Ronnie:

You are right, I was not comparing apples to apples. I stand corrected. I just hate to see a Porsche finish second to a vette.

 

but it may be short lived BAHAHAHHA ... http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73234267808321

Short lived??? Lets compare numbers:
06 Corvette Z06 07 Porsche 997TT
505 HP 500
478 Torque 457
3132 Weight 3520 (Huge factor!)

Furthermore, the published HP & torque numbers for the Z06 have proven to be quite low. Stock Z06's have dyno'd at close to 550 HP and 500 pound feet of torque.
The Porsche TT, whether it be a 996 or 997 is a fine car that provides a wonderful driving and performance experience. But the new Z06 is a monster! And there is no getting around it.

 

Ronnie:

I don't doubt your numbers at all. But, given my choice, I would rather have the 996TT or 997 TT. If I wanted pure speed, 0-60 times, HP, torque, etc, it would be the vette. But, I want the feeling that comes with the Porsche. My feeling, which tells me I would rather own and drive the Porsche if given the choice. I congratulate General Motors for their accomplishment with their new vette. I hope all people that want one, get one and people that own one, joy and happiness with it. Just like I hope all those same people wish me happiness with my Porsche.

 

Where have you seen this? The ZO6 is rated under the new SAE "certified HP" standard and it is very difficult for a manufacturer to fudge that high or low. The car has right at around 505 HP (flywheel).

How about proving this with a link to a credible source?

Dyno results are all over forums, here on this forum set's corvette pages about a month ago, and on LS1tech.com and LS1.com and ZO6.com, with stock C6 ZO6s coming in at around 450-455 RWHP.

That is consistent with 505 HP, too. To see that, look at past dyno run average for previous model Corvettes: 310-315 RWHP for the standard 350 HP C5 (2001-2004), 355-360 for the 405 HP C5 ZO6 (2002-2004), 350-355 RWHP for the 400 HP C6 since 2005. Take the average of those ranges (e.g. 312.5 for a standard C5), and ratio them to factory rated HP, and you get an average for those three cars of 88.94% of flywheel rating seen at the rear wheels. In other words 'vettes lose about 11.06% of their flywheel HP from engine to rear wheels. Invert that ratio and apply it to the average (452.5) of that 450-455 dyno result RWHP range posted on a number of places and forums, and you get about 507 flywheel HP. So, the dyno postings everywhere I've seen indicate something close to the correct rating of 505 HP. Not nearly 550 HP.

I'm not dinging the ZO6. Its a a great car, currently the equal of anything stock on the street except maybe the Ford GT (although its not the equal of cars that are modifed - I rode in a modified TT about a year ago that was scary and Lee Willis's gave me a ride back to the airport two weeks ago in his 'vette when I was in the Raleigh area - that thing does move!).

 

some how, there are still alot of vehicles which are dyno'ing to higher numbers than the stated numbers...

 

PR is correct about the 'vette. Its pretty well confirmed that the stock ZO6 is right at 450 RWHP and that translates to about 505 flywheel. Also, its performance is consistent with 500 HP. 11.7-11.8 is what other "500 HP 'vettes do in the quater, such as the 500 Hp Lingenfelter SC C5s. And vettes are also pretty well know to have rate at 11% drivetrain losses, lower than most other cars: lots of way to buy performance when you design the car. I don't know what the various Porsches run, only know my 320 Hp Tiptronic ran 265 at the RWs.

As to a lot of vehicles testing high, Patrick, I have not see a lot, but there are some. There is a very interesting sidebar in the Car and Driver comparison test of the ZO6, Viper, and Ford GT a couple of months ago. They put all three on the dyno: the vette did about 450, the 510 Hp Viper about in that range so they were correctly rated, but the 550 HP rated Ford GT did around 530-540 at the RWs (I don't remember the exact #, I don't have the article here with me now), which means it IS underrated by Ford. There was some talk in that article and on some forums that that car might have had a smaller SC pulley installed for the comparison test, but I tend to think it is just underrated: and note it is not listed by FORD as rated under the new SAE standard: you really can't cheat in that.

Underrating of muscle HP was common in the 70s: the 425 HP ZL1 Camaro was close to 600 HP under the rating system at the time (equivalent to about 420 in today's rating system) and the solid lifter 2 x 4 bl Hemi was underrated by about 10%.
The only modern cars I know that are underrated slightly are the '03 Mustang Cobra (rated at 390, actually doing about 415 flywheel) and the 98-02 Camaros and Firebird V8s, rated at 305 or 310 Hp and very obviously doing about 330 flywheel. The new supercharged 4.6 liter Cadillac engine in the STS-V was underrated at the pre-releast claimed 440 HP (flywheel) but GM bumped it up to 469 HP rating when they released it under the new SAE certified rating system (which is what the SAE test certified it at).

 

Hey Lee:

Its good to see you back! Hope you stay!

 

i know that this is a bit off the wall, but as pertaining to my comment about cars dyno'ing higher than advertised...the SRT4 neons typically dyno at the wheels what they advertise at the crank...i know quite a few SRT4 owners (you know me and my forums..lol) and all of them have put down better than advertised numbers, especially the newer models.

 

I know I'm on a Porsche forum, but I'm on the Corvette side this time. That Z06 is one amazing machine.

 

The breaks are massive and very compitene. And the sound of that 427 500+ HP power plant is spectacular.