[metros11]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

He is only saying that Ford doesn't care because they are losing. Ford obviously cares. Again, why would they make all these drastic changes, up the engine output, invest in and install a 10 speed automatic, increase the price by a substantial amount, and then market the hell out of it to performance enthusiasts if they didn't care? That is a lot for a company that doesn't care. They do care. The Camaro is the Mustang's direct competitor. And they have to keep up or the enthusiasts will riot. The problem is that the Mustang can't beat the SS because the SS is too close to the GT350. In order to beat the SS, the GT would have to get closer to the GT350 or outright beat the GT350 which Ford cannot do because the enthusiasts will riot.

Think about this. Why did the GT not get the Bullitt's 475 hp engine? Why is the Bullitt not getting the PP2 suspension or the A10 trans? It is because the Shelby is hampering the performance. It isn't because Ford doesn't care. That is an excuse losers say when they lose...oh I didn't care...I didn't put my all into it. Nobody goes up against their fiercest competition with a "don't care" attitude. They are trying. But the SS and SS 1LE are just too close to (or better than) the GT350 and GT350R for them to take it out with the GT.

A couple of points here...

1. When GT500 hits the market, the GT350 will be retired. It is very well within the realm of possibility that PP2 will fill in the performance void of that car.
2. The Bullitt has a Coyote, same as GT. It might have some components that are different (see Boss 302 vs GT) and it might be tuned differently, but it's still the same engine.
3. "Ford cares"... Do they? They care about selling cars, and ultimately the Mustang sells very well. They care about performance bragging rights, but this is why the new GT is rated at 460hp, because average Joes looks at that number alone to tell them how 'fast' it is. They don't need to make the Mustang GT 'great', it's already great in it's own right.

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

It's not that FoMoCo doesn't care, its that they only care, just enough. Just enough to make profits. They, like most businesses are all about the bottom line.

I bolded a comment that sticks out coming from someone like you. Normally I can see your point if view and do agree often, but this "excuse" seems eerily similar to one you've made on multiple occasion in reference to your somewhat lackluster 1/4 mile times. By all means make the argument, but realize it goes both ways.

These companies make these cars to get us, the consumer, to open our wallets. How they do that is up to them. Make the most profitable vehicle in a segment via an arbitrarily chosen set of metrics, then put it to market. If the buyers bite, good, sell them more, if they want something a little different, tweek the formula, if they don't buy its all, scrap it.

They aren't out to fullfil our set of goals, to have the best handling, to be the fastest, to have the most power. They're out to fullfil their goal, make profit. Sometimes everything lines up and we get a vehicle that meets their goals AND checks many of the boxes we want, sometimes not. Do these companies care? To a point... but its their point, not ours.

GM produces great performers, that sell. Corvette is an icon. Camaro is everybit world class. Cadillac's V-series vehicles bring an awesome level of excitement to luxury.

Ford is selling niche performance left and right, FiST, FoST, FoRS, EdgeST, F-150 RAPTOR.

Mustang sells on a great deal of history AND its performance offerings. Is it the best in class? No. Does it need to be to make Ford money? No. So I wish they would aim to be the best performer in class? Sure, but I also realize that just because it isn't the best in some metrics, that doesn't automatically relegate it to last.

Besides I for one only ever worry about the performance of one vehicle, whatever one is mine at the time. I dont race magazines, I don't race fast lists, I race my car... and it performs at a level I choose.

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

it worth adding that you can fix the performance shortcomings of the mustang through the aftermarket , but how do you fix the ergonomic issues of the Camaro?

Please provide more details on the claims of 'ergonomics' issues? I'm curious about this.

Originally Posted by kttxz06

I'm going to seriously take a look at the GT500, but if that car has crap interior, no A10, and no fat arse rear tire, I'm passing.

I'm sure it will have a nice alcantara interior, an A10 option, and some really fat rear tires. It is going to be the Mustang flagship after all.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Funny, the Camaro has never offered the variety of model lineups as the mustang. As of right now, the PP1 lines up with the SS, the PP2 lines up with the 1LE and the GT500 lines up with the ZL1. Ford doesn’t offer anything that lines up with the ZL11LE, but GM doesn’t have anything that lines up with the GT, Bullitt, GT350 or GT350R. And we haven’t even got to talking about Roush, Steeda, Salleen or Shelby.

And the GT350 will be gone by the time the GT500 comes up, so Ford will be right back to the same lineup. How does the Bullitt match up to the GT A10 PP? Oh yea, it will be slower despite more power thanks to it being M6 only. Roush, Steeda, Saleen, and Shelby (guess you mean the real one). Yea ever heard of Fireball, Yenko, Berger, etc.. Overpriced dealer backed cars are nothing new and often poor performing (looking at your Shelby Super Snake).

What does Ford have to go against the LT 1LE? B/c last I checked, the EB PP got its ass handed to it by an LT with just summer tires. How bout the ZL1 vert? Or just a V6 Camaro?

[crankaholic]

Well this is an interesting thread...

Originally Posted by hotlap

The designer of the SS 1LE blade spoiler posted this after my car was built with the first.

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showpo...4&postcount=52

I think you're misunderstanding what a spoiler does, it's not creating down-force... it's adjusting the aerodynamic profile of the rear to minimize/eliminate lift. That doesn't increase drag like a down-force generating wing would. The front splitter is moving air around the car and creating lower pressure underneath the car, helping create down-force. Whether this creates extra drag, and how much, depends on how the rest of the car handles air moving around it. I think the Camaro is just less aerodynamic because of it's shape and extra cooling abilities, that creates more aerodynamic drag. The wider tires hurt rolling resistance as well.


Those tires were another huge difference in this comparison. However, tires are nothing if the chassis can't locate them properly... they're useless if the suspension components can't keep them on the ground and pointing in the right direction.


I think the Mustang chassis (that's platform and suspension components) just aren't advanced enough to provide the level of performance an Alpha platform car was designed for. You have to understand that the Mustang is bespoke for Ford and they have to be able to sell the the thing from a $20k EcoBoost grocery-getter, all the way up to the GT500. GM is going after Euro luxury/performance cars with Cadillac, and they spent A LOT of money to develop a platform that will get them there. Luckily for us they also decided to base the Camaro on that platform. The CTS-V (closest relative) is meant to go up against M5s, E63s and Panamera Turbos... cars that cost over $100,000 in some cases. Anyone who's seen the underside of the Camaro knows just how much aluminum is in the front and how advanced it all is.

I think GM saved money as well, that's especially evident in the rear suspension... the car could have been even lighter if they used aluminum for the rear subframe and control arms. But judging by the lap times, spending so much $ on the rear-end would bring diminished returns. It just has to be able to not flex like a noodle under power.


There's a youtube car review channel I watch, the guy does great reviews... I've linked the underbody sections of the GT, GT350 and ZL1 1LE (same front end as the SS, except for the DSSVs, unlike the Mustangs). Looking underneath the front end will show you exactly why the Camaro is good.


(edit: looks like time stamped links are wonky... start at 04:12)



(edit: 05:00)



(edit: 14:16)




I really like the GT350, R and regular. I would have bought one if they weren't marked up to the moon. As time goes on though, I realize more and more that the Camaro is built on a better platform. Lap times are just evidence of that.

Does anyone know if PP2 will feature steering knuckles from the GT350? It's actually where I think Ford is going wrong. Once they developed the GT350, they should have given all the new components to the PP2 GT and taken away the more expensive components as you went down the trim levels. People bough the Shelbys for the name and engine, most of the current owners wouldn't have cared that those chassis components were made available on the GT. They wouldn't have bought a GT anyway.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

I’m sure Proctor & Gamble appreciates the sales.
I never claimed tires were the only advantage. The issues the S550 has from a performance standpoint have been demonstrated to be correctable with suspension adjustments, tires etc. The chassis is very capable.

Really though, you can take almost any RWD chassis, give it bracing and reinforcement, put it on a diet with lightweight wheels and other parts, give it nice coil-over suspension, modify it so it can race, and beat another car. Porsche does this with the 911, it's an inherently inferior platform, but put enough $$ and R&D into it with things like 4-wheel steering, ever-increasing track with each model, and so on, and you can keep it on top or nearly so, but it comes at a huge cost. Then you have GM ZL1-1LEs running them down for lunch for a third of the price, because a superior chassis is, well, a superior chassis. GM may not want to put $200K worth of engineering into that car, but they don't have to.

So yeah, with enough modding, you can make almost anything happen. Not sure what that proves though...

[Quinten_33]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Funny, the Camaro has never offered the variety of model lineups as the mustang. As of right now, the PP1 lines up with the SS, the PP2 lines up with the 1LE and the GT500 lines up with the ZL1. Ford doesn’t offer anything that lines up with the ZL11LE, but GM doesn’t have anything that lines up with the GT, Bullitt, GT350 or GT350R. And we haven’t even got to talking about Roush, Steeda, Salleen or Shelby.

The GT lines up with the 1SS, PP1 lines up with 1SS(with Active suspension or NPP, but not both), PP2 lines up with 1SS1LE, Bullit lines up with 2SS1LE. The GT350R and GT350 are completely different animals than the ZL1 and ZL1 1LE, and they attract different buyers.

As for the aftermarket companies you listed, There’s companies like Yenko, Katech, Vengeance and Callaway for the Camaro. NO CAR IN AMERICA HAS MORE AFTERMARKET SUPPORT THAN THE CHEVROLET CAMARO. But that doesn’t matter, because we’re talking about the manufactures here.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by crankaholic

Well this is an interesting thread...



I think you're misunderstanding what a spoiler does, it's not creating down-force... it's adjusting the aerodynamic profile of the rear to minimize/eliminate lift. That doesn't increase drag like a down-force generating wing would. The front splitter is moving air around the car and creating lower pressure underneath the car, helping create down-force. Whether this creates extra drag, and how much, depends on how the rest of the car handles air moving around it. I think the Camaro is just less aerodynamic because of it's shape and extra cooling abilities, that creates more aerodynamic drag. The wider tires hurt rolling resistance as well.


Those tires were another huge difference in this comparison. However, tires are nothing if the chassis can't locate them properly... they're useless if the suspension components can't keep them on the ground and pointing in the right direction.


I think the Mustang chassis (that's platform and suspension components) just aren't advanced enough to provide the level of performance an Alpha platform car was designed for. You have to understand that the Mustang is bespoke for Ford and they have to be able to sell the the thing from a $20k EcoBoost grocery-getter, all the way up to the GT500. GM is going after Euro luxury/performance cars with Cadillac, and they spent A LOT of money to develop a platform that will get them there. Luckily for us they also decided to base the Camaro on that platform. The CTS-V (closest relative) is meant to go up against M5s, E63s and Panamera Turbos... cars that cost over $100,000 in some cases. Anyone who's seen the underside of the Camaro knows just how much aluminum is in the front and how advanced it all is.

I think GM saved money as well, that's especially evident in the rear suspension... the car could have been even lighter if they used aluminum for the rear subframe and control arms. But judging by the lap times, spending so much $ on the rear-end would bring diminished returns. It just has to be able to not flex like a noodle under power.


There's a youtube car review channel I watch, the guy does great reviews... I've linked the underbody sections of the GT, GT350 and ZL1 1LE (same front end as the SS, except for the DSSVs, unlike the Mustangs). Looking at the front end will should you exactly why the Camaro is good.


(edit: looks like time stamped links are wonky... start at 04:12)



(edit: 05:00)



(edit: 14:16)




I really like the GT350, R and regular. I would have bought one if they weren't marked up to the moon. As time goes on though, I realize more and more that the Camaro is built on a better platform. Lap times are just evidence of that.

Does anyone know if PP2 will feature steering knuckles from the GT350? It's actually where I think Ford is going wrong. Once they developed the GT350, they should have given all the new components to the PP2 GT and taken away the more expensive components as you went down the trim levels. People bough the Shelbys for the name and engine, most of the current owners wouldn't have cared those chassis components were made available on the GT. They wouldn't have bought a GT anyway.

Huh? I reposted what the GM DESIGNER of the blade spoiler said regarding its testing and function

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

You truly are insane, aren’t you. Not one single person i here or in any mustang forum thought the PP1 was going to compete with the 1LE on the track....not one. Why do you keep spouting off that garbage?

You did. And you never once expressed that sentiment until AFTER the GT PP1 got toasted. And even after you went on about the 1 mile bottom of the river run on dirt and sand and gravel. You spouted off because you honestly thought it would be a good match up with the extra hp and other goodies. And now after it loses is when you start talking about how you never expected it to win and how Ford doesn't care about performance. Now, all of a sudden. You lingered on this forum all this time only because you thought it would win or at least put up a decent fight. And your only face save is to say that you never thought it had a chance which I call bullshit. You hoped it would and that is evident by all your posts. When the PP2 gets it's ass kicked you'll go right back to this same argument. That Ford doesn't care about performance and you never thought it had a chance.

[crankaholic]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Huh? I reposted what the GM DESIGNER of the blade spoiler said regarding its testing and function

Yep. The GM designer clearly stated that it reduced lift... nothing about creating downforce. The ZL1 1LE wing creates downforce, and aerodynamic drag as a byproduct.

Here's a pretty good explanation on the subject https://oppositelock.kinja.com/wings...ong-1665312667

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by crankaholic

Yep. The GM designer clearly stated that it reduced lift... nothing about creating downforce. The ZL1 1LE wing creates downforce, and aerodynamic drag as a byproduct.

Here's a pretty good explanation on the subject https://oppositelock.kinja.com/wings...ong-1665312667

I provided his statement without comment since everyone was discussing it. You’re correct. He said nothing about downforce. Only reduced lift. Relevant information given the discussion at that time.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You did. And you never once expressed that sentiment until AFTER the GT PP1 got toasted. And even after you went on about the 1 mile bottom of the river run on dirt and sand and gravel. You spouted off because you honestly thought it would be a good match up with the extra hp and other goodies. And now after it loses is when you start talking about how you never expected it to win and how Ford doesn't care about performance. Now, all of a sudden. You lingered on this forum all this time only because you thought it would win or at least put up a decent fight. And your only face save is to say that you never thought it had a chance which I call bullshit. You hoped it would and that is evident by all your posts. When the PP2 gets it's ass kicked you'll go right back to this same argument. That Ford doesn't care about performance and you never thought it had a chance.

You should quote where he says these things. That's what the quote button is for, otherwise you're just making up you're own argument.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[crankaholic]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I provided his statement without comment since everyone was discussing it. You’re correct. He said nothing about downforce. Only reduced lift. Relevant information given the discussion at that time.

I guess I didn't really say why I pointed that out... sorry... spoilers don't (or shouldn't, especially properly designed ones) increase drag. So it had nothing to do with the MPH difference on that dry lake bed. Not that it was a relevant test to begin with.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by crankaholic

Yep. The GM designer clearly stated that it reduced lift... nothing about creating downforce. The ZL1 1LE wing creates downforce, and aerodynamic drag as a byproduct.

Here's a pretty good explanation on the subject https://oppositelock.kinja.com/wings...ong-1665312667

Got news for y'all, a spoiler, which spoils lift, adds all kinds of drag. Separation drag (airflow separating from a surface) is massive drag. Wing adds induced drag.

Bottom line, "aero" stuff for track use usually adds drag and slows a car's top-speed, whether it's a wing or a spoiler.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Got news for y'all, a spoiler, which spoils lift, adds all kinds of drag. Separation drag (airflow separating from a surface) is massive drag. Wing adds induced drag.

Bottom line, "aero" stuff for track use usually adds drag and slows a car's top-speed, whether it's a wing or a spoiler.

Worth noting, a properly-designed wing adds drastically fewer counts of drag than a spoiler of similar effect.

Complicating matters, many "low wing" features, function more as a spoiler, and not wings.

[waterman]

I have not been following this thread until this evening.

The opinions and facts expressed on this page (60) alone are well worth the price of admission. Kudos to BlaqWhole, metros11, crankaholic (love me some Savagegeese), JamesNoBrakes, Mr. Wyndham and hotlap. It is my distinct privilege to hang on this forum with gentlemen of this caliber, well knowing in the ways of high performance automotive propulsion. Then again, it could be the Knob Creek talking.

To bad that there can't be an honest and balanced exchange of ideas like this on Capitol Hill... Oh sh*t, did I just say that?

BRAVO!