[DRKS1D3]

Originally Posted by BMR Sales

I think you would be surprised. As a long term national Porsche Club Instructor, I have experienced from the passenger seat how the nannies can take a Bozo driver into competent and that is in a Rear Engined Car.

As someone who has driven a lot of Mid Engined cars, Snap Oversteer really isn't a problem. Now someone that doesn't know what they are doing can get themselves in trouble.

Nailed it!

[COmaro]

Originally Posted by BMR Sales

I think you would be surprised. As a long term national Porsche Club Instructor, I have experienced from the passenger seat how the nannies can take a Bozo driver into competent and that is in a Rear Engined Car.

As someone who has driven a lot of Mid Engined cars, Snap Oversteer really isn't a problem. Now someone that doesn't know what they are doing can get themselves in trouble.

You just said it yourself. "Now someone that doesn't know what they are doing can get themselves in trouble." Seriously. The average age of a new C7 buyer was 61. I doubt the C8 will skew much lower. I know very few Corvette owners who bought the car for any reason other than "I always wanted a Corvette!" They aren't driving them on the track, and they aren't learning the limits. As I said, all the nannies in the world can't change the laws of physics. People are going to put the car in race mode, go into a corner too hot, lift, hit a bump in the middle of a corner on their worn out tires, and the car is going off the road best case, into the other lane or into a creek or down an embankment is more likely here in CO. I has happened with every generation of Corvette, and it will happen even more frequently with the C8.



Read a few paragraphs down in this article from Motor Trend: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...t-test-review/

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by COmaro

You just said it yourself. "Now someone that doesn't know what they are doing can get themselves in trouble." Seriously. The average age of a new C7 buyer was 61. I doubt the C8 will skew much lower. I know very few Corvette owners who bought the car for any reason other than "I always wanted a Corvette!" They aren't driving them on the track, and they aren't learning the limits. As I said, all the nannies in the world can't change the laws of physics. People are going to put the car in race mode, go into a corner too hot, lift, hit a bump in the middle of a corner on their worn out tires, and the car is going off the road best case, into the other lane or into a creek or down an embankment is more likely here in CO. I has happened with every generation of Corvette, and it will happen even more frequently with the C8.



Read a few paragraphs down in this article from Motor Trend: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...t-test-review/

If its happened with every generation of car, and the C8 ploughs worse than any Corvette in recent memory ... whats your problem? That idiots do stupid things? That is a much bigger problem to solve than a car design that has an innate tendancy to snap loose.

[90503]

Yeah, that C7 handles way better than the C8...lol

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by COmaro

You just said it yourself. "Now someone that doesn't know what they are doing can get themselves in trouble." Seriously. The average age of a new C7 buyer was 61. I doubt the C8 will skew much lower. I know very few Corvette owners who bought the car for any reason other than "I always wanted a Corvette!" They aren't driving them on the track, and they aren't learning the limits. As I said, all the nannies in the world can't change the laws of physics. People are going to put the car in race mode, go into a corner too hot, lift, hit a bump in the middle of a corner on their worn out tires, and the car is going off the road best case, into the other lane or into a creek or down an embankment is more likely here in CO. I has happened with every generation of Corvette, and it will happen even more frequently with the C8.



Read a few paragraphs down in this article from Motor Trend: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...t-test-review/

The demographic you describe, relatively well-to-do 61 year old men, are generally not the type to "put the car in race mode and go into a corner too hot". Sixty-one year olds usually have more common sense... a trait which enabled them to get to sixty-one in the first place.

Those same men are also generally not inclined to drive around on worn out tires. They are, in fact, far more inclined to be anal about keeping their car as perfect as they can.

So the C8's that get wrecked are probably going to be in the hands of much younger drivers and will most likely not be the result of snap oversteer because, as the article you pointed to described, you have to try real hard to get it to spin.

[Martinjlm]

Motor Trend is estimating the C8 they tested is making 562 hp / 640 lb-ft at the crank. Based on seeing 478 hp and 544 lb-ft at the wheels. Full article here —> https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...c8-power-dyno/

[AZCamaroFan]

that's odd. why underrate it so much ?

[Bhobbs]

I don’t see how they could make as much torque as the LT4 with the slight modifications they made for the LT2.

[KMPrenger]

Yeah...that dyno run was off, and MotorTrend basically admits it, but they can't come up with a reason as to why. Not a chance in heck the LT2 is making nearly 200ftlb torque more than the LT1.

Now I'm curious to know how other dyno runs are going to go with this car. What about this car makes it difficult to dyno?

[DGthe3]

Something is very off. Motortrend (and others) regularly have pretty happy dynos, but this is insane. That car isn't making another 70 hp over advertised (let alone another 170 ft-lbs), not when it was SAE rated. I'd place my money on either a poorly calibrated dyno or a botch on the environmental inputs.

[Sir Nuke]

Originally Posted by AZCamaroFan

that's odd. why underrate it so much ?

Once upon a time back in the 60's that was done all the time, even by the BIG 3, HOWEVER, in this day and age, not so much, its too easy to get called out and proven you are fudging numbers...and THAT was a bunch!

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Something is very off. Motortrend (and others) regularly have pretty happy dynos, but this is insane. That car isn't making another 70 hp over advertised (let alone another 170 ft-lbs), not when it was SAE rated. I'd place my money on either a poorly calibrated dyno or a botch on the environmental inputs.

[KMPrenger]

Jesus...I've seen a bunch of other online car sites (reputable sites) running stories with a headline similar to "C8 Makes Way More Power than Advertised".

What crap. It kind of sucks that MotorTrend decided to even run the article. Its obvious something is wrong with their testing, and they know it, yet so many others are latching onto it. Any general public that sees one of these headlines is now going to think the dang car is really making like 550 HP and 600TQ. It doesn't.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Motor Trend thinks there is something wrong with their testing and made great efforts to determine what it is.

But can't.

Multiple pulls in different gears, consultation with GM engineers, testing a truck and getting reasonable numbers... it's not like they ran sloppy tests, got big numbers, and went with it.

[shaffe]

C8 was in the PCOTY test by R&T....why would GM send a preproduction car. I think it would have faired much better had it been a production car. they seemed to really dislike the DCT in the C8 and even said they felt/hoped the production one would be better

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...r-of-the-year/