Comments on Hib Halverson's review

[Evolution1980]

http://corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/2005/intro.html

Hib,

You say "In this respect, C6 improvemes over C5 with increased storage capacity throughout the car's interior."

I read, "Despite the reduction in overall length the head, leg and shoulder room is virtually unchanged, which means there is still plenty of room for two, tall adults. Meanwhile, the cargo capacity is 22.4 cubic feet, down from 24.8 on the 2004 model."

I assume you were referring to general storage area in the front of the car and not overall storage capacity? Not that I care either way over 2.4 cu.ft, and it's just splitting hairs at this point.
:eyerole :L

Nice write up. Thanks!

 

[Evolution1980]

Front rotors

Regarding the cross-drilled rotors:

The drilling is just for racy looks.

I'd put up a significant amount of money that the debate about cross-drilled -vs- slotted -vs- solid will come up eventually (again...) now that x-drilled are factory rotors. Keep the quote above handy. It's just for looks, as the General says.

In my experience with different type rotors on my daily drivers/racers, x-drilled is going to give them problems. If they were already having some problems with C5 rotors, x-drilling isn't a step in the right direction (even though the rotors now have (had?) more mass. (Is that before or after drilling???))

With the exception of Porsche which uses ceramic x-drilled rotors, I really hope these x-drilled rotors don't have the same problems most all x-drilled rotors have: After a while, they'll start to get spider veins/cracks eminating from the holes. And it just goes downhill from there. I also noticed that that holes weren't chamfered, which may (or may not) introduce it's own problems into the x-drilling architecture.
Also, how many buyers out there are going to take the time to properly break in their x-drilled rotors? Hell, how many people take the time to properly break in their the pads/rotors at all on a new car? I'm sure it's not the first thing on their mind when picking up a brand new 0-mile 'vette!

If GM was going for the "racy look", then why not slot the rotors and get an actual performance increase along with their "racey looks"???

 

[Gorgon]

The base model rotors have increased mass in the same dimensions as the C5 rotors. As to slotted, there would be a performance increase, but I think many customers would complain about the extra brake dust (they already do) and the reduced pad life the slots would cause.

The comment I have is in regards to the Z51. It looks like if you want to have it all in a 6-spped you would almost have to order the Z51. Why buy a 6-speed car for the love of the drive and not get the more aggressive gear ratios the Z51 package offers? Personally, this is how I would order the car, but I predict that a large percentage of 6-speed cars that are sold will also have Z51 as well.

Really looking forward to a write-up once Hib gets seat time in the car. Those impressions will be worth the wait.

Leon

 

[lt1george]

Thanks Hib, great job on the C6.>George

 

[Hib Halverson]

Originally posted by Evolution1980
You say "In this respect, C6 improvemes over C5 with increased storage capacity throughout the car's interior."

I read, "Despite the reduction in overall length the head, leg and shoulder room is virtually unchanged, which means there is still plenty of room for two, tall adults. Meanwhile, the cargo capacity is 22.4 cubic feet, down from 24.8 on the 2004 model."

I assume you were referring to general storage area in the front of the car and not overall storage capacity? Not that I care either way over 2.4 cu.ft, and it's just splitting hairs at this point.

First, I apologize for the typo in the part of the story quoted above. That was not in the manuscript but somehow got in during coding.

Secondly, you are correct in your understanding of the point I was trying to make, ie: storage volume in places other than the open cargo space behind the seats increased but space in the "cargo area" did decrease.

Another comment was:

If GM was going for the "racy look", then why not slot the rotors and get an actual performance increase along with their "racey looks"???

It is Chief Engineer Hill who told media about the x-drilling. He said that it is more for cosmetic reasons than function. I would add that, those rotors were designed to be cross-drilled whereas the base rotors and C5 rotors are not.

Further, I agree that grooving (slotting) is a much better choice from a reliability/durability standpoint on rotors not originally designed to be cross-drilled.