Interesting view point GM vs Ferrari

I needed an engine for a project car.

I wanted an engine that was all aluminum, dry sump, at least 500 hp naturally aspirated, flat torque curve, 7000 rpm redline, but most of all small and compact (because it has to fit in a tight space, and I want the center of gravity at low as possible). Price was not really a limit here, it is a matter of the best power plant available.

Here it is. It will get a completely new intake manifold, exhaust system, and EFI system, but this is hard to beat. It looks like it will almost slide into the engine bay of the Lotus, except that the transaxle has to be huge to handle the power.

You can talk about engine technology all day, but this is a 7 liter motor the size of a 3.5 Ferrari power plant. Have you ever looked at how much mass is added to the top of a motor when you add 4 camshafts? It should make about 580 hp and over 500 foot pounds of torque....

Oh, and it's an LS7 out of a Z06.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That's why Ferrari made Boxer engines: for the flatness.

Ken

 

And then stuck them on top of the gearbox, raising the CG?

 

I will give one hurray for the bean counters. The LS7 motor is inexpesive. It's an amazing deal for the buck.

 

I started to tune out the reply when they started talking about NAV technology, airbags, F430-beating cargo capacity, price and how the 456 used a GM-based automatic. This is Consumer Reports stuff. When I bought my 328, how much time did I spend thinking about navigation systems, airbags, warranty coverage and trunk space?

When it comes to my fantasy sports cars, I want it to look great, sound great, be rare and be fun to drive. Most Ferraris do that pretty well. Even a 400i that I saw last weekend over at Symbolic Motors, in the parking lot, was kind of intriguing and historic looking. A couple of guys were checking it out. A Corvette parked nearby wasn't as interesting, and the 400i is hardly the all-time beauty queen of the Ferrari line-up.

I actually considered a Corvette as a daily driver, before I went with the Audi, because it's a strong player in the "normal car" sphere. They're cheap (in normal form), easy to drive, have a usable hatchback/trunk and look OK -- maybe a little awkward up front, but I could see how someone could like it.

Also, and perhaps oddly, the F40 interior is spartan in the extreme, but to me it looks higher quality than a comparable (1989-91) Corvette. I get the sense Ferrari was cutting weight, whereas GM was cutting corners.

I'm a "basher", but only in that I still can't think of Corvettes in the same bracket as the exotics. You can tell something like a Ferrari 550 was built in Italy, by people who hand-stitched the Daytona-style seats, and that some designer spent a long time shaping those magnificent headlaps. Chevy just doesn't do that, which is OK, but it has always made the Corvette a car for a segment of the market that doesn't care about all those details.

Admittedly, that perspective overlooks a lot of GM's great performance achievements, but given speed limits, speed traps, traffic and the uses to which I put my cars, the capabilities of all these cars are past the point of diminishing returns.

Truth.

But, whilst the Tahoe, Cobalt and Aveo are crap, I would consider a Corvette as a daily driver. The others are all embarrassing.

 

Hey I have a Tahoe and its not crap! ;-)

 

Its refreshing to see a thread where the Ferrari Elite are not thrashing the corvette with a bunch of BS reasons why the Ferrari is worth more than twice the money.

Carguys post about trading in his ZR-1 for a Testarossa is the way I think a lot of us feel.

And Bullfighters point that if Chevy made 2500 vettes per year they would also be $200k (and vice versa) is also very true.

Ive gone on record in the past saying that I prefer my Viper to my 355. So I sold the 355 to someone that will enjoy and appreciate it more.

I will either try a 360 or a TR next... theres gotta be a Ferrari thats right for 'me'

 

"You can tell something like a Ferrari 550 was built in Italy, by people who hand-stitched the Daytona-style seats, and that some designer spent a long time shaping those magnificent headlaps. Chevy just doesn't do that, which is OK, but it has always made the Corvette a car for a segment of the market that doesn't care about all those details."

I just had to correct the comment that Chevrolet designers don't spend the kind of time that Ferrari designers do on a given design . That is so much crap it's not funny . Ferrari doesn't spend any more or any less time on their designs than anyone else in the car business . The design beiefs are different , the costs , manufacturing , etc . etc are different . Whether or not someone "likes" a design is a whole different story . Pardon my passion around this topic , but the teams that design Chevrolets are just as talented , dedicated , and pay just as much attention to all the details , as any other design organization around the globe . That is a fact, not an opinion .

 

There's always so much more to a story than sheer numbers and performance. I greatly respect the Corvette, especially in its latest forms, but want the emotion and passion of the 355 I drive. Spock would drive a Corvette because it is more logical than the Ferrari, but Kirk (and I) would prefer the Ferrari.

John

 

I think the Corvette lost its status in the 1973-1982 period. Once the EPA and the Safety Nazis got in on the design, the Corvette became a pile, only no one knew for sure what it was a pile of. Worse, as the Corvette actually sold like hotcakes during the Disco era, there are a lot of them around to taint the waters.

Looking back, the 'Vette started as a no-show. An inverted plastic bathtub with an anemic 6 cylinder and a 2-speed automatic does not a sports car make. But, in 1956 the car gained style, and in 1957 it gained fuel injection and a 4-speed, and until the 1973 debacle the Corvette ranked as one of the finest. It acquired an IRS in 1963, and 4-wheel discs in 1964, along with knock-off aluminum wheels. As for style, the '63-67 era can't be beat! Though the pinched waist look of the '68-72 intruded on interior space, it too was a good looking vehicle, at least until the afore mentioned safetycrats got in on the act.

The 'Vette then wondered aimlessly from 1973 through 1982, probably best described as "Mostly Harmless." GM and Chevrolet finally came out of the pit in which they had been thrown and developed their electronic fuel injection, thus paving the way for them to engineer a real sports car again, and thus was born the 1984 Corvette! Since 1984 Chevrolet has managed to refine the Corvette nearly every year. The ZR1 of the '80s broke all manner of records, and proved GM could build a world class sports car once and for all, while the more recent LS engines have shown that they did not forget the lessons they had learned.

Oh, and if I were a bajillionaire, I'd own a few 'Vettes and proudly park them next to the handful of Ferraris I would also own!

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

Ferrari is about the passion of a man who didn't want to sell road cars but had to to pay for his racing, a man who sent numerous drivers to their deaths without so much as a blink because he felt racing took that sort of commitment. A company whose lifeblood is racing.
Corvettes are about getting your younger bottle-blonde wife with implants something that she thinks she looks good in. Not the same my friends.

 

Corvettes have as storied a racing history as Ferraris, and the vision in the early days was as focused by Zora Arkus-Duntov, and in later days by Dave Hill

 

Ignorant statement

 

1+

 

The Fbodys are fine cars for what they are and I think everybody oughta check em out at some point if they are buying a car. Its not crap I love my Camaro even if its got a V6 I enjoy it as a daily driver and its fun to drive period id defnately take it over any Honda or toyota so far and for the value those things bring you can't argue with that.

Same could be said for the newer montie carlos, I drove one and I was amzized with it very suprized with how it perform and how it rode.

You really got to take into concideration these aren't ferrari exclusive vehicles sure it may not be as well built as a ferrari but for the value a GM car brings to the table and for the price of their vehicles compared with their rivals shoot I can't complain which is why I have drivin GM cars most of my life. Evenually id like to own some exotics in the near future and some kits but you can restashore that ill be driving a GM car to work each day. For what they are nothing can be better.

The Corvette is a damn fine machine for the dollar I can't argue about it not being an exotic but find me another vehicle that I can drive to work each day, beat it up on the weekends and still take my wife out all in one car without any serious failure!.

Just my $0.2

 

Hmmmmm . . . . . I wonder if that will fit in a . . . . . Ferra.....
< where's that flame suit?? >

BTW, those are the same reasons that the LSx engines are replacing so many popped rotaries in 3rd Gen RX-7s, which otherwise have a fantastic chassis.
When you consider the cost of a Major for pretty much any Ferrari, and realize it's comparable to a new Crate Engine with a warranty, it can't be beaten for Bang-for-the-Buck. If only the rest of the Vette had the same quality, it wouldn't leave such a bad taste just from peeking in the open door. Still reeks of beancounters.

 

Actually wasn't my point, but I somewhat agree with it anyway. Ferrari needs to be careful how many cars they roll out of the factory.

My neighbor had one of the last generation Camaros and could hardly wait to get rid of it. He couldn't put enough cardboard down on the garage floor to soak up the oil (we wouldn't had had to invade Iraq if the feds had know about Tim's garage), and the thing was towed to the shop a few too many times. Maybe you got lucky with the one you bought. This guy pretty much gave the Camaro away and bought an Acura.

As far as Monte Carlos, I had one from Budget Car Rentals a few years back for about a week and it was heinous -- trim falling off everywhere. Maybe they changed it in the last couple of years, I don't know.

I guess they're a lot of steel for the money. (Or were, till they pulled the plug on the Camaro/Firebird.)

 

The better car is always a subjective matter. Cars are so multidimensional in how they appeal to different individuals its useless to try to pinpoint aspects which may make Corvettes/Ferraris comparable.

However, looking at single dimensions such as EPA mileage, horsepower/lb, etc; what the Corvette team has achieved is nothing short of monumental. Now all we need is for those engineers to venture into other divisions within GM....

 

The LT series of engines definitely had more than a few troubles with being oil tight... maybe they were designed by the British? Anyway, GM did eventually get that figured out, the LT-4 we put in my Dad's 56 BelAir leaks nary a drop. Still, it didn't do the General any good for their reputation!

As for the newer GM cars, and I don't think I would go by the condition of a rental, I have had pretty good luck with the different company cars I have been assigned. Two of them were Impalas, and though they were totally uninspiring, they held up quite nicely. The only difficulties I really had with them were due to a lack of maintenance by the previous drivers. My newest company car is a Chevy Equinox AWD, and I must admit that it's a pretty neat vehicle, though certainly nothing to get your blood going, but a rather nice family vehicle nonetheless.

My parents have a 2008 Buick Lucerne, and that thing is sweet. Quietest car I have ever ridden in! As for power though, it is definitely lacking. Also, GM should be ashamed that they only put a 4-speed auto in it. Otherwise though, it's a damned nice car.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

As much has been said in this thread too. http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?threadid=98292

Those that really know, know that the Corvette is engineered far ahead of the F-car.

 

A) Auto trans is one thing GM does well
B) IF that's even true why is a 456 auto trans $50k?

Phony results from an easily spoofed test.

And a Chrysler minivan even more!

WAAAAAAAA... The Ferrari doesn't have a video arcade!

Your Ferrari hating buddy has some rather amusing issues.

 

Lol. Now that I think about it, it is kind of hard to watch TV and eat in my car. All you can do is, like, drive...

 

+ 1

 

Cmon, whats that lump going in? Need further story and pics!

 

no, but the vette does have a clutch pack LSD which accomplishes about the same thing. in a street car it's hard to say that the e-diff really accomplishes a lot more.

ok on both of those. personally i'm a 3-pedal guy but i do find it disturbing that the vette doesn't have a paddle shift manual ... it's not new tech these days.

because the true measure of engine performance is HP per pound (or kilo, whatever). big deal, the 4.3 has less displacement. it weighs more AND produces less power and torque. the large displacement is a boon as it offers a lot of low end torque. on top of that, throw in the better fuel economy and it's CLEAR that the LS7 is a crowning achievement that puts the smackdown on the Ferrari 4.3. i'd wager that the LS7 also has a lower CG than the Ferrari engine.

it's unfortunate that eu (and others) have a broken engine tax.

build quality has gone way up with the C6.

now on that i agree. but don't let the ferrari mystique cloud the technical aspects of the car. many people don't care about mystique, and with a lower initial cost and lower operating cost, the vette is a clear winner. for those people, even considering the "synergistic value add" that ferrari brings to the table, the corvette is a better value as well as a better performer.

that said, even the z06 (not to mention the Z51 or base models) handling is sloppy compared to any modern ferrari, and the interior is built for overweight americans. the new zr1 will be no different. IMHO these are decidedly the corvette's weak points and they're doozies.