3.9 seconds my arse

Discussion in '2002 Chevrolet Corvette Z06' started by US cars rulez, Nov 25, 2002.

  1. #26 joelbergZ06fanatic, Jan 19, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: 3.9 seconds my arse...no, this is very real, very real

    ARE YOU F¬CKING STUPID??!?!?!?!??!?

    ANYWAYS! clutchless shifting is plenty legitemate, if one has the skill to shift w/o a clutch, then it can be standard driving.

    How many times do you see a guy in a corvette just "picking up" some random blonde with fake boobs? ....never.
    thats what i thought!
    A Corvette is a classy, classic, muscle car that has handling manners comparable to pretty much ANY rYcer POS.

    The Z06 has the MOST VALUE out of ANY "super-car" there is out there. A stocker Z06 can keep pace with a 355 with a good driver, and WOOP on it with just a simple, low pressure blower on it; all for $40,000 LESS!

    Simply put, all who trash the Corvette are stupid, uneducated IDIOTS who dont know sh¬t about cars. If you stopped and examined the facts for a moment, maybe, just maybe, you would see how good the Corvette really is. While it is definitely not a contender to a V12 Diablo VT6.0 or whatever they are now a days, it sure has more value than one.

    If i had the $300,000 to pay for that Lambo, i would just put 55k down on the Z06, and put 10k into the engine. A $65,000 Corvette would then be a contender with any Ferrari or Lambo from the factory.

    Or, take for example, a Lingenfelter TT C5 Corvette, this Corvette is still worth $220,000 less than the Lambo, but can pull a faster 1/4!

    1.9 sec zero to sixty b¬tch!

    to see the 9.9 second vette...I am 99% sure that this vette is worth much less than any Lambo or Ferrari you will find out there, and is just as fast, AND can still handle pretty damn well indeed
  2. Z06's suck!Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    The 4.7 was done in the rain, hence the pitiful time. Not R&T's fault, I actually like R&T.
  3. Z06's suck!Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    I have taken a stock 02 Z06 to the track, and yes mine does measure the 0-60 times.. They are an estimate from the Tree to a secondary sensor on the track. As for 3.9 Seconds.... Not in my hands, and I have never seen it either. 4.3-4.4 seconds yes.... now 12.9 in the qtr is my best time, but I am VERY positive that someone else could do it and shave off a few tenths. Quickest Listed 1/4 I have seen for the 405 HP models was 12.4. I dont think I will ever see that..

  4. Z06's suck!Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Hey Turbo, learn how to spell @ss hole. **** you and you family.
    Eat Shit and Die!!!

  5. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Hey US carz rules, It can do 0-60 in 3.9, and track conditions do make difference to a pro driver. A cold track will make tires harder and therefore, less grip, a hot track will mean better hookup, and thats what u need for acceleration.
  6. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Well I'm sure Chevrolet, Car & Driver, and other such sources wouldn't want to question your vast knowledge of what the 2002 Z06 is capable of now would they?
  7. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    This is how it's done! "While in Bowling Green last fall I attended a seminar put on by a GM Corvette engineer. He did a powerpoint presentation on How to get sub 4 second 0 to 60 times. Near ideal weather, high pressure, cool temps and low humidity; a well prepared drag strip type surface; pre heat the tires with burn out; 2800 to 3200 rpm medium quick clutch drop; wait until tires hook before going to full throttle; power shift second gear at redline." Thats how you get 3.9! Not many can do it, but it's capable of it!
  8. #33 InigoCO, Feb 13, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

    There are several other cars out there with similar power which also do 0-60 in times very close to 3.9s, so why can't the Vette? Check out www.car-stats.com, they have the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for a large number of cars, I've used their numbers for comparison here.


    2002 Vette Z06 (405HP) - 4.1s
    2001 Vette Z06 (385HP) - 4.3s
    1996 Porsche 911 Turbo (400HP) - 3.7s
    Lamborghini Murcielago (580HP) - 3.6s

    From Motor Trend Road Test Results (in the back of the magazine)
    Ferrari 360 Modena (395HP) - 3.9s
    Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VII (276HP) - 4.3s
    2001 Porsche 911 Turbo (415HP) - 3.9s
    McLaren F1 (627HP) - 3.4s taken from Dec. 1997 issue of R&T

    There's a lot more to 0-60 times than how much HP a car has. Virtually every part of a car, not to mention who is driving will determine wheter or not a given car will be fast in a 0-60 test. Even minute changes to any number of variables can change the 0-60 time a few tenths or more one way or the other. It's also a matter of what the car was designed for. Look at the numbers of the McLaren and Lamborghini. With the power outputs of these two, they should have much better 0-60 times. But, that's not what they are built for, they are not geared low to make them fast 0-60. On the flipside, both are 200+ MPH machines which a Vette Z06 is not. The Z06 is designed to be fast 0-60 and it is, but it also has a tall 6th gear to allow 1400 RPM 60MPH cruising and high 20's MPG. Different cars built for different reasons, but all fast in their own ways.
  9. Re: Re:

    It's good to see a new intelligent member here. Keep up the good work.
  10. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    no way it goes that
  11. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    I must say those are some of the best figures I've seen for those cars! Are they 0-60mph or 0-62mph (100kmh)? That typically makes a 0.1-0.2sec difference which could explain it. Also, Ferrari 360 do a 3.9s???????????? I thought claimed time was 4.5 (0-100kmh)? Didn't think Ferrari of all makers would be conservative in their numbers! Well, I guess once you're that fast it doesn't even make a difference - then again, it might - you might want that guy back at the lights to have a chance to see what you're driving before you disappear completely into the horizon =0P

    Take it easy all. =0P
  12. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    honestly people does it really matter? 4.0, 3.9, 4.7 they are all fast. i have a dodge dart pushing about 300 hp. i run a 6.2 0-60 and a mid 16 sec 1/4 (better watch out lol) my car also weighs about 2x as much as a vette. i dont really know how fast the vette will run but ive heard mid 4s the most. my point is that it is still fast. i have a friend who has driven one and he said it scared the crap out of him. and that was a stock vette not a zo6. so lets stop arguing about it and just agree that the car is fast.
  13. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Um, yeah! It is that quick. The 3.9 seconds was done by Chevy. I've also seen that time in other magazines. Although there were magazines that can't test worth shit! Ex. Car and Driver! Their tests make cars looks sooo much slower than they really are! Still a good magazine though.....
  14. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    You guys do know that they make these cars to turn too??
  15. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Chevy always claims better times then actual times, They said 3.9, On road tests people have always got at least 4 flat or 4.3 or somewhere around there
  16. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Chevy doesn't claim numbers faster than they've achieved.
  17. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    And how come no other road tester or whatever you call them achieved 3.9?
  18. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    i'm sorry but until a euro mag acheives these times i will not buy it. americans are too patriotic and this tends to get in the way of accuracy when they test cars.
    "wow the door fell off the camaro - um - that is a safety feature - wow cool."
    headline - camaro leads world for safety.
  19. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Maybe because they don't get to spend weeks and months testing the car like Chevy does?
  20. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Ever read an issue of Car? They accuse the Cadillac sixteen of being too wasteful, while praising the 16/4 Veyron and the Enzo. Funny how absolutely no mention of being wasteful was to be found when the European exotics were in question. Oh, and they forgot to mention the fact that Caddy claims 20+ mpg for the Sixteen. Seems like biased journalism isn't just found in the U.S., but that should have been obvious right from the start.
  21. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    lol, very funny and i hate to say it but that rear glass is way to steep, shoulda made it in coupe hatchabck thingy magig
  22. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    also, about the euro mags, they always seem to have worse times on everything. also, they wouldnt take as much of a liking to an american car because of price, they are expensie there, while here their fairly inexpensive (for what your gettin). also, many american cars are detuned for euro to get better mileage and stuff (look at tha old vipers)

    oh by the way. no way in hell the caddy16 gets 20mpg, if its lucky id get 20Kpg. >P
  23. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Actually, it does get 20 mpg. With the Cylinder cutoff, it is rarely running on all 16 cylinders.
  24. Re:

    R&T recorded 4.5 seconds 0-60.
  25. Re: 3.9 seconds my arse

    Oh yes they do, Ever heard of Motorweek? They keep testing the car for like at least 3 months and the best time they ever got from it was 4.2

Share This Page