|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=5727 |
|
| Comments: 17 (Read/Post) Favorites: 1 (View) |
Submitted
on: 05-16-2002
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Vehicle Group |
|
|
Description:
Corvette beat a viper!!! |
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
 |
| #1 |
5-16-2002 @ 03:44:31 PM |
| Posted By : Jurrell |
Reply | Edit | Del |
"The Z06 doesn't win because it's the fastest (it isn't), it doesn't win because it's the prettiest (at least we don't think so), and it doesn't win because it's the most exciting (it's not bad).
The Corvette wins by a single point because it's almost as fast, just about as pretty, and certainly plenty exciting. It also costs almost eight grand less than the Cobra, a little more than half the price of the Viper, and has more amenities and space than either one.
Enthusiastically was how we initially received the new Z06 (C/D, August 2000), but there was no swooning. If you want us to swoon, GM, make the luscious LS6 V-8 available in the coupe and convertible with other suspensions besides the spine-compressing FE4. Otherwise, there will be no swooning here.
Out in the desert the Corvette revealed other things to whine about, such as unsettling body motion at high speed and a strong urge on the part of the rear end to see the view forward. With the active yaw control switched off, the chassis becomes nervous. It supplied the lowest lateral-acceleration number of the group (0.93 g). In corners, the rear tires felt greasier than our In-N-Out burgers. So did the flat seats, which offer the least amount of lateral support in the group. The only way to drive the Z06 hard without falling out is to wedge yourself into the bolster with your left foot. Fortunately, there's a dead pedal down there, unlike the Viper's setup.
[Edited by Jurrell on 5-16-2002 @ 03:45:33 PM]
|
|
| #2 |
5-16-2002 @ 03:46:12 PM |
| Posted By : Jurrell |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Chevrolet Corvette Z06
Highs: Improved electronics are less nannylike, a Rolls-Royce inside compared with the others, fun-to-dollar ratio beats all.
Lows: Squirrelly rear end lengthens lap times, flabby seats lack support, reviled one-to-four skip shift" still with us.
The Verdict: Fewer florins buy as much performance and more comfort.
|
|
| #5 |
5-22-2002 @ 10:28:07 AM |
| Posted By : cams116 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Go the jet areoplane. It beats all of them. Apart from the cost factor.
|
|
| #6 |
6-27-2002 @ 02:01:53 PM |
| Posted By : Mad Max |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I'd like to see this comparo again, but with a 2003 Cobra instead of a 2001 Cobra R. It'd be interesting to see what C&D'd say then. The Cobra R never had a chance in this one because it has no interior bells and whistles, and C&D's obsessed with those.
|
|
| #7 |
6-27-2002 @ 02:11:54 PM |
| Posted By : CRXtrackguy |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Road and Track's better, they don't give a shit about the interior.
|
|
| #9 |
6-27-2002 @ 04:20:54 PM |
| Posted By : Jurrell |
Reply | Edit | Del |
But I think Car and Driver has a better tv show
|
|
| #11 |
6-27-2002 @ 04:25:03 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I don't like Road and Track, because they spend a bit more time flaming musclecars than I'd like (that's why my subscription is no longer).
I like Car and Driver, but they piss me off with their "mamby-pambiness". They constantly bitch about how comfortable a sports car should be. It's a sports car comparo, but the winner is chosen because it's cheap and comfy. Have I missed something? That's like shopping for an off-road vehicle and choosing the one with the biggest cupholders over the one that goes the best off-road.
They're SPORTS CARS, you heathens. They're meant to be brutal. If you want comfort, buy a damn BMW.
|
|
| #14 |
1-24-2003 @ 12:58:04 AM |
| Posted By : Squid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
everything is fake besides the cars looke at the background and look at the jet closely
|
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
