Chevrolet: Corvette News
08-02-2004, 07:37 AM
#441
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally Posted by cusdaddy
Watch the video again. This is my only response to you.
Watched it several times. Seems you want nothing but praise. They gave praise and they gave a fair criticism. What exactly did you disagree with? Perhaps you provide your educated opinion.
08-02-2004, 09:20 AM
#442
Moderator Alumnus
I thought it was funny when he pushed on the rear of the car, and then knocked the dashboard.
Ya they do seem a bit biased, and have some wierd "american" comments. Like we dont keep thing in out museums past 50 years?
Uhh, ok.... sometimes I wonder about those guys. What needs to happen is an American show that debunks what they say. Two guys who re-run the tests here in the US.
Ya they do seem a bit biased, and have some wierd "american" comments. Like we dont keep thing in out museums past 50 years?
Uhh, ok.... sometimes I wonder about those guys. What needs to happen is an American show that debunks what they say. Two guys who re-run the tests here in the US.
08-02-2004, 09:27 AM
#443
Moderator Alumnus
Just thought I'd add it's *NOT* like a 50 yr old leaf spring suspension like they make it out to be. What you can't see in this pic is the leaf runs from lef tto right. Maybe someone else can dig up a better pic.
08-02-2004, 09:48 AM
#444
Originally Posted by Zapata
Of course 
But that's the nature of the show.
But that's the nature of the show.
08-02-2004, 11:30 AM
#445
Senior Moderator
...and that would explain the GT3's time... it should have been faster. The RS is a more "race-ready" version of the GT3, but the difference is not so large that it would result in a 5 second lap difference. Maybe 1-2 seconds, not 5...
and the actual C6 test... could you have expected them to say anything more. Hell they said the Ford GT didn't handle as well as a Ferrari. The Top Gear blokes are VERY proud. they say it had a messy lap... so what.. the Carrera GT and SLR had "messy laps" too... they were all over the place. Why? Cuz they have a lot of damn power. They don't understand the torque of domestic V8's.
Anyways...
rrr
and the actual C6 test... could you have expected them to say anything more. Hell they said the Ford GT didn't handle as well as a Ferrari. The Top Gear blokes are VERY proud. they say it had a messy lap... so what.. the Carrera GT and SLR had "messy laps" too... they were all over the place. Why? Cuz they have a lot of damn power. They don't understand the torque of domestic V8's.
Anyways...rrr
08-02-2004, 11:32 AM
#446
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by heyitsme
Its too bad the xlr and corvette couldn't be the same as the g35 is to the z. Be nice to have the same performance capabilities in the caddy with 6-speed, x-tra luxury and style.
08-02-2004, 11:54 AM
#447
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
I saw the TV shows of both Car and Driver and Autoweek this weekend and they both started with the C6. I can tell you that both were super happy with the car. They were amazed at how good this car is for its money in this category. C&D pretty much guarranteed that this new Vette will continue to be in the 10 Best Cars list next year.
08-02-2004, 11:59 AM
#449
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by stopsign
Gavril, the GT3 and the CSL were driven in wet laps. As heyitsme said earlier, the topgear website doesnt list whether or not the laps were done in wet weather. I've seen the entire CSL episode and the M3 CSL has near slick tires on it and supposedly dont perform well in neither wet nor cold weather(it was both during the test run).
08-02-2004, 03:30 PM
#450
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Age: 40
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were biased. That was expected. They dont like corvettes.
Funny even after that "SLOPPY" run it still ran a respected number. Looked like that run could be improved alot. For the price I dont think that car could be beat.
The car should of tossed the nsx in the straight line. 400hp vs 290hp. I think they weigh similar too no? c6 is 3200lbs
Funny even after that "SLOPPY" run it still ran a respected number. Looked like that run could be improved alot. For the price I dont think that car could be beat.
The car should of tossed the nsx in the straight line. 400hp vs 290hp. I think they weigh similar too no? c6 is 3200lbs
08-02-2004, 03:51 PM
#451
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by cusdaddy
Sorry, but there is no way that a NSX can beat a well-driven C6 in an acceleration test like it did in this video. The C6 has 400hp/400 torque and has performance times of mid 12's in the 1/4.
Even the TVR model they tested runs high 12's / mid 13's in the 1/4, yet it smoked the C6.
Even the TVR model they tested runs high 12's / mid 13's in the 1/4, yet it smoked the C6.
08-02-2004, 03:55 PM
#452
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by SiGGy
Just thought I'd add it's *NOT* like a 50 yr old leaf spring suspension like they make it out to be. What you can't see in this pic is the leaf runs from lef tto right. Maybe someone else can dig up a better pic.
LOW TECH THAT WORKS ON THE TRACK AND CITY AS WELL AS HIGH TECH IS BETTER THAN HIGH TECH!
That's the lesson here. They will never get it because it's not to their interest to get it. Cos it makes all of them, including the Japs, look like ASSES!
08-02-2004, 04:29 PM
#453
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-02-2004, 04:32 PM
#454
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 45
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gavriil
But Siggy, what does it matter? What matters here is actually that this is an advantage for the C6 and that's what the Europeans will never understand.
LOW TECH THAT WORKS ON THE TRACK AND CITY AS WELL AS HIGH TECH IS BETTER THAN HIGH TECH!
That's the lesson here. They will never get it because it's not to their interest to get it. Cos it makes all of them, including the Japs, look like ASSES!
LOW TECH THAT WORKS ON THE TRACK AND CITY AS WELL AS HIGH TECH IS BETTER THAN HIGH TECH!
That's the lesson here. They will never get it because it's not to their interest to get it. Cos it makes all of them, including the Japs, look like ASSES!
08-02-2004, 04:34 PM
#455
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
I mean this "low tech" discussion really reminds me of the dot com situation. In other words, the word that comes to mind is: FAD! Europe and Japan selling fad to the world and America going with what works. And note that I believe in no schools of thought and as you know, I am not biased. But this low tech, high tech argument is simply not existant and a bunch of crap which when you tell it, you sound like you have a good story but in the end it's fad!
Leaf springs, two valves per cylinder (not the case with the C6 but with the C5), OHV, pushrods, high desplacement, "low" specific HP (power per liter), etc., etc.
So if I, the USAmerican engineer can build a car that uses all of the above, so that I SAVE YOU DOLLARS, but at the same time do it so that the car STILL PERFORMS (track or city), then why would you bash me and call me low tech?
Do you think that GM cant build the engine in the ENzo? If Ferrari can hire the engineers that built the Enzo, or its engine, dont you think that GM can do that?
The question is not if GM can make a Ferrari beater, the question is can Ferrari or Porsche build a Corvette FOR THE PRICE OF THE CORVETTE! Let me answer it for you. NO. They absolutely CANNOT! Why? Cos they dont have the LS2 which is shared by a billion trucks and other cars (in 3 different versions) so that it brings the cost down to what it is. If Ferrari built the LS2 it'd cost 6 times more than what if GM built it.
Same for the platform and same for all the parts that are shared.
So now you go bash them for the low tech used. I see it the other way around which proves FAD! What is that?
If GM has proven that pushrods, leaf springs and all the other low technologies used can perform as well as the high tech, then doesnt that mean that what Porsche and the rest are selling you is FAD?! It's basically a lie! Stuff you dont need and just because it's high tech and complicated and because it tells a good story when promoted from people that know how to promote them, it makes you think you bought the best?
I am not saying that the C6 is as good as a 360 and it feels like one, etc., etc. But although I have not driven either, I hear a lot of comments from experts (even the biased ones) like: "wow, is this thing fun to drive!", etc., etc.
So there is nothing wrong with the way this car FEELS, which is completely subjective. So if the FEELING is right and if the performance is there and if the price is untouchable,
WHY WOULD ANYONE BASH THIS CAR FROM ANY PERSPECTIVE?!
Also, EVERY review from USAmerican mags I have read up to now have praised the shifter. I am listening to TOP GEAR and they bash the shit out of it. They make an effort to bash it.
Also:
Every reporter here praised the ride characteristics and how livable this car is. TOP GEAR humiliated the car's ride. What gives?
Leaf springs, two valves per cylinder (not the case with the C6 but with the C5), OHV, pushrods, high desplacement, "low" specific HP (power per liter), etc., etc.
So if I, the USAmerican engineer can build a car that uses all of the above, so that I SAVE YOU DOLLARS, but at the same time do it so that the car STILL PERFORMS (track or city), then why would you bash me and call me low tech?
Do you think that GM cant build the engine in the ENzo? If Ferrari can hire the engineers that built the Enzo, or its engine, dont you think that GM can do that?
The question is not if GM can make a Ferrari beater, the question is can Ferrari or Porsche build a Corvette FOR THE PRICE OF THE CORVETTE! Let me answer it for you. NO. They absolutely CANNOT! Why? Cos they dont have the LS2 which is shared by a billion trucks and other cars (in 3 different versions) so that it brings the cost down to what it is. If Ferrari built the LS2 it'd cost 6 times more than what if GM built it.
Same for the platform and same for all the parts that are shared.
So now you go bash them for the low tech used. I see it the other way around which proves FAD! What is that?
If GM has proven that pushrods, leaf springs and all the other low technologies used can perform as well as the high tech, then doesnt that mean that what Porsche and the rest are selling you is FAD?! It's basically a lie! Stuff you dont need and just because it's high tech and complicated and because it tells a good story when promoted from people that know how to promote them, it makes you think you bought the best?
I am not saying that the C6 is as good as a 360 and it feels like one, etc., etc. But although I have not driven either, I hear a lot of comments from experts (even the biased ones) like: "wow, is this thing fun to drive!", etc., etc.
So there is nothing wrong with the way this car FEELS, which is completely subjective. So if the FEELING is right and if the performance is there and if the price is untouchable,
WHY WOULD ANYONE BASH THIS CAR FROM ANY PERSPECTIVE?!
Also, EVERY review from USAmerican mags I have read up to now have praised the shifter. I am listening to TOP GEAR and they bash the shit out of it. They make an effort to bash it.
Also:
Every reporter here praised the ride characteristics and how livable this car is. TOP GEAR humiliated the car's ride. What gives?
08-02-2004, 04:44 PM
#457
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 45
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gavril: The answer is pure bias. They showed it with many of their reviews. Their show is pure entertainment, not automotive journalism. They are pandering off the anti-American feelings in Europe at the moment, so of course, they will entertain the audience and bash anything american-made.
08-02-2004, 04:49 PM
#459
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rod
I want a low-tech POS C6, even with that Playskool steering wheel 
Hopefully the steering wheel will change in the second or third year of production.
Hopefully the steering wheel will change in the second or third year of production.
08-02-2004, 04:51 PM
#460
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno, as harsh as it was, there were some valid points about the car. For 50k I would like to have seen the car approaching m3 levels of refinement paired with the performance and the car is clearly lacking in that area.
08-02-2004, 05:00 PM
#462
Drifting
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 46
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by heyitsme
For 50k I would like to have seen the car approaching m3 levels of refinement paired with the performance and the car is clearly lacking in that area.
08-02-2004, 05:01 PM
#463
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cusdaddy
Just like a 6.0L pushrod LS2 that makes 400/400 yet gets even better gas mileage than a 3.2L NSX that produces significantly less HP. But the LS2 is low tech, so I guess it must suck.
edit:
it is actually the same, but 260hp/232tq vs. 405hp/400tq
current Z06 --> 19/28
CLS 6spd --> 19/28
08-02-2004, 05:10 PM
#466
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=gavriil]
So if I, the USAmerican engineer can build a car that uses all of the above, so that I SAVE YOU DOLLARS, but at the same time do it so that the car STILL PERFORMS (track or city), then why would you bash me and call me low tech?
QUOTE]
How much money is GM really saving though when even under 20k cars today have the 'high tech' suspension.
So if I, the USAmerican engineer can build a car that uses all of the above, so that I SAVE YOU DOLLARS, but at the same time do it so that the car STILL PERFORMS (track or city), then why would you bash me and call me low tech?
QUOTE]
How much money is GM really saving though when even under 20k cars today have the 'high tech' suspension.
08-02-2004, 05:13 PM
#467
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Rod
I want a low-tech POS C6, even with that Playskool steering wheel Hopefully the steering wheel will change in the second or third year of production.
Hopefully the steering wheel will change in the second or third year of production.
08-02-2004, 05:15 PM
#469
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by gavriil
But Siggy, what does it matter? What matters here is actually that this is an advantage for the C6 and that's what the Europeans will never understand.
LOW TECH THAT WORKS ON THE TRACK AND CITY AS WELL AS HIGH TECH IS BETTER THAN HIGH TECH!
That's the lesson here. They will never get it because it's not to their interest to get it. Cos it makes all of them, including the Japs, look like ASSES!
LOW TECH THAT WORKS ON THE TRACK AND CITY AS WELL AS HIGH TECH IS BETTER THAN HIGH TECH!
That's the lesson here. They will never get it because it's not to their interest to get it. Cos it makes all of them, including the Japs, look like ASSES!
Ya, I agree 100%. I was just trying to show they are using a leaf spring, but not in the old conventional way. That setup is nothing like an old pickup truck with leaf springs.
I'm with ya 100% man! just kinda ticked the way they worded it. So I was trying to show the suspension was not the way they depicted it.
08-02-2004, 05:16 PM
#470
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 45
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much money is GM really saving though when even under 20k cars today have the 'high tech' suspension.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Same thing with DOHC and multi-valve engines. GM has some 20k cars with these features (Ecotech engines for example) but it doesn't mean that the OHV Pushrod LS2 is a bad choice. They use what works and the current C6 setup works VERY well.
Hell, my 350Z has a supposed "advanced or high-tech" engine and suspension, but the car makes less hp and mpg than the LS2 and my supposedly "advanced or high-tech" suspension can knock your teeth out on rough roads vs the smooth and even better handling "low tech" C6.
08-02-2004, 05:18 PM
#471
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
[QUOTE=heyitsme]
It's not about saving money for GM. It's about GM being able to sell the Vette in the numbers it sells and the money it makes off of that. And for you what that means, is that you are able to get a 12.7 second beast for $45K which you can drive to work and race at the track.
Originally Posted by gavriil
So if I, the USAmerican engineer can build a car that uses all of the above, so that I SAVE YOU DOLLARS, but at the same time do it so that the car STILL PERFORMS (track or city), then why would you bash me and call me low tech?
QUOTE]
How much money is GM really saving though when even under 20k cars today have the 'high tech' suspension.
QUOTE]
How much money is GM really saving though when even under 20k cars today have the 'high tech' suspension.
It's not about saving money for GM. It's about GM being able to sell the Vette in the numbers it sells and the money it makes off of that. And for you what that means, is that you are able to get a 12.7 second beast for $45K which you can drive to work and race at the track.
08-02-2004, 05:22 PM
#472
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by SiGGy
Ya, I agree 100%. I was just trying to show they are using a leaf spring, but not in the old conventional way. That setup is nothing like an old pickup truck with leaf springs.
I'm with ya 100% man! just kinda ticked the way they worded it. So I was trying to show the suspension was not the way they depicted it.
I'm with ya 100% man! just kinda ticked the way they worded it. So I was trying to show the suspension was not the way they depicted it.
08-02-2004, 05:28 PM
#473
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by cusdaddy
If the handling is amazing (which it is) and the ride is very well controlled and acceptable (according to every other review I have read), then why do they have to use a different setup? This one clearly works and works very well.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Same thing with DOHC and multi-valve engines. GM has some 20k cars with these features (Ecotech engines for example) but it doesn't mean that the OHV Pushrod LS2 is a bad choice. They use what works and the current C6 setup works VERY well.
Hell, my 350Z has a supposed "advanced or high-tech" engine and suspension, but the car makes less hp and mpg than the LS2 and my supposedly "advanced or high-tech" suspension can knock your teeth out on rough roads vs the smooth and even better handling "low tech" C6.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Same thing with DOHC and multi-valve engines. GM has some 20k cars with these features (Ecotech engines for example) but it doesn't mean that the OHV Pushrod LS2 is a bad choice. They use what works and the current C6 setup works VERY well.
Hell, my 350Z has a supposed "advanced or high-tech" engine and suspension, but the car makes less hp and mpg than the LS2 and my supposedly "advanced or high-tech" suspension can knock your teeth out on rough roads vs the smooth and even better handling "low tech" C6.
08-02-2004, 05:37 PM
#475
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 45
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gavriil
Plus it's more reliable. Leaf springs and OHV are bulletproof. And I dont want to sound like an ass hater and bring the M3 engine "issues" we had for about a year now.
08-02-2004, 05:49 PM
#476
Senior Moderator
they just wanted to hate on the C6, that's all that's going on there.. 
that one dude complains about the C6's shifter, being hard to shift or whatever. yeah I bet he drives a Ferrari gated shifter and says "ahhhh pure exhilaration to shift this beauty" - if you've ever driven a Ferrari with a gated manual... you know its not exactly the most fun thing to do, but just because its a Ferrari, you're not complaining.
I drove a friend's F355 6-speed recently, this is what I was thinking when I was driving it. The shifter squeaks as you put it into gear, its not smooth, but its OK because its a Ferrari...
that one dude complains about the C6's shifter, being hard to shift or whatever. yeah I bet he drives a Ferrari gated shifter and says "ahhhh pure exhilaration to shift this beauty" - if you've ever driven a Ferrari with a gated manual... you know its not exactly the most fun thing to do, but just because its a Ferrari, you're not complaining.
I drove a friend's F355 6-speed recently, this is what I was thinking when I was driving it. The shifter squeaks as you put it into gear, its not smooth, but its OK because its a Ferrari...
08-02-2004, 05:50 PM
#477
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by cusdaddy
And they aren't the same Leaf springs in a pickup which I'm sure they were intending to portray. They failed to mention the leaf springs in the C6 were transverse mounted and composite.
08-02-2004, 05:57 PM
#478
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gavriil
Why would they even take the time to research what the "latest" leaf spring technology entails?
they are just trying their best to find something to bash about..
08-02-2004, 06:04 PM
#479
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cusdaddy
If the handling is amazing (which it is) and the ride is very well controlled and acceptable (according to every other review I have read), then why do they have to use a different setup? This one clearly works and works very well.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Same thing with DOHC and multi-valve engines. GM has some 20k cars with these features (Ecotech engines for example) but it doesn't mean that the OHV Pushrod LS2 is a bad choice. They use what works and the current C6 setup works VERY well.
Hell, my 350Z has a supposed "advanced or high-tech" engine and suspension, but the car makes less hp and mpg than the LS2 and my supposedly "advanced or high-tech" suspension can knock your teeth out on rough roads vs the smooth and even better handling "low tech" C6.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Same thing with DOHC and multi-valve engines. GM has some 20k cars with these features (Ecotech engines for example) but it doesn't mean that the OHV Pushrod LS2 is a bad choice. They use what works and the current C6 setup works VERY well.
Hell, my 350Z has a supposed "advanced or high-tech" engine and suspension, but the car makes less hp and mpg than the LS2 and my supposedly "advanced or high-tech" suspension can knock your teeth out on rough roads vs the smooth and even better handling "low tech" C6.
Its a never ending debate that started a long time ago, hiteck yo vs lotec. As far as the z, that really has to do with the company, the purpose, and price of the car, not the technology. Sure the corvette can seem to skate by these arguments because of its price, but what happens when the xlr is brought into the argument with the same suspension. Are you really getting what you paid for. Seen the same thing come up with the nsx and vette, who cares if the nsx uses aluminum when the corvette uses fiberglass and is lighter. Wheres it stop? Doesn't a high price also justify the lastest technology/ materials/ etc, or is it just whatever works, as long as its comparable with whatever else.
08-02-2004, 06:23 PM
#480
hail to the victors
at the end of the top gear review EVO(1.26) was ahead of corvette(1.26.8). is this a different list?
1 Porsche Carrera GT - 1:19.8
2 Mercedes-Mclaren SLR - 1.20.9
3 Ferrari 360 CS - 1.22.3
4 Porsche 911 GT3 RS - 1.22.3
5 Lamborghini Murcielago - 1.23.7
6 Pagani Zonda - 1.23.8
7 Koenigsegg - 1.23.9
8 Noble M12 GTO-3 - 1.25.0
9 Lamborghini Gallardo - 1.25.8
10 Corvette C6 - 1.26
11 Lotus Exige - 1.26.4
12 Porsche 911 GT3 - 1.27.2
13 TVR T350c - 1.27.5
14 BMW M3 CSL - 1.28.0
15 MG SV - 1.28.6
16 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VIII - 1.28.9
17 Alpina Roadster (Z8) - 1.29.0
18 Subaru Impreza STi - 1.30.1
19 Aston Martin DB7 GT - 1.30.4
20 Audi S4 - 1.30.9
21 Porsche 911 Turbo - 1.31.0
22 Vauxhall VX220 Turbo - 1.31.3
23 Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6
24 BMW M3 - 1.31.8
25 Nissan 350Z - 1.31.8
26 Mazda RX-8 - 1.31.8
27 Ford Focus RS - 1.32.2
28 Lotus Esprit V8 - 1.32.5
29 Audi TT V6 - 1.32.7
30 Noble M12 - 1.33.1
31 Mercedes SL55 AMG - 1.33.2
32 VW Golf R32 - 1.33.2
33 Volvo S60R - 1.35.0
34 Ferrari 575 - 1.35.2
35 Alfa Romeo 147 GTA - 1.35.6
36 Lotus Elise - 1.35.6
37 Aston Martin Vanquish - 1.36.2
38 Renault Clio V6 - 1.36.2
39 Honda Civic Type R - 1.36.5
40 Saab 9-5 HOT Aero - 1.37.9
41 Maserati Coupe - 1.38.0
42 Bowler Wildcat - 1.39.4
43 Bentley Arnarge - 1.40.8
44 Range Rover overfinch - 1.44.0
Originally Posted by srika
1 Porsche Carrera GT - 1:19.8
2 Mercedes-Mclaren SLR - 1.20.9
3 Ferrari 360 CS - 1.22.3
4 Porsche 911 GT3 RS - 1.22.3
5 Lamborghini Murcielago - 1.23.7
6 Pagani Zonda - 1.23.8
7 Koenigsegg - 1.23.9
8 Noble M12 GTO-3 - 1.25.0
9 Lamborghini Gallardo - 1.25.8
10 Corvette C6 - 1.26
11 Lotus Exige - 1.26.4
12 Porsche 911 GT3 - 1.27.2
13 TVR T350c - 1.27.5
14 BMW M3 CSL - 1.28.0
15 MG SV - 1.28.6
16 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VIII - 1.28.9
17 Alpina Roadster (Z8) - 1.29.0
18 Subaru Impreza STi - 1.30.1
19 Aston Martin DB7 GT - 1.30.4
20 Audi S4 - 1.30.9
21 Porsche 911 Turbo - 1.31.0
22 Vauxhall VX220 Turbo - 1.31.3
23 Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6
24 BMW M3 - 1.31.8
25 Nissan 350Z - 1.31.8
26 Mazda RX-8 - 1.31.8
27 Ford Focus RS - 1.32.2
28 Lotus Esprit V8 - 1.32.5
29 Audi TT V6 - 1.32.7
30 Noble M12 - 1.33.1
31 Mercedes SL55 AMG - 1.33.2
32 VW Golf R32 - 1.33.2
33 Volvo S60R - 1.35.0
34 Ferrari 575 - 1.35.2
35 Alfa Romeo 147 GTA - 1.35.6
36 Lotus Elise - 1.35.6
37 Aston Martin Vanquish - 1.36.2
38 Renault Clio V6 - 1.36.2
39 Honda Civic Type R - 1.36.5
40 Saab 9-5 HOT Aero - 1.37.9
41 Maserati Coupe - 1.38.0
42 Bowler Wildcat - 1.39.4
43 Bentley Arnarge - 1.40.8
44 Range Rover overfinch - 1.44.0
