motor

RC45 · 10-26-2005, 12:12 AM

Code:

1.6 mile road course
Z06 75.4 secs
Viper 76.7
FGT 79.6

0-60
FGT 3.4
Z06 3.8
Viper 4.0

0-100
FGT 7.5
Z06 7.6..... 
Viper 8.4

1/4 mile
FGT 11.5 @ 128.7
Z06 11.6 @ 126.6..... 
Viper 12.0 @ 121.9

Braking 60-0
Z06 100'
Viper 100'
FGT 114'

Braking 100-0
Viper 280'
Z06 283'
FGT 321'

Lateral Acceleration Average
Z06 1.01 g's
Viper 1.01 g's
FGT 0.96 g's

So - where does the F430 fit in??

Minacious · 10-26-2005, 01:34 AM

The road course numbers for the Z06 are pretty damn impressive.

coloradosilver · 10-26-2005, 02:02 AM

RC - Those are damn impressive numbers. Where did that testing come from? I always thought that the braking power of the Viper was way better than that of the new Z06? And to see that the FGT is that much slower around the road course than a Viper is also a little funny sounding. I know that Vipers are quick in a straight line, but that fast around a track? I didn't think they were that good.

crayzayjay · 10-26-2005, 09:05 AM

Ditto. Im surprised at quite how far behind the FGT is on the road course. 3 seconds behind the Viper on a relatively short course

RC45 · 10-26-2005, 09:44 AM

Thats the numbers of the day.

The Ford GT proved unreliable and 2 different cars were apparently used in the test.

That means the Vette anf Viper are the real deal, with the GT just being an expensive pretender and garage ornament...

crayzayjay · 10-26-2005, 09:49 AM

These things happen... I'd love to know if you'd have called the vette a garage ornament had it been unreliable.. but yeah yeah, i know.. it wasn't

nthfinity · 10-26-2005, 10:47 AM

The Ford GT proved unreliable and 2 different cars were apparently used in the test

do tell more... what road course? what went wrong?
all i know is that in every other test ive read, the GT proved to be reliable for multi-thousand mile trips... and the one i was in had 29,000 miles on the odometer.

RC45 · 10-26-2005, 11:49 AM

From a forum member on CF

"The GT broke an axle and a development car with 40k miles had to be used for the road course and figure eight, it also dynoed 35rwhp lower than the GT that made the acceleration passes.

These FGTs are turning out to be curious beasts, trap speeds all over the map, rwhp all over the place, parts breaking"

Just being the messenger...

The most important details to come out of this MT test is that the C6 Z06 dynoed in the mid 450rwhp.

The performance available at this horsepower with a weight of 3100lbs is very telling.

The sheer number of 450 to 500rwhp Vipers, C5's and C6's on the road is amazing.

This is just more proof of how hard charging cars of this power output are.

Put it into perspective - the Tuner 427ci Vettes all put out about 530rwhp.

Maybe now the Eurocrats will pay attention and realize just how many super high horsepower decent handling street cars there are already on the road in the USA.... and why all this Ferrari this and Lamborghini that exclusivity is so laughable.

Anyone with $50K in their pocket can have super car performance - considering used Vette and Viper prices

They are just jeaulous that only their rich and famous (and crazy Swedes in Ford Granadas) can have really, really fast cars to play with

bmagni · 10-26-2005, 01:18 PM

is the viper the coupe or the convertible ???

RC45 · 10-26-2005, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ronin005

where does all this info come from?? i havent seen any reliable sources mentioned?? were these tests carried out with rc cars in your driveway??

Nice try.

But the source is public and available in print - and since I do not ever post BS I am just going to leave it at that

I get a little pissed by constantly havignto defend and prove shit - Why would I post a lie? Or false data?

It is as published.

If you search hard enough, you may just find the source.

RC45 · 10-26-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by everso

still no match for the upcoming Gallardo "update" though

Which is still ok, because most peoples wallets are not going to be a match for it either...

nthfinity · 10-26-2005, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by everso

Originally Posted by RC45

Originally Posted by everso

still no match for the upcoming Gallardo "update" though

Which is still ok, because most peoples wallets are not going to be a match for it either...

true

unless i buy one of those Fiero kits

sooooo.... with this new Gallardo update, how would this shame the Murcialago into humility??

oh, and a Fiero would make a perfect Gallardo replicar :spaz:

RC45 · 10-26-2005, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ronin005

Originally Posted by RC45

Originally Posted by Ronin005

where does all this info come from?? i havent seen any reliable sources mentioned?? were these tests carried out with rc cars in your driveway??

Nice try.

But the source is public and available in print - and since I do not ever post BS I am just going to leave it at that

I get a little pissed by constantly havignto defend and prove shit - Why would I post a lie? Or false data?

It is as published.

If you search hard enough, you may just find the source.

for all i know, you could be like the kid on the rsx forums. heck he did have them all fooled for a very long time.

and if one can post the times, it cant be to hard to post the source.

Give it up already... we know you are WickDMonkey for Club RSX...

artypossum · 10-26-2005, 03:38 PM

AT least European cars aren't made of plastic.

coloradosilver · 10-26-2005, 03:43 PM

RC - It really isn't about having to prove your credibility or your source, I just want to know who did the testing and how reliable they are. I know different testers have different reputations and diferent abilities when it comes to really driving cars at their limits.

I wondder if the FGT's times would have been better if they had a decent, more reliable car. They can't all be lemons, can they?