Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

Discussion in '2005 Mosler MT900 S' started by SSwannabe, Dec 17, 2002.

  1. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    I can admit when I'm wrong,
    ---

    So can I.


    ---
    but you were FAR more wrong than me
    ---

    In what way?


    ---
    First of all, you only showed one car that comes close to the Z06's combination of power and fuel consumption
    ---

    Well, two cars from the US market. That's true enough. I got bored slogging through Edmunds.


    ---
    315 hp obviously isn't close to 405 hp
    ---

    Sorry, your original statement was: "Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel". The Porsche makes nearly 400bhp and has comparable performance. If 315bhp isn't near enough to 400bhp for you then you should have said something like "every other car within 20bhp of a Corvette uses a lot more fuel" but you'd still be wrong because of the Jag as well as whatever other cars that match the Corvette's mileage figures that I didn't find.


    ---
    Secondly, you said that the Z06 was a gas guzzler, yet you can't even find one car near 400 hp that uses less fuel.
    ---

    It is a gas guzzler. Any car that, under normal driving conditions, returns less than 20mpg can rightfully be referred to as a gas-guzzler. The Jag is a gas-guzzler too in my opinion. BTW the main reason the Jag doesn't get better mileage than the Corvette is that it isn't offered with a manual transmission. A nice 5-speed ZF box would add a couple of mpg to the figure and outdo the Vette. Add to that the fact that the new 4.2 liter version of the blown V-8 that Jaguar uses boosts output to 400bhp and 408lb/ft of torque.

    Isn't it a bit embarrassing that a car with 300kg more weight, a supercharger and the aerodynamics of a cinder-block gets the same mileage as the lighter, slipperier, normally-aspirated Corvette?


     
  2. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    but you were FAR more wrong than me
    ---

    "In what way?"

    You obviously know my answer to that question because you already edited it out.
    ___

    "It is a gas guzzler. Any car that, under normal driving conditions, returns less than 20mpg can rightfully be referred to as a gas-guzzler. The Jag is a gas-guzzler too in my opinion. BTW the main reason the Jag doesn't get better mileage than the Corvette is that it isn't offered with a manual transmission. A nice 5-speed ZF box would add a couple of mpg to the figure and outdo the Vette. Add to that the fact that the new 4.2 liter version of the blown V-8 that Jaguar uses boosts output to 400bhp and 408lb/ft of torque."

    If you said that all 400 hp cars are gas guzzlers, then I would've agreed with you, but that wasn't the context in which you said that it was a gas guzzler.
    ___

    "Isn't it a bit embarrassing that a car with 300kg more weight, a supercharger and the aerodynamics of a cinder-block gets the same mileage as the lighter, slipperier, normally-aspirated Corvette?"

    Leading the class isn't what I'd call embarassing, although I must say that I'm impressed by the efficiency of the Jag.
     
  3. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    You obviously know my answer to that question because you already edited it out.
    ---

    Now you're just being deliberately vague. Either answer the question or drop it.


    ---
    If you said that all 400 hp cars are gas guzzlers, then I would've agreed with you, but that wasn't the context in which you said that it was a gas guzzler.
    ---

    The Corvette hasn't always been a 400bhp car. But it has always been a gas-guzzler - even in the mid 70s when their engine output dropped to a paltry 165bhp. Even by 1990, they were only back to 250bhp for the top-of-the-line OHV V-8. Then the 32-valve DOHC-powered ZR-1 appeared and made 375bhp then later produced 405bhp. That's quite a jump in power and efficiency.

    So, what was the context? All I said was that Corvettes were gas-guzzlers. I didn't say that they ONLY Corvettes held this distinction.


    ---
    Leading the class isn't what I'd call embarassing
    ---

    Leading what class? 400bhp cars? V-8 cars? Oh wait, I know... Two seaters with V-8 engines that displace more than 5.0 liters and are available in the US market. That's a pretty narrow class, isn't it?

    It is like Honda saying their F20C engine makes more power than any other 2.0 liter 4-cylinder normally-aspirated engine. It looks good on paper but doesn't really mean much in the real world.

    ---
    although I must say that I'm impressed by the efficiency of the Jag.
    ---

    Yeah, it is pretty impressive, isn't it? And remember, it is ALL down to the engine itself. Think about what the Jag has to contend with.

    It isn't particuarly light (unless you compare it to the earlier, steel-bodied XJ it replaced).

    A supercharger is great if you want to increase the engine's specific output without turbo-lag but in a car this heavy it scarcely matters. A turbocharger would have allowed them to get the power they wanted and with better highway mileage - but they used a blower anyway.

    A manual transmission as an option would have given better mileage beyond that but they decided that no one would want a Jag with a stick.

    And a Cd of .39?! That is simpy appalling. By comparison, the standard Corvette convertible manages .29 and the Z06 - presumably with extra downforce - comes it at .31.

    Yet, in spite of those handicaps, the Jag's engine still manages to pull the car's occupants just as far on a gallon of fuel. It is a shame that Chevy can't even come close to that level of efficiency.

     
  4. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    You obviously know my answer to that question because you already edited it out.
    ---

    "Now you're just being deliberately vague. Either answer the question or drop it."

    Here's my comments unedited by you:
    "I stand corrected. I can admit when I'm wrong, but you were FAR more wrong than me and you haven't admitted that you were wrong. First of all, you only showed one car that comes close to the Z06's combination of power and fuel consumption. 315 hp obviously isn't close to 405 hp. The fuel consumption isn't very close either for the 911. Secondly, you said that the Z06 was a gas guzzler, yet you can't even find one car near 400 hp that uses less fuel. You weren't just slightly wrong. You had it completely backwards."

    You edited out my answer to your question and then accused me of being vague for not answering your question.
    ____

    "So, what was the context? All I said was that Corvettes were gas-guzzlers. I didn't say that they ONLY Corvettes held this distinction."

    We were discussing similar engines when you said that it's a gas guzzler. We weren't discussing economy cars. It was very convenient of you to forget that.
    ____

    "Leading what class? 400bhp cars? V-8 cars? Oh wait, I know... Two seaters with V-8 engines that displace more than 5.0 liters and are available in the US market. That's a pretty narrow class, isn't it?"

    We were discussing cars near the 400 hp mark. I guess that you forgot that too.
    ____

    "Yeah, it is pretty impressive, isn't it? And remember, it is ALL down to the engine itself. Think about what the Jag has to contend with.

    It isn't particuarly light (unless you compare it to the earlier, steel-bodied XJ it replaced).

    A supercharger is great if you want to increase the engine's specific output without turbo-lag but in a car this heavy it scarcely matters. A turbocharger would have allowed them to get the power they wanted and with better highway mileage - but they used a blower anyway.

    A manual transmission as an option would have given better mileage beyond that but they decided that no one would want a Jag with a stick.

    And a Cd of .39?! That is simpy appalling. By comparison, the standard Corvette convertible manages .29 and the Z06 - presumably with extra downforce - comes it at .31.

    Yet, in spite of those handicaps, the Jag's engine still manages to pull the car's occupants just as far on a gallon of fuel. It is a shame that Chevy can't even come close to that level of efficiency."
    _

    Aside from the weight, those are very minor handicaps, if they are all handicaps. I've seen heavy, supercharged cars with ATs that had great mileage. Several years ago, Buick made a supercharged Regal that was EPA rated at 19/29. At that time, it was the most fuel efficient car available in the US that had that much power (230 hp) or more, despite weighing 3800 lbs. The MB supercharged 2.3 also has a great combination of power and fuel efficiency. It has 190 hp and is EPA rated at 32 mpg highway when in their hatchback. I believe that that car has an AT as well. As far as aerodynamic drag is concerned, that's a minor factor until you get up to around 80 or 90 mph. Maybe the Z06 uses alot less fuel than the XJR at those speeds. If you're going to factor in all of those things, then we need to factor acceleration too. The Z06 is lighter than the XJR, but it also accelerates alot faster. Even if the XJR's engine did have greater overall efficiency (a big if), it's laughable to suggest that that justifies calling the Z06 a gas guzzler.



     
  5. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "That is an unwarranted assumption."

    Without evidence to the contrary (which you have yet to provide), it's perfectly warranted.


    "You're arguing that they can't make more than a fraction of their promised power. You are implicitly saying that they can't make their promised output."

    CAN'T? Seriously, how thick are you? I've never said they CAN'T. Simply that they have not. The fact that their Red Rose conversions add more than the quoted 20 bhp indicate that they can indeed produce the quoted output. It's just not the case with the standard 4.5.
    It's well known among even Griffith owners that TVR have a different method of measuring output. That's why numerous Rover-engined TVR owners have noticed less-than-quoted bhp figures. This is nothing new. Apparently to everyone except you, that is.


    "Or are you agreeing with me that those Cerberas that do test lower than the officially-quoted spec have something wrong with them that could be remedied in order to return the car to its standard output."

    The likelihood that they're ALL off-spec is pretty damn remote, guy. Or are you saying TVR can't build an engine that stays in tune (like other manufacturers)?


    "No, actually, we don't. We have three that appear to be down (we don't know whether the dyno in question is properly calibrated and accurate) but even if they really are, we have no way of knowing why they are and so the claim is really meaningless."

    Dude, open your freakin' eyes. This isn't an isolated incident. It's happened to TVR owners, from Cerbera 4.5's on down to the Rover-engined TVR owners.
    Last month's Total BMW Magazine had a dyno session with M5 owners at the very *same* dyno shop as the one that produced 361 bhp for the Cerbera 4.5: John Noble Motorsport. Every one of the bog standard cars were within 5% of what BMW claimed for the M5. Are you saying TVR owners have just had a bad luck of the draw? Maybe some conspiracy by John Noble Motorsport to make it appear that TVR's make less power than quoted, hmmm?


    "But I'm sure you'll post a link to a thread where you sing the Tuscan's praises."

    I would, if I could remember where exactly. It was a long time ago. You'll note that everything before 12/02 in the Tuscan forum has been purged.


    "What is that? A third-hand and unquantified test. You're simply repeating information that you have no way of knowing whether it is valid or accurate."

    So you're saying that guy is lying? Why don't you just step up and say so. Apparently, you know more about TVR than TVR owners themselves, haha.


    "Maybe the fuel itself is contaminated, maybe there are problems with the fuel or air intake... the list is endless."

    Is the possibility that the Cerbera is overrated from the factory on that list? Oh, no! It can't be! Car manufacturers ALWAYS report the true output figure of all of their cars...


    "You want to me to dummy up some fake dyno charts for you?"

    No. I want you to show evidence. Ie, REAL dyno charts offsetting the low readings. None of the charts I've posted are fake; it should just be as easy for you to do the same. But curiously...it seems to be rather difficult.


    "Which isn't relevant to what the law requires."

    The law does not involve itself with customers who don't go forward with legal proceedings. Do you know of *any* TVR customer who has brought forth a claim to Trading Standards? Show me the link.


    "We don't have any reason to assume they don't."

    Alright, spit out Peter Wheeler's dick for just a moment. And THINK about what you've just said.


    "But a statistician could tell you exactly how meaningless a conclusion drawn from an non-standardized and uncorroborated test of an unrepresentative 1% of the whole."

    So are you saying the only way to tell if a car puts out the quoted figure is to have all of them tested? 70%? 50%? When is it ever good enough for YOU, Jon? The fact remains: from a sampling of 258 Z06 owners, the vast majority report more than stock power ratings. The same certainly CANNOT be said of Cerbera 4.5 owners. You can ***** and whine about dyno calibrations, engine states of tune, etc (strangely, you won't afford the Z06 owners the same benefit of the doubt), but those are the facts.
    Do you realize that there were probably just about as many people with RX-8's and '01 Cobras that bitched and whined enough such that their respective manufacturers revised the power ratings and/or compensated them for this breach in advertising truthfulness? It really doesn't take anymore than a 1% sampling in the American market for a manufacturer to get a black eye, and perhaps lose customers forever.


    "And now you're an expert on them?"

    Do I *HAVE* to be an expert on them? Shit, guy. I'm not an expert on Ferraris, but I can tell a 348 from a 355 from the same distance away. And in case you forgot it the first time: Why don't you show me even *one* car in the US market place that looks like a TVR Chimaera?

    See, this is the problem (among many) with you, Jon: You think everyone is lying. You won't even accept information from the very mouths of TVR owners, and now you're doubting my claim to have seen a very unique looking automobile (especially so here in the States). When/if you grow up, you'll realize that there are people out there whose views differ from yours (shock! God forbid!), who aren't lying. If you want to continue in this way, then the next natural step is for all of us to assume that you, too, are lying.
     
  6. #156 Guibo, Jun 10, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    And the XJR does not get 18/28 mpg. It gets 17/24. edmunds.com seems to have got it confused with the regular XJ8 (which only makes 294 bhp). Yahoo has it right:

    http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/jaguar_xjseries_2005/3978/model_overview.html

    R&T's aluminum-bodied XJR (tested 8/03) got 15.4 mpg in mixed driving. That's considerably less than they've gotten with the Z06 on other occasions. They got 20.0 in their 8/00 test. 18.7 mpg in their 3/02 test. 20 mpg again in their 3/03 test, where the Porsche 911 Targa got 19 mpg, both in overall mixed driving (including the accerelation runs and racetrack test). THIS is what matters, you can guess all day about EPA figures, blah, blah. You need to compare the cars when their tested over the same roads with the same drivers at the same pace (in the case of the Z06 at the dragstrip and the track, the pace was quite a bit quicker).
    But then the 996 doesn't quite make 400 bhp, now does it? Remember that Autoweek test where the Z06 got 20.57 mpg in mixed driving? In that very same issue, the 996 Turbo (which DOES make 400 bhp) got 12.98 mpg. Ouch. R&T did better, with 16 mpg. But that's still a ways down from the figures they got for the Z06.
     
  7. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    Here's my comments unedited by you:
    "I stand corrected. I can admit when I'm wrong, but you were FAR more wrong than me and you haven't admitted that you were wrong. First of all, you only showed one car that comes close to the Z06's combination of power and fuel consumption. 315 hp obviously isn't close to 405 hp. The fuel consumption isn't very close either for the 911. Secondly, you said that the Z06 was a gas guzzler, yet you can't even find one car near 400 hp that uses less fuel. You weren't just slightly wrong. You had it completely backwards."

    You edited out my answer to your question and then accused me of being vague for not answering your question.
    ---

    You said "near 400bhp" - obvsiously we have a different idea as to what "near" means in this context. Especially since a 400+bhp Corvette is a relatively new thing. Apart from the OHC ZR-1 Chevy has never made a 400+bhp car in the history of the Corvette. So, as far as mass-produced Corvette's go, this one is actually the first.

    The Jaguar (the first car I looked at, incidentally) with an automatic transmission has an EPA mileage rating equivalent to the stickshift Vette and better than the automatic Corvette - 3mpg better to be exact. Compare like for like and the Jaguar does better.

    You said "Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel". You were wrong.


    ---
    Aside from the weight, those are very minor handicaps, if they are all handicaps. I've seen heavy, supercharged cars with ATs that had great mileage
    ---

    Yeah, that's all well and good but if they had been lighter, turbocharged and fitted with a manual gearbox, they'd have gotten even better mileage.

    Superchargers are effectively "aways on" by their nature. Turbochargers, on the other hand, run low or even nonexistant levels of boost at low revs (like when you're cruising on the freeway at constant revs.

    Automatic transmissions are less efficient than their manual counterparts at transferring the energy from the engine to the driven wheels. Ergo, a car fitted with an identically-geared autobox will get lower mileage than its twin with a stickshift.

    Aerodynamics is critical for good cruising mileage. The more wind-resistance a car has to overcome, even at normal cruising speeds, the more fuel it will burn doing it.

    The fact that a car shaped like the Jaguar can match one shaped like the Corvette is a pretty sad commentary on the Corvette.
     
  8. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    Alright, spit out Peter Wheeler's dick for just a moment.
    ---

    You kiss your mother with that mouth?

    Typical. Instead of fact or reasoned discussion, you simply make stupid and obnoxious remarks...

    Go away little boy and don't bother the grownups anymore.

    Consider yourself ignored from now on; you are unworthy of my notice.
     
  9. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "You said "Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel". You were wrong."

    I already admitted that I was wrong about that, but that was because you posted false data. Unless you can find a car near 400 hp that doesn't use alot more fuel, you shouldn't be accusing me of being wrong.
    ____

    "Yeah, that's all well and good but if they had been lighter, turbocharged and fitted with a manual gearbox, they'd have gotten even better mileage.

    Superchargers are effectively "aways on" by their nature. Turbochargers, on the other hand, run low or even nonexistant levels of boost at low revs (like when you're cruising on the freeway at constant revs.

    Automatic transmissions are less efficient than their manual counterparts at transferring the energy from the engine to the driven wheels. Ergo, a car fitted with an identically-geared autobox will get lower mileage than its twin with a stickshift.

    Aerodynamics is critical for good cruising mileage. The more wind-resistance a car has to overcome, even at normal cruising speeds, the more fuel it will burn doing it.

    The fact that a car shaped like the Jaguar can match one shaped like the Corvette is a pretty sad commentary on the Corvette."

    That's all moot now, thanks to Guibo. He posted the Jag's true fuel consumption data.
     
  10. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    BTW, the Corvette had 425 hp in 1965, 560 in 67, and 585 in 69. Ofcourse they measured gross power in those days and those were optional engines, but the 65 Corvette with the optional 396 cid 425 hp engine did the 1/4 mi in 12.8 sec.
     
  11. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    BTW, the Corvette had 425 hp in 1965, 560 in 67, and 585 in 69. Ofcourse they measured gross power in those days and those were optional engines, but the 65 Corvette with the optional 396 cid 425 hp engine did the 1/4 mi in 12.8 sec.
    ---

    You're talking about the 396ci engine offered as an option in '65,the 427 which was available in '66-'69 and the 454ci engine which was offered in '70-'74 (according to my reference), right?

    Remember those were in the early days of emissions regulation for cars and their disappearance coincided with the precipitous drop in power for Corvettes. The 1974 model equipped with the 454 engine was quoted at 275bhp and the "ordinary" 350ci engines were as low as 190bhp. The 1975 model was apparently only offered with the 350ci engine and it was good for a paltry 165bhp. Pretty sad for an engine of almost 6 liters, especially when compared to the 140bhp that Lotus got out of their conversion of a Vauxhall (GM's British label) 2.0 liter I-4 to OHC and four valves/cylinder. It was 1986 before stock Corvettes were able to break the 250bhp barrier and 1990 before they broke 300bhp with the limited-edition OHC-equipped ZR-1. It was 1996 before a stock, OHV-equipped Corvette broke 300bhp.

    And, search as I might though my encylopedae of American muscle-car trivia, the most powerful stock Corvette I can find listed is the 460bhp "special" in 1970 with the 454ci engine. Nothing nearer to 500bhp and certainly nothing even close to 585bhp. Also, remember that these early power quotes were "SAE gross" and at least 100bhp over the actual output at the flywheel. So, by today's standards, the most powerful Corvette offered during that time was the 325bhp (SAE net) 454ci car offered in 1972. Still a long way from 400bhp.

    Oh yeah, and ask owners of the big-engined Corvettes of the 60s and 70s how all that extra weight in the nose affected handling... Those cars are pretty much for straight-line speed-freaks only - or collectors who don't drive the cars hard.

    Also, I don't know where you got the 12.8 second 1/4 mile figure but it isn't terribly realistic especially with the tire technology of the day. A comparable car, the Monte Carlo SS454 with the 450bhp (gross) 454ci engine quotes 1/4 mile times of around 16 seconds.


     
  12. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    They were underrated for insurance purposes. That's well documented. If you want to do more research, check out the L-88 and ZL-1 engines. Ofcourse the extra weight affected handling. That's obvious, but the difference in straight line speed offset the difference in handling many times over. The big block cars were much faster around a track than the small block cars. They didn't even compete in the same class. Saying that they were for straight line freaks only is ridiculous. That's like saying that 12 cylinder Ferraris are for straight line freaks only because of the extra weight. Furthermore, an aluminum big block weighs about the same as an iron small block.

    BTW, this is the Mosler forum. Why did you bring up the power and handling of vintage Vettes? It has no bearing on the fuel efficiency of the LS6.
     
  13. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    They were underrated for insurance purposes. That's well documented. If you want to do more research, check out the L-88 and ZL-1 engines.
    ---

    And how many of these cars were actually made? Around 20 L-88s for 1967 and about 80 for 1968. As for the ZL-1s, only two of them were reportedly made. If of the power output claims about them are remotely accurate, they can hardly be considered production cars. In fact, they were basically race-engines slotted into a Corvette body.

    It wasn't as if you could trot down to the local Chevy dealer and drive away in one.

    Plus, the whole idea of underrating an engine for insurance purposes is deeply suspect anyway. I'm not saying it wasn't done, maybe it was. But IF it was done, the people who did it were morons. If the buyer can figure out that the engine is underrated, don't you think it would be possible for an insurance company to do the same?

    Plus, it would give the insurance company fair legal grounds to deny any claims filed on the policy in question since it would have been obtained fraudulently.

    ---
    Furthermore, an aluminum big block weighs about the same as an iron small block.
    ---

    Stop me if I'm wrong, but the blocks of both engines were cast-iron, weren't they? Wasn't it just the heads that were aluminum alloy?


    ---
    BTW, this is the Mosler forum. Why did you bring up the power and handling of vintage Vettes? It has no bearing on the fuel efficiency of the LS6.
    ---

    Well, you're right of course. But I only brought it up as the conversation had veered off in that direction. Back to the efficiency of the LS6, I don't see how you can say that it is more efficient than the Jaguar V8 since the Jag engine gets equivalent mileage even with the disadvantages under which it operates (weight, aerodynamics, rear-end gearing, etc.).

    You can argue that the LS6 is a retaltively efficient engine given its power-output and displacement but not that it is the MOST efficient.

    Besides, the whole question of efficieny and gas mileage is a red-herring anyway. No one who buys a performace car for the obvious reasons cares a damn about fuel efficiency. No one has ever said seriously to a car salesman: "You know, I'd love to take that new Lamborghini home but I just can't live with the gas mileage, sorry" or "Ferraris would be better cars if they didn't cost so damn much to send them to the shop".

    The reason that Chevy trumpets the gas mileage of the Corvette is that people who buy Corvettes do it because they want to appear to be driving a performance car but can't really afford one. They can barely afford the sticker price so the Corvette's relatively decent gas mileage and relatively low service costs allow them to buy and run it as a daily-driver.
     
  14. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    I already admitted that I was wrong about that, but that was because you posted false data. Unless you can find a car near 400 hp that doesn't use alot more fuel, you shouldn't be accusing me of being wrong.
    ---

    According to Yahoo's site, the XJR's mileage is 17/24 which is virtually identical to the Corvette when it is also equipped with an automatic transmission.

    So, your original statement that "Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel" is still wrong and you have admitted as much. Why are we still belaboring the point?


    The original discussion had to do with engine efficiency as I recall and since the Jaguar is operating at a significant disadvantage in the weight and aerodynamics department and still manages to get effectively the same mileages as an autobox Corvette, I'd say the Jaguar's engine is significantly more effecient - even with the supercharger fitted.

     
  15. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "It wasn't as if you could trot down to the local Chevy dealer and drive away in one."

    Anyone could order one and they were totally street legal.
    ____

    "Stop me if I'm wrong, but the blocks of both engines were cast-iron, weren't they? Wasn't it just the heads that were aluminum alloy?"

    The L-88 had aluminum heads and the ZL-1 was all aluminum. That was the only difference between the two engines.
    ____

    "You can argue that the LS6 is a retaltively efficient engine given its power-output and displacement but not that it is the MOST efficient.

    Besides, the whole question of efficieny and gas mileage is a red-herring anyway. No one who buys a performace car for the obvious reasons cares a damn about fuel efficiency. No one has ever said seriously to a car salesman: "You know, I'd love to take that new Lamborghini home but I just can't live with the gas mileage, sorry" or "Ferraris would be better cars if they didn't cost so damn much to send them to the shop".

    The reason that Chevy trumpets the gas mileage of the Corvette is that people who buy Corvettes do it because they want to appear to be driving a performance car but can't really afford one. They can barely afford the sticker price so the Corvette's relatively decent gas mileage and relatively low service costs allow them to buy and run it as a daily-driver."

    That was a lame attempt at humor, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
    ____

    "According to Yahoo's site, the XJR's mileage is 17/24 which is virtually identical to the Corvette when it is also equipped with an automatic transmission.

    So, your original statement that "Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel" is still wrong and you have admitted as much. Why are we still belaboring the point?"

    The LS6 isn't available with an automatic. You're the one belaboring the point, not me.

     
  16. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    Anyone could order one and they were totally street legal.
    ---

    I didn't say they weren't street-legal and if just anyone could order one, why were only two ZL-1s and only about 100 L-88s ever made? That's McLaren F1-level production.

    ---
    The LS6 isn't available with an automatic
    ---

    No, but the standard Corvette is. Since the standard car's mileage with a stick is comparable to the Z06, it is reasonable to infer that the mileage with an auto (if it were equipped with one) would be equivalent.

     
  17. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    You said that ZR-1 was the first Corvette with 400 hp.

    If you're going to belabor the fuel consumption issue, then show me a car with close to 400 hp that comes close to the Z06's fuel efficiency. Otherwise, retract your comment that claimed that I was wrong.
     
  18. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    You said that ZR-1 was the first Corvette with 400 hp.
    ---

    I said nothing of the sort. I said: "The Corvette hasn't always been a 400bhp car"

    This is true enough. Name one large-scale production Corvette prior to the Z06 which made 400bhp.


    ---
    show me a car with close to 400 hp that comes close to the Z06's fuel efficiency. Otherwise, retract your comment that claimed that I was wrong.
    ---

    Wait a second, you already agreed that your statement was wrong. Are you now retracting that assessment.


    The problem with your statement isn't the sentiment but that you made it an absolute. Instead of saying that, for its power, the Corvette Z06 has respectable fuel-economy, you went off the rhetorical deep-end and said that "Every other car near 400 hp uses a lot more fuel" and that simply isn't the case.

    Even the 390bhp Mustang gets almost as good mileage as the Corvette Z-06. So, even though it isn't quite as good, it still proves your statement wrong because it doesn't use "a lot more fuel".
     
  19. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "I said nothing of the sort. I said: "The Corvette hasn't always been a 400bhp car""

    You're right. I was wrong. There was no need for me to bring up the older engines.
    ____

    "The problem with your statement isn't the sentiment but that you made it an absolute. Instead of saying that, for its power, the Corvette Z06 has respectable fuel-economy, you went off the rhetorical deep-end and said that "Every other car near 400 hp uses a lot more fuel" and that simply isn't the case.

    Even the 390bhp Mustang gets almost as good mileage as the Corvette Z-06. So, even though it isn't quite as good, it still proves your statement wrong because it doesn't use "a lot more fuel"."

    15% more could be considered alot more fuel, but you could say that I exaggerated. Maybe you went off the rhetorical deep end when you said "proves your statement wrong".
     
  20. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    There was no need for me to bring up the older engines.
    ---

    None of those older engines were manufactured on anything but an extremely limited basis. Ergo, the fact that only around 100 of them were ever built.

    As I said before, it wasn't as though you could go down to your local Chevy dealer and drive one home.

    Just out of curiosity, if someone had one of these L-88 cars today in good condition and was looking to sell it, what do you think it would fetch? Around $150k-$200k? What do you figure for one of the ZL-1s? Around a million?




    ---
    15% more could be considered alot more fuel
    ---

    I guess that depends on who you ask. Seriously, don't you think that Chevy's claim of 28mpg is a tad optimistic even for EPA numbers? I ask because an ordinary Corvette only gets 25mpg. How do you figure they got an extra 55bhp out of the engine and managed to get it to use less fuel at the same time?
     
  21. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    EPA estimates are typically conservative. My MR2 is EPA rated at 29 mpg highway, but I've gotten 33 on long trips, averaging about 75 mph. Z06 owners claim to get over 30 mpg on long trips. BTW, the Z06 has the same EPA ratings as the LS1 powered Vettes with the 6 speed manual transmission. They managed to get an extra 55 hp out of the engine without increasing the fuel consumption. That's not too surprising when you consider how low the specific output is.
     
  22. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    My MR2 is EPA rated at 29 mpg highway, but I've gotten 33 on long trips, averaging about 75 mph.
    ---

    Hmmm, my experience has been the exact opposite. In fact I haven't ever driven or even seen a car yet that came even close to the EPA estimate. The general rule of thumb I use is knock 10% or 10mpg off, whichever is bigger.

    That 33mpg you got, was that driving downhill? Or did you have a nice tailwind?

    Actually, just out of curiosity, does your MR2 have cruise-control? How about the Z06?

    I like the MR2 actually, the first-gen was a welcome knock-off of the Fiat X1/9 - kinda like the Mazda Miata is to the Lotus Elan. The Fiat and Lotus were brilliant cars in their way but they needed a bit more love than the average car. The second-gen MR2 with the supercharged engine (once they sorted the suspension problems) sounded like a nice bit of kit. I'd love to take one for a B-road blast. A former boss of mine used to have a MR2 turbo and it was also very nice.
     
  23. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    My MR2 is a '93 and it has a normally aspirated 2.2 and cruise control. The Z06 must have cruise control too. I'd be very surprised if it didn't.
     
  24. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    My MR2 is a '93 and it has a normally aspirated 2.2 and cruise control. The Z06 must have cruise control too. I'd be very surprised if it didn't.
    ---

    That may help explain the good mileage then. Cruise-control is much better at maintaining constant and economical cruising than people are.

    The last car I had with cruise-control was, I think, my 1987 Mazda RX-7 turbo and that was a while ago.
     
  25. The bottom line is that it was nothing short of ridiculous when you described the Z06's fuel efficiency as "embarassing" and "gas guzzler". Ofcourse the engine doesn't desserve all of the credit, but the Z06 isn't a particularly light car, and it only has tall gearing because the engine allows that kind of gearing while still having 1/4 mi times in the low 12s.
     

Share This Page