If there’s one thing that’s basically certain when it comes to cars, it’s that acceleration improves with each generation of performance cars, to the point where eventually, the record-setters of yesteryear will be eclipsed by more attainable machinery. However, every so often, something sets such a high bar that trickle-down seems almost impossible. For years, we’ve wondered when more affordable two-seaters will catch up to the ridiculous bar set by the Bugatti Veyron. Well, it’s right about now, thanks to the utterly bonkers 1,064-horsepower C8 Corvette ZR1.
When equipped with the ZTK performance package, Chevrolet claims the new ZR1 can rip off a ludicrous 2.3 second zero-to-60 mph time. For context, when Car And Driver tested a Bugatti Veyron back in 2008, the magazine managed a 2.5-second zero-to-60 mph run from Ferdinand Piech’s million-dollar masterpiece. In the modern context, the new ZR1 is just as quick as a Lamborghini Revuelto, an Aston Martin Valkyrie, and a Ferrari 296 GTB. That’s some serious pace off the mark,
Extending things to the quarter-mile, Chevrolet claims the Corvette ZR1 can run a 9.6 second pass with a trap speed of 150 mph on an unprepared surface — no sticky drag strip glue to juice grip on the launch. That’s half a second quicker than Car And Driver’s 10.1 second quarter-mile run in the 2008 Veyron, and the Bugatti had a trap speed eight miles per hour lower than that of the latest top-dog Vette. That’s also right on pace with a Ferrari 296 GTB, quicker than a Porsche 918 Spyder, and quicker than a McLaren P1. Yeah, the hypercars of just one generation ago can be outrun by a bone-stock Corvette. What a time to be alive.
Of course, raw times only tell half the story. Compared to a Veyron, the Corvette ZR1 is only rear-wheel-drive versus all-wheel-drive, but it also runs on substantially more modern tires. Tech-wise, the Michelin PAX run-flats from the Veyron are ancient compared to the sticky Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R tires optional on the new ZR1, and this basically 20-year delta in tire technology no doubt helps make up for the deficit in driven wheels. Then there’s curb weight — the Veyron is a Goliath, clocking in 4,486 pounds. While Chevrolet has only provided dry weights for the ZR1, expect it to tip the scales a few hundred pounds lighter than the Veyron.
Then there’s output and gearing. The ZR1 makes slightly more power than the Veyron and does so at 7,000 rpm versus 6,000 rpm, but it also makes 94 fewer lb.-ft. of torque. At the same time, we do know that the ZR1 features an eight-speed DCT to the Veyron’s seven-speed unit, but without knowing the ratios and final drive, it’s hard to say which car has a gearing advantage.
Still, add it all up, and it’s astonishing that 20 years after the Bugatti Veyron claimed the title for the fastest production car in the world, you can buy a stock Corvette that’ll out-accelerate it through the quarter-mile and come within 20 mph of the Veyron’s absurd 253 mph top speed. Progress is a beautiful thing, and it’s now crystal clear that the 2026 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 is America’s hypercar.
(Photo credits: Chevrolet)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The 233-MPH 2025 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 Is Officially A Hypercar
-
This Dime-Sized Easter Egg On Every Corvette ZR1 Honors A Living Legend
-
The 2025 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 Is America’s 1064 Horsepower Middle Finger To Italy. Here’s Everything You Need To Know
-
The Corvette ZR1 Has Always Been Proof America Can Build Supercars When It Wants To
-
The C4 Corvette ZR-1 Is The Last Affordable ’90s Supercar
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
I’m hoping we can all get around to realizing that these numbers are essentially meaningless nowadays and come up with some kind of metric to assess driving qualities that matter, like engagement and tactility and the general feeling of being special. I have no idea how to quantify that, but those are the qualities that matter to me and I think many of us could agree that these traditional numbers have gotten to the point of being irrelevant in real world use and are only small academic differences for comparison’ sake. It reminds me about how I was thinking recently about power:weight. While, sure, that’s better than just a hp number for telling a story, there’s a huge difference between a 5k lbs car with 700hp and a 2k lbs car with 280hp and I know which I’d rather drive.
This may be the only supercar I actually ever see in real life. All the other halo cars, and supercars, I’ll never see any of those. This one, I may actually see.
Wonder how much is down to tires, they’ve come a looooong way. Engineering Explained did a video recently quantifying the change over one generation of tire that was really interesting.
Colin Chapman will always be right.
But the Bug and the Vette are different horses for different courses. The Bugatti was meant to be the ultimate grand tourer, not a sports car. I expect HOW it does the business is rather different than how the Corvette does. A lot less drama. Stick your foot in it and go, no particular skill required.
I expect it still takes some actual talent to get those numbers out of the Corvette, even with 20 years of computer and transmission evolution, and the road surface had best be relatively “just so” even with the magic tires. Let’s compare them in the wet and see how it looks. And the Bugatti is about to benefit from modern tires too – Bugatti are allegedly about to release updated wheels for them that can use conventional (relatively speaking) tires.
Hot take: but 0-60 is a completely irrelevant measure of performance for cars with this level of performance. I think this topic gets brought up every few years but there is a class of car where 0-60 doesn’t mean anything.
I 1000% agree with you. It is by far the most useless performance metric there is.
I like the old 0-100-0 spec myself. Weeds out bullshit like Hellcats rather quickly. Better still, put a 90 degree curve in there to really separate the wheat from the chaff. A monster motor will make anything go fast in a straight line for a short time, let’s see it turn and stop. Or cross a continent, for that matter. Though with the Bugatti, perhaps investing in “inflight refueling” might be necessary, LOL.
i’m okay with just measuring acceleration. but these cars should be tested on a 1/2 or even standing mile because of the level of speed they have.
Does it even matter? Once you have the sheer horsepower to well exceed 200mph in top speed (especially given the downforce needed to do that reasonably safely), stupidly fast acceleration is always going to come along for free. Assuming you can get the power to the ground off the line anyway. In this case, I expect that the Corvette loses out from say 0-20, but the next 40mph the significantly lighter weight and more, likely faster changing gears gets it back and then some. But at this level of performance, it’s “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.
The difference in top speed given basically the same HP tells me the Bugatti has better aero, and allegedly they are easy to drive at 200mph+(!), which I bet the Corvette is not.
I 10,000% agree with you.
Meh. Not so much. You can get a Civic today that handily outruns both a GTO and a Testarossa.
I’d also argue that the Veyron is two generations old and that the C8 ZR1 is, for all its engineering, still an ugly car I wouldn’t be caught dead in. And at an expected $200,000-ish… hardly seems a good representation of “trickle-down.”
Disagree. It’s busy and overly creased and origami’ed, but I reserve your sentiment for truly awful styling like the Chubbatruck. And maybe the Dodge Caliber …
The Cyberturd isn’t ugly. It’s just *stupid* and so unfit for purpose that it transcends beauty or ugly. They do have a futuristic coolness about them, but they are just so useless at being what they are supposed to be.
I wouldn’t call the Dodge Caliber ugly either. If it wasn’t such a mechanical turd with such a terrible interior it would be just another very anonymous, completely forgetable crossover. They are bad cars, not ugly ones. The Corvette is a very good car that is actually ugly to my eye – it’s just soooo overwrought (second only to the Supra to me). The Italians manage to make the same idea beautiful.
They’re both ugly.
Where are these ZR1 numbers coming from? Seen it brought up on a few sites but having trouble finding the source.
From GM themselves. https://youtu.be/iXBzuBjrzJw?si=tuasm1IXb6nY6MNL