Last post on Dec 08, 2007 at 5:35 PM
You are in the Coupes & Convertibles
What is this discussion about?
Porsche 911, Chevrolet Corvette, Ferrari F430, Lotus Exige, Lotus Elise, Coupe
#168 of 532 Re: Wanna Bet, ultimatedriver??
May 15, 2005 (6:37 am)
It's probably against Town Hall rules, but I'll give you even odds on any amount of money up to $100k (enough to buy you two Corvettes, if you win), that the factory Corvette will not beat the Ferrari 430 in a one mile straight run. If you are so sure the result will be the same as 2001, seems like you should take my offer.
Before you do, however, you might want to consider just how much more powerful the 430 is than the outgoing 360. According to Edmunds, the Corvette and 430 are within 20 lbs of each other in weight. The 430's 4.3 liter engine puts out 490 horsepower, 90 more than the Corvette's 6 liter. The Corvette does have 57 more foot lbs of torque, but, given the Ferrari's 8,500 rpm redline, it has a lot more room to wind out, before shifts. The lower torque is also easier to control off the line. I'm sure you are aware that the average Formula 1 car has less torque than the 430.
Edmund's lists the current Corvette's 0-60 time at 5.2 seconds. If that's correct, that's about 0.4 seconds behind a $50k M3 and a 4,000 lb M5. And light years behind the couple of early 430 tests I've read that were in the 3.8 second range. Even the Porsche 911 S which I am considering, at only 355 horsepower, beat the Corvette in a recent head to head acceleration test by one of the car magazines. The gobs of torque advantage that the Corvette had could not be put to the ground with nearly the efficiency and effectiveness of the rear engine 911. When it came to handling the twists and turns, the Corvette was even further behind the 911.
The Ferrari 360 was, IMO, a great car. But the 430 is leaps and bounds above it in power. My friend with a 360 has test driven a 430 and admitted the difference is astounding. If any $190k car can be considered a a good deal, the mere 10-15% more that the 430 costs than the former 360 is indeed a relative bargain.
So, take my bet if you remian confident. But be assured, I wouldn't be wagering the price of a 911S if I wasn't equally confident and had done some research to back it up. I would also accept a friendly wager of a couple of beers, if that is more appropriate to the spirit of Town Hall rules.
P.S. On a sad note, I don't think any of the top 100 executives at GM care about our debate. They are desperately trying to keep the company afloat. As Jim Cramer of CNBC's "Mad Money" said, if Kirk Kerkorian hadn't stepped in, the next call from GM would have been Dr. Kevorkian. From my business associates who know Ferrari, they claim that everyone there is passionate about one thing - building the best race cars and sports cars in the world. Their management doesn't have unfunded pension liabilities or skyrocketing employee health care costs occupying 90% of their workday. I feel somewhat sorry for the pickle GM finds itself in, but I predicted it nearly 30 years ago when I bought my first Datsun while my parents' hard earned money was being pissed away on excessive repairs and maintenance on GM products.
May 15, 2005 (12:36 pm)
I'm completely aware that the F430 would walk away from a C6 in any acceleration test. I was, however, referring to the Z06 version of that model. There's no doubt in my mind that at the end of a mile the Z06's nose will be the one poking past the Ferrari's. It may not be by much, but since we're comparing stats, let's compare stats shall we?
As far as the engines go and how they make their power, we're dealing with a 7.0 liter pushrod V8 that makes 500bhp6200rpm and 475lb-ft4800. Ferrari is packing a 4.3 liter DOHC flat crank V8 that achieves 483bhp8500rpm and 343lb-ft5250. The two employ dry sump lubrication. Both of these engines are wonderful designs that both benefit from trickled down racing technology from F1 in the case of the Ferrari, and Le Mans in the case of the ZO6.
Taking a look at the chassis of both cars gives us two different means to a common end, low weight and a high degree of stiffness. The 430 rides on an all aluminum chassis and double wishbones at all four corners. It has optional carbon ceramic brakes which, when coupled with it's outstanding weight distribution, will undoubtedly give it the edge in the braking department. The ZO6 differs from the standard coupe by having an aluminum/magnesium chassis wrapped in a carbon fiber/fiberglass body. It rides on transverse leaf springs suspended by Sachs monotube shocks (ready for the track!). The Vette houses vented brakes 14" and 13.4" front and rear, respectively.
In the tire department, the F430 houses nineteen inch wheels, 7.5" in front, and 10" out back. The ZO6 uses an identical diameter wheel/tire package that lays 10" in front and a full foot of rubber in the rear.
As far as getting down the track, I don't think the ZO6 will be that off. If the staff of Motor Trend knows anything about launching sports cars and collecting data, then the base C6 Coupe is 6/10ths off of the Prancing Horse's time through the quarter mile with 5.8 mph separating them (which is due to the difference in horsepower). I'm sure the ZO6 will improve on the base coupe's times significantly.
As a counterpoint (like we need anymore of those), torque control has absolutely nothing to do with the actual output. It's the access to that torque (read clutch smoothness) along with a suspension design that more properly controls how the torque reaches the rear wheels. Tire compound is also a factor in achieving quick, consistent times. This is what I've come to discover since I began drag racing.
I don't drink, so a beer is out of the question. However, if I happen to see you on a racetrack one of these millenia, our wager will have been settled regardless of the victor. I think that would be more appropriate to the spirit of Town Hall rules.
#170 of 532 Well, I wish you both luck ...
May 15, 2005 (1:54 pm)
I'll just keep driving my American muscle at the track and when the faster car shows up in the rear view, I'll wave them by, seems I learn a few things when I get to follow those not too much faster than I am. And, since I can afford the Corvette and would have to go beyond what I find as a value to get a $190k car, I don't think I'll ever get to experience what you are comparing. Anybody wants to run SP, LS, TH, BW, Reno-Fernley or Spring Mt., please let me know, I just might show up!
Now I just have to figure out how to rent something and set up a trip to the east or south and hit some historic tracks, a fantasy.
May 15, 2005 (3:51 pm)
You guys are trying to compare a sledgehammer to a scalpel.
The fact that GM needs 7 liters of displacement to get 500 hp is not something I find impressive and certainly wouldn't brag about. Hand Ferrari 7 liters and they would be pushing 800 horsepower. Hand Honda's S2000 engineers 7 liters and they would be at 840 horsepower. Even the new BMW M5 I am eyeballing achieves 500 horsepower in less than 5 liters.
GM's approach has remained fairly true to the muscle car approach from the 60's, wrapped in different sheet metal. To each there own. The contractor that built my house is about 6'2" and 275 lbs and absolutely loves his Corvette Z06. On the weekends, he competes in armwrestling events. My orthopedic surgeon drives a Ferrari 360. He is 6', 175 lbs and just ran the Boston Marathon in 3:15 at the age of 54.
Anyone that seriously cross shopped the Ferrari 430 with a Corvette Z06 should be medicated for bipolar disorder.
May 15, 2005 (7:23 pm)
Eh, big deal. Cars that depend on revs to achieve hp do not make good street cars. And the closer you get to F1-type performance, the more disposable a car is. Ferraris are disposable. Kiss your money goodbye and light a cigar with a flaming hundred dollar bill just to remind yourself what you are doing. You can drive a Porsche cross country and love every minute of it. Not so with the screamers.
Unless you track your car the engine should have equanimity or else itís just going to wear you out IMO. Thatís the biggest problem with the S2000. Too noisy plus itís anemic at stoplights, highway entrances and hills. Itís a gas to drive but it has the demeanor of a 2-year old child who canít sleep at 2AM. Porsches are decathletes. The new M5ówrong formula for a sedan. I think BMW is a little intoxicated on that 100-hp-per-liter thing.
I saw a 430 yesterday. The styling is disappointing and it looks cheap. I like the 360 much much better. But remember, light those stogeys with hundred-dollar bills. Oh and yes, screen your orthopedic surgeon well. You don't want him garroted to his ego with gold chains and putting in your prosthesis with a sledgehammer.
Now, I need to find my Risperdal or else I'll start talking about Corvettes.
May 15, 2005 (9:58 pm)
The fact that a pushrod engine needs displacement to achieve horsepower is nothing new. I love the small block design and the packaging benefits thereof. The only reason the added displacement is necessary is because of the remote location of the camshaft, limiting reliable engine speed.
Oh yeah, the small block turns 50 this year, if I'm not mistaken. Try to avoid down playing the fact that this represents 50 years of development. I'm not sure that I see any other engines that displace 6.0 liters or make 400bhp getting anywhere near 25+mpg on the open road.
And I happen to be very fond of my sledgehammer, thank you very much!
#174 of 532 Re: HP per liter [designman]
May 15, 2005 (10:50 pm)
I saw a 430 yesterday. The styling is disappointing and it looks cheap. I like the 360 much much better.
Intersting. I like the F430 overall, but those nostrills are just too much. They should have just used a mesh/wire something instead of all that black plastic.
To me neither the F430 or 360 Modena looked as good as the F355, especially the Spider versions with their ill-placed roll hoops.
May 16, 2005 (4:42 am)
As a former Honda S2000 owner, I am compelled to defend the car perhaps more than I should. My neighbor's Porsche that you can "drive cross country and love every minute of it." was in the shop for serious repairs at least 2-3 times a year. It also left them with the top stuck in the down position in two downpours. They had a particularly bad model year (2000), but our friends with a 2003 911 TT have not had a fualtless ownership experience either. Having had a completely hassle free experience with the S2000 is perhaps my biggest obstacle to now purchasing a 911S or Boxster S.
I also must question what a "sports car" is supposed to be. The S2000 was not a Porsche 928 GT or my former Supra TT on the highway by any means. But the S2000 was far, far more of a sports car than those behemouth by comparisons ever were. I am dangerously close to turning 50 and I recall about 30-35 years ago the MGB's, Alfa Romeos and other roadsters that were the "real" sports cars of their generation. The 2,800 lb S2000 is a luxury cruiser by comparison. I put several 300+ mile highway trips on the odometer without any ill effect on me. I don't drag race at stoplights, but I can tell you there wasn't a single on ramp on the Washingon Beltway that I couldn't negotiate and reach illegal speeds long before merging. I also put much of my 18,000 miles on the car driving the streets of Washington DC and I still have all of my fillings in place. I'm not challenging any Corvette owners to an arm wresling match, but if the S2000 is too harsh for you, you've gotten soft in your old age. Thankfully, I haven't (yet).
I do accept that there are some among us who want to be able to stomp the gas pedal and be thrown back in their seat with instantaneous torque. Some even prefer not to be bothered with a stick shift and take their so-called sports cars with automatics. Thank God it's a free country, because if that was the national definition of "sports car" I'd have to move.
P.S. Wonder what my adversaries think of the Lotus Elise?
#176 of 532 I'd love a go kart ...
May 16, 2005 (7:40 am)
The Elise looks great at the track, but at 6' 3", 195# I've been told not to even try getting into one. If I got in I may need the jaws of life to get back out. Most articles note that even at 6 foot it can be a tight fit before you consider a helmet. One of the major factors that got me into a Corvette was that I fit comfortably and I don't seem to be a poster child for the leading edge of the Baby Boom with my condition. Three volleyball leagues a week seem to keep some of the excess off.
As to the S2000, I'd love to try one for a bit. Too tight and if I remember it had the same issue as the Boxster, the bulk head behind the seat. I drove an MGB for a dozen years and the recline made it a very comfortable ride from mid-20's to late 30's, I was a little slimmer back in those days. Based just on it's track performance the S2000 and the M3 are the best of what's out there today. Of course like the Vette, they are better if some aftermarket add-ons for suspension and tires are put into the mix. 240hp S2000's are one of the few things that regularly pass me, usually on race slicks but none the less, impressive.
I think I already mentioned the visit to Sears Point when I said hi to the Ferrari driver who was swapping tires at lunch after I'd passed him in the sessions before lunch, from his street rubber to D0T-R tires. His wife then made a big deal about how fast I must have been, she seemed to be crusing for a brusing, so I didn't get much info on his ride, too bad, I was interested. Some times things just don't work out like you hope for.
Enjoy what you drive, I do!
#177 of 532 Re: Ferrari vs. Chevy?? [spiritinthesky]
May 16, 2005 (8:26 am)
Do you seriously believe that a "Ferrari 7 liter, 800 horsepower engine" or a Honda 7 liter, 840 horsepower engine would fit under the hood of a new Corvette? The entire Overhead Vs Underhead Cam thing has been explored over and over again and the "packaging factor" often gets ignored. The fact that GM can put 7 liters in a smallblock should be a engineering achievement, not ridiculed as same-old, same-old.
Some posters need to open their eyes to "today". Should I let my S2000 purchase be determined by Honda's rust-out problem from 30 years ago?