RE: Driven: Corvette ZR-1
Discussion
Well I wasn't there to see it when it was launched, but the man in the Lamborghini museum says the Miura was "ze fee-irst 'ow you zay, zuper-car" (but I suppose they would), corroborating most everything I've read about the topic of 'supercars'.
Meanwhile, this also is called a GT...
...but it don't necessarily make it so, does it?
Meanwhile, this also is called a GT...
...but it don't necessarily make it so, does it?
Getting back to the topic at hand, when the Corvette C6 was launched, much was made of it being smaller than the contemporary 911. Whenever I've seen one on the road it appears fairly compact. Why does virtually every magazine describe them as being oversized? I suppose its a vaguely intimidating drive at first and the LHD won't help, but I can't really believe experienced road testers can't get beyond that.
Supercar or not, its a fantastic machine. Definitely near the top of my lottery list.
Supercar or not, its a fantastic machine. Definitely near the top of my lottery list.
robsti said:
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.
Not a supercar but faster then one. In my books the SLR is a super car, just as the Vette is. 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
edited to remove foul language
Edited by vz-r_dave on Monday 31st August 20:33
forzaminardi said:
Well I wasn't there to see it when it was launched, but the man in the Lamborghini museum says the Miura was "ze fee-irst 'ow you zay, zuper-car" (but I suppose they would), corroborating most everything I've read about the topic of 'supercars'.
Meanwhile, this also is called a GT...
...but it don't necessarily make it so, does it?
What about these what are they:Meanwhile, this also is called a GT...
...but it don't necessarily make it so, does it?
300bhp/ton said:
forzaminardi said:
Well I wasn't there to see it when it was launched, but the man in the Lamborghini museum says the Miura was "ze fee-irst 'ow you zay, zuper-car" (but I suppose they would), corroborating most everything I've read about the topic of 'supercars'.
Meanwhile, this also is called a GT...
...but it don't necessarily make it so, does it?
What about these what are they:Meanwhile, this also is called a GT...
...but it don't necessarily make it so, does it?
Awesome performance etc, but agree about the flacid interior. It's fine in the USA where this thing is seriously good value, but it being over £100K puts it up against much better-built machines; Audi R8V10, Aston Vantage etc. Sure, it'd be nice to have the extra ponies of the Corvette now and then, but in the cramped UK 500hp is more than enough. I'd have it as a second car though
Two additional comments,
1. "Hypercar" is IMO an unnecessary expression. A supercar is a supercar, period.
Good - better - best
Car - sportscar - supercar
2. EVO magazine. IMO it's staff are guilty, guilty, guilty of brown-nosing to the boss. Hence all the constant nonsense about Pagani this-that-and-the-other being the best car on the planet when it seems it's often delivered to the test site on a covered trailer for just a few minutes of exuberance. Fiat 500/Abarth/as good as a Ferrari is another prime example.
1. "Hypercar" is IMO an unnecessary expression. A supercar is a supercar, period.
Good - better - best
Car - sportscar - supercar
2. EVO magazine. IMO it's staff are guilty, guilty, guilty of brown-nosing to the boss. Hence all the constant nonsense about Pagani this-that-and-the-other being the best car on the planet when it seems it's often delivered to the test site on a covered trailer for just a few minutes of exuberance. Fiat 500/Abarth/as good as a Ferrari is another prime example.
ZeeTacoe said:
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....
But then again Clarkson had one in America for a lot longer(or at least it seemed to be) and he loved it.From evo we get an entirely different view...Which I suspect comes from more time and experiences with the ZR-1....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9wbe2HNrAg
It's difficult to comprehend that evo and autocar were testing exactly the same car!
300bhp/ton said:
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.nothing special or racy, but the rest is good work.
GTRene
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?
forzaminardi said:
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.
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.
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.
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
If Corvette mounted the engine in the middle would that qualify it? or would the badge still hold it back?
JimexPL said:
ZeeTacoe said:
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....
But then again Clarkson had one in America for a lot longer(or at least it seemed to be) and he loved it.From evo we get an entirely different view...Which I suspect comes from more time and experiences with the ZR-1....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9wbe2HNrAg
It's difficult to comprehend that evo and autocar were testing exactly the same car!
I say we need quite a bit more context to these tests- tell journalists when you drove the car in this way and on this TYPE of road then it handles this way and LATER in some following issue tell us...oh BTW we tested the car again and it drives this road in a rather different way. To me that is what journalism is- about an on-going story. Wish they could get this as it would not ruin sales but conversely would make readers more trusting in what they say and more likely to keep purchasing.
Strange that. J
Menguin said:
Look at the two pictures. Yes, it does. It really does look MANY thousands of pounds better. I don't know what you're going on about everything for nothing, but for £100,000 I would want a nicer interior than my Alfa. And that isn't it.
But for £100k you will not get the performance and handling of a ZR1 as well as the nicer interior...Go for a drive in any C6 and realise that ergonomically no other supercar is a match for its interior, and if you still can't bring yourself to look at it then use the HUD (still unavailable on the italian exotcia, even though it has been available on vettes for 10 years!)
Only the seats really let the side down, but for a few thousand several companies will be able to sort that out for you.
A hotheaded debate. What seems to be unto unsaid is the fact that a supercar is in general considered only to be Exotica. How can GM/Corvette be held in the same consideration as Ferrari(Fiat) or Lamborghini(Audi).etc etc.?
Times have changed, not so long ago cars like the F40, Countach, Diabolo were built more or less by enthusiatic small italian firms ( let's not include the 959 in the debate). Exotica. Corvette in that sense wets nobody's panties.
Supercars are cars that are simply ahead of their generation or the crème de la crème of the technical knowhow ( turbos, compressers, multi valve engines,, paddleshift gearboxes) that eventually finish up in Joe Blog's car (ie twin turbo 16v diesel). For the (and I am one of them) Pistonhead's 70-80's/gti generation the pinnacle of speed the 200mph barrier has been a defining characteristic of a super car.
Supercars of past times have been front engined ( what rivaled a Jag type E), rear engined (the original family destroyer 911 turbo, and more recently mid engined (F40, Maclaren..
).
If the 'Vette is not a supercar than neither is the 997 turbo, because neither are mid engined nor Exotica.
However please drive all the above examples and the Rest before making a haste conclusion
Times have changed, not so long ago cars like the F40, Countach, Diabolo were built more or less by enthusiatic small italian firms ( let's not include the 959 in the debate). Exotica. Corvette in that sense wets nobody's panties.
Supercars are cars that are simply ahead of their generation or the crème de la crème of the technical knowhow ( turbos, compressers, multi valve engines,, paddleshift gearboxes) that eventually finish up in Joe Blog's car (ie twin turbo 16v diesel). For the (and I am one of them) Pistonhead's 70-80's/gti generation the pinnacle of speed the 200mph barrier has been a defining characteristic of a super car.
Supercars of past times have been front engined ( what rivaled a Jag type E), rear engined (the original family destroyer 911 turbo, and more recently mid engined (F40, Maclaren..
).
If the 'Vette is not a supercar than neither is the 997 turbo, because neither are mid engined nor Exotica.
However please drive all the above examples and the Rest before making a haste conclusion
A nice sporty worthy interior does not have tocost so much...that ZR1 intirior looks like a real relaxed boring cruizer (sorry)
I mean a sporty intior for les money and even better looks is not so hard to get?
this one is maybe a bit more expensive but that looks sporty...
this one is not expensive from a Lotus Exige 260cup and looks very sporty
This one looks sporty too
even this one
just some examples how it also could be, specialy in such ZR1
GTRene
ow here what is now in that lovely ZR1...a shock
sorry that car deserves better.
I mean a sporty intior for les money and even better looks is not so hard to get?
this one is maybe a bit more expensive but that looks sporty...
this one is not expensive from a Lotus Exige 260cup and looks very sporty
This one looks sporty too
even this one
just some examples how it also could be, specialy in such ZR1
GTRene
ow here what is now in that lovely ZR1...a shock
sorry that car deserves better.
Edited by GTRene on Monday 31st August 23:52
LHD need not be an issue. There are plenty of companies around who can convert one to RHD for a fee.
I don't really care if it's classed as a supercar or not. One thing I would argue though is the 'vette was always a bargain and the poor materials used in the interior or some not-as-good-as-x handling could be forgiven. Going over 100k, especially when the lesser models are waaay cheaper puts it up against some very stiff opposition.
I don't really care if it's classed as a supercar or not. One thing I would argue though is the 'vette was always a bargain and the poor materials used in the interior or some not-as-good-as-x handling could be forgiven. Going over 100k, especially when the lesser models are waaay cheaper puts it up against some very stiff opposition.
j123 said:
I bang on about this on this forum- and often get slagged on here by the journos for doing so!.. and maybe its only now that a lot of folks are seeing how much disparity and NON-CONTEXT BASED quasi-journalism is going on.
I say we need quite a bit more context to these tests- tell journalists when you drove the car in this way and on this TYPE of road then it handles this way and LATER in some following issue tell us...oh BTW we tested the car again and it drives this road in a rather different way. To me that is what journalism is- about an on-going story. Wish they could get this as it would not ruin sales but conversely would make readers more trusting in what they say and more likely to keep purchasing.
Strange that. J
I'm glad this view is spreading (I agree). I think also though you need to take into account narrative non-fiction and the idea that good journalism should entertain. Because no, it shouldn't. It should provide the facts (or in our case objective impressions, and only subjective opinions as a last resort and when they're clearly described as such). It will still be interesting if the reader has an interest in the subject matter. If he doesn't then he's reading the wrong webpage. I say we need quite a bit more context to these tests- tell journalists when you drove the car in this way and on this TYPE of road then it handles this way and LATER in some following issue tell us...oh BTW we tested the car again and it drives this road in a rather different way. To me that is what journalism is- about an on-going story. Wish they could get this as it would not ruin sales but conversely would make readers more trusting in what they say and more likely to keep purchasing.
Strange that. J
I hate "stories" that start with some whacked out bit of theoretical BS, and spend the rest of the 'story' disproving or contradicting it and purporting to be some kind of revalation. This kind of nonsense distorts the facts and often misleads.
Sorry for being a bit off topic, as I'm not implying this article was written in this way. Just making a generalisation.
oh, ....and also: please can no one ever comment on a car again based subjectively on it's looks alone. We can all see the pictures.
I'm not serious. (I think?).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff