[oldman]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The tire argument is just an excuse. If they were very close in performance with the Camaro just edging out the Mustang and the Camaro had much better tires, then I would agree that the tires are to credit. But when the margin was as huge as it was, then there is no way anyone can say it was the tire.

The PS4 is a better tire imo, I’ve run them both on my camaro, now what?

[kttxz06]

Well, every driven behind a Mustang GT lately? They have skinnies on the rear. There is your problem. hehe

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Hell...put the SS 1LE on All-Seasons, I still think it would spank the GT PP1.

Eh... I don't know. Motortrend did manage to get 2.4 seconds improvement in lap times from putting the Mustang's summer tires on the 2.0T Camaro instead of the All Seasons. Which was enough to go from losing to the EcoBoost Mustang by .86 seconds to beating it by 1.6 seconds.

But given the time difference between the two, putting the SS 1LE on All Seasons will probably close the gap considerably though.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And then what happens when the Mustang loses and the fanboys claim that the tire wasn't optimal to the Mustang's chassis? Or what if the Mustang boys claim that the tires used already had X amount of miles on them like they tried to claim in the GT350R/ZL1 H2H. There will always be an excuse why the Mustang loses. All this will do is cost more money.

Let me remind you that I'm looking at this comparison with no brand favoritism whatsoever. I happen to own a Mustang, but neither it nor Ford nor the diehard Mustang fan base owns me.

MT could have avoided all mention of mfr or model and disguised/camouflaged the cars to the extent you'd never have been able to guess what they were and my thoughts and posts would not have been any different except to have replaced any incidental mention of either 'Mustang' or 'Camaro' with 'car A' or 'car B'.

As an engineer, just closer to parity would have been better than the knife to a gunfight scenario that we knew we were going to get as soon as it was rumored. And yes, I'm fully aware that mfrs can specify slightly different specs for what's nominally the same model tire you might buy from Tire Rack or any other supplier for his OE uses.

Suppose the 1LE does turn out to top the PP2. Wouldn't you like to know that from actual comparative testing now as opposed to what's still in the hopeful thinking dep't? Even confidence in the outcome doesn't guarantee it will happen the way you'd like it to . . . I'll bet all the Patriots fans were confident last week, too.

How was it a waste when the Mustang just got all these performance improvements?

The H2H isn't about drag racing, so a moderate HP upgrade - which was basically only enough for parity with the existing SS - isn't particularly relevant in a road course situation.

And I ask again, what happens when the Mustang loses

What if it doesn't? I'm open to either car winning the rematch so let's wait and see what actually does happen. Understand that any opinions I post will be mine regardless of whether they line up with the opinions of the fanboys - on either side of the street. Like it's always been.


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The tire argument is just an excuse. If they were very close in performance with the Camaro just edging out the Mustang and the Camaro had much better tires, then I would agree that the tires are to credit. But when the margin was as huge as it was, then there is no way anyone can say it was the tire.

No, not all of it, and I haven't been trying to say that it was (that's your excuse if you think that's what I've been trying to do).

But it is a significant part (you have to include the wheel widths as well), when very little of the margin came from differences in power, acceleration potential, or aerodynamics.

Where do you suppose most of the difference between 1.12g and 1.00g on the skidpad came from? That's a 12% difference, huge, compared to about a 4% difference in lap times. FWIW, a 12% difference in lateral g's corresponds to about a 6% difference in cornering speed, so maybe the Camaro should have put down closer to a 6% better lap time. What happened that held it down to being only 4% better?


Norm

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

No, not all of it, and I haven't been trying to say that it was (that's your excuse if you think that's what I've been trying to do).

But it is a significant part (you have to include the wheel widths as well), when very little of the margin came from differences in power, acceleration potential, or aerodynamics.

Where do you suppose most of the difference between 1.12g and 1.00g on the skidpad came from? That's a 12% difference, huge, compared to about a 4% difference in lap times. FWIW, a 12% difference in lateral g's corresponds to about a 6% difference in cornering speed, so maybe the Camaro should have put down closer to a 6% better lap time. What happened that held it down to being only 4% better?


Norm

Chassis! 90% chassis 10% wheels/tires

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Let me remind you that I'm looking at this comparison with no brand favoritism whatsoever. I happen to own a Mustang, but neither it nor Ford nor the diehard Mustang fan base owns me.

MT could have avoided all mention of mfr or model and disguised/camouflaged the cars to the extent you'd never have been able to guess what they were and my thoughts and posts would not have been any different except to have replaced any incidental mention of either 'Mustang' or 'Camaro' with 'car A' or 'car B'.

As an engineer, just closer to parity would have been better than the knife to a gunfight scenario that we knew we were going to get as soon as it was rumored. And yes, I'm fully aware that mfrs can specify slightly different specs for what's nominally the same model tire you might buy from Tire Rack or any other supplier for his OE uses.

Suppose the 1LE does turn out to top the PP2. Wouldn't you like to know that from actual comparative testing now as opposed to what's still in the hopeful thinking dep't? Even confidence in the outcome doesn't guarantee it . . . I'll bet all the Patriots fans were confident last week, too.


The H2H isn't about drag racing, so a moderate HP upgrade - which was basically only enough for parity with the existing SS - isn't particularly relevant in a road course situation.


What if it doesn't? I'm open to either car winning the rematch so let's wait and see what actually does happen. Understand that any opinions I post will be mine regardless of whether they line up with the opinions of the fanboys - on either side of the street. Like it's always been.


Norm

Norm,

While the road course and canyon carving portion of the H2H was a big win for the Camaro, and "knife to a gun fight" scenario, the rest of the comparison was not. Many folks don't care about turns and are more into 1/4 mile type stuff, and others just want a comfortable GT car.

So, I don't really view this H2H as a "knife to a gunfight" type situation. The Mustang added more HP, a fancy digital gauge cluster, dual injection, Magneride, dual mode exhaust, and many other upgrades that warranted a test against the competition.

Ton's of folks wanted to know how this extra content would compare. Especially the 1/4 mile crowd. An initial hero run gave some Mustang faithful hope that the Mustang would surpass the Camaro when judged on the 1/4 track. As the dust has been settling, it appears that the Mustang improvements brought it to a driver's race rather than a clear lead by any car. Which was to be expected given the HP and weight numbers we saw.

So, this H2H was very valuable as a "same driver same day" comparison in 0-60, 1/4 mile, braking, etc. Many Mustang folks who are into the 1/4 mile won't get the PP2 because it is more for the road course and you can't get the A10 with PP2. So there was great value in this H2H, just not in the road course and/or canyon carving section of the comparison.

But now that the results are out, the Mustang fans don't care because the 1/4 mile crowd got a little ahead of themselves, and so far, all the "same driver same day" comparisons show the Camaro winning, but by a negligible amount. That's not as exciting as a 11 second car they, for a brief time, thought it was.

And on the road course, the Mustang got killed. So, the Mustang crowd isn't excited about that either.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by mjk3888

Chassis! 90% chassis 10% wheels/tires

So if it was mostly chassis, why weren't the results more like 6% apart?

Personally, I suspect it was closer to 50/50.


Norm

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

No, not all of it, and I haven't been trying to say that it was (that's your excuse if you think that's what I've been trying to do).

But it is a significant part (you have to include the wheel widths as well), when very little of the margin came from differences in power, acceleration potential, or aerodynamics.

Where do you suppose most of the difference between 1.12g and 1.00g on the skidpad came from? That's a 12% difference, huge, compared to about a 4% difference in lap times. FWIW, a 12% difference in lateral g's corresponds to about a 6% difference in cornering speed, so maybe the Camaro should have put down closer to a 6% better lap time. What happened that held it down to being only 4% better?


Norm

Well, a road course is not just turns, there are straights as well. so 6% better in the turns won't make a 6% better lap time. You would also have to have a 6% better acceleration and 6% better braking to get 6% overall.

[mjk3888]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

So if it was mostly chassis, why weren't the results more like 6% apart?

Personally, I suspect it was closer to 50/50.


Norm

I own the SS 1LE and have driven a 2018 GT PP1. That's just my opinion. Johnny Lieberman also told me he felt, more than just simple answers like chassis or tire advantage, the Camaro is just more developed. I take that to mean it seems more sorted out as a package instead of a parts bin car.

[whiteboyblues2001]

If you put some race tires on the Mustang, perhaps it would turn a faster lap. But that is just better tires. Does that mean it's a better road course/canyon carving car? Not really. Grip is just part of the equation. Here is an illustration of what I mean:

Compare the Z51 Corvette and the regular SS Camaro (non-1LE). I am sure that the 'vette would turn a better lap time, but most folks who have driven both cars say the Camaro is much more fun to drive due to the driving dynamics near/as/past the limits. The 'vette seems like it is a lot to handle, and you have to fight with it, and it gets sketchy, where the Camaro seems to want to correct itself inspiring confidence.

Road course and canyon carving isn't always about lap times, it's about enjoyment. The Camaro is unbelievably enjoyable, predictable, and fast at the limits. No sketchy about it. It instantly makes you a better driver, and is sooo easy to make go fast. That's fun! I had many instructors at HPDE's tell me they were considering getting a Camaro after riding in mine, including a guy who currently owned a 911. I asked him, "you own a 911, and your thinking of 'upgrading' to a Camaro?", and he said yes! Do you think HPDE instructors would say the same about the Mustang?

Note: the 911 was a non-turbo S model about 8 or so years old. He drove me in his 911 during the instructor group to show me some things we were talking about during my sessions. He had better tires, and the 911 was faster in the turns, but in the front straight he was only getting to about 125 MPH where I as getting close to 145 MPH. And it seemed easier to drive the Camaro fast.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Well, a road course is not just turns, there are straights as well. so 6% better in the turns won't make a 6% better lap time. You would also have to have a 6% better acceleration and 6% better braking to get 6% overall.

The Camaro was almost 12% better at 60 - 0 braking (93' vs 104'). That's almost all coming from the tires - perhaps some of it from the difference in front tire sizing which brings us right back to where this all started.


Norm

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

The Camaro was almost 12% better at 60 - 0 braking (93' vs 104'). That's almost all coming from the tires - perhaps some of it from the difference in front tire sizing which brings us right back to where this all started.


Norm

That makes perfect sense, because if you have 6% better in two of three categories, and pretty even in acceleration (0%), that should come out to about 4%.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Eh... I don't know. Motortrend did manage to get 2.4 seconds improvement in lap times from putting the Mustang's summer tires on the 2.0T Camaro instead of the All Seasons. Which was enough to go from losing to the EcoBoost Mustang by .86 seconds to beating it by 1.6 seconds.

But given the time difference between the two, putting the SS 1LE on All Seasons will probably close the gap considerably though.

The PS4 on the GT PP1 are not all season tires, in fact that can't even be rolled on when cold. The SS, SS 1le and the GT PP1 are summer only tires.