Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Car Comparisons' started by Firechikin1968, Feb 4, 2010.
lol the corvette keeps getting faster, but not any better.
well i think they could too
Evo mag on the ZR1 testedt against R8, GT3 and Vantage V12
Yes, the Corvette. You know those tests where the writer says that they knew just by the smell of the key fob as they walked towards the car that it was a winner? Well, I’m afraid the ZR1 is the car that everyone knew within the first 50 yards was going to be in last place. Even pulling out of a lay-by, each of the far-flung corners of the Vette seems to have its own agenda. The Magnetic Selective Ride Control dampers are unique in the Corvette range and unfortunately not an improvement on the Z06’s set-up. Just as in the Audi, a switch turns between Touring and Sport modes and tunes the dampers appropriately. Unlike the Audi, the switch has to be left in Sport mode just so that the suspension feels like it has some control over the vertical movement of the wheels. It doesn’t actually seem to sharpen anything, it just reduces travel. Ollie Marriage drove the Corvette here from home yesterday and reckons the ride was almost unbearable on Belgian motorways, such was the tyre noise and wheelslap.
Evo mag October 2008 on the ZR1 (Rating 4.5 stars)
Heres a guy "from EVO" who actually gave the car a proper unbiased drive and hense the result.
There always seems to be more grip – at the front anyway. Even when you expect it to finally understeer because you’ve just asked for an impossible turning effort, the steering still bites and the front wheels find more purchase. As confidence grows you can lean amazingly hard on the Corvette, then as maximum g-force seems to approach you can apply more power and feel the tail drift out for a final flourish before the next twist.
Such confidence comes quickly in the ZR1, because it’s a very understandable car. And that’s because it’s responses are very precise, linear and progressive, so you know exactly where you are with it. If you mis-remember a crest and you’re heading for trouble on the far side, the ZR1 lets you sort it out in your own time. And then, as you enter another long, high-g bend, you can feel the Corvette pivoting about its front wheels as you meter the energy to the rears, holding the gentlest of drifts if you like because that’s what it naturally does. It’s the epitome of the well-balanced rear-wheel-drive car.
It’s massively fast on-track, of course, especially when Jim Mero, who designed the track, is driving. I like to think that fragments of my laps were slightly like his, but had I attempted that first downhill right-hander at Mero speed, I’d have ended up in Illinois.
Anyway, car clearly does fit track. Light weight helps its flick-flick-through-chicane agility, achieved by making the understructure (as in the Z06) a replica in aluminium of the standard Corvette’s steelwork. There’s carbonfibre too, notably for the bonnet, the front wings, the inner wheelarches, the aerodynamic addenda (no less discreet than they need to be) and, most obviously, the roof.
fiberglass bathtub on wheels with a Silver Cross Pram suspension.
the coolest car ever made in the USA, a modern re-make of the second best colaboration between USA and the Brits?
FORD GT PLEASE, Chevettes are for rednecks.
Vette tranny go bang.
I wouldn't say John Simister's review was any less biased. What's different is the context: on straight American roads and some racetracks, the ZR1 is good. Put it on certain European roads and tracks (even some in America as Motor Trend found out), and it doesn't cope as well as it should. It's good on its home track modeled after the Nurburgring, but as Sport Auto found, the real 'Ring offers up bumps, crests, and pavement variations that only a 14-mile track or real-world mountain road can provide.
In any event, Evo have since downgraded the ZR1 to 3.5 stars which you can find under "Data" on their site, or "The Knowledge" in their magazine. They rated the CTS-V, which they also tested in Britain, higher at 4.0 stars ("You see, the CTS-V ain’t bad at all – it’s better than the Corvette ZR1 with which it shares its engine, in fact"). When mags from both sides of the Atlantic agree the CTS-V is the better driver's car, it's hard to say it comes down to bias.
FWIW, Lee Noble, who is heading up Fenix Automotive using LS3 and LS9 powerplants, was asked about benchmarking by Performance Car Magazine. He said the car that really fundamentally impressed him was the Ford GT.
actually i keckon the coolest car ever made in the USA would be the saleen to bad it never went into production
any magazine review that determines a loser 30 after seconds clearly decided who was going to lose before they even got the cars. They went in looking for the vettes flaws (or went in to point them out, like the interior, etc) because of what others have said. It happens all the time in the world of reviewing things.
Hand people cheap ass wine and tell them its a 1987 roethschild and they think its the best shit ever. Hand them the real thing and tell them its cheap and they think its shit.
Not saying the ZR1 is the perfect car in the universe, just that you should take what magazines say with a grain of salt.
it did go into production
Not saying the ZR1 is the perfect car in the universe, just that you should take what magazines say with a grain of salt = correct! I was only quoting....
i thought they made only a certain number of the things then stoped
I don't think you have to have read other reviews of interiors to come to a conclusion about the ZR1's interior. In the UK, this thing is selling for Audi R8 V10 prices...
Were they overly critical of the interior? I didn't see much mention of it (or the interiors of the other cars for that matter). They said the seat was unsupportive. Guess how many other mags have said the same thing.
Not having driven that car on the roads they did, I don't think any of us are in a position to refute their claims. One other thing about British journalists: don't always take them too literally. They're saying on those particular roads, the ZR1 came undone when others did not. They've said the same thing about BMW's on runflats too. Car Magazine gave a pretty good technical explanation on why the ZR1 comes up short. For the same reason, lower-spec cars with narrower, more pliant tires can feel better on British roads: better bump absorption instead of skittering across the surface, more progression at the limit, less tramlining, etc. If GM Europe had set this car up with a track alignment, then this would make it even worse (this car, with various plates, had seen track action in AutoExpress, Autocar, Car and TopGear).
All im saying is that magazine reviews by a bunch of journalists arent the end all be all of everything, and theyre often pretty biased.
Judging/disqualifying an ultra high performance car by how well it handles shitty roads is like judging an exige on how well it carries a family of 4 and holds luggage.
So. Many. Lols.
I want to draw you
When it's one bunch, you might claim bias (though you'd have little grounds to claim bias in favor of a Ford; they cited the GT500 as one of that year's big disappointments). When another bunch says the same thing, maybe the first bunch's findings were spot on. When yet another bunch reaffirms the other two, what you start to get is a series of case histories confirming one car having better sportscar-like characteristics than the other. Are we going to claim all of these sources, from both sides of the Atlantic, are biased? We have multiple reports, from different continents, of the CTS-V being the better driver's car than the ZR1.
All I'm saying is if you want to get an idea of which cars perform better, you consult those who have actually driven the cars in question.
The real world is full of shitty roads; it is not full of people buying Exiges with the intention of using it to carry a family of 4 and luggage. So no, it is not like that at all. Not everyone drives on straight roads, or billiard-table smooth roads or smooth racetracks. To be a complete sportscar, is it too much to ask that it excel on dynamically demanding roads? Just take a look at Porsche, and why its GT3 and Cayman S rank so highly in driver's car competitions: they show that a high performance car doesn't have to be a one-trick pony. Speed, precision, and involvement are not mutually exclusive.
For as far as I understood it, the ZR-1 is great on smooth roads/tracks. And that's all.
The CTS-V reviews should be taken with a grain of salt as well, because of its initial negative image (I mean, a Cadillac going fast? Stop the #$%#ing presses) and still they rate it better than the ZR-1.
Thing is, reviewers are into cars, have driven plenty of different ones to draw conclusions as for what's what. Sure, it's subjective as a lot of it has to do with "feel". People that just drink a wine casually sometimes can't even tell the difference between rosé and white if you were to blindfold them. Is that because they're ignorant? Perhaps. But I think more due to a lack of experience with wine, which I don't think a professional car reviewer has with cars.
Anyway, context as I read it: ZR-1 - great on tracks and smooth roads. terrible to live with regarding comfort. Oh, and Belgian roads are pretty noisy to begin with - you can hear very well when you cross the border here, haha. That said, it was a comparison and it apparently stood out compared to the other cars.
I see Guibo beat me to some things already, way to not click the 3rd page, Moo.
My biggest complaint with the Ford GT is that they chose unique tire sizes which kinda limits you to the OEM tires, which aren't very good. It's also huge compared to the original GT40.
The size increase is to be expected. It would be impractical to make a volume-production road car the size of the GT40.
Only midgets like Bruce McLaren and Ken Miles could fit in a GT40 comfortably.
lotus elises and exiges are just as bad (sorry if the names arent spelled correctly)