It's official the C6 Z06 is BAD!!
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...7&forum_id=100
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...5&forum_id=100
Here is some reading
This new car is awesome.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...5&forum_id=100
Here is some reading
This new car is awesome.
Originally Posted by BlackLab
It's leaf spring, not springs (don't be thinking leaf springs as used in trucks or older cars). In the vette it's a single, composite, transverse mounted spring incorporated into a short/long arm (SLA) setup with double wishbone, cast aluminum upper & lower control arms, and monotube shock absorbers. And since the car pulls close to 1.0g on the skidpad, it obviously works 
.
.One of the other advantages of the transverse leaf is it allows the suspension to be relatively short (vertically), thus allowing a lower cowl relative to the size of the wheel/tire combo (unlike, say, an Evo which needs a lot of space for its MacPherson struts
). The alternative method to keeping a low cowl is using bell cranks (Ford GT uses this method), but bell cranks tend to add quite a bit of cost.
yeah your right about the 198mph, but i know some one who test the car before you can by it he said the 1/4 is 12.1 stock but everything is right about 60mph in frist gear.
The new Corvette can accelerate from 0-60 mph in 4.2 seconds and cover the standing quarter-mile in 12.5, according to Chevrolet. That's quicker than a Porsche 911 Carrera or Jaguar XK8 and comparable to a Ferrari 360 Modena. There's lots of torque at all engine speeds. Stand on the gas and it goes. Corvette engineers say the new car can lap a racing circuit nearly as quickly as a Z06, and boasts a top speed of 186 mph. Damn! 
Chevrolet did their homework, they accomplished this by reducing drag. But there were some problems. The new back tires were wider and the front has an open grill. That kills your drag coefficient. The car was shortened by 5” increasing the chances of drag-induced turbulence at the end of the car.
Who cares! the car is still a bad ***!
Chevrolet did their homework, they accomplished this by reducing drag. But there were some problems. The new back tires were wider and the front has an open grill. That kills your drag coefficient. The car was shortened by 5” increasing the chances of drag-induced turbulence at the end of the car.
Who cares! the car is still a bad ***!
Evolving Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: Fairfield County, CT
Fast bikes are stupid dangerous-- I prefer to protect myself in a nice steel/aluminum frame so maybe I have a CHANCE of living. There are only two ways to stop riding, fall and get spooked (and hurt) or DIE.
Here is a crazy statistic for you-- and the link to boot:
In 2004 4,008 motorcycles riders died (up 89% since 1997!!) and passanger car deaths fell 3.2% to 19,091. Driving a car is already the most dangerous thing any of us do each day, yet riding a motorcycle is 26.3 times more likely to kill you! That is just asinine as much as I crave speed. I've got too much to live for!
Here is a crazy statistic for you-- and the link to boot:
In 2004 4,008 motorcycles riders died (up 89% since 1997!!) and passanger car deaths fell 3.2% to 19,091. Driving a car is already the most dangerous thing any of us do each day, yet riding a motorcycle is 26.3 times more likely to kill you! That is just asinine as much as I crave speed. I've got too much to live for!
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
From: NC
Originally Posted by Google
Fast bikes are stupid dangerous-- I prefer to protect myself in a nice steel/aluminum frame so maybe I have a CHANCE of living. There are only two ways to stop riding, fall and get spooked (and hurt) or DIE.
Originally Posted by Google
Here is a crazy statistic for you-- and the link to boot:
In 2004 4,008 motorcycles riders died (up 89% since 1997!!) and passanger car deaths fell 3.2% to 19,091. Driving a car is already the most dangerous thing any of us do each day, yet riding a motorcycle is 26.3 times more likely to kill you! That is just asinine as much as I crave speed. I've got too much to live for!
In 2004 4,008 motorcycles riders died (up 89% since 1997!!) and passanger car deaths fell 3.2% to 19,091. Driving a car is already the most dangerous thing any of us do each day, yet riding a motorcycle is 26.3 times more likely to kill you! That is just asinine as much as I crave speed. I've got too much to live for!
Evolving Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: Fairfield County, CT
Did you read the article Loj??-- NOT a half truth-- it broke down to fatalities per 100 Million miles-- so number of drivers becomes irrelevant. I'll go at this all day with you-- riding a Motorcycle is extremely dangerous. Yes I am more likely to live in a car, deal with it!
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
From: NC
Originally Posted by Google
Did you read the article Loj??-- NOT a half truth-- it broke down to fatalities per 100 Million miles-- so number of drivers becomes irrelevant. I'll go at this all day with you-- riding a Motorcycle is extremely dangerous. Yes I am more likely to live in a car, deal with it!
I never said they weren't dangerous....but you said they were "stupid" and dangerous and that's just a dumb thing to say. And yes, the # of drivers is completely relevant to those stats. Rating the fatalities per 100 million miles means jack ****.....there's could be 10x more bikers on the road just not riding significant amounts of miles.....thus the more bikes on the road the more crashes there will be. Also if the number of drivers is "irrelevant" than by your post I'm 5x more likely to die in a car. Sure you're more likely to live in a car crash......cuz you're going so friggin' slow
