Of course it wouldn't be silly, since 'best handling' incorporates things like steering feel, predictability, and fun to drive which, while subjective, are all irrevocably a part of the equation. What difference do exceptional handling limits make if the car is horrible to drive at those limits? The Corvette Z06 is the perfect example with Jan Magnussen famously stating that he had no interest in taking another full speed lap around the Nurburgring in that car after setting the lap record. Frankly, that doesn't make the Z06 sound like a particularly good time when driven at the limit.

Again, C6 Z06 is a phenomenal handling car strictly by the numbers, and initially that earned the car a lot of praise, but after the new wore off the warts began to show and now it's almost always endlessly criticized by those who have drive it with the Z06 generally being considered the worst of the existing Corvette offerings because of this (and this despite being the second fastest of the four existing model). Great handling is about more than just outright numbers.

Or as Rhumb likes to say, it isn't simply about how fast you go, but how you go fast.

 

You do understand that there is a difference btwn driving a 412 hp 3600 lbs car vs. a 3200 lbs 505hp vehicle at the limits. Faster cars are harder to drive at the limits. A 2011 Mustang GT would probably be about 30-40 seconds slower than a Z06 around the ring. Look at the GTR being driven around the ring. How many guys have come close to Nissan's time? Suzuki had the GTR on the limits of adhension, much like Magnusson.

Comparing a Mustang to a Z06 is laughable. They aren't in the same league and any performance guy knows this. What next, GT3 and Mustang handling comparisons? Ford did a great job with the 2011, but it's no Corvette competitor.

A lot of the irks in the Z06's handling have to do with the GY runflats. They fixed that for 2011.

Great handling is subjective. Numbers cannot be easily manipulated by a persons personal biases. I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

 

Now max, remember that you said this in the next sra vs irs debate. I remember you discounting several handling metrics (skidpad, slalom, etc.) in the arguments of old.

 

I didn't compare them initially, you did that for me and I responded. You're incessant hangup on times at the expense of all else doesn't jive with reality. Cars with great capabilities are not always great to drive, and a car that isn't great to drive isn't a great handling car. Magnussen expressed zero interest in taking another turn at the wheel doesn't say the car is challenging to drive well, something a jaded hot shoe like J.M. would no doubt enjoy immensely, it says the car is terrifying to drive as speed. I don't know if you know this, but there is a difference between those two characteristics.

Ironically, you recently argued that the M3 was a superior car to the GT500, and implied that it would remain so despite what the numbers may say for 2011, based largely on intangibles. No issues there, as I actually agree that the M3 is an absolutely phenomenal car to drive, and IMO might be the second best handling car in the world based largely upon that. However, in hindsight I do find that argument ironic since the Vette, capable as it, lacks a great deal in the realm of intangibles and despite that those unfavorable intangibles that are part and parcel of the car, and particularly the Z06, never seem to factor into your arguments.

What you insist true enthusiasts care about seems to keep changing based upon what serves your needs at the time.

It seems they've constantly been fixing something on the Z06 since that car debuted.

In terms of handling numbers alone are next to worthless, and numbers can absolutely be easily manipulated by bias if that is the testers intent.

 

I was referring to lap times. The GT500 and Mustang GT don't come close to a Z51 or Grand Sport.

Here is a good database of lap times at Laguna Seca driven by pros:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html

 

Typical jsaylor fanboism. You fail to give credit where it's due. The Mustang is a great handling car, but there are quite a few American cars on top:

1. Viper - Multiple Models
2. Corvette - Multiple Models
3. CTS-V
4. GT500
5. Camaro
6. 2010 Mustang

The 2011 should slide in btwn the GT500 and push the Camaro down a notch.

The Z06 at the Ring was tricky to drive because of the lack of downforce. If I remember the article correctly, Jan mentioned that the car was unstable due to the lack of aero aids compared to his race car (C6.R). Any car running those times at the Ring is "scary" to drive. Walter Rohrl has said the same thing while testing Porsche's.


The M3 is faster around a few tracks (see Laguna Lap or C&D Lightning lap) than a 2010. It should be interesting to see how the 2011 compares. I've driven many BMW's and they seem to get the chassis feel just right. The M3 is like a surgical tool in its ability to go where it's pointed. If you want to say an M3 has a better feel than a Z06, I'd definitely agree.

I've said it before, the Z06 isn't perfect. The interior needs some work and the seats need more lateral support. What does that have to do with handling?


My point of view is consistent.

Is that a bad thing? Ford has been doing it since the 2005 debuted. Continually improving the product is common sense.

Steering feel is highly subjective. Fun to drive is highly subjective. Handling numbers are a good measurement, particulary lap times.

 

When did I ever say that those cars weren't faster around a track? If you're waiting for me to acknowledge the argument that says faster automatically makes a car better you'll be waiting a long time. Frankly, I'm not sure how a serious enthusiast could ever put forth such a ridiculous notion.

He's a factory driver, what is he at freedom to say? The car sucks? Of course not and it would be naive to suggest otherwise. An experienced race car pilot like J.M. literally refusing to take another hot lap in a car built by the manufacturer he races for is extreme.

I would, and I would also argue that the feel is so superior that the M3 is the better handling car in spite of the speed deficit.

Those are far from the only issues. Steering is genuinely wretched in any Vette (yes, it's better now in the upgraded C6, but frankly there wasn't anywhere else to go....steering in the Vette has been pretty bad for a long time and should be fix number one in terms of mechanicals) Add to that the fact that, since new, the Z06 has been a predictability and NVH problem child since and I can't give the Z06 any gold stars.

I think GM saw the Porsche GT3 and said to themselves 'hey, if we strip out all of the sound deadening and throw in a rock hard suspension setup this thing will fly with a 427ci smallblock under hood'. They were right of course, but while very fast the result wasn't a great car as testified to by the fact that you could buy a used Z06 for a major discount less than six months after production started. (also telling was just how many used Z06's there were to be had at those discounts) The Grand Sport represents a far more sensible, and well thought out, package as does the ZR1 with the latter offering superior handling and a better ride despite using a heavier drive-line.

Yeah.

There is a big difference between improving and fixing...with the Z06 it smacks of fixing as demonstrated by the fact that GM took a completely different approach with ZR1 suspension tuning from the outset. It is almost as if they used the Z06 as a list of things not to do on the ZR1.

A good measure of how fast a car goes, but only one component of how well it handles.

 

unsubscribing

 

rofl