|
|
Thought about returning in a c5
I had a 93 vette vert and a 96. Loved the 96. Sold it to get a newer
one. Found a newer one buy the money was spent already on stuff like.... mortgage Anyway, ready to jump back in. I drove a 07 vert in Florida. Great ride fantastic performance and comfort. BTW, dont like the paddle shift, it is not real or even close to ferrari like shifters. Anyway, I would get a stick. Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. My 93 car had a lot of flex is it was a convertible. The 96 was much better and real fun to drive. This 00 just made me feel like I was on a ride rather then part of the car. I was .... kind of scared and did not think it would be fun to really drive. You know what I mean drive drive, not go for a lunch date with the mrs. but take some turns and really drive. Dont get me wrong, it had raw power and if not for traction control, I would have had to pay for tires. Top down was great, stereo was fine and I love heads up display. Plenty to like. The owner pulls up in a red m3 bmw. I have never driven one. Always thought they looked great. He said I could test drive it. Both cars were around $25K. The engine in this thing was smooth as silk. Seating position was sedan like and easy to get in and out. Seats top notch. Back seat, well forget that, but is was 2x better then a 911 seating. Precise stearing and very comfortable ride. Con: Shifter was numb. I am really leaning towards the BMW. Sure maintenance is scary but I hardly use these cars. If you have any opinions, please let me know. BTW, I did not plan to look at the BMW. My plan for today was to pick between a early c5 corvette and a 87-89 911 carerra 2. If anyone has experience with the 911, I would really like to hear it. |
Thought about returning in a c5
It comes down to : Do you want a Family Car or a Sports Car (an M3 or a
Corvette) ? Lastly, had you taken that 2000 Vette thru some turns , you would have found out about its superior handling in addition to raw power. Motor Trend said the Corvette outhandles the Viper even. I think you need to hold off on your purchase until you have given my question much more thought. Let us know what you ultimately decided on. Dave |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 21, 10:26 pm, rebco10 > wrote:
> Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. Tires on the 00? 7 year-old originals? |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 22, 9:11 am, (Dave in Lake Villa)
wrote: > It comes down to : Do you want a Family Car or a Sports Car (an M3 or a > Corvette) ? Lastly, had you taken that 2000 Vette thru some turns , > you would have found out about its superior handling in addition to raw > power. Motor Trend said the Corvette outhandles the Viper even. > > I think you need to hold off on your purchase until you have given my > question much more thought. Let us know what you ultimately decided on. > > Dave Hey Dave. Please no flames. I am a Corvette fan. The M3 stats up very close to vette. Look. My point was the vette seemed so disconnected with the driver. 2001 BMW (E46) M3 Year 2001 Make BMW Model (E46) M3 Engine Location Front Drive Type Rear Wheel Production Years for Series 2001 - Price $45,500.00 Weight 3020 lbs | 1369.9 kg Introduced At 2000 Paris Motor Show Performance 0-60 mph 4.8 seconds. 1/4 Mile 13.2-13.3 seconds. Top Speed 155 mph | 249.4 km/h Similar top speeds Engine Engine Configuration I Cylinders 6 Aspiration/Induction Normal Displacement 3.00 L | 183.1 cu in. | 3001 cc. Valvetrain DOHC Horsepower 330.00 HP (242.9 KW) Torque 255.00 Ft-Lbs (345.8 NM) @ 4900.00 RPM HP to Weight Ratio 9.2 LB / HP (Vehicles with similar ratio) HP / Liter 110.0 BHP / Liter Vehicles with similar horsepower and weight Transmission Information Gears 6 Transmission Manual Dimensions Seating Capacity 4 Exterior Length 176.701 in | 4488.2 mm. Width 69.201 in | 1757.7 mm. Height 54.001 in | 1371.6 mm. Wheelbase 107.301 in | 2725.4 mm. Vehicles with similar dimensions 2000 Chevrolet Corvette C5 Year 2000 Make Chevrolet Model Corvette C5 Engine Location Front Drive Type Rear Wheel Production Years for Series 1997 - 2003 Price $38,895.00 Weight 3218 lbs | 1459.7 kg Performance 0-60 mph 4.8 seconds. 1/4 Mile 13.3 seconds. Top Speed 172 mph | 276.7 km/h Similar top speeds Engine Engine Configuration V Cylinders 8 Aspiration/Induction Normal Displacement 5680.00 cc | 346.6 cu in. | 5.7 L. Valvetrain OHV Horsepower 345.00 BHP (253.9 KW) @ 5600.00 RPM Torque 350.00 Ft-Lbs (474.6 NM) @ 4400.00 RPM HP to Weight Ratio 9.3 LB / HP (Vehicles with similar ratio) HP / Liter 60.5 BHP / Liter Vehicles with similar horsepower and weight Transmission Information Gears 6 Transmission Manual I took the vette around lots of side roads and turns. That is what bothered me. It seems to lose composure |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 22, 11:21 am, ACAR > wrote:
> On Oct 21, 10:26 pm, rebco10 > wrote: > > > Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real > > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. > > Tires on the 00? > 7 year-old originals? Good question. Needed tires in back. |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:11:19 -0700, rebco10 > wrote:
>On Oct 22, 11:21 am, ACAR > wrote: >> On Oct 21, 10:26 pm, rebco10 > wrote: >> >> > Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real >> > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. >> >> Tires on the 00? >> 7 year-old originals? > >Good question. Needed tires in back. You compare this car to others knowing it's rear drive and needs rear tires? Even if it wasn't a Vette, it would not be a fair comparision. What an idiot. |
Thought about returning in a c5
'Please no flames. I am a Corvette fan. The M3 stats up very close to
vette. Look.' REPLY: I regret that you took it as a flame ; not my intention. I can see you like Corvettes. The Corvette is americas icon sports car while the M3 is obviously a 4 seater family car , albiet, a well made car im sure . The stats may be simular but thats not what defines a sports car . Like the other Poster eluded to : change out the 7 year old Corvette tires for some Michelin PS2's and the car takes on a totally new personality . On my 2006, i swapped out the RunFlats for a set of same size PS2's which improved handling, markedly, and made the ride quieter. |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 23, 5:30 am, SS wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:11:19 -0700, rebco10 > wrote: > >On Oct 22, 11:21 am, ACAR > wrote: > >> On Oct 21, 10:26 pm, rebco10 > wrote: > > >> > Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real > >> > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. > > >> Tires on the 00? > >> 7 year-old originals? > > >Good question. Needed tires in back. > > You compare this car to others knowing it's rear drive and needs rear > tires? Even if it wasn't a Vette, it would not be a fair > comparision. What an idiot. Thats cute.... calling me an idiot! The tires on the M3 were equal wear to the ride on the Vette. The 65% worn tires are not going to have that much affect on the feel of the car, the suspension travel and the rigity of the package. It will have a part. Dont call me an idiot, you dont know me and I strongly doubt I would meet you in any of my social circles. |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:30:47 -0700, rebco10 > wrote:
>On Oct 23, 5:30 am, SS wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:11:19 -0700, rebco10 > wrote: >> >On Oct 22, 11:21 am, ACAR > wrote: >> >> On Oct 21, 10:26 pm, rebco10 > wrote: >> >> >> > Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real >> >> > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. >> >> >> Tires on the 00? >> >> 7 year-old originals? >> >> >Good question. Needed tires in back. >> >> You compare this car to others knowing it's rear drive and needs rear >> tires? Even if it wasn't a Vette, it would not be a fair >> comparision. What an idiot. > > >Thats cute.... calling me an idiot! >The tires on the M3 were equal wear to the ride on the Vette. The 65% >worn tires are not going to have that much affect on the feel of the >car, the suspension travel and the rigity of the package. It will >have a part. > >Dont call me an idiot, you dont know me and I strongly doubt I would >meet you in any of my social circles. > > You might be surprised if we had to compare net worths but I still say you sound like an idiot expecting a sports car to handle well on a rear drive with worn rubber. But heck buy what you want. I don't really care. |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 23, 5:13 pm, SS wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:30:47 -0700, rebco10 > wrote: > >On Oct 23, 5:30 am, SS wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:11:19 -0700, rebco10 > wrote: > >> >On Oct 22, 11:21 am, ACAR > wrote: > >> >> On Oct 21, 10:26 pm, rebco10 > wrote: > > >> >> > Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real > >> >> > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. > > >> >> Tires on the 00? > >> >> 7 year-old originals? > > >> >Good question. Needed tires in back. > > >> You compare this car to others knowing it's rear drive and needs rear > >> tires? Even if it wasn't a Vette, it would not be a fair > >> comparision. What an idiot. > > >Thats cute.... calling me an idiot! > >The tires on the M3 were equal wear to the ride on the Vette. The 65% > >worn tires are not going to have that much affect on the feel of the > >car, the suspension travel and the rigity of the package. It will > >have a part. > > >Dont call me an idiot, you dont know me and I strongly doubt I would > >meet you in any of my social circles. > > You might be surprised if we had to compare net worths but I still say > you sound like an idiot expecting a sports car to handle well on a > rear drive with worn rubber. But heck buy what you want. I don't > really care. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Sir. You use a venue where your name and location is hidden, and flame without instigation. You are not an idiot or an ass. Just imature. I beg of you to please not respond to any of my topics. I use this sight for assistance and really can not waste my valuable time. If you continue to name call, then great. At least you get you vent here instead of at home. |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 21, 10:26 pm, rebco10 > wrote:
> I had a 93 vette vert and a 96. Loved the 96. Sold it to get a newer > one. Found a newer one buy the money was spent already on stuff > like.... mortgage > > Anyway, ready to jump back in. I drove a 07 vert in Florida. Great > ride fantastic performance and comfort. BTW, dont like the paddle > shift, it is not real or even close to ferrari like shifters. Anyway, > I would get a stick. > > Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. My 93 car had a > lot of flex is it was a convertible. The 96 was much better and real > fun to drive. > This 00 just made me feel like I was on a ride rather then part of the > car. I was .... kind of scared and did not think it would be fun to > really drive. You know what I mean drive drive, not go for a lunch > date with the mrs. but take some turns and really drive. Dont get me > wrong, it had raw power and if not for traction control, I would have > had to pay for tires. Top down was great, stereo was fine and I love > heads up display. Plenty to like. > > The owner pulls up in a red m3 bmw. I have never driven one. Always > thought they looked great. He said I could test drive it. Both cars > were around $25K. > The engine in this thing was smooth as silk. Seating position was > sedan like and easy to get in and out. Seats top notch. Back seat, > well forget that, but is was 2x better then a 911 seating. Precise > stearing and very comfortable ride. Con: Shifter was numb. > > I am really leaning towards the BMW. Sure maintenance is scary but I > hardly use these cars. > > If you have any opinions, please let me know. BTW, I did not plan to > look at the BMW. My plan for today was to pick between a early c5 > corvette and a 87-89 911 carerra 2. If anyone has experience with the > 911, I would really like to hear it. We had an lt4 and have driven the M3. Both are great. The m3 is much more refined like a precision machine. If it is quality, composure, go with BMW and of course 4 real seats. The Vette is brute force. The Vette feels like a chevy. It is plastic and rough and well that is part of the beauty. |
Thought about returning in a c5
the corvette is fast, great value, all american, iconic
the 911 is heaven, it bonds with the driver's soul like no other car can "rebco10" > wrote in message oups.com... >I had a 93 vette vert and a 96. Loved the 96. Sold it to get a newer > one. Found a newer one buy the money was spent already on stuff > like.... mortgage > > Anyway, ready to jump back in. I drove a 07 vert in Florida. Great > ride fantastic performance and comfort. BTW, dont like the paddle > shift, it is not real or even close to ferrari like shifters. Anyway, > I would get a stick. > > Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. My 93 car had a > lot of flex is it was a convertible. The 96 was much better and real > fun to drive. > This 00 just made me feel like I was on a ride rather then part of the > car. I was .... kind of scared and did not think it would be fun to > really drive. You know what I mean drive drive, not go for a lunch > date with the mrs. but take some turns and really drive. Dont get me > wrong, it had raw power and if not for traction control, I would have > had to pay for tires. Top down was great, stereo was fine and I love > heads up display. Plenty to like. > > The owner pulls up in a red m3 bmw. I have never driven one. Always > thought they looked great. He said I could test drive it. Both cars > were around $25K. > The engine in this thing was smooth as silk. Seating position was > sedan like and easy to get in and out. Seats top notch. Back seat, > well forget that, but is was 2x better then a 911 seating. Precise > stearing and very comfortable ride. Con: Shifter was numb. > > I am really leaning towards the BMW. Sure maintenance is scary but I > hardly use these cars. > > If you have any opinions, please let me know. BTW, I did not plan to > look at the BMW. My plan for today was to pick between a early c5 > corvette and a 87-89 911 carerra 2. If anyone has experience with the > 911, I would really like to hear it. > |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 23, 3:30 pm, rebco10 > wrote:
> The tires on the M3 were equal wear to the ride on the Vette. The 65% > worn tires are not going to have that much affect on the feel of the > car, the suspension travel and the rigity of the package. It will > have a part. > This is not accurate. Tire performance is not all about tread depth. 7 year old tires worn 65% will not perform the same as 1 year old tires worn 65%. 7 year old tires should not be on any sports car regardless of tread depth. Tires play a HUGE role in the way a car feels. Years ago I taught my kids this lesson with a Toyota Corolla. On OEM tires the car was a poor handler, it wandered at speed and was very sensitive to cross winds and poor pavement. The ABS seemed not to work very well. Then I put a set of high performance Pirelli tires on the car. Everything changed. They couldn't believe it was the same car. They wore out those Pirellis in 20,000 miles but they learned a bit about driving. |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 24, 12:59 am, "name" > wrote:
> the corvette is fast, great value, all american, iconic > > the 911 is heaven, it bonds with the driver's soul like no other car can > You might want to test drive a Cayman. It's mid-engine layout has some advantages over the 911. (Some rumors are circulating that GM is seriously considering a mid-engined Corvette.) You should not test drive a Ferrari. |
Thought about returning in a c5
>
>Years ago I taught my kids this lesson with a Toyota Corolla. On OEM >tires the car was a poor handler, it wandered at speed and was very >sensitive to cross winds and poor pavement. The ABS seemed not to work >very well. Then I put a set of high performance Pirelli tires on the >car. Everything changed. They couldn't believe it was the same car. >They wore out those Pirellis in 20,000 miles but they learned a bit >about driving. Years (mid 80's) ago I purchased an new Audi 5000 for my daily driver came with Pirellis from the Factory.... WIFE liked (loved) that car so darn much she purchased an identical car (different) color for herself about a month afterward. Long story short... Her car was delivered with Continential Tires. Cars drove completely different, ...The following week "we" mounted a set of Pirelles on her car and she smiles for close to 200000 miles .... Tires make a BIG difference... Bob G. 64 72 & 98 Convertibles 76 & 79 Coupes |
Thought about returning in a c5
> Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real > fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. My 93 car had a > lot of flex is it was a convertible. The 96 was much better and real > fun to drive. > This 00 just made me feel like I was on a ride rather then part of the > car. I was .... kind of scared and did not think it would be fun to > really drive. You know what I mean drive drive, not go for a lunch > date with the mrs. but take some turns and really drive. Dont get me > wrong, it had raw power and if not for traction control, I would have > had to pay for tires. Top down was great, stereo was fine and I love > heads up display. Plenty to like. I have a '96 and an '03. I know what you mean about the handling. The 03 feels very much like you are perched on it. The 96 feels like you are snuggled into it. The 96 GSC tires are slightly stickier than the EMT's on the 03. I think that's why the Z06's don't use the EMT's. The 96 is heavier with more body roll but slightly better pitch and yaw stability in corners and much better yaw stability when braking, especially on uneven pavement. Awhile back I read a comment from someone who raced C5's professionally. As I recall, he said that you have to just have faith that the C5 will get through the corner as you don't get much feedback. I drive both the 96 and the 03 every week and through the same turns. The best description I can give of the difference is that at 50 MPH on a typical cloverleaf loop, the 03 is busier than the 96. |
Thought about returning in a c5
"ACAR" > wrote in message oups.com... > On Oct 24, 12:59 am, "name" > wrote: >> the corvette is fast, great value, all american, iconic >> >> the 911 is heaven, it bonds with the driver's soul like no other car can >> > You might want to test drive a Cayman. It's mid-engine layout has some > advantages over the 911. (Some rumors are circulating that GM is > seriously considering a mid-engined Corvette.) > > You should not test drive a Ferrari. > > ferrari is great - it captures so much emotion for the driver like no other car can...specially with its hot interior, and sexy engine sound but it's expensive, high maintenance and can be bitchy easily i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's front-engine design placement call me a traditionalist, but the only porsche i like is the 911 carerras - specially the king, the Turbo. i don't care for much for the boxster, cayman, suv, or carrera gt |
Thought about returning in a c5
> wrote in message
ups.com... > >> Today I took a test drive in a 00 vert with 6 spd 29K miles. Real >> fast car. I have to say, it felt kind of sloppy. My 93 car had a >> lot of flex is it was a convertible. The 96 was much better and real >> fun to drive. >> This 00 just made me feel like I was on a ride rather then part of the >> car. I was .... kind of scared and did not think it would be fun to >> really drive. You know what I mean drive drive, not go for a lunch >> date with the mrs. but take some turns and really drive. Dont get me >> wrong, it had raw power and if not for traction control, I would have >> had to pay for tires. Top down was great, stereo was fine and I love >> heads up display. Plenty to like. > > I have a '96 and an '03. I know what you mean about the handling. > The 03 feels very much like you are perched on it. The 96 feels like > you are snuggled into it. The 96 GSC tires are slightly stickier than > the EMT's on the 03. I think that's why the Z06's don't use the > EMT's. The 96 is heavier with more body roll but slightly better > pitch and yaw stability in corners and much better yaw stability when > braking, especially on uneven pavement. > Awhile back I read a comment from someone who raced C5's > professionally. As I recall, he said that you have to just have faith > that the C5 will get through the corner as you don't get much > feedback. > I drive both the 96 and the 03 every week and through the same > turns. The best description I can give of the difference is that at > 50 MPH on a typical cloverleaf loop, the 03 is busier than the 96. > > Change the tires..... -- Z˙RiX (¯`'..(<>..<>)..'´¯) |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote:
> > > i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously > considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's > front-engine design placement If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - then so be it. Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette has to find another way to boost performance. A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd certainly go for that! Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. |
Thought about returning in a c5
a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time
it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the sake of being 'exotic' i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. "ACAR" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >> >> >> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's >> front-engine design placement > > If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - > then so be it. > Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette > has to find another way to boost performance. > A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd > certainly go for that! > > Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. > |
Thought about returning in a c5
Lawrence Lugar wrote:
> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time > it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the sake > of being 'exotic' > > i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which magazine > specifically, i subscribe to many) > > pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. > > All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If yhou have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting your fanny near the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of pure joy in road sport. Don't judge by something like the MR2 or Fiero or some race cars where the engine's center of mass is quite high. > > > > > "ACAR" > wrote in message > ups.com... >> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>> >>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's >>> front-engine design placement >> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - >> then so be it. >> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette >> has to find another way to boost performance. >> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >> certainly go for that! >> >> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. >> > > While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor use of interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. Any production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance accessibility -- the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, are sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. Engine layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around since the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove out. My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has increased. Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise prices. My '02 costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the policy including comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are much lower on the '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less than what I paid in 2005. (the result of placing less importance on ZIP code and more on a driver's track record.) -- pj |
Thought about returning in a c5
ACAR wrote:
> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >> >> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's >> front-engine design placement > > If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - > then so be it. > Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette > has to find another way to boost performance. > A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd > certainly go for that! > > Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. > The 'vette IS a mid-engine forward mounted design. Mid engine means between the rear AND the front wheels. The engine is behind the front wheels. AWD isn't going to shed any weight. Look what a Z06 does to a Lambo, and with 135 less horsepower. |
Thought about returning in a c5
the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 Turbo
ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a track...driving it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on a leash in the park "pj" > wrote in message ... > Lawrence Lugar wrote: >> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the >> sake of being 'exotic' >> >> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >> >> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >> >> > All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and give > a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If yhou have > more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting your fanny near > the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of pure joy in road sport. > Don't judge by something like the MR2 or Fiero or some race cars where the > engine's center of mass is quite high. > >> >> >> >> >> "ACAR" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>> >>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's >>>> front-engine design placement >>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - >>> then so be it. >>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette >>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>> certainly go for that! >>> >>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. >>> >> >> > > While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive criters > that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor use of interior > volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. Any production > Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. > > Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance accessibility -- > the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, are sky > high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. Engine layout, > to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. > > The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around since the > first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove out. > > My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has increased. > Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise prices. My '02 > costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the policy including > comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are much lower on the > '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less than what I paid in > 2005. (the result of placing less importance on ZIP code and more on a > driver's track record.) > > -- > pj |
Thought about returning in a c5
Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as a
daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. Lawrence Lugar wrote: > the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 Turbo > > > ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a track...driving it > in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on a leash in the park > > > > > > > "pj" > wrote in message > ... >> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the >>> sake of being 'exotic' >>> >>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>> >>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>> >>> >> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and give >> a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If yhou have >> more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting your fanny near >> the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of pure joy in road sport. >> Don't judge by something like the MR2 or Fiero or some race cars where the >> engine's center of mass is quite high. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>> ups.com... >>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's >>>>> front-engine design placement >>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - >>>> then so be it. >>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette >>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>> certainly go for that! >>>> >>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. >>>> >>> >> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive criters >> that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor use of interior >> volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. Any production >> Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >> >> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance accessibility -- >> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, are sky >> high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. Engine layout, >> to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. >> >> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around since the >> first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove out. >> >> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has increased. >> Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise prices. My '02 >> costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the policy including >> comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are much lower on the >> '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less than what I paid in >> 2005. (the result of placing less importance on ZIP code and more on a >> driver's track record.) >> >> -- >> pj > > |
Thought about returning in a c5
I saved this note because I think the last line says it all about tires and
their importance. ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Corvette Doctor" <corvettedoctor@...> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:52 PM Subject: Motorcycle Tires > When talking about how much tires affect performance, I always think of a > few stories. The first was about 15 years ago, I was out at a club with > Gary and > Brian when it began raining. They decided to head to Brian's house, and I > was going to drop the bike off at home and pick up the van. Gary said he'd > ride with me, so he could show me how to get to Brian's house. > > So we flew south from Delray down I95 running about 80-85 in the rain. > Gary > at first couldn't believe we were running that speed on a bike in the > rain, > and yet he felt comfortable, other than a bit of rain. > > At Hillsboro, I took the exit and basically never slowed down until I got > to > the light. He just about came unglued over that, and couldn't believe I > just did that. I told him that is the difference between $35 motorcycle > tires and $150 motorcycle tires. Almost anything will work in the dry; > only the best works in the wet. > > Tires are the ONLY thing that hold you to the road. Everything else works > with or against the tires, but without the tires, nothing works. > "Bob G." <rg327_remove_comcast.net> wrote in message ... > > >>Years ago I taught my kids this lesson with a Toyota Corolla. On OEM >>tires the car was a poor handler, it wandered at speed and was very >>sensitive to cross winds and poor pavement. The ABS seemed not to work >>very well. Then I put a set of high performance Pirelli tires on the >>car. Everything changed. They couldn't believe it was the same car. >>They wore out those Pirellis in 20,000 miles but they learned a bit >>about driving. > > Years (mid 80's) ago I purchased an new Audi 5000 for my daily driver > came with Pirellis from the Factory.... WIFE liked (loved) that car so > darn much she purchased an identical car (different) color for herself > about a month afterward. > > Long story short... Her car was delivered with Continential Tires. > > Cars drove completely different, ...The following week "we" > mounted a set of Pirelles on her car and she smiles for close to > 200000 miles .... > > Tires make a BIG difference... > > Bob G. > 64 72 & 98 Convertibles > 76 & 79 Coupes > |
Thought about returning in a c5
This is the exact impression I had when I test drove a '97 new back in the
spring of '97. It was like leaving the Hertz rental car office and climbing into any generic rental car - blah. It certainly didn't feel like a Corvette. Granted, all I did was drive it around a few blocks, and never had the opportunity to push it, but in just a regular drive, it felt just like any regular car. I've never seen any other Corvette do that. > wrote in message ups.com... > > Awhile back I read a comment from someone who raced C5's > professionally. As I recall, he said that you have to just have faith > that the C5 will get through the corner as you don't get much > feedback. > |
Thought about returning in a c5
if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited for a
daily driver but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a supercar for everyday ....so my vote still stands, firmly "Bob I" > wrote in message ... > Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as a > daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. > > Lawrence Lugar wrote: >> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 Turbo >> >> >> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a track...driving >> it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on a leash in the park >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "pj" > wrote in message >> ... >>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the >>>> sake of being 'exotic' >>>> >>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>> >>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>> >>>> >>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and >>> give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If yhou >>> have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting your fanny >>> near the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of pure joy in road >>> sport. Don't judge by something like the MR2 or Fiero or some race cars >>> where the engine's center of mass is quite high. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>> ups.com... >>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's >>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - >>>>> then so be it. >>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette >>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>> >>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. >>>>> >>>> >>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor use of >>> interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. Any >>> production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >>> >>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance accessibility -- >>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, are >>> sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. Engine >>> layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. >>> >>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around since >>> the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove out. >>> >>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has increased. >>> Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise prices. My '02 >>> costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the policy including >>> comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are much lower on the >>> '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less than what I paid in >>> 2005. (the result of placing less importance on ZIP code and more on a >>> driver's track record.) >>> >>> -- >>> pj >> |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 26, 11:29 am, "Lawrence Lugar" > wrote:
> > pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. > While pure race track isn't what the Corvette is all about why would mid-engine rule out RWD? (I was thinking of AWD as an option to make the car more useful off the track.) And I wouldn't take R&T's assessment as the last word. Did R&T ever predict that the C5 would weigh as little as it does? Unfortunately, pj has a point about storage for golf clubs. The vast majority of Corvettes are sold with automatic transmissions and see little sporting use. Mid-engined might work if GM did something like the RX8's "freestyle" doors for storage behind the seats. But the C7 is likely to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and remain front- engine, RWD. |
Thought about returning in a c5
lol - i think you have evolutionary and revolutionary confused with each
other - based on your sentence composition. if the vette is to remain front-engine, rwd...then that'd be revolutionary; to be evolutionary...it'd need to be mid-engine "ACAR" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Oct 26, 11:29 am, "Lawrence Lugar" > wrote: > >> >> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >> > > While pure race track isn't what the Corvette is all about why would > mid-engine rule out RWD? > (I was thinking of AWD as an option to make the car more useful off > the track.) > And I wouldn't take R&T's assessment as the last word. Did R&T ever > predict that the C5 would weigh as little as it does? > > Unfortunately, pj has a point about storage for golf clubs. The vast > majority of Corvettes are sold with automatic transmissions and see > little sporting use. Mid-engined might work if GM did something like > the RX8's "freestyle" doors for storage behind the seats. But the C7 > is likely to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and remain front- > engine, RWD. > |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Oct 27, 8:35 pm, "Lawrence Lugar" > wrote:
> lol - i think you have evolutionary and revolutionary confused with each > other - based on your sentence composition. > > if the vette is to remain front-engine, rwd...then that'd be revolutionary; > to be evolutionary...it'd need to be mid-engine > No, a revolutionary design would require a radical change, like mid- engine. Evolution is more like the way the 911 has changed (or not changed) over time. I think you are mixing up mutation (abrupt change in form) with evolution (gradual, progressive change). Whatever words are chosen, the Corvette is likely to retain its current configuration if only to keep cost down. I can't see GM investing in another sports car platform until they can regain some market share and profitability. But a mid-engined Corvette would shake the industry if GM could pull it off at a low price point. Let the old farts put their golf clubs into a Camaro, I say. |
Thought about returning in a c5
i say the vette should remain front-engine, rwd.
but if the brass is so insistant on entering the exotic market with this mid-engine vette...than make two, two versions. one should be the vette as its configuration is now. and one should be a limited production, 'exotic' version, mid-engine configuration, more horses, track-tuned suspension, chasis, and an improved interior - all at a premium price...for the american exotic-seekers by the way, americans suck at trying to be exotic...just look at their last attempt, with the ford gt (lol) "ACAR" > wrote in message ps.com... > On Oct 27, 8:35 pm, "Lawrence Lugar" > wrote: >> lol - i think you have evolutionary and revolutionary confused with each >> other - based on your sentence composition. >> >> if the vette is to remain front-engine, rwd...then that'd be >> revolutionary; >> to be evolutionary...it'd need to be mid-engine >> > No, a revolutionary design would require a radical change, like mid- > engine. Evolution is more like the way the 911 has changed (or not > changed) over time. I think you are mixing up mutation (abrupt change > in form) with evolution (gradual, progressive change). > > Whatever words are chosen, the Corvette is likely to retain its > current configuration if only to keep cost down. I can't see GM > investing in another sports car platform until they can regain some > market share and profitability. > > But a mid-engined Corvette would shake the industry if GM could pull > it off at a low price point. Let the old farts put their golf clubs > into a Camaro, I say. > > > |
Thought about returning in a c5
And what is the criteria for supercar? As for power to weight, the
regular 'vette matches the the 911. Top speed, same. Balance? The 'vett is better balanced AND has the engine mid-mounted instead of hanging off the rear end of the differential. And it doesen't come with all the other compromises like no trunk to speak of, silly little seats in the package compartment, gas guzzler fuel mileage, extremely intrusive maintenance schedule. and on an on. Stand where you will, it doesn't change reality. Lawrence Lugar wrote: > if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited for a > daily driver > > but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a supercar > for everyday > ...so my vote still stands, firmly > > > > > "Bob I" > wrote in message > ... >> Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as a >> daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. >> >> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 Turbo >>> >>> >>> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a track...driving >>> it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on a leash in the park >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "pj" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the >>>>> sake of being 'exotic' >>>>> >>>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>>>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>>> >>>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and >>>> give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If yhou >>>> have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting your fanny >>>> near the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of pure joy in road >>>> sport. Don't judge by something like the MR2 or Fiero or some race cars >>>> where the engine's center of mass is quite high. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>>> ups.com... >>>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >>>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with it's >>>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed weight - >>>>>> then so be it. >>>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. Corvette >>>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>>> >>>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes out. >>>>>> >>>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor use of >>>> interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. Any >>>> production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >>>> >>>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance accessibility -- >>>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, are >>>> sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. Engine >>>> layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. >>>> >>>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around since >>>> the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove out. >>>> >>>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has increased. >>>> Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise prices. My '02 >>>> costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the policy including >>>> comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are much lower on the >>>> '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less than what I paid in >>>> 2005. (the result of placing less importance on ZIP code and more on a >>>> driver's track record.) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> pj > |
Thought about returning in a c5
you're right - that's why the Vette is dubbed america's sportscar, because
everything considered...it Is a great value for performance, good mpg, truck space, relatively high on reliability. but if you have change to spare, the 911 Turbo is ever soooo, sooo lovely. by the way, the 911 Turbo get's an avg. of 20mpg (i believe) and It's very reliable(german). it's a sportscar, you don't need large backseats and truckspace anyways (it's not a station wagon) if you drive both for a week, in the street and track...i can almost guarantee you although the Vette is great, the 911 (preferably the Turbo model) will merge with your soul like no other car, or woman, can "Bob I" > wrote in message ... > And what is the criteria for supercar? As for power to weight, the regular > 'vette matches the the 911. Top speed, same. Balance? The 'vett is better > balanced AND has the engine mid-mounted instead of hanging off the rear > end of the differential. And it doesen't come with all the other > compromises like no trunk to speak of, silly little seats in the package > compartment, gas guzzler fuel mileage, extremely intrusive maintenance > schedule. and on an on. Stand where you will, it doesn't change reality. > > Lawrence Lugar wrote: >> if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited for a >> daily driver >> >> but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a >> supercar for everyday >> ...so my vote still stands, firmly >> >> >> >> >> "Bob I" > wrote in message >> ... >>> Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as a >>> daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. >>> >>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 >>>> Turbo >>>> >>>> >>>> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a >>>> track...driving it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on a >>>> leash in the park >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "pj" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the >>>>>> sake of being 'exotic' >>>>>> >>>>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>>>>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>>>> >>>>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and >>>>> give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If >>>>> yhou have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting your >>>>> fanny near the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of pure joy >>>>> in road sport. Don't judge by something like the MR2 or Fiero or some >>>>> race cars where the engine's center of mass is quite high. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >>>>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with >>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed >>>>>>> weight - >>>>>>> then so be it. >>>>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. >>>>>>> Corvette >>>>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes >>>>>>> out. >>>>>>> >>>>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>>>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor use >>>>> of interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. Any >>>>> production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >>>>> >>>>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance accessibility -- >>>>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, are >>>>> sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. Engine >>>>> layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. >>>>> >>>>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around since >>>>> the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove out. >>>>> >>>>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has increased. >>>>> Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise prices. My '02 >>>>> costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the policy including >>>>> comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are much lower on the >>>>> '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less than what I paid in >>>>> 2005. (the result of placing less importance on ZIP code and more on >>>>> a driver's track record.) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> pj >> |
Thought about returning in a c5
Humm, guess you are one of those "believers". Considering the 911 came
in 5th in the satisfaction survey, it was below the Honda S2000, Mazda MX-5 Miata and Mini Cooper S. And I'll give you one guess as to what car topped the list. By the way 20mpg is dismal. Reliable? I suppose as long as you give it back to the dealer every 30k miles to have the belts and other flapping pieces replaced. And a while a sports car isn't a station wagon, it still should enough room to pack some bags and souvenirs for a vacation or outing. So basically you desire it even if it's not as good at doing anything as well as a Corvette. Spare change? I suppose if you are intimating that if money is no object, well a Porsche would be the last thing I would consider ****ing it away on. Lawrence Lugar wrote: > you're right - that's why the Vette is dubbed america's sportscar, because > everything considered...it Is a great value for performance, good mpg, truck > space, relatively high on reliability. > > > but if you have change to spare, the 911 Turbo is ever soooo, sooo lovely. > > by the way, the 911 Turbo get's an avg. of 20mpg (i believe) and It's very > reliable(german). > it's a sportscar, you don't need large backseats and truckspace anyways > (it's not a station wagon) > > > > if you drive both for a week, in the street and track...i can almost > guarantee you although the Vette is great, the 911 (preferably the Turbo > model) will merge with your soul like no other car, or woman, can > > > > > > > > > > "Bob I" > wrote in message > ... >> And what is the criteria for supercar? As for power to weight, the regular >> 'vette matches the the 911. Top speed, same. Balance? The 'vett is better >> balanced AND has the engine mid-mounted instead of hanging off the rear >> end of the differential. And it doesen't come with all the other >> compromises like no trunk to speak of, silly little seats in the package >> compartment, gas guzzler fuel mileage, extremely intrusive maintenance >> schedule. and on an on. Stand where you will, it doesn't change reality. >> >> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>> if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited for a >>> daily driver >>> >>> but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a >>> supercar for everyday >>> ...so my vote still stands, firmly >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as a >>>> daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. >>>> >>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 >>>>> Turbo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a >>>>> track...driving it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on a >>>>> leash in the park >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "pj" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>>>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the >>>>>>> sake of being 'exotic' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>>>>>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and >>>>>> give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If >>>>>> yhou have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting your >>>>>> fanny near the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of pure joy >>>>>> in road sport. Don't judge by something like the MR2 or Fiero or some >>>>>> race cars where the engine's center of mass is quite high. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've seriously >>>>>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with >>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed >>>>>>>> weight - >>>>>>>> then so be it. >>>>>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. >>>>>>>> Corvette >>>>>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes >>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>>>>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor use >>>>>> of interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. Any >>>>>> production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >>>>>> >>>>>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance accessibility -- >>>>>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, are >>>>>> sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. Engine >>>>>> layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. >>>>>> >>>>>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around since >>>>>> the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove out. >>>>>> >>>>>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has increased. >>>>>> Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise prices. My '02 >>>>>> costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the policy including >>>>>> comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are much lower on the >>>>>> '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less than what I paid in >>>>>> 2005. (the result of placing less importance on ZIP code and more on >>>>>> a driver's track record.) >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> pj > > |
Thought about returning in a c5
Pretty simple Yes or No, you bought a car, would you buy it again?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... oogle+Search Unfortunately, your logic says if you paid MORE it MUST be better, which is a fallacy all by itself. So in your world if it costs less it must be inferior. In reality, I see a lot more advertising hype, than car when it comes to Porsche, but hey, believe what you will. Lawrence Lugar wrote: > state the publication, date, page, etc of that customer satisfaction > survey - to have some credibility. > > i'd like to see the variables they use. > but keep in mind, it's made for the masses in mind. > > that's like saying a ferrari is inferior to corvette because the masses > can't afford one, it's too expensive. > since corvette is more affordable, it ranks higher in this 'survery' - that > logic, to some extent is bs > > corvette is good, i'm not taking anything away from it...but it's like a > hershey chocolate bar. > porsche is arguably better...albeit, at a premium price...it'd be like an > imported swiss or italian chocolate bar. > > > > > > "Bob I" > wrote in message > ... >> Humm, guess you are one of those "believers". Considering the 911 came in >> 5th in the satisfaction survey, it was below the Honda S2000, Mazda MX-5 >> Miata and Mini Cooper S. And I'll give you one guess as to what car topped >> the list. By the way 20mpg is dismal. Reliable? I suppose as long as you >> give it back to the dealer every 30k miles to have the belts and other >> flapping pieces replaced. And a while a sports car isn't a station wagon, >> it still should enough room to pack some bags and souvenirs for a vacation >> or outing. So basically you desire it even if it's not as good at doing >> anything as well as a Corvette. Spare change? I suppose if you are >> intimating that if money is no object, well a Porsche would be the last >> thing I would consider ****ing it away on. >> >> >> >> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>> you're right - that's why the Vette is dubbed america's sportscar, >>> because everything considered...it Is a great value for performance, good >>> mpg, truck space, relatively high on reliability. >>> >>> >>> but if you have change to spare, the 911 Turbo is ever soooo, sooo >>> lovely. >>> >>> by the way, the 911 Turbo get's an avg. of 20mpg (i believe) and It's >>> very reliable(german). >>> it's a sportscar, you don't need large backseats and truckspace anyways >>> (it's not a station wagon) >>> >>> >>> >>> if you drive both for a week, in the street and track...i can almost >>> guarantee you although the Vette is great, the 911 (preferably the Turbo >>> model) will merge with your soul like no other car, or woman, can >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> And what is the criteria for supercar? As for power to weight, the >>>> regular 'vette matches the the 911. Top speed, same. Balance? The 'vett >>>> is better balanced AND has the engine mid-mounted instead of hanging >>>> off the rear end of the differential. And it doesen't come with all the >>>> other compromises like no trunk to speak of, silly little seats in the >>>> package compartment, gas guzzler fuel mileage, extremely intrusive >>>> maintenance schedule. and on an on. Stand where you will, it doesn't >>>> change reality. >>>> >>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>> if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited for a >>>>> daily driver >>>>> >>>>> but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a >>>>> supercar for everyday >>>>> ...so my vote still stands, firmly >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as a >>>>>> daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 >>>>>>> Turbo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a >>>>>>> track...driving it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on >>>>>>> a leash in the park >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "pj" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>>>>>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for >>>>>>>>> the sake of being 'exotic' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>>>>>>>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and >>>>>>>> give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If >>>>>>>> yhou have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting >>>>>>>> your fanny near the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of >>>>>>>> pure joy in road sport. Don't judge by something like the MR2 or >>>>>>>> Fiero or some race cars where the engine's center of mass is quite >>>>>>>> high. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've >>>>>>>>>>> seriously >>>>>>>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with >>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>>>>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed >>>>>>>>>> weight - >>>>>>>>>> then so be it. >>>>>>>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. >>>>>>>>>> Corvette >>>>>>>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>>>>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>>>>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes >>>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>>>>>>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor >>>>>>>> use of interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. >>>>>>>> Any production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance >>>>>>>> accessibility -- >>>>>>>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, >>>>>>>> are sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. >>>>>>>> Engine layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around >>>>>>>> since the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove >>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has >>>>>>>> increased. Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise >>>>>>>> prices. My '02 costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the >>>>>>>> policy including comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are >>>>>>>> much lower on the '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less >>>>>>>> than what I paid in 2005. (the result of placing less importance on >>>>>>>> ZIP code and more on a driver's track record.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> pj > |
Thought about returning in a c5
state the publication, date, page, etc of that customer satisfaction
survey - to have some credibility. i'd like to see the variables they use. but keep in mind, it's made for the masses in mind. that's like saying a ferrari is inferior to corvette because the masses can't afford one, it's too expensive. since corvette is more affordable, it ranks higher in this 'survery' - that logic, to some extent is bs corvette is good, i'm not taking anything away from it...but it's like a hershey chocolate bar. porsche is arguably better...albeit, at a premium price...it'd be like an imported swiss or italian chocolate bar. "Bob I" > wrote in message ... > Humm, guess you are one of those "believers". Considering the 911 came in > 5th in the satisfaction survey, it was below the Honda S2000, Mazda MX-5 > Miata and Mini Cooper S. And I'll give you one guess as to what car topped > the list. By the way 20mpg is dismal. Reliable? I suppose as long as you > give it back to the dealer every 30k miles to have the belts and other > flapping pieces replaced. And a while a sports car isn't a station wagon, > it still should enough room to pack some bags and souvenirs for a vacation > or outing. So basically you desire it even if it's not as good at doing > anything as well as a Corvette. Spare change? I suppose if you are > intimating that if money is no object, well a Porsche would be the last > thing I would consider ****ing it away on. > > > > Lawrence Lugar wrote: >> you're right - that's why the Vette is dubbed america's sportscar, >> because everything considered...it Is a great value for performance, good >> mpg, truck space, relatively high on reliability. >> >> >> but if you have change to spare, the 911 Turbo is ever soooo, sooo >> lovely. >> >> by the way, the 911 Turbo get's an avg. of 20mpg (i believe) and It's >> very reliable(german). >> it's a sportscar, you don't need large backseats and truckspace anyways >> (it's not a station wagon) >> >> >> >> if you drive both for a week, in the street and track...i can almost >> guarantee you although the Vette is great, the 911 (preferably the Turbo >> model) will merge with your soul like no other car, or woman, can >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bob I" > wrote in message >> ... >>> And what is the criteria for supercar? As for power to weight, the >>> regular 'vette matches the the 911. Top speed, same. Balance? The 'vett >>> is better balanced AND has the engine mid-mounted instead of hanging >>> off the rear end of the differential. And it doesen't come with all the >>> other compromises like no trunk to speak of, silly little seats in the >>> package compartment, gas guzzler fuel mileage, extremely intrusive >>> maintenance schedule. and on an on. Stand where you will, it doesn't >>> change reality. >>> >>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>> if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited for a >>>> daily driver >>>> >>>> but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a >>>> supercar for everyday >>>> ...so my vote still stands, firmly >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as a >>>>> daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. >>>>> >>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 >>>>>> Turbo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a >>>>>> track...driving it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat on >>>>>> a leash in the park >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "pj" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>>>>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for >>>>>>>> the sake of being 'exotic' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>>>>>>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus and >>>>>>> give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. (If >>>>>>> yhou have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) Putting >>>>>>> your fanny near the CG with very low polar moment yields a lot of >>>>>>> pure joy in road sport. Don't judge by something like the MR2 or >>>>>>> Fiero or some race cars where the engine's center of mass is quite >>>>>>> high. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've >>>>>>>>>> seriously >>>>>>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick with >>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>>>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed >>>>>>>>> weight - >>>>>>>>> then so be it. >>>>>>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. >>>>>>>>> Corvette >>>>>>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>>>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>>>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 comes >>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>>>>>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor >>>>>>> use of interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. >>>>>>> Any production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance >>>>>>> accessibility -- >>>>>>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, >>>>>>> are sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. >>>>>>> Engine layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a challenge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around >>>>>>> since the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't prove >>>>>>> out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has >>>>>>> increased. Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise >>>>>>> prices. My '02 costs less than does my '89 for all elements of the >>>>>>> policy including comprehensive. The liability and med coverages are >>>>>>> much lower on the '02 -- the car is safer! This year's bill is less >>>>>>> than what I paid in 2005. (the result of placing less importance on >>>>>>> ZIP code and more on a driver's track record.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> pj >> |
Thought about returning in a c5
lol - i won't disagree with you on the advertising...porsche sells emotion
in their advertising, while corvette sells its performance stats. i see it all the time in the car magazines i read. there's four levels of sportscars: 1.) asian brands 2.) corvette 3.) porsche 4.) ferrari they're all fine and great cars, in their respective price categories. but one should ultimatey start from 1 and go all the way up through 4, if possible the vette people always say the vette can match, if not beat, the italians and germans. maybe or maybe not...but there's sooo much more else than just what 0-60 and other common stat measures tells. "Bob I" > wrote in message ... > Pretty simple Yes or No, you bought a car, would you buy it again? > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... oogle+Search > > Unfortunately, your logic says if you paid MORE it MUST be better, which > is a fallacy all by itself. So in your world if it costs less it must be > inferior. In reality, I see a lot more advertising hype, than car when it > comes to Porsche, but hey, believe what you will. > > > Lawrence Lugar wrote: >> state the publication, date, page, etc of that customer satisfaction >> survey - to have some credibility. >> >> i'd like to see the variables they use. >> but keep in mind, it's made for the masses in mind. >> >> that's like saying a ferrari is inferior to corvette because the masses >> can't afford one, it's too expensive. >> since corvette is more affordable, it ranks higher in this 'survery' - >> that logic, to some extent is bs >> >> corvette is good, i'm not taking anything away from it...but it's like a >> hershey chocolate bar. >> porsche is arguably better...albeit, at a premium price...it'd be like an >> imported swiss or italian chocolate bar. >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bob I" > wrote in message >> ... >>> Humm, guess you are one of those "believers". Considering the 911 came >>> in 5th in the satisfaction survey, it was below the Honda S2000, Mazda >>> MX-5 Miata and Mini Cooper S. And I'll give you one guess as to what car >>> topped the list. By the way 20mpg is dismal. Reliable? I suppose as long >>> as you give it back to the dealer every 30k miles to have the belts and >>> other flapping pieces replaced. And a while a sports car isn't a station >>> wagon, it still should enough room to pack some bags and souvenirs for a >>> vacation or outing. So basically you desire it even if it's not as good >>> at doing anything as well as a Corvette. Spare change? I suppose if you >>> are intimating that if money is no object, well a Porsche would be the >>> last thing I would consider ****ing it away on. >>> >>> >>> >>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>> you're right - that's why the Vette is dubbed america's sportscar, >>>> because everything considered...it Is a great value for performance, >>>> good mpg, truck space, relatively high on reliability. >>>> >>>> >>>> but if you have change to spare, the 911 Turbo is ever soooo, sooo >>>> lovely. >>>> >>>> by the way, the 911 Turbo get's an avg. of 20mpg (i believe) and It's >>>> very reliable(german). >>>> it's a sportscar, you don't need large backseats and truckspace anyways >>>> (it's not a station wagon) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> if you drive both for a week, in the street and track...i can almost >>>> guarantee you although the Vette is great, the 911 (preferably the >>>> Turbo model) will merge with your soul like no other car, or woman, can >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> And what is the criteria for supercar? As for power to weight, the >>>>> regular 'vette matches the the 911. Top speed, same. Balance? The >>>>> 'vett is better balanced AND has the engine mid-mounted instead of >>>>> hanging off the rear end of the differential. And it doesen't come >>>>> with all the other compromises like no trunk to speak of, silly little >>>>> seats in the package compartment, gas guzzler fuel mileage, extremely >>>>> intrusive maintenance schedule. and on an on. Stand where you will, it >>>>> doesn't change reality. >>>>> >>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>> if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited for >>>>>> a daily driver >>>>>> >>>>>> but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a >>>>>> supercar for everyday >>>>>> ...so my vote still stands, firmly >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used as >>>>>>> a daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>>> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the 911 >>>>>>>> Turbo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a >>>>>>>> track...driving it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat >>>>>>>> on a leash in the park >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "pj" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>>>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>>>>>>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for >>>>>>>>>> the sake of being 'exotic' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which >>>>>>>>>> magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus >>>>>>>>> and give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving situations. >>>>>>>>> (If yhou have more money than I -- a lot more -- go Italian) >>>>>>>>> Putting your fanny near the CG with very low polar moment yields a >>>>>>>>> lot of pure joy in road sport. Don't judge by something like the >>>>>>>>> MR2 or Fiero or some race cars where the engine's center of mass >>>>>>>>> is quite high. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously >>>>>>>>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick >>>>>>>>>>>> with it's >>>>>>>>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>>>>>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed >>>>>>>>>>> weight - >>>>>>>>>>> then so be it. >>>>>>>>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. >>>>>>>>>>> Corvette >>>>>>>>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>>>>>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>>>>>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 >>>>>>>>>>> comes out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>>>>>>>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor >>>>>>>>> use of interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is laughable. >>>>>>>>> Any production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... period. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance >>>>>>>>> accessibility -- >>>>>>>>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, >>>>>>>>> are sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. >>>>>>>>> Engine layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a >>>>>>>>> challenge. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around >>>>>>>>> since the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't >>>>>>>>> prove out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has >>>>>>>>> increased. Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise >>>>>>>>> prices. My '02 costs less than does my '89 for all elements of >>>>>>>>> the policy including comprehensive. The liability and med >>>>>>>>> coverages are much lower on the '02 -- the car is safer! This >>>>>>>>> year's bill is less than what I paid in 2005. (the result of >>>>>>>>> placing less importance on ZIP code and more on a driver's track >>>>>>>>> record.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> pj >> |
Thought about returning in a c5
the ferrari will make you hot and horny.
the porsche will make your soul dance. the corvette will make you feel like the lead actor. and the asian sportscars, lol..will make you feel karatey and chinese foody "Lawrence Lugar" > wrote in message ... > lol - i won't disagree with you on the advertising...porsche sells emotion > in their advertising, while corvette sells its performance stats. > i see it all the time in the car magazines i read. > > > > there's four levels of sportscars: > > 1.) asian brands > 2.) corvette > 3.) porsche > 4.) ferrari > > > they're all fine and great cars, in their respective price categories. > but one should ultimatey start from 1 and go all the way up through 4, if > possible > > the vette people always say the vette can match, if not beat, the italians > and germans. > maybe or maybe not...but there's sooo much more else than just what 0-60 > and other common stat measures tells. > > > > > > > > > "Bob I" > wrote in message > ... >> Pretty simple Yes or No, you bought a car, would you buy it again? >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... oogle+Search >> >> Unfortunately, your logic says if you paid MORE it MUST be better, which >> is a fallacy all by itself. So in your world if it costs less it must be >> inferior. In reality, I see a lot more advertising hype, than car when it >> comes to Porsche, but hey, believe what you will. >> >> >> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>> state the publication, date, page, etc of that customer satisfaction >>> survey - to have some credibility. >>> >>> i'd like to see the variables they use. >>> but keep in mind, it's made for the masses in mind. >>> >>> that's like saying a ferrari is inferior to corvette because the masses >>> can't afford one, it's too expensive. >>> since corvette is more affordable, it ranks higher in this 'survery' - >>> that logic, to some extent is bs >>> >>> corvette is good, i'm not taking anything away from it...but it's like a >>> hershey chocolate bar. >>> porsche is arguably better...albeit, at a premium price...it'd be like >>> an imported swiss or italian chocolate bar. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> Humm, guess you are one of those "believers". Considering the 911 came >>>> in 5th in the satisfaction survey, it was below the Honda S2000, Mazda >>>> MX-5 Miata and Mini Cooper S. And I'll give you one guess as to what >>>> car topped the list. By the way 20mpg is dismal. Reliable? I suppose as >>>> long as you give it back to the dealer every 30k miles to have the >>>> belts and other flapping pieces replaced. And a while a sports car >>>> isn't a station wagon, it still should enough room to pack some bags >>>> and souvenirs for a vacation or outing. So basically you desire it even >>>> if it's not as good at doing anything as well as a Corvette. Spare >>>> change? I suppose if you are intimating that if money is no object, >>>> well a Porsche would be the last thing I would consider ****ing it away >>>> on. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>> you're right - that's why the Vette is dubbed america's sportscar, >>>>> because everything considered...it Is a great value for performance, >>>>> good mpg, truck space, relatively high on reliability. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> but if you have change to spare, the 911 Turbo is ever soooo, sooo >>>>> lovely. >>>>> >>>>> by the way, the 911 Turbo get's an avg. of 20mpg (i believe) and It's >>>>> very reliable(german). >>>>> it's a sportscar, you don't need large backseats and truckspace >>>>> anyways (it's not a station wagon) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> if you drive both for a week, in the street and track...i can almost >>>>> guarantee you although the Vette is great, the 911 (preferably the >>>>> Turbo model) will merge with your soul like no other car, or woman, >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> And what is the criteria for supercar? As for power to weight, the >>>>>> regular 'vette matches the the 911. Top speed, same. Balance? The >>>>>> 'vett is better balanced AND has the engine mid-mounted instead of >>>>>> hanging off the rear end of the differential. And it doesen't come >>>>>> with all the other compromises like no trunk to speak of, silly >>>>>> little seats in the package compartment, gas guzzler fuel mileage, >>>>>> extremely intrusive maintenance schedule. and on an on. Stand where >>>>>> you will, it doesn't change reality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>> if it's the 'vette...it's the c6, not the zo6, that's best suited >>>>>>> for a daily driver >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but even then, there's a reason the 911 Turbo is known for being a >>>>>>> supercar for everyday >>>>>>> ...so my vote still stands, firmly >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Bob I" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Unfortunately you have way too many compromises for it to be used >>>>>>>> as a daily driver so the 'vette gets the nod once again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>>>> the best supercar for the street/everyday life...is by far, the >>>>>>>>> 911 Turbo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ferrari's and lambo's, even the z06 is best at home on a >>>>>>>>> track...driving it in street conditions is like walking a wildcat >>>>>>>>> on a leash in the park >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "pj" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Lawrence Lugar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >>>>>>>>>>> it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost >>>>>>>>>>> for the sake of being 'exotic' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot >>>>>>>>>>> which magazine specifically, i subscribe to many) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All is not race/track in this market. Strap on a 914-6 or Lotus >>>>>>>>>> and give a 'middie' a try in a wide variety of driving >>>>>>>>>> situations. (If yhou have more money than I -- a lot more -- go >>>>>>>>>> Italian) Putting your fanny near the CG with very low polar >>>>>>>>>> moment yields a lot of pure joy in road sport. Don't judge by >>>>>>>>>> something like the MR2 or Fiero or some race cars where the >>>>>>>>>> engine's center of mass is quite high. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "ACAR" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 5:53 pm, "name" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> i've read about the mid-engine vette in a magazine...i've >>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously >>>>>>>>>>>>> considered the pros/cons...and i say, corvette should stick >>>>>>>>>>>>> with it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> front-engine design placement >>>>>>>>>>>> If mid-engined is the way Corvette has to go in order to shed >>>>>>>>>>>> weight - >>>>>>>>>>>> then so be it. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ever increasing HP is gonna send insurance rates even higher. >>>>>>>>>>>> Corvette >>>>>>>>>>>> has to find another way to boost performance. >>>>>>>>>>>> A mid-engined platform should also allow for an AWD option. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>> certainly go for that! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Traditionalists will have the new Camaro by the time the C7 >>>>>>>>>>>> comes out. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While fun to drive, mid-engine layouts (I speak to less expensive >>>>>>>>>> criters that I've owned: MR2, Lotus, Porsche, & Fiero) have poor >>>>>>>>>> use of interior volume. Storage, for a weekend trip is >>>>>>>>>> laughable. Any production Corvette has to carry golf clubs... >>>>>>>>>> period. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Middies are a nightmare when it comes to maintenance >>>>>>>>>> accessibility -- >>>>>>>>>> the flat rate manual hours, for what we think of as simple tasks, >>>>>>>>>> are sky high. Plumbing for cooling and a/c add weight and cost. >>>>>>>>>> Engine layout, to keep vertical center of mass low, is a >>>>>>>>>> challenge. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The horsepower vs. insurance rate scare argument has been around >>>>>>>>>> since the first Chrysler 300 -- circa 1950s -- and it doesn't >>>>>>>>>> prove out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My Corvette insurance rates have dropped even though HP has >>>>>>>>>> increased. Drunks, immature drivers and racing exposure all raise >>>>>>>>>> prices. My '02 costs less than does my '89 for all elements of >>>>>>>>>> the policy including comprehensive. The liability and med >>>>>>>>>> coverages are much lower on the '02 -- the car is safer! This >>>>>>>>>> year's bill is less than what I paid in 2005. (the result of >>>>>>>>>> placing less importance on ZIP code and more on a driver's track >>>>>>>>>> record.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> pj >>> > > |
Thought about returning in a c5
Bob I wrote:
> Pretty simple Yes or No, you bought a car, would you buy it again? > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q... oogle+Search > Well, I prefer the Corvette, but to be honest, the survey that you linked to shows that both cars scored very high, and within a few percent points of each other. Based on that, and the text that goes with the table, both got a thumbs up rating. They both ranked below the Toyota Prius, but I'm not considering one to replace my Corvette. |
Thought about returning in a c5
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:29:06 -0700, "Lawrence Lugar"
> puked: >a mid-engine vette won't decrease weight, nor increase 0-60 time >it says so in the article....if anything, it'll just add cost for the sake >of being 'exotic' > >i think it was the latest isssue of Road and Track. (forgot which magazine >specifically, i subscribe to many) > >pure race, track cars should be rear-wheel drive. Wouldn't the mid engine be RWD? And the engine placement is for overall balance of the car. -- lab~rat >:-) Stupid humans... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com