And on a prepped track. If MT can get a 12.8 out of it, MM+FF Even Smith will get at least a 12.5 out of it.

 

Here it is against it's competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHqbqGCCMc

 

ahh!

now i remember the name of yer moms cooter.

 

No it doesn't... Where do you get this info? lol

Subframe connectors are a must, so yes wet noodle chassis.

The IRS was designed well, the only flaw in them imo is the bushings were too soft to make it feel like a Lexus and not a full on track car.

 

^ No.... the IRS was designed to fit in the existing mounting locations of the sold axle.... it's a horrible IRS from a suspension geometry and unsprung weight POV. Ford did it becaue they were trying to "upclass" the car for '99 and compete with the M3. Unfortunately the "new" 4.6 with it's tumble port heads and IMRC delete made less power than the '99 GT motor and Ford had a recall on their hands.... and no '00 Cobra other than the 300 R's w/ the 5.4 DOHC motor. The 2001 Cobra was "ok" as far as power output, but they decided to take a year off for '02 to develop the 2003 "terminator". Car was supposed to be rated at 440 horse, but at the last second Ford dropped it to "385".... not surprisingly they typically dyno 380-390 rwhp wich is right around 440

My 12.1 was on street tires.... Kumho ecsta MXs in stock sizes.

 

You're delusional. Nothing sucks more than a corvette's interior, for the simple fact your paying (brand new) 50k- 120k for it, and it has the same interior materials as a malibu!! While the ZR1 is a bad ass machine, I think MT summed it up nicely when they said,"You paid $120k for THAT interior?!"

 

On the plus side, you get a real suspension (and a lot of other actual sports car features) with the Corvette. I'm not entirely sure why we're comparing the two, they aren't the same kind of car, don't have the same priorities, and aren't on the same level.

A really promising sounding engine in the Mustang still can't make me want to buy one.

 

^^^ Because the corvettes interior is "worse" than the Mustangs... i guess.

Ill take the C5 or C6 Vettes interior over a new accord, TL, Rustang(not even close), Volvo, or anything else that has "better" interiors.

I like the layout, materials, and they just feel better. What I dont like about the corvette? HVAC and radio controls. I hate hard plastic looking stuff even if the fit and finish is great it just feels cheap. Could be thats why I like my cars interior better than anything I have ever driven.

 

Have you ever owned or driven a C5 or C6 Corvette? I've found that most people such as yourself have no actual experience with the cars and are simply parroting what a few car rags have said. The fact is that the cars are so good at everything else, the interior material selection is the only thing they can pick on.... oh and they love to harp on the "leafsprings" as archaic technology akin to the leafs on a pickup truck.

If the C5 didn't have a parts bin radio and climate control unit people wouldn't say anything.... the ergonomics and layout of the interior is fantastic. The steering wheel and shifter orientation to the driver is ideal for performance driving. You sit "in" the car vs. up "on" the car like you do with a Mustang. You're road view is far superior and similar to a Porsche.

I'd rather the R&D money be put into the chassis and drivetrain... GM had to cut expenses somewhere... if they gave the car a Porsche/Ferrari level interior it woudln't cost $50k. If your run of the mill Audi/BMWs had Corvette performance along with the "better" interiors they woudln't cost $50k either.

I've sold Porsches/Audis etc. and the interiors aren't that amazing... it's not until you get into luxury cars and exotics that they really start to impress.... as they should.

 

As long as an interior looks better quality than an EVO or Neon interior, I don't really care what it looks like. I watch the road when I'm in the car.