Quote:
Originally Posted by shaffe
This is all in good fun and back forth banter - not meant to come of as hostile or anything lol
We are talking about this test. The PP2 VS the 350. The 350 performed better in all areas except braking and skid pad. You made it seem like only Ford could allow that to happen. I gave you evidence that the SS1LE beats the ZL1 in those same metrics.
|
Regardless of the test, the same syndrome is there...the more expensive Mustang loses at something to a lower level vehicle. There was no significant weight bias between the PP2 and the Shelby. So why is the PP2 braking better? Also we still don't know at which lap it did better and if it was due to 350 having better cooling. At this point the only thing the 350 is good for is beating the PP2 which isn't all that impressive for a $60K car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaffe
Yes I said the 350 should have gone away years ago. It was not built to go fast in a straight line, who cares if a GT PP1* is faster in a straightline. But as evidenced by this test, it goes around a track better than the GT. Even with all the PP2 goodies, a tire advantage and trickle down tech the 350 is still a better track car than the GT. C&D even said when pushed, its more planted, its more controlled, the steering is better. You just wanted to come at it bc a test showed a GT having 2 better metrics that in the end didn't matter, because the 350 was still faster on the road course and in the 1/4 mile. as you and hotlap and others love to mention there is 1 specific combo of options on a GT that is faster than a 350 in the 1/4 mile - an option combo that is designed to excel in that arena vs a car that designed to excel in a different arena. So to me it looks like a car the still in the mustang line up in the pecking order it's in excels in the area it is supposed to.
|
It is not about it not being fast in a straight line. Which is why I have no desire to debate with you anymore. Because you just do not get it. It is because of the fact that at it's price, it struggles against cars like the SLE AND it can't do better in a straight line AND it loses at something important to a lower trim Mustang that costs half it's price. Look at what GM accomplished with the Camaros. Cars that can do everything extremely well. The GT350 can't even beat the cheaper ZL1 at what it was made to be good at. It can't beat the GT. And apparently it is capable of beating only the PP2 which is $12K cheaper around a track after the PP2 has started to experience performance fade because Ford did not give it the proper cooling.
Your problem is that you, and others, are more of a Ford fanboy than I ever will be a GM fanboy, and you don't realize it. You constantly make excuses for Ford and they continue to pump out these weird bullshit combinations and cars that for some reason cannot beat anything in their class or in their price range unless they get a heavy mismatch in their favor. If GM had built such crap I would have walked away a long time ago and never looked back. I definitely would not be defending them. But again, when your $70K+ Shelby Mustang loses in a straight line to a $30K Mustang or when the non-R version loses at something to a lower trim Mustang or when GT500s are only able to beat cars with 260 less HP and that cost much less and they still manage to lose at something and they won't even match it against the car that Ford claims they benchmarked for 3 years...and your excuse is "well the GT350 wasn't built for straight line", "oh that was only 3 tests", "oh well it still lapped the track better (after the PP2 started to overheat)", then you are a fanboy to the extreme. At this point, the only thing capable of beating GM's $60K cars cost well over $70K, needs 760 HP, and still will lose. And the other $70K vehicle can't beat anything except for the SS at anything. And the cheaper version of it is still more expensive and can only beat a car that is prone to overheating. And you're arguing with me??