Chevrolet Corvette vs BMW M4
07-12-2014, 11:25 AM
#31
Registered User
Originally Posted by Marioshi' timestamp='1405009265' post='23237982
[quote name='deepbluejh' timestamp='1405008693' post='23237964']
The M4 is a different class of car though. It has a back seat and a usable trunk - whereas the Corvette doesn't. For many people, that alone would be worth the price premium. If all you care about is sheer performance and don't care to mod, the Corvette is the obvious pick though.
The M4 is a different class of car though. It has a back seat and a usable trunk - whereas the Corvette doesn't. For many people, that alone would be worth the price premium. If all you care about is sheer performance and don't care to mod, the Corvette is the obvious pick though.
[/quote]
These numbers are C5/C6-based but I am willing to bet the C7 would be nearly the same:
Headers = 30-35whp
Mild cam = 50-70whp
Total cost maybe $1500-2000 including tune.
Change mild cam to a moderate/aggressive cam and heads, you're looking at 100-150whp, naturally aspirated, for just a few grand.
07-13-2014, 08:58 PM
#34
Originally Posted by HUNTERANGEL121' timestamp='1405050016' post='23238889
I feel as if the vette would be the car you have to work for to go faster, as to where the M4, eh not so much.
But it does weigh 3,300lbs, which honestly a surprise, it looks so much heavier.
Engine wise, I don't really think it's fair to compare turbos to NA, LS motors respond very well to bolt ons. But on the other hand, turbos you can reflash is to push a little more boost, unless they're K03s....
I've got a deal breaker... 10 years from now. What's gonna cost you your left nut to fix?
But it does weigh 3,300lbs, which honestly a surprise, it looks so much heavier.
Engine wise, I don't really think it's fair to compare turbos to NA, LS motors respond very well to bolt ons. But on the other hand, turbos you can reflash is to push a little more boost, unless they're K03s....
I've got a deal breaker... 10 years from now. What's gonna cost you your left nut to fix?
Not sure if you have driven a car with a 6.2 litre V8, its the laziest type of speed around. Especially if its an automatic transmission. Its lighter and makes torque earlier than the M4, should be easy to drive fast.
What do you mean laziest speed?
I always considered the vette an American S2000 lol.
07-13-2014, 09:05 PM
#35
bc one is a 2 seater sportscars and the other is a real everyday DD. 4 seater. More comfortable. almost as fast. If i was looking at a c7 i would be cross shopping it more with a cayman, boxster, f type, 911 than a m3/m4.
07-16-2014, 02:30 PM
#38
Registered User
I still can't figure out why people quote "fully loaded" price as the measure of a car's value. 90% of what makes most of these cars "fully loaded" is completely unnecessary anyway.
07-16-2014, 02:39 PM
#39
agreed. with all the performance options besides carbon ceramics my m3/m4 comes out to around $68-72k MSRP. After this initial model year you'll be able to get them for near invoice. Chevy has been raising the price on the c7 every year and dealer are asking MSRP or more for z51 cars.
07-16-2014, 02:40 PM
#40
Registered User
Originally Posted by budgy' timestamp='1405101432' post='23239818
[quote name='HUNTERANGEL121' timestamp='1405050016' post='23238889']
I feel as if the vette would be the car you have to work for to go faster, as to where the M4, eh not so much.
But it does weigh 3,300lbs, which honestly a surprise, it looks so much heavier.
Engine wise, I don't really think it's fair to compare turbos to NA, LS motors respond very well to bolt ons. But on the other hand, turbos you can reflash is to push a little more boost, unless they're K03s....
I've got a deal breaker... 10 years from now. What's gonna cost you your left nut to fix?
I feel as if the vette would be the car you have to work for to go faster, as to where the M4, eh not so much.
But it does weigh 3,300lbs, which honestly a surprise, it looks so much heavier.
Engine wise, I don't really think it's fair to compare turbos to NA, LS motors respond very well to bolt ons. But on the other hand, turbos you can reflash is to push a little more boost, unless they're K03s....
I've got a deal breaker... 10 years from now. What's gonna cost you your left nut to fix?
Not sure if you have driven a car with a 6.2 litre V8, its the laziest type of speed around. Especially if its an automatic transmission. Its lighter and makes torque earlier than the M4, should be easy to drive fast.
What do you mean laziest speed?
I always considered the vette an American S2000 lol.
[/quote]
I have a C6, daily drove it for more than 2 years. I think what he meant by "lazy", which to me is good and bad, has a twofold meaning:
The engine - most of the time when you're driving around town you're at 1500 rpm. There is no need to go any higher as the torque is immense even at that rpm. On the freeway you're cruising at a similar RPM. Once you get on the car the engine revs very slowly with a redline of just 6,500 rpm - other than the torque pinning you to your seat you don't feel much urgency. Redlining the s2000 and crossing into vtec - that adrenaline rush is replaced by a continuous surge of torque in the C6.
The chassis - the C6's long wheelbase and loose steering make it feel very floaty; it feels like a damn boat compared to the s2k. It has good grip in the bends and corners flat, and it's a performer, but driving dynamics wise it is quite lazy. This is good and bad. Good - the car is more comfy; bad - the car is not terribly responsive to driver inputs, which for a sports car is a bit disappointing, especially for a relatively light car @ 3,200 lbs. The s2000 feels like a damn glove in the corners, but it's got many higher class sports cars beat in that regard, even in today's market.
The C7 supposedly addressed the chassis issues. I haven't verified this for myself yet as I don't want to change cars yet lawl