I disagree with your take on the matter. All the other cars were specifically track prep'd, Z06 included so don't think it was a straight from the dealer to street vehicle. As to the 80 HP, oh yes they did know. Peter Brock expalined to them all about getting a last minurte replacement that hadn't been pre'd for the track and was down power with the restrictive screens in place. They saw the velocity stack screens instead of the air filters. It ain't rocket science to figure that they are restrictive. Modified, yes - but downward from what Roush delivered, not upward. Their "data" was somewhat compromised. The coupe entered and exited the sectors faster than the Z06, pulled higher G's on the skid pad yet purportedly posted slower sector times. Did you read anywhere in the article how well the car did? You had to dig through the matrices to see and then you were left with the incomprehensible faster sector entry and exit speeds with higher G's yet slower times. As for Roush, expensive because of the aluminum block and DFI otherwise comparable to other "crate" engines. My gripe is that unlike the Z06, et al, it had a shallow wet sump for the street and the C&D driver didn't look at or care that it was being
oil starved with the high G's (BTW, did you read anywhere in the article that it pulled 1.12 G's - even with the soft suspension - which is pretty remarkable and better, far better, than anything else on the track that day and probably better than any other street car they ever tested) and that they caused the "expensive" noises. I don't care whose engine it was, any engine will get damaged if it's
oil starved and the driver should have gotten off the throttle. That's my gripe. I wanted the whole story told or at least told truthfully. It seems to me that C & D wasn't calling a spade a spade, they were hiding their driver's error.