What do the Japanese think of the new Corvette?

Discussion in 'Videos and Sounds' started by Kemper, Feb 12, 2006.

  1. Read the thread
     
  2. #102 SeansVette, Mar 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  3. #103 DragStrip, Mar 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  4. OMFG THIS GUY IS A #$%#ING RETARD, OBVIOUSLY HE HASN'T DRIVEN AN AE86 COROLLA GTS OR A NISSAN 240SX WITH THE SR20 ENGINE YO, THAT SHIT OWNS ANYTHING ON THE ROAD WITH THAT HKS TURBO YO!!

    seriously, a good mountain road vehicle is one with a fairly high revving engine mated to a short gearbox, and a low amount of torque to avoid oversteer and wheelspin. According to this guy, the S2000 is the car that fits most of the criteria. Notice how his ranking increases as the vehicles redline max increases, and the amount of torque it has decreases...(that's just my estimated observation)...

    also, just because a corvette or most american sports cars are opposite (long gears, fairly low revving engines (in comparison to most foreign sports cars), and high torque), doesn't mean that it's impossible to drive on a mountain road. Most of it depends on a competent driver. However, it would be considerably harder to drive as "efficiently" through a mountain road than with the idealistic car that possesses the qualities that I previously mentioned
     
  5. Guy's, he rates the S2000 as a better touge drive than a Skyline GTR too.

    The Honda is light, manuverable and perfect for those conditions. The Corvette and Skyline are heavier and more suited to wider roads.
     
  6. #106 BuickGNXkillsALL, Mar 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    HOly crap, that is awsome.

    and its a Boxter S!

    Its because the Camaro has a good weight distribution 55/45 ( not as perfect as the Porsches, but nevertheless good)
     
  7. You never saw that article?

    Its more or less because the Camaro CAN handle, and has this thing called a powerband :p
     
  8. yeah, so why are people making fun of Camaro handling? Losers
     
  9. Refer to my post a few posts above:
    "Its sad how many people are still living the 1970s."

    They see 3400lbs and solid rear end and think "old tech" and "cant handle" BS, typical ignorance.
     
  10. Pull up a map of thunderhill
     
  11. #111 PoWeReD By NoS, Mar 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Why does no one on this board understand sarcasm anymore? Haha, I don't hate American cars at all. I am just reinforcing the fact that something larger usually doesn't do very well on Japanese twisting mountain roads. Kind of like how a lightly modified 80's Corolla could destroy a Skyline GTR. No hating from me, sorry for any misunderstanding...
     
  12. "OMG DA STRAITZ R UNFAERE!!!!"
    All race track have straits, cry about it.
     
  13. Thunderhill has a huge straight. I could get fordracing to comment on it, inasmuch as he has raced there. It favours big torque/horsepower motors.

     
  14. "All race tracks have straits."
     
  15. Yes, but thunderhill has a particularly long STRAIGHT
     
  16. Point is, if the Camaro handles so badly, then it wouldnt have beaten the others.
     
  17. No. what is ridiculous , is that he is useing the corvette on the list, when it shouldnt even be up ther, just to further try and laugh at/humiliate Americans/ American cars. Thats what got me aggrivated, and sorry if I took it the wrong way.
     
  18. are you mad that a solid rear axle car beat a perfectly balanced car?

    The Camaros Handling is underrated and the Porsches handling is overrated (at least by what I hear people talking about).


    Truth is : refer to post above.

    thats what got me aggrevated in the first place.
     
  19. And the Nurburgring has an even longer straight, yet that doesn't stop people on this forum (and others) from using it as their benchmark.

    And the cars with the most power and torque in that R&T test (the 550 Maranello and Porsche 911 Turbo) didn't set the quickest lap times. They were slower than the relatively weaker, lower-torque 360 Modena and Z06. So power/torque alone won't explain the Camaro's lap time in that test. In fact, they stated explicitly that the Camaro handled well and was fast in the corners too:
    "At the racetrack, the SS raised more than a few eyebrows. Everyone expected it to rocket down the straights, but it ended up cornering well too — proof that high tech isn't necessarily the only show in town. While it certainly could work better over bumps and through quick transitions, the SS is generally stable, predictable and as such, surprisingly fast."
    "The Camaro is a very smooth car to drive with nice linear power and a broad powerband. It feels stable and planted through quick corners — even sliding, it still feels very connected, so you're not worried about what it's going to do. Compared with the Corvette, driving the SS is easier physically. This car, you could lap all day."

    Sure it has more power and torque than the Boxster S. But what happens when you factor in torque at the wheels (through gear multiplication) as a ratio to weight? The torque advantage all but disappears, and maybe that's why in RT's testing, the Boxster is a mere 1/10th behind in the quarter mile. That leaves other factors squarely in the Boxster S's favor: weight (~340 fewer lbs), weight distribution (for traction and braking), polar moment of inertia, larger brakes (and swept area/ton), all-independent suspension combined with Porsche's legendary chassis tuning, more feedback, etc. I'd be willing to bet the Porsche's CoG is lower also.

    I'm not saying a Camaro handles as well as a Boxster S. On a narrow mountain road, I'd bet equally skilled drivers would be faster in the Porsche. But anyone who takes that Camaro & twisties picture seriously is an idiot.
     
  20. That wouldn't be so much as humiliation, but more of illustrating that bigger and more badass sportcars aren't always better than other "lower" cars within its class in some road courses. Humiliation IMO is a 750hp Mustang being walked by a 500hp Cobalt. ZING!
     
  21. Nor did I say the Camaro handles poorly. It's clumsy, but it gets the job done.

    But it isn't anywhere near the Boxster S.
     
  22. Stop confusing feel with handling.
     
  23. I'm not. A mid-engine car that weighs 200+ kgs less is going to have better handling than a RWD, acceleration biased, front-engine coupe.
     
  24. I agree it will handle better, but saying "anywhere near" is stretching it too far.
     
  25. If it gets the job done, how is it clumsy? Unless you're talking about feel.
     

Share This Page