Why is the Corvette better I wonder...gotta read

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by gunter96ws6
p.s. Jay, sell your car, you dont deserve it, you said "there is no way I would rather have an f-body than ANY Vette", are you crazy? your car is nasty, there is not a vette on the road i would take over my car, my car( as well as yours) is absolutely beautiful and has so much more body deffination than a vette. wake up buddy~gunter

Don't tell me I don't deserve my car. It's a 2002 and I bought it brand new... and I am 21 and pay for it myself. That should tell you a little about how much dedication I have to it. I love my car... but I can face reality -- the only thing that my car does better than a Corvette is seat 4 people.

[TimeLord]

Then evidently you got a very underperforming car,vettes handle a lot nicer than a stock F-Body and are SUPPOSED to have good gutsy engines.

You are too underwelmed with the vette,there is something not right with that car,and being a M6 and a dog confuses me even more.

[Joe 1320]

OK, you guys play nice.

Some of you guys are bench racing stuff that you haven't spent enough time behind the wheel in order to discover the subtle handling differences. The Vette's IRS is a welcome addition in the feel of the car. All the little steering corrections required in the f-body is virtually eliminated. Besides, there isn't much difference in the ¼ mile performance between the two when stock. The Vette does win hands down in the top speed area. I've yet to see an f-body come close to the Vette unless highly modified. Having owned many Vettes and as many as 4 at one time, I am giving you observations based on street driving, cross country touring, and hot laps at Sebring International Raceway. The Vettes have it all over the f-body. Does that mean I am putting down the f-body? No! I love mine and it is a budget "bang for the buck" car. However, manouvers that could be pulled off easily in the vette, almost got me killed in the T/A. They aren't quite in the same league. So you guys play nice and remember to respect each other's opinions even if some of them are a little biased for whatever reason.

[Z Ya Later]

Yeah, and my GN is only supposed to be at 14.7 when its actually at 13.9 stock...so, I find 13.0 hard to believe.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by Steve93Z
Yeah, and my GN is only supposed to be at 14.7 when its actually at 13.9 stock...so, I find 13.0 hard to believe.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here... are you saying you don't believe a C5 M6 convetible can hit 13.0 stock?

[Z Ya Later]

i didn't feel it

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by Steve93Z
i didn't feel it

A couple explanations then...

As TimeLord suggested, it's possible something could have been wrong with the Vette.

But here is more likely the culprit. After driving in a Z06 and a 911 Turbo, I had never seen a better example of what refinement can do for a car. Numbers-wise the Z06 and 911 Turbo are very, very similar. But, when you are actually in the car, they feel completely different. The 911 Turbo feels fast... but the Z06 is SO VIOLENT, that it seems like it would blow the 911 Turbo away. The package on the 911 Turbo is so much more refined than the Z06, that you don't feel the force of acceleration nearly as much. The C5 is to an f-body what the 911 Turbo is to the Z06... much more refined. I could defintiely see how you wouldn't think the C5 is as fast as it actually is due to this phenomenon.

However, if everything was functioning correctly on the C5... it should defintiely be capable of the 13.0 range if driven properly. I believe I have even seen a test of it... I think it was the 50th anniversary convetible... where they tested it at 12.7. I'll try to find the documentation on that.

[TimeLord]

BINGO !!!!

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Here it is...

GM high tech performance magazine tested a 2003 corvette 50th aniversary edition to a 12.76 @111 mph in the 1/4

they also got .94 g on the skidpad as an average that peaked at .96 g


This might not have been the convertible. However, the Z06 package wasn't available on the 50th Anniversary models, so it was a standard M6 C5.

[wolfdogs]

good stuff.
keep on keepin it civil and nice.....

thanks guys.....

[jhmace]

Speaking of Z06's, have you guys takin' a peek at the Cadilac CTSv yet??? CTS with the LS6 in it.....Yikes!!!

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by jhmace
Speaking of Z06's, have you guys takin' a peek at the Cadilac CTSv yet??? CTS with the LS6 in it.....Yikes!!!

Certainly have... not just the LS6... but a 3.73 rear as well. This will eat S4's for breakfast and M5's for dinner.

[MyCamaroisGone]

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
An M6 convertible Vette should be somewhere around 12.9 - 13.0 in the quarter mile. That must be one hell of a performance chip to put an otherwise stock LT1 at 13 flat.

I completely agree here. I also hate the contradict, but I am a numbers type of guy, I don't care how something "feels" when you punch it...I look at numbers and I see a manual C5 vette will do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and the quarter in 13.22 @ 109. The fastest time I could find anywhere for a 93 Z28 M6 Coupe is 0-60 in 5.4 and the quarter in 14.1 @ 101. Numbers don't lie and that's not even close.

The C5 also doesn't have the same cheap interior our F-Bodies have and the suspension and other things on it are 100 times better than an F-Body. A C5 is superior to an F-Body in pretty much every imaginable way.

[Joe 1320]

Originally posted by MyCamaroisGone
A C5 is superior to an F-Body in pretty much every imaginable way.

I agree and also have to say my C4s were better as well. I loved the FX3 suspension.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by MyCamaroisGone
.... A C5 is superior to an F-Body in pretty much every imaginable way.

The f-body is a better road trip car to take your buds down to Florida for Spring Break