I bought a 06 z06, I’m hoping that the gt will come down in price but it does not seem like that will happen. I’m having problems convincing my wife to let me have both. Anyways, there should be some way to set up some races with the gt, viper and the z06 like the old Buick vs. mustang races. It would be really cool to watch especially in a couple months when everybody starts to modify them
z06 vs gt
- Thread starter bowdwn2001
- Start date
what mods will the zo6 accept that will get it to the crazy hp hennesy range. The z06 has a much better drag coefficient, and I think the vette is lighter than the viper and the GT
There’s a twin turbo kit from Absolute Power Supremacy for the LS2 vette that makes 690 Hp at the wheels and there talking about making one for the Z buy this summer. As for naturally aspirated it seems pretty easy to get 560 at the wheels with a cam, headers, air filter, and a tune. With Chevrolet coming back out with the camaro ,dodge coming back out with a hemi challenger and ford making the GT and the GT500 it seems like it will start to get fun on the streets again.
1.The Gt and the viper Cd are around .40. The z06 is .33 and the C6 is .29. . I calculated the Gt's Cd from the force numbers appearing in Motor Trend.
2. The numbers are important when the cars go faster than 60mph.
2. The numbers are important when the cars go faster than 60mph.
satx said:
Ford GT has better drag coeffecient than a Carrera GT I doubt the Z06 has better.
To the thread starter you can look for someone to race you but you won't find to many Ford GT owners to race their 150,000$ car on the street.
Someone smarter than I once said:
Cd is a good marketing person's method of trying to express drag coefficient in their advertisments. Cd is actually a relative number which defines how slippery a given surface is. We need to know what the absolute drag is (true frontal area x Cd). I had personally measured the true frontal area of my GT and will have to get my notes from work. I have to believe that the GT's Cd is much lower than 0.4! For a car to go 214 MPH with only 550 RWHP, along with it's frontal area makes me guess that it's much closer to 0.3, than 0.4!
I'm guessing the GT will slice through the air at high speed equal or better than the Z06 will. Just a guess.
Cd is a good marketing person's method of trying to express drag coefficient in their advertisments. Cd is actually a relative number which defines how slippery a given surface is. We need to know what the absolute drag is (true frontal area x Cd). I had personally measured the true frontal area of my GT and will have to get my notes from work. I have to believe that the GT's Cd is much lower than 0.4! For a car to go 214 MPH with only 550 RWHP, along with it's frontal area makes me guess that it's much closer to 0.3, than 0.4!
I'm guessing the GT will slice through the air at high speed equal or better than the Z06 will. Just a guess.
There is NO WAY that a GT has a CD of .4...
FordGTGuy most of the time I would agree, but I did get one her in Houston to, problem was it seemed he did not know how to drive. Fast car though, Imp sure he would have caught me if on the freeway but stoplight to stoplight it’s all about driver, cars are pretty close. I still would like to see some races at a track though.
Cd is a funny concept. Cars that sometimes look really fast, have a crummy Cd (VIPER .4, Countach.42, testarossa .36, ferrari f40 .34). Other cars that look goofey and don't look fast sometimes have an unbelievable (toyota camry .28, toyota prius .26, honda insight .25). Theoretically the best shape is a teardrop. There is a guy on the net who says that most cars would have a better Cd if they were run backwards than forewards.
Companies that spend a lot of time in the wind tunnel can help even regular shapes to be slippery (1997 lexus ls400 sedan .28). Older designs like the GT and the Viper look like what we think should be slippery,
The ideal shape is a raindrop. Cars like the GT cause to much turbulance with the shape of the nose. If you look at cars that run at Bonneyville, they will sometims have large vertical front bumpers to slide the air molucules around the sides of the car as much as possible. Nascar front ends are the same.
I know that some of this seems counterintuitive, but more current designs that have a softer, blunter nose and long angeled rear ends, like a tear drop tend to be slipperier.
Companies that spend a lot of time in the wind tunnel can help even regular shapes to be slippery (1997 lexus ls400 sedan .28). Older designs like the GT and the Viper look like what we think should be slippery,
The ideal shape is a raindrop. Cars like the GT cause to much turbulance with the shape of the nose. If you look at cars that run at Bonneyville, they will sometims have large vertical front bumpers to slide the air molucules around the sides of the car as much as possible. Nascar front ends are the same.
I know that some of this seems counterintuitive, but more current designs that have a softer, blunter nose and long angeled rear ends, like a tear drop tend to be slipperier.
although the viper has a higher Cd than the Z06 it it more aerodynamic than the vette given it's lower frontal area. In other words it's Cd x frontal number is lower than the Z06. Going back to what DBK said....the GT (without it's limiter) went 212 at nardo (RPM limited). The Z06 is DRAG limited to 198. While it is true that the GT has alot more power than the Z06, it also has a much higher topspeed (14 MPH more in topspeed is HUGH) and who knows what it's drag limited true topspeed would be. I guess the only way to know is to have someone raise the rev limit on a stock vehicle and do a topspeed run.
Here is another example
a C5 has a topspeed of ~175
a ZR1 has a topspeed of ~180
the ZR1 makes about 10% more power has a higher Cd but the same frontal area. If Cd was the end all the ZR1's 25 more rwhp would be wasted but since it's frontal area is the same it achieves a higher topspeed given it's HP advantage.
The GT usally dyno ~510-525 rwhp (SAE corrected) vs. the Z06 at ~440-450 rwhp. That is ~70 more HP to push a car from 198 to 212. So another question is can a bolt-on and tuned Z06 (should make ~500rwhp) hit it's rev limit in 5th gear (I believe that would be ~212 mph)?
One other thing that is impressive about the GT is that it is actually making downforce where the Z06 is producing lift. It is easy to make a car slick. The trick is to limit drag while making downforce.
My own thinking is that the GT's Cd is ~.38 verses the Z06's published .342. The GT remains the more aero car through it's lower frontal area while still producing downforce.
In the real world most of this stuff is useless........but it's still cool :thumbsup:
Here is another example
a C5 has a topspeed of ~175
a ZR1 has a topspeed of ~180
the ZR1 makes about 10% more power has a higher Cd but the same frontal area. If Cd was the end all the ZR1's 25 more rwhp would be wasted but since it's frontal area is the same it achieves a higher topspeed given it's HP advantage.
The GT usally dyno ~510-525 rwhp (SAE corrected) vs. the Z06 at ~440-450 rwhp. That is ~70 more HP to push a car from 198 to 212. So another question is can a bolt-on and tuned Z06 (should make ~500rwhp) hit it's rev limit in 5th gear (I believe that would be ~212 mph)?
One other thing that is impressive about the GT is that it is actually making downforce where the Z06 is producing lift. It is easy to make a car slick. The trick is to limit drag while making downforce.
My own thinking is that the GT's Cd is ~.38 verses the Z06's published .342. The GT remains the more aero car through it's lower frontal area while still producing downforce.
In the real world most of this stuff is useless........but it's still cool :thumbsup:
californiacuda said:
two words for you, skinny tires. I think if you look up more econo-box cars you will find that they ALL have good Cd numbers.
a car that can really slice though the air would be an NSX. Very low frontal area AND Cd. Those things go 175mph with ~240 rwhp.
Last edited:
I have measured my Gt and have come up with a frontal area of 21.34 sq ft
I would be interested in your method.....it appears to me that the GT would have less frontal area than an SRT-10 (19.3 sq ft). The cars are roughly the same width but the GT is much lower and has skinnier tires.
also the Z06's frontal area is 22.3 sq ft per GM.
so the Z06 .342 X 22.3 = 7.63
GT .38? X ? = ?
that would end the argument.
given that the viper has a frontal area of under 20 sq ft I still believe that the GT wins the Aero Drag contest. I did some calculating and I believe that the GT's frontal area is somewhere between 18.5-20.5 sq ft. Hell, if you take just pure height X width its only 23.6 sq. ft., no way the frontal area is over 21 sq ft.
also the Z06's frontal area is 22.3 sq ft per GM.
so the Z06 .342 X 22.3 = 7.63
GT .38? X ? = ?
that would end the argument.
given that the viper has a frontal area of under 20 sq ft I still believe that the GT wins the Aero Drag contest. I did some calculating and I believe that the GT's frontal area is somewhere between 18.5-20.5 sq ft. Hell, if you take just pure height X width its only 23.6 sq. ft., no way the frontal area is over 21 sq ft.
Last edited:
bowdwn2001 said:
Hope it comes with different internals... we already heard about what happened to the 5 PSI procharged C6Z.
satx said:
Yep.
Something I always found interesting: The old style M5 models had a published CD of .25 :shrug:
50 BMG said:
Wait, I didn't hear this news. Do you have a link to the info?
Thanks in advance,
THC
All this time I thought it was all about cd at high speeds, but this is not true, to an extent.
How aerodynamic a car is depends on the forumla mentioned above.
Aerodynamics = cd * frontal area
Just because a car has a better cd, it doesn't mean it is more aerodynamic.
How aerodynamic a car is depends on the forumla mentioned above.
Aerodynamics = cd * frontal area
Just because a car has a better cd, it doesn't mean it is more aerodynamic.
satx said:
EXCELLENT post!! Very useful and very true.
So here is a question for ya, Satx. If the Viper is actually more aerodynamic than the C6 Z06, why is it that the Z06 can hit 198 mph but the Viper can't when the Viper even has the taller gear?
There are a few answers I can think of.
1) Z06 produces more downforce as speeds increase, hence, trailing it to 198 mph.
2) Z06 has a higher redline.
3) combination of both.
What do you think?
Thanks
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
