one2gamble Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-auto-show...ally-334923.php Thats a pretty serious vehicle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-auto-show...ally-334923.phpThats a pretty serious vehicle pretty awesome...$$$$ I wonder, also i feel for as much of a step up that this vehicle is that something more should have been done stylistically to differentiate the vehicle more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VetteZ06 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 pretty awesome...$$$$ I wonder, also i feel for as much of a step up that this vehicle is that something more should have been done stylistically to differentiate the vehicle more.... It's a Corvette, and it needs to look like a Corvette. Besides, it's pretty easy to distinguish it from run-of-the-mill Corvettes with a quick glance. I love the look, especially with the rear lip spoiler. Carbon ceramic brake rotors, 620 horses, carbon fiber everywhere, a better power-to-weight ratio than a Ferrari 599, over 1.0g of lateral grip... I'm in love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 It's a Corvette, and it needs to look like a Corvette. Besides, it's pretty easy to distinguish it from run-of-the-mill Corvettes with a quick glance. I love the look, especially with the rear lip spoiler. Carbon ceramic brake rotors, 620 horses, carbon fiber everywhere, a better power-to-weight ratio than a Ferrari 599, over 1.0g of lateral grip... I'm in love. awesome to say the least, a car to be proud of...still think it should look more different, some of us aren't Vette afficiados...witness the title of the forum..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescoent Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Madness, I say. Pretty nice car, but the old-time manual transmission will hurt it. Get a Ferrari gearbox in there, and then we'll talk about beating up on the big boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VetteZ06 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Oh, I have no doubt it'll "beat up the big boys" with said "old time" transmission. And madness is not always a bad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Anyone else think the "sunroof" in the hood is stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Madness, I say. Pretty nice car, but the old-time manual transmission will hurt it. Get a Ferrari gearbox in there, and then we'll talk about beating up on the big boys. Screw Ferrari and their slow gearbox. Get the DSG from Audi. The DSG takes about 8 milliseconds to upshift. In comparison, the SMT in the Enzo Ferrari takes 150 ms to upshift. The quoted time for upshifts is the time the wheels are completely non-powered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Screw Ferrari and their slow gearbox. Get the DSG from Audi. The DSG takes about 8 milliseconds to upshift. In comparison, the SMT in the Enzo Ferrari takes 150 ms to upshift. The quoted time for upshifts is the time the wheels are completely non-powered. the Enzo is 2 years old.....the latest iteration in the "lightweight" 430 kicks Audis a$$....and comparing an Audi to the prancing horse will have one whipped in Italy....BLASPHEMY!....and keep in mind one word...resale...LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 the Enzo is 2 years old.....the latest iteration in the "lightweight" 430 kicks Audis a$$....and comparing an Audi to the prancing horse will have one whipped in Italy....BLASPHEMY!....and keep in mind one word...resale...LOL! I am not comparing a specific Ferrari to a specific Audi. I am comparing their transmissions. Read slower and actually (try to) comprehend what is typed before replying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I dig it . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 very very nice. i like the body mods too except the ricer looking hood cutout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Personally, I like the look of the Z06 the best. The ZR1 looks overdone and yeah, I agree that clear panel on the hood is silly. The way it looks, it really doesn't show off that much and detracts too much. I'd rather have the naturally aspirated Z06 any day, of course I'd also take a standard Corvette. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnorman1974 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I have one question: WWVD? What Would Viper Do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim kakouris Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 the vette is bad ass anyway. base version, z06, and now the zr1. kudos to gm for continuing to update this american icon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waymondospiff Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Why with names like "Sting Ray" and "Blue Devil" available did they go with the eminently forgettable "ZR1?" Interesting car...supercharged? Huh? I didn't see that coming. It'll be interesting to read reviews - the current Vette & Z06 model post incredible numbers but always seem to be left out by the "je ne sais quoi" factor. Will the ZR1 finally break through and be a communicative sports car? Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Why with names like "Sting Ray" and "Blue Devil" available did they go with the eminently forgettable "ZR1?" Well, Stingray was more a body style than a particular trim of Corvette. Blue Devil? Eh, sounds kind of corny to me. The old ZR1 wasn't exactly "forgettable" in the history of the Corvette. It was FAR ahead of its time when it came out and was far superior to any other Corvette available at the time, just as this one is today. Makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) I'll have to agree. I don't think the ZR1 name is appropriate. Of course, maybe in the Corvette circles they are eating it up. Personally, I don't think its been long enough to resurrect the ZR1 (ZR-1) name lasted used on the C4 with the DOHC V8 in it. I think Chevy should've used StingRay or even SS. I think many will refer to it as "The Blue Devil" because that was its inside name much like Terminator was used for the 03-04 Cobra. I don't think Blue Devil would have worked, but they could've maybe named the engine blue devil and painted the intercooler blue or something. Obviously the wouldn't have wanted to use too much blue on the engine. I guess if Dodge goes to a Eaton blower on the Viper V10 at some point, its game over for the V8 Corvette. Maybe they need a V12 that has MDS. Wouldn't that be great? Backs off on the highway or at idle and runs on 6 cylinders! With WOT, all twelve cylinders open up! Talk about a Ferrari/Lamborghini killer! Edited December 21, 2007 by Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) I am not comparing a specific Ferrari to a specific Audi. I am comparing their transmissions. Read slower and actually (try to) comprehend what is typed before replying. in that case with the LATEST iteration you are vehemently WRONG...but then you do have a tendency to hang on to the past........read my post...the Enzo is TWO years old....their latest is in a lightweight 430....25% quicker than your Audi comparison....A long shift time is considered anything over 625 ms [1] The average manual car driver: 500 ms - 1 s[citation needed] Aston Martin Vanquish: 250 ms [2] Ferrari 575M: 220 ms BMW M3 E36 with SMG I: 220 ms [2] Audi TT Quattro 3.2 (Direct Shift): 200 ms[3] Ferrari 360: 150 ms[2] Enzo Ferrari: 150 ms[2] Ferrari FXX: Under 100 ms [4] BMW M3 E46 with SMG II: 80 ms[2] Ferrari F430 Scuderia: 60 ms[2] Volkswagen Golf GTI (Direct Shift): 8 ms [2] Bugatti Veyron (Direct Shift): 8 ms [2] Edited December 21, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I like it, everything but the clear hood panel(wtf?) Rock and roll Who gives a shit about Ferrari, at 3 times the price it should go 450mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 in that case with the LATEST iteration you are vehemently WRONG...but then you do have a tendency to hang on to the past........read my post...the Enzo is TWO years old....their latest is in a lightweight 430....25% quicker than your Audi comparison....A long shift time is considered anything over 625 ms [1] The average manual car driver: 500 ms - 1 s[citation needed] Aston Martin Vanquish: 250 ms [2] Ferrari 575M: 220 ms BMW M3 E36 with SMG I: 220 ms [2] Audi TT Quattro 3.2 (Direct Shift): 200 ms[3] Ferrari 360: 150 ms[2] Enzo Ferrari: 150 ms[2] Ferrari FXX: Under 100 ms [4] BMW M3 E46 with SMG II: 80 ms[2] Ferrari F430 Scuderia: 60 ms[2] Volkswagen Golf GTI (Direct Shift): 8 ms [2] Bugatti Veyron (Direct Shift): 8 ms [2] So....8ms is longer than 60ms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) So....8ms is longer than 60ms? back it up....I can't find anything other than 200.......thought you may...and I say MAY have missed a zero...80...sounds more beleivable as 8 isn't even in their crown jewel...the Bugatti.... Edited December 21, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 back it up....I can't find anything other than 200.......thought you may...and I say MAY have missed a zero...80...sounds more beleivable as 8 isn't even in their crown jewel...the Bugatti.... So, you don't believe what you posted? in that case with the LATEST iteration you are vehemently WRONG...but then you do have a tendency to hang on to the past........read my post...the Enzo is TWO years old....their latest is in a lightweight 430....25% quicker than your Audi comparison....A long shift time is considered anything over 625 ms [1]The average manual car driver: 500 ms - 1 s[citation needed] Aston Martin Vanquish: 250 ms [2] Ferrari 575M: 220 ms BMW M3 E36 with SMG I: 220 ms [2] Audi TT Quattro 3.2 (Direct Shift): 200 ms[3] Ferrari 360: 150 ms[2] Enzo Ferrari: 150 ms[2] Ferrari FXX: Under 100 ms [4] BMW M3 E46 with SMG II: 80 ms[2] Ferrari F430 Scuderia: 60 ms[2] Volkswagen Golf GTI (Direct Shift): 8 ms [2] Bugatti Veyron (Direct Shift): 8 ms [2] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 So, you don't believe what you posted? Audi TT Quattro 3.2 (Direct Shift): 200 ms.............hey if I stand corrected I stand corrected...and unlike some won't defeat to homophobic insults leading to thread closure.....regardless though you are comparing two year old technology with current.....can I sell you a two year old computer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 DSG: An SMT without the lagThe DSG/S-Tronic all but eliminates the lag inherent in SMTs. The DSG is essentially two 3-speed gearboxes with a pair of clutches. When the driver starts out, transmission #1 is in first gear and transmission #2 is in second. The clutch engages and the car starts out in first. When it's time to change gears, the DSG uses the clutches to swap transmissions. The #1 transmission immediately shifts to third gear. At the next change the DSG swaps transmissions again, and #2 shifts to fourth. The DSG's computerized controller calculates the next likely gearchange and shifts the "idle" transmission into that gear. The advantage is the speed of gearchanges: The DSG takes about 8 milliseconds to upshift. Compare that to the SMT in the Ferrari Enzo, which takes 150 ms to upshift. It's also significantly faster than a human: According to Audi, the A3 runs 0-60 in 6.9 seconds with a 6-speed manual and 6.7 seconds with the 6-speed DSG. Like the SMT, the DSG performs double-clutch downshifts and can skip gears (i.e. downshifting from 6th directly to 4th, 3rd, etc). Link Every single claim I can find on this BorgWarner DSG gearbox, claims 8ms. It is not a misprint, it is fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.