C6 Performance Figures

[Zippy]

Quicker acceleration would be my first choice, and I believe we will get that, and a whole lot more, with the C6!

Can't wait to get mine! :dance

 

[vettedoc]

Current Motor Trend implies 400-500hp by 2006. That should lower the 0-60 pretty good.

 

[Utah]

Current Motor Trend implies 400-500hp by 2006. That should lower the 0-60 pretty good.

WOW, are there any price speculations yet, and how the performance and price will compare to others (like the viper)?

 

[Edmond]

Read in one of the magazines that we shouldn't expect a big jump in displacement, if any because:

The 350 is darn fast!

CAFE requirements.

 

[Rob]

I'm kind of skeptical that we'll see a return of the 427ci engine in a production Corvette.

Here's why....take a look at the specs on the 2003 Guldstrand 50th Anniversary Corvette that is tested in the April 2003 Motor Trend Magazine.

The engine is a 427 cubic inch, 7-liter, LS1-based V8 built by Katech Engineering. Output is 500 horsepower and 520 lb-ft of torque.

I don't know what the actual dry engine weight is, or the curb weight of the car and Guldstrand's site is down, so I haven't been able to look for specs there, but historically, 427 engines have been known to be quite heavy. While they put out gobs of power, their weight can negatively affect performance in terms of handling and braking. This is of course, historically speaking. Given today's advances in metallurgy and engine manufacturing technology, it's quite possible that today's 427 cu in V8, could be significantly lighter than yesterday's 427.

Here are the performance figures cited in Motor Trend

Standard 2002 Corvette

0-60: 4.80
1/4 mile: 13.12 @ 109.1
Brk, 60-0ft: 116
Slalom, 600 ft: 66.5

Guldstrand 50th

0-60: 4.52
1/4 mile: 12.49 @ 120.3
Brk, 60-0ft: 111
Slalom, 600 ft: 69.7

For comparison, lets look at a Z06 Corvette equipped with the standard LS6 engine:

0-60: 4.00 (C&D - Dec. 2001)
1/4 mile: 12.4 @ 116 (C&D - Dec. 2001)
Brk, 60-0ft: 104 (60 - 0 mph) (C&D - Feb. 2002)
Slalom, 600 ft: NA

Given the performance results of a 2002 Z06, we're looking at a 1/2 second less 0-60 than the GS 50th, and an almost equivalent 1/4 mile acceleration time and speed. Braking is also better.

In my own humble opinion, unless performance of the LS6 or some other iteration of the small block engine spawned from the LS1/LS6 family hits a ceiling of no more than 450hp in terms of output, I see little justification for a big block Corvette at this time.

Again, this is just my own opinion based upon speculation and published performance test results. Who knows, maybe the good ole General will surprise us. Personally speaking, performance numbers be damned, I still wouldn't mind seeing the ole rat motor reincarnated and turned loose on Dodge's bulbous serpent.

 

[ROCKETBLOCK]

Again, this is just my own opinion based upon speculation and published performance test results. Who knows, maybe the good ole General will surprise us. Personally speaking, performance numbers be damned, I still wouldn't mind seeing the ole rat motor reincarnated and turned loose on Dodge's bulbous serpent.

And.........a good opinion it is!!!
I would like to see the standard 0 to 60 replaced with a 0 to 80 to 0 test as a benchmark. I think this would be a better test of sports cars and all cars in general. JMO

 

[LongTimer]

Since Zora's time, the Corvette has always been quick and fast (top speed). Supposedly stock '57 fuelies were turning 150+MPH at Daytona in '57. That was pretty good for that era. With today's 6 sp, I don't know why the Vette can't be excellent at being both quick and fast. 0-60 times could be dramatically improved by changing rear-end gears, but at the cost of practical mpg and top speed.

I know some of you guys want to see 200 mph on the speedo first hand, but I (and most vette owners, I think) don't want it to cost me anything in 0-60. GM should return to offering optional differential ratios to satisfy everyone. I suspect demand may be so low that it will be a dealer installed option, but it should be available to those who want it.

 

[SlowRide]

I'm kind of skeptical that we'll see a return of the 427ci engine in a production Corvette.

Again, this is just my own opinion based upon speculation and published performance test results. Who knows, maybe the good ole General will surprise us. Personally speaking, performance numbers be damned, I still wouldn't mind seeing the ole rat motor reincarnated and turned loose on Dodge's bulbous serpent.

It can be done!!!! GM has the engine. The C5-R block is waiting and ready to go. To my knowledge, there would be no weight concerns. Even Dave McLellan states it in his latest book that it is a viable option. I agree that Dick Gulstrands Vette left something to be desired but the C5-R block is not the same. But....will GM listen to its customers?

 

[JBsC5]

Since Zora's time, the Corvette has always been quick and fast (top speed). Supposedly stock '57 fuelies were turning 150+MPH at Daytona in '57. That was pretty good for that era. With today's 6 sp, I don't know why the Vette can't be excellent at being both quick and fast. 0-60 times could be dramatically improved by changing rear-end gears, but at the cost of practical mpg and top speed.

I know some of you guys want to see 200 mph on the speedo first hand, but I (and most vette owners, I think) don't want it to cost me anything in 0-60. GM should return to offering optional differential ratios to satisfy everyone. I suspect demand may be so low that it will be a dealer installed option, but it should be available to those who want it.

Emissions and fuel economy regulations would make offering various rear gear sets impossible to be a dealer installed option.

 

[LongTimer]

Emissions and fuel economy regulations would make offering various rear gear sets impossible to be a dealer installed option.

Can't say I'm too surprised. I sure miss the days of going down that options list and customizing the powertrain. I ran across a '67 vette brochure in a box in my garage a couple of months ago and I wanted to cry when I saw the list of engines, trans, and rearends available from the factory. Don't get me wrong, the '67 was, in many ways, down right primative as compared to the C5, but it could be "individualized" from the factory to a MUCH greater extent. After market mods are cash out of pocket and place the warrantee at risk. Oh well, at least we start with a hell of a car today.

 

[22229stingray81]

Regarding Guldstrand's 50th Anniversary Corvette,

I saw and read several reviews (auto week, vette magazine)of the car and they all said that the slow 0-60 times was because it had too much low end torque! They had to start the launch in second gear becasue if it was in first the tires would just smoke!! Man thats a problem I'd like to have.. anyways I think that is why it had slower times on paper.. in theory it is much faster.. Just thought I'd share what Ive seen... I would love to see the C5-R block in the C6 personally.. GM has the technology.. use it.


-Tatortot

 

[LongTimer]

I'm for all the options the General's willing to present us with. Unfortunately, these days the slightest variation in the powertrain requires unique testing for certification. This translates to very high cost for low volume options. Aftermarket tuners are actually cheaper than what GM would need to charge.