Just saw the current MOTOR TREND and they have the '02 at 12.5 and 115mph... Wouldn't you think they'd have better drivers than that?? Most of our members can beat that any day of the week...
__________________
'01 Speedway white/mod red int. RapidMotorsports 427 package, LS2 Block, 573 RWHP, 529 FT LB, 1 7/8 Kooks with no cats or mufflers, RPM Transmission & Quaife Diff, Pfadt Coil-Overs & the propeller!
I can't stand when you see cars performance numbers in those mags, then people use them and try telling you that your car is only 13's, thats crap, I've ran 12.46 multiple times and believe I can go faster. The car is bone stock besides wires for looks and a new airfilter.
You have to be careful here. Is that SAE corrected? Probably not, so M/T's results might be better or worse depending on dew point, temp and altitude, let alone track prep.
That said even the GM race drivers have only managed SAE corrected 12.3@116MPH (powershifting) and 12.5@115 speed shifting (this is from memory but I am pretty close) so the M/T numbers aren't so bad. Car and Driver drivers SUCK that is why the 13.1 - they launch off idle and shift like a grandmother.
Those who manage 12.3 or better are USUALLY experienced drag racers and/or have a lot of seat time in the Z06 and have perfected tire pressure and launch techniques for optimum performance.
Les
__________________ [sold] 02 QS Z06 383 c.i.
441 RWHP 445 RWTQ, FLP Long Tubes & GHL Quads, 42# Injectors, LS1 Edit Tuning, Vararam w/T1 C. F. Bridge, Vinci 170 Stat, Ripper Shifter, Lowered and Tinted
I agree that the Road & Crap drivers really suck (at least when it comes to cars like the Z06.....they seem to be much better at overpriced imports)..........also, I noted that they did the 13.1 test on a "slippery" day when a car with a lot of torque (i.e. Z06) would be hurt the most, but cars with really weak torque (i.e. 911) wouldn't suffer as much....... at least the Z06 still smoked the 911 and NSX, but with a good driver it would have been by a heck of a lot more.
as to my previous post, maybe it was car & driver or r&t.....I don't remember, but you know what I'm talking about........all the same garbage anyway........
You said "...also, I noted that they did the 13.1 test on a "slippery" day..."
That article isn't really clear about the acceleration testing conditions. They said the "track" (Laguna Seca) was slippery for the road course portion of the test, but all they said about the acceleration tests were that they were "...at a different site than usual." They didn't say the acceleration tests were done at Laguna Seca, or that the acceleration test site was "slippery".
The 911 acceleration numbers in the test (4.9 sec 0-60 and 13.4 sec in the quarter) are very close to what the car can turn. Both of those numbers are easily within 2-3 tenths of a second of expected dry condition performance.
If in fact the acceleration testing was done on a slippery surface, then that would show how LITTLE those conditions affect the performance of the 911, and how MUCH they affect the Z06.
Dock,
I noted that too (i.e. they weren't entirely clear on the track conditions during the acceleration runs), but I imagine it's the only way they could possibly explain the Z06 running a 13.1 (unless they just completely SUCK). At least the traction excuse makes it not look like they're just flat out lying. But perhaps you are correct that I should not have given them the benefit of the doubt and assumed the acceleration test was done on a "slippery" track/day/whatever. Of course, that basically leaves me with two possible conclusions (i.e. they SUCk or they lie). As to your point about how little the slippery track would affect the 911 and how much it would affect a Z06, that was exactly what I was saying about how the slippery conditions would not really have as much of an affect on a car with so little torque. (quoting myself: "a car with a lot of torque (i.e. Z06) would be hurt the most, but cars with really weak torque (i.e. 911) wouldn't suffer as much"). I don't think that having very little torque is necessarily a virtue, even though it means that perhaps your car's performance doesn't suffer as much in "slippery" conditions. A 1975 Volvo probably turns exactly the same quarter mile time in wet or dry conditions, but that doesn't really mean diddly. Whatever, the Z06 won anyway.
I ran a 12.8 in my Z06 when it had less than 500 miles on the odometer with my 160' son sitting in the passanger seat and the driver abuse feature engaging on every shift. I think it is Car and Driver that got the 13.1 BTW, and they suck slightly more then the drivers from other mags who at least have been able to get mid-12's on their tests.
As for the comparison with the 911 that lost anyway, like you said who cares If I wanted to talk about slow 911's I would join their forum
Les
Quote:
Originally posted by Lou Dock,
I noted that too (i.e. they weren't entirely clear on the track conditions during the acceleration runs), but I imagine it's the only way they could possibly explain the Z06 running a 13.1 (unless they just completely SUCK). At least the traction excuse makes it not look like they're just flat out lying. But perhaps you are correct that I should not have given them the benefit of the doubt and assumed the acceleration test was done on a "slippery" track/day/whatever. Of course, that basically leaves me with two possible conclusions (i.e. they SUCk or they lie). As to your point about how little the slippery track would affect the 911 and how much it would affect a Z06, that was exactly what I was saying about how the slippery conditions would not really have as much of an affect on a car with so little torque. (quoting myself: "a car with a lot of torque (i.e. Z06) would be hurt the most, but cars with really weak torque (i.e. 911) wouldn't suffer as much"). I don't think that having very little torque is necessarily a virtue, even though it means that perhaps your car's performance doesn't suffer as much in "slippery" conditions. A 1975 Volvo probably turns exactly the same quarter mile time in wet or dry conditions, but that doesn't really mean diddly. Whatever, the Z06 won anyway.
Good points. I doubt R&T would ever tell us the whole story.
As you said, R&T could have just done a poor job driving the Z06, but if that were the case you'd think they would have done a similarly poor job with the other two cars. The 911 is very hard to launch well; it can produce wicked wheel hop if the launch isn't just right. So I'm not sure the R&T drivers were the cause. Besides, if the test drivers had a bad launch in the Z06, and that impacted the numbers so much, you'd think they would do a few more runs to make things right. Maybe not though.
I don't think the 911 has "low torque". It does compared to the Z06, but the 2002 911 will run the quarter in the very low 13s, which is pretty good for a car with 273 lb-ft of fly wheel torque.
Maybe the track WAS "less than ideal" and this impacted the Z06 more than the other two cars because of the F1 tires. I think the F1s are impacted much more in damp/slippery conditions than the Michelins/Bridgestones, which are more all weather tires.
I have a 1983 Volvo, and it can't get traction in wet/damp conditions. It does 0-60 in about 20 sec in the dry, and in two days when it's wet.
Originally posted by ZO6/Les I ran a 12.8 in my Z06 when it had less than 500 miles on the odometer with my 160' son sitting in the passanger seat and the driver abuse feature engaging on every shift. I think it is Car and Driver that got the 13.1 BTW, and they suck slightly more then the drivers from other mags who at least have been able to get mid-12's on their tests.
As for the comparison with the 911 that lost anyway, like you said who cares If I wanted to talk about slow 911's I would join their forum
Les
Les was that the pass I handed you your doors????
__________________
2005 MDMC Z1100 C6 1105 Flywheel hp 18 psi of boost
D1 Procharger 730RWHP 652RWT very very safe
9.86 @ 142mph
2004 GTO 434 RWHP 11.4 @ 120 hot laped
Nope - that was later but the same event (Steele). On the run against you I lifted after the 2-3 shift when the driver abuse kicked in so bad the car damn near stalled and you were about an 1/8 mile ahead of me already
I want a rematch against your new toy before you get too much done to it
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Wouldn't you think they'd have better drivers than that?? Most of our members can beat that any day of the week...
The MT driver must be a little better 
If I wanted to talk about slow 911's I would join their forum 
Linear Mode
