oh, coolMetal-Eater-GR wrote:
Just for the record, Scura (Σκουρα) in greek means dark-coloured
Christbane makes a point. The new batch of C6 Corvettes are really quite light on their feet.
But don't knock on Corvettes, guys. There is a reason that they're one of the leading cars in A-class in SCCA autocross races when you look at results from Nationals. Those things kick ass and do know how to corner (one of the only American cars that can corner). Now if only they would lose the leaf springs and get a set of real shocks in the back ... Hell, the rear suspension on my 1990 Nissan 240SX is more modern than what is on the Corvette (though Chevy has taken that technology REALLY far).
But don't knock on Corvettes, guys. There is a reason that they're one of the leading cars in A-class in SCCA autocross races when you look at results from Nationals. Those things kick ass and do know how to corner (one of the only American cars that can corner). Now if only they would lose the leaf springs and get a set of real shocks in the back ... Hell, the rear suspension on my 1990 Nissan 240SX is more modern than what is on the Corvette (though Chevy has taken that technology REALLY far).
Last edited by CapnNismo (2009-10-20 11:23:25)
There is a good reason people swap LSx into everything and anything. They are damn good solid engines that are light as fuck. A lot of the time they don't weigh anymore then a 4 cylinder.TSI wrote:
Engine is better? As in more reliable than the Toyota Matrix XRS'?VicktorVauhn wrote:
Ehhh.... engine probably. At least on most of themTSI wrote:
Awesome? Name me one way in which those corvettes are better than a lotus. Just one.
But the lotus is so much cooler, and HP is basically for people who don't know how to drive but still want to feel like they can drive fast.
I think the only advantage the corvette might have is in HP. But HP on its own is useless; the really important number, for people who can drive, is HP/weight. And even there, that's only for straight-line driving. The Lotuses aren't only good at that; their strength lies in their light weight, and thus cornering ability.
Capn, the basic design of the 240s rear suspension may be more modern but the execution definitely is not when you start looking at the vettes composite leaf springs and what not. Its all well and good to blindly compare suspension setups and say ohhh multi-link is soo much better.... but in the end the better setup is the one that works best and I think the vette may have the 240 beat in road holding.
Can we start calling each other that instead of n*gger?Jenspm wrote:
oh, coolMetal-Eater-GR wrote:
Just for the record, Scura (Σκουρα) in greek means dark-coloured
I like the matte black, in addition to the rest of the car.
as far as i know even classic vettes have IRS rear and do not use leafs maybe the 53 did but im pretty sure by 63 at least they ran IRSCapnNismo wrote:
Christbane makes a point. The new batch of C6 Corvettes are really quite light on their feet.
But don't knock on Corvettes, guys. There is a reason that they're one of the leading cars in A-class in SCCA autocross races when you look at results from Nationals. Those things kick ass and do know how to corner (one of the only American cars that can corner). Now if only they would lose the leaf springs and get a set of real shocks in the back ... Hell, the rear suspension on my 1990 Nissan 240SX is more modern than what is on the Corvette (though Chevy has taken that technology REALLY far).
It damn well better hold the road better than my 20 year old 240, lol. I would expect them being able to get a lot more out of the car if they would finally switch. Think of the alignment configurations ...VicktorVauhn wrote:
Capn, the basic design of the 240s rear suspension may be more modern but the execution definitely is not when you start looking at the vettes composite leaf springs and what not. Its all well and good to blindly compare suspension setups and say ohhh multi-link is soo much better.... but in the end the better setup is the one that works best and I think the vette may have the 240 beat in road holding.
scuraFinray wrote:
Can we start calling each other that instead of n*gger?Jenspm wrote:
oh, coolMetal-Eater-GR wrote:
Just for the record, Scura (Σκουρα) in greek means dark-coloured
lol
for the record - i have more, detailed pics of the Vettes pictured in my post.
i will not post them here, and i won't post them in the car spot thread (i got flamed last time i did.)
as far as i know, Stingray meant this thread to be about the Lotus.
for the record - i have more, detailed pics of the Vettes pictured in my post.
i will not post them here, and i won't post them in the car spot thread (i got flamed last time i did.)
as far as i know, Stingray meant this thread to be about the Lotus.
Well then you know wrong... The vette does have IRS, but also uses a transverse composite leaf spring.Christbane wrote:
as far as i know even classic vettes have IRS rear and do not use leafs maybe the 53 did but im pretty sure by 63 at least they ran IRSCapnNismo wrote:
Christbane makes a point. The new batch of C6 Corvettes are really quite light on their feet.
But don't knock on Corvettes, guys. There is a reason that they're one of the leading cars in A-class in SCCA autocross races when you look at results from Nationals. Those things kick ass and do know how to corner (one of the only American cars that can corner). Now if only they would lose the leaf springs and get a set of real shocks in the back ... Hell, the rear suspension on my 1990 Nissan 240SX is more modern than what is on the Corvette (though Chevy has taken that technology REALLY far).
I know, and am not trying to compare the two... Just saying how worthless it is to say one is a better set up when it is out preformed. Beyond that there really is nothing modern about the rear setup of the 240... its seen as far back as what like the 50s? Nothing modern in the concept and nothing modern in the execution... The vette however may use an older concept but executes it with VERY modern lightweight and strong composites designed and arranged to give very particular control over spring rates and ride quality.CapnNismo wrote:
It damn well better hold the road better than my 20 year old 240, lol. I would expect them being able to get a lot more out of the car if they would finally switch. Think of the alignment configurations ...VicktorVauhn wrote:
Capn, the basic design of the 240s rear suspension may be more modern but the execution definitely is not when you start looking at the vettes composite leaf springs and what not. Its all well and good to blindly compare suspension setups and say ohhh multi-link is soo much better.... but in the end the better setup is the one that works best and I think the vette may have the 240 beat in road holding.
So really whats more modern, a cutting edge executions of an old design or the same old design with he same old materials?
Nothing about a transverse leaf spring prevents the car from having all the alignment adjustability of any other setup, and I would imagine it could also cut back on the unsprung weight a bit. They made the vette handle very well and the set up it has now was likely NOT done for cost efficiency... They could have gone with standard coil springs but didn't and that is because they knew they could make this arrangement work better.
(And I still like the lotus more )
you obviously know more about suspensions then I, so I agree I was wrong. when I think leaf spring I think solid axle etc... I am an autobody guy who sends suspension work to the pro's so I should have left it to said pros to discuss it >) but I have driven both and prefer a new vette to eliseVicktorVauhn wrote:
Well then you know wrong... The vette does have IRS, but also uses a transverse composite leaf spring.Christbane wrote:
as far as i know even classic vettes have IRS rear and do not use leafs maybe the 53 did but im pretty sure by 63 at least they ran IRSCapnNismo wrote:
Christbane makes a point. The new batch of C6 Corvettes are really quite light on their feet.
But don't knock on Corvettes, guys. There is a reason that they're one of the leading cars in A-class in SCCA autocross races when you look at results from Nationals. Those things kick ass and do know how to corner (one of the only American cars that can corner). Now if only they would lose the leaf springs and get a set of real shocks in the back ... Hell, the rear suspension on my 1990 Nissan 240SX is more modern than what is on the Corvette (though Chevy has taken that technology REALLY far).I know, and am not trying to compare the two... Just saying how worthless it is to say one is a better set up when it is out preformed. Beyond that there really is nothing modern about the rear setup of the 240... its seen as far back as what like the 50s? Nothing modern in the concept and nothing modern in the execution... The vette however may use an older concept but executes it with VERY modern lightweight and strong composites designed and arranged to give very particular control over spring rates and ride quality.CapnNismo wrote:
It damn well better hold the road better than my 20 year old 240, lol. I would expect them being able to get a lot more out of the car if they would finally switch. Think of the alignment configurations ...VicktorVauhn wrote:
Capn, the basic design of the 240s rear suspension may be more modern but the execution definitely is not when you start looking at the vettes composite leaf springs and what not. Its all well and good to blindly compare suspension setups and say ohhh multi-link is soo much better.... but in the end the better setup is the one that works best and I think the vette may have the 240 beat in road holding.
So really whats more modern, a cutting edge executions of an old design or the same old design with he same old materials?
Nothing about a transverse leaf spring prevents the car from having all the alignment adjustability of any other setup, and I would imagine it could also cut back on the unsprung weight a bit. They made the vette handle very well and the set up it has now was likely NOT done for cost efficiency... They could have gone with standard coil springs but didn't and that is because they knew they could make this arrangement work better.
(And I still like the lotus more )
That's just my opinion. I think Corvettes look better than the Lotus.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Imagine, that car looks 100000x better than those Corvettes in the background. And the black version looksRyan wrote:
You can't do anything to a Lotus to make it look mean. They are just plain ugly.