Originally Posted by 737Drvr
I disagree with you! Consider this, the Veyron is a $1.5 million plus vehicle. Now look at the Porsche 911 Turbo S. It rings in at $165,000 and does 0-60 in 2.6. The veyron takes 2.5. Tell me that isn't bang for the buck performance. I wouldn't want to pull up next to the Turbo S at any light or drag strip unless I was either in another Turbo S or Veyron. Yes the Corvette is less expensive and a great bang for the buck car and I'm glad to see GM to continuing to improve it. However, sorry to burst you bubble, but it is just not in the same league. I know, I've owned both.
bang-for-the-buck performance is a difficult concept to debate because it's useless trying to quantify it.
example: is the turbo S really worth double the price of a Z06? how can you quantify what kind of performance you need for a car that costs twice as much? do you need twice the performance? if so, what does that mean? if the Vette costs half as much as the Turbo S, which does 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, does the Vette therefore only have to make it to 60 in 5.2 seconds to have the same bang-for-the-buck? you can see where I'm going here. it's a subjective concept that could be debated forever. you could say that the turbo S does have better bang-for-the-buck, and I couldn't objectively prove you wrong. having said that, I'm confident that the majority of people who know anything about cars would agree that the Vette provides better bang-for-the-buck performance than the turbo S. again, doesn't make you wrong, just makes you part of a minority with different values (sounds like you're a baller that has owned some exceptional cars).
0-60 is such a small part of the picture too, btw. the GT-R would certainly prove to be better bang-for-the-buck if that's the only dimension on which you choose to evaluate performance. the Vette's front-engine RWD layout puts it at an obvious disadvantage from a dig, and the differences narrow thereafter.