RE: Driven: Corvette ZR-1

[Dagnut]

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

So what is your criteria for measuring supercar status? If its mid engined layout does that make an MR2 a supercar..you don't consider an SLR or a DBS or a 599 a supercar?
Its about performance.

[tvrolet]

Another ex-renter of the Hertz 'vette. Did a lot of miles in the car and it truly is an astonishing piece of kit. I imagine the ZR-1 is a further step ahead too. I really couldn't fault it in performance or handling, and the brakes are seriously impressive too. I think I've driven every recent TVR bar a Sagaris, and the Vette is light years ahead in every department I'm sorry to say, since I love TVRs. It handles very well indeed; we drove it hard through some real tortuous routes and it never got flustered (or creaked, or groaned, or bumped or thumped); and bear in mind my 'handling benchmark' is the TVRolet - so a fully rose jointed chassis, Penske remote resevoir shocks and sticky rubber (slicks on track)...but the 'Vette left me gobsmacked for a road car that was compliant over potholes and ruts. I also found it a better GT/tourer than my Masser too; more comfortable, more relaxed, more economical and loads more accessible power on tap. And that was just a run-of-the-mill rental car with high miles!

[AndrewD]

97BlackC5 said:

When the C5-R raced the Fezza 550's at le Man it was the Fezza that was quickest in a straight line & the Vette that could handle the corners!

Road car <> race car

But I'm looking forward to driving the ZHZ vette in a week or so

[YAHOO]

GTRene said:

nice car ofcorse, but still a very dull interior...



nothing special or racy, but the rest is good work.
GTRene

Dull interior ? no worse than the Lambo and better than the Porky interior ( but better plastics would help)
And to be honest i would take this on a track before neary anything else including my 430.
But each to their own

[300bhp/ton]

GTRene said:

nice car ofcorse, but still a very dull interior...



nothing special or racy, but the rest is good work.
GTRene

But its about the money. Hell if you wanted to buy the Vette and take it to a custom shop and spend another £50,000-70,000 I'm sure you can have your nice interior too.

Come on, what is it with you guys that want everything for nothing??? I'm truly lost at where you get off??

Would you rather they made a fantastic interior, charged £150,000 for the car and kept it with the standard engine?

And without wishing to be picky, does this really look many thousands of pounds better?

[130R]

Great car but I would still rather have the normally aspirated Z06.

[forzaminardi]

300bhp/ton said:

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

The only thing with this view, is what before the Miura would you consider a supercar? And what exacly are are all these other cars with the engines in different places; Ferrari 599, Aston Vanquish, McLaren SLR and so on.

The Miura is often recognised as being the first 'Supercar', though - that's the point. And the F599, Vanquish, SLR etc. are GT type cars as opposed to super. As I said, 'super' in their own way, but not 'supercars'. To me, a supercar should be mid-engined, hideously expensive, powerful and be OTT in some way, be it in terms of performance, looks, or character. Just my 2p.

[forzaminardi]

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

So what is your criteria for measuring supercar status? If its mid engined layout does that make an MR2 a supercar..you don't consider an SLR or a DBS or a 599 a supercar?
Its about performance.

Didn't see this in my previous reply. No, an MR2, or even an Elise and argualbly even in its day something like an NSX isn't a supercar in my book, because neither have the power or sense out outrageousness I implied before as being necessary. To my mind an SLR or a DBS or a 599 isn't a supercar, no. I'm not saying they're not good, or that I'd not want one, or that they're not equitable in terms of price or performance or whatever, but to me its like comparing say a hot hatch with a coupe - arguably similar in terms of performance, or basic components, but still different simply because one's a coupe and the other's a hot hatch.

[anonymous-user]

forzaminardi said:

MR2, or even an Elise and arguably even in its day something like an NSX isn't a supercar in my book, because neither have the power or sense out outrageousness necessary.

Very good points. NSX always seemed a "so close but not quite car". As a former Esprit owner I really wanted to fall in love the NSX but never quite managed it, principally down to the lack of "outrageousness".

Corvette ZR1 easily passes the first leg of your test in the power department. styling of the lates models is hardly "outrageous" though.

As an additional point, I suspect the expensive version of a lesser car can never qualify as a true supercar. A supercar either ticks the boxes first time out or can never get there. See also; Porsche 911.

[Dagnut]

forzaminardi said:

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

So what is your criteria for measuring supercar status? If its mid engined layout does that make an MR2 a supercar..you don't consider an SLR or a DBS or a 599 a supercar?
Its about performance.

Didn't see this in my previous reply. No, an MR2, or even an Elise and argualbly even in its day something like an NSX isn't a supercar in my book, because neither have the power or sense out outrageousness I implied before as being necessary. To my mind an SLR or a DBS or a 599 isn't a supercar, no. I'm not saying they're not good, or that I'd not want one, or that they're not equitable in terms of price or performance or whatever, but to me its like comparing say a hot hatch with a coupe - arguably similar in terms of performance, or basic components, but still different simply because one's a coupe and the other's a hot hatch.

Again what's your criteria? There are very few "outrageous" cars around these days in terms of styling, for me anyway "super" is not defined in terms of apperance..I don't see how an R8 can be labeled a super car and a zr1 isn't..a ZR1 will scare the bejesus out of your passenger and destroy an R8 hands down. I don't see how an f430 can be a super car and the long bonnet Ferrari's are not..makes no sense to me.

[forzaminardi]

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

So what is your criteria for measuring supercar status? If its mid engined layout does that make an MR2 a supercar..you don't consider an SLR or a DBS or a 599 a supercar?
Its about performance.

Didn't see this in my previous reply. No, an MR2, or even an Elise and argualbly even in its day something like an NSX isn't a supercar in my book, because neither have the power or sense out outrageousness I implied before as being necessary. To my mind an SLR or a DBS or a 599 isn't a supercar, no. I'm not saying they're not good, or that I'd not want one, or that they're not equitable in terms of price or performance or whatever, but to me its like comparing say a hot hatch with a coupe - arguably similar in terms of performance, or basic components, but still different simply because one's a coupe and the other's a hot hatch.

Again what's your criteria? There are very few "outrageous" cars around these days in terms of styling, for me anyway "super" is not defined in terms of apperance..I don't see how an R8 can be labeled a super car and a zr1 isn't..a ZR1 will scare the bejesus out of your passenger and destroy an R8 hands down. I don't see how an f430 can be a super car and the long bonnet Ferrari's are not..makes no sense to me.

With respect, Dagnut, you're just not getting it. OK, next to a Diablo or a Countach, a Murcialago doesn't look as mental, but its still a pretty exotic, distinctive, intimidating and unique-looking machine. I'm not saying a ZR1 isn't a great car, it's just not a supercar in my book.

The term 'supercar' to me doesn't necessarily imply "this car has to be better than any other car", it simply describes a group of cars which are defined by among other things, their appearance, engine location and character. For the record, I'd not put an R8 or a F430 into the 'supercar' category either, or for that matter a Gallardo. In some ways they each come close, but another of the factors which makes a 'supercar' a 'supercar' is the sense that it ought to be rare, and the top model of that manufacturer's tree - so we're talking Enzo, Murcialago, Koniggsegg, Zonda, Carrera GT, that kind of thing. Even here in sunny Scotland, a F430 or a R8 or a Gallardo isn't an especially unusual sight.

[Dagnut]

forzaminardi said:

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

So what is your criteria for measuring supercar status? If its mid engined layout does that make an MR2 a supercar..you don't consider an SLR or a DBS or a 599 a supercar?
Its about performance.

Didn't see this in my previous reply. No, an MR2, or even an Elise and argualbly even in its day something like an NSX isn't a supercar in my book, because neither have the power or sense out outrageousness I implied before as being necessary. To my mind an SLR or a DBS or a 599 isn't a supercar, no. I'm not saying they're not good, or that I'd not want one, or that they're not equitable in terms of price or performance or whatever, but to me its like comparing say a hot hatch with a coupe - arguably similar in terms of performance, or basic components, but still different simply because one's a coupe and the other's a hot hatch.

Again what's your criteria? There are very few "outrageous" cars around these days in terms of styling, for me anyway "super" is not defined in terms of apperance..I don't see how an R8 can be labeled a super car and a zr1 isn't..a ZR1 will scare the bejesus out of your passenger and destroy an R8 hands down. I don't see how an f430 can be a super car and the long bonnet Ferrari's are not..makes no sense to me.

With respect, Dagnut, you're just not getting it. OK, next to a Diablo or a Countach, a Murcialago doesn't look as mental, but its still a pretty exotic, distinctive, intimidating and unique-looking machine. I'm not saying a ZR1 isn't a great car, it's just not a supercar in my book.

The term 'supercar' to me doesn't necessarily imply "this car has to be better than any other car", it simply describes a group of cars which are defined by among other things, their appearance, engine location and character. For the record, I'd not put an R8 or a F430 into the 'supercar' category either, or for that matter a Gallardo. In some ways they each come close, but another of the factors which makes a 'supercar' a 'supercar' is the sense that it ought to be rare, and the top model of that manufacturer's tree - so we're talking Enzo, Murcialago, Koniggsegg, Zonda, Carrera GT, that kind of thing. Even here in sunny Scotland, a F430 or a R8 or a Gallardo isn't an especially unusual sight.

Thats fair enough..but how you don't consider the 599..which is top of the tree for ferrari..and the SLR which is top of the tree for Mercedes..and same applies to the ZR1 top of the tree for GM..the carrera gt and enzo are no longer available..So from your list Konigsegg, Zonda, Muricalago are supercars.
Ferrari make supercars IMO..They are the definitive supercar maker..so using your criteria in the last 20 years the have made only made 3 supercars F60, F50 and F40. High standards indeed.

[traffman]

Id have a second hand one as they represent vfm as someone earlier said.

I really like the colour of that one , very understated and good looking.

[forzaminardi]

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

Dagnut said:

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

So what is your criteria for measuring supercar status? If its mid engined layout does that make an MR2 a supercar..you don't consider an SLR or a DBS or a 599 a supercar?
Its about performance.

Didn't see this in my previous reply. No, an MR2, or even an Elise and argualbly even in its day something like an NSX isn't a supercar in my book, because neither have the power or sense out outrageousness I implied before as being necessary. To my mind an SLR or a DBS or a 599 isn't a supercar, no. I'm not saying they're not good, or that I'd not want one, or that they're not equitable in terms of price or performance or whatever, but to me its like comparing say a hot hatch with a coupe - arguably similar in terms of performance, or basic components, but still different simply because one's a coupe and the other's a hot hatch.

Again what's your criteria? There are very few "outrageous" cars around these days in terms of styling, for me anyway "super" is not defined in terms of apperance..I don't see how an R8 can be labeled a super car and a zr1 isn't..a ZR1 will scare the bejesus out of your passenger and destroy an R8 hands down. I don't see how an f430 can be a super car and the long bonnet Ferrari's are not..makes no sense to me.

With respect, Dagnut, you're just not getting it. OK, next to a Diablo or a Countach, a Murcialago doesn't look as mental, but its still a pretty exotic, distinctive, intimidating and unique-looking machine. I'm not saying a ZR1 isn't a great car, it's just not a supercar in my book.

The term 'supercar' to me doesn't necessarily imply "this car has to be better than any other car", it simply describes a group of cars which are defined by among other things, their appearance, engine location and character. For the record, I'd not put an R8 or a F430 into the 'supercar' category either, or for that matter a Gallardo. In some ways they each come close, but another of the factors which makes a 'supercar' a 'supercar' is the sense that it ought to be rare, and the top model of that manufacturer's tree - so we're talking Enzo, Murcialago, Koniggsegg, Zonda, Carrera GT, that kind of thing. Even here in sunny Scotland, a F430 or a R8 or a Gallardo isn't an especially unusual sight.

Thats fair enough..but how you don't consider the 599..which is top of the tree for ferrari..and the SLR which is top of the tree for Mercedes..and same applies to the ZR1 top of the tree for GM..the carrera gt and enzo are no longer available..So from your list Konigsegg, Zonda, Muricalago are supercars.
Ferrari make supercars IMO..They are the definitive supercar maker..so using your criteria in the last 20 years the have made only made 3 supercars F60, F50 and F40. High standards indeed.

For goodness sake, a blooming Phaeton is top of VW's tree, but that doesn't make it a supercar, does it, or VW a supercar maker? You're focusing on one thing I mentioned while ignoring the other things - to me, to qualify as a supercar, it has to tick all of several boxes. If you really want to get bored to tears I'll try to put together a definitive list of "Things Which Make a Supercar in My Humble Opinion" and we may debate the point in more detail.

And just because Enzo aren't made anymore doesn't make existing Enzos less of a supercar, does it? If you drove a Countach you could quite legitimately say "yeah, just parked the supercar round the corner". To my mind Ferrari aren't "the definitive supercar makers", however they are arguably "the definitive high performance car makers"; some are sportscars, some are GTs and some are supercars. So be it if the only supercars they have made in the past 30-odd years are the Enzo, F50 and F40 - their rarity and exclusivity within the contemporary range are (partly) what makes them supercars!

If anyone is the "definitive supercar maker", then it must be Lamborghini. They made the Miura, regarded by many as the first 'supercar' and the successive generations of Countach, Diablo and Mucie have carried on that lineage.

Edited by forzaminardi on Monday 31st August 18:17

[vz-r_dave]

laurieh said:

To interject where I'm neither wanted nor appreciated, Dagnut mate you're just disagreeing with forzaminardi for the sake of it now. He's trying to explain what he means and to give the poor guy credit, he's done it extremely well. For you to even stipulate the 599 as a supercar when practically every automotive journalist on the planet cites it as a GT comes across as a tad ignorant. But you could just have always loved the 599 and what it stands for, (not least the price), so in your mind it is a supercar.

One thing I will say, and I would hate to be just another middle of the road Clarkson quoter with this one, lets not forget the term 'hypercar' (forgive me if it wasn't Clarkson who coined it). Here, forzaminardi, I think the Zondas and the Koenigseggs fit in, as well as the Enzo, the Mazza MC12 and indeed the Veyron. We all 'know' what we 'think' qualifies as a super/hyper/supercalifragilistic car, but essentially there is no right and wrong; its personal choice. Until the day comes where we can afford such a car, is arguing like this really going to get us anything other than sore fingers?

As I rather unwantedly involved myself in your debate, I might as well throw in what I think qualifies as a supercar... Anything from Lamborghini and Ferrari that hasn't been specifically made to fit another purpose (e.g. the 599 as a GT or the LM002), and the 'high' end Porsches: CGT, 911 Turbo, GT2, GT3(RS). The R8 is not a supercar. As for the ember to this inferno, the 'Vette; not a supercar. A highly strung American muscle car given supercar credentials through a long time in development and advancing technologies yes, but not a supercar.

You may now flog and shame me.

Edited by laurieh on Monday 31st August 18:59

Not a supercar but faster then one. In my books the SLR is a super car, just as the Vette is.

[laurieh]

Knew I'd forgotten something, the SLR is definitely a supercar because it bears the Mclaren name. Incidentally I forgot to add the F1 to the hypercar list. Speed is so last year

[300bhp/ton]

forzaminardi said:

300bhp/ton said:

forzaminardi said:

The point is that I don't really think the Corvette, or any of the cars pictured above, are supercars. They may well be super cars, but not supercars. There's no hard and fast rule, but I tend to think a 'supercar' should have a mid-engine. Doesn't really matter in my opinion, its still one of my favourite cars whatever you want to call it.

The only thing with this view, is what before the Miura would you consider a supercar? And what exacly are are all these other cars with the engines in different places; Ferrari 599, Aston Vanquish, McLaren SLR and so on.

The Miura is often recognised as being the first 'Supercar', though - that's the point. And the F599, Vanquish, SLR etc. are GT type cars as opposed to super. As I said, 'super' in their own way, but not 'supercars'. To me, a supercar should be mid-engined, hideously expensive, powerful and be OTT in some way, be it in terms of performance, looks, or character. Just my 2p.

The Miura is only every recognized as being the first MID engine road going supercar, not supercar as a whole as there were and are supercars which existed before it.

Your GT stance is rather weak too, as in this:


Is a GT in namesake.

But ho hay it all good

[robsti]

vz-r_dave said:

laurieh said:

To interject where I'm neither wanted nor appreciated, Dagnut mate you're just disagreeing with forzaminardi for the sake of it now. He's trying to explain what he means and to give the poor guy credit, he's done it extremely well. For you to even stipulate the 599 as a supercar when practically every automotive journalist on the planet cites it as a GT comes across as a tad ignorant. But you could just have always loved the 599 and what it stands for, (not least the price), so in your mind it is a supercar.

One thing I will say, and I would hate to be just another middle of the road Clarkson quoter with this one, lets not forget the term 'hypercar' (forgive me if it wasn't Clarkson who coined it). Here, forzaminardi, I think the Zondas and the Koenigseggs fit in, as well as the Enzo, the Mazza MC12 and indeed the Veyron. We all 'know' what we 'think' qualifies as a super/hyper/supercalifragilistic car, but essentially there is no right and wrong; its personal choice. Until the day comes where we can afford such a car, is arguing like this really going to get us anything other than sore fingers?

As I rather unwantedly involved myself in your debate, I might as well throw in what I think qualifies as a supercar... Anything from Lamborghini and Ferrari that hasn't been specifically made to fit another purpose (e.g. the 599 as a GT or the LM002), and the 'high' end Porsches: CGT, 911 Turbo, GT2, GT3(RS). The R8 is not a supercar. As for the ember to this inferno, the 'Vette; not a supercar. A highly strung American muscle car given supercar credentials through a long time in development and advancing technologies yes, but not a supercar.

You may now flog and shame me.

Edited by laurieh on Monday 31st August 18:59

Not a supercar but faster then one. In my books the SLR is a super car, just as the Vette is.

Total shyte!

[j123]

And yet...

From evo we get an entirely different view...Which I suspect comes from more time and experiences with the ZR-1....

from evo:
"Then, just when it feels like the car won’t fit on the road anymore, you have to change gear (thankfully with an improved, short-throw ’box), but soon the ZR1 is getting bigger again, so you lift off – except the response is lazy so the acceleration continues for a second whilst you transfer your foot from accelerator to brake, which reassures you a treat I can tell you.

At least the big carbon discs are exceptionally powerful and offer a decent amount of reassuring feedback, but all is not well here either, because the feedback you get through the steering while you brake suggests that the ZR1 has become a customs dog looking though a flight recently landed from Jamaica. With 285-section Michelins at the front and gargantuan 335-section ones at the rear, the American dream tugs, weaves and tramlines all at once. The truck-rutted inside lane of motorways is best avoided, so what this car’s claimed 7min 27sec lap of the Ring must have been like is unthinkable…"

[300bhp/ton]

j123 said:

And yet...

From evo we get an entirely different view...Which I suspect comes from more time and experiences with the ZR-1....

from evo:
"Then, just when it feels like the car won’t fit on the road anymore, you have to change gear (thankfully with an improved, short-throw ’box), but soon the ZR1 is getting bigger again, so you lift off – except the response is lazy so the acceleration continues for a second whilst you transfer your foot from accelerator to brake, which reassures you a treat I can tell you.

At least the big carbon discs are exceptionally powerful and offer a decent amount of reassuring feedback, but all is not well here either, because the feedback you get through the steering while you brake suggests that the ZR1 has become a customs dog looking though a flight recently landed from Jamaica. With 285-section Michelins at the front and gargantuan 335-section ones at the rear, the American dream tugs, weaves and tramlines all at once. The truck-rutted inside lane of motorways is best avoided, so what this car’s claimed 7min 27sec lap of the Ring must have been like is unthinkable…"

To be fair though, if they wanted to hate it (which I guess they probably did, like many %^&* here on PH do) they would give it a bad right up no matter what.