[newmoon]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

This always cracks me up... the power bands are what they are.... and both have their pros/cons...

Mustang - no power down low
Camaro - no power beyond 7k (adding in some tuning/tweaking)

It's just a matter of what YOU (the driver) prefers most. The main reason the LS/LT motors appeal to so many (besides cheap power) is that it's power on demand for MOST driving applications.

High revving motors are great drivers cars, but not so much on the drag strip IMO....

Just a quick question using the heavier A10 GT vs the A10 SS (closest direct comparison I can think of) for example, since the Mustang supposedly has no power down low how does it achieve a better 0-60 time than the Camaro? And continue to have a higher mph at the end of the 1/4 mile? Which car is accelerating harder?

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

But I think you do have to consider the 1/4 mile times... because that's what makes the GT/GT350 issue such a cluster.... the GT with PP2 is virtually as good as the base GT 350, while still being relatively faster in the 1/4 mile and still a good 15k less with ADM. You aren't getting the Shelby name or some of the nicer bits, but in terms of pure performance, you are. (The R version is not what I'm discussing here).

If FCA actually made a track purpose Challenger/Charger vehicle, I dont think it would ever impact the standard cars, regardless of the model. Primarily because it would have to lose a lot of features to really be good or it would be terrible at the 1/4 mile compared to the HC...

Neither GM or FCA build models that close to each other in performance for that very reason...

You're right. You get about 90% of the performance with the PP2 road course wise, but the Shelby is better suited to it because it is equipped with the necessary cooling features ((which I think we all agree ford left of PP2 to protect GT350). So from a trackability standpoint the 350 is still better suited

My point I am trying to make is that if a car is designed with a singular focus it shouldn't matter if other models in the line up are better at other things. Example 5th Gen ZL1 and Z/28. The 5th Gen ZL1 was clearly better in the 1/4 mile while costing 20K less than the Z/28 but the Z/28 wasnt built for the 1/4 and was clearly better on a road course. SRT Viper was better in the 1/4 and had much higher top speed for a lot less than the Viper ACR but the Viper ACR would decimate the SRT on a road course, but again that is a car built with a singular purpose. But I guess that's personal opinion lol I guess I look at it like having the right tool for the job.

BUT I will probably contradict myself here lol and would have to agree with you that Ford mishandled the GT350 and R and should have put them out to pasture after the 17 model year. Or they should have at least dropped the "base" 350 and just kept pumping out the R if they wanted to keep a special edition in the line up till the 500 arrives. But yes I agree the base 350 has no place and that is an issue. I guess Ford is banking on the fact it offers all the coolers, and the allure of the shelby name (which some people care about lol, just like some people clamor for the Z/28 to come back) or the VooDoo.

Originally Posted by newmoon

Just a quick question using the heavier A10 GT vs the A10 SS (closest direct comparison I can think of) for example, since the Mustang supposedly has no power down low how does it achieve a better 0-60 time than the Camaro? And continue to have a higher mph at the end of the 1/4 mile? Which car is accelerating harder?

I believe the answer to that question is the Mustang has a gearing advantage. At least I know for years that is how Ford has made up for the lack of low end torque by aggressively gearing the Mustang. That is why both my 04 and 07 had 4.10s put in them lol.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Just a quick question using the heavier A10 GT vs the A10 SS (closest direct comparison I can think of) for example, since the Mustang supposedly has no power down low how does it achieve a better 0-60 time than the Camaro? And continue to have a higher mph at the end of the 1/4 mile? Which car is accelerating harder?

Drag mode!!

[jvandy50]

doesn't the voodoo stop making power at 7500?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Just a quick question using the heavier A10 GT vs the A10 SS (closest direct comparison I can think of) for example, since the Mustang supposedly has no power down low how does it achieve a better 0-60 time than the Camaro? And continue to have a higher mph at the end of the 1/4 mile? Which car is accelerating harder?

This.....

Originally Posted by shaffe

I believe the answer to that question is the Mustang has a gearing advantage. At least I know for years that is how Ford has made up for the lack of low end torque by aggressively gearing the Mustang. That is why both my 04 and 07 had 4.10s put in them lol.

....and this

Originally Posted by 13vertss

Drag mode!!

Plus the fact that the situation you describe is only applicable to a minority of Mustang GTs. The “hotlap GT*”, for lack of a better term. For most GT / SS drags, the SS will hit 60 first and cross the 1/4 mile first, while the GT will have a higher trap speed. This is because when comparing OHV and OHC of similar output in similar weight vehicles, the OHV will typically launch better and the OHC will breathe better on the top end and so it will have better acceleration from that point. No secrets there. Apply the same conditions to GT M6 and SS M6 and you see a truer representation of this principle. Sort of like the infamous “cowboy racing” scenario that MT did.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Just a quick question using the heavier A10 GT vs the A10 SS (closest direct comparison I can think of) for example, since the Mustang supposedly has no power down low how does it achieve a better 0-60 time than the Camaro? And continue to have a higher mph at the end of the 1/4 mile? Which car is accelerating harder?

The better comparison with similar gearing would be the M6 GT vs the M6 SS where the Mustang gets beat by 4 tenths. But you knew that already. And by the way a base A10 GT is not faster than the base A10 SS. You also knew that already.

I have never seen someone so proud of a .1 advantage on one particular set of options for the GT* in my life.

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Just a quick question using the heavier A10 GT vs the A10 SS (closest direct comparison I can think of) for example, since the Mustang supposedly has no power down low how does it achieve a better 0-60 time than the Camaro? And continue to have a higher mph at the end of the 1/4 mile? Which car is accelerating harder?

Gearing. The Mustangs have a more aggressive gearing setup and this has been a known thing since the 5th gen. It's why the SS 1LE loses to the GT in the half mile run because once it's in 5th gear it falls flat..

The auto cars for the V8 Camaros have a 2.77 gearing (ZL1 has a 2.82) while the GT's have a 3.55.

It's a huge difference in terms of things...

But once again, you confuse the point.... at 2k RPM... the Mustang is making no power....while the Camaro is making good power... the Camaro at 7k RPM is making lower power....while the Mustang at 7k RPM is ripping it...

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by shaffe

My point I am trying to make is that if a car is designed with a singular focus it shouldn't matter if other models in the line up are better at other things. Example 5th Gen ZL1 and Z/28. The 5th Gen ZL1 was clearly better in the 1/4 mile while costing 20K less than the Z/28 but the Z/28 wasnt built for the 1/4 and was clearly better on a road course. SRT Viper was better in the 1/4 and had much higher top speed for a lot less than the Viper ACR but the Viper ACR would decimate the SRT on a road course, but again that is a car built with a singular purpose. But I guess that's personal opinion lol I guess I look at it like having the right tool for the job

But in all of those instances you describe, the road car was essentially MORE expensive than the standard model. And it absolutely spanked the 1/4 mile cars on the track.

The GT 350R beat a GT equipped PP2 model at VIR by 2 seconds...

The Viper ACR had almost a 10 second difference over it's normal SRT 10 model.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

But in all of those instances you describe, the road car was essentially MORE expensive than the standard model. And it absolutely spanked the 1/4 mile cars on the track.

The GT 350R beat a GT equipped PP2 model at VIR by 2 seconds...

The Viper ACR had almost a 10 second difference over it's normal SRT 10 model.

That's exactly my point I am trying to make lol. Now as you mentioned the cars I listed had more substantial advantages on the road course, but 2 seconds is still quite the gap as many on here like to point out. The more expensive road course models are better on the roadcourse but don't hold any advantages anywhere else because they are set up only for road courses.

My point was basically it's not uncommon for the road course variant of cars to cost more, yet not perform as well in other areas because they are set up for road courses

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

But in all of those instances you describe, the road car was essentially MORE expensive than the standard model. And it absolutely spanked the 1/4 mile cars on the track.

The GT 350R beat a GT equipped PP2 model at VIR by 2 seconds...

The Viper ACR had almost a 10 second difference over it's normal SRT 10 model.

But the PP2 is a track tuned car with the same tires as the R. It's not a 1/4 mile car.

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That's exactly my point I am trying to make lol. Now as you mentioned the cars I listed had more substantial advantages on the road course, but 2 seconds is still quite the gap as many on here like to point out. The more expensive road course models are better on the roadcourse but don't hold any advantages anywhere else because they are set up only for road courses.

My point was basically it's not uncommon for the road course variant of cars to cost more, yet not perform as well in other areas because they are set up for road courses

Yes, but the road going versions (standard models) were significantly outclassed by their respective track brothers. Meanwhile, the GT 350/350R almost gets it's ass kicked by a PP2 GT.... and worse yet, for much less money...

That's the whole issue in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

But the PP2 is a track tuned car with the same tires as the R. It's not a 1/4 mile car.

The point however is that the PP2 is still much cheaper than a GT 350 and performs at virtually the same level. That is what Blaqwhole has been arguing the whole time... and he's right..

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Just a quick question using the heavier A10 GT vs the A10 SS (closest direct comparison I can think of) for example, since the Mustang supposedly has no power down low how does it achieve a better 0-60 time than the Camaro? And continue to have a higher mph at the end of the 1/4 mile? Which car is accelerating harder?

But if you're in 5th gear with the A10 in both cars at 2k rpm and don't down shift the SS will pull away because of that low down torque. After all, that's how people race.

Sarcasm aside, the truth is, the 5.0 makes decent torque at low rpms, maybe not LT1 torque, but I find I don't have to rev my car very high at all to pass or accelerate quickly. I used to be that guy that loved low end grunt but I love the 5.0 Gen 3 Coyote paired with the A10 and Torsen 3.55 rear end - that top end feels like it will never quit, plus the sound. I also like that the engine is still only turning 1,700 rpm at 60 mph.

[Ethanolic]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

The GT 350R beat a GT equipped PP2 model at VIR by 2 seconds...

The Viper ACR had almost a 10 second difference over it's normal SRT 10 model.

Not exactly apples to apples... comparing the ACR to the base Vioer is like comparing the R to the PP1, Dodge also made another track oriented Viper...the T/A and the ACR was only 5 seconds faster around VIR despite having a tremendous Aero and iirc tire advantage. The R has has a small downforce and weight advantage over the PP2 and some chassis tweaks. The CF wheels are probably it’s biggest advantage.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

Yes, but the road going versions (standard models) were significantly outclassed by their respective track brothers. Meanwhile, the GT 350/350R almost gets it's ass kicked by a PP2 GT.... and worse yet, for much less money...

That's the whole issue in a nutshell.




The point however is that the PP2 is still much cheaper than a GT 350 and performs at virtually the same level. That is what Blaqwhole has been arguing the whole time... and he's right..

I swear I am not trying to draw this out lol, but since when is holding a 2 second advantage(350R) over a car "almost getting it's ass kicked"?

Also the PP2 does not perform at "virtually the same level"

GT350R holds a 2 second advantage on VIR and almost 2 seconds on Laguna Seca and not that it matters since neither is set up for the 1/4 the 350R is tested at a 12.2 and the PP2 tested at a 12.6

So in what ways is that virtually the same level?

Now if you want to say the PP2 is the same as the regular 350, go for it have at it becuase I will agree there is really no place for the base 350 anymore