Joined
·
10,197 Posts
Even in today's world of unprecedented internet information availability, Car rags have their purposes. They test cars that have EXTREMELY low production numbers and give us glimpses of what we could drive if one of us won a lottery. Yes, sometimes we take exception to some of the reported performance data and sometimes we get upset about printed subjective comments. Regardless, I think the "good" out ways the bad.
This month's Road & Track has a couple of road tests that I found thought provoking.
The new Callaway C16 (Nemo to Patrick) has a maggie on an LS2 with reworked heads and other tweaks that add to 616 HP / 582 lb-ft tq. However, C16-ing the vette added about 200 lbs to the C6's curb weight. R&T says that the weight is 1860 up front and 1715 out back (52% F / 48%).
0-60 = 3.8 Qtr = 11.7 @ 129.4 Lateral accel = .95g Slalom = 69.0
One's (this one) first response was, "Yeah that's with all that extra fiberglass, not carbon fiber like we think the SS will have extensively." However, keep reading that R&T issue and there's a review of the V-12 powered 599GTB Fiorano F1. This power plant makes the scene at 611 HP / 448 lb-ft tq and weighs in at a whopping 3,865 lbs. Somehow, Maranello has managed to distribute this seeming handicapped front engine chassis 47% front and 53% rear. So what?? This results in the following stats:
0-60 = 3.2 Qtr = 11.2 @ 129.3 Lateral accel = 97g Slalom = 71.2
????????????? Lets toss out the Who-is-faster-than-the-other issue, and focus only on the relationship of the numbers. They certainly have me scratching my head. I'm now having second thoughts about focusing on weight reduction at all costs as opposed to proper weight management.
I can't wait to see how Wallace's team addresses the traction challenges. Oh, by the way, the Ferrari was running 305/35s out back and the C16 was running 325/25s. Curiouser and curiouser.
This month's Road & Track has a couple of road tests that I found thought provoking.
The new Callaway C16 (Nemo to Patrick) has a maggie on an LS2 with reworked heads and other tweaks that add to 616 HP / 582 lb-ft tq. However, C16-ing the vette added about 200 lbs to the C6's curb weight. R&T says that the weight is 1860 up front and 1715 out back (52% F / 48%).
0-60 = 3.8 Qtr = 11.7 @ 129.4 Lateral accel = .95g Slalom = 69.0
One's (this one) first response was, "Yeah that's with all that extra fiberglass, not carbon fiber like we think the SS will have extensively." However, keep reading that R&T issue and there's a review of the V-12 powered 599GTB Fiorano F1. This power plant makes the scene at 611 HP / 448 lb-ft tq and weighs in at a whopping 3,865 lbs. Somehow, Maranello has managed to distribute this seeming handicapped front engine chassis 47% front and 53% rear. So what?? This results in the following stats:
0-60 = 3.2 Qtr = 11.2 @ 129.3 Lateral accel = 97g Slalom = 71.2
????????????? Lets toss out the Who-is-faster-than-the-other issue, and focus only on the relationship of the numbers. They certainly have me scratching my head. I'm now having second thoughts about focusing on weight reduction at all costs as opposed to proper weight management.
I can't wait to see how Wallace's team addresses the traction challenges. Oh, by the way, the Ferrari was running 305/35s out back and the C16 was running 325/25s. Curiouser and curiouser.