Dubai races-SLR vs C6 Z06
05-26-2007, 03:09 AM
#101
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Whoever thinks that Z06 is faster than SLR or 599 is dillusional. SLR and 599 are on the same level as Carrera GT. What's next? A Z06 beating Porsche Carrera GT and Ferrari Enzo? Give me a break, Z06 is a high 11 second car at low 120's traps, period. I have never seen any magazine getting mid 11's from a Z06. If you have proof of Z06 running 11.5 @ 125mph Rickster, post it here, otherwise stop the bull****. C@D is known for getting the best times of cars on stock tires, period and they only managed 11.8. OK I guess they suck at driving according to your logic Rickster and don't know how to shift 
Z06: 11.8 @ 122mph (C@D)
SLR: 11.5 @ 125mph (C@D)
599: 11.2 @ 129mph (R@T)
Compare dragtimes data between these cars and the Z06 and it shows the same thing. And please stop the bull**** that dragtimes numbers are lower than usual. If everyone gets high 11's from Z06's, that is what it runs. End of story.
Z06: 11.8 @ 122mph (C@D)
SLR: 11.5 @ 125mph (C@D)
599: 11.2 @ 129mph (R@T)
Compare dragtimes data between these cars and the Z06 and it shows the same thing. And please stop the bull**** that dragtimes numbers are lower than usual. If everyone gets high 11's from Z06's, that is what it runs. End of story.
also the Ferrari claimed 1/4 is MANUFACTURERS CLAIM ONLY NO TIME SLIP...(Magazine data is not the end all of deffinitive proof)
Ranger has a well documented 10.85 @ 129+ as well as a handfull of C6 Z06 owners on Vette forums running 11.01-11.60 @ 125-129 GO lQQk them up!
I love the SLR, I have even posted if it weren't for the price diff I would choose the SLR anyday, I love everything about it! just being a realist and basing my posts on ACTUAL TIME slip data
Lastly this is a discussion on which car is faster, no matter how many poorly driven C6 Z06's are out there, the fact remains, in capable hands the Z06 is FASTER! Did the video link not work for you? yes the cars are VERY CLOSE, w/edge going to Z06 get over it...
The C5 Z06 w/100 less hp runs high 11's BONE STOCK! You don't think an extra 100 hp is gonna make the C6 Z06 any faster
You do know that heavily modded E55k w211's are faster than the SLR too? You act like I've insulted your family or something? calm down, there just cars guy
Last edited by Thericker; 05-26-2007 at 05:25 AM.
05-26-2007, 03:48 AM
#102
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
I guess others can drive much better than your prized magazine results
STOCK 11.45 @ 125 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnR51...elated&search=
Ranger running STOCK RUN FLATS, STOCK EVERYTHING!! 11.22 @ 127 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnR51...elated&search=
Video of stock C6 Z06 in the 1/4 11.01 @ 127
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttO4gIlyq6ERangers 10.85 run http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469NvIOiz7U
Last edited by Thericker; 05-26-2007 at 04:18 AM.
05-26-2007, 10:56 AM
#103
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
11 Posts
2018 Mercedes E63 S, Boring SUV, 2015 CLS63 AMR Stage 1 (traded), 2015 Audi S8 w/ APR stage 2 (sold)
Thericker,
You have good solid data about the C6 Z06.
You mention that a stock C5 Z06 runs high 11s. Are you sure about this? I've never seen any tests done from any mags with anything below early-mid 12s.
You have good solid data about the C6 Z06.
You mention that a stock C5 Z06 runs high 11s. Are you sure about this? I've never seen any tests done from any mags with anything below early-mid 12s.
05-26-2007, 12:25 PM
#105
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
-Matt
05-26-2007, 01:55 PM
#106
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
On the subject of magazine runs...
....one thing it pays to keep in mind is that these runs are conducted under controlled conditions, namely that:
So when you see drivers extracting times which are faster than the mags, even if the car is "stock", bear in mind that you're really comparing apples to oranges. The car could be well-broken in, with weight savings, tire pressures set to 50psi front/22psi rear, 1/8 tank of race gas, etc. etc. etc....even with the same driver, all of this would pick up several tenths. Drop the temperature by 30 degrees (basically picking up the equivalent of 30 hp), get a good, sticky track, a slight tail wind even, and you've just blown the mags' time out of the water--with the same driver.
Throw in an exceptional driver, and you can get even faster. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that some people (as we've seen on these boards) will outright fabricate, and/or use the "it depends upon your definition of the word stock"-type arguments to claim that a car is still "stock" even if it's wearing drag radials with no back seat, lighter than stock wheels (lower rotational mass makes a big difference), etc etc etc...
Now, if you've got a case where a driver keeps his tire pressure to factory rated, full tank, all other factors being equal, and pulls a run that's almost a full second faster than the mags got, that would be quite a feat, but it would be awful hard to document....
So, you must take the mags for what they are: they serve as a good yardstick of the relative capabilities of the cars, in that they keep as many factors as possible equal (although of course, there are certainly instances of manufacturers providing "ringers"), and thus give a good indication of how the two vehicles will perform relative to each other.
But we really shouldn't compare one cars' mag times to what a different car did when all of these other factors are unknown.
- the cars have a full tank of gas
- the tire pressures are set to factory spec
- no weight savings measures (removal of spare, etc.)
- the results are corrected to sea level w/a standard DA
- the cars are typically very low mileage, i.e. they are not fully broken in
- no 100+ octane fuel here; afaik they use 91 octane premium
So when you see drivers extracting times which are faster than the mags, even if the car is "stock", bear in mind that you're really comparing apples to oranges. The car could be well-broken in, with weight savings, tire pressures set to 50psi front/22psi rear, 1/8 tank of race gas, etc. etc. etc....even with the same driver, all of this would pick up several tenths. Drop the temperature by 30 degrees (basically picking up the equivalent of 30 hp), get a good, sticky track, a slight tail wind even, and you've just blown the mags' time out of the water--with the same driver.
Throw in an exceptional driver, and you can get even faster. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that some people (as we've seen on these boards) will outright fabricate, and/or use the "it depends upon your definition of the word stock"-type arguments to claim that a car is still "stock" even if it's wearing drag radials with no back seat, lighter than stock wheels (lower rotational mass makes a big difference), etc etc etc...
Now, if you've got a case where a driver keeps his tire pressure to factory rated, full tank, all other factors being equal, and pulls a run that's almost a full second faster than the mags got, that would be quite a feat, but it would be awful hard to document....
So, you must take the mags for what they are: they serve as a good yardstick of the relative capabilities of the cars, in that they keep as many factors as possible equal (although of course, there are certainly instances of manufacturers providing "ringers"), and thus give a good indication of how the two vehicles will perform relative to each other.
But we really shouldn't compare one cars' mag times to what a different car did when all of these other factors are unknown.
Last edited by Improviz; 05-26-2007 at 03:29 PM.
05-26-2007, 02:55 PM
#107
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SFV, Ca.
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W210, W220, W163, W164, C6
1--11.783 @ 116.90--1.818--J-Rod-------'02
2--11.818 @ 117.26--1.783--Ranger------'02 11/03 Slip
3--11.93x @ 119.xx--1.xxx --Esoteric-----'0x
4--11.97x @ 118.80--1.90x--GMHTP------'04 03/04
5--11.99x @ 117.61--1.xxx --02Z06Racer '02
6--12.048 @ 115.92--1.866--pwrshfd-----'02 12/03
7--12.08x @ 115.95--1.83x--Pray---------'02 01/06
8--12.09x @ xxx.xx --1.79x--UVETTA------'03
9-12.205 @ 117.96--1.91x--Nat04Z06----'04
10-12.21x @ 112.xx--1.87x--Blue Angel---'02 07/04
05-26-2007, 04:16 PM
#108
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
....one thing it pays to keep in mind is that these runs are conducted under controlled conditions, namely that:
So when you see drivers extracting times which are faster than the mags, even if the car is "stock", bear in mind that you're really comparing apples to oranges. The car could be well-broken in, with weight savings, tire pressures set to 50psi front/22psi rear, 1/8 tank of race gas, etc. etc. etc....even with the same driver, all of this would pick up several tenths. Drop the temperature by 30 degrees (basically picking up the equivalent of 30 hp), get a good, sticky track, a slight tail wind even, and you've just blown the mags' time out of the water--with the same driver.
Throw in an exceptional driver, and you can get even faster. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that some people (as we've seen on these boards) will outright fabricate, and/or use the "it depends upon your definition of the word stock"-type arguments to claim that a car is still "stock" even if it's wearing drag radials with no back seat, lighter than stock wheels (lower rotational mass makes a big difference), etc etc etc...
Now, if you've got a case where a driver keeps his tire pressure to factory rated, full tank, all other factors being equal, and pulls a run that's almost a full second faster than the mags got, that would be quite a feat, but it would be awful hard to document....
So, you must take the mags for what they are: they serve as a good yardstick of the relative capabilities of the cars, in that they keep as many factors as possible equal (although of course, there are certainly instances of manufacturers providing "ringers"), and thus give a good indication of how the two vehicles will perform relative to each other.
But we really shouldn't compare one cars' mag times to what a different car did when all of these other factors are unknown.
- the cars have a full tank of gas
- the tire pressures are set to factory spec
- no weight savings measures (removal of spare, etc.)
- the results are corrected to sea level w/a standard DA
- the cars are typically very low mileage, i.e. they are not fully broken in
- no 100+ octane fuel here; afaik they use 91 octane premium
So when you see drivers extracting times which are faster than the mags, even if the car is "stock", bear in mind that you're really comparing apples to oranges. The car could be well-broken in, with weight savings, tire pressures set to 50psi front/22psi rear, 1/8 tank of race gas, etc. etc. etc....even with the same driver, all of this would pick up several tenths. Drop the temperature by 30 degrees (basically picking up the equivalent of 30 hp), get a good, sticky track, a slight tail wind even, and you've just blown the mags' time out of the water--with the same driver.
Throw in an exceptional driver, and you can get even faster. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that some people (as we've seen on these boards) will outright fabricate, and/or use the "it depends upon your definition of the word stock"-type arguments to claim that a car is still "stock" even if it's wearing drag radials with no back seat, lighter than stock wheels (lower rotational mass makes a big difference), etc etc etc...
Now, if you've got a case where a driver keeps his tire pressure to factory rated, full tank, all other factors being equal, and pulls a run that's almost a full second faster than the mags got, that would be quite a feat, but it would be awful hard to document....
So, you must take the mags for what they are: they serve as a good yardstick of the relative capabilities of the cars, in that they keep as many factors as possible equal (although of course, there are certainly instances of manufacturers providing "ringers"), and thus give a good indication of how the two vehicles will perform relative to each other.
But we really shouldn't compare one cars' mag times to what a different car did when all of these other factors are unknown.
05-26-2007, 04:36 PM
#109
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
I have posted a magazine test in the C32-C55 section, to lazy to find it but it's there C5 Z06 stock high 11's
Last edited by Thericker; 05-26-2007 at 04:39 PM.
05-26-2007, 09:37 PM
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
11 Posts
2018 Mercedes E63 S, Boring SUV, 2015 CLS63 AMR Stage 1 (traded), 2015 Audi S8 w/ APR stage 2 (sold)
Ok, I never knew a stock C5 was so fast. I know the C6 Z06 is in the 11s because i've raced 2 so far in my Renntech CL600.
05-26-2007, 10:13 PM
#111
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you kidding? Or just grossly misinformed? Your satements border on epically stupid! There have been multiple TIME SLIPS POSTED, look them up, you base magazine racing ONLY DATA as gods word also the Ferrari claimed 1/4 is MANUFACTURERS CLAIM ONLY NO TIME SLIP...
(Magazine data is not the end all of deffinitive proof)
Ranger has a well documented 10.85 @ 129+ as well as a handfull of C6 Z06 owners on Vette forums running 11.01-11.60 @ 125-129 GO lQQk them up!
I love the SLR, I have even posted if it weren't for the price diff I would choose the SLR anyday, I love everything about it! just being a realist and basing my posts on ACTUAL TIME slip data
Lastly this is a discussion on which car is faster, no matter how many poorly driven C6 Z06's are out there, the fact remains, in capable hands the Z06 is FASTER! Did the video link not work for you? yes the cars are VERY CLOSE, w/edge going to Z06 get over it...
The C5 Z06 w/100 less hp runs high 11's BONE STOCK! You don't think an extra 100 hp is gonna make the C6 Z06 any faster
You do know that heavily modded E55k w211's are faster than the SLR too? You act like I've insulted your family or something? calm down, there just cars guy
also the Ferrari claimed 1/4 is MANUFACTURERS CLAIM ONLY NO TIME SLIP...(Magazine data is not the end all of deffinitive proof)
Ranger has a well documented 10.85 @ 129+ as well as a handfull of C6 Z06 owners on Vette forums running 11.01-11.60 @ 125-129 GO lQQk them up!
I love the SLR, I have even posted if it weren't for the price diff I would choose the SLR anyday, I love everything about it! just being a realist and basing my posts on ACTUAL TIME slip data
Lastly this is a discussion on which car is faster, no matter how many poorly driven C6 Z06's are out there, the fact remains, in capable hands the Z06 is FASTER! Did the video link not work for you? yes the cars are VERY CLOSE, w/edge going to Z06 get over it...
The C5 Z06 w/100 less hp runs high 11's BONE STOCK! You don't think an extra 100 hp is gonna make the C6 Z06 any faster
You do know that heavily modded E55k w211's are faster than the SLR too? You act like I've insulted your family or something? calm down, there just cars guy
You go by peoples timeslips who spend their lives at the dragstrip and click off that one in a million pass at a track with negative DA, and disregard the others. The fact remains, 99.99% of the others are NOWHERE remotely close to that.
Here is your avg Z06 driver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINtF6m4Yns&NR=1
and from a roll, he pulls me, albeit not by that much. Judging by how badly he beats me, I should be able to edge out the SLR too I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSI2PKvRMJg
05-26-2007, 10:59 PM
#112
MBWorld Fanatic!
Z06 BoneStock Times
1--11.783 @ 116.90--1.818--J-Rod-------'02
2--11.818 @ 117.26--1.783--Ranger------'02 11/03 Slip
3--11.93x @ 119.xx--1.xxx --Esoteric-----'0x
4--11.97x @ 118.80--1.90x--GMHTP------'04 03/04
5--11.99x @ 117.61--1.xxx --02Z06Racer '02
6--12.048 @ 115.92--1.866--pwrshfd-----'02 12/03
7--12.08x @ 115.95--1.83x--Pray---------'02 01/06
8--12.09x @ xxx.xx --1.79x--UVETTA------'03
9-12.205 @ 117.96--1.91x--Nat04Z06----'04
10-12.21x @ 112.xx--1.87x--Blue Angel---'02 07/04
1--11.783 @ 116.90--1.818--J-Rod-------'02
2--11.818 @ 117.26--1.783--Ranger------'02 11/03 Slip
3--11.93x @ 119.xx--1.xxx --Esoteric-----'0x
4--11.97x @ 118.80--1.90x--GMHTP------'04 03/04
5--11.99x @ 117.61--1.xxx --02Z06Racer '02
6--12.048 @ 115.92--1.866--pwrshfd-----'02 12/03
7--12.08x @ 115.95--1.83x--Pray---------'02 01/06
8--12.09x @ xxx.xx --1.79x--UVETTA------'03
9-12.205 @ 117.96--1.91x--Nat04Z06----'04
10-12.21x @ 112.xx--1.87x--Blue Angel---'02 07/04
05-27-2007, 02:28 AM
#113
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1999 CLK430 (sold) 03 CL55
Sorry Vadim but the 599 is not as fast as ferrari has claimed or made mags claim.
Why is it that other manufacturers are so down to give their cars to mags to test on the ring yet ferrari isnt...hmmm.... Maybe cuz their claims are all bs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSXZqXU43k
The power of the angry angry McLaren Benz versus the horse. 599 even has a head start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDKT6B_adY
CGT vs SLR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZU-vR2Asg
CGT vs 599
Now according to ferrari the 599 should be in the low 11s almost at an enzos pace...these videos prove otherwise.
One last comment, thats not even a 722....
Why is it that other manufacturers are so down to give their cars to mags to test on the ring yet ferrari isnt...hmmm....
Maybe cuz their claims are all bs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSXZqXU43k
The power of the angry angry McLaren Benz versus the horse. 599 even has a head start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDKT6B_adY
CGT vs SLR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZU-vR2Asg
CGT vs 599
Now according to ferrari the 599 should be in the low 11s almost at an enzos pace...these videos prove otherwise.
One last comment, thats not even a 722....
Is it me or did the SLR eat the sounds of the CGT??? WOW! 
None the less both those cars are beasts in their class.
The 599 to me is just too big, not my type of car, F430 FTW, I'd rather spend that money on the new Lambo LP640 tho.
05-27-2007, 03:46 AM
#114
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Sorry Vadim but the 599 is not as fast as ferrari has claimed or made mags claim.
Why is it that other manufacturers are so down to give their cars to mags to test on the ring yet ferrari isnt...hmmm.... Maybe cuz their claims are all bs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSXZqXU43k
The power of the angry angry McLaren Benz versus the horse. 599 even has a head start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDKT6B_adY
CGT vs SLR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZU-vR2Asg
CGT vs 599
Now according to ferrari the 599 should be in the low 11s almost at an enzos pace...these videos prove otherwise.
One last comment, thats not even a 722....
Why is it that other manufacturers are so down to give their cars to mags to test on the ring yet ferrari isnt...hmmm....
Maybe cuz their claims are all bs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSXZqXU43k
The power of the angry angry McLaren Benz versus the horse. 599 even has a head start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDKT6B_adY
CGT vs SLR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZU-vR2Asg
CGT vs 599
Now according to ferrari the 599 should be in the low 11s almost at an enzos pace...these videos prove otherwise.
One last comment, thats not even a 722....
1st, 722 has been deemed a total failure by EVERY magazine that has tested it, they made a gt car more hardcore, sacrifieced its gt qualitites and its still no sports car.
i can post links to many mag tests where the 599 was tested way below 4sec 0-60 and hit 100 in 7.5 or less.
i (we) dunno the source of those vids, dunno how good the driver is etc... they have no credibility, at leas to me
05-27-2007, 03:53 AM
#115
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
You are an idiot. Go take your C6, and try and get into the 11's. Stock C6 is a dog. And a C6Z06, will lose to an SLR.
You go by peoples timeslips who spend their lives at the dragstrip and click off that one in a million pass at a track with negative DA, and disregard the others. The fact remains, 99.99% of the others are NOWHERE remotely close to that.
Here is your avg Z06 driver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINtF6m4Yns&NR=1
and from a roll, he pulls me, albeit not by that much. Judging by how badly he beats me, I should be able to edge out the SLR too I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSI2PKvRMJg
You go by peoples timeslips who spend their lives at the dragstrip and click off that one in a million pass at a track with negative DA, and disregard the others. The fact remains, 99.99% of the others are NOWHERE remotely close to that.
Here is your avg Z06 driver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINtF6m4Yns&NR=1
and from a roll, he pulls me, albeit not by that much. Judging by how badly he beats me, I should be able to edge out the SLR too I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSI2PKvRMJg
Granted the gallardo would more than likely pull me if we went higher, but who cares? just like juicees races, anything can happen on the streets NO sir...you are the IDIOT! & proven TROLL!! how many forums have you been banned from? and if you're such a hot shot w/all your WIFES money & cars? why waste a second arguing w/us peons?
Troll W/mods the C6 will/does run 11's easily, bone stock? C6 in the 11's?? HELL NO! It sux! weighs the same as the C5Z06, same power, but lots of little limitations by GM to keep it in the mid 12's on average when stock...Frickin GM sux!
But the new C6 w/A6 auto has been running low-low 12's guy that isn't a track hound from Vette forums, got a 12.10-12.20 @115-116 BONE STOCK!!! pretty good for another DOG, as you call them 
Last edited by Thericker; 05-27-2007 at 04:26 AM.
05-27-2007, 03:55 AM
#116
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
05-27-2007, 04:07 AM
#117
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
All I know is Chuck Lidell got his *** beat down tonight! By Rampage Jackson!!!!New Light heavyweight UFC Champ!!
All 3 of these supercars are fast(within car lengths of eachother, when properly driven)...lets move on....
All 3 of these supercars are fast(within car lengths of eachother, when properly driven)...lets move on....
05-27-2007, 04:37 AM
#118
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
This info is useless without the track location and the posted time of the pass. When qouting times one should always include the source of the posted times. Sorry but this does nothing to prove the C6Z06 is faster than the SLR. I cant tell anything from the crappy video that is posted. Jeesus you would think people with all that cash to burn could hire a videographer to film such an amazing matchup!
05-27-2007, 11:17 AM
#119
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Anyway, back on topic...
....the SLR and the Z06 have been tested in a shootout in the German mag Auto Motor und Sport. This is the mag that also does all of the Nurburgring and Hockenheim tests that get brandished about on these forum, and they really wring these cars out pretty good....anyway, they had a high speed shootout article in 2006, and tested both the Z06 and SLR (not the 722 edition) among others. Results:
SLR:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,5 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,9 s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 324 km/h
Z06:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 250 km/h 19,0 s
0 - 300 km/h 41,8 s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 315 km/h
They have four other tests by other publications of the Z06 and the 0-200 km/h times were all right in there, in the 11.9-12.5 range, with one flyer at 13.0. The other SLR test that's there, from Autobild, ran:
0 - 200 km/h 11,1 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,3 s
So these two seem to be representative samples...
Iit looks like at least based upon this, up to about 120 or so it'd be a driver's race, but up high the Benz's horsepower edge lets it pull ahead.
SLR:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,5 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,9 s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 324 km/h
Z06:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 250 km/h 19,0 s
0 - 300 km/h 41,8 s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 315 km/h
They have four other tests by other publications of the Z06 and the 0-200 km/h times were all right in there, in the 11.9-12.5 range, with one flyer at 13.0. The other SLR test that's there, from Autobild, ran:
0 - 200 km/h 11,1 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,3 s
So these two seem to be representative samples...
Iit looks like at least based upon this, up to about 120 or so it'd be a driver's race, but up high the Benz's horsepower edge lets it pull ahead.
05-27-2007, 01:37 PM
#120
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you think your precious Gallardo is a dog too? I ran a gallardo in 2 short bursts in santa Monica, We were DEAD EVEN! NO kill--from a 10mph roll to about 65 DEAD EVEN, pretty good for my DOG C6 Granted the gallardo would more than likely pull me if we went higher, but who cares? just like juicees races, anything can happen on the streets
NO sir...you are the IDIOT! & proven TROLL!! how many forums have you been banned from? and if you're such a hot shot w/all your WIFES money & cars? why waste a second arguing w/us peons? Troll
W/mods the C6 will/does run 11's easily, bone stock? C6 in the 11's?? HELL NO! It sux! weighs the same as the C5Z06, same power, but lots of little limitations by GM to keep it in the mid 12's on average when stock...Frickin GM sux! But the new C6 w/A6 auto has been running low-low 12's guy that isn't a track hound from Vette forums, got a 12.10-12.20 @115-116 BONE STOCK!!! pretty good for another DOG, as you call them
Granted the gallardo would more than likely pull me if we went higher, but who cares? just like juicees races, anything can happen on the streets NO sir...you are the IDIOT! & proven TROLL!! how many forums have you been banned from? and if you're such a hot shot w/all your WIFES money & cars? why waste a second arguing w/us peons?
Troll W/mods the C6 will/does run 11's easily, bone stock? C6 in the 11's?? HELL NO! It sux! weighs the same as the C5Z06, same power, but lots of little limitations by GM to keep it in the mid 12's on average when stock...Frickin GM sux!
But the new C6 w/A6 auto has been running low-low 12's guy that isn't a track hound from Vette forums, got a 12.10-12.20 @115-116 BONE STOCK!!! pretty good for another DOG, as you call them Not only is your C6 a dog, but its a plastic POS thats seen on every street corner owned by anyone who can qualify for GM's creative financing.
05-27-2007, 01:52 PM
#121
MBWorld Fanatic!
ouch!
Thericker is not gonna like that at all.
Yo Ricker, I thought you had a C5? Our race is gonna be SIK. Get some tires man, I wont bring the go go gadget watch. LOL, that was funny as hell.
05-27-2007, 06:28 PM
#122
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1999 CLK430 (sold) 03 CL55
05-27-2007, 06:30 PM
#123
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1999 CLK430 (sold) 03 CL55
05-27-2007, 07:14 PM
#124
MBWorld Fanatic!
05-27-2007, 08:19 PM
#125
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
, if i remember correctly
