[NW-99SS]

Yeah, MT wasn't happy with the steering or brakes and ABS either. 1st time woes I hope/believe. GM has time for some recalibration to the ABS at least.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Yea it's not surprising the c8s handling characteristics are very different and even somewhat underwhelming when compared to the c7. Gm has been perfecting front engine red cars for over half a century, look how good the current crop is, the first mid ship setup was bound to have some sorting out.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Yea it's not surprising the c8s handling characteristics are very different and even somewhat underwhelming when compared to the c7. Gm has been perfecting front engine red cars for over half a century, look how good the current crop is, the first mid ship setup was bound to have some sorting out.

Got some lap times from C&D comparing a C7 Z51 to the C8 Z51 at Grattan

"After about a dozen rounds battling Grattan’s 2.2 miles of heaving, mean-spirited pavement in each car, engineering theory won: The C8 turned a best lap of 1:26.1, the C7 a 1:27.0. A roughly one-second difference might not sound like much, but consider that after just a half-dozen laps, the C8 would cross the finish line as the C7 pulls onto Grattan’s straight. The data revealed that the C8 braked later into several corners and accelerated harder out of others—though the C7 managed to narrow the gap in a couple spots. Through the 100-mph sweeper feeding the main straight, the C8 was about 3 mph faster. It hit 142 mph before braking into Turn 1 to the C7’s 140, and then braked with 1.16 g’s to the C7’s 1.00. It registered a maximum of 1.32 g’s in the banked Turn 8 hairpin versus the C7’s 1.30 g’s."

Seems on the track it handles better than just through the test measures.

"But such close lap times don’t remotely convey how much easier it is to go fast in the C8. It cuts more cleanly into turns, and its rear tires are more planted exiting them; the C7’s tail is nervous and twitchy by comparison. Indeed, the C8 feels as approachable on the track as it does on the road. That’s a rare combination, one worthy of respect."

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Got some lap times from C&D comparing a C7 Z51 to the C8 Z51 at Grattan

"After about a dozen rounds battling Grattan’s 2.2 miles of heaving, mean-spirited pavement in each car, engineering theory won: The C8 turned a best lap of 1:26.1, the C7 a 1:27.0. A roughly one-second difference might not sound like much, but consider that after just a half-dozen laps, the C8 would cross the finish line as the C7 pulls onto Grattan’s straight. The data revealed that the C8 braked later into several corners and accelerated harder out of others—though the C7 managed to narrow the gap in a couple spots. Through the 100-mph sweeper feeding the main straight, the C8 was about 3 mph faster. It hit 142 mph before braking into Turn 1 to the C7’s 140, and then braked with 1.16 g’s to the C7’s 1.00. It registered a maximum of 1.32 g’s in the banked Turn 8 hairpin versus the C7’s 1.30 g’s."

Seems on the track it handles better than just through the test measures.

"But such close lap times don’t remotely convey how much easier it is to go fast in the C8. It cuts more cleanly into turns, and its rear tires are more planted exiting them; the C7’s tail is nervous and twitchy by comparison. Indeed, the C8 feels as approachable on the track as it does on the road. That’s a rare combination, one worthy of respect."

I didn't mean to say like it's a lesser handling vehicle or road course car, but obviously some of the handling characteristics were not what they could have been or what was preferred according to the MT article. Just that there may be some behaviors that will be sorted out better in later models.

I fully expected the c8 to better the c7 I'm every performance metric, just maybe not in the feel, familiarity, or perhaps total control as it is a more advanced less analog experience.

While it is an easier vehicle to drive fast and has a superior mid engine design it's also a way faster vehicle so it should have beaten it. I'm sure a c7 as fast as a c8 would have beaten it as well, just probably would have been a handful to handle.

Good post with good info btw. Hadn't seen that.

[72MachOne99GT]

Originally Posted by Baldilocks01SS

Motor Trend shows 2.8 sec and 11.1 @ 123.2 mph.

Oof, nice reading on my part.

10.9s from the factory in great air, and probably another few clicks with gear/tire changes.

I’ve always had a weird itch for a two-seater. Maybe I’ll find one of these used when I get older.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I have a feeling we are going to keep going around in circles lol. I am not going to call them out on it because it's something they have never done in the past. I guess it doesn't bother me since it's something they have never done. Now if they had done it in the past and now decided not to, then yeah call them out all day long and twice on sunday.

It doesn't "bother" me one bit. I couldn't care less. To me it just shows typical Ford bullshit. Which is why their cars always seem to lag behind in performance and offer less in the way of options and features even when they cost much more.

Originally Posted by shaffe

I agree the PP2 was a total mess. Answer me this, if GM built the ZLE exactly as they did but didn't give it's ring time out would you want to call them out like you want to call Ford out?

You're asking me, here on a Camaro forum, if I have a bias towards the Camaro? Seriously? No, I would not call them out. At all. Because it would have been just that one thing. I would note it but that's about it. And if it was just that one thing then I wouldn't call Ford out either. The problem is that Ford has a huge laundry list of shit like this that just seems to get longer and longer as the S550 progresses. It is one thing after another. I personally think the S550 is a total disaster and a complete departure from where the S197 left off. The S197 got better and better as it advanced. And it performed better as time went on. The S550 started off with less performance and was more expensive than it's predecessor. And things just keep getting worse and worse even when the performance increases. And to me Ford just keeps sweeping stuff under rugs, back tracking, making excuses, and painting over rust to save face at every turn. If anything I hope they learned a lot of lessons this Gen and will improve. But I doubt it.

[BlaqWhole]

BTW, if anyone is in the Clermont Florida area tomorrow, I'll be at Don Mealey Chevrolet checking out the C8 in person FINALLY!!

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Baldilocks01SS

Motor Trend shows 2.8 sec and 11.1 @ 123.2 mph.

Right there with the C7 Z06.

Originally Posted by hotlap

Recall that Chevy's claim of 10.95 for the C7 Z06 was with the Z07 package

Fastest laps lists the C7 Z06 as follows

0 - 60 mph 3.0 s
1/4 mile 11.1 s @ 127.4 mph
Top speed 315 kph (196 mph)

Close to the C8 Z51 claim. Only the trap speed is off the C7 Z06

https://fastestlaps.com/models/chevr...orvette-z06-c7

[shaffe]

The acceleration is insane! way better then I thought it could be

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

The acceleration is insane! way better then I thought it could be

Agreed. The 0-100-0 metric is also much closer to the GT500 than I'm sure any Ford fans want to admit.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Agreed. The 0-100-0 metric is also much closer to the GT500 than I'm sure any Ford fans want to admit.

I didn't see the 0-100-0 yet what was it?

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I didn't see the 0-100-0 yet what was it?

10.8 according to MT article.

GT500 is 10.6 with 265 more hp.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...t-test-review/

[72MachOne99GT]

Costs/takes a lot to get a fat pig to 100 and back.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

10.8 according to MT article.

GT500 is 10.6 with 265 more hp.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...t-test-review/

There’s a big difference tho. One has been tested by independent mag, while other is just hearsay with no way to verify.