2023 Corvette Z06
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,216
Likes: 250
From: New York
CL Community Team
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,373
Likes: 614
From: IL
Unfortunately, the wait list is even longer than that. If you didn't have your deposit in last year, it is already too late to get one before production ends in 2028 or whatever.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 17,130
Likes: 523
From: Knoxville, TN
My die hard Porsche fanboy friend even gave this 'Vette credit and I didn't expect him to lol,
CL Community Team
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,373
Likes: 614
From: IL
BFD. 
A misleading article. Torque is the REAL figure, not HP. What this article doesn't say is that the Blackwing V8 offers 659 ft.lbs of torque vs. 460 for the Z06. Yes, like it or not, supercharging DOES make a difference. 
Of course, to be fair, the Z06 is smaller and lighter than the Caddy, and doesn't need as much power to turn in the same performance.
A misleading article. Torque is the REAL figure, not HP. What this article doesn't say is that the Blackwing V8 offers 659 ft.lbs of torque vs. 460 for the Z06. Yes, like it or not, supercharging DOES make a difference. Of course, to be fair, the Z06 is smaller and lighter than the Caddy, and doesn't need as much power to turn in the same performance.
C7 Z06 (650 lbft): 2.95
C8 Z06 (460 lbft): 2.20
That's a massive difference, in favor of the car with 190 lbft less torque. But it's a different architecture, you say, and putting the engine at the back increases traction! Ok, let's compare just C8s to eliminate that:
Stock C8 Z51 (470 lbft): 2.90
Procharged C8 Z51 (575 lbft): 2.60
C8 Z06 (460 lbft): 2.20
Again, this is not even where the Z06 truly shines. It's most at home on a road coarse, with that engine screaming at 8,000 rpms. But it still completely embarrasses comparable cars at the dragstrip that have dramatically more torque.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 18,319
Likes: 1,788
From: Ohio
It does make a difference, but doesn't come close to telling the whole story. The Z06 is made for road courses, not drag racing, but let's compare 0-60 times vs the prior generation, which has the same exact supercharged LT4 engine as the Blackwing:
C7 Z06 (650 lbft): 2.95
C8 Z06 (460 lbft): 2.20
That's a massive difference, in favor of the car with 190 lbft less torque. But it's a different architecture, you say, and putting the engine at the back increases traction! Ok, let's compare just C8s to eliminate that:
Stock C8 Z51 (470 lbft): 2.90
Procharged C8 Z51 (575 lbft): 2.60
C8 Z06 (460 lbft): 2.20
Again, this is not even where the Z06 truly shines. It's most at home on a road coarse, with that engine screaming at 8,000 rpms. But it still completely embarrasses comparable cars at the dragstrip that have dramatically more torque.
C7 Z06 (650 lbft): 2.95
C8 Z06 (460 lbft): 2.20
That's a massive difference, in favor of the car with 190 lbft less torque. But it's a different architecture, you say, and putting the engine at the back increases traction! Ok, let's compare just C8s to eliminate that:
Stock C8 Z51 (470 lbft): 2.90
Procharged C8 Z51 (575 lbft): 2.60
C8 Z06 (460 lbft): 2.20
Again, this is not even where the Z06 truly shines. It's most at home on a road coarse, with that engine screaming at 8,000 rpms. But it still completely embarrasses comparable cars at the dragstrip that have dramatically more torque.
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,216
Likes: 250
From: New York
I disagree - this is a large displacement V8 and it looks like there is sufficient torque down low not just at the higher revs like in most flat plane crank V8s.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 17,130
Likes: 523
From: Knoxville, TN
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,477
Likes: 252
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
460 ft.lbs. of torque? 
That is exactly what the top-line big-block 427 Corvette engine of the late 60s, with the triple-deuce carb-setup, was putting out. Of course, I will concede that today's Corvette is smaller/ lighter, more efficient, more responsive, and, in a drag race, will probably blow the doors off the 1969, which itself did 0-60 in a little over 5 seconds....not to mention handling circles around it.
That is exactly what the top-line big-block 427 Corvette engine of the late 60s, with the triple-deuce carb-setup, was putting out. Of course, I will concede that today's Corvette is smaller/ lighter, more efficient, more responsive, and, in a drag race, will probably blow the doors off the 1969, which itself did 0-60 in a little over 5 seconds....not to mention handling circles around it.
Last edited by mmarshall; Oct 12, 2022 at 07:26 PM.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 31,944
Likes: 2,737
From: North Carolina
No, it’s not the same HP measurement from then vs now. SAE gross was dropped and net used in 1972
Edit. Also the new one is 100-200 lbs heavier than the old one…
https://www.hagerty.com/media/archived/horsepower/
article goes on and has some great examples.
Edit. Also the new one is 100-200 lbs heavier than the old one…
https://www.hagerty.com/media/archived/horsepower/
Forty years after the end of the “classic” muscle car era, there is still some confusion over horsepower ratings, especially how they relate to today’s cars. Let’s try to clear it up.
Prior to 1972, American carmakers used the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) “gross” measurement of horsepower. Gross meant the figure was taken from an engine running on a test stand, with no air cleaner assembly, accessories or exhaust system connected.
By 1971, carmakers began reducing compression in many engines in order to meet upcoming emissions requirements and to use unleaded fuel. General Motors and Chrysler began advertising both gross and SAE net figures in 1971, derived from an engine tested with air cleaner assembly, accessories or exhaust system connected.
The net ratings, which were applied across the board for 1972, must have been a shock to some customers. Suddenly, muscle cars appeared to lose 100 hp or more.
For example, the Corvette’s optional LT-1 350 cu. in. small block V-8 had 370 gross hp in 1970 (with 11:1 compression), then a 330 hp gross rating (with 9:1 compression) for 1971-1972 with a 255 hp net rating. The mighty Chrysler 426 cu. in. Hemi kept its high compression and 425 hp gross rating for 1971 and showed 350 net hp.
Jim Campisano, editorial director of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords and Super Chevymagazines, has revisited the classic muscle car horsepower topic numerous times over the years. The magazines have compared old and new muscle cars and have also put classic models on a chassis dynamometer to record rear-wheel horsepower.
“Rear wheel horsepower was at least 30 percent lower than the reported gross figure, in some cases even more,” Campisano said.
…..
Prior to 1972, American carmakers used the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) “gross” measurement of horsepower. Gross meant the figure was taken from an engine running on a test stand, with no air cleaner assembly, accessories or exhaust system connected.
By 1971, carmakers began reducing compression in many engines in order to meet upcoming emissions requirements and to use unleaded fuel. General Motors and Chrysler began advertising both gross and SAE net figures in 1971, derived from an engine tested with air cleaner assembly, accessories or exhaust system connected.
The net ratings, which were applied across the board for 1972, must have been a shock to some customers. Suddenly, muscle cars appeared to lose 100 hp or more.
For example, the Corvette’s optional LT-1 350 cu. in. small block V-8 had 370 gross hp in 1970 (with 11:1 compression), then a 330 hp gross rating (with 9:1 compression) for 1971-1972 with a 255 hp net rating. The mighty Chrysler 426 cu. in. Hemi kept its high compression and 425 hp gross rating for 1971 and showed 350 net hp.
Jim Campisano, editorial director of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords and Super Chevymagazines, has revisited the classic muscle car horsepower topic numerous times over the years. The magazines have compared old and new muscle cars and have also put classic models on a chassis dynamometer to record rear-wheel horsepower.
“Rear wheel horsepower was at least 30 percent lower than the reported gross figure, in some cases even more,” Campisano said.
…..
Last edited by DaveGS4; Oct 12, 2022 at 07:27 PM.
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,477
Likes: 252
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
You are correct about a difference in HP ratings (net vs. Gross)...but I was referring to torque, not HP. I may be wrong but I don't think that torque-figures were necessarily affected by the 1971 shift from Gross to Net HP.
but I don't think that torque-figures were necessarily affected by the 1971 shift from Gross to Net HP.
CL Community Team
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,373
Likes: 614
From: IL
Correct. It builds revs incredibly quickly, and is already making 400 lbft at 2800 rpm (35% of redline). If that's insufficient for non-aggressive casual driving around town, how does something like a Corolla (which doesn't make its 126 lbft until 4000--62% of redline) even back out of a parking spot?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 31,944
Likes: 2,737
From: North Carolina
In 1971 both GM and MOPAR often published both gross and net figures for the same engines in preparation for the shift in the measurement standard, note the torque differences on the exact same motors when measured for SAE gross vs net. Couple of well known motor examples from a thread where a guy gathered the many of the specs from the manufacture themselves.
https://www.gminsidenews.com/threads...ngines.102853/
Mopar 440 CID V8
gross hp/torque 370/480
net hp/torque 305/400
Pontiac 400 CID V8
gross hp/torque 300/400
net hp/torque 250/340
sorry i contributed to the continued off topic, let’s get back to the 2023 model!