Originally Posted by Brosef
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.
I agree with you completely. See my previous post in response to 997GT3. And I agree about the GTR. However, the gentleman I initially responded to did not include Japanese Cars in his post. As I just stated, the GTR is at or near the top of my list as a next vehicle. In the end, no matter what I say, different strokes for different folks. That is why it is so great to have all of these choices in cars. I have stated in other threads that I respect the Corvette. It's a great car but just not for me right now.