[ItBites]

I read the article and think there is a little too much whining here about how it was written.

1) C&D could have pointed out the street car vs. race-prepped car thing... oops wait, isn't a Z06 a street car, well no joy there...

2) C&D could have pointed out the 80 hp lost, but do they really have first hand knowledge of that? Or did they just test a car as it was delivered? I see no way they could have an exception category for that, the Z06 can certainly make more power if you modified it from the test day conditions as could any of the other cars, so why make a special category for your car that, if modified from the tested conditions, could make more power...

3) I recall that they did give the data from the testing, but their conclusion was that it still wouldn't set any track records. Well, let's face it, a street car with a compromised effectiveness intake tract for aesthetic purposes will not likely set track records, will it? What do you expect them to say? Something like - "If built as a racecar, this street car would act more like a racecar and be faster around the track" -? Duh...

4) Not sure about the Rousch cheap shot... As I recall, most folks here think the Rousch is an expensive mill. If it dies and makes noise while doing so, a reasonable person might conclude the noises are "expensive noises". I think I get your gripe as - it passed all the tests and only died during the final photo shoot - Now, didn't all the other cars tested do the same thing, only without the dying part?

I get the impression you want your car not to be directly compared to the others in the article, but rather compared with asterisks and exceptions noted throughout... Why?


It seems to me that C&D was just calling a spade a spade.


BTW, I do feel for you in how your car was treated and hope it goes back together soon and brings you miles of smiles.