C6 Z06 - 7:40?

[Jason C]

http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=fe4d1a37dd0964176dd07bc5a16d4ef3& threadid=39466&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=83606a05599c6a8a35776ad0d1b43177& threadid=29356&highlight=z06

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1126926&forum_id=100

"7:40* -- 161.217 km/h – Corvette Z06, 505 PS/ 1419.7 kg (estimated), Jan Magnusen (AutoBild 7/2005) (*mfr.)"

Still waiting for someone to post the AutoBild scans. If true or even close to the cited time, this is quite astonishing.

Ah hell, who the fuck could use this level of performance in a street car? :eeps:


(for comparison purposes)

Nordschleife exluding GP track 20.6 kms:

7:28 --- 166.652 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, Walther Röhrl,(Autobild July 2004)

7:32.44 163.911 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, definitive time Horst Von Saurma (sport auto 01/2004)
7:32.52 163.882 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600 EVO, Wolfgang Kaufmann (sport auto 2001) >>> http://www.gemballa.com/news/gtr6002.html
7:36 --- 162.631 km/h -- AC-Schnitzer M3 CLS II E36, 350 hp, Michelin Sport Cup R , Mattias Ekblom
7:36 --- 162.631 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, factory test driver Walther Röhrl (2002)
7:39 --- 161.575 km/h – Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1180 kg, >>> http://www.koenigsegg.com/news/articles.asp?news=91&page=&type=news

7:40* -- 161.217 km/h – Corvette Z06, 505 PS/ 1419.7 kg (estimated), Jan Magnusen (AutoBild 7/2005) (*mfr.), >>> http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=0&fID=0&tID=44953
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/2003)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche GT3 RS, stock but Pirelli P Zero Corsa, Mattias Ekblom (ams)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Mercedes Benz McLaren SLR, Klaus Ludwig (Autobild 07/2004)
7:41 --- 160.868 km/h – Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/2004) >>> http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextshopcms/cmspdf.asp?id=217
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa, 2004 (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (2002)
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street, 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/2002)
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Röhrl (MOTOR Magazine)
7:43.5 - 160,000 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 2002)
7:44 --- 159.828 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 580 PS/1820 kg (sport auto 07/2002)
7:45 --- 159.484 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600hp (2000)
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- McLaren F1, *estimated lap time from a video available at >>> www.pistonheads.tv
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT2, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/2001)
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Jaguar XJ220, John Walton (EVO magzine 07/200), >>> http://www.jwhubbers.nl/ring/docs/evo-0007-7.jpg
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- SHK Porsche 993 GT2, 652hp (sport auto 1999)
7:47 --- 158.801 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, 381hp (sport auto 03/2004)
7.49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche GT3, 392hp (AutoBild 2004) http://www.autobild.de/tuning/testberichte/artikel.php?artikel_id=7274&artikel_seite=4
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 Cup, 360 PS/1207 kg (sport auto 02/1999)
7:49.72 157.885 km/h -- Honda RC30, Helmut Daehne 1993 (moto bike)

7:50 --- 157.787 km/h -- BMW E46 M3 CSL (sport auto 08/2003)
7:50 --- 157.787 km/h -- Blitz Supra, 750hp, Herbert Schürg (1997)
7:50 --- 157.787 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/2002)
7:50 --- 157.787 km/h – Westfield Super 7 with Hayabusa engine, >>> http://nurburgring.free.fr/Vids/Bren_Westie_Whooo_Divx504_1_350.avi
7:52 --- 157.119 km/h – BMW M5 (E60), 507 PS/1844 kg, >>> http://www.rhein-main.net/sixcms/detail.pPS/1879435?topic_id=731907
7:52 --- 157.119 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche 911 Le Mans (sport auto 1995)
7:52 --- 157.119 km/h -- Lamborghini Gallardo E-Gear (sport auto 12/2003)
7:52 --- 157.119 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren (sport auto 06/2004)
7:54 --- 156.456 km/h – Mercedes CLK DTM AMG, 582bPS/1678kg, (sport auto 03/2005), >>> http://speed.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=0&fID=2&tID=27415
7:54 --- 156.456 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 (sport auto 06/2003)
7:55 --- 156.126 km/h -- Caterham R500 Superlight, Robert Nearn (EVO magazine 07/2000)
7:56 --- 155.798 km/h -- Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale, 425 PS/1387 kg (sport auto 02/2004)
7:56 --- 155.798 km/h -- Porsche 996 Turbo, 420 PS/1569 kg (sport auto 06/2000)
7:56 --- 155.798 km/h -- Chevrolet Corvette C6 (company test driver Dave Hill)
7:57 --- 155.472 km/h -- Lotec Porsche 993 Turbo, 600PS/1558 kg (sport auto 05/1998)
7:59 --- 154.822 km/h -- Porsche 997 Carrera S, PASM setting “Performance”, (Walter Röhrl WHEELS 06/ 2004)
7:59 --- 154.822 km/h -- Nissan Skyline R33 GT-R, Dirk Schoymans (Autocar magazine 1997)

:speechle:

[lemming]

it is really hard to believe that time.

really, really, really hard.

just compare that time to the Carrera GT times......this is the "base" z06 ???

[Jason C]

it is really hard to believe that time.

really, really, really hard.

just compare that time to the Carrera GT times......this is the "base" z06 ???

The Carrera GT can go much faster than 7:40, as the first time shows.

I'm very curious as to what kind of times the M6/F430 will run. :)

[lemming]

it is really hard to believe that time.

really, really, really hard.

just compare that time to the Carrera GT times......this is the "base" z06 ???

The Carrera GT can go much faster than 7:40, as the first time shows.

I'm very curious as to what kind of times the M6/F430 will run. :)

the c-gt could probably go close to 7min flat with racing tires. am pretty sure all of those times are on OEM tires.

:lol:

i think we already know the m6 is only 7:50s car (barely breaks 8 minutes) and i'm be shocked if the F430 is faster than 7:52. the true test, though, would be 10 laps. there, you know all of the bmw's would go flying off of the course due to brake failure.

:flipoff:

[Jason C]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=216013

Now this source says 7:40 from the uber-Vette, which makes a little more sense. But still nothing confirmed at this point. :dunno:

[lemming]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=216013

Now this source says 7:40 from the uber-Vette, which makes a little more sense. But still nothing confirmed at this point. :dunno:

we'll see. i kind of doubt they'd let a time from the blue devil leak out just yet --i do believe the c6z06 is a 7:4x car, it's just a question of how low.

it's in great company.

[Jason C]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=216013

Now this source says 7:40 from the uber-Vette, which makes a little more sense. But still nothing confirmed at this point. :dunno:

we'll see. i kind of doubt they'd let a time from the blue devil leak out just yet --i do believe the c6z06 is a 7:4x car, it's just a question of how low.

it's in great company.

Apparently, 7:43 is going to be the definitive time (if GM wishes to use Nordschleife times in advertising).

Damn.

[The HACK]

it is really hard to believe that time.

really, really, really hard.

just compare that time to the Carrera GT times......this is the "base" z06 ???

The Carrera GT can go much faster than 7:40, as the first time shows.

I'm very curious as to what kind of times the M6/F430 will run. :)

Just look at the M5 time. I'm really surprised by the CSL time though, assuming these are times around the 'ring.

Not too bad, considering it's giving up nearly of 500 lbs for 12 seconds per lap. About 2.5% time difference for over 15% weight disadvantage, same HP. Drop 500 lbs off of the M5 and I'll bet it'll be FASTER around the ring than the Z06.

[JST]

it is really hard to believe that time.

really, really, really hard.

just compare that time to the Carrera GT times......this is the "base" z06 ???

The Carrera GT can go much faster than 7:40, as the first time shows.

I'm very curious as to what kind of times the M6/F430 will run. :)

Just look at the M5 time. I'm really surprised by the CSL time though, assuming these are times around the 'ring.

Not too bad, considering it's giving up nearly of 500 lbs for 12 seconds per lap. About 2.5% time difference for over 15% weight disadvantage, same HP. Drop 500 lbs off of the M5 and I'll bet it'll be FASTER around the ring than the Z06.

Drop 500 lbs off the M5 and its a race car.

Any guesses as to how fast a C6R could circulate the 'ring?

[The HACK]

it is really hard to believe that time.

really, really, really hard.

just compare that time to the Carrera GT times......this is the "base" z06 ???

The Carrera GT can go much faster than 7:40, as the first time shows.

I'm very curious as to what kind of times the M6/F430 will run. :)

Just look at the M5 time. I'm really surprised by the CSL time though, assuming these are times around the 'ring.

Not too bad, considering it's giving up nearly of 500 lbs for 12 seconds per lap. About 2.5% time difference for over 15% weight disadvantage, same HP. Drop 500 lbs off of the M5 and I'll bet it'll be FASTER around the ring than the Z06.

Drop 500 lbs off the M5 and its a race car.

Any guesses as to how fast a C6R could circulate the 'ring?

Again, the time of the M5 reflect it's 500 lbs disadvantage. If the M5 weighs the same as the Z06, its time around the ring would be quicker than the Z06, given the same HP.

It's the only way to prove one engine's superiority over the other, since you all so like to point out that the LS7 is a better engine than the V-10.

And that goes to show, give an fix HP output, there's advantages to a high revving, DOHC engine design despite giving up packaging advantages and size advantages. It's easier to engineer a lighter car than to engineer more revs, if you have a design that can inherently rev higher, you're already half way there.

[Jason C]

If the M5 weighs the same as the Z06, its time around the ring would be quicker than the Z06, given the same HP.

Because everyone knows that peak horsepower numbers and the last number on your tach determines 'Ring times.

:?

[The HACK]

If the M5 weighs the same as the Z06, its time around the ring would be quicker than the Z06, given the same HP.

Because everyone knows that peak horsepower numbers and the last number on your tach determines 'Ring times.

:?

Really? M3 CSL peaks at 350, top speed of 186, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the M5 in all regards except for weight. In fact, 700+ lbs of that.

The CSL is 2 seconds faster around the ring. 'Splain that to me Lucy.

[PWNZED]

[JST]

it is really hard to believe that time.

really, really, really hard.

just compare that time to the Carrera GT times......this is the "base" z06 ???

The Carrera GT can go much faster than 7:40, as the first time shows.

I'm very curious as to what kind of times the M6/F430 will run. :)

Just look at the M5 time. I'm really surprised by the CSL time though, assuming these are times around the 'ring.

Not too bad, considering it's giving up nearly of 500 lbs for 12 seconds per lap. About 2.5% time difference for over 15% weight disadvantage, same HP. Drop 500 lbs off of the M5 and I'll bet it'll be FASTER around the ring than the Z06.

Drop 500 lbs off the M5 and its a race car.

Any guesses as to how fast a C6R could circulate the 'ring?

Again, the time of the M5 reflect it's 500 lbs disadvantage. If the M5 weighs the same as the Z06, its time around the ring would be quicker than the Z06, given the same HP.

It's the only way to prove one engine's superiority over the other, since you all so like to point out that the LS7 is a better engine than the V-10.

And that goes to show, give an fix HP output, there's advantages to a high revving, DOHC engine design despite giving up packaging advantages and size advantages. It's easier to engineer a lighter car than to engineer more revs, if you have a design that can inherently rev higher, you're already half way there.

Assuming that you COULD drop 500 lbs off of the M5 is a big assumption.

Assuming that dropping 500 lbs would make the M5 quicker than the Z06 is a big assumption, supported by nothing other than a guess on your part.

Assuming that even if the above is correct, it's due to the engine alone is another big assumption, supported by nothing other than a guess on your part.

Bottom line? Bench racing supported by two 'ring times and speculation about what might happen in a fantasy world where BMW sedans weighed the same as Corvettes does nothing to support your arguments about engine mechanics, which have been roundly refuted elsewhere.

[Jason C]

Really? M3 CSL peaks at 350, top speed of 186, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the M5 in all regards except for weight. In fact, 700+ lbs of that.

The CSL is 2 seconds faster around the ring. 'Splain that to me Lucy.

[PWNZED]

http://www.1010tires.com/images/tires/Michelin/michelin-pilot-sport-cup-lg.jpg

The CSL now joins the Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale as one of only two cars sold with Michelin Pilot Sport Cups (semi-slick, minimal tread-depth, soft-compound rubber) tyres.

I believe the "PWNZED" one would be you, *Lucy*.

Lemming is right, you provide everything needed to undermine your own points.

[The HACK]

Bottom line? Bench racing supported by two 'ring times and speculation about what might happen in a fantasy world where BMW sedans weighed the same as Corvettes does nothing to support your arguments about engine mechanics, which have been roundly refuted elsewhere.

Now you're just refuting my points because I'm right and you have nothing else to go by. :dunno:

Let me just pose this question. Do you think, and just entertain me for a second, that if the M5 can POSSIBLY weigh the same as the Z06, and really, just IMAGINE that possibility for a single second, POSSIBLY, no matter how fantastical it is, or how far fetched it is...Would the M5/6 be as fast around the ring, if not FASTER, than the Z06?

Can you at least attempt to answer that? Or we can even reverse that question, for fantasy sake, because I like to fantasize...If you put a 500 lbs ballast on the Z06, would it beat the M5/6 around the ring at 7:52?

Please, I'd like to know. Because, from my stand point, all of your bashing of the BMW V-10 is unwarranted, because it is as good, if not better, than the LS7, or at least from what I can extrapolate from these performance figures.

Just answer me that and I'll shut up.

[The HACK]

Really? M3 CSL peaks at 350, top speed of 186, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the M5 in all regards except for weight. In fact, 700+ lbs of that.

The CSL is 2 seconds faster around the ring. 'Splain that to me Lucy.

[PWNZED]

http://www.1010tires.com/images/tires/Michelin/michelin-pilot-sport-cup-lg.jpg

The CSL now joins the Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale as one of only two cars sold with Michelin Pilot Sport Cups (semi-slick, minimal tread-depth, soft-compound rubber) tyres.

I believe the "PWNZED" one would be you, *Lucy*.

Lemming is right, you provide everything needed to undermine your own points.

*cough* M5 tire size: 255 f, 285 r *cough*

*cough* Z06 tire size: 275 f, 325 r *cough*

For all we know, the time difference could have been covered by the better tires on the Z06.

[PAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOWNZED!]

Wow, for a car with significantly more rubber, significantly more torque, significantly lighter, and likely a better top speed, it only managed to beat the M5 MARGINALLY? Puhleeze.

I am impressed, both with the Corvette Z06 AND the BMW M5. At least I can honestly say I'm very impressed with the Z06 time, and given how well the M5's time is with all it's handicaps, compared to the Z06, I'm doubly impressed that the M5 is that freakin' fast. And I'm very impressed with what the V-10 can do given all its handicaps.

Apparantly it's more important for you all to put down the M5 given it's amazing achievement despite all the handicaps, just to push up the Z06. I am just here to provide you a reality check...Give all the obvious advantages to the Z06, it really is only MARGINALLY faster and it really should have blown the M5 clear out of the water, by a much larger margin.

Although, I must say...The Carrera GT time is only 12 seconds faster than the Z06, despite having 100 more horses and being ~100 lbs lighter too. That, I'm really surprised. Compare the Z06 to the GT, it posted amazing times.

[Jason C]

For all we know, the time difference could have been covered by the better tires on the Z06.

Heh, now you've resorted to arguing that the OEM run-flats are a Z06 advantage. :lol:

You wanted to know how the hell a CSL could be 2 seconds faster than the M5. I gave you the answer. Too bad if you don't like it.

Here's your reality check: 12 seconds on the 'Ring is a significant disparity. The Carrera GT clearly is in a different performance league than the Z06, as is the Z06 compared to the M5.

[Plaz]

You guys are funny. :)

[Jason C]

You guys are funny. :)

And you non-participants are probably poseurs waiting to jump on the next wet-sump sunroofed POS. :twisted:

BTW: Since we already know the LSX block is 22 inches long, I'll get some measurements for the S65 if (when?) it's out on an engine stand. We have a bunch of ///M engines on stands in the BMW training facility, including the S54 (which I want to get measurements on). I promise Hack that I'll get a digital camera and a 12-inch ruler for scale, just so everyone here can see for themselves.

[John V]

[PWNZED]
[PAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOWNZED!]

New form of debate here. Run out of logical, cohesive arguments? Start screaming jibberish like a 12-year old! :lol:

What you should all be talking about is how impressive it is for a car with such bad suspension geometry (i.e. M5, M6) can lap the 'ring as fast as they can.

Lastly, tire width has at best a second order effect on absolute grip. Autocrossers and track junkies will agree that a narrower, stickier compound (i.e. Pilot Sport Cup) will always produce more grip than a wider, less sticky (i.e. Z06 street tire) compound.

[JST]

Bottom line? Bench racing supported by two 'ring times and speculation about what might happen in a fantasy world where BMW sedans weighed the same as Corvettes does nothing to support your arguments about engine mechanics, which have been roundly refuted elsewhere.

Now you're just refuting my points because I'm right and you have nothing else to go by. :dunno:

Let me just pose this question. Do you think, and just entertain me for a second, that if the M5 can POSSIBLY weigh the same as the Z06, and really, just IMAGINE that possibility for a single second, POSSIBLY, no matter how fantastical it is, or how far fetched it is...Would the M5/6 be as fast around the ring, if not FASTER, than the Z06?

Can you at least attempt to answer that? Or we can even reverse that question, for fantasy sake, because I like to fantasize...If you put a 500 lbs ballast on the Z06, would it beat the M5/6 around the ring at 7:52?

Please, I'd like to know. Because, from my stand point, all of your bashing of the BMW V-10 is unwarranted, because it is as good, if not better, than the LS7, or at least from what I can extrapolate from these performance figures.

Just answer me that and I'll shut up.

I have no idea what the Z06 would do with 500 lbs of ballast, nor do I have any idea what the M5 would or could do if it were 500 lbs lighter. I freely admit that a notional 500 lb lighter M5 might be faster than a Z06, or that a notional 500 lb heavier Z06 might be slower than an M5 around the 'ring.

My point was not that it was impossible for events to be as you imagine--just that it is not inevitable. Since it is not inevitable, your hypothetical proves nothing.

My second point was that, even if we postulate that you are correct, there are so many variables involved that there is no way we can attribute any performance advantage solely to the engine.

Is the S65 a good engine? Undoubtedly. I also have no doubt that the M SMG 7 speed is a good transmission, nor do I have any doubt that the M5's chassis is superlative in terms of its abilities. Frankly, if push came to shove and I had to buy a new 80K 4 door, the M5 is the car that I would buy, SMG or no. I've already bought my raffle ticket for the CCA raffle.

That said, my only point throughout is that pushrod engines have certain advantages over DOHC designs. I'm not claiming and have never claimed that DOHC designs do not themselves have other advantages. Given the choice, I'd like an engine with a bottomless well of torque AND a huge top-end; all things being equal (and given enough room in the chassis) I'd rather have a 7.0L DOHC V8 than a 7.0L OHV V8. But all things are not equal, and sometimes the advantages of an OHV design (packaging efficiency, weight, cost, etc) outweigh those of a DOHC design.

[The HACK]

Here's your reality check: 12 seconds on the 'Ring is a significant disparity. The Carrera GT clearly is in a different performance league than the Z06, as is the Z06 compared to the M5.

Why is the GT clearly in a different performance league? Weigh is close enough, torque is similar and HP is a big GT advantage at 100HPs. Does the GT come with R-Comps only?

If 12 seconds is such a huge disparity, then the Carrera GT is doing it with relatively little in advantage vs. the Z06, if you ask me. If you take into consideration the cost of the car, YES, it's in a different league. Performance wise? It's not that far off. Even the 0-60 time is similar...3.7 seconds.

Tell me, exactly WHERE is the Carrera GT's performance that puts it in a league of its own?

Back tracking to the "tire" discussion, I only mentioned it because you had stated plainly and clearly, in absolute terms that:

Because everyone knows that peak horsepower numbers and the last number on your tach determines 'Ring times.

As far as your statement is concerned, you clearly do not think tires affect 'ring time. And when you mentioned the CSL time is due to R-Comps, I mentioned that the Z06 had much wider tires...So does tires affect 'ring time, or does it not?

Appears to me you only accept datapoints that support your discussion.

John V., if we are all a bunch of sycophants here and all agree to the same facts, that the Z06 is the greatest sports car ever built, there will be no need to have a carmudgeon forums. Now, let's take a look at your statement:

What you should all be talking about is how impressive it is for a car with such bad suspension geometry (i.e. M5, M6) can lap the 'ring as fast as they can.

If the M5 or M6 has such bad suspension geometry, how can it possibly achieve this kind of impressive lap times around the ring given it's portly weight? Perhaps, maybe just PERHAPS, that BMW did a pretty darn good job building the stock suspension geometry in the M5/M6, in combination with an incredibly engine/tranny package to make a 3,700 lbs car go around one of the most grueling tracks at nearly the same pace that a lighter car with R-Comps can? Perhaps it's time you take a closer look at the mighty M5 and M6 and realize that, for two cars built and marketted to be autobahn cruisers, these two cars can actually HANG on the track like few other cars in its price range and purpose can.

And keep in mind how demanding this track CAN be to brakes, from triple digit speeds in 5 or 6 gears down to 2 or 3rd gear in a blink of an eye repeatedly (at least, in GT4 it seems that way). The M5/6 managed to achieve this type of lap time without the help of compound, multi-piston fixed brakes. Think about that.

[clyde]

You guys are funny. :)

And you non-participants are probably poseurs waiting to jump on the next wet-sump sunroofed POS. :twisted:

Nah...some of us are too busy driving halfway around the country for a weekend of actual racing to be bothered to be dragged into the silliness of a perfect storm of arbitrary numbers, essential truths and wishful thinking.

Bench racing is fun, but it's a lot more fun when it's too cold and icy out to actually go racing. It's currently July.

[clyde]

BMW did a pretty darn good job building the stock suspension geometry in the M5/M6

I thought they used struts up front... :dunno:

[The HACK]

My point was not that it was impossible for events to be as you imagine--just that it is not inevitable. Since it is not inevitable, your hypothetical proves nothing.

If I think it's inevitable I would have GUARANTEED you that the M5 dropping 500 lbs or the Z06 gaining 500 lbs, the M5 would be faster. By me "betting" I am willing to accept the possibility that postulation may not be true and there's a chance I may lose the bet.

My second point was that, even if we postulate that you are correct, there are so many variables involved that there is no way we can attribute any performance advantage solely to the engine.

Why not? If the car's weight is equal, tires are irrelevant (or relevant, depending on your point of view) or a wash (wider tire vs. run-flat), brakes are better on the Z06, center of gravity is Z06 advantage, HP is equal, torque is Z06 advantage...If almost every category except for weight and engine HP are in the Z06's advantage, can we not say the BMW engine/tranny combo is superior if the times are similar? If we can't "bench race", how are we suppose to get any meaningful discussion, since NONE OF US will ever own both cars to be able to pit them against each other?

That said, my only point throughout is that pushrod engines have certain advantages over DOHC designs. I'm not claiming and have never claimed that DOHC designs do not themselves have other advantages. Given the choice, I'd like an engine with a bottomless well of torque AND a huge top-end; all things being equal (and given enough room in the chassis) I'd rather have a 7.0L DOHC V8 than a 7.0L OHV V8. But all things are not equal, and sometimes the advantages of an OHV design (packaging efficiency, weight, cost, etc) outweigh those of a DOHC design.

And my only point, continued throughout these discussions, is that the light weight and compact design of the OHV DOES NOT outweight (no pun intended) the benefit of a DOHC engine that can rev much higher. The benefits pretty much wash each other out. Until OHV engines can rev to the same engine speed as DOHC engines or within a few percentage difference, there will ALWAYS be benefits to employee DOHC engine design in a performance application, just as there will always be benefits to employing an OHV design in a performance application if packaging efficiency, weight, and cost are your main concerns.

And frankly, It's easier to cut 30 lbs in a 3,000 chassis than to cut 30 lbs in a 500 lbs engine. It makes more engineering sense to cut the weight from the chassis rather than worry about a few lbs in the engine bay from a passenger car stand-point.

[The HACK]

Bench racing is fun, but it's a lot more fun when it's too cold and icy out to actually go racing. It's currently July.

Tell you what, you supply me the M6 and Z06 and a 10 million dollars cash so I don't have to work and pay taxes on them (no offense, but 10 mil after taxes is like what, $50,000?), I'd be GLAD to take the M6 and Z06 out to California Speedway to do some REAL racing right now. That's if I get to keep the M5 and Z06.

While you're at it, can you supply me the Ferrari F430 and a Porsche Carrera GT so I can real world race those two too? Please? I don't have to keep the Carrera GT and the F430. Not that I don't want to, I'm just giving you the option to take those back, if you have to, you know. That's the kind of guy I am.

[JST]

Here's your reality check: 12 seconds on the 'Ring is a significant disparity. The Carrera GT clearly is in a different performance league than the Z06, as is the Z06 compared to the M5.

Why is the GT clearly in a different performance league? Weigh is close enough, torque is similar and HP is a big GT advantage at 100HPs. Does the GT come with R-Comps only?

If 12 seconds is such a huge disparity, then the Carrera GT is doing it with relatively little in advantage vs. the Z06, if you ask me. If you take into consideration the cost of the car, YES, it's in a different league. Performance wise? It's not that far off. Even the 0-60 time is similar...3.7 seconds.

Tell me, exactly WHERE is the Carrera GT's performance that puts it in a league of its own?

Back tracking to the "tire" discussion, I only mentioned it because you had stated plainly and clearly, in absolute terms that:

Because everyone knows that peak horsepower numbers and the last number on your tach determines 'Ring times.

As far as your statement is concerned, you clearly do not think tires affect 'ring time. And when you mentioned the CSL time is due to R-Comps, I mentioned that the Z06 had much wider tires...So does tires affect 'ring time, or does it not?

Appears to me you only accept datapoints that support your discussion.



Hack, it's time to take your sarcasm detector in for an Inspection II. It's currently not operational.

FWIW, R comps are worth, what, at least 2 seconds on a 60 second autocross course? That's a rule of thumb--some R comps are worth more than that. But that gives you a sense of the MASSIVE traction advantage that R comps have over street rubber. I haven't driven on Pilot Sport Cups, but I suspect that their grip is similar to or better than the current quasi-R comp tires I'm running on my car (Dunlop Super Sports).

Now think about what that advantage would do for you over nearly 8 minutes on the Nurburgring.


f I think it's inevitable I would have GUARANTEED you that the M5 dropping 500 lbs or the Z06 gaining 500 lbs, the M5 would be faster. By me "betting" I am willing to accept the possibility that postulation may not be true and there's a chance I may lose the bet.



Since we can never, ever determine the results, the difference between a bet and a guarantee is moot. The only reason to use hypotheticals is to draw conclusions from inference and analogy. Since your hypo has no discernible, well-agreed upon outcome, and since any outcome would be confounded by numerous variables, it is useless from a rhetorical standpoint.

[JST]

Bench racing is fun, but it's a lot more fun when it's too cold and icy out to actually go racing. It's currently July.

Tell you what, you supply me the M6 and Z06 and a 10 million dollars cash so I don't have to work and pay taxes on them (no offense, but 10 mil after taxes is like what, $50,000?), I'd be GLAD to take the M6 and Z06 out to California Speedway to do some REAL racing right now. That's if I get to keep the M5 and Z06.

While you're at it, can you supply me the Ferrari F430 and a Porsche Carrera GT so I can real world race those two too? Please? I don't have to keep the Carrera GT and the F430. Not that I don't want to, I'm just giving you the option to take those back, if you have to, you know. That's the kind of guy I am.

I believe clyde's point was not that he has spent the weekend racing an M6, but rather he has spent the weekend RACING, and racing something even as piddling* as the RX-8 is more fun and worthwhile than arguing on the interwebnet about whether non-existent Car A is faster than Car B.


_____________________________

*That's sarcasm--Ed.

[clyde]

I believe clyde's point was not that he has spent the weekend racing an M6, but rather he has spent the weekend RACING, and racing something even as piddling* as the RX-8 is more fun and worthwhile than arguing on the interwebnet about whether non-existent Car A is faster than Car B.


_____________________________

*That's sarcasm--Ed.


Not even close.*

_____________________________

*That's sarcasm--Ted.

[nate]

Bottom line? Bench racing supported by two 'ring times and speculation about what might happen in a fantasy world where BMW sedans weighed the same as Corvettes does nothing to support your arguments about engine mechanics, which have been roundly refuted elsewhere.

Now you're just refuting my points because I'm right and you have nothing else to go by. :dunno:


He is just questioning your arguments because you are pulling them out of your ass :dunno:

[Jason C]

Hack, it's time to take your sarcasm detector in for an Inspection II. It's currently not operational.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I come back 5+ hours later, and he still doesn't get it. I thought that the smilie would have sufficed.

[Jason C]

just as there will always be benefits to employing an OHV design in a performance application if packaging efficiency, weight, and cost are your main concerns.

Can you tell us a time when not one of these 3 factors are a "main concern"?

[John V]

Why not? If the car's weight is equal, tires are irrelevant (or relevant, depending on your point of view) or a wash (wider tire vs. run-flat

Like I said, wider does not directly translate into more grip. I'll take the stickier compound anyday. An R-compound tire is going to be significantly stickier than an OEM run-flat, especially an r-compound formulated for sustained high-speed, high-load driving.

And my only point, continued throughout these discussions, is that the light weight and compact design of the OHV DOES NOT outweight (no pun intended) the benefit of a DOHC engine that can rev much higher.

The problem is you haven't PROVEN anything. You've offered anecdotal (at best) evidence which amounts more to "It should" or "I think."

The M5/M6 is typical BMW up front, which is to say it has struts. If you want to argue that the geometry of the unequal-length A-arms on the front of the Z06 are inferior to the M5/M6 strut I think most of us are going to have a problem with that. Hm, let me think. No brainer to me.

The fact of the matter is that your "more revs equals faster!" argument didn't hold water, so you're trying to blow a smokescreen of Nurburgring times. This one has been shot full of holes as well. I think it's time to move on.

[JST]

just as there will always be benefits to employing an OHV design in a performance application if packaging efficiency, weight, and cost are your main concerns.

Can you tell us a time when not one of these 3 factors are a "main concern"?

When you are designing a BMW?

[lemming]

HACK rebuttal:

1. the new m5 and m6 are heavy. at the spanish race course where journliasts tracked the m6, they noted brake fade --the german engineer response was that the brakes were adequate for the nurburgring where there are long enough stretches to cool the brakes down. that's kind of like andre the giant telling farmboy to fight sportsman-like and that fighting man men at once is different from waging mortal combat with a single assailant. both arguments are ridiculous and silly. difference is that one argument is from a silly movie, not a german engineer.

2. you keep harping on the weight issue but it undermines your argument. first you argued that it's not just the engine but the total execution. fair enough. but in keeping with the highly vaunted v10, you're stuck at 3800 pounds. why don't you change your argument to the CSL? for the love of god. you start arguing to lop off 500 pounds from the m5 to make it competitive......by your same logic, why not also lop off 500 pounds off of the z06 and then also see how much better it is, too? why keep trying to favor the car with the more technologically advanced engine? why does it need handicapping so much? because your argument is based on a straw house. at least start from a more defensible position like the CSL.

3. sycophants nuthin'. these people are truly carmudgeons and tell it like it is. sycophantism is what goes on over at bimmerfest because if you raise hell, you get banned, as if that was a bad thing. the people here are pretty well versed in automobiles and have come to have their own strong opinions of them. i would agree with you.....but it does not make sense to me to defend your position.

4. here is the REAL rub. even if you make the argument more even and you start by defending the CSL and compare it to the z06? the z06 is still faster. put both cars on the same pilot sport cup tires and i'll bet the farm that the z06 is faster --and this is a pretty fair fight because both weigh the same and have about the same power and are representative of their respective approaches. and this being true, you will never convince anyone that the m5/m6 are superior at a quantitative level to a sports car like the z06. and why would they be faster? they're both GTs.

[dan]

4. here is the REAL rub. even if you make the argument more even and you start by defending the CSL and compare it to the z06? the z06 is still faster. put both cars on the same pilot sport cup tires and i'll bet the farm that the z06 is faster --and this is a pretty fair fight because both weigh the same and have about the same power and are representative of their respective approaches. and this being true, you will never convince anyone that the m5/m6 are superior at a quantitative level to a sports car like the z06. and why would they be faster? they're both GTs.

CSL and Z06 aren't even close to having the same power

[lemming]

4. here is the REAL rub. even if you make the argument more even and you start by defending the CSL and compare it to the z06? the z06 is still faster. put both cars on the same pilot sport cup tires and i'll bet the farm that the z06 is faster --and this is a pretty fair fight because both weigh the same and have about the same power and are representative of their respective approaches. and this being true, you will never convince anyone that the m5/m6 are superior at a quantitative level to a sports car like the z06. and why would they be faster? they're both GTs.

CSL and Z06 aren't even close to having the same power

i wasn't talking c6 z06.

just z06.

oblique-like. i learned from you. ;)

[dan]

i wasn't talking c6 z06.

just z06.

I know--they're not even close in terms of power

[lemming]

i wasn't talking c6 z06.

just z06.

I know--they're not even close in terms of power

what would you like Hack to use as his defensible argument car, the F360?

that's still fine by me.

[Jason C]

http://autoblog.com/entry/1234000040049171/ Part 1

http://autoblog.com/entry/1234000200049654/ Part 2

Autoblog ran an "Inside the LS7" series on their site. Of course, some of the comments from ignorant know-nothing jackasses were predictable, but there were a surprising amount of people who knew why that design can be at a decided advantage. I'm glad that the specific output ramblings by many auto rags (especially motor turd back in the 90s) hasn't brainwashed everyone yet.

*And I agree with the comment stating that GM should go with mostly OHC in their V6 lineup. Though the advantages of OHV are still present in this application, for some reason the V6 seems to exaggerate the disadvantages, and I'm not sure why - though if I were to venture a guess, I'd say that it's because the V6 as a design creates more vibration than a V8 (ceteris paribus).

[lemming]

ah.

now we're going to compare dohc/sohc V6s to ohv V6s --basis for a completely new thread.

:)

[clyde]

I couldn't care less. They're sixes. Whether they are straights, slants, flats or Vs, they're for posers.