When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yeah, we get it, you hate GM over this and that is fine. Nobody is going to insist that you must love them and buy a C8.
But it doesn't mean you can continue to talk about stuff you have little knowledge of and not get called out on it....
I see you've posted some more b.s. but frankly I can't keep up with you, so congrats, you're "winning"!
Mark Twain said it best, I learned to live by that adage. Don't waste your time feeding a troll.
There is no saber rattling for brands going on in here. It's just one guy that irrationally hates a brand. If you go through this thread, that same guy threw out many, many reasons to hate the new C8, but each reason was soundly batted down. Then he latched on to the one thing no one could argue, torsional rigidity.
Even after multiple people showed stats of other comparable cars that are CURRENTLY being sold having lower torsional figures (including current porsches), those points were ignored. If you really look, its pages and pages of the same stuff. And that is a shame.
I have learned a lot from this thread, there were multiple people giving input, advice, and opinions that were useful. But I'm not sure the conversation has progressed much since "torsional rigidity". And that's a shame too.
Originally Posted by K-A
Between that and the bailout, I loathe GM.
This quote is all you need to know about what he is trying to do. And this quote was from pages ago.
To wake up the next morning and see pages and pages about the same thing, it is like banging your head against a brick wall. What's the point? You don't like the car, move on, its not for you. But for some reason people think they have an ax to grind because of bailouts, or bad recalls, or whatever goes on in their head.
I'm glad to see many people here understand that it is not about brand loyalty. Its about celebrating a car that probably shouldn't exist, giving us more option in the marketplace, and may ripple out to other manufacturers to bring us better cars and better priced options as well.
And don't forget, this argument is over a BASE car. We have no idea what the track focused, or ultra high performance options will give us. In the end this argument seems ridiculous.
Fact is, you can rewrite on the importance of torsional rigidity to favor the Vette.
I'm not re-writing anything. Physical reality is what it is whatever you think. If a car's first mode is >10x over its sprung mass natural frequency, it is more than "stiff enough" for performance considerations. As for strength...
But torsional stiffness has long been the benchmark figure to determine how strong and well a chassis is built, for a reason.
Torsional stiffness is NOT a figure to determine how *strong* or how "well-built" a chassis is.
Strength is NOT stiffness, and neither is "build quality". You can build a very stiff car that will start to rattle and fall apart and fail catastrophically under lowish crash loads.
There’s a reason car manufacturers use torsional rigidity as the sole barometer to tout their cars material construction and solidity, but also largely safety.
No they do not. Show me where they do.
Safety is not deterlmined by chassis torsional stiffness measurement. Having deformable structures is critical to occupant safety. Chassis torsional stiffness is (correctly) measured at suspension mounts, while stiffness of the passenger compartment is what is related to safety. And for safety, infinitely stiff isn't necessarily "better" anyway. It's going to be a huge compromise between absorbing as much of the impact as possible while keeping occupant accelerations low while also trying to protect against higher-energy impacts.
Just because guys want to feel good about the C8 and refuse to admit it may have any compromises, doesn’t change that.
Of course it has compromises! Every car design does. Compromises to every aspect of design. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Including your favorite car ever. Setting and meeting *appropriate* requirements while balancing all the inherent compromises is the art of design. Some do this better than others. And for sure different approaches to these compromises are appreciated by different people.
FWIW I don't "want to feel good" about the C8. I do want it to be a good design and to succeed, but I'll likely never own one for a number of reasons.
And I don’t buy the “chassis are so stiff nowadays it doesn’t matter” excuse for a second. Cars have a very long way to go in that regard.
Indeed they have a VERY long way to go to get to the ideal of *infinitely stiff*. Compared to this ideal, 15,000 n-m/deg and 40,000 n-m/deg are equally far away...
In designing and analyzing road vehicles, I set a goal of a 1st mode of 10x the suspension frequencies to ensure good handling characteristics over the extremes of usage profiles. Maximum allowable stresses under a variety of static and dynamic load cases = whole 'nother set of requirements. Progressive failure modes for vehicle and passenger survivability, another set of requirements. Designing attachments of secondary non-structural parts to ensure durability yet another aspect of design and requirements. And of course the whole thing has to be validated for multiple vehicle lifetimes with test rig and durability-course testing.
Yeah, chassis stiffness is important, but it's only a part of the whole puzzle.
IMO, greater than 10x suspension frequency for 1st mode is fine but not strictly necessary. The C5 achieved 23 Hz at 9100 N-m/deg. Fine IMO for stock suspension and stiffer street/track springs but probably not enough for a serious race or track car. For reference, most "serious" sports cars will have suspension frequencies of 1.5 Hz and greater. For me, 2 Hz is a good street/track compromise...
Used C7 Vettes with their weak 14K figures often get trashed for how well they hold up after being driven hard.
Once more, that's a different thing. Durability is NOT the same as stiffness either. *IF* a car loses stiffness over time, that's bad of course, but you haven't shown evidence of this anyway. AND starting out stiffer does NOT mean you won't lose stiffness or structural integrity faster.
Yet another issue is non-structural parts coming loose and rattling around, which is of course annoying but not as serious. Again, this can happen whether the torsional rigidity is low or high. I don't have direct evidence of this but I woudn't be surprised at all if a C5 or C6 Corvette vs. a much less stiff same-year S2000 developed more rattles than the Honda over a 240k mile lifetime.
But I would be surprised if the C6 Z06/ZR1 or C7 aluminum primary structures lost any significant stiffness over 99th percentile usage over 200k miles.
One of the reasons aluminum structures don't give as much weight savings as you might think is that aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit. That means that however low the applied cyclic stresses are, eventually the material will begin to crack, and then it's just a matter of time until failure. So they have to be designed a bit on the beefy side. If C6 and C7 aluminum frames had any issues in this regard we would know about it by now.
I said:
Originally Posted by ZDan YES, they're both *directly comparable* as targas! So what's with the deference to the Bugatti as being a "vert", all caps proclaiming the C8 is *not* a "vert", strongly suggesting that Bugatti OK and C8 garbage, then followed by parenthetically admitting it is indeed an apples-to-apples, targa-to-targa comparison?
It boggles the mind the mental and verbal gymnastics you'll do to validate expensive more "exotic" cars while putting down the Corvette....
And it's considerably heavier and more than 2x more powerful... Anyway its less stiff than my 3050 lb. 265hp Cayman. Does that mean it isn't *nearly* stiff enough, or does it mean that my Cayman is *way* stiffer than it needs to be? Something for you to ponder...
K-A:
Originally Posted by K-A
Is there a mental block with C8 fanbois that ignores when someone criticizes it and they follow said criticism with equal criticism of the more “exotic” cars as well?
I am NOT criticizing the Bugatti! Why do you think that?
Fanboi? I've never owned a Corvette and I'm not likely to ever own one. I do own a Porsche, and while it's not perfect I do like it a lot...
I'd say one of us is both a "fanboi" of one marque and a rabid "anti-fanboi" of the other. And I don't think it's me...
And I’d never buy a Bugatti targa either. Where did I say 22K is “ok?”
You didn't, but Bugatti did. They described 22,000 N-m/degree as "extremely high torsional rigidity". IMO 22,000 N-m/deg is certainly sufficient for the Bugatti, and overkill for a street/track 911 or Corvette.
I'm sure the stricter sound regulations for Europe will dampen the C8 sound. But I thought the major factor for the muted 992 sound were the turbos?
Turbos are certainly a factor too, but most reviewers of the 718 GT4 and Spyder have also complained that they sound muted and wimpy, probably due to European regulations. Their 981 predecessors had a much louder and clearer sound, at least compared to the European market 718 GT4/Spyder.
LMAO! This thread provides so much entertainment,thanks to all involved!
I'm still interested in buying this car(for the first time ever) because it's cheap. The only thing that's keeping me from walking into a Chevy dealer is the lack of manual transmission : I'm still hoping but it might just prove I'm hoping in vain...
I like to read arguments from both sides,but that pic where the stitching doesn't line up on a show car had me on the floor laughing.
I remember when the C7 came out with its panel gaps,and orange peel galore. It looked like it was painted with a spray can! Lol!
But man,at the end of the day,the car is cheap and it's a performance bargain. As long as you go into it with that mindset,I'm sure you won't be disappointed!
I mean as of current times. Why would I move the goalposts to favor the Vette? If we were talking a year ago before the GT2 came out, I’d say you have a point. But right now in this reality moment, the 911 is faster. I expect the Z06 to track faster than a GT3 RS with 200 more HP and even close to the same price.
It’s not just about track performance. It’s about structural integrity, which torsional rigidity plays a big part in. It’s also about safety, which has always been a big GM red flag.
I cant take you serious anymore. You clearly said at no time has a Vette ever beaten a 911's peak track time. I clearly showed you quite a few times in the very recent past where the Vette had indeed beaten the top dog 911's. Then you use "right now in this reality moment, the 911 is faster." statement to justify your false statement as a fact.
So the past few decades where the Vette was faster than top dog Porsches is not this reality? Lol. Your statement that a Vette has never had better peak track numbers over any top dog 911, is patently false in every way. Why cant you see that? There is no moving of the goal posts to acknowledge that. It did happen. It is reality. Your statement is not grounded in reality. They way you tout torsional rigidity as making P-cars vastly superior track cars than Vettes is rendered moot by history's results. Not attacking you but it seems like you are terminally close-minded on this topic. Is this for trolling or are you dead serious lolol...I can't believe you are seriously using these arguments thinking it supports your opinion..Anyway you are keeping this thread going hehe so mission accomplished if that is the goal.
Last edited by Snakebit10; 07-31-2019 at 02:19 PM.
I like to read arguments from both sides,but that pic where the stitching doesn't line up on a show car had me on the floor laughing.
Yeah that's really bad lol. IDK how that passes QA. Hopefully they get that kind of stuff sorted for mass production and doesn't stay as the laughing stock for interior quality.
Guys since Ive been around Porsche - a long time now - its always been if the 911 has a 0.01 second better lap time it is absolute proof that it is a superior car. If it loses by a full second the other car has less interior or isn't built as well or is some other kind of inferior junk. It is a 911 thing I guess. Guys would say about my 981 they didnt know it was THAT fast. Ha. You just stand on that right peddle and turn.
When we first had the first year 951s we knew we could toast those 911s. We had at least as much and maybe more hp and better handling for sure. Suddenly it was that we didnt have Real Porsches! Uhhh yeah. That crest on it looks the same to me.
I never knew what caused 911 Craziness and now Porsche Complete Craziness. It must somehow be related to the fact that the cars roots are in Volkswagens.
I told this before. One of the girls here bought her own base Cayman. She wanted it and got it. No husband of boyfriend thing. One of the guys at PCA always gave her a hard time about her car. Yeah she's a babe. But anyway I bring mine and she asks me to hang with her so she can get away from that mess. Sure enough the guy comes to badger her. I say hey what are you in? He points to it and says 911. I say " A 996? Those things are worth about as much a lawnmower huh ?" That ends all that and she is delighted. I mean Cmon man.
I love the Porsche cars and the heritage. But I'm not blinded either. I don't know how good this new Corvette is. But I want to see for myself. Like other guys here too and a number of my buds too from 40 to 70. Some of those guys have been racing a lonnnng time. Definitely not the guys you want to race in your new 911 for that 0.01 seconds as they aren't afraid of trading paint and it makes them smile even.
I told Mrs TR we would be going to see the new Corvette. To which she said Really? I said yes babe REALLY!
As I'm enjoying my 05 Boxster S on my back-roads every day, a thought would sometimes come that I need extra 200hp and extra 600lb like I need a bullet to my head, regardless of price and 0-60 times. The fact that it's <1/3 the price of a new C8 doesn't hurt either.
Sure, I'll test drive a C8 in a year or two when new ones get discounted by 10-20% and slightly used ones by 35%+, but I doubt it will be more fun on my back-roads than either my Boxster or my 996 GT3. We will see. There are infinite amounts of sports car bargains out there that EXACTLY match what anyone wants in a sports car. The trick is to step away from the marketing Kool-Aid machines, know yourself, know what makes you happy, and just go get that.
The 981 Boxster is 40% stiffer than 987, and 718 is stiffer than 981 -- don't know by how much.
BTW: You math is a bit off regarding the 981 vs 987 Boxster torsional stiffness percentage increase:
Originally Posted by Excellence Magazine
As in the past, the Boxster shares at least half of its inner structure — from the seats forward — with the 911. Against the already impressive 987, “the complete body has more stiffness,” says Joachim Meyer, head of 981 chassis and suspension. “The trimmed body’s dynamic torsion is 24 Hz, (yielding) around 25 percent more stiffness in the chassis.”
As fast1 posted earlier The 718 Boxster S torsional stiffness is 19,000 N-m/deg.
Porsche has had many years to work on the Boxster platform (introduced in 1996 + 4 years in development), they have been making steady improvements to the chassis which is very commendable.
07-31-2019, 12:19 PM
