C6 Z06 Dyno. (Dynojet)

[Blade]

http://lgmotorsports.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/2006%20stock%20Z06%20dyno.jpg


http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=386801

[jr. gong]

441 with 50 miles on the clock? That is dead on.. :eek:

But, I can't believe they put Torque Management on it.. :wtf: Jesus christ, leave it to GM to do some dumb shit like that :rolleyes:

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by DrewSG3
441 with 50 miles on the clock? That is dead on.. :eek:

But, I can't believe they put Torque Management on it.. :wtf: Jesus christ, leave it to GM to do some dumb shit like that :rolleyes:

Not everyone is going to race this car. Yes there will be a lot of old rich people that just drive it around and don't use all that power as they should.

So it was SMART of GM to set these cars up with that much power and have it not destroy the drivetrain yet handle and ride like it will. GM is not dumb. Get your facts straight before spouting off like you have done. :rolleyes:

[HOTCIVIC]

Originally posted by Checkmate
Not everyone is going to race this car. Yes there will be a lot of old rich people that just drive it around and don't use all that power as they should.

So it was SMART of GM to set these cars up with that much power and have it not destroy the drivetrain yet handle and ride like it will. GM is not dumb. Get your facts straight before spouting off like you have done. :rolleyes:

Umm, sorry but the Z06 is meant to be a balls out, basically street driven race car. GMs drivetrain is plenty strong enough to handle the power without this gay ass torque management shit. If they are worried about old rich people that want to just go out and "cruise" they should put a traction control button on the thing and leave it at that. If the Torque Management on the Z06 is as bad as the LS2 C6 and GTO, it is REALLY going to hinder performance badly and it pisses me off that they are doing this. Just my 2 cents.

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by HOTCIVIC
Umm, sorry but the Z06 is meant to be a balls out, basically street driven race car. GMs drivetrain is plenty strong enough to handle the power without this gay ass torque management shit. If they are worried about old rich people that want to just go out and "cruise" they should put a traction control button on the thing and leave it at that. If the Torque Management on the Z06 is as bad as the LS2 C6 and GTO, it is REALLY going to hinder performance badly and it pisses me off that they are doing this. Just my 2 cents.

The road course times and 1/4 times we have seen are with stock programming. Which IMO is pretty damn good for a stock car costing under 70,000. Also, there are going to be people buying these cars that are clueless on how to handle that much power.
Do you work from GM as an engineer, do you know what the drivetrain can handle? Didn't think so.

Basically it comes down to if your not buying an 06 z06 stop bitching about it.

[HOTCIVIC]

Originally posted by Checkmate
The road course times and 1/4 times we have seen are with stock programming. Which IMO is pretty damn good for a stock car costing under 70,000. Also, there are going to be people buying these cars that are clueless on how to handle that much power.
Do you work from GM as an engineer, do you know what the drivetrain can handle? Didn't think so.

Basically it comes down to if your not buying an 06 z06 stop bitching about it.

I will bitch about it because I think it's bullshit.

Sure the Z06 has pulled out some impressive times, but if the Torque Management is holding the car back from even more impressive times then I think that's shitty.

It's the principal that bothers me.

Does the new Ford GT have Torque Management? How bout the new Viper?

Fuck no they don't.

Are there some clueless old rich guys that are going to buy GTs and Vipers?

Umm, yes.

Why didn't Ford and Dodge put Torque Management on those cars?

Because those are their flagship performance cars and Ford and Dodge wouldn't do something that fucking stupid.

Do you think GMs powertrain is weaker than Ford's or Dodge's powertrain? :rolleyes: If it is, GM is retarded. Do you really think the new powertrain is weaker than the previous Z06? I know for a fact there are shitloads of C5 Z06 owners with more than 440 rwhp who have no problems with the stock drivetrain.

How would you like to have just bought GM's flagship performance Vette - the "fastest Vette of all time" - and then take your car out on a back road to show your friends a nice, smokey burnout. You rev it up and dump the clutch, and the car bogs because the PCM pulls timing. How fucking embarrassing would that be?

Look at how shitty the new GTOs and C6s run. They have 50 more HP but they don't run any better than the LS1 versions. How crappy is that? If I am going to buy a car that GM advertises has 50 more HP, I expect it to be 50 HP faster than the less expensive previous model.

Torque management is bullshit IMO.

[Trendkiller Z28]

Awesome numbers and I couldn't give 2 shits whether it has torque management or not. $50 at any performance shop will fix that.

[MapleRed]

Good numbers but I'm disappointed in the torque management. How do we know the performance numbers in the mags are on cars w/ torque management? Remember when the mags tested C6's and they ran mid - high 12's but the majority of C6's are in the low 13's?

[Cobra Commander]

I agree wth HOTCIVIC. If it can't handle 505hp don't give it 505.

[Blade]

Yeah, i'm curious as to what it can do without TM gaying it up.

[Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Trendkiller Z28
Awesome numbers and I couldn't give 2 shits whether it has torque management or not. $50 at any performance shop will fix that.

not quite..there is no tuning available yet for it..and who knows how long that will take.

on another note, i was reading motor trend yesterday and they had this to say..

"In terms of raw acceleration, the Zo6 is world-class quick, though not quite a match for its cross-town rival, the Dodge Viper SRT-10. Our vBox test gear clocked a 4.2 second 0-60 run, nearly reaching this speed in 1st gear, where the Dodge sprints there in 4.0; likewise, the Zo6 dispatches the quarter-mile in 12.3 sec. at 116.6 mph, while its V-10 powered adversary cranks out a 12.1 at 119.3. The Viper "feels" quicker too in a roll-on situation, its extra 1.3 liters of displacement practically punting you forward, versus the still-forceful but more linear surge of the Zo6"

What gives with the 116 trap speed? werent there already tests of 125 mph? that is a HUGE difference in trap speed.

[jdsgn]

Originally posted by Unorthodox
not quite..there is no tuning available yet for it..and who knows how long that will take.

on another note, i was reading motor trend yesterday and they had this to say..

"In terms of raw acceleration, the Zo6 is world-class quick, though not quite a match for its cross-town rival, the Dodge Viper SRT-10. Our vBox test gear clocked a 4.2 second 0-60 run, nearly reaching this speed in 1st gear, where the Dodge sprints there in 4.0; likewise, the Zo6 dispatches the quarter-mile in 12.3 sec. at 116.6 mph, while its V-10 powered adversary cranks out a 12.1 at 119.3. The Viper "feels" quicker too in a roll-on situation, its extra 1.3 liters of displacement practically punting you forward, versus the still-forceful but more linear surge of the Zo6"

What gives with the 116 trap speed? werent there already tests of 125 mph? that is a HUGE difference in trap speed.

That wasn't motortrend you were reading, that was from Road and Track. and they must suck horribly. first of all it will reach 60 in 1st gear (they weren't pushing it obviously) And car and driver and motortrend both got mid 11s at 125-127ish. The cars are gonna be awesome.

[Trendkiller Z28]

Originally posted by Unorthodox
not quite..there is no tuning available yet for it..and who knows how long that will take.

on another note, i was reading motor trend yesterday and they had this to say..

"In terms of raw acceleration, the Zo6 is world-class quick, though not quite a match for its cross-town rival, the Dodge Viper SRT-10. Our vBox test gear clocked a 4.2 second 0-60 run, nearly reaching this speed in 1st gear, where the Dodge sprints there in 4.0; likewise, the Zo6 dispatches the quarter-mile in 12.3 sec. at 116.6 mph, while its V-10 powered adversary cranks out a 12.1 at 119.3. The Viper "feels" quicker too in a roll-on situation, its extra 1.3 liters of displacement practically punting you forward, versus the still-forceful but more linear surge of the Zo6"

What gives with the 116 trap speed? werent there already tests of 125 mph? that is a HUGE difference in trap speed. So what you're saying is my statement ins incorrect:think: Tuning software will be out very soon according to Lou at LG Motosports and this car is going to be a fucking monster with a new air filter, LT's, and a nice cam:headbang:

[Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Trendkiller Z28
So what you're saying is my statement ins incorrect:think: Tuning software will be out very soon according to Lou at LG Motosports and this car is going to be a fucking monster with a new air filter, LT's, and a nice cam:headbang:

i hope that they get the tuning out for it..but its who knows. the computer these days are getting harder to trick and tune out.

[Unorthodox]

Originally posted by jdsgn
That wasn't motortrend you were reading, that was from Road and Track. and they must suck horribly. first of all it will reach 60 in 1st gear (they weren't pushing it obviously) And car and driver and motortrend both got mid 11s at 125-127ish. The cars are gonna be awesome.

yes you are correct..it was road and track.

i am just curious if maybe the first few mags got ringers with the tq management turned off? i mean..to be down 10 mph in trap speed is huge..but maybe they werent pushing it...but still..i can see them trapping lets say 120-121 if they werent pushing it. but not 116! i cant wait to see what actually owners start getting out of them.

[jr. gong]

Originally posted by Checkmate
Not everyone is going to race this car. Yes there will be a lot of old rich people that just drive it around and don't use all that power as they should.

So it was SMART of GM to set these cars up with that much power and have it not destroy the drivetrain yet handle and ride like it will. GM is not dumb. Get your facts straight before spouting off like you have done. :rolleyes:

This car was not meant to be a "crusier", last I checked there was no targa top, and no automatic. It is the high performance Corvette, and GM is only one in game using torque mangement on its "supercars".

Seems like you're the one that needs to get the facts straight :rolleyes:

[jr. gong]

Anywho.. it's going to get very interesting to get the real world times. I remember a video posted awhile back with someone driving the Z06 who couldn't break mid 12s.. I hope that isn't the norm.

[jdsgn]

Originally posted by Unorthodox
yes you are correct..it was road and track.

i am just curious if maybe the first few mags got ringers with the tq management turned off? i mean..to be down 10 mph in trap speed is huge..but maybe they werent pushing it...but still..i can see them trapping lets say 120-121 if they werent pushing it. but not 116! i cant wait to see what actually owners start getting out of them.

I can't imagine this car not trapping at least 122-24 in the hands of an average driver. A stock 340-50 rwhp Z06 can and has trapped 115-119.. with a 100 hp more mid 120s should be easy. My friends heavy Ws6 with 413 hp and 380 trq went 119. With 30 extra hp and 600 less pounds it all seems to add up. Road and track has always been notoriously slow.

[WCFields]

Road and Crack is a joke, they shouldn't be allowed to test any performance cars. Folks are talking torque managment, in what form, what exactly are they talking about? I've not seen any specifics stated like throttle closing timing rollback...

[WCFields]

Ok, here's what LG's test drive reported,...

" Torque management is where the PCM pulls timing, throttle position or fuel to counter what the engineers deemed to be excessive power to save the drive line etc. We found it on the normal C6 and LS2 edit was able to nullify most of it. the results were dramatic on acceleration.

From driving the new ZO6, I could feel the car reduce forward bite. if I let off the gas, then pushed it again, it would pick up for a bit and then pull back. "




That is total horse shit. If GM is that fuggin stupid to build this car then pull the TM trick they need a dose of reality. As was said other performance cars like Viper and GT do not have it.

And what is with tha TQ curve, looks pretty weak to me.

[Bird of Fire]

Originally posted by Checkmate
Not everyone is going to race this car. Yes there will be a lot of old rich people that just drive it around and don't use all that power as they should.


There's two things wrong with this scenario.

a - old people would just buy a regular c6 if all that big mean scary horsepower firghtened them.

b - They already have a method of regulating horsepower on exotic vehicles. It's called the gas pedal. Perhaps people should learn how to use them.

[WCFields]

If they wanted to do serious regulation they could've do a valet mode like on the ZR1.

[GMCtrk]

BULL@HIT

[jdsgn]

hmm seems the stock manifolds may be a big cork in the setup. damn nice numbers http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1197501&page=1&pp=20

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by Checkmate
The road course times and 1/4 times we have seen are with stock programming. Which IMO is pretty damn good for a stock car costing under 70,000. Also, there are going to be people buying these cars that are clueless on how to handle that much power.
Do you work from GM as an engineer, do you know what the drivetrain can handle? Didn't think so.

Basically it comes down to if your not buying an 06 z06 stop bitching about it.

If the drivetrain can't handle that engine at its full reasonable ablility then I'd say GM has fucked up with this car. :squint: That is a concern of mine though.

The Z06 is supposed to be a street legal race car... most of us aren't gonna like the excessive TM. Granted, once the software is available it can be removed, but that isn't going to be a quick process.

[Harmon Rabb]

Originally posted by Trendkiller Z28
Awesome numbers and I couldn't give 2 shits whether it has torque management or not. $50 at any performance shop will fix that.

more like $500, and not any performance shop.

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by Berman
more like $500, and not any performance shop.

For a 70k dolllar car what the hell is 500 bucks?

From an engineering standpoint TM should be on every car sold. It increases reliability plain and simple. Now if you wanna work on your car, which in most cases here on LS2.com people do, then fine remove the torque management. Just like you would remove the Federally mandated restricted Exhaust manifolds.

Do you think that the Engineers at General Motors are idiots? Umm...I don't think so. There is a reason for everything, maybe you and I don't know it but hey...its there.

For example anyone wanna ask GM why they put the crappy 7 5/8ths 10 bolt in the F-body? Guess what there is a reason why. You just gotta ask the right person.

Point of my Post: TM makes sense from a OEM perspective. Who gives a flying rats ass if FORD or DODGE doesn't do it. I aint buying there shit anyways.

[Bird of Fire]

Bean counters trump engineers and make constraints on them.

I'd care to wager it wasn't up to the engineers on whether or not TM should be installed.

[ill deuce]

i think the t-56 and D44 irs can handle 500hp,they've been doing it for years now

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by ill deuce
i think the t-56 and D44 irs can handle 500hp,they've been doing it for years now


Humm...yea...lets see. Ever study Quality Control? Not everysingle T-56 and D44 can handle the torque of a 6000 RPM drop. Not every 4L65E is made the same either. If you think that just because it's paper spec says it should then you must sit behind a desk and dream up theories then. Cause in the real world stuff fails. And it would make logical sense that the reason TM is in the vehicles to to help eliminate that part of the problem so that the vehicles last longer. So its a bean counter issue and an engineering issue. Its the best of both worlds for GM. The vehicles don't come in for service until after the warranty is expired and the engineers are happy because it looks better on them when the shit doesn't break.

Plus...how do they put torque managment in on a Manual transmission application anyways? Secondly it doesn't affect a dyno pull. So it is not relavent to this thread.

[ill deuce]

Originally posted by w02thumper
Humm...yea...lets see. Ever study Quality Control? Not everysingle T-56 and D44 can handle the torque of a 6000 RPM drop. Not every 4L65E is made the same either. If you think that just because it's paper spec says it should then you must sit behind a desk and dream up theories then. Cause in the real world stuff fails. And it would make logical sense that the reason TM is in the vehicles to to help eliminate that part of the problem so that the vehicles last longer. So its a bean counter issue and an engineering issue. Its the best of both worlds for GM. The vehicles don't come in for service until after the warranty is expired and the engineers are happy because it looks better on them when the shit doesn't break. um,yeah ok:uhok:

here's an idea,if you almost redesign the car completely,why can't give the gears a different heat treating or beef it up someway?

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by ill deuce
um,yeah ok:uhok:

here's an idea,if you almost redesign the car completely,why can't give the gears a different heat treating or beef it up someway?

Not the point.

[ill deuce]

Originally posted by w02thumper
Not the point. that is the point,GM want to do a world class sports car but only puts 90% effort in it.

one reason GM is in the shape its in,beancounters

you don't think the porsche 911 or 360 modena goes through beancounters like a Z06 does.you can still have a performance car for cheap without handicapping it

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by ill deuce
that is the point,GM want to do a world class sports car but only puts 90% effort in it.

one reason GM is in the shape its in,beancounters

you don't think the porsche 911 or 360 modena goes through beancounters like a Z06 does.you can still have a performance car for cheap without handicapping it

Not being an ass..but how many 360 Modena's are produced in a Year? How many Porsche 911's are produced in a year? And you have to split the 911's up into their perspective models too.

I know that the Z06 hasn't been mass produced yet but..how many ZO6's were sold in the past? No matter what you say or how you say it a Person that buys a Porshe 911 or a 360 Modena is not the kinda person that buys a Corvette. Its a prestige thing not having any relavance to us car guys that crunch numbers and push their engineering to its limits and sometimes over.

[ill deuce]

Originally posted by w02thumper
Not being an ass..but how many 360 Modena's are produced in a Year? How many Porsche 911's are produced in a year? And you have to split the 911's up into their perspective models too.

I know that the Z06 hasn't been mass produced yet but..how many ZO6's were sold in the past? No matter what you say or how you say it a Person that buys a Porshe 911 or a 360 Modena is not the kinda person that buys a Corvette. Its a prestige thing not having any relavance to us car guys that crunch numbers and push their engineering to its limits and sometimes over. it doesn't matter how many are produced or how much they cost

GM is just too cheap to make a full effort on their cars

they wanna make a world beating car,but reign it in.they wanna have their cake and eat it to.but the world see's it as another half assed american attempt

how many C6 z06s could they make a year?not that many
how many of those would have drievtrain warranty claims?most guys wouldn't push it that hard
meanwhile GM shoots itself in the foot agian by cheapin' the hell out,why am i not suprised

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by ill deuce
it doesn't matter how many are produced or how much they cost

GM is just too cheap to make a full effort on their cars

they wanna make a world beating car,but reign it in.they wanna have their cake and eat it to.but the world see's it as another half assed american attempt

how many C6 z06s could they make a year?not that many
how many of those would have drievtrain warranty claims?most guys wouldn't push it that hard
meanwhile GM shoots itself in the foot agian by cheapin' the hell out,why am i not suprised

Because you drive a Dakota with a Hemi in it....jk seriously though the 4.7 does have hemispherical chambers. Guess Chrysler didn't want the new HEMI to be known as a SOHC.

Anyways. Even with TM it is still a world class car. HUMM.....get my point? Why dog the man? There is a method to the madness I am sure.

[ill deuce]

Originally posted by w02thumper
Because you drive a Dakota with a Hemi in it....jk seriously though the 4.7 does have hemispherical chambers. Guess Chrysler didn't want the new HEMI to be known as a SOHC.

Anyways. Even with TM it is still a world class car. HUMM.....get my point? Why dog the man? There is a method to the madness I am sure. 1.not really sure


2.yeah,its still a great car,but with all the effort GM went trhough to develop it,they we're worried about a few warranty claims on a limited edition car.if they were that worried about they should just add a few hundred to the MSRP to cover it

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by w02thumper
Humm...yea...lets see. Ever study Quality Control? Not everysingle T-56 and D44 can handle the torque of a 6000 RPM drop. Not every 4L65E is made the same either. If you think that just because it's paper spec says it should then you must sit behind a desk and dream up theories then. Cause in the real world stuff fails. And it would make logical sense that the reason TM is in the vehicles to to help eliminate that part of the problem so that the vehicles last longer. So its a bean counter issue and an engineering issue. Its the best of both worlds for GM. The vehicles don't come in for service until after the warranty is expired and the engineers are happy because it looks better on them when the shit doesn't break.

Plus...how do they put torque managment in on a Manual transmission application anyways? Secondly it doesn't affect a dyno pull. So it is not relavent to this thread.

Pulls timing in the lower part of the RPM range when TPS is in the high range to reduce power.

$500 to remove TM, :umm: I don't think so. A survey of most shops in the tri-state area charge $150 to do the following: remove TM, fan adjustment, speedo calibration, skip shift function delete, shift points optimized and typically a few other misc things.

[HOTCIVIC]

Originally posted by w02thumper
For a 70k dolllar car what the hell is 500 bucks?

From an engineering standpoint TM should be on every car sold. It increases reliability plain and simple. Now if you wanna work on your car, which in most cases here on LS2.com people do, then fine remove the torque management. Just like you would remove the Federally mandated restricted Exhaust manifolds.

Why should someone have to shell out more cash on a brand new car just to get it to perform to the level that GM originally advertised? Why should someone who just paid 70k for a car have to get rid of TM just to run with a Ford GT or a Viper that didn't come with TM stock?

Originally posted by w02thumper
Do you think that the Engineers at General Motors are idiots? Umm...I don't think so. There is a reason for everything, maybe you and I don't know it but hey...its there.

I think they are idiots for putting Torque Management on the "fastest Vette of all time". There IS a reason they are doing it - and it's to protect their dumbasses so they can cut corners and it's all to the detriment of the consumer.

The consumer gets fucked in the ass again and you are siding with GM. Unbelievable.

Originally posted by w02thumper
For example anyone wanna ask GM why they put the crappy 7 5/8ths 10 bolt in the F-body? Guess what there is a reason why. You just gotta ask the right person.

Are you fucking kidding me? The 10 bolt is a piece of shit and it's the weak link to the F-bods. Do you think there is a reason that GM put those in for the benefit to the consumer? Hell no they did it to cut costs and cut corners.

Originally posted by w02thumper
Point of my Post: TM makes sense from a OEM perspective. Who gives a flying rats ass if FORD or DODGE doesn't do it. I aint buying there shit anyways.

TM makes sense if you are a sheep just following whatever GM says and if you're so brand loyal that you can't even question what they do when it's detrimental to the customer. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by w02thumper
Humm...yea...lets see. Ever study Quality Control? Not everysingle T-56 and D44 can handle the torque of a 6000 RPM drop. Not every 4L65E is made the same either. If you think that just because it's paper spec says it should then you must sit behind a desk and dream up theories then.

No not every tranny can handle a 6000 rpm drop, but most people aren't going to do a 6000 rpm drop.

If GM couldn't build a car with a drivetrain that could handle the power, they should have waited until they could make it so the drivetrain COULD handle the power like every other normal company out there making a high performance car who didn't fuck the consumer in the ass by putting TM on Porsches, Ford GTs, Ferraris, and Vipers.

Originally posted by w02thumper
Cause in the real world stuff fails. And it would make logical sense that the reason TM is in the vehicles to to help eliminate that part of the problem so that the vehicles last longer. So its a bean counter issue and an engineering issue. Its the best of both worlds for GM. The vehicles don't come in for service until after the warranty is expired and the engineers are happy because it looks better on them when the shit doesn't break.

So are you a GM Executive? Because everything you're saying just shows that GM isn't doing anything beneficial for the consumer with TM, they are only trying to save their own butts because they don't trust the parts they originally put in the car.

Originally posted by w02thumper
Plus...how do they put torque managment in on a Manual transmission application anyways?

I have no idea, but they do. :shrug: If you don't think Manual transmission cars have Torque Management, you don't deserve to even be a part of this discussion.

Originally posted by w02thumper
Secondly it doesn't affect a dyno pull. So it is not relavent to this thread.

:bs2: Are you kidding me? Look at all the LS2 GTOs putting down shit numbers because of tuning and TM issues. You'll see gains of up to 30 rwhp on the dyno just by getting rid of that shit.

Originally posted by w02thumper

Anyways. Even with TM it is still a world class car. HUMM.....get my point? Why dog the man? There is a method to the madness I am sure.

Dog the man because without TM it could be even MORE world class. Dog the man because he's only trying to cut costs and he's falsely advertising his C6 Vettes, LS2 GTOs, and Z06 Vettes by telling us they have "this" amount of power or "that" amount of power, only to restrict that power or bring power levels down so parts don't break. Dog the man because without TM, the full potential of a bone stock Z06 could be seen. Now with this Torque Management bullshit, the next time a Viper posts a kill about a C6 Z06, we are all going to wonder, "Gee, I wonder if the Z06 would have beat that Viper if it didn't have that damn TM." :rolleyes:

[dave1w41]

Why should someone have to shell out more cash on a brand new car just to get it to perform to the level that GM originally advertised? Why should someone who just paid 70k for a car have to get rid of TM just to run with a Ford GT or a Viper that didn't come with TM stock?


The car does perform as advertised with the torque management. Are you saying that the cars that GM has sent to magazines, and that people have tested don't have torque managment? They appear to perform about as well as cars costing 2-2.5x as much, that's a pretty dominating position.

And, just how do you know if those other cars don't have torque management? Have you studied the data from their powetrain controllers?

I think they are idiots for putting Torque Management on the "fastest Vette of all time". There IS a reason they are doing it - and it's to protect their dumbasses so they can cut corners and it's all to the detriment of the consumer.

If GM couldn't build a car with a drivetrain that could handle the power, they should have waited until they could make it so the drivetrain COULD handle the power like every other normal company out there making a high performance car who didn't fuck the consumer in the ass by putting TM on Porsches, Ford GTs, Ferraris, and Vipers.




Even with the TM, the car is still the biggest bargain going in supercars.

No one is getting "fucked" out of anything. The car performs as advertised. And are you 100% sure about the statements regarding Dodge, Ford, Porsche, and Ferrari? BTW, you might note the quality numbers for the typical Chevrolet are better than all of those brands previously mentioned. Maybe GM just does a better job at satisfying the customer even if they bought a car that is less than half the price of its direct competitors?

TM makes sense if you are a sheep just following whatever GM says and if you're so brand loyal that you can't even question what they do when it's detrimental to the customer.

How are broken parts to the benefit of the customer?

[spawn99t/a]

i hate tm but they did it and it sucks but we can`t do anything about it but go have it deleted . oh well if you can buy one you can spend 150 to have it removed .

[HOTCIVIC]

Originally posted by dave1w41
The car does perform as advertised with the torque management. Are you saying that the cars that GM has sent to magazines, and that people have tested don't have torque managment? They appear to perform about as well as cars costing 2-2.5x as much, that's a pretty dominating position.

I don't know if the cars GM sent had TM or not.

Originally posted by dave1w41
And, just how do you know if those other cars don't have torque management? Have you studied the data from their powetrain controllers?

From what I've gathered, the Ford GT and Viper do not have it. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by dave1w41
Even with the TM, the car is still the biggest bargain going in supercars.

That is true.

Originally posted by dave1w41
No one is getting "fucked" out of anything. The car performs as advertised. And are you 100% sure about the statements regarding Dodge, Ford, Porsche, and Ferrari? BTW, you might note the quality numbers for the typical Chevrolet are better than all of those brands previously mentioned. Maybe GM just does a better job at satisfying the customer even if they bought a car that is less than half the price of its direct competitors?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure but I could be wrong. I am just venting because of all the problems I've seen with TM on the LS2 Vette and GTO.

Originally posted by dave1w41
How are broken parts to the benefit of the customer?

I think when one is buying a Z06 Vette, not having the awesome power of the LS7 "restricted" by a computer is the most beneficial to the customer.

[dave1w41]

I think when one is buying a Z06 Vette, not having the awesome power of the LS7 "restricted" by a computer is the most beneficial to the customer.

How is it restricted? The power that is advertised is not a RWHP number from a Dynojet or any other chassis dyno. It is an SAE standard test, and in that test, it produces what is advertised.

That test is a yardstick and all manufacturers have agreed to use it. So the Z06's yardstick is still bigger, stronger, and better than cars that cost 2x the price. We are talking about a car that is making 505 horsepower in that test. If GM removed all of the TM from the car, what would that do to the weight of the drivetrain components? How would that affect the overall performance picture that is the Z06? The purest purpose of the Z06 is endurance road racing and we know that adding 100 pounds to a car is significant in that role. It affects maximum performance and reliability. One of the biggest advantages that the Corvette has over the Viper is that it weighs significantly less. If the car was designed for drag racing only, it could stand to have some heavier drivetrain components and reduction in torque managment. - but it isn't. It is designed to run at maximum effort for 6 hours at a stretch on a road course without failure and trounce more expensive products while doing it.

Going back to that quesiton about broken parts, how does a car with a broken axle shaft, clutch disk, or rear differential, finish a race and put its owner on the podium?

[HOTCIVIC]

Originally posted by dave1w41
How is it restricted? The power that is advertised is not a RWHP number from a Dynojet or any other chassis dyno. It is an SAE standard test, and in that test, it produces what is advertised.

You are right about the Z06. I guess I was thinking more about the C6 and GTO which have had problems with the TM, and I am a little concerned that the TM is going to be a problem on more Z06s that will be tested. But no you are right, the car does make the advertised HP.

Originally posted by dave1w41
That test is a yardstick and all manufacturers have agreed to use it. So the Z06's yardstick is still bigger, stronger, and better than cars that cost 2x the price. We are talking about a car that is making 505 horsepower in that test. If GM removed all of the TM from the car, what would that do to the weight of the drivetrain components? How would that affect the overall performance picture that is the Z06?

I assume that removing TM would improve the acceleration of the car, since anyone I've ever seen remove TM from any C6 or LS2 GTO has improved 1/4 mile times and trap speed.

Originally posted by dave1w41
The purest purpose of the Z06 is endurance road racing and we know that adding 100 pounds to a car is significant in that role. It affects maximum performance and reliability. One of the biggest advantages that the Corvette has over the Viper is that it weighs significantly less. If the car was designed for drag racing only, it could stand to have some heavier drivetrain components and reduction in torque managment. - but it isn't. It is designed to run at maximum effort for 6 hours at a stretch on a road course without failure and trounce more expensive products while doing it.

You are right.

Originally posted by dave1w41
Going back to that quesiton about broken parts, how does a car with a broken axle shaft, clutch disk, or rear differential, finish a race and put its owner on the podium?

I never said that broken parts are beneficial to the owner.

[dave1w41]

I never said that broken parts are beneficial to the owner.

Ok that being said if the car had no torque management something else would likely "have to give".

1. The car would be heavier because some parts might have to have material added to them to support the additional torque. - the additional weight might affect performance in a more negative way that the current TM does. Especially in the car's intended role.

2. The car would be more expensive because it might require more exotic and expensive materials to meet the performance targets with the additional torque. - once again, one of the most attractive parts of the Z06 is something it does not have; an unattainable price.


The car might be faster in a straight line without the TM but it also might be slower on a road course. If the parts weren't beefed up to handle it so the car was still relatively light, it also might not be as forgiving of over-agressive driving. Something common to gentleman racers who lack skill and make up for it by going banzai as hard as they can. If the cars had frequent and well known breakage issues in the hands of their owners that would get around as "GM cheaping out" on a component.
It is all about balance of performance, reliability, and price.

[Harmon Rabb]

Originally posted by Checkmate
Pulls timing in the lower part of the RPM range when TPS is in the high range to reduce power.

$500 to remove TM, :umm: I don't think so. A survey of most shops in the tri-state area charge $150 to do the following: remove TM, fan adjustment, speedo calibration, skip shift function delete, shift points optimized and typically a few other misc things.

this to an ls1 or ls2? ls1's are much easier to do this to, i don't think there's a ls2edit out yet.

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by dave1w41
How is it restricted? The power that is advertised is not a RWHP number from a Dynojet or any other chassis dyno. It is an SAE standard test, and in that test, it produces what is advertised.



I really don't get why several of you are so pissed off about TM, do the math based on the dyno numbers in this thread, it is equal or more than the #'s GM is advertising. So you really have nothing to bitch about. You ARE getting the power you paid for, end of story. :rolleyes:

[Cobra Commander]

dyno numbers != quarter mile times

I'm talking about LS2 cars though.

[WCFields]

Well we'll see what happens when a few hit the tracks I guess.

If GM sent ringers out to the mags with the TM removed from the program and these production cars run slower they will have massive egg on their face.

[Cobra Commander]

Originally posted by BlackLightn
Well we'll see what happens when a few hit the tracks I guess.

If GM sent ringers out to the mags with the TM removed from the program and these production cars run slower they will have massive egg on their face.

Nobody on LS1tech has put it on the track yet?

[Bird of Fire]

Originally posted by Checkmate
I really don't get why several of you are so pissed off about TM, do the math based on the dyno numbers in this thread, it is equal or more than the #'s GM is advertising. So you really have nothing to bitch about. You ARE getting the power you paid for, end of story. :rolleyes:

04 GTO has less horsepower than a 05 GTO and costs much less to boot.

The 04 GTO is faster than the 05 in the 1/4 mile.

That sounds like people aren't getting the power they paid for, end of story :rolleyes:

[dave1w41]

04 GTO has less horsepower than a 05 GTO and costs much less to boot.

The 04 GTO is faster than the 05 in the 1/4 mile.

That sounds like people aren't getting the power they paid for, end of story

Got any proof? [crickets]

Yeah I thought so. Having driven both, I can tell you right now the only reason that the 05 would be slower would be if you put a driver behind the wheel with cerebral palsy.

[Bird of Fire]

Originally posted by dave1w41
Got any proof? [crickets]

Yeah I thought so. Having driven both, I can tell you right now the only reason that the 05 would be slower would be if you put a driver behind the wheel with cerebral palsy.

Price can be looked up on the net, not hard.

Now go into the GTO forum. There's the proof you're looking for. Some people are running 14's with them out of the box.

[ill deuce]

i've seen countless 05 vettes make 13.4-13.6 passes at 104-106

those were auto car that didn't spin,not hard to mess that up,so its something in the car

[94BAMF]

Originally posted by dave1w41
How is it restricted? The power that is advertised is not a RWHP number from a Dynojet or any other chassis dyno. It is an SAE standard test, and in that test, it produces what is advertised.

That test is a yardstick and all manufacturers have agreed to use it. So the Z06's yardstick is still bigger, stronger, and better than cars that cost 2x the price. We are talking about a car that is making 505 horsepower in that test. If GM removed all of the TM from the car, what would that do to the weight of the drivetrain components? How would that affect the overall performance picture that is the Z06? The purest purpose of the Z06 is endurance road racing and we know that adding 100 pounds to a car is significant in that role. It affects maximum performance and reliability. One of the biggest advantages that the Corvette has over the Viper is that it weighs significantly less. If the car was designed for drag racing only, it could stand to have some heavier drivetrain components and reduction in torque managment. - but it isn't. It is designed to run at maximum effort for 6 hours at a stretch on a road course without failure and trounce more expensive products while doing it.

Going back to that quesiton about broken parts, how does a car with a broken axle shaft, clutch disk, or rear differential, finish a race and put its owner on the podium?

^^^^^ This is a great post......:thumbup: ^^^^^^



I think a few of you guys are confusing tuning issues with Torque management. Many of the 05 GTO's run poorly because they run pig rich from the factory, and as they heat soak, and Intake air temp readings go up, it pulls massive timing. The 04's do the same thing, but I think the timing retard is not as aggressive. My guess is high compression plus high heat equal problems GM doesn't want(detonation), therefore they pull timing. I guess you could call this Torque management, but it could just be poor engineering.....Either way for GM its Better to be safe than sorry.....And who can blame them?

BTW......Ford has been using Torque management/Torque reduction for YEARS...... Since atleast 94, maybe earlier...

If I were to guess, I would say EVERY FUCKING CAR MADE TODAY has some form of Torque management.

The main thing is New PCM's at BOTH FORD and GM.......

FORD started using a new design PCM mainstream in 2004 with the new F150's, and guess what it has no throttle cable. That design PCM is used in almost all the newer Fords.

I believe 2004 was the last year for the old school GM PCM's. 2005 GTO, SSR, C6, etc all use the new stuff, my guess the new Z06 uses it too..........Guess what,,, No throttle cables there either. Of course everybody knows GM has being using Motor controlled Throttlebodies since atleast 97 with the C5.


Guys, try to think of this in a different way.

Imagine it was a TV instead of a car.

Lets say you had two TV's.
One is $10,000(Lambo, Ferrari, Porsche, etc).
The other is $2500 (C6 Z06).

The picture and sound, features and durability on the $10K TV is amazing, it is truely a great TV.
The picture and sound and durability on the $2500 TV is the same as the $10K TV, but it has slightly less features, and the name brand isn't quite as good, but it is a damn good TV.

As you can see the $2500 TV is quite the bargain.

Lets say they could change the $2500 TV to have a better picture and sound than the $10K TV but the durability went to shit. Would you still want the $2500 TV? What if originally the $2500 TV would last an average of 8 years, but now with the better picture and sound, it only averages 2 years. And now that these damn TV's are breaking all the time, word of mouth spreads, and people quit buying them?

Who exactly would they be helping by making that TV?

Not the Customer........
Not the Manufacturer....

The Competition????:hmm: :hmm:

[dave1w41]

Now go into the GTO forum. There's the proof you're looking for. Some people are running 14's with them out of the box.


Some people don't understand that sitting in a staging lane for 30 minutes causes the engine to heat up and slows the car down. Under identical conditions the 05 has more power.

I have seen numerous people run 14's with 2005 Mustang GTs and with 2002 Trans Ams; that does not mean those cars aren't capable of more. Sometimes it is the driver, sometimes it is the conditions usually it is a combination of both.

Some people are running 12.3's with them and all they did was put on a cold air kit and throw a bag of ice on the intake. Some random data points from some posts on a website amount to squat. The 2005 Engine is rated at 400 horsepower in the SAE test standard and the 2004 engine is rated at 350 horsepower - that is a 50 horsepower difference in the identical test under identical conditons. Most production engines actually do a little better than that.

[Bird of Fire]

You're right. A car with 50 more horsepower should be slower, and GM is perfectly fine practicing this. Hundreds of people bitching about it that own 05 GTO's are clearly wrong, I'll go let them know that it's ok, and those slow times are just in their heads, and it's not GM's fault.

I'm sorry I even questioned why TM existed. Hell, back in the 60's cars just simply exploded because they had no TM. Those were dark days in automotive history indeed :(

[WCFields]

There's no good reason to pull the timing back on the LS2 as bad as they do, the LS1 has/had very little issues with heat, hell I ran some of my best times with back to back runs in the summer heat with my SS. :shrug:

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by Bird of Fire
You're right. A car with 50 more horsepower should be slower, and GM is perfectly fine practicing this. Hundreds of people bitching about it that own 05 GTO's are clearly wrong, I'll go let them know that it's ok, and those slow times are just in their heads, and it's not GM's fault.

I'm sorry I even questioned why TM existed. Hell, back in the 60's cars just simply exploded because they had no TM. Those were dark days in automotive history indeed :(

What kinda warrenty did you get on your car in the 60's? 1 year 12,000 miles?

Believe it or not but GM does not revolve around drag racing. Nor does the rest of the world.

[Bird of Fire]

Originally posted by w02thumper
What kinda warrenty did you get on your car in the 60's? 1 year 12,000 miles?

Believe it or not but GM does not revolve around drag racing. Nor does the rest of the world.

Who said anything about drag racing? :dunno: It's you get what you pay for.....but you kinda don't in this situation.

Tell me why they would build a performance car and then intentionally remove horsepower from that vehicle. What kind of ass backwards logic is that?

[94BAMF]

Originally posted by Bird of Fire
Who said anything about drag racing? :dunno: It's you get what you pay for.....but you kinda don't in this situation.

Tell me why they would build a performance car and then intentionally remove horsepower from that vehicle. What kind of ass backwards logic is that?

This has been explained atleast 3 times in this thread so far,,,Did you read dave's post?

Do you really think the automotive industry is the only one to put limits on performance of things for durability or cost reasons?

Why do you think people overdrive computers, X boxes, modify guitar amps, etc, etc.......There is tons of things that ANY Manufacturer "Could" make better, but they don't because it comes at some expense, in either durability, cost, etc.....

BTW.....the 05 GTO's regularly out perform the 04's at the track in like conditions. And trust me I spend alot of time on the GTO's boards.

[Bird of Fire]

Maybe they should've put a 22R motor in there so it would last a million years. That would've been better. Or hell, maybe even a diesel next time around :yup:

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by Bird of Fire
04 GTO has less horsepower than a 05 GTO and costs much less to boot.

The 04 GTO is faster than the 05 in the 1/4 mile.

That sounds like people aren't getting the power they paid for, end of story :rolleyes:

I've seen low 13's out of a few 05 gto's, being a heavy car I don't think that is to shabby. :shrug:

Furthermore, this thread was about the 06 z06.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by Bird of Fire
You're right. A car with 50 more horsepower should be slower, and GM is perfectly fine practicing this. Hundreds of people bitching about it that own 05 GTO's are clearly wrong, I'll go let them know that it's ok, and those slow times are just in their heads, and it's not GM's fault.
(


It isn't slower under identical conditons. So there goes the argument right out the window. There are thousands of satisfied customers that understand how TM works and what affects it and they simply work around it.

[StreetLethal]

Originally posted by Unorthodox
not quite..there is no tuning available yet for it..and who knows how long that will take.

on another note, i was reading motor trend yesterday and they had this to say..

"In terms of raw acceleration, the Zo6 is world-class quick, though not quite a match for its cross-town rival, the Dodge Viper SRT-10. Our vBox test gear clocked a 4.2 second 0-60 run, nearly reaching this speed in 1st gear, where the Dodge sprints there in 4.0; likewise, the Zo6 dispatches the quarter-mile in 12.3 sec. at 116.6 mph, while its V-10 powered adversary cranks out a 12.1 at 119.3. The Viper "feels" quicker too in a roll-on situation, its extra 1.3 liters of displacement practically punting you forward, versus the still-forceful but more linear surge of the Zo6"

What gives with the 116 trap speed? werent there already tests of 125 mph? that is a HUGE difference in trap speed.


I'm sure Motor Trend clocked it at 11.5 and I believe Car and Driver ran it at 11.5 as well. Those look more like the old Z06 numbers to me.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/streetlethal/C6Z06motortrend.jpg

[Unorthodox]

Originally posted by StreetLethal
I'm sure Motor Trend clocked it at 11.5 and I believe Car and Driver ran it at 11.5 as well. Those look more like the old Z06 numbers to me.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/streetlethal/C6Z06motortrend.jpg

I agree they look like old z06 numbers..maybe when they were writing the article they were looking at the wrong year? it is CLEARLY the newest motor trend that i have..and the numbers in the article state 12.3 @ 116 mph. i thought either 2 things...TM or the wrong year.

strange that on the online motortrend...they have 11.5. dumbasses

[HOTCIVIC]

There's a cool article in the latest "MPH" magazine on the new Z06. The guy who wrote the article somehow got his hands on one and he did some "cruising" on Woodward Ave (I think that's in or near Detroit?)

So anyway, he was just looking for people to race and he tells how he bitchslapped two new Vipers and then he beat a Chevelle with slicks and skinnies. He basically smokes everything until he runs across an 03 Cobra and a LS1 Camaro with a 200 shot. Those two beat him by a couple car lengths, but their owners admitted they both had over 625 rwhp. :eek:

Pretty damn good read. :cool:

[StreetLethal]

Originally posted by Unorthodox
I agree they look like old z06 numbers..maybe when they were writing the article they were looking at the wrong year? it is CLEARLY the newest motor trend that i have..and the numbers in the article state 12.3 @ 116 mph. i thought either 2 things...TM or the wrong year.

strange that on the online motortrend...they have 11.5. dumbasses

Thats pic is actually scanned right from my october '05 issue:shrug:
There was be something off with yours or a misprint I guess.

[Element]

So the cruz of the argument is....why not have usder-selectable TM, like TCS in the 98-02 f-bodies? That way, old people, and those who are afraid of breaking stock parts (oh my!) can keep their finger away from that little button when they start the car. People who don't feel like dealing with computerized bullshit to make their driver safer/slower/ect can push that button when they start the car. Both camps get what they want.

Seems like gross negligence, to me, on GM's part in putting something like this in what they tout to be their super sports car. If you want to leave TM in for warranty reasons, for reliability reasons, because you want to cut corners and put sub-par parts in your flagship performance car, fine. You could have at least left a way for enthusiasts who don't want to have to make their first trip on the way home at a tuning shop, to get rid of TM.

Kinda makes me wonder if GM really has advanced beyond the 350.

[Blade]

Originally posted by Element
So the cruz of the argument is....why not have usder-selectable TM, like TCS in the 98-02 f-bodies? That way, old people, and those who are afraid of breaking stock parts (oh my!) can keep their finger away from that little button when they start the car. People who don't feel like dealing with computerized bullshit to make their driver safer/slower/ect can push that button when they start the car. Both camps get what they want.

Seems like gross negligence, to me, on GM's part in putting something like this in what they tout to be their super sports car. If you want to leave TM in for warranty reasons, for reliability reasons, because you want to cut corners and put sub-par parts in your flagship performance car, fine. You could have at least left a way for enthusiasts who don't want to have to make their first trip on the way home at a tuning shop, to get rid of TM.

Kinda makes me wonder if GM really has advanced beyond the 350. C'mon man, i'd hardly call it using sub par parts and cutting corners. Would you rather them use more expensive parts which would result in a significantly more expensive car?

The fact that the car can run with a Ford GT using these "sub par" parts says a great deal.

[Element]

Originally posted by Blade
C'mon man, i'd hardly call it using sub par parts and cutting corners. Would you rather them use more expensive parts which would result in a significantly more expensive car?

The fact that the car can run with a Ford GT using these "sub par" parts says a great deal.

That would depend on my plans for it. If I was going to buy it and leave it stock, then as is, sans TM, would be fine. If I was looking to do some upgrades like exhaust, intake, and cam, then I'd prefer to spend a bit more money on the initial purchase price of the car for better stock parts. If I was buying the car to go full out, most of the stock parts would come off anyway, so I'd prefer the cheaper, weaker parts, in order to keep overall costs down. I understand there's some dipshits out there who'll do a 6500rpm clutch dum in the dealership parking lot, and want to know why they grenaded the driveline, but there's also the guy who knows the line to walk in getting the best performance out of the car, yet not breaking anything. Screwing the experienced guy for the sake of saving the dipshit some money (and anyone that stupid, and with enough disposable income for a Z06 isn't going to be hurting if he has to replace a T-56) is simply illogical to me. I know you can't limit sales, but I honestly wish it coul be done, to allow the engineers to better design the car for that specific demographic without making concessions for the inept/inexperienced buyers.

Honestly though, if I had to pay $80 more for my car, so it'd have a 12 bolt in the rear instead of the 10 bolt, I wouldn't have any problems with that. If I had to pay $1300 to have a solid rear end, and a clutch and pressure plate that were more than just adequate for stock power and useless after decent mods, I'd be fine with it.

The parts GM usesin their cars and trucks aren't sup-par I guess, just incorrect for the application. My old S-10 ZR2 had an 8.5" 10 bolt...it put down, MAYBE, 160hp and 240tq at the wheels. Why does my T/A, that puts down significantly more power, have the 7 5/8" rear? I know it's not a lot of difference as far as power goes, but the fact that GM wanted to save money and put the 7 5/8" rear in, and take their chances with warranty work, just says something to me about the overall mindset of the company. Ford and DXC do it too, I know GM isn't alone, but even then, it's not a mindset I enjoy seeing.

[Cobra Commander]

almost any performance car can be break stuff with the right person driving it, TM or not

which is why I say wtf is the point

[HOTCIVIC]

Just saw over on LS1tech another Z06 put down 474 rwhp with the air filter removed - gain of 20 rwhp. :hmm:

[ATF]

Originally posted by HOTCIVIC
I will bitch about it because I think it's bullshit.

Sure the Z06 has pulled out some impressive times, but if the Torque Management is holding the car back from even more impressive times then I think that's shitty.

It's the principal that bothers me.

Does the new Ford GT have Torque Management? How bout the new Viper?

Fuck no they don't.

Are there some clueless old rich guys that are going to buy GTs and Vipers?

Umm, yes.

Why didn't Ford and Dodge put Torque Management on those cars?

Because those are their flagship performance cars and Ford and Dodge wouldn't do something that fucking stupid.

Do you think GMs powertrain is weaker than Ford's or Dodge's powertrain? :rolleyes: If it is, GM is retarded. Do you really think the new powertrain is weaker than the previous Z06? I know for a fact there are shitloads of C5 Z06 owners with more than 440 rwhp who have no problems with the stock drivetrain.

How would you like to have just bought GM's flagship performance Vette - the "fastest Vette of all time" - and then take your car out on a back road to show your friends a nice, smokey burnout. You rev it up and dump the clutch, and the car bogs because the PCM pulls timing. How fucking embarrassing would that be?

Look at how shitty the new GTOs and C6s run. They have 50 more HP but they don't run any better than the LS1 versions. How crappy is that? If I am going to buy a car that GM advertises has 50 more HP, I expect it to be 50 HP faster than the less expensive previous model.

Torque management is bullshit IMO.


:werd:

[McRat]

Has anyone seen any actual data indicating TM kicking in? Datalogs?

All LS6 engines pull timing from heat soak on the IAT sensor. Disabling the IAT sensor drops nearly a 1/2 second on the ET, and raises dyno runs over 20rwhp.

Could that be what they are seeing in the LS7?

[Fbodfather]

Originally posted by HOTCIVIC
I will bitch about it because I think it's bullshit.

Sure the Z06 has pulled out some impressive times, but if the Torque Management is holding the car back from even more impressive times then I think that's shitty.

It's the principal that bothers me.

Does the new Ford GT have Torque Management? How bout the new Viper?

Fuck no they don't.

Are there some clueless old rich guys that are going to buy GTs and Vipers?

Umm, yes.

Why didn't Ford and Dodge put Torque Management on those cars?

Because those are their flagship performance cars and Ford and Dodge wouldn't do something that fucking stupid.

Do you think GMs powertrain is weaker than Ford's or Dodge's powertrain? :rolleyes: If it is, GM is retarded. Do you really think the new powertrain is weaker than the previous Z06? I know for a fact there are shitloads of C5 Z06 owners with more than 440 rwhp who have no problems with the stock drivetrain.

How would you like to have just bought GM's flagship performance Vette - the "fastest Vette of all time" - and then take your car out on a back road to show your friends a nice, smokey burnout. You rev it up and dump the clutch, and the car bogs because the PCM pulls timing. How fucking embarrassing would that be?

Look at how shitty the new GTOs and C6s run. They have 50 more HP but they don't run any better than the LS1 versions. How crappy is that? If I am going to buy a car that GM advertises has 50 more HP, I expect it to be 50 HP faster than the less expensive previous model.

Torque management is bullshit IMO.


Dear "HotCivic"

May I offer you a few suggestions?

First....you really shouldn't use words like "gay a**" "pi**" and "fu**"......because when you do, it makes you look ignorant.

Second......have you engineered a car or truck? If not, you really need to get off the soap box...because it makes you look ignorant.

There are a lot of reasons for Torque Management. You ask the question "Does the Ford GT have Torque Management?" I'm not completely certain, but I'd think it does.

There are some people out there that do not know how to drive....and there are those who absolutely abuse the car. One of the functions of Torque Management is to protect the car....and the owner.

For what it's worth, I'd say that Z06 is right on the money for a 'green' engine. Consider that there is approx. 20% driveline loss....that would put the car well north of 500.

I would also like to see the calibration of the dyno......

[426HEMI]

I don't see the issue. If you don't like the TM, have it removed. It's not that hard and many folks have already done it, although several of them now have to replace the rear ends. TM is there to keep the rear from getting grenaded.

Personally I would have liked to see GM invest a little more in the rear and not have a need for TM, BUT it's completely up to you the consumer as to wheather or not TM stays in place. Just don't :cry: if you screw up your car when it's removed.

[Fbodfather]

I think it's important to understand how important weight is.....yes, you could put components that are break-proof....(and it would save us a ton on warranty)........but the weight would be completely unacceptable.

Further, the Z06 is a road car......meaning it was created in the image of the C6R. You do not see the C6R blasting down a drag strip. The car is nearly perfect in balance 51/49 and is a true joy to behold on the track.

I've stood and watched people do burnout contests with both Corvettes and Camaros.......and it's one thing to do a burnout...it's another thing altogether to simply abuse the car. I watched in horror as one "unfortunate" sat and slammed the accelerator on and off.......and you could hear the driveline protest......that's just foolish.

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by Fbodfather
I think it's important to understand how important weight is.....yes, you could put components that are break-proof....(and it would save us a ton on warranty)........but the weight would be completely unacceptable.

Further, the Z06 is a road car......meaning it was created in the image of the C6R. You do not see the C6R blasting down a drag strip. The car is nearly perfect in balance 51/49 and is a true joy to behold on the track.

I've stood and watched people do burnout contests with both Corvettes and Camaros.......and it's one thing to do a burnout...it's another thing altogether to simply abuse the car. I watched in horror as one "unfortunate" sat and slammed the accelerator on and off.......and you could hear the driveline protest......that's just foolish.

I see what you are saying. Could a 12 bolt ( or somthing of the like) not be had at or around the same weight as the current rear in the C6?

How does the rear end of the C6 and C6 Z06 differ?

At any rate, hats off to you and yours for the C6. Truly a great American car.

[McRat]

No, the stock Getrag on the 05 Z06's will NOT handle 440rwhp for too long without failure, even on street tires, when driven in earnest. A number of cars (including ours) have went through a few rears. We are currently running a SDPC/Mallett 3.73 unit (Getrag engineered), with a special Rockland Standard "race" trans, with a trans brace, and are having good luck currently.

We put numerous AutoX's and drag events at the stock HP level without issue, but when we added another 60rwhp, is when we started breaking. About 500 1/4mi passes with no issues at up to 11.72.

I'm sure if the new Z06 actually does have TQM, someone will get around it if it interferes with going quicker. People claimed the C5 Z06 had TQM at first, but it proved to be a non-issue if in fact it did exist.

[McRat]

Originally posted by Fbodfather
...Further, the Z06 is a road car......meaning it was created in the image of the C6R. You do not see the C6R blasting down a drag strip. The car is nearly perfect in balance 51/49 and is a true joy to behold on the track...

Scott,

While the Corvette is designed with mainly roadrace performance in mind, I'm sure you understand why they are attractive to drag racers. Very light, good track manners, easy to drive. When we bought the Z06 in 02, we got the usual "Corvettes are NOT drag cars!" comments from those who think drag racing is a ghetto sport.

While it might be blasphemy to the Corvette Purists, certainly a point to be considered is safety. I have no problem running 120+ mph in a quarter mile at a dragstrip, nor do I have undue concern for my wife's safety doing likewise. Nor is there a huge risk AutoX'g (Solo2) as the top speeds are ~70mph in the fastest cars. A miscalculation or an equipment failure rarely results in death, just a busted up car. Not so with roadracing. While I'm no expert at roadracing, I have had roadrace training at the Bondurant school. Even at tight track with other cars on the course, it's fairly easy to tag 100mph in a regular C5 on street tires. A bad line or another driver's mistake can easily roll a car at that speed, or allow another car to collide into you at high speed. A trip to the hospital is common, and deaths are sadly not rare. Even with T1 safety equipment, folk die.

So most people who are "hobbiest" racers, using a Z06 at it's limits (which can only be found roadracing) is not really a realistic way to enjoy the performance of the car. Perhaps I'm a coward in my old age, certainly risk never crossed my mind in my first 20 years of racing. But I'm not the only one who views roadracing as something best left to "purpose-built" cars with serious safety equipment.

So we will continue to use our Corvette for "unintended" purposes and enjoy drag racing it and AutoX'g it, even if some consider it to be a violation of the car's true calling.

:drive:

[Fbodfather]

Good afternoon, McRat,

I probably should have edited my comments.

You are correct in that many people also see the Corvette as a Drag Car. No question......and it's unfortunate that anyone would see Drag Racing as a ghetto sport. (hadn't heard that before...perhaps it's 'selective' listening!:D )

My point was that while in development, the Z06 was very carefully engineered to save as many g's of weight as possible. Even the window glass is thinner in a Z06.

I can't explain the post about the rear end giving out in the Corvette at the drag strip.

It could be a faulty part. It could be abuse. (I don't want that to sound unfair......the owner may have never abused the car....)

That said, I get sick when I see how some people abuse their car at the strip. Burn-outs are one thing.....but to sit and do one that lasts for a minute or more is, in my book, abuse.

I know this: we design to failure and then re-engineer.

You're also correct in the fact that road racing is dangerous. It should not be done without first attending a driving school. (that's my opinion.....)

Good luck with your Z06! We're pleased you bought one and hope you're as proud to own it as we were to design and build it for you!

[McRat]

Originally posted by Fbodfather
Good afternoon, McRat,

I probably should have edited my comments.

You are correct in that many people also see the Corvette as a Drag Car. No question......and it's unfortunate that anyone would see Drag Racing as a ghetto sport. (hadn't heard that before...perhaps it's 'selective' listening!:D )

My point was that while in development, the Z06 was very carefully engineered to save as many g's of weight as possible. Even the window glass is thinner in a Z06.

I can't explain the post about the rear end giving out in the Corvette at the drag strip.

It could be a faulty part. It could be abuse. (I don't want that to sound unfair......the owner may have never abused the car....)

That said, I get sick when I see how some people abuse their car at the strip. Burn-outs are one thing.....but to sit and do one that lasts for a minute or more is, in my book, abuse.

I know this: we design to failure and then re-engineer.

You're also correct in the fact that road racing is dangerous. It should not be done without first attending a driving school. (that's my opinion.....)

Good luck with your Z06! We're pleased you bought one and hope you're as proud to own it as we were to design and build it for you!

We love our 02 Z06, and both Kat and I enjoy laying smack down at the track with it. Kat is one of the few women in the country to run 12's in a stock M6 Camaro and 11's in a stock Z06.

The rear in the C5 Vette is plenty tough for drag racing in stock trim at the stock power levels. Like any car though, it has it's limits and you can do certain things to prolong it's life. It's no accident we put over 500 passes on the stock rear and it was still running great when removed. We opted for an aftermarket rear next (4.10) and the gears failed due to poor prep (roots not radiused) and increased HP. And due to poor luck, we went through 2 more rears (soft gears) before getting back on track with the Mallett.

How to make a Vette rear (or any rear) last:

Don't drop the clutch, slip it.
Avoid wheelhop at all costs.
ET Streets are your FRIEND, not your enemy. They cushion the driveline against impact and suppress hop.
Donuts are bad, as is a 1 tire burnout. You'll build heat and wear the clutches. Get both tires wet.
Burnouts are not always necessary. Try running without. Kat has cut 1.5x 60's with no burnout.

Using these techniques will prolong rear end life. Heck we had over 500 passes on the 10-bolt in the 2000 Camaro without issue.

[426HEMI]

So, anyone. What's the difference, if any, in the C6 and C6 Z06 rear ends?