ICYMI: Chevy unveils 1000+ horsepower, twin-turbo Corvette ZR1

In reply to kb58 :

I think the fuel required for 1000hp at 200mph might be closer to 2mpg. In all fairness, Silver State isn't really applicable anyways, since the 160+ classes all basically require full race (fuel cell, fire system, cage, etc) prep. I see these things all as more aimed (beyond collectors and C&C'ers) at the standing mile crowd. I'm curious how much less fuel capacity it actually has than all the other mega power mega speed cars? I don't see the Mustang GTD fuel capacity published, but all the other Mustangs get a 16 gallon tank.

But I suppose it wouldn't be GRM if we didn't pick at nits.

In reply to Driven5 :

I think it's fairly safe to nitpick here, since there probably aren't many (any?) people on here all ready to put down money. :)

"Brah, it'll be stOOpid fast once I put a tune on it, yo."

Earn extra points if said while simultaneously exhaling your favorite apple pie vape flavor. 

Oooh, these are gonna be great when they eventually hit the trailer parks!

Am I the only one that thinks C8s would look nicer if the trim on the side inlets matched the car color instead of being black?   Maybe that is why I favor black C8s...

Driven5 said:

In reply to kb58 :

I think the fuel required for 1000hp at 200mph might be closer to 2mpg. In all fairness, Silver State isn't really applicable anyways, since the 160+ classes all basically require full race (fuel cell, fire system, cage, etc) prep. I see these things all as more aimed (beyond collectors and C&C'ers) at the standing mile crowd. I'm curious how much less fuel capacity it actually has than all the other mega power mega speed cars? I don't see the Mustang GTD fuel capacity published, but all the other Mustangs get a 16 gallon tank.

But I suppose it wouldn't be GRM if we didn't pick at nits.

Math is fun, I like math!

Let's say 800hp average because you're not going to be parking the car at peak HP for 90 miles.  Even that may be a tad high, but approximations are approximate.

I will assume .50 BSFC, it's a fairly modern engine and probably can pull that despite being heavily forcefed.  Good enough for a rough cut.

That's 400 pounds of fuel per hour.

If you average 180mph (haulin'!) then that's 30 minutes of run time, or 200 pounds of fuel.

Gasoline is roughly, what, 6 pounds per gallon?  So that's... err... 33 and a third gallons.

May need to bring a jerrycan unless I was way off with my average horsepower. 

A car shaped like that should only need 500-600hp to actually go 200hp, but we also have to accelerate a lot too because the course isn't a straight line race.

This becomes a really neat thought exercise, where it becomes 24 Hours of LeMans style trying to run as fast as possible while balancing fuel efficiency.

Can they hire some Italians to make these look sexy? I know the performance is nuts, but visually the current gen vettes are jus awkward. 

In reply to Purple Frog :

Body color side inlets have been an option on C8s.  I don't know if that's so for the car under discussion.

GRM board gonna GRM board...

Yeah I'm not sure about the styling either, but they look absolutely bad-ass in black, perhaps because the trim blends in instead of standing out.

Depending on how rich it needs to run to survive, a 1000hp gas engine at WOT should burn somewhere in the ballpark of 85 - 100 gallons per hour.  So this is basically Veyron territory of being theoretically capable of sucking the tank dry in under 15 minutes.  Realistically you could never hold it at WOT that long anyway. 

The onslaught continues, with seemingly every YT car channel simultaneously fawning over a car that they've never driven. Ah, marketing.

Almost 3700lbs in coupe form!

In reply to dmcampbell :

Yeah the days of sports car weighing under perhaps 2,600 lbs are long gone. The band-aide solution is putting huge sticky tires on these behemoths, with the owner being saddled with that forever expense.

There are so many examples of more power than really needed to do the job.  

dmcampbell said:

Almost 3700lbs in coupe form!

That's also almost 2000lb lighter than a new M5 

Notice the bolt patterns?

BMW fronts, Porsche rears. 

In reply to David S. Wallens :

Dirty secret, 5x120 so close to 5 on 4 3/4 that they are effectively interchangeable.

GMs used to come with Enkei wheels that I swear were made Metric... if you evenly tightened all of the lug nuts finger tight, the lug nuts only contacted the outside of the tapers.  They sold a zillion Park Avenues and the like so clearly it worked.

Phew! 800+ lbs-ft from 3k to 7k rpm. That torque curve would make a 5.5L diesel proud

In reply to STM317 :

There is a lot of manipulation of that output being done by...boost? valve timing? That's amazing. We do a bit of the same on the ND turbos to spin them up faster, fatten the torque curve but not outrun injectors, but there's still a curve to our torque.

8000 rpm, this thing is going to make a NOISE.

In IMSA and other road racing series the Z06 GT3.R makes between 500-600 hp and is driven by accomplished pro drivers like Tommy Milner and Antonio Garcia.

I don't know where I'm going with that thought, but what Chevrolet is doing for Joe Deepockets amazes me.  I didn't see this coming.

kb58 said:

In reply to dmcampbell :

Yeah the days of sports car weighing under perhaps 2,600 lbs are long gone. The band-aide solution is putting huge sticky tires on these behemoths, with the owner being saddled with that forever expense.

Is "long gone" another way of saying "available at your Mazda dealer"? 

You know what I meant, but the Miata is one of the very few exceptions, depending upon one's definition of "light."

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

There is a lot of manipulation of that output being done by...boost? valve timing? That's amazing. We do a bit of the same on the ND turbos to spin them up faster, fatten the torque curve but not outrun injectors, but there's still a curve to our torque.

8000 rpm, this thing is going to make a NOISE.

Yeah-i think it would have to be by boost control?

 Maybe the design specs said 828 ft/lbs max torque and the engineers said fine, but it's gonna be that from 3k to 7k.

I assume as you get closer to the edge of traction the more beneficial a flat torque curve is.

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

Variable cam timing plays a huge part.  An enormous part.

I can relate that when the fuse that powers my VVT solenoids popped, I went from "peak torque starts at 2000rpm" (spec is like 2000-5000 peak) to "engine doesn't wake up until 4000rpm", with my relatively mild turbo/camshaft combination.  And that is WITH making full boost by about 2500.  Even with the pressure, the cam timing prevented the engine from doing much with it.