ZR1 is Clarksons Car of the Year

[Gregster]

Wow... Clarkson, ZR1 ahhh best car ever... I don't know what to say.. a dream come true.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5400290.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1


Feel free to read that headline as many times as necessary, but yes, it's true: Clarkson-san wrote "Out of nowhere, my car of the year," the Corvette ZR1 (http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/19/detroit-2008-the-king-is-back-atop-the-hill-2009-corvette-zr1/). The man who pooped on the spearhead of electric cars (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/25/clarkson-fires-back-over-top-gear-tesla-controversy/) has given an American high horsepower pushrod V8 the gold and glory. And this is after comparing the ZR1's predecessors to Big Macs: "Cheap, plastic and at the right time, and in the right place, sort of just what you want."

Not only that, but to put the ZR1 on its pedestal, Clarkson went so far as to remove the Caterham 500 he had previously placed there. On the show, he said that the Caterham was the best of the year, but in his article writes, "However, if you broaden the search engine and look simply for the best car of the year, the Caterham isn't in with a shout because it's ugly and geeky and I wouldn't have one even if the option was the loss of my right testicle."

And so the ZR1 reigns, even though "it's not built very well." In Clarkson's words, it is "both docile and extraordinarily savage," looks good, goes fast in a straight line and around corners, "most of the time bumbles about like a forgetful uncle," and costs "lots for a Corvette" but is a bargain for the performance. His only lament about the car was this: "unless the healthcare and pensions company that makes it can be turned around, it will be the last of the breed." The ZR1 - winning hearts and minds... Hat tip to Pdexter

http://corvettezr1.info/wp-content/gallery/zr1-pictures/chevrolet-corvette-zr1-9.jpg

Ok since I will be reminded this is a BMW site


We start with the BMW X6, which must receive my inaugural What Were They Thinking Of award. Have you seen one? No, and I doubt you ever will because in a world that’s plagued with recession and run by people who believe the world’s polar bears are up at the North Pole sipping pina coladas and slapping on the factor five, it is surely the most inappropriate piece of corporate thinking since Sir Clive Sinclair said: “Yes. The electric slipper. That’s what people want . . .”

However, I cannot say the BMW X6 is the worst car of the year, partly because I have not yet driven it and partly because it cannot possibly be worse than the Chrysler Sebring Convertible. Unless it smells of slurry and the radio is jammed on Rap FM.

[Andrei]

LOL about the Sebring Convertible.

I have seen angry letters somewhere by owners of that car defending it (in some sort of car magazine, I think).

That's like trying to say that George Bush was a decent president of the USA. And there are people like that, too. They must drive Chrysler Sebring Convertibles.

[Gregster]

LOL about the Sebring Convertible.

I have seen angry letters somewhere by owners of that car defending it (in some sort of car magazine, I think).

That's like trying to say that George Bush was a decent president of the USA. And there are people like that, too. They must drive Chrysler Sebring Convertibles.

Yes with a vote McCain bumper sticker on the back...Hmm I think I know someone like that. Don't tell her that Bush and McCain suck though, facts aren't valid proof.

[bmwqc]

Every car has its critics and fans. Look at the Beetle and the 2CV. Rudimentary and unrefined to say the very least, and how much uglier can cars get? Yet both these models have very strong cult-like followings.




LOL about the Sebring Convertible.

I have seen angry letters somewhere by owners of that car defending it (in some sort of car magazine, I think).

That's like trying to say that George Bush was a decent president of the USA. And there are people like that, too. They must drive Chrysler Sebring Convertibles.

[Gregster]

Rumor has it that GM will have a ZR1 on display at the pathetic excuse of a car show we have in Montreal. Although I find myself going to it every year :p The good shows were the ones held on the Olympic Stadium back in yesteryear.

I am still working out a plan to "borrow" the ZR1, so far I can't figure out a way to get it off the 2nd floor.

[Andrei]

Every car has its critics and fans. Look at the Beetle and the 2CV. Rudimentary and unrefined to say the very least, and how much uglier can cars get? Yet both these models have very strong cult-like followings.

You didn't just mention the 2CV and the Beetle and Chrysler Sebring as car deserving of the same respect, did you?

The first two are achievements of automobile history while the last one is going into the picture dictionary as the illustration for mediocrity.

[bmwqc]

You didn't just mention the 2CV and the Beetle and Chrysler Sebring as car deserving of the same respect, did you?

The first two are achievements of automobile history while the last one is going into the picture dictionary as the illustration for mediocrity.

Just as you mention George Bush, only history will show whether the man (or in this case the car) will have its place.

[johnmdanskin]

Yes with a vote McCain bumper sticker on the back...Hmm I think I know someone like that. Don't tell her that Bush and McCain suck though, facts aren't valid proof.

I thought we only had proof on Larry Craig in this department, and although it is ungentlemanly of me to say so, one must suspect Sarah Palin as well. Or maybe not.

Back to cars maybe. I visited factory five again today. The type 65 coupe would look really good in my living room. Last time I sat in one, I thought I couldn't see anything. This time I think the visibility is better than in my mini (which has racing seats on the floor). If you aren't looking at the hood, your eyes are up. The V8 is way back from the front axle. You could almost say mid engined. With a boss 302 or 351 Windsor engine, power is more or less arbitrary, and with 335s all around, you could get decent stick.

What does this have to do with bmws? If you put a roundel on the hood, drank six pints of bock, and dropped 4tabs of acid, you could confuse it with an mz4 coupe in the dark. Sort of like confusing a hamster with a chainsaw.

[blacksheep]

Back to cars maybe. I visited factory five again today. The type 65 coupe would look really good in my living room.make sure you order A/C

[bmwqc]

Interesting! It does bear a strong resemblance to the Z4 M Coupe. But what are you getting for the $14990?




I thought we only had proof on Larry Craig in this department, and although it is ungentlemanly of me to say so, one must suspect Sarah Palin as well. Or maybe not.

Back to cars maybe. I visited factory five again today. The type 65 coupe would look really good in my living room. Last time I sat in one, I thought I couldn't see anything. This time I think the visibility is better than in my mini (which has racing seats on the floor). If you aren't looking at the hood, your eyes are up. The V8 is way back from the front axle. You could almost say mid engined. With a boss 302 or 351 Windsor engine, power is more or less arbitrary, and with 335s all around, you could get decent stick.

What does this have to do with bmws? If you put a roundel on the hood, drank six pints of bock, and dropped 4tabs of acid, you could confuse it with an mz4 coupe in the dark. Sort of like confusing a hamster with a chainsaw.

[Gregster]

I thought we only had proof on Larry Craig in this department, and although it is ungentlemanly of me to say so, one must suspect Sarah Palin as well. Or maybe not.



lawl!

[Gregster]

Interesting! It does bear a strong resemblance to the Z4 M Coupe. But what are you getting for the $14990?

You still need an 87-93 5.0 Mustang for the running gear...

I wouldn't bother with that though. First major problems is the stock T5 trans in the Mustang is garbage. It can't even handle stock power output or even any sort of abuse. So you'll need to get a Tremec T5 TKO or a world class trans.

Then you need the terrible brakes... Sure you can get Cobra front brakes but whats the point they aren't that much better. You can get a rear axle from a 2000+ GT, slightly better and a tad stronger.

I don't like the idea of building a cool car then using a bunch of used bits that have already been through abuse... Build it right the 1st time. Mustang parts are dirt cheap....

Since you are using so much of the Mustang running gear.. you might as well just get a Mustang LX 5.0L. For 15k-20k You'll have a very very very very serious machine. Sure it might not look cool but it's pretty much the same thing. Then you can wear Ford hats and shirts...

drool... Notchbacks are so nice...
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1084/532853077b3390bfa8ahh2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/532853077b3390bfa8ahh2.jpg/1/w500.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/532853077b3390bfa8ahh2.jpg/1/)

All this Ford talk in a GM thread......:p

[bmwqc]

I once owned an 87 GT. I had problems with the T5. The gearbox had to be completely rebuilt. The car was only 2 months old at the time.

The 87-93 Mustangs were cheap alright, but Ford cut a LOT of corners with this car. Considering the power (for that period) that car should have been better equiped from the factory than rear drum brakes, 4-bolt wheels, lousy gearbox, poor structural integrity.


You still need an 87-93 5.0 Mustang for the running gear...

I wouldn't bother with that though. First major problems is the stock T5 trans in the Mustang is garbage. It can't even handle stock power output or even any sort of abuse. So you'll need to get a Tremec T5 TKO or a world class trans.

Then you need the terrible brakes... Sure you can get Cobra front brakes but whats the point they aren't that much better. You can get a rear axle from a 2000+ GT, slightly better and a tad stronger.

I don't like the idea of building a cool car then using a bunch of used bits that have already been through abuse... Build it right the 1st time. Mustang parts are dirt cheap....

Since you are using so much of the Mustang running gear.. you might as well just get a Mustang LX 5.0L. For 15k-20k You'll have a very very very very serious machine. Sure it might not look cool but it's pretty much the same thing. Then you can wear Ford hats and shirts...

drool... Notchbacks are so nice...
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1084/532853077b3390bfa8ahh2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/532853077b3390bfa8ahh2.jpg/1/w500.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/532853077b3390bfa8ahh2.jpg/1/)

All this Ford talk in a GM thread......:p

[Gregster]

I once owned an 87 GT. I had problems with the T5. The gearbox had to be completely rebuilt. The car was only 2 months old at the time.

The 87-93 Mustangs were cheap alright, but Ford cut a LOT of corners with this car. Considering the power (for that period) that car should have been better equiped from the factory than rear drum brakes, 4-bolt wheels, lousy gearbox, poor structural integrity.

The gearboxes were rated for 300ftlbs tq... which is about what the stock engine made... Did 2nd or 3rd gear give you trouble?

Yeah Ford cut a lot of corners but thats why it was so cheap.. However they should have added in the sub frame connectors from the factory... like they did on the convertibles. That was a huge weakness in the car. With slicks and stock power you could twist chassis.

Even today they cut corners because they know people will upgrade the car.

[bmwqc]

It was my 3rd gear. The problem started when I pulled into a parking lot. Just prior to shutting off the engine, I shifted to 1st gear. The shifter didn't feel right at that moment (it felt like it caught something). Sure enough, I was unable to pulll it out to neutral. When I tried to slowly release the clutch, there was no movement of the car, but the engine stalled. I came to the conclusion the shifter somehow engaged both 1st and 3rd gears at the same time. I didn't think that this was possible with a single rail gearbox (especially a new one with no free play). After many minutes of wrestling with the shifter, I finally freed it up, but there was a loud whine on 3rd gear. It took the dealer almost 1 month to get the work done (due to lack of parts).

The body integrity of the Mustang (at least of the 80s) was terrible. The tops of the A pillars would start cracking after a few years. There was a lot of twisting of that chassis. My 1st GT (1982) started showing the crack after about 5 years, along with a cracked floor pan under the driver's seat. I didn't keep my (2nd) 87 GT long enough for that problem to show up, but I have come across many other older Mustang with that same problem.


The gearboxes were rated for 300ftlbs tq... which is about what the stock engine made... Did 2nd or 3rd gear give you trouble?

Yeah Ford cut a lot of corners but thats why it was so cheap.. However they should have added in the sub frame connectors from the factory... like they did on the convertibles. That was a huge weakness in the car. With slicks and stock power you could twist chassis.

Even today they cut corners because they know people will upgrade the car.

[Gregster]

It was my 3rd gear. The problem started when I pulled into a parking lot. Just prior to shutting off the engine, I shifted to 1st gear. The shifter didn't feel right at that moment (it felt like it caught something). Sure enough, I was unable to pulll it out to neutral. When I tried to slowly release the clutch, there was no movement of the car, but the engine stalled. I came to the conclusion the shifter somehow engaged both 1st and 3rd gears at the same time. I didn't think that this was possible with a single rail gearbox (especially a new one with no free play). After many minutes of wrestling with the shifter, I finally freed it up, but there was a loud whine on 3rd gear. It took the dealer almost 1 month to get the work done (due to lack of parts).

The body integrity of the Mustang (at least of the 80s) was terrible. The tops of the A pillars would start cracking after a few years. There was a lot of twisting of that chassis. My 1st GT (1982) started showing the crack after about 5 years, along with a cracked floor pan under the driver's seat. I didn't keep my (2nd) 87 GT long enough for that problem to show up, but I have come across many other older Mustang with that same problem.



You can always tell Mustangs that have been drag raced or abused. They lean to one side.

[johnmdanskin]

Interesting! It does bear a strong resemblance to the Z4 M Coupe. But what are you getting for the $14990?

There is a long list, but for $21990 you get the complete car minus engine, wheels and transmission.

There are upgraded T5s and also TKOs. The forums are more or less split. The T5 seems to have easier shifting, but you need a bent lever resulting in a more or less vertical shifting pattern, because the lever on the tranny is too far back relative to seating position. The TKOs have two different lever positions and one is good. But, the TKO is felt to be notchy. Hard to say.

Here is a menu of upgraded T5s, for high horsepower, racing, drag racing, and so on. http://levyracing.com/performanceparts/index.html
The dog-ring clutchless upshifting t5 would be pretty cool.
Of course the $$$ start adding up.

I've just been looking at a 60s sportscar racing picture book, and the ford daytona is a little hard to tell from a ferrari gto. It's a total ripoff outline-wise.

Upgraded brakes and suspension are available for the FFive. IRS. Brakes can be whatever Ford Racing sells and fits inside whatever rims you choose. Also, the car doesn't weigh any more than my mini, so while brakes are important, it's not like it was some kind of heavy pig like an e90.

It'll be a while before my loft is remodeled (2 years and waiting), but there is movement in the permit department and I can hope.

-john

[Emre]

Since you are using so much of the Mustang running gear.. you might as well just get a Mustang LX 5.0L.For one thing, the FFR Coupe is much, much lighter. Not much more weight than an Elise IIRC. Could be wrong about the exact weight, but I seem to remember reading that they were in the neighborhood of 2000 lbs.

Also, it's a tube-frame chassis. I would expect it to be much stiffer than a 20 year-old Fox-body Mustang.

[blacksheep]

do it donorless : http://www.breezeautomotive.com/home.php?cat_id=37

[sebdavid]

http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0910_2009_best_drivers_car/2009_chevrolet_corvette_zr1.html

For some reason, what they list as "negatives" make me want to drive that care more.

[johnmdanskin]

I was wondering why the ZR1 was so much more dramatic over the nurburgring than the VIPER ACR turning roughly the same time. Comparatively, the viper looked like a dream to drive. I put it down to driver style, but watching randy pobst, I'm thinking that it might be the car. If this thing is that much harder to drive than the viper, I don't think I'd want to go balls out unless there was a lot of runoff. It's not like the viper is famous for being easy to drive.

Factory 5 says the F5 coupe weighs 2572 pounds. A lot more than an Elise. I found a place to build one but I'm still on the fence. It looks like $30,000 to build a low end racer. Really a good deal but still $30,000. That's a lot of racing. Sebring. Hey, nurburgring!

[Andrei]

LOL. Last place is the Camaro SS. Why are they testing it as a "driver's" car?

It's a car where the only music on the stereo should be KISS. It has nothing to do with driving.

[LagunaM3]

LOL. Last place is the Camaro SS. Why are they testing it as a "driver's" car?

It's a car where the only music on the stereo should be KISS. It has nothing to do with driving.

Why you hating on KISS?! They don't deserve that association.

[Andrei]

Why you hating on KISS?! They don't deserve that association.

I am not hating on KISS. KISS and Camaros are a perfect match. The situation where 1+1 is more than 2. Like finding the perfect wine for the food.

[Gregster]

hate all you want on GM... They still have a pretty damn good line up of sports cars. 11.4s on the 1/4 with a bone stock car... there are full out drag cars that aren't even that fast.

This does looks like loads of fun!
http://image.motortrend.com/f/29294100+w750/2010-chevrolet-camaro-SS-front-three-quarters-view.jpg
http://image.motortrend.com/f/24492832+w750/2009-chevrolet-corvette-ZR1-side-view.jpg

The R8 looks fantastic and I've seen one in action. Apperantly you can do very interesting stuff with it and get away with it. Where is the excitement in that?

However like always.. Porsche wins :D


Personally I am waiting for the 2011 Ford Mustang,the return of the 5.0L V8 with 400hp. Keep in mind the base motor for the 2011 Mustang will be a 3.7L V6 with 315hp. Finally the Americans are making worthy V6s.

There will also be a "track pack" Mustang GT 5.0. With different springs, adjustable Konis etc, Pirelli Corsas and Brembos. Apperantly it's much quicker around some track then an M3... Weight around 3400lbs.

[blacksheep]

Apperantly it's much quicker around some track then an M3... Weight around 3400lbs.actually, it matched an E90 M3's lap time around some track

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/12/report-2011-ford-mustang-to-get-upgraded-track-pack-to-handle-5/

If the "track pack" Mustang is on (R-compound) Corsas vs the M3 on PS2's, it's not really a fair match-up though

[sebdavid]

http://www.fordvehicles.com/the2010mustang/

Good marketing, too.

[Gregster]

actually, it matched an E90 M3's lap time around some track

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/12/report-2011-ford-mustang-to-get-upgraded-track-pack-to-handle-5/

If the "track pack" Mustang is on (R-compound) Corsas vs the M3 on PS2's, it's not really a fair match-up though

It's a fair match up considering the suspension on the M3 is much more sophisticated and the Mustang costs 25k less.

[Phil]

[quote=Gregster;34839]hate all you want on GM... They still have a pretty damn good line up of sports cars. 11.4s on the 1/4 with a bone stock car... there are full out drag cars that aren't even that fast.

Check out the latest issue of Consumer Reports. Even they liked the Mustang over the Camaro.

GM needed a home run but hit a single. Ain't that why you went MOPAR anyway?

[Gregster]

Check out the latest issue of Consumer Reports. Even they liked the Mustang over the Camaro.

GM needed a home run but hit a single. Ain't that why you went MOPAR anyway?


No thanks on Consumer Reports. I am shocked they didn't suggest a Camry over a Mustang. I remember when they listed a GT3 as poor because of high operating costs. While the Camaro might be poor for guys like us, for the crowd that is my fathers age it's a home run. GM is working 3 shifts to fill orders. Although my dad prefers AMG, I still haven't told him what AMG stands for though. :D

Nothing from Mopar interests me. They stopped making the car I like in 2005 and replaced it with a Mini SUV. The Challenger looks fantastic but it's too expensive and too heavy.

Anyways guys, I'm off to Calabogie