[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

GT PP2 vs the GT350. And the GT350 loses in braking and road holding despite being much more expensive. LOL!!WTF Ford...??

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-shelby-gt350/

How TF do you be more expensive, receive "updates" to the suspension, and STILL manage to lose in handling to a lower trim?? And remember, people paid markups for this car before the updates. LOL!!

Nice find, hopefully this leads to the ss 1le vs the gt350 comparo so many of us want. Even if the ss 1le loses, who cares it's still fun. Judging by prior car and driver numbers the ss 1le should at least be able to keep up in acceleration numbers up to the 1/4.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Maybe I’ll pm it to V**D**. That’ll probably get me banned.

He is something else and it would be funny.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Super-expensive Mustangs are always winning in areas that just so happen to be impossible to measure in numbers. Like "cosmic" epicness or "it sounds better".

If the GT350 wins at Grattan then I will assume and suggest that it is because the PP2 (being without proper cooling as a way to ensure it doesn't match the GT350) probably starts to overheat and slows down after 1 lap. LOL! Unless that is actually the first lap.

If it is after 1 lap then they'll put those results when it is compared to the GT350 as a way to protect the Shelby. So they'll run the PP2 until it slows down so they can say the GT350 is 2 seconds faster. Otherwise, against the SLE, they'll use it's best lap so they can call it a close match. LOL!!

The gt350 won as it should have, I think just likewhen people compare the 350 to the ss 1le, they are forgetting to mention it's substantial power advantage. It's not like they have the same powertrain and the gt350 wins solely because of suspension and chassis tuning. That definately factors in, but so does the extra 66 hp over the pp2.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

True, but the GT350 is much more composed (can’t measure that in numbers) and as a result bests the PP2 by 2 seconds per lap at Grattan, which is the ultimate measure.

While you're correct about the intangibles that are hard to measure, one measurable number that also accounts for that lap time differential is the 66 hp advantage over the pp2. Its not just chassis vs chassis, but powertrain as well. Take that power advantage away and the spread would be a little closer whether the 350 is more composed or not.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Interestingly enough after further review of the C&D article, now that car and driver switched to their 1 foot roll out standard that they disclosed a few months back this is the fastest m6 mustang GT they have tested at 12.5 in the 1/4 and the fastest gt350 at 12.2. The pp2 was .1 faster in every metric, idk if they ran it again during the comparo or just adjusted the numbers from the ss 1le comparo. For anyone who cares lol.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

While you're correct about the intangibles that are hard to measure, one measurable number that also accounts for that lap time differential is the 66 hp advantage over the pp2. Its not just chassis vs chassis, but powertrain as well. Take that power advantage away and the spread would be a little closer whether the 350 is more composed or not.

That is definitely true. I think to some degree I’m a little jaded by the clear differences in performance due to intangibles that I noticed driving a Bullitt and a GT350 about a week apart. The difference in “put togetherness” of the two cars made it hard to believe they were built at the same plant on the same platform. I had no qualms about handing back the Bullitt keys. I really, really, really wanted to keep the GT350 keys. And there’s less of a power difference between those two. Granted, I have never driven a PP2, so the differences in chassis may not be so severe.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

That is definitely true. I think to some degree I’m a little jaded by the clear differences in performance due to intangibles that I noticed driving a Bullitt and a GT350 about a week apart. The difference in “put togetherness” of the two cars made it hard to believe they were built at the same plant on the same platform. I had no qualms about handing back the Bullitt keys. I really, really, really wanted to keep the GT350 keys. And there’s less of a power difference between those two. Granted, I have never driven a PP2, so the differences in chassis may not be so severe.

I'm in the opposite boat, I've driven a bullit and pp2 back to back lol. The pp2 definately felt like it was on rails compared to the bullit, though powertrain wise they felt identical (idk about that 20 to advantage lol). Im sure a lot was tires but the pp2 is definately a different animal suspension wise, felt a lot like a 1le. Bullitt honestly felt like an entry level m6 GT with a better interior with those tall side wall tires, I've driven pp1s as well and they feel more planted.... I'm sure the gt350s transmission alone feels leagues better than the flimsy mt82 on the pp2.

[Laststandard]

Originally Posted by minn19

Quick question for everyone here and would appreciate your thoughts on the subject. I got creamed for two things on M6G. One, daring to suggest a track alignment is not a mod. As the Ford faithful are still clinging to the GT500 was in customer deliverable street alignment and of course it was an unfair advantage for the C8 to be in its track alignment. Most of them say it is a mod.

Second, I said it was no different then hitting the drive modes, especially the drag mode that softens the dampening for the rear on the GT500. I stated one was a manual adjustment and the other was electronic. I was told by one especially colorful member that “I was too stupid to live this long without help.”

I don’t consider adjusting the car the way the factory recommends or allows you to, especially on a car like a ZLE a mod. But, apparently I’m the crazy one.

Anyway thoughts?

Late to this party, but for most Mustang guys a track alignment requires mods, which is why they probably feel that way. The only Mustangs that can get more negative camber from the factory without changing anything are the Shelby R models or Shelby handling pack (if the dealer remembered to install the camber plates). Any other Stang needs camber plates, eccentric bolts, or pull the struts and slot them.

After all the whining about the C8 having a track alignment, they sure didn't care about the GT500 having one for that Icons test.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Laststandard

Late to this party, but for most Mustang guys a track alignment requires mods, which is why they probably feel that way. The only Mustangs that can get more negative camber from the factory without changing anything are the Shelby R models or Shelby handling pack (if the dealer remembered to install the camber plates). Any other Stang needs camber plates, eccentric bolts, or pull the struts and slot them.

After all the whining about the C8 having a track alignment, they sure didn't care about the GT500 having one for that Icons test.

Correct, but even at that Ford still gives "track" alignment specs/recommendations for those without the handling pack. Unless they are talking about installing camber plates/bolts etc to attain those values in the manual. In which case, is another very odd thing for Ford to do, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Off topic, but do you work at a local BMW dealer in town here?

[Laststandard]

Originally Posted by minn19

Correct, but even at that Ford still gives "track" alignment specs/recommendations for those without the handling pack. Unless they are talking about installing camber plates/bolts etc to attain those values in the manual. In which case, is another very odd thing for Ford to do, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Off topic, but do you work at a local BMW dealer in town here?

Actually IIRC they mention slotting the struts in a TSB or something for the Ford techs. It's just crazy to me that they offer the PP1 and PP2 'track packs' and still have no adjustment from the factory.

Not me at the BMW dealer. I work with industrial hydraulics.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

I'm in the opposite boat, I've driven a bullit and pp2 back to back lol. The pp2 definately felt like it was on rails compared to the bullit, though powertrain wise they felt identical (idk about that 20 to advantage lol). Im sure a lot was tires but the pp2 is definately a different animal suspension wise, felt a lot like a 1le. Bullitt honestly felt like an entry level m6 GT with a better interior with those tall side wall tires, I've driven pp1s as well and they feel more planted.... I'm sure the gt350s transmission alone feels leagues better than the flimsy mt82 on the pp2.

We clearly agree on the bold parts. Those were my issues with the Bullitt.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Laststandard

Late to this party, but for most Mustang guys a track alignment requires mods, which is why they probably feel that way. The only Mustangs that can get more negative camber from the factory without changing anything are the Shelby R models or Shelby handling pack (if the dealer remembered to install the camber plates). Any other Stang needs camber plates, eccentric bolts, or pull the struts and slot them.

After all the whining about the C8 having a track alignment, they sure didn't care about the GT500 having one for that Icons test.

Wonder what they think about the gt350s handling pack adjustable camber plates mentioned in the recent c&d article

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Laststandard

Actually IIRC they mention slotting the struts in a TSB or something for the Ford techs. It's just crazy to me that they offer the PP1 and PP2 'track packs' and still have no adjustment from the factory.

Not me at the BMW dealer. I work with industrial hydraulics.

Agreed, but that is one of a zillion weird Fordisms.

Gotcha, I've got an acquaintance that works at a BMW dealer and he has a nicely modded SS Camaro he tracks in MN as well.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

You guys have to remember this is all coming from someone who bought the most expensive 12 sec performance car on the planet. LOL!! Ok just kidding.

A person who owns a GT500 probably couldn't care less what a supercharged Mustnag GT can do. It's just a GT after all. And that goes especially true for the CF version. That thing is soo expensive that most who are buying it probably aren't even Mustang guys to begin with. On the other hand someone who can't afford it (most of the Mustang community that is) and would rather mod a GT would probably brag about how their stripped down base model GT with a blower on it and DRs and a drag pack cost them $36K total and can beat a GT500 in a straight line but nothing else. 7 Years ago I would rather be the guy who mods a car. These days I'd rather be the guy who buys the GT500.

This ^ someone who buys the top trim of any car probably isn't going to care what someone in their modified car can do. Someone could buy a Foxbody or F body and make it faster. Someone can make an SS faster than a ZL1.

Originally Posted by minn19

Quick question for everyone here and would appreciate your thoughts on the subject. I got creamed for two things on M6G. One, daring to suggest a track alignment is not a mod. As the Ford faithful are still clinging to the GT500 was in customer deliverable street alignment and of course it was an unfair advantage for the C8 to be in its track alignment. Most of them say it is a mod.

Second, I said it was no different then hitting the drive modes, especially the drag mode that softens the dampening for the rear on the GT500. I stated one was a manual adjustment and the other was electronic. I was told by one especially colorful member that “I was too stupid to live this long without help.”

I don’t consider adjusting the car the way the factory recommends or allows you to, especially on a car like a ZLE a mod. But, apparently I’m the crazy one.

Anyway thoughts?

See below

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I watched that whole show and intentionally rode the bench for that one. My position is somewhere in between. There is (in my opinion) not an issue with adjusting the suspension to the factory recommended track settings. Fact of the matter is, the CFTP was more than likely delivered with the factory suggest track settings. Likewise, the GT500 base was likely not set up to the track settings and that’s the part that frosts the M6Gers.

I wouldn’t equate something that could be handled by the flip of a switch with a modification (though totally legitimate) that requires wrenches and measuring tools. Is it on par with running drag radials? I don’t know. Neither one voids the factory warranty. Both require some amount of setup time. But one is done to factory recommendations, the other is not.

The answer is somewhere inbetween. It's something that MT did a bad job of explaining - as they have with almost all of the GT500 articles If the factory recommends stuff for track use/duty then I don't see it as a modification and if the automotive press is going to do it, then do it for every vehicle you test and make it known. Don't do it for some and not for others or don't say you did it for one and not make it known for the other.

Originally Posted by hotlap

Both the C8 and GT500 have a recommendation, and alignment specs, for the track. Ford provide a car with a roll cage for the road course comparison. (page 47 in the 500’s supplement) Why would anyone assume that GT500 wasn’t aligned for the track by Ford?

The only reason it was mentioned for the C8 is because MT lifted the whole C8 portion from the C8 align /no-alignment article that compared the two alignments on the track.

What should be called into question is that the cars were not tested the same day. “We” know, and accept, that the GT500 CFTP could have run 2 seconds slower just days later. After all, the ZL1 M6 did when matched with the GT350R.

Even more so. They ran the Full VIR that has both 3/4 mile and 1/2 mile long straights. They turned it into a roll race contest! The car with a 265 HP advantage won. have other cars been matched on Full VIR or was this selected for the GT500?

Then, the C8 beat the GT500 where the M6g crew felt the +265 HP power advantage would reign supreme. The 1/4 mile. ...but the C8 beat the GT500 by 0.4 sec!

Anyway. Motor Trend has butchered every gen6 comparison so far. They are zero’s.

MT has really been bad lately. the whole C8 vs GT500 was a mashup of different articles to fill page space. The cars weren't even there together. So I don't think it's fair to say it was picked to provide an advantage. MT has fluffed their pages with 3 different GT500 reviews all coming from the same test session.

With the exception of the icons video, no auto mag has tested the GT500 against anything yet.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

They NEED a win. And they will take any win they can get. So far the GT500 has been pitted up only against cars where they have the advantage or several advantages. And even in those situations they still manage to lose at several different categories. It seems they lose in more categories than they win. But these guys need anything they can get. So let them have it. We know they do not want to see the Base up against the ZL1 or Z06. They don't want to see the CF against the ZLE or Z06. And when the higher trim C8s arrive they won't be put up against them either. The ONLY challenge we will see the GT500 take is what we already saw...against the Base and Z51 C8. Everything else will slaughter it. As it is the C8 destroyed it in the quarter mile and that is the bottom level lowest one you can get and only costs $60K. It is $14K cheaper and whupped that ass.

The GT500 has only been compared against the RE, a Ferrari and Porsche and then the mash up of two different articles from MT.

C&D only has the vegas event and their first drive. R&T has nothing cars.com has nothing To say it's hand picked what it's reviewed against is false because for the most part it hasn't been tested against anything yet. There are only two tests comparing it to something else. the MT mashup of two different articles and the icons video.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Track alignment is similar to lowering tire pressure etc. Also it is similar to racing on a prepped track and claiming the car is whatever it does on that track. Well a C8 won't run as good as it did with that alignment because that is not how you drive it in DD condition. Well the GT won't always be on a prepped track with a pro driver or with someone getting advice from 25 people and in perfect weather and with people spraying the tires down and throwing ice on the blower either. But again, they need this win. Badly. So let them have it. I doubt anyone but them cares.

Truth ^ if it is recommended I don't see it as a mod.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The good thing is that we have 2 people on this thread and others through out this forum who all came from GT350s and have had problems. But only one of them doesn't deal in "ifs"...

To be fair in our countless back and forths I have asked you several what if questions and you never bit either lol.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

GT PP2 vs the GT350. And the GT350 loses in braking and road holding despite being much more expensive. LOL!!WTF Ford...??

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-shelby-gt350/

How TF do you be more expensive, receive "updates" to the suspension, and STILL manage to lose in handling to a lower trim?? And remember, people paid markups for this car before the updates. LOL!!

BUT this is much like the C8 VS C7. You are looking for anyway to trash the GT350 and just looking at the stat sheet. ( I did something similar with the C7 VS C8, not in the trashing mode like you but was expecting more)

The C7 vs C8 test showed the C7 braked better, and put up better handling numbers yet once they got the cars on the road course the C8 put up better lap times. Exact same with the GT350 VS pp2 here. the PP2 might have better stats in the box but on the course where it counts the GT350 was 2 seconds faster than the PP2 was.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

True, but the GT350 is much more composed (can’t measure that in numbers) and as a result bests the PP2 by 2 seconds per lap at Grattan, which is the ultimate measure.

This ^

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Super-expensive Mustangs are always winning in areas that just so happen to be impossible to measure in numbers. Like "cosmic" epicness or "it sounds better".

If the GT350 wins at Grattan then I will assume and suggest that it is because the PP2 (being without proper cooling as a way to ensure it doesn't match the GT350) probably starts to overheat and slows down after 1 lap. LOL! Unless that is actually the first lap.

If it is after 1 lap then they'll put those results when it is compared to the GT350 as a way to protect the Shelby. So they'll run the PP2 until it slows down so they can say the GT350 is 2 seconds faster. Otherwise, against the SLE, they'll use it's best lap so they can call it a close match. LOL!!

So you are suggesting C&D slowed down the PP2 on purpose to protect the GT350....Come on Blaq you are better than that lol

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

The gt350 won as it should have, I think just likewhen people compare the 350 to the ss 1le, they are forgetting to mention it's substantial power advantage. It's not like they have the same powertrain and the gt350 wins solely because of suspension and chassis tuning. That definately factors in, but so does the extra 66 hp over the pp2.

This ^