[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by The HACK

At that price ($90K+ optioned) the value proposition all of a sudden swings right back in BMW's favor. If I'm looking for a performance vehicle that can double duty (this is me speaking) for track use, a BMW M2 Competition is about $20,000 less and can probably hold its own against a C8 on track in the hands of most advanced amateur HPDErs.

Theoretically one only needs the Z51 pack to track the C8, $65k. That is right in the wheel house of the M2. Tough choice. The rear seat of the M2 is useless and the dakota leather in my buddies comp is horrible for a M car.

[The HACK]

Originally Posted by hellrotm

Theoretically one only needs the Z51 pack to track the C8, $65k. That is right in the wheel house of the M2. Tough choice. The rear seat of the M2 is useless and the dakota leather in my buddies comp is horrible for a M car.

Theoretically you don't really need ANYTHING to track the C8, although the all season tires it came with will likely be a hinderance...For $5,000 it basically pays for a new set of tires and rims if you chose not to get the Z51, which gives you the flexibility to buy r-comps or slicks to complement your all-season for the street.

So straight up, the C8 non Z51 would be a pretty good direct comparison to the M2 Competition. For track use, the M2 Competition would have a leg up on convenience, but down almost 100HP. You can carry a set of wheels and tires in the M2 plus tools to change said r-comp or slicks on track, while the Corvette you have to drive to and from the track on said r-comps. Not a huge deal breaker, but it does dramatically shorten the life of your r-comp depending on which one you use (NT-01? No big deal. Hoosier A7? Probably wouldn't be my choice to drive on them to and from a track).

Hypothetically speaking, if I had to make a choice today, and if I don't already have my C7 Grand Sport AND my MZ4 Coupe, I'd be cross shopping these two cars, and I'd likely pick the M2 Competition based on what I know now.

10 years later? When my daughter is in her 4th year in college? Different story. I'd probably go with the 2 seater Corvette. Which puts GM in a bind. I'm the ideal age and demographic for the car, but pricing and practicality wise, it rules out the car unless I want to sacrifice one more parking spot in the garage and driveway. As is, their problem with me as a consumer is that they made the C7 chassis too good, and specifically the C7 Grand Sport, and the C8, despite all of its promises of a ground breaking paradigm shift, is not much of a performance improvement on track but demands a 20-25% price premium (I bought my C7 Grand Sport, 3LT w/ Z07 package, for $65K new. Same C7 Z51 would cost upwards of $90K for LESS performance).

Which isn't to say, to those in my demographics, that the C8 isn't a fantastic car and deal. For those looking at a Corvette for the first time, it's still a game changer. But they haven't given ME any compelling reason to want to trade in my C7 GS in a few more years though.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

Have you ever sat in a 911? I have, several. They are bland AF. From what I can see of the C8, I'd agree it's nicer inside.

I don’t think they’re bland. I’ve owned about 10 Porsches (4 911s including my current 991.2, 2 Caymans, 1 Cayenne and 3 Macans). They are some of the best quality/fit/finish out there hands down. I like the simple design as well which is subjective but the quality is there in spades.

The new vette isn’t that nice and will show its age quickly with the cheap leather etc. I know Matt Farah and his sentiments were that the 992 is much nicer than the C8 inside.

I have a friend who has a 992, Huracan, Ferrari, 600LT and had several 991.2s and would tell you the Porsche is the best built of them all too.

[dgoldenz]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

I don’t think they’re bland. I’ve owned about 10 Porsches (4 911s including my current 991.2, 2 Caymans, 1 Cayenne and 3 Macans). They are some of the best quality/fit/finish out there hands down. I like the simple design as well which is subjective but the quality is there in spades.

The new vette isn’t that nice and will show its age quickly with the cheap leather etc. I know Matt a Farah and his sentiments were that the 992 is much nicer than the C8 inside.

I have a friend who has a 992, Huracan, Ferrari, 600LT and had several 991.2s and would tel you the Porsche is the best built of them all too.

x2

There is no way someone can sit in a GT3/GTS with the alcantara/full leather package and say the interior is "bland", it's fucking incredible. The quality of the materials is clearly a level above the other German manufacturers too, except maybe Mercedes which has some pretty amazing quality interiors with the AMG cars and S class

[m630]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

Have you ever sat in a 911? I have, several. They are bland AF. From what I can see of the C8, I'd agree it's nicer inside.

Sit in them all the time, from G bodies to 993 to 997 to 991s. Classic and traditional, but never bland. And was twice in the 992 and its awesome.

[Refined]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

I don’t think they’re bland. I’ve owned about 10 Porsches (4 911s including my current 991.2, 2 Caymans, 1 Cayenne and 3 Macans). They are some of the best quality/fit/finish out there hands down. I like the simple design as well which is subjective but the quality is there in spades.

The new vette isn’t that nice and will show its age quickly with the cheap leather etc. I know Matt Farah and his sentiments were that the 992 is much nicer than the C8 inside.

I have a friend who has a 992, Huracan, Ferrari, 600LT and had several 991.2s and would tell you the Porsche is the best built of them all too.

Not sure about Mclaren, but let's be honest here... the Italians make beautiful, high performance cars, but they're not renowned for their build quality.

[Flacht3]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

Have you ever sat in a 911? I have, several. They are bland AF. From what I can see of the C8, I'd agree it's nicer inside.

I guess to each their own? Every porsche I've sat in had a very refined (albeit simple) interior and that's the beauty...nothing too tacky or ridiculous colors and overdoing the styling. Simple but "tasteful", if you will.

I've driven a C7 Z06 and sat in the C8. It's an improvement but still feels a bit clunky IMO but hey taste differs. My GT3 interior is simple (especially compared to the Lambos and Ferraris I've been in) but that's part of the allure...it's about having just enough and not too much.

I also consider BMW interiors to be mostly simple and bland. Even my M4 felt like it was cutting corners on quality. The difference is everything in the Porsche just feels solid. Leather and trim in my F82 felt like it was the same discount stuff you'd find in a base 3 series.

Also in typical Porsche fashion, you get what you pay for. Sure, a basic interior with sofa seats and lacking full leather will feel cheaper and more like a F10, F30, etc. But once you start checking off options and going for full leather, alcantara, carbon, well...it's an entirely different league and far from boring, but hey YMMV.

[N54Yankee]

I love Porsche interiors, they’re very “Germanic”. Attention to ergonomics, classy, very good materials and nothing that’s really not needed and no tacky design features. Business like, the business of driving. To me they exude style. More car mar makers should follow what the crew at Stuttgart do.

[N54Yankee]

Originally Posted by WestRace

It turns me on ok? Imagine I talk like that at my company meetings people be like whhuuut ....

Called you childish earlier today, I rest my case. Wow

[Conissah]

Do people actually take lap times into consideration when buying a new car...? I couldn't care less what times a professional driver can do on a track that my car will likely never visit. Is this something that people bring up when talking to others about their car "uhh yeah, with a professional behind the wheel, it'll do XXX time around Laguna Seca." I can't say I've ever heard anyone actually talk lap times except for 10 year olds on video games. Buy a car for how it makes you feel, for your own reasons. 99.99% of drivers on the road will never be close to skill of a pro driver, so lap times mean nothing. Far too many variables, skill included, to make lap times relevant.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Conissah

Do people actually take lap times into consideration when buying a new car...? I couldn't care less what times a professional driver can do on a track that my car will likely never visit. Is this something that people bring up when talking to others about their car "uhh yeah, with a professional behind the wheel, it'll do XXX time around Laguna Seca." I can't say I've ever heard anyone actually talk lap times except for 10 year olds on video games. Buy a car for how it makes you feel, for your own reasons. 99.99% of drivers on the road will never be close to skill of a pro driver, so lap times mean nothing. Far too many variables, skill included, to make lap times relevant.

Very true when talking absolutes. But if you're comparing two cars with similar straight line performance and one has significantly faster lap times, chances are it will be more sorted in regular conditions or in inclement weather.

I fully agree that people get way too caught up in magazine data. I'll always choose a lighter, simpler car over a faster one. But that's partially from experience of owning both and recognizing the difference.

[Conissah]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Very true when talking absolutes. But if you're comparing two cars with similar straight line performance and one has significantly faster lap times, chances are it will be more sorted in regular conditions or in inclement weather.

I fully agree that people get way too caught up in magazine data. I'll always choose a lighter, simpler car over a faster one. But that's partially from experience of owning both and recognizing the difference.

I could argue the opposite. If 2 cars do similar 1/4 mile times and trap about the same speed, and 1 is faster on a track with bends, would that mean it is a rougher and more uncomfortable ride and is less forgiving?

On the street, you will likely never see the limitations of the car (hopefully), so a car that's quicker around the track means nothing. I buy cars for how they make me feel and how fun they are, not for their times. Hell, for what I spent on my M2C I could've picked up a used Hellcat, which would obviously be MUCH faster in a straight line, but I don't care for them. Plus this 400hp car already feels like it's going to get me in trouble, I don't need 707.

[5.M0NSTER]

Yes, lap times matter. Drivers being equal faster car is king.

You can “feel” any way you want about a car, but if you put your foot down and the other car is faster you can’t feel good.

Same in the twisties. You don’t buy a sports car to be slow.

You don’t pay 60k on an M car to be overtaken by a C6. Oh wait. Never mind.

[The HACK]

Originally Posted by Conissah

I could argue the opposite. If 2 cars do similar 1/4 mile times and trap about the same speed, and 1 is faster on a track with bends, would that mean it is a rougher and more uncomfortable ride and is less forgiving? .

Not always.

There are a ton of factors involved here, and 0-60, 1/4 mile, and lap times are not the end-all-be-all, as everything needs to be considered in factoring which car is better on or off the street.

Tires, dampers, weight of the vehicle, suspension design...etc all are factors that will affect lap time and comfort, and it isn't ALWAYS that the better performing parts will be harsher. For example, say the two hypothetical cars, one comes with run-flats, the other with traditional tires, IF the car that has the better lap times rides on traditional tires, that car will likely ride smoother on surface streets.

Or if the two cars being compared to are on two opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to price. Say they're both the same platform, while one car has high-end, well designed dampers. The dampers won't affect straight-line speed much, but it will give you better lap times. I'm not talking about tuning them to be stiffer, but a well design damper vs. a poorly designed cheap damper can be the difference in SECONDS per lap, yet ride SMOOTHER because it's capable of providing better compression characteristics at low AND high speed bump.

Also, difference in how the car delivers power can make a huge difference too. Say the two cars with the same 1/4 mile time, one does it with AWD and one does it in RWD, the RWD car can have an advantage on a twisty track AND still retain better ride qualities on the street.

Even if ALL things being equal, this hypothetical still has to factor into suspension tuning and geometry. A faster track car doesn't always mean a rougher ride or stiffer springs, although it's a higher likelihood.

It's not a given though.

[5.M0NSTER]

Not to mention that if being faster around a circuit didn’t matter, OEMs wouldn’t spend major cash certifying Nurburgring lap times.

[Conissah]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

Yes, lap times matter. Drivers being equal faster car is king.

You can “feel” any way you want about a car, but if you put your foot down and the other car is faster you can’t feel good.

Same in the twisties. You don’t buy a sports car to be slow.

You don’t pay 60k on an M car to be overtaken by a C6. Oh wait. Never mind.

Drivers will never be equal. Humans are far too unpredictable. If we want to talk variables (weather, track conditions, tire temps, etc,) they PALE in comparison to the variable behind the steering wheel. Not everyone centers their ego around having the fastest car or being the fastest driver.

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

Not to mention that if being faster around a circuit didn’t matter, OEMs wouldn’t spend major cash certifying Nurburgring lap times.

They do it because it's a dick measuring contest. I don't get off about hearing how fast my car, or another car, can go around a circuit. Doesn't pertain to me (my skills), my car and its setup (or lack thereof), my location (in regards to tracks), nothing. 100% irrelevant for almost 100% of people.

[Humdizzle]

yeah its all dick measuring. people like to quote numbers to make their car look better. just like people with M3s think they need a 100hp tune to 'unlock their cars potential'. Those same guys leave traction control on 24/7 which probably robs them of 150hp in the first two gears. When you ask them to turn off dsc and drive it hard around backroads they look at you like you're crazy.

[5.M0NSTER]

Originally Posted by Conissah

Drivers will never be equal. Humans are far too unpredictable. If we want to talk variables (weather, track conditions, tire temps, etc,) they PALE in comparison to the variable behind the steering wheel. Not everyone centers their ego around having the fastest car or being the fastest driver.

True, which is why driver mod is the best money one can invest. If you have a need for speed that is.

They do it because it's a dick measuring contest. I don't get off about hearing how fast my car, or another car, can go around a circuit. Doesn't pertain to me (my skills), my car and its setup (or lack thereof), my location (in regards to tracks), nothing. 100% irrelevant for almost 100% of people.

So why did you spend the extra money for an M car? If you don't care about performance, acceleration, top speed, 0-60 times, lateral G limits, sound or any of the things that makes an enthusiast appreciate a car .... than why not a m235 or a 2 series convertible for that matter?

What is it in your mind that makes an M car great? Interior? Ride quality, fuel economy, looks, status ... what is it?

To me lap times matter, handling matters, acceleration and lateral grip matters, and yes, the sound matter. I like going faster around a track than theoretically faster cars. I like oversteer, and I like sound. I enjoy learning and becoming a better driver.

This is why I enjoy M cars. Or Mustangs. Hear the difference in that last one?

[Alfisti]

I honestly could not give a toss about times. 2 seconds around a proper track is nothing in regards to day to day use.

A 345HP base 997 911 felt better than more powerful and faster cars because ... it felt better. The engine note, the revs and the light weight.

[Conissah]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

So why did you spend the extra money for an M car? If you don't care about performance, acceleration, top speed, 0-60 times, lateral G limits, sound or any of the things that makes an enthusiast appreciate a car .... than why not a m235 or a 2 series convertible for that matter?

What is it in your mind that makes an M car great? Interior? Ride quality, fuel economy, looks, status ... what is it?

Not once did I say I didn't care about performance, I said I don't care about lap times. Sit down.

[N54Yankee]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

yeah its all dick measuring. people like to quote numbers to make their car look better. just like people with M3s think they need a 100hp tune to 'unlock their cars potential'. Those same guys leave traction control on 24/7 which probably robs them of 150hp in the first two gears. When you ask them to turn off dsc and drive it hard around backroads they look at you like you're crazy.

Guess who said this,
“you might be right there. i think i looked up the ZL1 time. Found a thread on the camaro forums saying the ss 1le is about the same time as a Z28 on most tracks. So around 7:37. Same time as a CS.”

This same person quotes drag racing times, trap speeds often enough as well as comparing cars on tracks with turns. That dude is dick measuring also then isn’t he?
———————————————
Since you posted this in the C8 thread and no one here has a C8 so dick measuring doesn’t quite apply, just guys shooting the shit with other car guys. Talking performance numbers is something the vast majority of performance car people do. If numbers weren’t talked about by people who buy these cars there wouldn’t be hundreds of sites, tv shows, magazines, blogs.... of guys thrashing cars to see what they can do and how to make them do it better and faster. Nor would be there a need for every perf car maker to get their new projects to tracks ASAP to lay down low numbers.

Many of us do take our cars on tracks when we can but it’s really irrelevant, most cars that perform well on the track perform well on the street also. Most of us when lined up at a red light side by side with a worthy opponent and there’s open road ahead and cop free will indulge in a contest of speed. Most guys talk racing and race when they can, on the street or on the track. It’s the American way and the way of many lands.

There are those who don’t talk performance numbers, hp, tq and all that good stuff but I think it’s limited to little old ladies, guys who are pissed because their ride doesn’t measure up and that metrosexual creep in pajamas curled up on the couch by itself sipping hot cocoa in the Hillary add a couple years ago.

[Refined]

Originally Posted by Conissah

They do it because it's a dick measuring contest. I don't get off about hearing how fast my car, or another car, can go around a circuit. Doesn't pertain to me (my skills), my car and its setup (or lack thereof), my location (in regards to tracks), nothing. 100% irrelevant for almost 100% of people.

You sure do assume a lot. Dick measuring contest? Feeling inadequate?

I care about performance metrics, not because I care how a given car compares to my neighbours car. I care because I love high performance sports cars and the metrics are an indication of a given platforms capability. I research all of my purchases to ensure that I am getting the best product for my hard earned money. Just because I view that more objectively than you doesn't mean we're having any kind of a contest.