[Longtimer]

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.

 

[crimsonwake]

The Fiorano has alot less torque and I'm guessing also has a launch control system.

 

[VetteInMd]

This is wishful thinking but perhaps these numbers are pulled. You know like the first race on PINKS when he knows he's got dudes number. Those time aren't that good off of Motortrend 3 car shootout ( Zo6, Viper, mustang).
Personally sounds kind of funny to me. Zo6 time at shhotout was 11.7

 

[biturbo]

I would not pay the money they are asking for the Callaway C16 even after winning the lottery. Too much money for too little, reliability concerns, etc. Very happy with my Z06.

As for the 599, that car is on a entirely different league. Crazy $ but nice and real fast. That car works for the lottery scenario :thumbsup:
:cheers:

 

[sebrock]

The Callaway numbers seem a bit slow for something with that much HP given its weight but that 599 is probably one of the best sports cars in the world. Even though it is on the heavy side, the transmission is only 1/100th of a second slower than that of its Formula 1 cousin. In tests, the car ran similar lap times as the Enzo (which it shares an engine with)!!. I hope that Corvette stops increasing HP and torque and starts working on better transmissions and control (trac., ABS, stab.) algorithims, this will have a much better effect on performace. What is the point of 500-600RWHP if you cant get it down to the ground effectively.

 

[SCRex0472]

I hope that the Calloway is NO WAY representative of the upcoming supercharged Vette. The performance numbers are in some cases slower than the Z06, it doesn't handle any better and in my opinion the car looks like someone stole some Ferrari design cues and tacked them on to a C4. If Corvette does the supercharged Vette right it will be significantly faster than the Calloway and most likely better looking. As far as the 599 GTB is was stated properly when pointed out that the car has less torque than the Z06and launch control, hence the 3.2 to 60 and fast performance numbers. I also would like to point out their (Road and Track) performance guidelines for testing cars. Corvettes: launch slowly and no powershifting. All other sports cars: engage launch control if car is equipped press pedal all the way to the floor regardless and drive it like you stole it. Definitely Euro-centric in their slant.

 

[Longtimer]

Although the slalom and the skid numbers give us a hint at 599 handling, we don't have any circuit track numbers for the C16, so our comparative analysis must be limited to the data available as described in the first post. If you were Reeves Callaway, and you're trying to sell a $110k+ car, are you going to tune the car to sandbag its performance numbers, or slip R&T your best, finest tuned example?

So, how can a car that weighs 300-400 lbs more, has about the same HP but tq is lower by 134 lbs/ft, smaller rear tires, also front engine but with rear weight bias (how did they do this - lead bars????) out accelerate the C16? ... or lets say their were different conditions and the two tied ... or the C16 would edge it on the same Q-mile on the same day. The point is that based on the data, these two cars should not be this close in performance.

It is certainly possible that Ferrari is sandbagging their HP / tq numbers to keep them below the Enzo, but even using the Enzo's 651 HP / 485 lb-ft tq, should this be enough to overcome a 300-400 lb weight disadvantage? It shouldn't be.

To me the comparison points to traction. Certainly both cars have excellent traction control systems. Maybe the 599 tranny is a bit better than the C16's. But how much can that impact 0-60 ... and the Qmile? ... enough to offset a 300-400 lb weight disadvantage?

Speculation / wishful thinking is placing SS HP in the 625-650 range with an expected (maybe just hopeful on our part) weight target of 3,000 lbs. To me the real question is "Will it hook up? If so, what are they doing to help it out.

If you have access to this months R&T, look at their profile shadow, cut-a-ways of the C16 and the 599. Look at the location of the engine - it is not any farther towards the rear than the C16's. The C16 actually has a larger mass transaxle out back. Wheelbases are not radically different. How does Ferrari do this? Weight is supposed to be the enemy of performance, but somehow Ferrari has turned it to advantage.

 

[Roadkillz]

Although the slalom and the skid numbers give us a hint at 599 handling, we don't have any circuit track numbers for the C16, so our comparative analysis must be limited to the data available as described in the first post. If you were Reeves Callaway, and you're trying to sell a $110k+ car, are you going to tune the car to sandbag its performance numbers, or slip R&T your best, finest tuned example?

So, how can a car that weighs 300-400 lbs more, has about the same HP but tq is lower by 134 lbs/ft, smaller rear tires, also front engine but with rear weight bias (how did they do this - lead bars????) out accelerate the C16? ... or lets say their were different conditions and the two tied ... or the C16 would edge it on the same Q-mile on the same day. The point is that based on the data, these two cars should not be this close in performance.

It is certainly possible that Ferrari is sandbagging their HP / tq numbers to keep them below the Enzo, but even using the Enzo's 651 HP / 485 lb-ft tq, should this be enough to overcome a 300-400 lb weight disadvantage? It shouldn't be.

To me the comparison points to traction. Certainly both cars have excellent traction control systems. Maybe the 599 tranny is a bit better than the C16's. But how much can that impact 0-60 ... and the Qmile? ... enough to offset a 300-400 lb weight disadvantage?

Speculation / wishful thinking is placing SS HP in the 625-650 range with an expected (maybe just hopeful on our part) weight target of 3,000 lbs. To me the real question is "Will it hook up? If so, what are they doing to help it out.

If you have access to this months R&T, look at their profile shadow, cut-a-ways of the C16 and the 599. Look at the location of the engine - it is not any farther towards the rear than the C16's. The C16 actually has a larger mass transaxle out back. Wheelbases are not radically different. How does Ferrari do this? Weight is supposed to be the enemy of performance, but somehow Ferrari has turned it to advantage.

There are a lot of rear heavy front engine cars on the market now days.

SRT-10 Viper: 49/51
Honda S2000: 48/52
Ferrari 612: 45/55
Ferrari 599: 47/53

There are probably a few others but the point is that rear heavy front mid-ship cars are not out of the question and its being done. There is no reason as to why the Corvette wont be able to do the same. The C6 is already engineered to be a 50/50 split sports car and it gets pretty close to that goal.

One trick they can do is take weight off of the front end which will both reduce total weight and make it less nose heavy. They can use light weight material for the body panels and also from what Ive heard the front end parts GM uses are kinda heavy so they can make the engine even lighter. They can move the engine further back in the chassis by a inch or two which will also help.

Does anyone know how much the stock nose on the C6 weighs?

Weight is the enemy of performance, honestly the biggest reason why the 3,800 pound Ferrari has a 43/57 is because of its mass. They can put more things in the back to make it rear heavy, which honestly gives it test numbers that make it seem faster then it really is.

Ive read/watched reviews from fifth gear and from what he has stated the car isnt that good around a track. Its high mass combined with soft tuning doesnt make it the sportiest car around a track even though it can run a fat lap.

And once more you can get GM parts in your Ferrari, this time its the magnetic shocks lol.

 

[Schuyler]

Look at the trap speed for the two cars: 129.3 and 129.4 The e/t though is different by .5 sec. Obviously, traction played a big role in the acceleration of the two cars, as well as the ultra-fast shifts which easily made up a couple tenths of a second in the quarter mile. If you had these two cars start in second gear, the C16 would easily outrun the 599 GTB, but from a dead-start it is sit-and-spin.

Last year R/T tested a TT Lingenfelter Vette with 725hp/750tq, and it pulled a high 11 1/4, but its trap speed was around 138mph. Traction killed it off the line.

 

[c5_from_jc]

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.

The 599 has both Traction Control and Launch control. They described this in their launch technique of the 599. Thus, driver skill was virtually eliminated. The Callaway, on the other hand, does not have this kind of driver aid. As one poster pointed out, the trap speeds were about the same. On a surface with better traction or better drivers, I am sure the Callawat would have matched the 599 ETs. The Roots blower has so much torque off of the line that it is hard to get traction....and R&T admitted that. R&T also has some of the poorest drivers of all the car mags. I am sure Car and Driver and Motor Trend would have done MUCH better with the Callaway. R&T only gets good times with Lauch control or AWD being available.

 

[sebrock]

The 599 has both Traction Control and Launch control. They described this in their launch technique of the 599. Thus, driver skill was virtually eliminated. The Callaway, on the other hand, does not have this kind of driver aid. As one poster pointed out, the trap speeds were about the same. On a surface with better traction or better drivers, I am sure the Callawat would have matched the 599 ETs. The Roots blower has so much torque off of the line that it is hard to get traction....and R&T admitted that. R&T also has some of the poorest drivers of all the car mags. I am sure Car and Driver and Motor Trend would have done MUCH better with the Callaway. R&T only gets good times with Lauch control or AWD being available.

I always debate this in my head; which is better, a car with better numbers on paper, or a car that is easier to drive. I always think of the Z06 vs. the F430. In the hands of a skilled driver, the Z will beat the F430 on a road course but if almost any of us got in the two cars, we would run better times in the F430. Which leads me to believe that the new SS will be just for bragging rights because very few people will actually be able to drive the cars well.

 

[Schuyler]

I always debate this in my head; which is better, a car with better numbers on paper, or a car that is easier to drive. I always think of the Z06 vs. the F430. In the hands of a skilled driver, the Z will beat the F430 on a road course but if almost any of us got in the two cars, we would run better times in the F430. Which leads me to believe that the new SS will be just for bragging rights because very few people will actually be able to drive the cars well.

I would have to disagree-I think the F430 requires more skill to beat a Z06 than vice-versa. The F430 is down on power, but handles better than the Z. Anyone can mash their foot on a straightaway and pull away on an F430, but the corners are where you are going to have to make up time on the Z, and those are a lot more difficult.

 

[Longtimer]

IMO you guys are missing the point = or giving too much credit to the electronics controls. When car "one" races car "two" and car two weighs about 400lbs less, has a couple more HP and more than 130 more lb-ft tq, if the conditions and gearing are anywhere near the same ballpark wouldn't you expect car TWO to win by a considerable margin?

How much can Launch control REALLY help? We're not talking about two cars that are a match on paper. We're talking about the 599 making up the stat deficit AND out performing the C16.

AGAIN, with smaller tires (VERY sticky we're told), 400 lbs heavier and 134 lb-ft less tq. Maybe the Launch control is good for .1 sec 0-60, but it looks to me like almost all of that extra weight is sitting over the rear wheels making those smaller tires really hook up.

Lutz's latest comments about the SS stated that its torque would need to be limited to keep the tires from spinning all the time. To me, this seems to fit with what we see by comparing the 599 to the C16.

 

[sebrock]

IMO you guys are missing the point = or giving too much credit to the electronics controls. When car "one" races car "two" and car two weighs about 400lbs less, has a couple more HP and more than 130 more lb-ft tq, if the conditions and gearing are anywhere near the same ballpark wouldn't you expect car TWO to win by a considerable margin?

How much can Launch control REALLY help? We're not talking about two cars that are a match on paper. We're talking about the 599 making up the stat deficit AND out performing the C16.

AGAIN, with smaller tires (VERY sticky we're told), 400 lbs heavier and 134 lb-ft less tq. Maybe the Launch control is good for .1 sec 0-60, but it looks to me like almost all of that extra weight is sitting over the rear wheels making those smaller tires really hook up.

Lutz's latest comments about the SS stated that its torque would need to be limited to keep the tires from spinning all the time. To me, this seems to fit with what we see by comparing the 599 to the C16.

No, not missing the point. I think with bad drivers (which these two testers were because those numbers are slow for even the 599) the launch control and F1 box give you more than 0.1 sec. From my very unscientific study, most people get 0.5 to 1 sec slower than the published mag times (the ones with good drivers). So if a Z is good for 3.6 secs to 60, most guys on the street are getting 4.4 secs or more. With the new electronic controls like in the 911 or F430, the margin is dropping. I think that this Callaway is proof that sometimes money is better spent on suspension, gearing and electronics that just more HP.

 

[Longtimer]

No, not missing the point. I think with bad drivers (which these two testers were because those numbers are slow for even the 599) the launch control and F1 box give you more than 0.1 sec. From my very unscientific study, most people get 0.5 to 1 sec slower than the published mag times (the ones with good drivers). So if a Z is good for 3.6 secs to 60, most guys on the street are getting 4.4 secs or more. With the new electronic controls like in the 911 or F430, the margin is dropping. I think that this Callaway is proof that sometimes money is better spent on suspension, gearing and electronics that just more HP.

Understand your point. Not sure I completely buy into it to explain the margin we see, but I get what you're saying.

 

[c5_from_jc]

I would have to disagree-I think the F430 requires more skill to beat a Z06 than vice-versa. The F430 is down on power, but handles better than the Z. Anyone can mash their foot on a straightaway and pull away on an F430, but the corners are where you are going to have to make up time on the Z, and those are a lot more difficult.

An F430 does not handle better than a Z. I honestly don't know why you would say such a thing.

 

[c5_from_jc]

IMO you guys are missing the point = or giving too much credit to the electronics controls. When car "one" races car "two" and car two weighs about 400lbs less, has a couple more HP and more than 130 more lb-ft tq, if the conditions and gearing are anywhere near the same ballpark wouldn't you expect car TWO to win by a considerable margin?

How much can Launch control REALLY help? We're not talking about two cars that are a match on paper. We're talking about the 599 making up the stat deficit AND out performing the C16.

AGAIN, with smaller tires (VERY sticky we're told), 400 lbs heavier and 134 lb-ft less tq. Maybe the Launch control is good for .1 sec 0-60, but it looks to me like almost all of that extra weight is sitting over the rear wheels making those smaller tires really hook up.

Lutz's latest comments about the SS stated that its torque would need to be limited to keep the tires from spinning all the time. To me, this seems to fit with what we see by comparing the 599 to the C16.

I think Launch control is worth .2 to .3 seconds in those cars. The Ferrari launch control really is pretty amazing. One thing is for sure, they got the 599 to hook up, but not the Callaway.

Here is another important question I have. were these two cars tested the same day, same driver, same conditions, same time, etc? If not, then it is difficult to really compare the two results. I don't think R&T corrects their results.

 

[alexandro777]

The performance numbers are easy to explain …
They doesn’t like to abuse there car (that is what road and track say ). Sow they doesn’t power shift there car. That hurt the performance number. Now you take a car that have a paddle shift manual and have lunch control and it will go fast any why you drive it, it doesn’t mater how you test the car , because it will do the work for you. Now this is what bugs me, if power shift a manual car is abuse (that is what road and track say )then I don’t know what they call dropping the clutch at 5k on an all wheel drive car ?

 

[Longtimer]

Here is another important question I have. were these two cars tested the same day, same driver, same conditions, same time, etc? If not, then it is difficult to really compare the two results. I don't think R&T corrects their results.

R&T DID NOT do a comparo on these two. Although both of these tests were in the same issue, there was not comment indicating any proximity. I tried to make this clear in the first post.

Guess I'm the only one here that thinks that 400 lbs should cause more separation in times. Don't know why we keep pounding on GM to produce a 3,000 vette. Better to have a 3,400 lb vette with a tranny and launch system equivalent or better than that of the 599.

 

[sebrock]

An F430 does not handle better than a Z. I honestly don't know why you would say such a thing.

You are right, but only in the right hands. You take the average Z buyer and the average F430 buyer and the F430 driver will have an easier time around a road course. It is a much easier car to drive. Now put an expert driver and the Z will beat it in the corners. I say this from experience and have driven both cars on several occasions at Summit Point, Poconno and Lyme Rock.