© 2019 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'American Muscle' started by darkkaangel, Jul 30, 2017.
Hmmmm.... if Chevy cheating with its test cars?
Even so this number seems impossible to achieve.
That dyno test was not even worth publishing. 558rwhp in 5th gear and 478rwhp in 6th gear?
That should not happen. Slight variance in parasitic/inertial loss between gears but not 70rwhp between 5th and 6th.
I think there are a few important phrases from that article-
"We're all scratching our heads"
"But that doesn't make any sense"
"Why the huge discrepancy with the numbers? We still don't know"
cheating in this case would be the absolutely stupidest move in car history. the entire world has been following this reveal for years (if not decades). there is an entire cast of youtubers just waiting to dyno and test customer cars to catch cheating. would be worth millions of views if someone caught a cheater c8
IMO this is a bogus test. If it was a LITTLE above you might claim "cheating". 150 hp? Give me a break.
The fact that Motor Trend published that article at all is embarrassing, and is tantamount to clickbait. The fact that the authors of the article are left dumbfounded is laughable. First of all, all dynos will give different readings, depending on how they are calibrated. There can be a SIGNIFICANT variance from dyno to dyno, and from dyno type to dyno type (Mustang dynos, as used in the article, tend to read lower than Dynojet dynos). Second, the method by which the power is calculated and the correction method used will cause different readings too. A reading in STD will read higher than SAE, for example. Third, dynos are a tuning tool, and not meant to give an exact hp readout. This is why people that modify cars will tend to get a baseline dyno from the same dyno they use after installing modifications so that the calibration and methods are the same. If one is to go to a different dyno, the results won't be as useful. For example, the last time I dynoed my modified Mustang, I did so on both a Mustang dyno and a Dynojet, and there was a 40 hp difference. Lastly, most dyno operators will run the car in the transmission's 1:1 gear for the most accurate results. The C8 doesn't have a 1:1 gear, so that will skew the numbers as well.
At the end of the day, I'd trust the SAE process Chevy uses to rate hp FAR MORE than the boobs that wrote that Motor Trend article. That's not to say that the engine couldn't be underrated, but there's absolutely NO WAY that the car is making 600+ crank hp. Also, there probably isn't a new car in the world that will have a 15% parasitic loss from the crank to the wheels. A better correction factor for a modern front engined RWD car is 12%, and I would expect it to be less for a mid engined car as you don't have a driveshaft running the length of the car.
I guess that settles that!
This is a ridiculous test, run by idiots, and should have never been published. The question now is whether Motor Trend will tell the truth (they screwed the pooch) or claim GM gave them a ringer?
So they dyno tested a car and the results made no sense? At that point they had two choices. Either not print the part about the dyno results or take it to another dyno and either confirm the results or determine the first test was incorrect.
MT went with the “russian collusion” angle. now we need a special investigation and hear the results in 2 1/2 yrs. by then i will have 20k miles on my c8.
A 150 hp ringer? No way.
Indeed. We'll see if MT faces the music or tries to wriggle out of it.
I agree its total clickbait like the Road and Track "horrible understeer" review.
this sentence caught my eye. “second set of wheels included”.
can someone clarify?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
some of the optional wheels are dealer delivered in addition to the rims that the car comes with. so you have 2 full sets of wheels and tires which is why they are an expensive option
5500 I think but its listed on c8 configurator
the info i found was $995-2695 depending on wheel design.
Might be clickbait but everyone found the understeer and Gm does not deny it.
Yes these are pre-production cars, but they have been developing this thing for 10 years or more.
IMO and its just my opinion Gm should have developed the corvette brand. Retained a Fe car to keep the faithful happy and cover the lower price point, and then built a standout ME car for the 80k+ base. That way the Me car could have been a tighter package less compromised by trying to cover all the bases. Throw in a rebadged Cadillac v series sedan and we have the corvette brand.
Grand sport, z06, zr1, zora will cover all the bases. They wanted to move away from fe completely
10 years???? Come on....This the CORVETTE C8, NOT the Lexus LF-A
Tadge told me at the convertible reveal that they started on the C8 in mid-2014.
From what i read the basic architecture was in development prior to the recession, and then dusted off in 14.
Reagrdless its 5 years then, making a great steering handling and braking car is known science these days.
IMO, the Road and Track "horrible understeer" quote was pure clickbait. The guy has been self promoting himself since the statement.
Does it understeer? You bet. Just watch idiots with Mustangs leaving cars and coffee shows. But if you want to track it then dial it out. No biggie.
I looked at the track alignment specs, not hugely different.
Its a heavy car, faster than the old one in accleration because it has paddles and more weight on the rear. Arguably dynamicaly worse in other areas.
So far its a chevaliac, a quiet comfortable cruiser that will accelerate hard to thirll the oldies. Its no porche competitor not least because from what we read it lacks precison of major controlls. Nor apprently need the used ferrari v8 market take a dynamic dip.
Thats all fine and good, its a great car for what it is, but we were promised and were expecting more.
Ok 50% of buyers buy base spec vettes, so this is ver 1.0 base spec.Lets see what else they cooked up. But I remain deeply skeptical of GM.
Based on the iterations of the previous generations, I see no reason to be skeptical. If anything I think what's down the road will blow people away.
Agreed except the c7 zo6 went in the wrong (and lazy)direction after the superlative c6 z06.