Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole
After reading the MT I came to the conclusion that I'm not sure if I could take them seriously. Not because they had criticisms of the Vette. I was expecting some criticisms. But the way they worded some of their statements. Particularly THIS statement when they said "despite the C8's considerably worse power-to-weight ratio" when comparing it to the ZR1. Excuse me but that is the stupidest comment I read in a long time. "Considerably worse"...that just has a negative vibe to it. An unwarranted and unnecessarily negative vibe. They could have simply said "in comparison to the 755 HP C7 ZR1, the C8's HP to weight ratio is much less". But to say "considerably worse" makes no sense. That was the first off putting thing.
Going through the article they used more negative statements to describe the C8. Again, I don't care that it was a criticism. My concern is the amount of negativity they showed. Here was another statement: "grinding, infuriating understeer, as testing director Kim Reynolds was bemused to discover". They then went on a tirade about understeer despite the fact that the car performed incredibly well on the track. GM made strides with this car. And of course there will be issues and kinks to work out with the first year C8. But they kinda treated the car like garbage. They certainly didn't give the C8 a fair shake or the respect it deserves.
Then they go on to perform this dyno blunder. Only a complete idiot would publish numbers like this. Those numbers are soo obviously way off that it made no sense to even publish it. The first thing they should have done when they got those numbers was realized that either something was wrong with the dyno or they were not doing the test correctly. But what do they do? They have to dyno it in different gears, get ratios from GM which they should have already had...as I read that dyno article I seriously pictured a circus with clowns in full clown gear running around a dyno playing with it.
It just seems to me that MT is fcuking around and not taking any of this seriously. Or they have some agenda or something. Because none of this has an ounce of professionalism and I am beyond disappointed with them. The C8 is going to be a great performance car and a bargain at that.
|
Saying "considerably worse" implies that the ZR1 has bad power to weight ratio, and the C8 is worse than that. Not the correct wording since the ZR1 has very good power to weight ratio. And who would expect the base (non Z06 or ZR1) is going to have monster power to weight ratio in the first place? Dumb way to phrase that.
As for the understeer: I believe that Chevy put a large amount of understeer into the C8 for saftey reasons. You start to lose it in a mid-engine car, and it's a beast to control. However, I noticed in the Car & Driver article this: "Both had additional wheel camber dialed in as recommended in their owner's manuals for track use." Adjusting the camber would help reduce underteer quite a bit. And Car & Driver didn't complain about too much understeer either (more than likely because they adjusted the camber).
Seems like Chevy wants to have lots of underteer for the street for saftey, but less for the track for better balance. But, I think that other reviewers didn't adjust the camber, and experienced the street version of understeer.
As for the dyno results: Whoever is running that dyno needs to ventilate their shop better, they are inhaling too many exhaust fumes...