2014 C7 Chevrolet Corvette

[GTB/ZR-1]

Originally Posted by Symmetrical

But does anybody know if that's the production model? I thought it was still just in the prototype phase, so it will not look exactly like that.

100% production

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

LOL intake cam. 500hp is probably just a set of headers and a tune away. A cam on this motor is going to be much pricier than before, as they'll have to figure out tuning for the different driver modes, pull the heads off to yank the the AFM lifters, and toss a phaser limiter on there. Also, most shops don't really know their way around DI yet, so that's going to be another hurdle.

Well, since cars come from the factory running super rich to preserve cats, headers and tune probably does get you there but I think a new camshaft alone would get you 50hp without changing the street manners too much, since 500hp would be about right for a factory tuned car with that kind of powerband. Do they deactivate the pushrods in V4 mode or is it a secondary cam lobe? In either case I don't see an issue with stuffing a new camshaft with slightly different cams in.

[GTB/ZR-1]

Originally Posted by Gixxersixxerman

The GTR beat it in ever test except the braking I believe in one magazine..

I can't speak for the new ZR1, but having owned modded versions of a C6 Z06 (fairly close to a stock ZR performance) & GT-R--I can definitely say that the GT-R definitely has a larger performance envelope than the Vette.
It truly does things that it theoretically shouldn't be capable of doing, considering its weight & size.

That being said, I've been a Vette guy since I was 6, when I clearly remember a vivid moment in ~1970 where I saw my first big-blocked/side-piped new Vette up close & personal.

So... I'm looking to try on either a Z06/ZR1 C7 in a few years--after someone has taken the infamous Vette depreciation hit.

Meanwhile, I'll hop in my old, hot-rodded ZR-1 when I need to get some Ground-Pounder action!

[zigzagz94]

Originally Posted by GTB/ZR-1

So... I'm looking to try on either a Z06/ZR1 C7 in a few years--after someone has taken the infamous Vette depreciation hit.
!

Originally Posted by Marchy

that's my plan, maybe in 5 years or so

+3

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by GTB/ZR-1

I can't speak for the new ZR1, but having owned modded versions of a C6 Z06 (fairly close to a stock ZR performance) & GT-R--I can definitely say that the GT-R definitely has a larger performance envelope than the Vette.
It truly does things that it theoretically shouldn't be capable of doing, considering its weight & size.

I'll admit, I'm going off of primarily Laguna Seca lap times here, but (at least with the Pilot Sport Cups on the ZR1) it looks like the ZR1's performance envelope is quite a bit bigger than the GT-R in every way. Here's the top 20 lap times from Motor Trend on Laguna Seca:

20. 2013 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Black Series Coupe 1:38.90
19. 2012 Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG 1:38.82
18. 2013 Ford Shelby GT500 1:38.70
17. 2011 Porsche 911 GT3 RS 1:36.77
16. 2012 Lexus LFA 1:36.39
15. 2012 Audi R8 GT 1:36.39
14. 2012 Nissan GT-R 1:36.35
13. 2103 Nissan GT-R Black Edition 1:36.34
12. 2010 Ferrari 458 Italia 1:36.22
11. 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 1:35.83
10. 2013 SRT Viper GTS* 1:35.77
9. 2012 Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4 1:35.40
8. 2008 Dodge Viper ACR 1:35.12
7. 2013 SRT Viper 1:34.63
6. 2012 McLaren MP4-12C 1:34.50
5. 2012 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 1:34.43
4. 2013 SRT Viper GTS 1:34.23
3. 2010 Dodge Viper ACR** 1:33.92
2. 2013 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 1:33.70
1. 2013 SRT Viper TA 1:33.62

(taken from http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2aSIPt3Fo)

Admittedly, it's only one track, but it's one of the few lists I can find with the same (good) driver (Randy Pobst drove 19 of the 20 lap times) from a single source, and it indicates that even the C6 Z06 is significantly faster than a GT-R around a track.

Similarly, it looks like a 2012 Z06 did a 7:22 around the Nurburgring, compared to 7:24 for a 2011 GT-R, but I'm not sure how much credence I can lend to those numbers (or if the conditions are really equivalent).

[GTB/ZR-1]

^^^

I was talking modded versions w/ similar rubber. Both my Z06 & GT-R were modded (bolt-ons) & my GT-R would leave it for dead around road courses & autoX. This coming from a 40+ year Vette fan--so no GT-R fan boi here...

BTW, MT had another contest between a GT-R/Z06 & GT500 & the GT-R was quicker around the Streets of Willow. The faster the course (read WOT sections), the closer the Vettes get, IMO.

[reni]

Engine sound is great, would love to experience it in real life. With each generation the Vette seems to become less "disposable" and moves towards into something desirable as an actual car, not just a spec sheet.

Regarding the weight, there have been a number of new cars in the last few years or so that have gotten cheaper than the previous generation (google it), so it's certainly not impossible. My theory on what happened here is that GM was trying to add so many new features and technology and still keep the price down, so "adding lightness" (which isn't free) lost out a bit.

[Sport-Tech]

Interesting comparison between C6 and C7 Z51s put up by Edmunds:

2014 Chevy Corvette 2009 Chevy Corvette
Curb weight as tested: 3,444 3,275
0-30 (sec.): 1.8 2.0
0-45 (sec.): 2.8 3.0
0-60 (sec.): 4.1 4.3
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec.): 3.8 4.0
0-75 (sec.): 5.6 5.9
1/4-mile (sec @ mph): 12.0 @ 117.3 12.3 @ 116.0
30-0 (ft): 23 27
60-0 (ft): 93 110
Skid Pad Lateral Accel (g): 1.08 0.95
Slalom: 72.8 67.9

Clearly they have moved the handling and grip up the ladder in a very big way - the 4.9 second improvement in the slalom is huge, as is the skid pad improvement of .13 and the 17' reduction in 60-0 braking distance.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Interesting comparison between C6 and C7 Z51s put up by Edmunds:

2014 Chevy Corvette 2009 Chevy Corvette
Curb weight as tested: 3,444 3,275
0-30 (sec.): 1.8 2.0
0-45 (sec.): 2.8 3.0
0-60 (sec.): 4.1 4.3
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec.): 3.8 4.0
0-75 (sec.): 5.6 5.9
1/4-mile (sec @ mph): 12.0 @ 117.3 12.3 @ 116.0
30-0 (ft): 23 27
60-0 (ft): 93 110
Skid Pad Lateral Accel (g): 1.08 0.95
Slalom: 72.8 67.9

Clearly they have moved the handling and grip up the ladder in a very big way - the 4.9 second improvement in the slalom is huge, as is the skid pad improvement of .13 and the 17' reduction in 60-0 braking distance.

Interesting results (+0.13 g skidpad, +4.9 mph slalom, -17' braking). I wonder how much of that was due to improved tires (Michelin PSS ZP developed specifically for the C7 Z51). Reminds me of when Edmunds put Advan AD08s on their long-term FR-S. Saw improvements across the board like that, although on a smaller scale.

1.00 g / 70.3 mph / 107 ft -- FR-S (Yoko AD08)
0.89 g / 67.5 mph / 114 ft -- FR-S (Michelin Primacy HP)

Improvements of +0.11 g skidpad, +2.8 mph slalom, -7' braking.

At the pace tires are improving, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that improvement came from the new tires. Michelin seems pretty proud of them.

http://michelinmedia.com/news/michel...ette-stingray/

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

Running super rich doesn't preserve cats. It destroys them. Factory tunes are fat to keep the car healthy through the life of the warranty for every kind of driver, from the person who performs every maintenance at exact mileage to the person who warms their car up by pinging the limiter.

Depends on circumstance. At full load factory tunes run very rich because that prevents the exhaust gas from directly frying the cat, that's why the twins are like 10.8 AFR at the top end. Otherwise, yea you run stoich if the cat temperature is safe.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Depends on circumstance. At full load factory tunes run very rich because that prevents the exhaust gas from directly frying the cat, that's why the twins are like 10.8 AFR at the top end. Otherwise, yea you run stoich if the cat temperature is safe.

They run rich at WOT as a hedge against detonation and to run cooler, and because it doesn't cost much if anything powerwise. The cats certainly aren't troubled by leaner mixtures within reason.

Factory tunes are rich to preserve the ENGINE, not the cats.
Cats will run hotter as you go richer, anyway, as they burn off more unburned HCs. Running RICH is the primary cause of converter meltdown.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by ZDan

They run rich at WOT as a hedge against detonation and to run cooler, and because it doesn't cost much if anything powerwise. The cats certainly aren't troubled by leaner mixtures within reason.

Factory tunes are rich to preserve the ENGINE, not the cats.
Cats will run hotter as you go richer, anyway, as they burn off more unburned HCs. Running RICH is the primary cause of converter meltdown.

When you're way past stoichiometric there isn't any oxygen to burn the excess fuel... the engine can run just fine at lower afr at full load at lower rpm, so going below 11:1 is definitely not about protecting the engine.

[tdoggy57]

Want one of these so bad

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

When you're way past stoichiometric there isn't any oxygen to burn the excess fuel... the engine can run just fine at lower afr at full load at lower rpm, so going below 11:1 is definitely not about protecting the engine.

You *can* run a lot leaner than 11:1, but there's little to no drawback to running richer under WOT conditions to cool down combustion chamber temperatures and stave off detonation. You can run a higher compression ratio with a richer mixture (within reason), which benefits both power and fuel economy under cruise conditions.

Cats run HOTTER with a richer mixture as they burn off excess fuel that didn't get burned in the combustion chamber.

Factory tunes being rich has nothing to do with preserving the cats.