Quote:
Originally Posted by SSfriendly
As for 1/4 times....this is right where a majority thought the M6 would fall, about even with the SS. The biggest gains to be had is from ditching the A6 slush box for the A10.
Again, with a 1/4 mile and trap comparable to the SS, this is exactly where most thought it would fall.
|
Really? Yes, most SANE folks, and most CAMARO folks thought this to be true. But not the Mustang folks on both this and the other forums. There were soooooo many Mustang trolls on this forum saying that the New Mustang was blowing away the Camaro? They weren't gloating because of a tie... They thought that the new Mustang was significantly faster than the Camaro. They though it was an easy 11.x second car all day long, where the Camaro was a low 12.x. They have since calmed down a bit, but there was a significant amount Mustang folks spiking the ball even though they weren't in the endzone yet.
Quote:
|
As for the suspension, you have to keep in mind that many older mustang owners proffered the GTs swishy suspension over the PP1. Having more options isn’t a bad thing, and the PP1 will be quite good for many. For the rest, that’s why they produced a PP2.
|
Again, you don't have to sacrifice comfort for performance much anymore. You can have both. Most Honda Accords don't have that much body movement, and they don't even use MRC. And no one is complaining about the harsh ride either. Accords don't have vague steering feel either. You don't have to adjust the steering after turn-in to the rear end flinging over.
That's bad.
I would have preferred this:
Base GT = better handling than the previous GT, but add MRC to sort out the comfort.
PP1 = tighten the suspension even more, make the car sorted in the turns, then use MRC to reduce the harshness. Better tires, but not Sport Cup 2's.
This would be for hooning about on a back road.
PP2 = add track tires (Sport Cup 2's), more brakes, a bit of aero, and coolers for the track rats.