997 GT2 comes out, then compare. your plain ol'logic seems a little off... id say a little biased... haha

My logic is far from biased, I am a realist, that is the difference... it is easy when finding your name on other boards you are anything but a fanboy; but maybe here this discussion can get past your childish obsession that somehow a CSL is such a superior car... so superior that the engines aren't reliable so superior that the chief designer of the 3.2 S62 or whatever it is called thinks anybody tuning one is an idiot... a sportscar is the whole package, never just one facet, when you can admit that, then you've made progress... until then, you may as well drive a Gen 1 Golf because it handles well, who cares about its power, and power delivery. :roll:

the fact is that EVERY comparo out there pits the Z against the the 997 GT3's, and GT3 RS's, against hte F430's with thier Carbon ceramic breaks, mid engines, and amazing electronic diff, Gallardo SE's. It may not win every comparo, but it is right up there every single time right with those boys you have such an affinity to. Why can't you accept it is right therE? it is more then just damn good for the money, it is RIGHT THERE.

BTW, the C6Z06 ran NS in 7:42.9 seconds on runflat tires, 100% production with Jan Magnusen at the wheel, the same suspension set up that every single owner recieves when the car is new.

point out the falicy of my logic, and i'll concede; state fanboy material, and you will never win an argument. "the Z06 can't handle because its american, no way it can beat Porsche because it's a porsche!" LMAO

lap times count, and why didn't the M3 GTR ever do anything in terms of race wins? C6 R developed in tandem with the C6 Z06; only Porsche can attest to similar characteristics

Also, while you are at it, find me one single statement that is biased towared the Z, and i'll concede

[tforth]

RC45 wrote:

Neema702 wrote: ive driven a 996 GT3 and a C5 Z06, and i gotta tell you, the porsche is def. superior when it comes to handling and grip. Yet they are able to lap in the same times.

Huh? Per one of my posts in the other popular thread in this section:

"OK, here you go. The following list is from evo 099 (it's their Bedford Autodrome lap times):

Vehicle lap time Peak
(min:s) (mph)

1 Caterham R500 Evo 1:19.62 117.0
2 Porsche CGT 1:19.70 120.5
3 Caterham CSR 260 1:21.00 112.8
4 Ariel Atom 300 S/C 1:21.85 113.9
5 Caterham CSR 260 S/L 1:21.85 110.7
6 Koenigsegg CCX 1:22.30 120.0
7 Lamborghini Gallardo '06 1:22.80 116.9
8 Mosler MT900 1:23.00 115.7
9 Ascari KZ1 1:23.20 117.8
10 Porsche 911 (997) turbo 1:23.55 116.5
11 Porsche 911 (996) GT3 RS 1:23.85 113.4
12 Lamborghini Gallardo 1:23.90 112.4
13 Ferrari F430 1:24.20 112.2
14 Corvette Z06 (C6) 1:24.45 118.1
15 Mitsubishi Evo IX FQ-340 1:24.55 107.3
16 Porsche 911 (997) Carrera S Sport 1:24.60 108.2"

Please note where the C6 (i.e. NOT C5) Z06 is in this list (14th), as compared to the 996 GT3 RS (11th). In plane english, the 996 GT3 RS was clearly faster than the C6 Z06 on Bedford.

Another point, I'd like to draw your attention to is the comparative trap speeds the Z06 turned, as compared to its nearest timed competitors (i.e. 118.1, vs. 107.3 for the Evo and 112.2 for F430). In fact, you have to go all the way up to the Koenigsegg CCX, in 6th place, which was over 2s faster than it, to find a faster trap speed. What does this point to; the same thing that was highlighted in the Auto Zeitung article which compared it on Hockenheim against the 997 GT3 RS (see neighbouring thread): The C6 Z06 relies on its excellent power/torque/weight ratio to out accelerate its competition into the turns (which it brakes far earlier for) to compensate for its comparatively poor handling characteristics, especially on bumpy surfaces.

What's interesting to me is that according to often quoted (by someone here) NS time of 7:43 (i.e. not 7:42...), the Z06 is apparently 4 s FASTER than the 996 GT3 RS. The irony here is that, according to evo's time on a comparatively (to the NS) short track like Beford (1.8 mi), the 996 GT3 RS is 0.6 s faster. Remember, the Z06 has a power to weight ratio 31.5% better than the 996 GT3 RS! This typically will benefit a car more on short circuits at lower peak speeds. In addition, you would have to think that NS derived 996 GT3 RS had its rear wing, etc. specifically tuned to benefit it at the high corner speeds seen on the Ring.

This all makes me wonder about the credibility of that time. I would really like to see sport auto do its Supertest with Z06, so we could get some agreement on this time.

Furthermore, I'm fairly confident that when evo, or sport auto run the 997 GT3 RS and at Hockenheim, you'll see a different picture than what Auto Zeitung reported. I was very surprised to see that rag compare these two cars in the first place.

Lastly, did anyone notice that the Evo FQ 340 was almost as fast as the Z06, and it's a glorified 4 cylinder family sedan.

[nthfinity]

10 Porsche 911 (997) turbo 1:23.55 116.5 11 Porsche 911 (996) GT3 RS 1:23.85 113.4 12 Lamborghini Gallardo 1:23.90 112.4 13 Ferrari F430 1:24.20 112.2 14 Corvette Z06 (C6) 1:24.45 118.1 15 Mitsubishi Evo IX FQ-340 1:24.55 107.3 16 Porsche 911 (997) Carrera S Sport 1:24.60 108.2" Please note where the C6 (i.e. NOT C5) Z06 is in this list (14th), as compared to the 996 GT3 RS (11th). In plane english, the 996 GT3 RS was clearly faster than the C6 Z06 on Bedford.

OMG, your an idiot!
Z06: 1:24.45
GT3 RS 1:23.85

GT3 RS is.... a whole wooping .60 seconds faster then a Z06 per lap, wow, that is a lot! It's amazing the difference in lap times, simply a staggering defeat over this cheaper, more cheaply built hunk of junk! It is just collosal! I mean, I will never prop the Z06 up again, its just so far down the totum poll, it isn't even worth mentionging! Thankyou for showing the light tforth

oh, and there are numerous articles about the C6 Z making 7:42.9 seconds around NS.... just look up C6 Z06 and NS time in the american muscle forum, there are article sposted with the lap times listed.

EDIT:
tforth.

who has ever said that a hi-po car will be exaggerated extra fast on short circuts? whoever told you that is either of these two things:

mentally challenged
stupid

you obviously haven't had any seat time in a bigger track, nor a smaller tighter track, smaller cars excell on smaller tighter tracks, where the hi-po cars can't unwind thier griddles to the maximum. So no, there is no misinterpretation here; just your ignorance as usual

[RC45]

Originally Posted by tforth RC45 wrote: Neema702 wrote: ive driven a 996 GT3 and a C5 Z06, and i gotta tell you, the porsche is def. superior when it comes to handling and grip. Yet they are able to lap in the same times. Huh? Per one of my posts in the other popular thread in this section: "OK, here you go. The following list is from evo 099 (it's their Bedford Autodrome lap times): Vehicle lap time Peak (min:s) (mph) 1 Caterham R500 Evo 1:19.62 117.0 2 Porsche CGT 1:19.70 120.5 3 Caterham CSR 260 1:21.00 112.8 4 Ariel Atom 300 S/C 1:21.85 113.9 5 Caterham CSR 260 S/L 1:21.85 110.7 6 Koenigsegg CCX 1:22.30 120.0 7 Lamborghini Gallardo '06 1:22.80 116.9 8 Mosler MT900 1:23.00 115.7 9 Ascari KZ1 1:23.20 117.8 10 Porsche 911 (997) turbo 1:23.55 116.5 11 Porsche 911 (996) GT3 RS 1:23.85 113.4 12 Lamborghini Gallardo 1:23.90 112.4 13 Ferrari F430 1:24.20 112.2 14 Corvette Z06 (C6) 1:24.45 118.1 15 Mitsubishi Evo IX FQ-340 1:24.55 107.3 16 Porsche 911 (997) Carrera S Sport 1:24.60 108.2" Please note where the C6 (i.e. NOT C5) Z06 is in this list (14th), as compared to the 996 GT3 RS (11th). In plane english, the 996 GT3 RS was clearly faster than the C6 Z06 on Bedford. Another point, I'd like to draw your attention to is the comparative trap speeds the Z06 turned, as compared to its nearest timed competitors (i.e. 118.1, vs. 107.3 for the Evo and 112.2 for F430). In fact, you have to go all the way up to the Koenigsegg CCX, in 6th place, which was over 2s faster than it, to find a faster trap speed. What does this point to; the same thing that was highlighted in the Auto Zeitung article which compared it on Hockenheim against the 997 GT3 RS (see neighbouring thread): The C6 Z06 relies on its excellent power/torque/weight ratio to out accelerate its competition into the turns (which it brakes far earlier for) to compensate for its comparatively poor handling characteristics, especially on bumpy surfaces. What's interesting to me is that according to often quoted (by someone here) NS time of 7:43 (i.e. not 7:42...), the Z06 is apparently 4 s FASTER than the 996 GT3 RS. The irony here is that, according to evo's time on a comparatively (to the NS) short track like Beford (1.8 mi), the 996 GT3 RS is 0.6 s faster. Remember, the Z06 has a power to weight ratio 31.5% better than the 996 GT3 RS! This typically will benefit a car more on short circuits at lower peak speeds. In addition, you would have to think that NS derived 996 GT3 RS had its rear wing, etc. specifically tuned to benefit it at the high corner speeds seen on the Ring. This all makes me wonder about the credibility of that time. I would really like to see sport auto do its Supertest with Z06, so we could get some agreement on this time. Furthermore, I'm fairly confident that when evo, or sport auto run the 997 GT3 RS and at Hockenheim, you'll see a different picture than what Auto Zeitung reported. I was very surprised to see that rag compare these two cars in the first place. Lastly, did anyone notice that the Evo FQ 340 was almost as fast as the Z06, and it's a glorified 4 cylinder family sedan.

What is your point?

The 996 GT3 RS is no the 996 GT3.

The C5 Z06 and 996 GT3 are near performance twins.

Period.

No amount of your utter crap posted here changes that fact.

None.

The cridibility of the C6 Z06 time has been verifird by numerous sources... if you are so confident why dont you pick up the phone and call the driver, program director and witnesses and call them all liars.

Why not put your money where your mouth is? Then get back to us and share the transcripts of the conversations.

The car was also photographed inside and out and the photos were released publicly. The run was also witnessed by engineers from other auto companies whom have vouched for the time.

Again from the above post you seem to have made it your childish mission to "prove" that anything to do with the Z06 performance is false.

What exactly is your malfunction?

[nthfinity]

Tforth, if you wish to ask the team of engineers who brought us all the Z06, then here is thier address, and phone number

Pratt & Miller Engineering
29600 W. K. Smith Drive
New Hudson, MI 48165

(248)446-9800

[tforth]

nthfinity wrote:

the 997GT3 RS lapped NS in 7:42, while the C6 Zo6 lapped in 7:42,

Interesting: http://www.answers.com/topic/nordsch...test-lap-times

Note that sport auto turned a 7:38 for the 'standard' GT3. I guess it makes sense that the RS would be 4 s SLOWER. Oh, and according to the same list, the controversial Z06 time is supposedly 7:43 (i.e. not 7:42, or 7:42.9 to be precise, as you were going on about every little bit counts...)

[nthfinity]

Originally Posted by tforth nthfinity wrote: the 997GT3 RS lapped NS in 7:42, while the C6 Zo6 lapped in 7:42, Interesting: http://www.answers.com/topic/nordsch...test-lap-times Note that sport auto turned a 7:38 for the 'standard' GT3. I guess it makes sense that the RS would be 4 s SLOWER. Oh, and according to the same list, the controversial Z06 time is supposedly 7:43 (i.e. not 7:42, or 7:42.9 to be precise, as you were going on about every little bit counts...)

WTF, that is a bunch of incoherant garbage.

the C6Z06 = 7:42.9... is that not a 7:42? mathmatically, there is no misleading here, nor realisitcally.

again posting that "answers.com" garbage, use a reliable source please.

[tforth]

the C6Z06 = 7:42.9... is that not a 7:42? mathmatically, there is no misleading here, nor realisitcally.

Obviously you didn't do very well in math. What do you have, a B.A.? Let me help you here with a concept called 'rounding numbers'. If you remove one decimal place, you round up, if the decimal number is greater than 0.5, and down if it's less. More specific to this example; in order for the Z06 to have turned a true 7:42, the actual time would have had to have been 7:42.49 or LESS, not 7:42.9.

Man, you have certainly exemplified your level of proficiency here... Keep it up!

[RC45]

It's so funny you know.. it's not like I don't what the 911 and other performance cars can do... I have seen, driven and observed closely many cars - I know exactly which one can do what and where.

I literally learn nothing new from these "intardweb exchanges" and mostly emerge dumber out the otherside... especially having to read the drivel often posted.

All I have ever promoted is that people "Stop posting subjective bullshit just because you hate all Corvettes" - a statement of "in youopinion you don't like it" is fine - but don't go post subjective opinion as if it is fact - because it's not.

Contrary to what some of the losers who visit here promote - I actually do like, respect and enjoy all performance cars.

Witness a small glimpse into my sphere of interest... and I really do like them all... every last one - no matter what make.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by tforth the C6Z06 = 7:42.9... is that not a 7:42? mathmatically, there is no misleading here, nor realisitcally. Obviously you didn't do very well in math. What do you have, a B.A.? Let me help you here with a concept called 'rounding numbers'. If you remove one decimal place, you round up, if the decimal number is greater than 0.5, and down if it's less. More specific to this example; in order for the Z06 to have turned a true 7:42, the actual time would have had to have been 7:42.49 or LESS, not 7:42.9. Man, you have certainly exemplified your level of proficiency here... Keep it up!

Amazing - no wyouare attemting to justify your position by trying to imply you are more educated that he is - what a freaking loser.

[tforth]

RC45 wrote:

Amazing - no wyouare attemting to justify your position by trying to imply you are more educated that he is - what a freaking loser.

What can I say, he made a completely false statement, but yet again acted as though he was an authority:

nthfinity wrote:

the C6Z06 = 7:42.9... is that not a 7:42? mathmatically

[RC45]

Originally Posted by tforth RC45 wrote: Amazing - no wyouare attemting to justify your position by trying to imply you are more educated that he is - what a freaking loser. What can I say, he made a completely false statement, but yet again acted as though he was an authority: nthfinity wrote: the C6Z06 = 7:42.9... is that not a 7:42? mathmatically

Thats your best come back? I childlike "wah wah wah youmade a mistake... "

7:42.9 is 7:42.9.. nothing you can say will change that.

So - lets see how diverse you subjective biased interest is. Obviolsy you must be some kind of gurur and expert and oracle the way you projectile vomit "facts".

There is no way in hell you are a sportscar wnthusiast - you display the typical behaviour of a fanboy.