2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 @ the N-Ring

[Elegy]

The site doesn't mention anything about a limited run, but that doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't one.

Well, seeing as the Z06 costs about $65,800, I'd say that it does, indeed, have cost efficiency on its side big-time, just like all its predecessors. 👍

 

[JNasty4G63]

Well, base price for the GT3 is 88k euro, and the GT3-RS is 104k euro. That makes the RS 18% more than a standard GT3. So, here in the states, where the GT3 costs right exactly $100k, you would have a $118k RS, if it were actually sold here, which its not.

Hilg

 

[Duke]

$145,349.74 USD as of today.

Thanks for looking that up, guys. Well, there you go.

The Z06 edges out a car that is more than twice the price and all you guys can talk about is how much Porsche did with how little? Gimme a break! They certainly didn't use very little of the owner's money. Let's rephrase what people were saying above:

"The 911 GT3 RS came within a tenth of a second of beating a Corvette Z06. Well of course it did! It costs 120% more than the Z06, but it actually got a 0.02% slower lap time. This speaks less to the value of the Corvette than to what a lousy deal the Porsche is."

 

[Elegy]

104? Maybe that site was wrong...it said 120k.

 

[JNasty4G63]

104? Maybe that site was wrong...it said 120k.

Base price is 104k euro. With local taxes and tariffs, it could be 120k euro somewhere. But, the actual out of the factory price is 104k euro.

If the car was sold here, it would cost about $118k USD, not $145k like you guys are saying. Thats a big difference.

And Duke, I don't believe anyone ever said anything about either of these cars being very "cost effective" in the slightest. Either $70k or $120k, thats a lot of sheets to spend on a car. I can say the same thing about the Vette if $$$$ is something to argue. My Talon has 560hp, and cost me about $35k to build, including a $25k base car. So, my car cost half as much, and is much faster. What kind of deal is that from the Vette???

When talking sports cars or supercars, the number after the dollar sign isn't very relative to performance. More about whats gone into the car as a whole.

Hilg

 

[blargonator]

I don't know enough about Talons to give you any kind of answer as to whether or not it is. But 11 seconds is very quick. Since I guess you're the one who built it up and your the one driving it, its about your personal preferrence. But 11 secondsi s very impractical for the streets.

please there is a guy in our area with a 11 second twin turbo'ed Trans Am. it's a freakin convertible, no cage, stock safety equipment (stupid, i know), A/C, even leather seats if you don't believe me go to www.kzoorice.com sign up, and PM a member names wildstyle or just ask about him or something.

 

[Elegy]

How difficult was it to obtain the parts you needed to get your Talon up to that level, and how long did the installation take?

While the price is still quite high in and of itself, a car that comes stock with 500+ horsepower and costs less than 85k is still something else.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Not very hard at all. The DSM community has been going strong for 15 years now. The parts are easilly found. Installation isn't hard either, just like any car. I've owned the car for just over 5 years now, and it has just been a slow and steady progression.

And, if we are still talking $$$, the new M5 is going to cost about $80k. That car will have a 500hp V10 AND seat 5 people. Now, that is getting a lot for your $$$ if you ask me. Might not be a dead match for the Z06 in performance. But, in everyday situations, it would be a much easier car to deal with, if you ask me. An automatic, 4 doors, and a real trunk. Thats sweet.

Hilg

 

[neanderthal]

Thanks for looking that up, guys. Well, there you go.

The Z06 edges out a car that is more than twice the price and all you guys can talk about is how much Porsche did with how little? Gimme a break! They certainly didn't use very little of the owner's money. Let's rephrase what people were saying above:

"The 911 GT3 RS came within a tenth of a second of beating a Corvette Z06. Well of course it did! It costs 120% more than the Z06, but it actually got a 0.02% slower lap time. This speaks less to the value of the Corvette than to what a lousy deal the Porsche is."

well you could always look at it as; a car with almost exactly half the diplacement of another car came within .1 of the bigger engined car on the ring.

price is certainly relative too as the vette costs more in europe than here.

*should we factor in the strength of the euro vs the dollar?
*talk about resale vaules too?
*availability/ exclusivity (drives prices up you know)
*perhaps we can even factor in the relative manufacturing costs as one is made in (relatively) green- mildly tree hugging germany vs one made where business has the ear, nose, throat and balls of the white house.

twice the price doesnt always mean twice the performance. or even more performance quite often. it usually has to do more with brand cachet than performance. twice the engine usually means more performance. cachet or no.

or we can just compare them on thier merits; both great cars, both have blistering times on the 'ring, but one has a far more impressive time.

 

[Elegy]

And, if we are still talking $$$, the new M5 is going to cost about $80k. That car will have a 500hp V10 AND seat 5 people. Now, that is getting a lot for your $$$ if you ask me. Might not be a dead match for the Z06 in performance. But, in everyday situations, it would be a much easier car to deal with, if you ask me. An automatic, 4 doors, and a real trunk. Thats sweet.

I'll admit it, that's pretty damn good.

Though...the thing about car mods is that you can do them to any car. I'd bet it wouldn't cost too much more than what you paid to make a stock Z06 equal in power to the Blue Devil. Still, I am impressed that you were able to create such a powerhouse without emptying your pockets too severely.

 

[JNasty4G63]

.....Still, I am impressed that you were able to create such a powerhouse without emptying your pockets too severely.

HA HA, yea. All it takes is a B.F.T. with lots of boost, and a good clutch. That will get a DSM into some real nice power. How long it lasts depends on how much other stuff you fixed as well. My car pretty much has the complete package done. And, even though it runs fast 1/4 times, it was built for auto-x, so it can get around a track very nicely.

Hilg

 

[Elegy]

Now, if only I could do something like that to the family Plymouth...

 

[JNasty4G63]

Anything is possible with the right ammount of $$$$. Like the old saying goes.....

"Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go????

Hilg

 

[Elegy]

Yeah, and sadly that's the real problem, me being a dirt-poor college student (or, rather, ex-college student for the moment).

Truth be told, though, the thing's already at least partially on its way to greatness. We got the thing used, and the previous owner had done an engine swap on the thing. It's got this supercharged V6 engine in it now-dunno the exact horses, but it's fairly fast. 👍

 

[Dave A]

Because they're both sportscars. And I can admitt that teh Stradale is quick. I'm not going to say, "durr.... durr... The Corvette is a $45,000 sportscar, why wouldn't the Stradale beat it? Durr... durr..." Why compare the Z06 against a top brand name sportscar that it can't win against? How does comparing a Z06 and Stradale benefit my point? Do you know what my point is? Have you forgetten it already? Well... Thats okay. I'm not suprised.

Why would I? Again, how would comparing a C5 Z06 to an Enzo benefit my original point? So again, this statement is just more spam garabage.

first off, the age of a car is very important, the age of it's chassis more so. Technology in new sports and supercars is advancing faster now than it ever has, year by year, a car in 5 years time SHOULD beat a similar car spec wise thats 5 years older. As for the 360CS I can only conclude that it wasn't driven well at the ring since it lapped the same as the C6, when on a much shorter track, it's lapped over 4 seconds quicker. Ring times arn't the performance benchmark, people seem to think they are.

You'd be fairly surprised at the number of people who wouldn't have expected the car to turn in a time like that (mainly still believing that it can't take a corner and expecting it to lose massive amounts of time in the turns).

I didn't think it would do THATwell, I though 7'45-6 maybe, tops. But hey, it beat my estimated time by 2-3 seonds 👍.

Still, I don't think that the Corvette deserves to be shoved out of the spotlight by the GT3, regardless of the small margin of victory.

No it doesn't, the Z06 did good. But at the same time the GT3 shouldn't be suddenly classed as inferior either, it's in a lower perfomance bracket technically, yet it competes with what it does including the Z06. You're completely right that it shouldn't be used to discredit the Vette, but the Vette shoul;dn't e used to put down the GT3 either. Thats why anyone that says Yay the Vette beat the GT3, suck on that will get a woohoo, it beat a smaller engined, less powerful car by..... ect. It's not a hate on the Vette thing, it's a defend the GT3 thing just like some people have set their hearts on defending the Vette. It's ironic that these people will complain the it's just Vette bashing while there bashing the cars the Vette beat.

Let's put it this way - what does a 911 GT3 Rs cost? What does a C6 Z06 cost? Then we can really talk about doing a lot with a little.

In the US I will happily hand victory to the Vette on that, over here the Z06 will cost a lot more. A standard C6 is £50k which is around $90k, so imagine the Z06's price, it won't be that different over here. In the US though the C6 Vette is a bargain, no doubt about that and I'd never say otherwise.

I don't believe all of them are. Definately not McLaren and JNasty.

And me , .

"The 911 GT3 RS came within a tenth of a second of beating a Corvette Z06. Well of course it did! It costs 120% more than the Z06, but it actually got a 0.02% slower lap time. This speaks less to the value of the Corvette than to what a lousy deal the Porsche is."

Again, this is from an American point of View, here in Europe the difference won't be that great. Again, in the US the Vette is a steal, but looking at it from our point of view you might start to see why we don't consider the Vette a performance bargain.

 

[FAOLIU05]

first off, the age of a car is very important, the age of it's chassis more so. Technology in new sports and supercars is advancing faster now than it ever has, year by year, a car in 5 years time SHOULD beat a similar car spec wise thats 5 years older. As for the 360CS I can only conclude that it wasn't driven well at the ring since it lapped the same as the C6, when on a much shorter track, it's lapped over 4 seconds quicker. Ring times arn't the performance benchmark, people seem to think they are.

If we're talking about the 2004 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and a gap of 5 years, in comparison to that 360 Modena, than there isn't much to talk about. Technology wise, the only advancement between the Corvette and Modena would be minor luxury tweaks to get that extra mile per gallon, or perhaps changes in interior to better suit the consumer. Performance wise, there is not difference, so don't give me that crap.

If you're looking at Nurburgring times for averages, rather than how far a car can be pushed to get the best time possible, than yes, N-ring times are credible.

The SLR factory test registered a 7'52. For the average sportscar driver, thats probably the time you'll be getting.

But when Ludwing to out the SLR, he got 7'40 by pushing the car further because he has those kinds of skills. That doesn't mean I can get an SLR to do a 7'40.

Just like the Corvette Z06 and C6. Dave Hill probably pushed that little Vette hard to get a 7'56. But I bet the C6 would average over 8 minutes. Same with the 2004 Z06.

 

[JNasty4G63]

I believe what he's trying to say is, the time a car does around the 'Ring is a nice stat. But, its hardly the "Be All End All" stat we should look at. The only way to really compare cars is head to head, same track, same day, same driver. That way, you take every variable out of the equation except the cars ability. That will show you which car is better. A time around the 'Ring is good for a base idea of what a car will do, but its not the ONLY stat we should use.

Hilg

 

[Dave A]

That is exactley what I'm saying, if anyone took notice of my posts they'd know that since they'd also know that I use Ring times myself from time to time, but not enough cars have been tested there, and theres too many variables on a track that long thats also open to the public to make the times anything close to definitive. For instance car a may beat car b's lap time, but car b may have only had 2 laps and both were in heavy traffic, car a may have done 11 laps and low traffic, on a closed circuit car b might be faster, maybe even notably so.

 

[ExigeEvan]

If we're talking about the 2004 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and a gap of 5 years, in comparison to that 360 Modena, than there isn't much to talk about. Technology wise, the only advancement between the Corvette and Modena would be minor luxury tweaks to get that extra mile per gallon, or perhaps changes in interior to better suit the consumer. Performance wise, there is not difference, so don't give me that crap.

You just shot yourself in the foot, and Duke's foot aswell.

You're telling me that in 5 years a 'vette has made no technological advancements over a Ferrari? Geez....

 

[FAOLIU05]

As far as I know, there hasn't been any actual technologic developments for performance based parts between the 2004 Z06 and 1999 Modena. And its ridiculous to think so. What the hell are you buying for $150,000? I didn't shoot anyone in the foot. It doesn't take rocket science to know that both cars have about the same track performance technology. The Z06 was just pushed a little harder to get around the track quicker, thats all.

 

[Dave A]

That's pretty crap then, you're telling me the Vette uses technology dumped by the big names over 5 years ago. I wouldn't want a car that uses cheap 5 year old + technology.

BTW I don't mean that, I'm making a point. One minuet you're talking about it's ties to the C6R, which I thnik you'll agree is pretty cutting edge technology. The next you're saying it uses 5 year old technology. Make a decision mate, it's modern or it's not. If you're going to maintain it's not don't ***** when someone comes in and says it's just old dated technology when right there you've agreed.

 

[FAOLIU05]

That's pretty crap then, you're telling me the Vette uses technology dumped by the big names over 5 years ago. I wouldn't want a car that uses cheap 5 year old + technology.

BTW I don't mean that, I'm making a point. One minuet you're talking about it's ties to the C6R, which I thnik you'll agree is pretty cutting edge technology. The next you're saying it uses 5 year old technology. Make a decision mate, it's modern or it's not. If you're going to maintain it's not don't ***** when someone comes in and says it's just old dated technology when right there you've agreed.

When I'm talking about the 2004 Z06, than I mean that there was hardly any technological difference between either car, from a track performance stand point.

We all know that when you buy a $150,000 - $200,000 sportscar from the ultimate sportscar manufactuerer (which I'm sure you're going to disagree with that description also...), Ferrari, you're going to get the cutting edge in tuning, technology, and performance parts wrapped up a hand-built exoctic sportscar. And seeing how Ferrari is the leading name in performance, or is a performance icon in the least, they'll have the best/top performance advances. Now compare that to the $50,000 2004 Corvette Z06, a car that isn't exactly hand-built, nor produced by a leading brand in performance.

BTW:
Not that many significant performance advances have taken place between '99 and '05, and thats not just between the '99 360 and '04 Z06, but between all sportscars.

For example... The Viper. Essentially it's been the same since 1992.

 

[Dave A]

You see, I didn't dissagree with that, but when I'm talking about years and car enerations I've been talking about the current Z06, not the 04 model. The 360 was more advanced than the 04 Z06 sure, but you can't compare it to the new Z06. Besides that, other than the ring times, I don't know of any times that both have competed on so we still can't say which is faster for sure. Looking at the differences between the 360 and the F430, the different spec GT3's and the old Z06 and the new one, I'd say theres been a pretty nice increase in perfomance. Even TVR have upped the ante notably in track performance, not that they were slow before but they can kill other cars now.

 

[FAOLIU05]

Oh I see. I think there must've been some misunderstanding here. I wasn't trying to compare the '06 Z06 with the '99 360. Just the '05 C6 and '04 Z06 (because they're basically the same car) to prove the Corvette has been a competitior before the '06 Z06.

 

[ExigeEvan]

When I'm talking about the 2004 Z06, than I mean that there was hardly any technological difference between either car, from a track performance stand point.

We all know that when you buy a $150,000 - $200,000 sportscar from the ultimate sportscar manufactuerer (which I'm sure you're going to disagree with that description also...), Ferrari, you're going to get the cutting edge in tuning, technology, and performance parts wrapped up a hand-built exoctic sportscar. And seeing how Ferrari is the leading name in performance, or is a performance icon in the least, they'll have the best/top performance advances. Now compare that to the $50,000 2004 Corvette Z06, a car that isn't exactly hand-built, nor produced by a leading brand in performance.

BTW:
Not that many significant performance advances have taken place between '99 and '05, and thats not just between the '99 360 and '04 Z06, but between all sportscars.

For example... The Viper. Essentially it's been the same since 1992.

Strange Lotus manage it.
They have a 'glued together' chassis and a base chassis that can be used for a variety of models. 2 seater, 4 door even word of 4x4 possibilities.

All without GMs budget. Protons budget yes, but I doubt that is on par with GM.

 

[Duke]

Strange Lotus manage it.
They have a 'glued together' chassis and a base chassis that can be used for a variety of models. 2 seater, 4 door even word of 4x4 possibilities.

All without GMs budget. Protons budget yes, but I doubt that is on par with GM.

Not to take anything away from Lotus, but to compare a Lotus to a Chevrolet, of any stripe at all, is ludicrous (that's how it's spelled, by the way).

There are quite a number of technologies you can design around when your production output is in the thousands per year, not thousands per month. No matter what the price point of the car.

And that's leaving out the life expectancy of the car. A 2006 'Vette could get driven for 20 years and 250,000 miles with minimal maintenance.

 

[Dave A]

So could a lot of modern cars. Mind you, most of thoes are family cars but to get 250k miles on a Z06 you'd have to not push it, you're engine life is greatly reduced no matter what the car when you push it regularly. I doubt I'd ever own a car ong enough to do close to that number of miles though so it doesn't make much difference with me, someone who would buy it used might though ,ight look at that and note it as a plus point.

 

[Elegy]

For example... The Viper. Essentially it's been the same since 1992.

Not really. Bigger and better engine, superior brakes, better suspension...basically a lot of improvements across the board. At least, since all the way back in '92.

 

[JCE]

Base price is 104k euro. With local taxes and tariffs, it could be 120k euro somewhere. But, the actual out of the factory price is 104k euro.

If the car was sold here, it would cost about $118k USD, not $145k like you guys are saying. Thats a big difference.

And Duke, I don't believe anyone ever said anything about either of these cars being very "cost effective" in the slightest. Either $70k or $120k, thats a lot of sheets to spend on a car. I can say the same thing about the Vette if $$$$ is something to argue. My Talon has 560hp, and cost me about $35k to build, including a $25k base car. So, my car cost half as much, and is much faster. What kind of deal is that from the Vette???

When talking sports cars or supercars, the number after the dollar sign isn't very relative to performance. More about whats gone into the car as a whole.

Hilg

104,000.00 EUR = $125,061.25 USD as of today.

And about resale value here in the USA. Over here a Ferrari will cost you over $100k for about a decade or more where as the Vette will drop below $20k in about 5-6 years with the Z06 dropping below $20k in the same decade...so you get a faster car for a hell of alot less money. If you buy the car for the name or status then you have mental issues to think about. I'd obviously choose the cheaper Vette. Anyone who buys a Ferrari or Lamborghini used deserves to lose thier money down the crapper. The only modern car over $100k worth a **** is an Aston in my opinion. Hell, I'd choose a DB9 over just about any of the $100k+ car club with the only exception being either the Ford GT or Zonda.

 

[JNasty4G63]

104,000.00 EUR = $125,061.25 USD as of today.

Right, but we don't have a GT3-RS here in the States, so you can't just convert Euro to $$$. So, I just did some price comparisons with the standard GT3, which we do have, to get the price. The RS goes for basically 18% more than a standard GT3. And here in the states, a GT3 cost exactly $100k. So IF the GT3-RS was sold here in the US, it would be about $118k, give or take. Either way, thats a big difference than the $145k some people were quoting.

Hilg