M3 Vs Corvette Z06
- Thread starter Zeratul
- Start date
Can you tell me where those numbers are coming from?
I believe 4.7 is the manufacturer claim for 0-100 kmh, or 0-62 MPH for the new M5. I also understand that some european tests of the E60 M5 are showing 4.3-4.5 seconds 0-100 kmh.
I also believe the non-Z06 C6 is more like 4.3 seconds to sixty and runs around 12.4/12.5 in the quarter, from the reviews I have read. That would put it very close to the new M5. Sounds like a driver's race, and I wouldn't be surprised if the M5 had a better chance at higher speeds than at low speeds given the weight difference and power difference.
I believe 4.7 is the manufacturer claim for 0-100 kmh, or 0-62 MPH for the new M5. I also understand that some european tests of the E60 M5 are showing 4.3-4.5 seconds 0-100 kmh.
I also believe the non-Z06 C6 is more like 4.3 seconds to sixty and runs around 12.4/12.5 in the quarter, from the reviews I have read. That would put it very close to the new M5. Sounds like a driver's race, and I wouldn't be surprised if the M5 had a better chance at higher speeds than at low speeds given the weight difference and power difference.
No, actually you are incorrect on the Vette, but correct on the new M5
C6 Vette:
Car & Driver / December issue page 50
C6 Z51 ...................0-60 in 4.1 ...........1/4 mile in 12.6
New 2006 M5:
Car & Driver / December issue page 101
2006 BMW M5 .......0-62 4.7 est.
Obviously I am a BMW fan, but in no way will the new M5 make the C6 look like a "pepper grinder with wheels".
C6 Vette:
Car & Driver / December issue page 50
C6 Z51 ...................0-60 in 4.1 ...........1/4 mile in 12.6
New 2006 M5:
Car & Driver / December issue page 101
2006 BMW M5 .......0-62 4.7 est.
Obviously I am a BMW fan, but in no way will the new M5 make the C6 look like a "pepper grinder with wheels".
I don't think other #s for the C6 have been quite as good as the 4.1 in Car and Driver, but ICBW. I would love to see some specific examples of other tests of the C6. I would be surprised to see anything above a 4.5 for that car, unless Consumer Reports tests it, in which case they will be lucky to break 5 seconds.
Only after C6s have been tested by a number of sources, including enthusiasts at local drag strips, will we be able to say anything definitive about its performance. And even then, it will be a range, not a precise #. Testing conditions vary, testers vary, and cars vary.
Only after C6s have been tested by a number of sources, including enthusiasts at local drag strips, will we be able to say anything definitive about its performance. And even then, it will be a range, not a precise #. Testing conditions vary, testers vary, and cars vary.
In acceleration it will be very close to be sure.
However, if both drivers keep their foot planted on the accelerator until they top out their respective cars, the M5 will win by virtue of its higher top speed, 205 MPH vs. 186 for the C6. That probably won't come into play too often, even on the autobahn.
However, if both drivers keep their foot planted on the accelerator until they top out their respective cars, the M5 will win by virtue of its higher top speed, 205 MPH vs. 186 for the C6. That probably won't come into play too often, even on the autobahn.
But here is the difference;
Chevy = Rock hard uncomfortable suspension for an uncanny crummy ride, not smooth at all pretty much a ricer car.
M5 = A Luxury Saloon Super car, it's designed to be a smooth ride that’s fast and careful at the same time
The difference = The M5 it’s just better to drive, that’s why everybody is trying to match it like the CTS-V etc. etc. They can’t do it, they can’t keep up – The endpoint – even if it can take off faster it can’t keep up with quality.
Chevy = Rock hard uncomfortable suspension for an uncanny crummy ride, not smooth at all pretty much a ricer car.
M5 = A Luxury Saloon Super car, it's designed to be a smooth ride that’s fast and careful at the same time
The difference = The M5 it’s just better to drive, that’s why everybody is trying to match it like the CTS-V etc. etc. They can’t do it, they can’t keep up – The endpoint – even if it can take off faster it can’t keep up with quality.
You are probably the only person in the world to call the C6 a 'ricer car'. Care to elaborate on that?
Many people consider rice to have a strong element of "all show, no go" and to involve cosmetic or pseudo-performance modifications that don't improve the quality of the car and serve to try to make it something it is not. To me, 'ricer' transcends japanese origin.
Quality doesn't translate into brute force acceleration. I also think you are probably speaking more of fit and finish and prestige rather than overall reliability, which hasn't always been perfect for BMW or Chevy.
Don't get me wrong, I would rather have an M5 over a C6 or CTS-V, but BMW's superiority is not what it once was and I don't think we can dismiss the American or Japanese competition so easily.
Many people consider rice to have a strong element of "all show, no go" and to involve cosmetic or pseudo-performance modifications that don't improve the quality of the car and serve to try to make it something it is not. To me, 'ricer' transcends japanese origin.
Quality doesn't translate into brute force acceleration. I also think you are probably speaking more of fit and finish and prestige rather than overall reliability, which hasn't always been perfect for BMW or Chevy.
Don't get me wrong, I would rather have an M5 over a C6 or CTS-V, but BMW's superiority is not what it once was and I don't think we can dismiss the American or Japanese competition so easily.
![[chair]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_chairshot.gif "Chair Shot [chair]"){kind=icon}
![[idea]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_idea.gif "Idea! [idea]"){kind=icon}
Wow - I am coming into this discussion late, but the uninformed anti-Corvette rhetoric on this board always amuses me. It's as bad as the politics threads... ![[rolleyes]](/images/smilies/rolleyes.png "Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) [rolleyes]")
Eric...you can hardly compare a 4x4 offroad multileaf spring with the highly-tuned single transverse fiberglass leaf springs in the Corvette. They are lightweight, they work, and the handling figures speak for themselves. The September 2004 issue of Road and Track posted 0.96g for the new non-Z06 C6. The September 2004 of Motor Trend posted 0.95g. That is nothing to sneeze at. Just wait until the C6 Z06 comes on the market. By the way, according to the same issue of Motor Trend, a 700-725 hp version of a lightweight (sub-3000 lb) C6 that is running a 7.0 liter version of the small-block is currently under development. It's future as a production car is questionable however (thank the bean counters at GM).
By the way, here's a pic of the rear suspension of the C6: Hardly seems primitive, and it certainly isn't producing primitive numbers.
Here's a pic of the "primitive" front suspension: Must I remind everyone that the M3 uses a much less advanced McPherson strut design?
Eric...you can hardly compare a 4x4 offroad multileaf spring with the highly-tuned single transverse fiberglass leaf springs in the Corvette. They are lightweight, they work, and the handling figures speak for themselves. The September 2004 issue of Road and Track posted 0.96g for the new non-Z06 C6. The September 2004 of Motor Trend posted 0.95g. That is nothing to sneeze at. Just wait until the C6 Z06 comes on the market. By the way, according to the same issue of Motor Trend, a 700-725 hp version of a lightweight (sub-3000 lb) C6 that is running a 7.0 liter version of the small-block is currently under development. It's future as a production car is questionable however (thank the bean counters at GM).
By the way, here's a pic of the rear suspension of the C6: Hardly seems primitive, and it certainly isn't producing primitive numbers.
Here's a pic of the "primitive" front suspension: Must I remind everyone that the M3 uses a much less advanced McPherson strut design?
jrt67ss350 said:
Wow - I am coming into this discussion late, but the uninformed anti-Corvette rhetoric on this board always amuses me. It's as bad as the politics threads...
Eric...you can hardly compare a 4x4 offroad multileaf spring with the highly-tuned single transverse fiberglass leaf springs in the Corvette. They are lightweight, they work, and the handling figures speak for themselves. The September 2004 issue of Road and Track posted 0.96g for the new non-Z06 C6. The September 2004 of Motor Trend posted 0.95g. That is nothing to sneeze at. Just wait until the C6 Z06 comes on the market. By the way, according to the same issue of Motor Trend, a 700-725 hp version of a lightweight (sub-3000 lb) C6 that is running a 7.0 liter version of the small-block is currently under development. It's future as a production car is questionable however (thank the bean counters at GM).
By the way, here's a pic of the rear suspension of the C6: Hardly seems primitive, and it certainly isn't producing primitive numbers.
Here's a pic of the "primitive" front suspension: Must I remind everyone that the M3 uses a much less advanced McPherson strut design?
Eric...you can hardly compare a 4x4 offroad multileaf spring with the highly-tuned single transverse fiberglass leaf springs in the Corvette. They are lightweight, they work, and the handling figures speak for themselves. The September 2004 issue of Road and Track posted 0.96g for the new non-Z06 C6. The September 2004 of Motor Trend posted 0.95g. That is nothing to sneeze at. Just wait until the C6 Z06 comes on the market. By the way, according to the same issue of Motor Trend, a 700-725 hp version of a lightweight (sub-3000 lb) C6 that is running a 7.0 liter version of the small-block is currently under development. It's future as a production car is questionable however (thank the bean counters at GM).
By the way, here's a pic of the rear suspension of the C6: Hardly seems primitive, and it certainly isn't producing primitive numbers.
Here's a pic of the "primitive" front suspension: Must I remind everyone that the M3 uses a much less advanced McPherson strut design?
Oh, by the way, here's a bit of interesting history for all of you "BMW is the end-all-be-all" and "GM is the devil" people:
The McPherson strut front suspension design that BMW has stubbornly retained in the 3 series since its inception was designed by none other than Earle S. McPherson way back in 1947. Guess who Earle McPherson was? A GM suspension engineer. That's right - all of you 3 series owners are riding on a 57 year old front suspension design conceived by a GM suspension designer!![[rofl]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_rofl.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
The McPherson strut front suspension design that BMW has stubbornly retained in the 3 series since its inception was designed by none other than Earle S. McPherson way back in 1947. Guess who Earle McPherson was? A GM suspension engineer. That's right - all of you 3 series owners are riding on a 57 year old front suspension design conceived by a GM suspension designer!
Yup, as I think I said in another thread, the C6 redefines the 'vette. It's no longer the straight line car it used to be. Now to ignite another controversy - It's approaching supercar performance. When the Z06 comes out (I hear rumors of 500 - 550 hp) it will arguably be the cheapest supercar on the market.
The C5 is a decent handler, it just lacks refinement and isn't built as well as it should be. It appears the C6 addresses these criticizms, so it may be a fine car indeed.
I stopped by a local Chevy dealer to drive one, but they didn't have a C6 on the lot. I pulled right up to the showroom and half of the people in it stared at the NSX. I could see the closest people ask a salesperson what kind of car it was. I wish I could have heard his response through the glass.
I wasn't two feet from my car when another salesman walked up to me and asked me what it was. I told him and asked if he had a C6 I could drive. He said he didn't know, did I want a new or used one? I told him they are all new. The C6 is the new Corvette. He said they didn't have any on the lot. I thanked him and left in an abrupt manner, much in the same way I left a Honda dealer a few weeks ago when they confirmed the new Accord Hybrid was to be automatic only. [shake]
I stopped by a local Chevy dealer to drive one, but they didn't have a C6 on the lot. I pulled right up to the showroom and half of the people in it stared at the NSX. I could see the closest people ask a salesperson what kind of car it was. I wish I could have heard his response through the glass.
I wasn't two feet from my car when another salesman walked up to me and asked me what it was. I told him and asked if he had a C6 I could drive. He said he didn't know, did I want a new or used one? I told him they are all new. The C6 is the new Corvette. He said they didn't have any on the lot. I thanked him and left in an abrupt manner, much in the same way I left a Honda dealer a few weeks ago when they confirmed the new Accord Hybrid was to be automatic only. [shake]
You certainly have a valid point on the uninformed, marque-centrist attitude that permeates this forum and car forums in general.
Do you know if those were Z51 equiped C6s? If so, as with the C6 tested by C&D, you probably won't see a huge improvement with the Z06, as the Z51 C6 is basically 3/4s of a Z06, i.e. a Z06 w/o engine (and a few other things I am sure, but you get the point).
Do you know if those were Z51 equiped C6s? If so, as with the C6 tested by C&D, you probably won't see a huge improvement with the Z06, as the Z51 C6 is basically 3/4s of a Z06, i.e. a Z06 w/o engine (and a few other things I am sure, but you get the point).
Good point - both were Z51 equipped C6s. However, it is interesting to note that the 0.96g quoted by Road and Track was a convertible Z51 C6! The car tested by MT was a coupe. MT quoted a 4.3 second 0-60 time in their 3267 lb coupe and R&T quoted a 4.8 second 0-60 time in the heavier 3380 lb convertible. Both were Z51 equipped. Not bad for a car rated at 19/28 mpg.
R&T noted: "For the best standing starts, hold the Corvette C6's engine rpm at 3500, drop the clutch and quickly but progressively apply full throttle to prevent excessive wheelspin."
R&T noted: "For the best standing starts, hold the Corvette C6's engine rpm at 3500, drop the clutch and quickly but progressively apply full throttle to prevent excessive wheelspin."
That is impressive, but it was designed to be a convertible from Day 1, and not a Coupe that was chopped and reinforced after it was already in production. I think the structural rigidity is pretty close for the two. Recall the C5 Coupe was sort of a convertible, with the limited production hardtop being the most rigid C5 available.