Well you can usually start with the seats, cage, dash. A Turbo will have more alcantera, more bling, more accents, better seats, and several other clues that you are in a higher level car. A GT2RS will have 12-15k racing seats in it and all of the above likely as well.

You will also notice that many of the recent complaints about the TT revolve around the cheaper motor that Porsche put in it, much like GM. All of other motors are race motors and not just forged LS3's with a supercharger stuck on them.

I see your point, but it's invalid, the 40k interior on the C6 you can find in a 20k car. Especially when it comes to durability of the parts. So it's really a 20k interior (IE Mustang). And that's ok for a sports car. But you expect that to go up in value a little bit for a 100k car.


The Interior on a bare bones C2 is not alcantera all over, it's bare bones leather. I'm not sure which are options and which are not, but you won't see many complaints on the GT2 interior being cheap, even for a 250k car. When you put good stuff in the car to start with, makes it easier to put the same interior on a higher level car.

You can get the same interior options on a C2, but it will cost you. Most of those guys are paying over 100k for there Carerra's. Of course some options are options on the Turbo's too (that's how Porsche makes more money), but it's not carbon copy.

 

Thank you very much Neil now i get it."Time to distance and time to speed are 2 different things" thats the key.Thank you again.

Rolando

 

Fair enough... Thanks.

 

It's clear that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Please keep your childish generalizations out of this thread. Thank you.

 

So I said it once, but I'll say it again; this thread was to simply point out that the GT2 RS ran a faster 0-300 km/h than the fastest 'verified' 0-300 km/h time for a ZR1. Period.

It's not about which car is better, which car costs more, which car costs less, which car has the better build quality, or whether either car can run a faster time in more optimal conditions.

It's also not anti-Corvette or anti-Porsche. It's simply pointing out the fact that the GT2 RS is quite fast, since beating the ZR1 in any type of performance contest (be it in a straight line, or around the 'ring) is a feat in and of itself.

So everyone please take a breath, and relax. They're only cars, guys.

 

Hopefully mid-130mph trap speeds will reveal that. Maybe even higher?

Anyone who pays attention to Vettes via online forums for years knows an FRC means fixed roof coupe, especially among the LS1 and Mustang crowds.

 

Besides Divv X is a former Vette guy....why would he purposefully bash himself?

 

The GT2 RS is the high water mark now for production cars, I am thankful and flattered that a $105k ZR1...takes the good part of $100k more to be beat by any sports car.


My point is Porsche tends to not be very forthcoming or exuberant about its horsepower ratings, typically they err on the side of being conservative. They are both powered by bi metallic air pumps...one of a flat 6 design and one of a bent 8 design. ZR1's typically dyno about ~ 530 rwhp so they actually are rated right on top of what they dyno. In fact if anything they dyno percentage wise vs flywheel hp a decent amount less than a comparable Z06. I would imagine that the Porsche is going to put down to the ground a decent amount more than the ZR1...because in those ultra high speed splits or speeds over 120 mph or so weight drops well below POWER, POWER, POWER....drag and gearing as things that influence the rate of acceleration.

 

well if this is to become a bang for the buck thread, there are a few cars that are much better bang for the buck than a ZO6 or a ZR1. GTR to name one. EVO and STI to name two more.

AMS has a $21k kit for the evo that makes 900 bhp. So buy an evoX for 35k and ad 21k to it. I would guess they have a similar stage for the STI. So for less than 55k, you can have a new car that will walk away from a ZO6 or a ZR1, and if you compare to the ZR you could build both an STI and an EVO for the price of a ZR1. Heck, I see as many vettes as I do Evo's and Sti's every day. There is no exclusivity difference.

ok, counterpoint over. Maybe you bang for the buck guys get my drift. If it was about the money, this thread would have never happened.

 

You can't compare modified cars to stock cars ...its apples to oranges....

 

I beg to differ. Other posters brought up issue that they could mod a ZO6 with the extra money to beat a GT2RS. Fair enough. I can mod an EVO with less money than a ZR1 goes for and I can annihilate in the 1/4 mile or on a track. Just like was posted previously

 

if it didn't, we would all own a GT2RS, even the hardcore vette owners

 

Jamie - I was only laughing because the price argument is so often used as a default retort by someone who's frustrated with the results of a car comparison, that its become predictable and expected and I can't help but laugh when I see it.

Anyway, while I could afford the price of a new ZR1, the GT2 RS is WAY, WAY out of my league financially. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the fact that it's one of the best cars in the world.

Point being; it ain't about the cost, it's about the car.

 

Agreed, you said it the same way I was going to. If we are talking strictly performance a modified Vette is very hard to beat. But me personally I would rather have the GT2 RS....its one bad mfer...and its limited production.

 

I would be curious to see what an "unlimited" Evo could do on 91 octane and DOT tires at Laguna Seca vs. a bone stock ZR1.

I believe the Time Attack AWD record is 1:31 and a stock ZR1 can do 1:35?

A race prepped 6.0 C6 (Speed GT) can do 1:29 and that isn't on slicks. The modifed car argument is a very slipperly slope and really is apples to oranges.