0-60 in 3.9 seconds, you need a power to weight of at least 400bhp/tonne wouldnt you. and the vette is geared quite high isnt it for that top speed?
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse To the best of my knowledge, the 3.9 that everyone refers to is a reference to what motor trend (or R&T?) said was possible using clutchless shifting, but seeing that isn't standard magazine testing procedure, it can't really be counted. People just like to believe what they want. 4 flat is very real though.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse yes, but not much though, and i am not american let me point that out. maybe you can say tyre compound, wheel diameter and that really is about it.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse Low end torque, that's all there is to it. a 4 second run is all but unbelievable. The Z06 makes almost as much mow end torque as the Mclaren, so 4 or even 3.9 shouldn't be beyond reach with good conditions (weather, track conditions ect.)
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse I believe it, with 405 hp and all that torque, not to mention those wide bad ass tires on the back, 3.9 could be possible if a pro is in the driver's seat power shifting. My dad's got one, and when you hit the gas, it throughs you back in your seat and you better watch that rear end. Don't let the clutch go with rpms any more than 2000 or you're just going to burn rubber for nothing
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse i mentioned gearing in my first post, also what has the heat of the road got to do with the car, nothing. its he same with human capabilty, your just knit picking ok it has high torque but it weighs 1450kg. a tuscan S has about the same torque and it wieghs about 1000 kg, it gets from 0-60 in about 4 dead. and remember, the tests are done for the manufacturer by proffessionals hundreds of times and the best one counts. this is the kind of reason why i find it hard to believe, not because im narrow minded.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse Chevy has tested a stock '97 Vette at 4.0 seconds for 0-60. Of course they'd tested that hundreds of times in all different conditions, but it is possible for a stock Vette to run that low. That was also with "only" 345 hp. An addition 60 hp, and better balancing, I'm not suprised that you consistantly run around 4.0, or even just under.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse That's not accurate about taking the best time after hundreds of tests. Like I said in my first post, Chevy was capable of getting four flat out of a Vette, but their officially released numbers are 5.05 for the auto, and 4.72 for the manual (February 1997 Pro Magazine, a GM approved source). Heat has a big role in acceleration. Watch ANY nascar race and they'll mention the tracks temperature. If the track is warm, the tires stick better, giving improved traction. If the track is cold, you'll be slipping a lot more.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse i know about track temparature you and as ive said its nothing to do with the car, as for the 97 covette, the official figures are 4.7 0-60. remember as the times go down the accelleration increases more, by this i mean the difference you would feel would be more from a 4 and 3 second 0-60 than a 5 and 4 second 0-60 so you would need a lot more power torque etc to change a 4.7 to a 3.9 second 0-60, not just 60 hp.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse Does it matter anyway? I mean really. Only people who don't/can't drive point at pre-recorded statistics to judge a car. A car's worth is more about ability to peform it's intended function, to appeal to it's intended market and to drive the way those who purchase such cars want it to drive. At the end of the day, a car is a product, just like a toaster, a pair of shoes or a soft drink: some people buy because they want a certain image and feel that the product will give them that image, whilst others consider their requirements and buy according to them. Or am I wrong, and if so, why?
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse Those who don't/can't drive? I can drive very well thanks. What are we supposed to point to then? Personal Experience? If people generally accepted experience as proof of a car's performance potential, do you know how many people would say things like: "I drove my Civic to an 8 second quarter mile... stock" or "I drove a Mclaren today, and trust me, they're over rated" Basically, magazines provide a reputable insight to a car's performance capabilities, with the fastest times representing what is possible with a lot of skill, while the middle of the pack numbers usually represent bad conditions, or what the average person can achieve. I also feel cars are more than a product. In my mind they're functional pieces of art, and I'm sure some here share my view. After all, I'm sure all these people wouldn't gather to discuss (and I use that term loosely) products.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse Best I've seen for the Z06 is a 4.0, done by C&D for its December '01 issue. A lot of you seem to be forgetting that the Z06 is quite a bit lighter than a regular C5, and has better tires as well. BTW, C&D also knocked off a 4.5 0-60 for the C5 Cabrio.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse I think we can agree that is 3.9 is POSSIBLE, but has yet to be achieved by a reputable source (Chevy performance stats and websites that simply state it achieved it don't count)
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse Step one: Go down to local race track. Step two: Watch totally stock Z06 rattle off a 3.9 and sub-12 second 1/4 mile run. It happens all the time, seriously, go to www.ls1tech.com and checkout some of the times they're getting with stock a Z06. I believe one guy ran an 11.8 in the 1/4 mile.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse well... for one I don't have a local race track. And second, most race tracks don't measure the 0-60 time am I correct? I've never actually been to an official drag race and I don't watch it on TV. Do they actually measure 0-60 times? Also, I don't think many people would bring a bone-stock z06 to the strip. There's no real way to tell just by watching if the car was indeed stock.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse No, it's geared for acceleration. If it wasn't it would beable to go alot faster than a regular vette.
Z06's suck! Re: 3.9 seconds my arse why is everyone saying that the z06 does 0-60 in 3.9?!!? I read in raod and track that it does 4.7 secs. why such a big diff?
Z06's suck!Re: 3.9 seconds my arse R&T tested the Z06 right after it had rained and the pavement was still wet.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse Lol, oh yeah. They measuse 60 foot times. But they can hit 3.9's. I believe the 4.7 was also in the 2001 Z06.
Re: 3.9 seconds my arse A 390bhp, 1090kg Tuscan S has managed 0-60mph in 3.8secs I'm sure the Z06 can manage it in 3.9secs, I think some people fail to realise how small 0.1 secs is.
Z06's suck!Re: 3.9 seconds my arse 4.7.. thats why i call them road & crack. Ive seen them run zo6's slower then the regular c5's. Hell according to them u could prolly beat a zo6 with a mustang gt. Hell go figure, but 0-60 in 4.0 is true. Ive seen it in car and driver and motor trend. With power shifting, the 2002 zo6 does 3.9 and 12.2. Thats very very fast. Fast yeah fast.