• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Mid-Engine Corvette spy shots

rosemont83 said:
I'm not arguing that based on the 1 crash. I like the Corvette.. The C5 base, 1997-2004, had issues though. :party Or at least that's the impression I'm left with after, you know, racing with a bunch of them and speaking to the owners at the abandoned air fields that we go to..
Best bang for buck for sure though.. A C6 Z06(my fav) Raped me real real good the whoooooole way up to 180 in my car..

The ZX10 is a piece of junk I just couldn't get the hp4 I wanted. It rattles over bumps :x
Click to expand...

The C5 was a frigging amazing car when it came out in 1997. A bit understeery with stock suspension and tires. But the Corvette finally became a proper grand touring car with the massive trunk, 30+mpg, and decent amount of room inside to be comfortable (foot room made a quantum leap over the C4) for long trips.

Whatever issues you think the C5 may have had, carried right over to the C6. Chassis and powertrain are really just evolved/refined versions of what the C5 already had.
 
Johndicezx9 said:
I'll counter that statement with the Buick Grand National, pretty bad-ass for an 80's GM car.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the anniversary T/A. That was the one year the Corvette wasn't GM's fastest car.

Did the GMC Syclone start in the late 80's? Also awesome.
 
Enchanter said:
I'm going to hold you to your uninformed claim that the Corvette "is far from being a true performance car." Let's break down your claim to ensure that we are comparing apple to apples.

What is your definition of performance?
What is your definition of true performance?
What are you using as the basis of your opinion?
Do you have any first hand knowledge or experience in a Corvette built after 2006?
Click to expand...

/crickets
 
TheRobSJ said:
The C5 was a frigging amazing car when it came out in 1997. A bit understeery with stock suspension and tires. But the Corvette finally became a proper grand touring car with the massive trunk, 30+mpg, and decent amount of room inside to be comfortable (foot room made a quantum leap over the C4) for long trips.

Whatever issues you think the C5 may have had, carried right over to the C6. Chassis and powertrain are really just evolved/refined versions of what the C5 already had.
Click to expand...

The motors of the c5 are beasts for sure.
I had a Z28 that I think was a freak car that got left over parts at the factory. Frigging fast. Sucked changing spark plugs though :laughing
And skip shift :wtf
 
Skip shift is so easy to bypass or just get around. I haven't even bothered to unplug it on my last few. I've gotten used to just holding 1st past 19mph. Or just driving it like an old 3 speed and going 1-3-5 on city streets.

And if you think the LS1 based Z28 was shitty to do plugs on...the LT1 version would've made you want to punch babies.
 
TheRobSJ said:
Skip shift is so easy to bypass or just get around. I haven't even bothered to unplug it on my last few. I've gotten used to just holding 1st past 19mph. Or just driving it like an old 3 speed and going 1-3-5 on city streets.

And if you think the LS1 based Z28 was shitty to do plugs on...the LT1 version would've made you want to punch babies.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar.. I also had a firebird formula v8. It was shitty for sure lmao. And the optispark died twice :mad
 
MrIncredible said:
Yeah except it had the shit kicked out of it by a VW.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010627...Magazine/86caranddriver/86Car&Driverpage4.htm

http://www.funksoulkitty.org/articles/mk2/VW Scirocco 16V - An Amazing Transformation.pdf
Click to expand...

Ummmm... neither of those cars, the SS or the Pontiac, are a Buick Grand National ('86 or '87 MY), so I'm not sure the point you are trying to make... :dunno

Here are the Buick GN/X specs I could pull:

Make:Buick
Engine:V6 Turbo
Transmission:4-speed Automatic
Horsepower @ RPM:245
Torque @ RPM:355
Displacement:3.8 L
0-60 time:4.8 sec.
Quarter Mile time:14.23 sec.
Top Speed:124 mph

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/buick/1982-1987-buick-grand-national-ar139782.html

Am I seeing a 0-60 time on the VW of 8 seconds and a 1/4 mile time 15.9 sec? (Those VW numbers below are pulled from the pdf you attached.)
 

Attachments

  • Capture VW 16v 2.JPG
    Capture VW 16v 2.JPG
    29.6 KB · Views: 96
  • Capture VW 16v.JPG
    Capture VW 16v.JPG
    36.8 KB · Views: 92
Last edited:
Marcoose said:
True and likely and hopefully will stay like that for a while. It's good to know and to have a sports car J6P can afford to own and to repair. While a mid-engine and everything else to give the European and Japonese exotic/performance cars a run for their money would be better, it'd destroy a good thing. And as the saying goes, "don't let the better be the enemy of the good".
Click to expand...

The first substantial article I read on this mid engined Vette said that this new chassis may be part of a "family" of Corvettes. This one, possibly going to be called a "Zora", will be the top model, while the standard layout will still be available as the more entry level options.
 
Charles R said:
The first substantial article I read on this mid engined Vette said that this new chassis may be part of a "family" of Corvettes. This one, possibly going to be called a "Zora", will be the top model, while the standard layout will still be available as the more entry level options.
Click to expand...

That'd be a good compromise, but expensive. Change the placement of the engine and it's a new beast, a development from nearly scratch.

What would the GT folks do: stay with the conventional or go Zora?

Just noticed I typed Jap"o"nese in the previous post. This iPhone spellcheck makes me sound even dumber. :laughing
 
Johndicezx9 said:
Ummmm... neither of those cars, the SS or the Pontiac, are a Buick Grand National ('86 or '87 MY), so I'm not sure the point you are trying to make... :dunno

Here are the Buick GN/X specs I could pull:

Make:Buick
Engine:V6 Turbo
Transmission:4-speed Automatic
Horsepower @ RPM:245
Torque @ RPM:355
Displacement:3.8 L
0-60 time:4.8 sec.
Quarter Mile time:14.23 sec.
Top Speed:124 mph

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/buick/1982-1987-buick-grand-national-ar139782.html

Am I seeing a 0-60 time on the VW of 8 seconds and a 1/4 mile time 15.9 sec? (Those VW numbers below are pulled from the pdf you attached.)
Click to expand...

My bad-mistook which one of the incredibly shitty GM cars you were talking about. They all look the same, especially from the front.

Quarter mile 14.23? Seriously? You're trying to claim this car didn't suck then you post a quarter mile time like that? There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.
 
rosemont83 said:
Well I mean it IS a performance car.. How good of a performance car is the question..

I think the higher up models like the Z06 and ZR1 fixed some of the issues.. especially the newer ones..

But those C5's were bad. They all, go waaaay left then waaaaay right (into me)
:laughing
Click to expand...

Almost all C5's and up that get wadded are done so when the driver turns off TC/ ESP. Don't forget, Paul Walker was killed in one of them Exotics the very same way. Stupid hurts (the car and sometimes, the occupants)

JesasaurusRex said:
I have an 80s GM vehicle, that's why imade that post. The paint is absolute trash on every single 80s gm vevehicle so is the interior. Panel fitment is meh, and all the cars are super under powered.
Click to expand...

I love my 2001 I just picked up...LOVE the thing! Typical GM trashiness, but I love the car.

JesasaurusRex said:
Get your fat ass over here, tired of doing this shit myself

IMAG0551_zpsrwopw5eh.jpg
Click to expand...

I want your lift!
 
MrIncredible said:
My bad-mistook which one of the incredibly shitty GM cars you were talking about. They all look the same, especially from the front.

Quarter mile 14.23? Seriously? You're trying to claim this car didn't suck then you post a quarter mile time like that? There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...

:laughing

Still, a better time than that 16V VW you were just saying was a better car... hell, the 1/4 mile time for a Testarossa was 13.50 seconds, what do you want from the "awesome 80's"?
 
I wasn't on drugs in the 80's, that's why I remembered the Buick wasn't a Chevy or a Pontiac or even a weezing sub 200hp V-8.... :laughing
 
Well this Grand National just sort of got away from me officer.

Do you have any idea of how fast you were going?

I'm gonna say 65 tops.

7...7 miles per hour. and usually when I pull people people over, they pull over in the shoulder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top