*** New Corvette Z06 ***

[///M-Spec]

So, power has nothing to do inherently with acceleration. F=MA, or F/M=A. So, acceleration is determined by the force you apply and your weight. And in cars, torque is the force you apply. hp or power takes that into account, but it certainly isn't the whole story. A car with half the torque and twice the rpm will have the same power. But one will acclerate twice as fast as the other, assuming they have the same weight.

Power is inherantly more useful than just torque, since power is derived from torque and engine speed. It is a more complete picture of how quickly something gets done. Torque alone doesn't tell you how quickly work is getting done. It tells you it can be done.

Look at it this way. Say you're stacking plywood into a pickup. You know you can exert enough force to lift 20 2x4s at once. You know you can do that work. But that doesn't tell you how quickly you can fill up the bed with 100 planks. For that you need a unit that tells you how fast you are doing the work.

You need to know how many times per minute you can 1) lift the 2x4s 2) move them up to the truck and 3) deposit them into the bed. Say this number is 2. Now that you have a unit that involves time, you can determine how quickly something gets done. How you know it takes 2 1/2 minutes.

Torque (force multiplied by distance) tells you a 3,000 lb. car can move 1320 ft.

Power (how quickly work is done) tells you a 3,000 lb. car can do it in 12.8 seconds.

Try this: calculate how quickly a 3,000 lb car can cover the 1/4 mile with JUST one peice of information about the engine: it generates 300 lb-ft of torque. Pick any set of gear ratios you like. I bet you can't. You need RPM. You need to know the rate at which the engine is spinning.

And if you know an engine makes 300 lb-ft @ 5,400 RPM, you have a more useful unit: horsepower.


M

 

[FAOLIU05]

Well, from an American standpoint, because I'm American, its a hell of a bargain over here - which gives me the right to be a "fanboy."

 

[skicrush]

Do you want to take a second guess?

Lower octane gas causes pinging (early detonation) that can tear an engine apart. Higher octane gas causes what? Late detonation? Isn't that what a spark plug is for?

Fill me in. What's the problem with higher octane gas?

 

[FAOLIU05]

This is getting stupidly technical.

 

[Famine]

Lower octane gas causes pinging (early detonation) that can tear an engine apart. Higher octane gas causes what? Late detonation? Isn't that what a spark plug is for?

Fill me in. What's the problem with higher octane gas?

Let us just remind ourselves of what you said:

Lower octane gas hinders a performance car's performance. Higher octane gas doesn't.

Are you SURE you don't want to take a second guess on that?

 

[Dave A]

No, I don't think it's wishful thinking. The C6R would spank the enzo, and IT costs less. Could Chevy build a road version for less than $100k? I don't know, but the know-how is there to build a faster car. On the SAME CHASSIS. And the C6R's suspension can't be THAT much more expensive than the Z06's. The components are usually pretty much the same--just set up differently. And power is not a problem.

I guess I just don't see what the challenge is? They have the parts. The question is, can they do it for less than $100? It sounds like they've looked at it, and they think they can.

Let me explain about the Enzo, actually I'll use thwe MC12 sine theres a competition version. The MCC is pretty damn fast on a track, yes? The MCC is actually a de-tuned MC12, theres two things about it that would make it faster than an MCC in certain areas, they are more downforce and shorter gears, if the MCC had it's ride height raised road tyres put on and a gearbox for road use it'd be slower than the MC12, the same goes for the C6R, if you gave it road tyres, a road gearbox and lifted it off the floor a bit, it wouldn't keep up with an Enzo or MC12 round a circuit.

 

[Dave A]

Well, from an American standpoint, because I'm American, its a hell of a bargain over here - which gives me the right to be a "fanboy."

I don't deny you that, I'm just making the point that in other parts of the world there are different bargains to be had that make more sence over here. It's no good saying the Vette is far better than a Tuscan S because it's cheaper, becasue thats only in America, it's the other way round in many places. As you said, it's a great bargain in the US, as far as you'd be concerned thats all that matters just like I have the right to be a TVR fanboy for a similar reason .

 

[///M-Spec]

It's getting warm in here. This is the second time I've sent PMs in two days. Please don't make me close another thread. 👎


M

 

[skicrush]

Power is inherantly more useful than just torque, since power is derived from torque and engine speed. It is a more complete picture of how quickly something gets done. Torque alone doesn't tell you how quickly work is getting done. It tells you it can be done.

Look at it this way. Say you're stacking plywood into a pickup. You know you can exert enough force to lift 20 2x4s at once. You know you can do that work. But that doesn't tell you how quickly you can fill up the bed with 100 planks. For that you need a unit that tells you how fast you are doing the work.

You need to know how many times per minute you can 1) lift the 2x4s 2) move them up to the truck and 3) deposit them into the bed. Say this number is 2. Now that you have a unit that involves time, you can determine how quickly something gets done. How you know it takes 2 1/2 minutes.

Torque (force multiplied by distance) tells you a 3,000 lb. car can move 1320 ft.

Power (how quickly work is done) tells you a 3,000 lb. car can do it in 12.8 seconds.

Try this: calculate how quickly a 3,000 lb car can cover the 1/4 mile with JUST one peice of information about the engine: it generates 300 lb-ft of torque. Pick any set of gear ratios you like. I bet you can't. You need RPM. You need to know the rate at which the engine is spinning.

And if you know an engine makes 300 lb-ft @ 5,400 RPM, you have a more useful unit: horsepower.


M

The best I've ever done is 16 2x4s, but I couldn't carry them into the house because I couldn't hold them all together.

I think we're confusing velocity and acceleration. If I lift my truck, so it's twice as high, I'm doing twice the work, and therefore have doubled my power. But I'm not stronger, so I'm not getting the boards to move any faster, and I can't lift any more boards at the same rate. I need more force to move things faster or move more at the same rate.

I dont' actually need to know the rpm. But this will look weid, since wehn you do calculations, you need to have everything converted into kg and Newtons and such. But here goes. If torque is flat, or a constant,

F/M=A: 300/3000lbs=.1
velocity = (distance) / (time)
acceleration = (velocity) / (time)
final velocity = (initial velocity) + (acceleration)(time), or IV+A*T=FV: 0+.1t=FV
distance = (1/2)(initial velocity + final velocity)(time), or .5*(IV+FV)(t)=D: .5*.1t*t=.25 miles(402.25 Meters) =.05t^2=402.25m: t^2=402/.05: t^2=8045: t=89.69, or 90 seconds (keep in mind that's without any gearing, a 1:1 drive ratio!)

 

[///M-Spec]

Whoa there chief.

You can't just take the torque at the crank and apply it directly to the car. It doesn't work that way. F does NOT equal 300 lb-ft measured at the crank shaft. Why do you think torque is multiplied by RPM, then divided by 5252?

A car with half the torque and twice the rpm will have the same power. But one will acclerate twice as fast as the other, assuming they have the same weight.

And I guess I missed that : I strongly disagree.

If two cars are identical in weight and power, they will accelerate at the same rate, provided gearing is matched to the power output of each respective engine and gearing losses are equalized.

Don't forget that gearing multiplies torque, and torque at the rear wheels is what is effectively moving the car forward.


M

 

[skicrush]

Let us just remind ourselves of what you said:



Are you SURE you don't want to take a second guess on that?

No, actually, I don't. I'm guessing you're going to tell me that higher octane gas gives you less power than whatever you were designed to run on, and I won't be surprised. But you don't run the risk of blowing your engine up, AFAIK. The vettes had to stay away from their redline by quite a ways to make sure their engine didn't blow up. I doubt the Astons had that problem at Sebring.

So, since I don't know, what is the deal?

Let me explain about the Enzo, actually I'll use thwe MC12 sine theres a competition version. The MCC is pretty damn fast on a track, yes? The MCC is actually a de-tuned MC12, theres two things about it that would make it faster than an MCC in certain areas, they are more downforce and shorter gears, if the MCC had it's ride height raised road tyres put on and a gearbox for road use it'd be slower than the MC12, the same goes for the C6R, if you gave it road tyres, a road gearbox and lifted it off the floor a bit, it wouldn't keep up with an Enzo or MC12 round a circuit.

Well, that differs from what I read about it here http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0506_mc_maserati/ Sorry, it took me while to find it. I thought the MC12 WAS the detuned version. But you are right. That is a lot to compete with. But does GM have the ability to match it? Yes, the Vettes are still turning faster laps. Can they do it for less than $100k? Again, that is the real question.

 

[Joey D]

Well since we are getting more off track I got to go out on the wet course with a normal Vette today since most of the Z06's are either road testing or in the shop...we kinda blew one up yesterday. But the normal C6 does quite well on the wet course, they were trying out different tires to see if they should switch them. But I was surprised how well the car took corners at 45 in wet conditions.

And we blew the Z06 up, basically the clutch on it from driving the living hell out of it. The clutch was completly blown up. I guess thats because they let some guy drive it that didn't really know what he was doing. Funny as hell to watch because it started making weird noises and it smelled of clutch.

Sorry for getting back on topic .

 

[Dave A]

The MCC was the fastest GTS class car by far until it got handicapped even more, the MCC is a de-tuned version of the MC12. The MC12 doesn't have the restrictors ect that are required for the race cars to meet regulations, it was the same storey with the Speed 12 only more notably so. The road car was far, far faster than the race version save for the slicks the racer had on, it also ran with upto and over 300Bhp more than the GTS racer. Put a C6R on road tyres and the MC12 will outpaceit, put an MCC on road tyres and the MC12 will outpace it. Rember too that a road version of a race car will be heavier, have less aerodyanics to stick it to the ground and have longer gears. I still don't see any Corvette coming close to the MC12 and Enzo performance wise, 600bhp or not, thats no where near enough.

 

[skicrush]

Whoa there chief.

You can't just take the torque at the crank and apply it directly to the car. It doesn't work that way. F does NOT equal 300 lb-ft measured at the crank shaft. Why do you think torque is multiplied by RPM, then divided by 5252?



And I guess I missed that : I strongly disagree.

If two cars are identical in weight and power, they will accelerate at the same rate, provided gearing is matched to the power output of each respective engine and gearing losses are equalized.

Don't forget that gearing multiplies torque, and torque at the rear wheels is what is effectively moving the car forward.


M

Without a doubt. There are tons of things I never took into consideration. In a nutshell, force times distance is work. Work over time is power. There are 2 ways to get more power from an engine. More force, or more distance (rpms). But we're WAY past acceleration. F=MA, or Acceleration = force over mass=Meter/sec^2 (a lot messier than 0-60 in x sec.). You have to get torque at the rear wheels, to take gearing into effect and get the real amount of torque reaching the road, but acceleration is all about weight and torque.

Under the new skin, much of the carbon fiber structure, suspension, and brake hardware is Enzo derived. The engine is hardened for race duty with an upgraded dry-sump oil-scavenging system and gear-driven cams in place of the Enzo's chains. The cams, pistons, and engine control system are tuned for optimum performance breathing through the mandatory 33mm intake restrictor. Ferrari's six-speed auto-clutch paddle-shifted gearbox is little changed. All race versions are painted dark Maserati blue.

And, by the way, the C6R has to breathe through restrictors, too. Besides the weight penalties and such. No sense making the car too light, since they're just gonna slap weight retrictions on it.

 

[Dave A]

Yeah, but the C6R has more than 600Bhp, if this new super Vette comes out with 600Bhp it'll be running less power than the C6R. Also the GTS and GT1 cars are lighter than what the new super Vette will be, GT1 cars are around 1100kg's, thats less than 2500lbs.

 

[Joey D]

The super vette is the Blue Devil (code name) and it will have over 600hp and weigh in at about 2900-3000 lbs. Which isn't terriable. It will be like a road worthy C6R.

 

[skicrush]

I'm not trying to debate who's GTS car would win in a drag race. I mean, we have race series to determine who's faster. The simple point I was trying to make was that the chassis of the Z06 is not so terribly inferior to the CGT's and Enzo's. And thus, I don't think it would be SO IMPOSSIBLE for GM to make a super vette that competes with the Enzo and CGT.

 

[Famine]

No, actually, I don't. I'm guessing you're going to tell me that higher octane gas gives you less power than whatever you were designed to run on, and I won't be surprised. But you don't run the risk of blowing your engine up, AFAIK. The vettes had to stay away from their redline by quite a ways to make sure their engine didn't blow up. I doubt the Astons had that problem at Sebring.

So, since I don't know, what is the deal?

Do you believe that a factory-run racing team has no clue how to advance/retard the timing on their cars in accordance with different octane fuels required?

 

[skicrush]

Do you believe that a factory-run racing team has no clue how to advance/retard the timing on their cars in accordance with different octane fuels required?

Not at all. But I can see how the dynamic changes, and how even with the timing retarded, they can't get the power they were getting off better gas. In fact, I believe the production vette has sensors that alter the timing depending on the fuel you use. But, you DO lose power. But I didn't think the opposite was true.

Can you tell me how better gas would negatively affect a car designed to run on a lower grade fuel? I didn't think that happened.

 

[Famine]

Define "better" for me.

Lower octane = Purer = More combustible = More potential power. The risk, as you point out, is that it's not always combusting in the right place (preignition - or knock. Or "ping").

Higher octane = Less pure = Less combustible = Less potential power. The benefit is that it should combust in the right place.

You should, in road cars, run the lowest octane fuel which gives you no knock/ping. Running higher octane fuel will give you no performance benefits whatsoever (although there's anecdotal evidence that it "cleans" the engine). In race cars where you get what your given the timing should be altered so that there is no preignition and this precludes the need to run at lower revs.

The Aston Martin DBR9 runs a 6 litre V12 naturally aspirated engine. The C6R runs a 7 litre V8 naturally aspirated engine. Neither of them should be adversely affected more than the other by running lower octane fuel as the engines are, relatively, similar especially given the fact that they're both factory teams - and the Chevrolet one has been running for MUCH longer (Sebring was the DBR9's first outing). Now if one was running a turbo the size of New Jersey, I could see there being potential for the situation - although still with a professional factory race team... It's implausible at best.

Now...

IF the C6R was having to run at lower revs to deal with the 93PON fuel, it suggests that they couldn't sufficiently retard the timing. That would instantly cast doubt on their engineering prowess, and the likelihood of overcoming a compromised chassis to make a road car to beat purpose built uber-cars like the Enzo and Carrera GT (both of which I hate) is slim.

IF, however, they weren't and the Aston was simply faster, this also confers some doubt that they can come up with such a car, considering that the DBR9 is basically a racing DB9 (well... not entirely).

None of this detracts from the #1 complaint in Europe about the C6. It MAY cost $42,000 (or £52,000 in the UK, thanks to oppressive car taxation), but the interior is absolutely hopeless and feels like a car half the price (or a third the price in the UK... ). One can only hope that the $100,000 version will amend that slightly, though I suspect it'll be very spartan indeed (as racing cars on the road should be).


Incidentally, where would you place the C6 Z06 against the Ford GT? I'd assume that the Blue Devil's #1 target is the Ford, judging from GM's comments.

 

[skicrush]

Define "better" for me.

Lower octane = Purer = More combustible = More potential power. The risk, as you point out, is that it's not always combusting in the right place (preignition - or knock. Or "ping").

Higher octane = Less pure = Less combustible = Less potential power. The benefit is that it should combust in the right place.

You should, in road cars, run the lowest octane fuel which gives you no knock/ping. Running higher octane fuel will give you no performance benefits whatsoever (although there's anecdotal evidence that it "cleans" the engine). In race cars where you get what your given the timing should be altered so that there is no preignition and this precludes the need to run at lower revs.

The Aston Martin DBR9 runs a 6 litre V12 naturally aspirated engine. The C6R runs a 7 litre V8 naturally aspirated engine. Neither of them should be adversely affected more than the other by running lower octane fuel as the engines are, relatively, similar especially given the fact that they're both factory teams - and the Chevrolet one has been running for MUCH longer (Sebring was the DBR9's first outing). Now if one was running a turbo the size of New Jersey, I could see there being potential for the situation - although still with a professional factory race team... It's implausible at best.

Now...

IF the C6R was having to run at lower revs to deal with the 93PON fuel, it suggests that they couldn't sufficiently retard the timing. That would instantly cast doubt on their engineering prowess, and the likelihood of overcoming a compromised chassis to make a road car to beat purpose built uber-cars like the Enzo and Carrera GT (both of which I hate) is slim.

IF, however, they weren't and the Aston was simply faster, this also confers some doubt that they can come up with such a car, considering that the DBR9 is basically a racing DB9 (well... not entirely).

None of this detracts from the #1 complaint in Europe about the C6. It MAY cost $42,000 (or £52,000 in the UK, thanks to oppressive car taxation), but the interior is absolutely hopeless and feels like a car half the price (or a third the price in the UK... ). One can only hope that the $100,000 version will amend that slightly, though I suspect it'll be very spartan indeed (as racing cars on the road should be).


Incidentally, where would you place the C6 Z06 against the Ford GT? I'd assume that the Blue Devil's #1 target is the Ford, judging from GM's comments.

Well, they didn't blow the engine, so I'm sure they sorted the timing question out. It was the burden of having to run at lower revs that hurt them. At least, that was the one specific thing someone mentioned that had heard it commented on while they watched the race (and commented on it on one of the vette forums).

I think the Z06 is aimed at the Ford GT. The Z06 has slightly better power to weight (that includes torque to weight, too), and weighs a lot less, with wider rubber, and a flat 50/50 balance, so the prevailing opinion is that it will at the very least match the Ford. Just slightly slower drag racing, and a little faster around a track. That's the theory, since there aren't any comparisons out yet. But it should run with the F430, Ford GT, 997 turbo, etc. The Ford GT is not even close to "the leading high-performance cars of the world." It's a Ferrari F360/430 competitor. A far cry from the Enzo or CGT. The idea for the Blue Devil, I believe, was to put it up there with these two uber-cars. 2900 lbs, with 600 horses? That would destroy any of the under $200k crowd. I think it is designed to compete with cars that cost at least 3 times as much. I'm guessing it will have a Ford GT quantity run, and that people will wind up paying more for it than it actually retails for, much like the Ford. But that's my decoder on what GM's plans are with this car.

 

[Famine]

I think the Z06 is aimed at the Ford GT. The Z06 has slightly better power to weight (that includes torque to weight, too), and weighs a lot less, with wider rubber, and a flat 50/50 balance, so the prevailing opinion is that it will at the very least match the Ford. Just slightly slower drag racing, and a little faster around a track. That's the theory, since there aren't any comparisons out yet.

I think you underplay the Ford a little.

3.6s to 60mph, 11.7s to the 1.4 mile, 72mph on the slalom, 100 feet 60-0 braking... Those are some fine numbers the Z06 has to beat...

Edit: And I'm glad this thread came up too...

The regular C6 was 0.4s behind the DB9, which was 0.1s behind an SRT-10 for the 0-100-0mph test. The Ford GT was 3 seconds up on the C6, so the Z06 needs to be a technological LEAP to hit the Ford GT (which was only beaten by the super-light Westfield, Caterham, Ariel Atom and a Suzuki GSX-R)...

 

[skicrush]

I think you underplay the Ford a little.

3.6s to 60mph, 11.7s to the 1.4 mile, 72mph on the slalom, 100 feet 60-0 braking... Those are some fine numbers the Z06 has to beat...

Well ,that's right in line with what GM has said, and what they've released so far. 3.7, 0-60. They're saying under 12 secs for the 1/4 mile, and you have seen the size of the brakes on that thing? HUGE, with 6 independent pads per caliper, for more even wear, besides the fact that its balance is more beneficial for braking than a MR layout. No info on the slalom yet, but the base C6 does the slalom at 70mph. Those were fine numbers, but they don't have to raise the bar too much to pass the Ford. I mean, its a rivalry, and Chevy got to see what they were doing before the Z06 came out. I'm pretty sure it will have the upper hand once they're compared.

[edit]You edited while I was replying!

You of course noticed that it was a vette CONVERTIBLE? Like I said, I think the Z06 has its bases covered.

 

[Dave A]

The super vette is the Blue Devil (code name) and it will have over 600hp and weigh in at about 2900-3000 lbs. Which isn't terriable. It will be like a road worthy C6R.

That doesn't change the fact that if you put the race cars on road tyres the Enzo and MC12 are faster than the MCC which is a faster GTS car than the C6R, unfortunately becasue it was too wide and one or two small issues with regulations it's been handicapped. 2900-3000lbs is 200+kg's heavier than the C6R, so it'll have a lower power to weight ratio than the very fast car thats already slower than the car some people are claiming it will challenge, I'm not saying it won't be quick but it's a bit ridiculous making it seem that it'll keep up with an Enzo. And Skicrush, the C6R's chassis is inferior to the Enzo's, so the CBlue Devil's will be too, like I keep saying they're a different breed of car, a different class. The Enzo and MC12 wouldn't have been out of place racing cars in classes higher than whats around now, if the old GT1 class was still around not the current pansy one used, you'd see them racing in that against almost prototypes, whatever Mercedes would be using now instead of the CLK-LM and the car the Carrera GT was originally going to be. It's a huge gulf and bit more power and less weight doesn't bridge that, you need cutting edge stuff, you need the car to be built from the first nut to the last body panel with the goal to be fastest road car on the planet for it to even compete. The Corvette isn't that car.

 

[Joey D]

The Blue Devil will have a top speed well over 200 mph so don't count it out as being one of the fastest cars on the planet. It won't be the fastest due to sheer aerodynamics. But look at this way, you can't buy an Enzo for under 100k, hell you can't buy an Enzo period. The Blue Devil will not be an elitest car (anythign elite I hate pretty much), some slightly rich guys will buy them.

The Enzo isn't in the same class though because you will never see them on the road, thats what I hate about Ferraris. Only the elite people can buy them, and you have to be selected to buy an Enzo. Chevy doesn't care who you are, they will sell anyone a vette.

 

[Dave A]

I'm not saying it wont be a great car, and very, very fast for the cash but I'm just saying to all the people that think it's going to go round a track like an Enzo, it's not, it'll be somewhere above a Murcielago and below an Enzo which is ever so slightly below an MC12 for track performance. Me I like the idea of exclusivity, but then I wouldn't pay an extra 400k for it, I'd try to temp Mr G to sell his TVR Speed 12 . Each to his own, but I agree with the whole Enzo thing being a bit too far, I'm meerley comparing track performance.

 

[Famine]

The Blue Devil will not be an elitest car (anythign elite I hate pretty much), some slightly rich guys will buy them.

That is, by definition, eliteist. In order to buy one, you'll need to have $100,000 which you can afford to spend on buying a car. If you don't have that, you can't buy one.

 

[Duke]

His point is, I believe, that you won't need to be on Chevrolet's radar as worthy before you can buy one, unlike say, Ferrari. The people who get them will be the first people who show up with $100,000, not a selected group of exclusive clientele.

IF the C6R was having to run at lower revs to deal with the 93PON fuel, it suggests that they couldn't sufficiently retard the timing. That would instantly cast doubt on their engineering prowess

Actually, not to me it wouldn't. It would suggest to me that they couldn't sufficiently retard the timing without impacting the overall power output more than reducing the revs would. Not that they don't have the engineering smarts to physically retard the timing.

 

[Famine]

*shrugs* If I had £100,000 I could go and buy a Ferrari F430, without having to be vetted by Ferrari first...

I can only think of three cars in history where owners were allocated, rather than just simply having the money - the Ferrari F50 (only people who had bought an F40 were considered), the Ferrari Enzo (only those who had owned both an F40 AND an F50 were allowed) and the Ford GT (hand-picked from 20 times as many applicants as cars).


With lower octane fuel, the car would naturally have more power but with more preignition it would have a radically reduced life - not what you want in a 12hr race. I suppose technically it had more power less often, as opposed to less power more often with higher octane fuels, but the petrol in there would yield more engine power per ml than the higher octane fuel. Limiting the revs or retarding the timing would have only two effects - lowering power and increasing engine life. If, however, you can retard the timing to such a point where there is no knock at all, but NEARLY is, you'd be in the best place of all - you'd be using the most volatile fuel most efficiently with little consequence to the engine, or you'd be getting the absolute most out of the engine/fuel.

Limiting revs would only reduce the overall power output, but you'd still be using the most volatile fuel less efficiently, so you'd have less power than if you could retard the timing to the correct point and you'd still have similar engine lifespan problems, ameliorated by the fact that you aren't using it.

If they couldn't retard the timing enough and were using limited revs as a last-ditch measure it suggests that there's a design flaw in the C6R in that it cannot efficiently use gasoline of a grade they KNEW they'd have to use. If the same 7.0 litre V8 is in the Z06 and Blue Devil, what happens when a customer puts 93PON in the tank?

(out of interest, I forget what 93PON is equivalent to in RON. Is it your highest grade pump fuel or not)

 

[skicrush]

I'm not saying it wont be a great car, and very, very fast for the cash but I'm just saying to all the people that think it's going to go round a track like an Enzo, it's not, it'll be somewhere above a Murcielago and below an Enzo which is ever so slightly below an MC12 for track performance. Me I like the idea of exclusivity, but then I wouldn't pay an extra 400k for it, I'd try to temp Mr G to sell his TVR Speed 12 . Each to his own, but I agree with the whole Enzo thing being a bit too far, I'm meerley comparing track performance.

I picked up a motor trend last night at wal-mart, and the Sagaris was in the their "top 10 cars they ought to bring here." So was the Zonda, Ariel Atom, the Elfin something (AU version of Lotus 7, aka Caterham 7, aka what else?), the Aussie Maloo UTE!, and the Ford Falcon. Anyway, didn't I ask for some more info on the TVRs?

I guess I don't see why they can't stiffen the chassis for the Blue Devil like they stiffen it for the C6R and get Enzo beating results out of it. In all honesty, we ought to stop trying to debate a car that will *probably* get built, that we have such little real info on, or whether the chassis is up to the task of beating an Enzo around a track. We'll soon have a preview when they announce the Z06 ring time, and may even get lucky enough to hear about the Blue Devil's time (and find out how much power it actually has). Until then, it can't be very productive to try to extrapolate from race cars that are evenly matched.

*shrugs* If I had £100,000 I could go and buy a Ferrari F430, without having to be vetted by Ferrari first...

I can only think of three cars in history where owners were allocated, rather than just simply having the money - the Ferrari F50 (only people who had bought an F40 were considered), the Ferrari Enzo (only those who had owned both an F40 AND an F50 were allowed) and the Ford GT (hand-picked from 20 times as many applicants as cars).


With lower octane fuel, the car would naturally have more power but with more preignition it would have a radically reduced life - not what you want in a 12hr race. I suppose technically it had more power less often, as opposed to less power more often with higher octane fuels, but the petrol in there would yield more engine power per ml than the higher octane fuel. Limiting the revs or retarding the timing would have only two effects - lowering power and increasing engine life. If, however, you can retard the timing to such a point where there is no knock at all, but NEARLY is, you'd be in the best place of all - you'd be using the most volatile fuel most efficiently with little consequence to the engine, or you'd be getting the absolute most out of the engine/fuel.

Limiting revs would only reduce the overall power output, but you'd still be using the most volatile fuel less efficiently, so you'd have less power than if you could retard the timing to the correct point and you'd still have similar engine lifespan problems, ameliorated by the fact that you aren't using it.

If they couldn't retard the timing enough and were using limited revs as a last-ditch measure it suggests that there's a design flaw in the C6R in that it cannot efficiently use gasoline of a grade they KNEW they'd have to use. If the same 7.0 litre V8 is in the Z06 and Blue Devil, what happens when a customer puts 93PON in the tank?

(out of interest, I forget what 93PON is equivalent to in RON. Is it your highest grade pump fuel or not)

Yes, 93 is the highest grade commonly available. It is the manufacturer recommended fuel for ALL sports cars, from Mustangs to Maseratis. You CAN buy 100 octane racing fuel at some gas stations (more common on the east coast, but I remember seeing it available at a place in Vegas, too), besindes being able to special order it. But 93 is the standard top grade, and the Z06 is and Blue Devil will be recommended to run on this fuel, but the engine management software will detect pinging and retard the timing if you use a lesser fuel. I got the impression that the team did not know they would be required to run on 93 instead of 100, but I can't really say for sure whether they knew in advance or not. Still, they did get the job done.