I haven't seen anywhere that the Mustang doesn't handle well. Actually I have mostly read to the contrary.

 

Yeah seriously, I mean a stock Mustang GT for half the price is able to go out and beat a Nurbrinburg ring tested M3 around a race course and the M3 is the gold standard according to the press. I guess you don't need the "ring" to build a great car that can handle. My Cobalt was ring tested and was only something like 1 second behind an SS Camaro, did I buy the car because of the ring, no.

 

Ahhhh, Gloria, one of our resident Ford apologists. I wouldn't expect any less from you...

If they NEVER take ANYONE up on a challenge like this, then what happened here?:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...ved-comparison

Sounds like this time Ford isn't willing to step up. And if they truly have a policy like you claim, then why didn't Jim Farley just come out and say that instead of making your camp look like a bitch? From the recent spy photos, I thought they were out testing out at the 'ring anyway? This should be very easy to make happen, and I doubt you'd find one enthusiast or customer that wouldn't like to see this happen or read the results.

Regarding your comment "It is hardly indicative of what a bone stock ZL1 would achieve.". You're dreaming.

What's your point, that the additional cage adds so much structural integrity that it completely affects the way the car handles on the course? You think the car needs that additional strength? What about the added weight of it and all the safety and measurement equipment...?

I can almost guarantee you that the 2013 GT500 will not handle like the ZL1. Why? Weight distribution for one. The 2012 GT500 has a weight distribution of 56/44. You can't tell me that they will significanly change that for 2013 without a LOT of additional cost. It doesn't matter what kind of shocks are on the car when you start out with something with poor balance. Even with the assumption of the GT500 being only 3850 lbs and the ZL1 at 4120, the thing still has more weight over the front tires than the ZL1 (51/49).

 

It's a difference of about 55 pounds. Enough to make a difference? I dunno, we'll see.

When Camaro guys start digging into things like weight distribution it seems a little, I don't know - sour grape-ish. The banter can be fun, but the only way to know what all of these factors add up to is to test the damn things back-to-back. If Ford and GM don't sponsor something you know the magazines are going to do it.

Personally my biggest gripe about the car is GM insisting on using the same old delicate bottom end on the LSA.

 

You misunderstood what I wrote.

I'd rather have a Camaro that handles well than a Mustang with more horsepower.

I know Mustangs handle well. They're just not Camaros.

 

It's not sour grapes, it's the reality. It's also clear that my point went over your head. Go back and do a little studying about what makes cars handle (by handle I mean understeer, oversteer and how the car behaves at the limit) and how weight balance of a car has a role in that.

FWIW I agree about the LSA bottom end, I wish it had at least a set of forged pistons over what it has now. But I also believe it's not as fragile as some people make it out to be. Look at all the modded CTS-Vs out there.

 

Yep, I think somebody also threw out the Camaro is leading the sales race as a response which I had to chuckle at it was so sad of a retort that I would have expected from a Mustang fanboy 10 years ago when we were killing the Mustang. Let's see the excuses so far, it has worse weight distribution, it has too much power, it can't handle better than the ZL1, it's a ford, and the best one which has nothing to do with the argument what so ever "the Camaro is leading in sales". That about cover it? It's like having a conversation with the Iraqi information minister, nothing to see here, there are no Americans in Baghdad.

 

I have a hard time believing it was a 12-16 point cage and have not seen anything indicating that. 8-point I'll buy... and while I'll agree that it might add some stiffness to the chassis, the ZL1's performance had more to do with the suspension system than anything else.

 

Stop stirring the pot, will ya? It is bordering on flame bait and being insulting.

 

No, the point really didn't go over my head at all. Again, if you break the distribution down by absolute pounds you're talking about 55 more pounds on the front of the Mustang. Not 200, not 100...55. I am not so sure that some quantitative analysis has ever been done that says,

"putting 55 more pounds over the front end of an overall lighter car is going to give the overall heavier car a clear advantage".

I mean, this is getting a little ridiculous don't you think? Talk about your extreme bench racing.

 

The point is simply that the ZL1 weighs 270 pounds more in total, yet the GT500 still has 55 lbs more over the front end.

Extreme bench racing? Why do you think manufacturers with performance based cars will move the battery to the trunk of the car? How much do you think a typical car battery weighs?

 

I have to laugh at these guys talking weight distribution, like they are some kind if suspension expert. Look at the weight distribution of a Porshe 911.

 

So what do you want me to say, that a car that otherwise handles like a dump truck will be significantly improved by relocating the battery?

The word negligible comes to mind. Better weight distribution is a good thing, but it's far from the only thing. It's such a silly spec to hang your hat on in this case when all the other numbers on paper favor the other guy. JMO though.

 

The North Course at Nurbergring is actually an interesting place to drive a car. It does encomapss several sections of track that are quite interesting and do present challenges folks can find on real world roads...thus it does confront cars and driver in a very real world sense.

I will grant that calculus is not something most of us will rely on as a way to quantify things... nonetheless... some modes being accepted as measures for making decisions actually are a good tool.

 

Would you be so kind as to show me where the verbiage exists where FORD has stated they don't allow their cars or trucks be tested head to head against competition?

It seems odd that a company so friendly to racers, modders, and motorsports would beg off under the auspices that "policy" prevents some good old BS stops flag dropping.I can gurantte that most folks sense a bad smell when they hear someone go on about how 'POLICY" is supposed to be a reason preventing something from happening.

Free advice for any business... "policy" should be only used strictly for internally discussed matters. Say the word "policy" to a customer to justify why an expectation isn't going to happen,,,, and join their memory bank of losers that hide behind the "rules".