2007 Vette 6m, or stick with 10 2SS 6m?

[1badSS/RS]

Originally Posted by Van

I will. Not because they make me feel better, but because they're factual pieces of information using the same driver on both vehicles. I did research from a number of magazine test drives as well as edmunds, msn, etc and they're all right about there.

Now if you're implying that those numbers are off, they could be. Some drivers are better than others, but those are pretty spot on give or take a tenth of a second or two.

They are close for Pre-08, not an LS3 vette(08-p). Most mags have new vettes around 4 sec to 60 and 12.1-12.5 quarter. You can't go wrong with either choice.

[IROCanSS]

Originally Posted by Van

Well, if I'm not mistaken its 4500, could be 4000. But man...that's all over this website!!!

Check the owners manual, its in there.

Just read 8-37 and 8-38 "Competitive Driving Mode", no mention of any cut out at 4000 or 4500 RPM?

You wouldn't be refering to Launch Control would you? Thats where when in Competition Mode at a STAND STILL you hold the clutch to the floor and hold the throttle to the floor and the car will hold 4000 RPM then you release the clutch in a quick even motion. Once you are moving it will for sure pass 4000 RPM! 8-35 tells all about LC. If I am not mistaken the 2010 Corvette is the first to have LC as well. The 09 does not. Comp mode is ok. I never used it on my C6, I was an all or nothing guy. Everything on or everything off. Comp mode is traction control off but active handling still on. AH is pretty nice....

I am sorry it sounds rediculas that it would cut out at 4000 or even 4500 RPM. I think you must be mistaken.

[Van]

Originally Posted by jrhaus76

Just read 8-37 and 8-38 "Competitive Driving Mode", no mention of any cut out at 4000 or 4500 RPM?

You wouldn't be refering to the break in period of staying under 4000 RPM would you? 8-17 refers to not exceeding 4000 RPM for 1500 miles.

Or you could be talking about Launch Control where when in Competition Mode at a STAND STILL you hold the clutch to the floor and hold the throttle to the floor and the car will hold 4000 RPM then you release the clutch in a quick even motion. Once you are moving it will for sure pass 4000 RPM! 8-35 tells all about LC. If I am not mistaken the 2010 Corvette is the first to have LC as well. The 09 does not. Comp mode is ok. I never used it on my C6, I was an all or nothing guy. Everything on or everything off. Comp mode is traction control off but active handling still on. AH is pretty nice....

I am sorry it sounds rediculas that it would cut out at 4000 or even 4500 RPM. I think you must be mistaken.

Well it was somewhere around 4k or something...here's a thread that talks a bit about it:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...mpetition+mode

[IROCanSS]

Originally Posted by Van

Well it was somewhere around 4k or something...here's a thread that talks a bit about it:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...mpetition+mode

That entire thread is about Launch Control and the best way to launch the car! Nothing to do with while driving.

Trust me the car will not cut out at 4000 RPM when driving in COMP mode. Thats just rediculas!

[Van]

Originally Posted by jrhaus76

That entire thread is about Launch Control!

Trust me the car will not cut out at 4000 RPM when driving in COMP mode. Thats just rediculas!

Here's another one

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...mpetition+mode

AAAWWW but I see what you're thinking...I don't mean that the rpms cut off at 4200 when DRIVING...but when you're launching the car!

Clutch in, gas down, revs hold at 4x00....

[IROCanSS]

Originally Posted by Van

Here's another one

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...mpetition+mode

AAAWWW but I see what you're thinking...I don't mean that the rpms cut off at 4200 when DRIVING...but when you're launching the car!

Clutch in, gas down, revs hold at 4x00....

OK... yes that does happen. I guess we were having a mis-communication! You can get right past LC though. Either don't use comp mode or don't hold the clutch or throttle to the floorboard. From what I gather both have to be planted ont he floor to engage LC. I won't be using LC. $435 a piece for rear tires is not worth smoking them.... EVER!

[Van]

Holy Crap! That's what these tires cost?!

[IROCanSS]

Originally Posted by Van

Holy Crap! That's what these tires cost?!

Close, my bad $413, not $435 but thats still bad!

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/TireSe...&filterType=oe

i had to look them up becasue I have to have a front replaced. Insurance claim. Some cheese-mo hit something metal in the road and it kicked up, hit my car and took a chunk out of my pass front tire! Not cool. Only 400 miles on it when it happened. Goes to get fixed Monday.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by Van

I will. Not because they make me feel better, but because they're factual pieces of information using the same driver on both vehicles. I did research from a number of magazine test drives as well as edmunds, msn, etc and they're all right about there.

Fortunately I realized YEARS ago that people who test drive minivans for a living are often the worst source for performance figures. I remember the magazines running 14s in LS1 powered F-bodys, 13s in 2003 ~ 2004 Mustang Cobras, and high 13s in LS1 powered C5 Corvettes. These numbers are all way off from what the cars will actually do on a track with a good driver behind the wheel. A C6 LS2 is every bit of a low 12 second car with everything perfect... if you can't get a mid 12 out of it you really need practice and a bit of humbling (especially if you are one of the people that cranks off a 'poor' time and thinks it's a great one [KRUGER AND DUNNING ]).

Testing methods change year after year as well... so comparing an older pass in the same magazine isn't always an apples to apples comparison. I do understand where you are coming from.. I am just trying to point out why I would never rely on that method.

Now if you're implying that those numbers are off, they could be. Some drivers are better than others, but those are pretty spot on give or take a tenth of a second or two.

I am used to see really great drivers make passes and as mentioned above year to year magazine tests cannot always be compared. Track passes however will remain comparable year after year until something changes in the way the equipment works. Comparing magazine test numbers to a real dragstrip is impossible which is another equalizer for me... the only Magazine numbers I care about are those done on an actual dragstrip for that reason.

Wasn't trying to piss in your cheerios.. hopefully that cleared it up for you a bit?

[Van]

So if the premise is that magazine drivers and reviewing entities' drivers don't know what they're doing...than lets apply it across the board. After all...if they can't get a proper time from the Corvette than they shouldn't be able to get a proper time from the Camaro either.

So that means even if several testers on the Camaro got a flat 13, it must be driver error and the car is capable of more? Yet..the fastest time on this site is within 2 hundreds of a second from the Edmunds' time. That begs the question...why would SEVERAL testers from several sources get around the same times for the very same car? Wouldn't the law of large numbers indicate that there's some truth to the data? Or would you say the truth here is that all testers simply don't know how to drive better than the locals?

I'm just trying to figure out why the testers are incapable when testing the Corvette yet are pretty spot on with the Camaro.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by Van

So if the premise is that magazine drivers and reviewing entities' drivers don't know what they're doing...than lets apply it across the board. After all...if they can't get a proper time from the Corvette than they shouldn't be able to get a proper time from the Camaro either.

That's where the curve ball comes in. Testing equipment variables. Who is to say that the same method, equipment, conditions used to test the 2010 Camaro is the same as the one used to test the Corvette? That in itself makes things difficult... then you add in the fact that the Corvette being lighter is also more difficult to launch/obtain traction in. You could hop out of your Camaro after posting a really great time and run a horrible time in the Corvette. That's why I look at records and what other people run at actual tracks for reference... it's simply a larger sample with a little less room for error with results that I can relate to my own.

So that means even if several testers on the Camaro got a flat 13, it must be driver error and the car is capable of more? Yet..the fastest time on this site is within 2 hundreds of a second from the Edmunds' time. That begs the question...why would SEVERAL testers from several sources get around the same times for the very same car? Wouldn't the law of large numbers indicate that there's some truth to the data? Or would you say the truth here is that all testers simply don't know how to drive better than the locals?

I'm just trying to figure out why the testers are incapable when testing the Corvette yet are pretty spot on with the Camaro.

Well we get into another interesting thing regarding testing methods. Typically magazines apply corrections (say they ran in really poor weather) they will try to correct for the poor weather and they still end up with a good result. The best time posted on this site was done at my local track which is 643ft above sea level to start with (compared to ~0ft at Atco where most record passes are made) and was done in near 1000ft DA (versus the negative or near 0DA record passes). The magazines don't want to post their results from conditions like that because they are not going to make people happy (they used to do this... which is why I still get 'edmunds' quotes stating my Camaro is a 14 second car). Given better conditions this fall you will see a much bigger gap appear.

A majority of the difference here is simply the curve of each vehicle. The Camaro is going to be much easier to get off the line than the Corvette is and by looking at 'record passes' it's obvious to see there is a much larger gap than magazine times let on.

LS2 C6 - 12.21 @ 115.45
LS3 C6 - 11.71 @ 119.94
LS3 SS - 12.87 @ 109mph

These are the absolute best passes but they also show the potential and not necessarily the average drivers ability (which doesn't mean much to me)... I expect the Camaros time to drop some in a couple months here to 12.6~12.7 @ 110~111mph.. just so you can visually see the gap.

[Van]

So then basically...C6 Vette on average mid to low 12 sec and Camaro on average low 13 / high 12?

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by Van

So then basically...C6 Vette on average mid to low 12 sec and Camaro on average low 13 / high 12?

That's how I see it.. of course most people can't drive (I include myself in this group) so it's an average for those who can drive and not exactly an average of what every owner will do. (that make any sense?).

I guess my point is we can line up on any given day with someone like ranger, nineball, furman (sp?) driving an LS3 Vette (with us in a 2010 SS) and get it handed to us worse than the numbers I posted suggest. Switch drivers and we would likely win but by a very small margin. (closer to the numbers you first posted) They are going to extract GREAT times from the car they are driving and we are going to do 'ok' (we hope). When looking at performance numbers it just makes sense to me to use those 'best possible numbers' obtained by great drivers and eliminate the variances caused by less skilled drivers.

[giod]

subscribed