http://www.chevrolet.com/2015-corvette-stingray-z06-supercar.html Clearly a zero

I understand that. I am looking at it more in regards to cost to what you get. To me, if I was going to spend $100,000 on a car, it would have to be the Nissan GTR. It has a strong motor with LOTS of extra ponies waiting to be released, AWD, quick in the straights and the curves, and it does not have plastic all over it.

kram36
Your knowledge on Porsche's finances isn't very good. Porsche was going into Bankruptcy at the end of the 1990's, long before the financial melt down that effected most every product producing companies on the planet in the last 8 years. The car that kept Porsche from no longer existing was the Boxster, not the 911. Yep the Poor Man's Porsche, cheaper because it's made cheap, but it looked great and handled excellent. Another thing that helped Porsche out is they were bought by Volkswagen. BTW: Ford went to the Government looking for bailout money, they didn't take it because they had already took a loan out to keep them afloat long before GM needed it. Ford was seeing if they could get a better deal from the Government and they didn't or they would have taken the bail out money too. As far as quality goes, GM put a lot into the interior quality of the new Vette, you might want to look into that. Things change my friend and American quality is starting to lead the auto industry again.

Okay 20 years ago Porsche was in trouble. I did not look at history back that far, my bad Porsche is known more today for the Poorman's Porsche, an SUV, and a four door version not the track and street 911. Adapt or die. 20 years ago GM was making billions and producing garbage. You can say Ford happened to fall earlier, but they did have the fortune of a banking system not in disarray and actually needed or got less than either Chrysler or GM. I also felt they would right the ship. There are few companies within the US that can survive in bringing new tech to the market without government help. Anyway, last year the two most profitable auto company's in the world were VW and Ford. Only two to make over $20 billion and Ford was second by a slim margin. Ford would have been number one but the returns and profits from VW's investment in Porsche took them to the top. They did not own Porsche until this year, prior to that it was loans and a percent of ownership. All three (or 2) US auto companies have work to do. They all lost what they once had. The Japanese companies bet them at their own game, producing quality for less. The German companies out engineered them. They are moving in the right direction, but unfortunately they all needed help, some less than others. The government did support Ford, but never through their boardroom, there is a big difference there. Not sure if there was a good debt market GM or Chrysler could have gotten the $100 billion they needed.

I also have to say that I would take Godzilla over the Vet.

Another couple of points I would like to make:

1. Ford had assets to sell.  You can still buy a Volvo, Jaguar and Austin Martin.  Where can you get buy a Satrun, Hummer, Oldsmobile or Pontiac except from a used lot at a major discount?  What happened to all those liability claims where people were injured and were owned for the product defects or negligence of the company?  The financing of Ford's turnaround was some government money, borrowings and asset sales.  Seems more legitimate to me.  Ford also decided it needed help earlier than most, as they started it two years before everyone else.  Their stock made me some money.  They could have kept going in the direction where everyone was heading, but they had to change.  Obviously they all did and have.
2. The only US car manufacturer that the UAW union did not give concessions to was Ford.  Why would that be?  Could even the UAW have know they were doing this right and had a better plan?  GM and Chrysler both have a competitive advantage of lower wages and benefit costs for the same skilled labor.  Ford is also the only automaker to fully fund their commitment to the union health care trust.  Even given the bailouts, special financing and union concessions, GM has still not funded their portion to the fullest since the value of the union owned portion does not equal what the union is owed.
3. All companies, even Exxon-Mobile, take government money.  Wonder if Exxon-Mobile would make the billions they do if they did not lease cheap land from the government and make major dollars on the resources below.  The distinguishing factor is the government did not say, "Hey Mr. CEO, you have done a very bad job and you need to leave."  They government is not and did not have a seat in their boardroom.  Many companies have been close to or have gone into bankruptcy only to come out stronger, better and are still in business because of that move.  Happens everyday, all day.  Nissan is another.  They have been close to bankruptcy for many years.  Today they are in much different position and are doing much better.  Their designs are much better than Cadillac's.  I feel that Cadillac's designers had a block of wood and only a hatchet to design the ones we see today.  Yes I do not like them, surprise, but that is just my opinion, as they have gotten rave reviews and their sales are increasing rapidly.
4. The design of the Corvette is very nice.  The power is amazing.  The handling has improved.  The ride is much better.  Test drove one last year.  Very powerful well styled car.  They are using better materials.  Yes, things have changed.

FWIW, trying to compare the performance of a car that is unreleased with one that is in production is completely illogical and a disservice to objective analysis. By doing so, you're essentially joining the same camp as the AMD/Intel or AMD/Nvidia fanboys who argue that an upcoming chip will blow away the current offering. If you're going to pan a vehicle that has not even been released yet, at least have the honesty to say "I'm biased against American cars and thus I would rather take a GT-R", or "the Z06 is ugly and the GT-R is not, that's why I'd take the GT-R". Just don't bring up the performance, which you know nothing about yet, and which only makes you look like a tool if you do.
 
I'm not directing this at any one particular person (the GT-R was an example, but not the only place where this comparison was made), but let's inject some actual objective analysis into this discussion rather than relying on baseless information and bias.

clo007
Not pointed at one person??? I was the one that first mentioned the GTR. Your comments are borderline breaking TOS for personal attacks.
The fact of the matter is that the new Corvette is out and the numbers are in on test drives. Throwing on a supercharger to up the motor by almost 200 more ponies is magically going to make the Z06 a much better car?!
How logical of you.
 
 

You think that's all GM does to the Z06?
How logical of you.

kram36

clo007
Not pointed at one person??? I was the one that first mentioned the GTR. Your comments are borderline breaking TOS for personal attacks.
The fact of the matter is that the new Corvette is out and the numbers are in on test drives. Throwing on a supercharger to up the motor by almost 200 more ponies is magically going to make the Z06 a much better car?!
How logical of you.
 
 

You think that's all GM does to the Z06?
How logical of you.

Did you even look at the .pdf that I linked that compares the specs of the Stingray, Stingray Z06, Stingray Z06 w/ Z07 package, and the C7.R Race car?
The major difference: supercharger and ceramic brakes. I am sure it has alot of electronics too.

To everyone comparing the GTR to the Z06 you're making a big mistake. The cars serve two different purposes and one can be daily driven year round in the snow too. The Z06 is a great track car but if you review Top Gear's review of the Z06 from previous years you'd understand that the car is hard to live with on a daily basis. I also further understand that it is not daily driven most of the time and its a track/weekend toy. I do know several folks that daily GTRs, something the Z06 can't truly do. 
 
In conclusion, again comparing apples to oranges. When the Nismo GTR comes out in 2015, then one can argue two race spec cars against each other. As it stands now, we have one thats an all year round car versus a track toy. Both are great, both have different purposes. Oh, and they both play in different weight classes(4k pounds versus low 3ks vor the vette id assume).

Great looking car! If I could afford it I would take one in a heartbeat. Kinda looks a bit Camaroish from the back view. 

yodap
I like old! I'm old.
69

Now THAT is a sexy sumbi--

Tweaked
Best looking Corvette in Decades.  Nuff said.

Well we all have our opinions I suppose. I thought my '85 looked way better though.

That is if you get the z07 performance package. The base z06 has the same brakes/suspension as the regular Stingray.

MY bad, missed the upgrade from 4 piston to 6 piston caliper. I saw that they both still had steel rotors, where the z07 package stepped up to the ceramics.
 
Serious question- Why not put the ceramic rotors on the base Z06 if it has the same engine as the z07 packaged one?

i'll take a pair of them!  One for me and one for my dad.

Wow, looks great.
I cant wait for TopGear BBC to drive it.