>c6 corvette >400bhp, 400lbs-ft >e92 m3 >400bhp,

>>16462509
isn't the Corvette the "americas supercar" or something?

>>16462521
The Corvette is the sports car that sits above the Camaro. Apart from the new GT and a few one-off companies, we don't really do traditional supercars.

>>16462521
There isn't anything super about them. You can buy a clean one used for $30k. Definitely a good sports car though.

No replacement for displacement.

>>16462538
For a given power level you can use various means to achieve it with varying amounts of displacement and complexity. For maximum power (land speed record or 1/4 mile) is when there is truly no replacement for displacement.

>>16462509
The corvette has an extra 2.0L of displacement.
A 2.0L from a Civic does around 150hp and 140lb-ft.

Why doesn't the C6 make 550hp and 410lb-ft?

>>16462545
Diminishing returns of larger engines and the tradeoff of more bore and stroke in a given space in exchange for lower revs. Thus, the car can be geared higher but still accelerate quickly.

>>16462545
>K20 makes 200hp
>C6 has 6L engine
>C6 doesn't make 600hp
Weak AF.

You need massive amounts of torque to haul an american fatass around

>>16462509
Are you asking why the C6 and E92 M3 are tied for horsepower despite the C6 having more displacement, or why the C6 has more torque than the E92?

>>16462521
I thought it was marketed as the affordable supercar-killer or something.

>>16462597
so was the GTR, but it didn't achieve that until the R35 and shedding its affordability

>>16462549
If that was the case then why wouldn't you just get 3 x 4 pots and mate them to a single gearbox (ie like the Saab 1960's prototypes)

>>16462601
As far as stock performance goes, at least. We've had some real mental Skyline GT-Rs down here for decades. It was just a matter of sinking ten or twenty grand into it. Hell, the R32 GT-R they fielded in the Bathurst 1000 was pushing something like 650 horsepower at the wheels. You see similar sort of shit with old Corvettes too on channels like 1320video.

I suppose the same could be said for such supercars too but you're looking at two types of buyers. Cunts like us who like to go fast, only with a little more money, and folk who want a shiny status symbol to show the plebs.

>>16462612
That's the basic concept of the V engine, just with a shared crankshaft. You'd have to have an absurdly wide engine bay and a truly bizarre clutch assembly.

>>16462509
Because one has to haul a 450lb driver and the other doesn't.

>>16462509
You forgot the "@[#]k rpm" at the end of the ratings.

>>16462509

>posting on the aut/o/ board
>not knowing that hp=(t*rpm)/5252
>not knowing the effect if bore x stroke

kys

>>16462521
It's a high tier sports car. The Snek (RIP) and the Ford GT are closer to being the American supercar.