RE: Driven: Corvette ZR-1

[wjk_glynn]

forzaminardi said:

...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?...

Compared to the 911 Turbo a ZR1 is about the same length, 3 inches wider and 2 inches lower. Here are the specs for the US models:

Corvette ZR1 (MY2009)

• Length: 176.2
• Width: 75.9
• Height: 49.0
• Wheelbase: 105.7
• Manufacturer Curb Weight (lbs): 3324

Porsche 911 Turbo (MY2007)

• Length: 176.3
• Width: 72.9
• Height: 51.2
• Wheelbase: 92.5
• Manufacturer Curb Weight (lbs): 3596

The one and only time I drove a recent Corvette was to take a used Z06 out for a spin (at a local dealer) a few months back. And though I was cognizant that it's supposed to feel wider than it is, it still felt wide. Though I'm sure there was loads of space around me as I drove it though the lot, I was still worried I'd clip another car.

I think the reason if felt so wide is because the windscreen height is low compared to the fender width... so it kinds feels like you looking out though a low window and I think that throws people off.

Just my own theory.

Karl.

[wjk_glynn]

HD Adam said:

Mattt said:

An impressive machine, but I found myself drawn to the words 'leaf spring' in the specifications - how do those fancy versions work then?

...This is the rear of a mid 70's Corvette IRS...

Here's more information on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

C5 rear suspension:



Karl.

[300bhp/ton]

GTRene said:

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.

Edited by GTRene on Monday 31st August 23:52

I think you miss the point though.

The Vette, even the ZR1 is designed to be cruiser and a daily driver as well. Yes, there are people who will buys these and use them every single day to go to work in.

Also the Vette is a "mass" production car, not hand built in a small shed somewhere. The Zr1 simply makes use of Vette components.

You are also a bit picky with that interior shot, as this one IMO looks way better than the all black one:



So instead of picking the GT3 how about a regular 911 interior for comparison?





As said, if you EVERTHING, go pay the friggin prices.

[300bhp/ton]

devil's angel said:

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

The only point I'll pick up on is the one highlighted.

I think this depends on were you live. In the UK we are arrogantly ignorant or cars not sold here. In other places in the world though such cars carry similar pinup status as any Ferrari.

[Mattt]

I find it amusing that people who own an American car automatically become an apologist/defender of all things American - some points are understandable and others are almost sycophantic!

American cars are common where I live, while the sportier variants have improved markedly in recent years, the rest still generally seem to use nasty hard plastics - surely the cost to upgrade to Euro style soft interiors can't be much more expensive!

[ewenm]

I'm enjoying the way most of the arguments about the ZR1 are concentrating on one of 2 things:
1. Does it fit into the poster's nebulous definition of a "supercar"; and
2. The quality of the interior.

For the first point, who cares? No-one has a cast-iron definition for a "supercar" so you'll never agree. And even if agreement was reached, does it matter which pigeonhole people like to place it in?

As for the quality of the interior - yes, very important... on your daily driver, sat in traffic, when you've got bugger all else to think about. Not so important when you're wringing the neck of the car on a track or a mountain pass or the autobahn I'd suggest. The interior of my daily driver is terrible, but the grin I get even when driving across town to work far outweighs that. If the bellow of a V8, the whine of the supercharger and a lunge towards the horizon (or the next lights ) can't overcome a slightly cheaper interior then I'd be questioning my petrolheadedness

[forzaminardi]

Dagnut said:

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.

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

Relax I put "IMO" in their for you...and I said fair enough..I appreciate what your saying..but a disagree with it..Carrera GT, Ford GT?? Not trying to split hairs with you just trying to raise some debate..and before people start harping on about it being off topic..it is topic the whole article was constructed around the idea...I think you'll find a lot of people rate the 300sl gullwing as a supercar that pre dates any Lambo..then we have the the GT 40..and what about the AC Cobra? is that not a supercar?..it blew the doors of everything when it came out..
If Corvette mounted the engine in the middle would that qualify it? or would the badge still hold it back?

Hmmn, I take your point on the 300SL but it doesn't qualify in my opinion. As you say, it's a subjective thing. An AC Cobra definitely isn't a supercar, a GT40 ticks many boxes but is basically a racing car so i'd say no in the end.

If Chevy were to stick the engine in the middle then I'd say OK, assuming it fulfilled the other criteria. I don't think badge counts for a lot here, sure we have Ferrari and Lambo with all their heritage but Koniggsegg and Pagani are relative newcomers.

[chilled901]

The prior examples of hardcore sports seat interiors are fine and dandy to talk about on the internet but totally pointless in a car thats supposed to be a daily driven supercar. While i will agree all corvettes can do with a bit more aggressive seats (too bad most of the fatasses in this country who buy the car wont fit in it) the hardcore racing bucket seats are only good for an hour of driving on a race track and not for a car which was designed to be docile and drivable for hours on end.

[V8-muscle]

[V8-muscle]

[V8-muscle]

And - you can have one in the UK - first customer on UK roads was in January 2009

[forzaminardi]

On the 'supercar' debate, it is a rather pointless and nebulous argument, but the forum is here for that reason, isn't it...?

Meantime, I question why some posters are putting such importance on the interior. Is it really something which matters that much? I'd understand if it was absolutely apallingly bad, or uncomfortable, or shoddily built, or had awful ergonomics - but it's not, its simply a fairly pleasant, straightforward interior. Sure, sure, it could be better, but its not exactly bad to begin with anyway. I remember looking round an Elise in a garage with a mate and he was saying "wow, what a car, lovely" and then peered through the window and said "oh, no, I don't like the inside, nope, gone right off it now". I mean, fair enough if the interior is your main factor in deciding what car you want, but what the hell are you doing looking at an Elise or a ZR1 in the first place anyway?

[V8-muscle]

[V8-muscle]

Actual!! interior NOT a library shot!

[300bhp/ton]

Mattt said:

I find it amusing that people who own an American car automatically become an apologist/defender of all things American - some points are understandable and others are almost sycophantic!

American cars are common where I live, while the sportier variants have improved markedly in recent years, the rest still generally seem to use nasty hard plastics - surely the cost to upgrade to Euro style soft interiors can't be much more expensive!

where are all these quality interiors in the UK then??

Base model VAG and BMW's have horrid cheapy plastics too.

[LuS1fer]

I test drove an Elise once and if anyone thinks that is quality, they are insane. The instruments and switchgear look like they were installed by Blue Peter. The Vette interior is nothing to write home about but anyone who wants to use that as an excuse for not buyiong one should push off back to their Phantom and stop wasting time. It's a functional interior and will still look like that in 100,000 miles time and nothing will fall off and everything will work.

[Mattt]

300bhp/ton said:

Mattt said:

I find it amusing that people who own an American car automatically become an apologist/defender of all things American - some points are understandable and others are almost sycophantic!

American cars are common where I live, while the sportier variants have improved markedly in recent years, the rest still generally seem to use nasty hard plastics - surely the cost to upgrade to Euro style soft interiors can't be much more expensive!

where are all these quality interiors in the UK then??

Base model VAG and BMW's have horrid cheapy plastics too.

Base model BMW's don't AFAIK - the interiors are pretty much the same from base to full spec - aside from the equipment installed in them.

It's not just American made cars, but cars designed for the American market. If I compare the interior quality of a Camry vs an Accord - I prefer the Accord. Same story for the Civic - I have a Civic sedan here, same as US spec I believe and it is a completely different car to the Euro Civic.

[LuS1fer]

I had a 2005 Civic Type R and the quality of the plastics was equally dire. My sister has a BM 316 and the interior is cheap. But they don't cost £100k.

[k-ink]

Overall I think it's a great car, with a fantastic engine, looks and comparatively very simple and reliable. The only thing that lets it down in my opinion is the dull repmobile plastic interior. I suspect this is a stop gap end of line car, until the all new model come out. That should really be something!

[mackie1]

The interior has leather on just about every surface. I admit it's not the most inspired of designs, the central air vents look like sad eyes, but it's functional and comfortable and the interior is not the point anyway. A 911 Turbo has pretty much the same interior as a basic model costing half as much, same with the ZR1.