Top Gear Written Review - C6 Z06

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elegy
  • 254 comments
  • 12,347 views
Here's a challenge for you...

The Caterham CSR will do 0-60 but it's not a supercar. Why?
 
ultrabeat
Here's a challenge for you...

The Caterham CSR will do 0-60 but it's not a supercar. Why?
It tops out too soon, and it's a track day car because it was built for the track but had road plates stuck on ect rather than the other way round.
 
LeadSlead#2
it's just so dam common for people to have chevy V8's in everything they can fit them in
Because they're such crap engines, everyone wants to use them.
 
But surely in the real world, and being road legal, it has all the performance a supercar would. Unless you were to take it to a track or Autobahn. So does the Caterhams supercar status depend on where it is?
 
No, it doesn't go fast enough, point blank, if a car can hit 100mph in 2 seconds but tops out at 120, it's not a supercar. The Caterham just doesn't go fast enough. Supercars arn't about real world conditions, road driving ect. Who needs to go 252mph, where can you go 252mph on a road, you can't but the Veyron can still go 252mph, you never need to go 200mph on a road (I hope you never do) but hell, supercars can do it. It has nothing to do with how high your national speed limit is, it's the cars capabilities.
 
LeadSlead#2
it's just so dam common for people to have chevy V8's in everything they can fit them in

hemigoround.jpg

Hemi-Go-Round, anyone?
 
The original term supercar was used to describe a car with super styling, super performance and a super price tag to match. The word supercar was probably first used in the late 50's, less than 15 years after the end of the 2nd World War - a time when worldwide economics were starting to pick-up again. Cars like the 300SL gullwing reflected this new found wealth with it's fantastical style and performance, compared with the dull road cars that every other manufacturer was still producing at the time.

Many cars built these days have super styling, performance and price, no definition can entirely encompass what a supercar is today.
 
live4speed
No, it doesn't go fast enough, point blank, if a car can hit 100mph in 2 seconds but tops out at 120, it's not a supercar. The Caterham just doesn't go fast enough. Supercars arn't about real world conditions, road driving ect. Who needs to go 252mph, where can you go 252mph on a road, you can't but the Veyron can still go 252mph, you never need to go 200mph on a road (I hope you never do) but hell, supercars can do it. It has nothing to do with how high your national speed limit is, it's the cars capabilities.

The Caterham tops out at 155mph (limited only by its aerodynamics)
To be a supercar do you have to reach a certain 'top speed magic figure' - if so what is it, how often does it change, what raises the level and what happens to the 'older' supercars that no longer reach the criteria?

A winged Countach 5000QV from the late 80's would struggle to match the Caterhams 155mph top speed.
 
The worlds first supercar was the Mercedes 300SL Gullwing. A supercar must reach a certain performance criteria, it must be fast by the standards set by other cars built at that time in acceleration AND top speed. The Countach was faster than Mr Average's car in the mid-kate 80's, nowadays Mr Average can drive 150mph. Older supercars remain supercars because they were supercars at the time production ended, if Mercedes were still building the 300SL now it wouldn't be a supercar anymore, but at the time production ended it was still a supercar by the standards set in thoes years.

I will agree with your frst of the last two posts that it seems "no definition can entirely encompass what a supercar is today."
 
Kent
Suprising review there.
I was expecting more negativity. :confused: :lol:

You want negativity? Give supercars.net a check sometime. :lol: Some of the people there are forming all kinds of conspiracy theories regarding the Z06's N-Ring time.
 
I stop in at supercars.net every now and again but it's only to see what videos they are posting at their forums. :sly:

Personally, I think most of the criticisms are based on bias, plain and simple.

Every other car that achieves the performance of the vette gets high marks. 👍

Every other car that manages to maintain the everyday use value of a vette gets marked as a great value (like the NSX).

In both of those cases, the Vette the shaft from the non-american automotive community.

To them the performance isn't up to par compared to cars that are often more expensive.
And the use-ability of the car just contributes to a sense that the car isn't exotic enough.

Then of course, everyone knocks on the handling but I can't really comment on that since I've never driven a vette (none the less a C5 or C6 or even a Z06 of either :eek: ).

Oh well. :indiff:

Btw, here's a picture of a Z06 (c6 model) totally stock at the drag strip.
In the video this is pulled from the vette did a 11.7 1/4 mile. :D
 

Attachments

  • GLDc6z06 001_0001.jpg
    GLDc6z06 001_0001.jpg
    54.1 KB · Views: 6
Vettes always get dumped on handling wise, and it's nothing but crap. 1.0 G of lateral grip in 1990-95 was outstanding, yet they were always lambasted for poor handling. The truth was, they made way more power than most anything else, and too much power for the available grip, and that's why people gripe about them. And I've driven one, pretty extensively. More grip than you can shake a stick at.
 
No you have to admit, up until the C6, Vette's haven't been there with the handling. Sure they could pull 1g on a skid pan, going sideways, so can my mum's Clio when you pull the handbrake at 60mph. I don't rate skidpan tests for handling, they're far from accurate. I've been in a C5 Vette, I knew a guy that owned one, it wasn't anything special, the C6 though can hande well, which is why even us Europeans are saying, it handles well. My only criticism is the same one's I've posted in the other Vette forums, but they're not performance related one's.
 
anybody who thinks a C5 vette doesnt handle well, needs help
anyone who thinks they're sliding like crazy when pulling on the skidpad, needs help
perhaps you should read how magazine's do these tests
it's an average over two full 200ft circles...on the edge of sliding...if they tested what cars can get while sliding, well a 98 Grand Am would pull .95 G's -- guess what? it doesnt--why? because at that rate, it wouldnt come back to keep going around in a circle -- it would slide away - slowly but surely - & that's not how you test a car....also C4 & C5 vette generally pulled about .9 & .95 perspectivly...if you know somebody who tested one sliding & drifting all over the place - give them a 101 crash course on how to test a car
 
No, I don't have to admit anything. My best friend's dad had one (a C4 vette) all through high school, and he let us take it out pretty regularly. I've driven 150 MPH in that car. I've done 90 mph around 90 degree corners. No one can tell me that older vettes don't handle. I'VE DRIVEN ONE. They may not like the feel--I'll give you that. People seem to be in love with the Porsche feel. That's fine. But to say they DON'T HANDLE--that is a blatantly false statement. Have you driven one at the limits? I didn't think so.
 
skicrush
Vettes always get dumped on handling wise, and it's nothing but crap. 1.0 G of lateral grip in 1990-95 was outstanding, yet they were always lambasted for poor handling. The truth was, they made way more power than most anything else, and too much power for the available grip, and that's why people gripe about them. And I've driven one, pretty extensively. More grip than you can shake a stick at.

Since when did pulling lateral 'G's' have anything to do with handling?

Just because you can drive a car quickly around a flat skid pan in circles, doesn't mean your car handles - that's such a bollex statement.

A car's handling can only be judged by how it gives feedback to it's driver, how well it changes direction and how well it can put it's power down to the road surface.

Saying a car handles well because it can pull 1G of lateral grip, is like saying a girl is good looking because she has blue eyes.
 
So, try to take the "G" quotes as proof of what I"ve been saying, like the post above yours--the one you obviously didn't read before you posted.

ie, She's hot--36-24-34. The measurements don't make her hot, but once I've said she's hot, the measurements at least give you a clue about a part of the nature of her hotness.

You're just proving my point. Have YOU driven one? Didn't think so.
 
Small_Fryz
with a 7'4x lap time @ ring, its gotta handle nice.


Ther is a report flying around somewhere that manufacturers are now actually cheating as they have recognised that most automotive fans keep an eye on nurburgring records. They mentioned something about race set suspension and ecu. I will see if I can dig it up.

Please dont confuse this as me saying that the c6 and z06 arent up to par or that they might have cheated. I have now fully recognised that GM in the form of the new vette have done a very good job.
 
Look up the Motor Trend article on the GT, Viper, and Z06 while you're at it, and the dyno numbers for each, along with the real estimates of true hp versus rated hp.

It kills me that it is SO hard for people to believe a corvette did just slightly better than cars that weigh more and have less power. Better pwr to wght, bigger tires, and then people accuse chevy/GM of cheating. Why is it SO impossible? They actually should have done BETTER than they did, just looking at the numbers. Why is what they did so impossible?

People are just biased. And it ISN'T a two-way street.
 
The problem with the word "handling" is that no one can agree what it actually means. I think it is because it has both objective and subjective elements.

http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/2005SoloNationals-FINALresults.pdf

The preceeding link shows the final standings for the 2005 SCCA Solo II National Championships. As many of you already know, Solo II (aka Autocrossing) is a short time-trial event that focuses on low speed handling. The courses are very tight and place a premium on fast transiant response rather than laternal g's. They are also usually no faster than 60-65 mph. Most cars don't get higher than 2nd gear.

You would think a low speed venue with lots of tight turns would place a wide Corvette at a huge disadvantage. But they seem to come out just fine.

In fact, even old C4s can still tango with cars like the S2000, Boxster, M3 and 968 in B-Stock. And in Super Stock, the C5 Z06 does well enough to keep cars like the Elise and even the mighty GT3 from the first place trophy.

Objectively, anyone who thinks Corvettes, going all the way back to the C4 don't hold up well against other sports cars ---even in a race venue that takes away most of their advantages (ie high-speed acceleration/lateral grip )--- is either poorly informed or just in plain denial.

On a subjective level, you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like. I happen to personally think every Corvette I've ever driven has tremendous capability, but little desire to communicate with the driver about where the limits lie. Most of this complaint is leveled at the steering, which has almost no feel until the front tires are sliding and by then its too little, too late.

Thus, driving a Corvette fast usually involves throwing it in and hoping you've judged it correctly. It takes a leap of faith in the car, since the limits are so high. That confidence inspiring level of feedback and communication that other sports cars give you is simply not there.

Now, once the car IS sliding around, I don't remember having anything to complain about as far as chassis behavior goes. The ones that I've driven breaks grip pretty smoothly and progressively and had no bad habits other than the ones the driver brings with him. I haven't driven a C6 yet, though, so all I have to go on are the magazine reviews, which are generally very favorable.

At the end of the day, you can be as dissatisfed over the aloofness of the Corvette as you like, but there is no question the cars will stop, go and turn with the best of them.


M
 
Because most of us will never drive 99% of all the cxars we wish to drive I just put my faith in car mags and tv programs.

A 911 carrera did manage to beat a 500hp M6 by 5 secs in a road sprint albeit it being wet.
 
Alright being more then likely the only active member on GTP that has actually driven a C6 Z06 I will say this.

- The car handels very nicely and anyone who says other wise is truely an idiot. I've pushed one a little bit and I must say I was mighty impressed. If you ever get a chance to drive one you will see what I'm talking about.

- For a standard Vette lets not forget the traction control system

- The offical Ring time of the Z06 is under 8 minutes, until I see an offical GM press release saying other wise all other times will be discredited.
 
Because I don't believe a lot of magazines, they are always skewing results. I will stick with the word from GM or an independent test source that isn't a car magazines.
 
what mag said a ZO6 didnt run in less than 8 min?
I rode with my Brother driving an 02 Z06 and it screamed--every which way but up....maybe with wings....
 
I'm sure every magazine said it ran less then 8 minutes but really what is the margin of error? What is average time from all the magazines? What is the highest time? What is the lowest time? I want to know stuff like that.
 
Back