Corvette ZR1 (Blue Devil) unveiled

MichaelFerrariF1 · Post by **MichaelFerrariF1** » 2008-06-19 09:04am

Bounty wrote:All I know is that he said he didn't complete a single home/work round trip in the car without something breaking down.

So Clarkson never exaggerates and everything he says is true? And everything you see on Top Gear is real?

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-06-19 09:12am

MichaelFerrariF1 wrote:
Bounty wrote:All I know is that he said he didn't complete a single home/work round trip in the car without something breaking down.
So Clarkson never exaggerates and everything he says is true? And everything you see on Top Gear is real?

Oh for the love of... of course he exaggerates. But in this case, it's not something he brought up; he'd hyped up the car so much it was his co-presenters who made him admit the troubles he had. And he did return the car for a refund, even if he bought it back afterwards.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-06-19 02:13pm

Clarkson's main complaint is with the presentation of many American road cars, not going into supercar territory. And it's true, because American cars have the most awful interiors on Earth. Remember when he slated the Alfa 155 for it's shit engineering? The one good thing about that car he really liked was the interior, which is what should be in any decent, expensive car, with others making the actual engine and transmission etc.

I also find it quite funny how Clarkson is a nationalist. Apparently someone ratting on valid flaws in US cars who resides in a country with no fucking car industry is obviously stoked up on British zeal.

America hasn't made a good car since the '65 Mustang, which is the de facto most awesome thing on wheels to come out of the States (the second most awesome being the Buffalo, but you only get half a point since it was originally a South African design).

MichaelFerrariF1 · Post by **MichaelFerrariF1** » 2008-06-19 02:38pm

If I had a car as fast a a Z06, I wouldn't care whether the interior had $5000 of leather per square inch or was made of plastic. The performance is what matters, and if you're driving a supercar the way it's meant to be driven, you'll be too focused on the road to admire the interior.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-06-19 04:56pm

MichaelFerrariF1 wrote:If I had a car as fast a a Z06, I wouldn't care whether the interior had $5000 of leather per square inch or was made of plastic. The performance is what matters, and if you're driving a supercar the way it's meant to be driven, you'll be to focused on the road to admire the interior.

Well, and there's the fundamental difference between US drivers and European drivers. Because we actually want to have a decent interior PLUS decent performance. A super-performance car with totally horrible interior will not garner much following. It will appear tacky.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2008-06-19 08:33pm

Your not going to pay less then 200,000 dollars for a European car with comparable performance and a high level of luxury, at which point you could simply buy a ZR-1 for track days and a luxury CTS-V which still has 550hp as a daily driver. Even doing that you’d STILL be saving at least 20,000 dollars even counting sales taxes and fees.

Anyone who thinks a ZR-1 is tacky is going to be a moron anyway who can’t appreciate the thing or any other car except as 'shinny'. But I guess for you Euros impressing morons with your illogically designed absurdly overpriced supercar is as important as impressing someone with a nine ton SUV used to be in America.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2008-06-19 09:16pm

If I had the money, I'm just going to get myself a Pratt & Miller C6RS. I get a tricked out Corvette from the guys who build the factory racing Corvettes which have pretty much cleaned out racing circuits for the last 5 years. It looks sharp, the performance is ridiculous, and it also has a nice luxurious interior.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-19 09:18pm

For the same cost as a Ferrari in the same performance class as a ZR-1, I can take that ZR-1 over to Calloway and have them tinker with it a little, have a car that can out perform pretty much anything in Ferrari's stable outside of their formula race cars, and still have enough money left for a year a champaign room weekends at my favorite titty bar.

Oh, and here's the new ZR-1 interior...

I like how everything is right there at the driver's fingertips. Not designed to look like a fuckign spaceship (blow me Koenigsegg fanboys) and isn't made to look like an upscale bordello (eat it pastarocket fanboys). It's designed to keep the driver's focus on the road so he can lay the hammer down and kick massive amounts of ass.

MichaelFerrariF1 · Post by **MichaelFerrariF1** » 2008-06-19 09:53pm

Mr. Coffee wrote:It's designed to keep the driver's focus on the road so he can lay the hammer down and kick massive amounts of ass.

That's what a supercar's all about. I like Ferrari's racing teams (hence the name). For road cars, I'm more of an American/German kind of guy. Pure engineering focused on getting the job done.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-20 12:18am

Not bad for a car that started as a rhetorical question from GM's BoD Chairman. The engineers thought he was seriously when he said "I wonder what they could do for $100,000..."

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-06-20 01:59am

Mr. Coffee wrote:Oh, and here's the new ZR-1 interior...
<snip image>

I like how everything is right there at the driver's fingertips. Not designed to look like a fuckign spaceship (blow me Koenigsegg fanboys) and isn't made to look like an upscale bordello (eat it pastarocket fanboys). It's designed to keep the driver's focus on the road so he can lay the hammer down and kick massive amounts of ass.

Yikes, that looks incredibly cheap and ugly. Like bad plastic from the 80s when the Japanese were doing it. You actually spend money on something like it in these days and times? Wow...

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-06-20 02:05am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Your not going to pay less then 200,000 dollars for a European car with comparable performance and a high level of luxury, at which point you could simply buy a ZR-1 for track days and a luxury CTS-V which still has 550hp as a daily driver. Even doing that you’d STILL be saving at least 20,000 dollars even counting sales taxes and fees.

Anyone who thinks a ZR-1 is tacky is going to be a moron anyway who can’t appreciate the thing or any other car except as 'shinny'. But I guess for you Euros impressing morons with your illogically designed absurdly overpriced supercar is as important as impressing someone with a nine ton SUV used to be in America.

People here are used to high-quality interiors, and ugly interiors (like plastic orgies or something) will not be popular. There are reasons (among others) why American cars never sold that particularly well over here.
The usual buyer here spends a lot of time configuring his or her car out of the several dozen different extras, and it is made basically for him. Then they expect good quality in return. I mean, even if it has the super performance, why would I want to buy and drive in a car that doesn't spend one inch on interior design? Sure, if you're on a budget or have to be cheap/tacky, yeah. But apart from that...

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-06-20 03:38am

I see the Americans are still taking design cues from the Koreans, via a time portal to 1989.

It's designed to keep the driver's focus on the road so he can lay the hammer down and kick massive amounts of ass.

Guess that solves the riddle of the decent lap times; no-one in their right mind would want to look at that tackyfest for longer than is absolutely necessary. Back to the paddock, James, and step on it!

The usual buyer here spends a lot of time configuring his or her car out of the several dozen different extras, and it is made basically for him. Then they expect good quality in return.

I think that's the #1 issue with American cars: no attention to style or detail whatsoever. For just a few hundred dollars more they could have given this car an interior that's not hopelessly embarrassing, but no, I guess that'd be "wimpy". Cause Real Manly Men can't ever never admit that a care can be practical, beautiful and have good performance; that'd be downright communist

For future reference, this is what a real car interior looks like. Notice how it's not recycled from a Malaysian minicab?

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-20 05:29am

Dahak wrote:Yikes, that looks incredibly cheap and ugly. Like bad plastic from the 80s when the Japanese were doing it. You actually spend money on something like it in these days and times? Wow...

Plain English Translation: "I'm a monkey that's easilly impressed by shiny object instead of actual performance."

All I hear out of ya is "it's looks" or "it's not pretty". No shit, Sherlock. It's not meant to be a fru-fru pantywaste art car. It's meant to go fast and hug turns. You want "pretty" go buy new VW Bug. You want a $100k car that can out perform cars twice it's cost, then get a ZR-1.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-06-20 05:43am

It's not meant to be a fru-fru pantywaste art car.

Obviously not; being an American car, it's "meant" to be a RAWR HUEG ENGIN wrapped in a tacky and cheap shell that no-on in their right mind would be caught dead in.

You want a $100k car that can out perform cars twice it's cost, then get a ZR-1.

Actually, if I do happen to be a racing team - since the sort of performance you get out of this thing is not the sort you'd use outside of a track - I'd get a proper race car. A ZR1, perhaps, but with that interior stripped out and replaced with something functional in a racing environment; like what Porsche does when it makes and sells a performance-only car.

However, if I'm one of those race-driver-wannabes who buys a street legal-yet-not-race-qualified penis extension, I'd invest in a car that doesn't look like it was stapled together in a sweatshop. You're spending $ridiculous anyway; there's no reason not to trade some marginal performance benefit for a level of quality and proper design that Hyundai Corvette can't even dream of reaching.

Napoleon the Clown · Post by **Napoleon the Clown** » 2008-06-20 06:06am

Funny, the Ferrari Enzo has an immensely tacky, immensely busy, and very very red interior. They could have simply spent a few hundred and made the interior into something you could jack off to. Fuck performance, fuck saving weight, fuck all that. Or how about the $1.5 Veyron? Busy as hell interior that looks like it was ripped out of a Motel 6 in Beverly Hills. Jesus fuck, what ever happened to applying KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) to car design?

Really, I like the interior of the ZR1. It's simple, well laid out, and it's what should be basically what a supercar interior is. Supercars about being mind-numbingly fast. If you want a car that you can jack off the the aesthetics of, get a restored Duesenberg. Or anything else that is artwork on the inside. If you are willing to spend two to six times as much on a car for aesthetics alone, go for it. I, however, will spend the money I saved on more useful things. Then again, I don't feel the need to compensate for any of my shortcomings with shiny toys.

And here's some irony for you: So many Europeans bitch about how pampered and spoiled US residents are, and yet look at the car situation. They essentially have their own cars custom manufactured by default. Not pampered. I swear.

Resinence: Did you even actually read what I wrote? "pretty much everything" doesn't mean "everything".

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-06-20 06:10am

Mr. Coffee wrote:
Dahak wrote:Yikes, that looks incredibly cheap and ugly. Like bad plastic from the 80s when the Japanese were doing it. You actually spend money on something like it in these days and times? Wow...
Plain English Translation: "I'm a monkey that's easilly impressed by shiny object instead of actual performance."

All I hear out of ya is "it's looks" or "it's not pretty". No shit, Sherlock. It's not meant to be a fru-fru pantywaste art car. It's meant to go fast and hug turns. You want "pretty" go buy new VW Bug.

I'm not a monkey that is impressed by shiny objects. And it's not about "pretty" or "art" car. It is about quality. They can go all the way for purism. I am someone who likes to have quality for the huge sum the car costs.
It doesn't need wood or leather inside, but at least materials that don't look and feel like something off the waste-dump of some third-class plastic-cup manufacturer. It's not like it would cost more; they can do it with Korean mini-cars, they should do it for a car ten times the cost.

And the VW bug is, by no means, "pretty". It is ugly as sin, but at least the materials VW use are leagues ahead of that cheap-plastic orgy...

You want a $100k car that can out perform cars twice it's cost, then get a ZR-1.

And some people want a car they'd like to be seen at daylight in?
I mean, "RAR, it's faster than your good-looking and high-quality BMW M5, but I paid less for my pile of metal"? Is that some kind of underdog-feeling?

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-20 06:10am

Bounty wrote:Obviously not; being an American car, it's "meant" to be a RAWR HUEG ENGIN wrapped in a tacky and cheap shell that no-on in their right mind would be caught dead in.

Yeah, because carbon fiber body paneling and paint that costs $3k+ a gallon is 'cheap', right? Which part of "built for performance" isn't getting through your head?

Actually, if I do happen to be a racing team - since the sort of performance you get out of this thing is not the sort you'd use outside of a track - I'd get a proper race car. A ZR1, perhaps, but with that interior stripped out and replaced with something functional in a racing environment; like what Porsche does when it makes and sells a performance-only car.

Seriously, you actually think that a racing outfit that buys a ZR-1 is going to leave the stock interior instead of stripping most of it out for further weight savings and adding required safety features as required by whatever league they plan on racing it in? Do you even understand that a stock Porsche 911 GT3 doesn't even look anything like one optimized for racing?

No, really, stop talking as it's pretty obvious you don't have a goddamned clue what you're talking about.

However, if I'm one of those race-driver-wannabes who buys a street legal-yet-not-race-qualified penis extension, I'd invest in a car that doesn't look like it was stapled together in a sweatshop. You're spending $ridiculous anyway; there's no reason not to trade some marginal performance benefit for a level of quality and proper design that Hyundai Corvette can't even dream of reaching.

Really? Then show me a single production car that has the same or better performance for $100k or less.

Face it, you're stuck on "OMG, IT'S NOT PRETTY" style-over-substance bullshit.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-20 06:18am

Dahak wrote:And some people want a car they'd like to be seen at daylight in? I mean, "RAR, it's faster than your good-looking and high-quality BMW M5, but I paid less for my pile of metal"? Is that some kind of underdog-feeling?

Yes, because a four door sedan and a high performance sports car are the same thing, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? Moron...

But hey, since you brought up the M5, another fine GM product (one that's in the same class M5, btw), the Cadillac CTS-V, ruined that poor overpriced piece of finely-engineered German crap on the Nurburgring a little while ago. Fastest stock luxury sedan out there and it's American, once again showing that we do anything you can do, do it for less money, and do BETTER. Stick that in yer Teutonic ass and smoke it.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-06-20 06:25am

Mr. Coffee wrote:
Dahak wrote:And some people want a car they'd like to be seen at daylight in? I mean, "RAR, it's faster than your good-looking and high-quality BMW M5, but I paid less for my pile of metal"? Is that some kind of underdog-feeling?
Yes, because a four door sedan and a high performance sports car are the same thing, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? Moron...

It was an example of another car. But it went with your vibe of "MINE IS CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN YOUR HIGH QUALITY PRODUCT! YEEEHAWW!"

But hey, since you brought up the M5, another fine GM product (one that's in the same class M5, btw), the Cadillac CTS-V, ruined that poor overpriced piece of finely-engineered German crap on the Nurburgring a little while ago. Fastest stock luxury sedan out there and it's American, once again showing that we do anything you can do, do it for less money, and do BETTER. Stick that in yer Teutonic ass and smoke it.

Wow, you have some inferiority complex to take care about? I mean, seriously, get some help...

edit: oh, and that CTS-V interior is at least looking like something approaching European quality.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-20 06:35am

Dahak wrote:It was an example of another car. But it went with your vibe of "MINE IS CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN YOUR HIGH QUALITY PRODUCT! YEEEHAWW!"

Yeah, an example of a completely difference type car designed for a completely different purpose. Which means it's like comparing apples and bowling balls, chuckles.

Dahak wrote:Wow, you have some inferiority complex to take care about? I mean, seriously, get some help...

No, I just have a low tolerence for assclowns that can only find fault in something because it isn't "pretty". Once again, Chevy didn't make the ZR-1 to be the "prettiest" car you can get for $100k. They made to be the highest performance car you can get for $100k. They succeeded at that in spades.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-06-20 06:37am

Yeah, because carbon fiber body paneling and paint that costs $3k+ a gallon is 'cheap', right? Which part of "built for performance" isn't getting through your head?

So it's a very expensive cheap and tacky shell. This makes it better how?

Seriously, you actually think that a racing outfit that buys a ZR-1 is going to leave the stock interior instead of stripping most of it out for further weight savings and adding required safety features as required by whatever league they plan on racing it in? Do you even understand that a stock Porsche 911 GT3 doesn't even look anything like one optimized for racing?

Thanks for proving my point.

There's two buyers for this car: those who want to race it don't care about the pathetic interior; those who for reasons that elude common sense want to use it as a road car, should. Or at least have every right to, something which you can't seem to get past your "ZR1 perfect" filter.

Really? Then show me a single production car that has the same or better performance for $100k or less.

Ah yes, that staple of American marketing - buy our product, it's inferior in all but one ways, but look at that low, low price! HUEG ENGIN RAWR!

You keep on jacking off to the frankly preposterous idea that it's a Good Thing to cut corners on a motoring toy, which I'm sure is doubleplusgood in whatever parallel universe you inhabit; but tell me, in the budget range to buy this car, will anyone fall for the argument like "we made it cheap by replacing large chunks with suck, but hey, you save money"? If you can spend $100k on a toupet-on-wheels, you're not the kind of buyer who will appreciate a $2k discount in exchange for his car looking like a Daihatsu Charade.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-20 06:47am

Bounty wrote:So it's a very expensive cheap and tacky shell. This makes it better how?

More "waaa... it don't look pretty" bullshit.

Thanks for proving my point.

How in the fuck does that prove your point? You were trying to compare a race optimized, i.e. MODIFIED version of one car against the stock version of another. The only point that proves is that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to cars.

There's two buyers for this car: those who want to race it don't care about the pathetic interior; those who for reasons that elude common sense want to use it as a road car, should.

Which is why you brought up another high performance sports car that qualifies as the same, moron?

Or at least have every right to, something which you can't seem to get past your "ZR1 perfect" filter.

Yeah, because I'm more impressed by what the car can do on the road then why it looks like.

Really? Then show me a single production car that has the same or better performance for $100k or less.

Ah yes, that staple of American marketing - buy our product, it's inferior in all but one ways, but look at that low, low price! HUEG ENGIN RAWR!

So what you're saying then is you can't show me a better car for the same or less money and were talking out of your ass again.

You keep on jacking off to the frankly preposterous idea that it's a Good Thing to cut corners on a motoring toy, which I'm sure is doubleplusgood in whatever parallel universe you inhabit; but tell me, in the budget range to buy this car, will anyone fall for the argument like "we made it cheap by replacing large chunks with suck, but hey, you save money"?

More "it's not pretty" bullshit. They put money in the car where it actually matters for the purpose it was designed for, under the fucking hood.

People are trying to point out that once again, we've got an American car that's half-finished and makes the sort of mistakes the Japanese fixed a good decade ago.

What mistakes? They wanted to build a car that has better performance then anything in it's price range. They did it.

Oh, wait.. They didn't make it look pretty...

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-06-20 06:48am

Mr. Coffee wrote:
Dahak wrote:It was an example of another car. But it went with your vibe of "MINE IS CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN YOUR HIGH QUALITY PRODUCT! YEEEHAWW!"
Yeah, an example of a completely difference type car designed for a completely different purpose. Which means it's like comparing apples and bowling balls, chuckles.

Then take a current Porsche, Maserati, Aston Martin, or Audi R8. They have performance and actually show quality inside.

Dahak wrote:Wow, you have some inferiority complex to take care about? I mean, seriously, get some help...
No, I just have a low tolerence for assclowns that can only find fault in something because it isn't "pretty". Once again, Chevy didn't make the ZR-1 to be the "prettiest" car you can get for $100k. They made to be the highest performance car you can get for $100k. They succeeded at that in spades.

I don't care if it is pretty or not. It is tacky, which is caused by the massive use of cheap, tacky materials in the interior. I care, as mentioned earlier, about QUALITY. And when I spend $100,000 I expect at least a minimum of quality and not a reminiscence of an 1989-Korean car.

Mr. Coffee · Post by **Mr. Coffee** » 2008-06-20 07:06am

Dahak wrote:Then take a current Porsche, Maserati, Aston Martin, or Audi R8. They have performance and actually show quality inside.

Out performs the porche 311 GT and cost over 25k less...

Out performs the Maserati GranTurismo by a good measure and costs 10k less...

Out performs the Aston Martin V8 Vantage but for a fun change of pace costs less, only you're trading over 300hp and damned near 50mph for about 20k savings... For the same money as Aston martin I can buy a Viper SRT-10 and almost keep up with a Vette up to sixth gear.

Out performs the Audi R8 by a hell of lot and costs about 10k less...

Bang for the buck, Chevy has them beat.

Dahak wrote:I don't care if it is pretty or not. It is tacky, which is caused by the massive use of cheap, tacky materials in the interior. I care, as mentioned earlier, about QUALITY. And when I spend $100,000 I expect at least a minimum of quality and not a reminiscence of an 1989-Korean car.

See, I look a tool and I don't say to myself "gee, this hammer drives a nail fine, but man it could sure look prettier..." Instead I say to myself "Gee, this hammer drives a nail better then that pretty one and costs less. Let's buy it."

Think there's a better performing car for the same money or less? Well, I grew up in Missouri so fucking show me. Yeah, the ZR-1 ain't a pretty car. It's not meant to be a pretty car, it's meant to kick massive amounts of ass on a track.