[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by 13vertss

They may of used the same verbiage, but look at the time. 2016 was 1:37.78, this time was 1:37.77

I was confused about that too. Perhaps it's a rounding error? Not sure, but it sure seemed like it was from 2016 according to the verbiage:

"Although we did not have both cars at the same time to do it properly, they were, in fact, tested in the same locations and by the same drivers."

Plus, I'm not sure there will be an SS 1LE in the Best Driver's competition this year. They usually pick something that is new for that year (like the PP2 or ZR1).

[13vertss]

this was his Instagram quote a little over a month ago.







2,734 likes
jonnyliebermanThe Mustang GT Performance Pack 2 is getting ready to run around the track. Faster or slower than a Camaro SS 1LE, which ran a 1:37.77.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by 13vertss

this was his Instagram quote a little over a month ago.







2,734 likes
jonnyliebermanThe Mustang GT Performance Pack 2 is getting ready to run around the track. Faster or slower than a Camaro SS 1LE, which ran a 1:37.77.

I'm confused. But, I guess it will become clearer when the best driver's car comes out.

Either way, I am glad the PP2 had some faster lap times, but surprised that the reviewers said it was still a bit unsettled. With the different spring rates and a significantly stiffer rear sway bar, I expected that to be gone. The steering precision still had some issues, and the real surprise (to me) was that bumps in back roads unsettled the car. With MRC that is no longer need happen. That's kind of the point of MRC. The car can be flat and planted in the turns and transitions while at the same time absorb bumps without upsetting the car. Ford needs to tune the MRC better.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

I'm confused. But, I guess it will become clearer when the best driver's car comes out.

Either way, I am glad the PP2 had some faster lap times, but surprised that the reviewers said it was still a bit unsettled. With the different spring rates and a significantly stiffer rear sway bar, I expected that to be gone. The steering precision still had some issues, and the real surprise (to me) was that bumps in back roads unsettled the car. With MRC that is no longer need happen. That's kind of the point of MRC. The car can be flat and planted in the turns and transitions while at the same time absorb bumps without upsetting the car. Ford needs to tune the MRC better.

Don’t know if the 1le is part of this years best drivers car, or if there was a 1le there. But he is definitely making it look like they ran the 1le, then the PP2. But don’t know.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by 13vertss

Don’t know if the 1le is part of this years best drivers car, or if there was a 1le there. But he is definitely making it look like they ran the 1le, then the PP2. But don’t know.

Perhaps someone could message Johnny Lieberman on social media to help clear up the confusion.

Either way, the PP2 ran a solid time, nothing to be embarrassed about. It was the comments on how the car got that lap time that has me wondering why Ford couldn't do better. There will always be a faster car right around the corner. HOW the car goes fast is what is a bit more important to me, and so far, it sounds like the PP2 isn't quite there in terms of "point and shoot" type of handling characteristics. Still a little rough around the edges. Not terrible of course, but I expected better because of how well the GT350 handles, and the hype about the "skunk works" project stuff with the PP2.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Perhaps someone could message Johnny Lieberman on social media to help clear up the confusion.

Either way, the PP2 ran a solid time, nothing to be embarrassed about. It was the comments on how the car got that lap time that has me wondering why Ford couldn't do better. There will always be a faster car right around the corner. HOW the car goes fast is what is a bit more important to me, and so far, it sounds like the PP2 isn't quite there in terms of "point and shoot" type of handling characteristics. Still a little rough around the edges. Not terrible of course, but I expected better because of how well the GT350 handles, and the hype about the "skunk works" project stuff with the PP2.

I think it did great. My guess it would be a good 2+ sec. faster then the pp1, which is a lot.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Has anyone ventured over to the "other" site? Pretty sensitive folks over there. One guy is claiming Randy may not have been able to drive the PP2 to it's full capabilities but was able with the 1LE.

Plus a ton of obligatory sales figures, gun slit references, and trunk opening size...

Wow.

Every time the discussion goes to performance they like to go off track and start talking about sales, visibility, and trunk space. None of which matters even one bit. For as "horrible" as they claim the visibility to be, I drive mine just fine in all types of traffic and all hours of day and night. Trunk space, lol, I'll just use my Hellcat or my SUV if I need trunk space. Sales, well regardless of sales, GM doesn't seem to be sweating too much. They sell enough that GM turns enough of a profit to justify it's existence. Shit, the Mustang could sell 5 times as much as the Camaro, that doesn't mean GM still isn't making any money off the Camaro. Try telling that to a Mustang guy tho...

Originally Posted by shaffe

It must have gotten worse since this am when I glanced over there. When I looked the responses were pretty tame, with one guy having a pretty long post basically saying GM is just better at dialing in handling from all the years of doing it on the Vette and trickling it down.

Trickle down is something I do agree with. Ford used to have it but not to the effect that Chevy does. If anything the Bullitt stuff would trickle down to the GT and that's about it. But the Camaro does benefit from the Vette. GM seems to love taking Vette performance and putting it in the Camaro. However Ford had the Boss and other cars and they just go away without much going into the GT. Or so it seems.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Trickle down is something I do agree with. Ford used to have it but not to the effect that Chevy does. If anything the Bullitt stuff would trickle down to the GT and that's about it. But the Camaro does benefit from the Vette. GM seems to love taking Vette performance and putting it in the Camaro. However Ford had the Boss and other cars and they just go away without much going into the GT. Or so it seems.

I Thought we would see some GT350 trickle down on the PP2, suspension wise, but not quite. Somehow, it just didn't translate. Not set-up or tuned as well. Oh well... BRING ON THE GT500 already!!

[ChefBorOzzy]

For as horrible they claim visibility is, I'm surprised insurance rates aren't 10 times higher than Mustangs.

You see less of the sky. Whoopty doo.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

I Thought we would see some GT350 trickle down on the PP2, suspension wise, but not quite. Somehow, it just didn't translate. Not set-up or tuned as well. Oh well... BRING ON THE GT500 already!!

That is what should have happened. But Ford has a way of doing things and making changes that basically keep the same level of performance. So now they have a GT PP2 that is basically the same as a GT350 but without the coolers. And a Bullitt that comes in between the PP1 and PP2. And the GT350R which is just slightly above the non-R. And nobody knows a damn thing about the GT500 except that it'll be out for 2020, will have over 700 HP, and will have crazy mark ups. I'm guessing it'll have some weird suspension cross between the PP2 and GT350R or some dumb shit.

[BlaqWhole]

Such a shame that Ford doesn't have anything to offer in such a comparo.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

That excuse carries no weight. Ford has the dialing in suspension coding for the MRC , they have it in the GT350 and GT350R, they aren't just giving it to the GT.

If they are able to keep everything settled in the GT350, they have the knowhow to do it on the GT

Also a very fair point.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Every time the discussion goes to performance they like to go off track and start talking about sales, visibility, and trunk space. None of which matters even one bit. For as "horrible" as they claim the visibility to be, I drive mine just fine in all types of traffic and all hours of day and night. Trunk space, lol, I'll just use my Hellcat or my SUV if I need trunk space. Sales, well regardless of sales, GM doesn't seem to be sweating too much. They sell enough that GM turns enough of a profit to justify it's existence. Shit, the Mustang could sell 5 times as much as the Camaro, that doesn't mean GM still isn't making any money off the Camaro. Try telling that to a Mustang guy tho...


Trickle down is something I do agree with. Ford used to have it but not to the effect that Chevy does. If anything the Bullitt stuff would trickle down to the GT and that's about it. But the Camaro does benefit from the Vette. GM seems to love taking Vette performance and putting it in the Camaro. However Ford had the Boss and other cars and they just go away without much going into the GT. Or so it seems.

While I agree the sales part means nothing, the visibility and trunk space and basic DD ability of the car can mean a ton to a buyer on the fence. Take me as an example, I have said it numerous times. I can't even consider the Camaro as a choice because the trunk is too small, and I'm sure the wife wouldn't like driving it (she didn't like the visibility/driving position in my last Mustang can't imagine she'd like the Camaro but you never know) I know when one buys a car like this there are sacrifices to make in those DD type areas, but the Mustang is liveable with those sacrifices, in my situation the Camaro would not be and that sucks as a potential buyer. you yourself even say if I need to use the trunk or need space I have different vehicles for that. For someone like me that wouldn't have that option it sucks.

I am sure the Bullitt when it is done will become the "base" GT, Ford trickles down, but I think at this stage of the game GM is just better at it, or makes sure everything is the best it can be. Ford seems to try but just can't seem to get it right.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by shaffe

While I agree the sales part means nothing, the visibility and trunk space and basic DD ability of the car can mean a ton to a buyer on the fence. Take me as an example, I have said it numerous times. I can't even consider the Camaro as a choice because the trunk is too small, and I'm sure the wife wouldn't like driving it (she didn't like the visibility/driving position in my last Mustang can't imagine she'd like the Camaro but you never know) I know when one buys a car like this there are sacrifices to make in those DD type areas, but the Mustang is liveable with those sacrifices, in my situation the Camaro would not be and that sucks as a potential buyer. you yourself even say if I need to use the trunk or need space I have different vehicles for that. For someone like me that wouldn't have that option it sucks.

If you are in a one vehicle household, the Camaro absolutely wouldn’t be enough. My wife has a SUV that we use as a people/cargo hauler with the SS as my daily that she refers to as a “vacation” when driving it.

In the real world, I can fit a full size roller suitcase in my truck and can weave through three lanes of heavy traffic at highway speeds without any difficulties. Proper mirror adjustment and blind spot monitors work. Forward visibility isn’t an issue other than the high belt line does affect ones ability to judge where the curb is in parking structures. I haven’t hit one yet after 20k miles/27 months.

The Camaro’s visabilty is unconventional and the truck opening should have been optimized with a lower lift over to improve accessibility. As you acknowledged through your wife’s dislike of your previous Mustang, the S550 also wouldn’t appeal as a daily because it is actually only marginally better.

Hopefully Chevy address both issues in gen7 in order to remove obstacles to ownership. The driving experience and off idle torque is sublime.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by hotlap

If you are in a one vehicle household, the Camaro absolutely wouldn’t be enough. My wife has a SUV that we use as a people/cargo hauler with the SS as my daily that she refers to as a “vacation” when driving it.

In the real world, I can fit a full size roller suitcase in my truck and can weave through three lanes of heavy traffic at highway speeds without any difficulties. Proper mirror adjustment and blind spot monitors work. Forward visibility isn’t an issue other than the high belt line does affect ones ability to judge where the curb is in parking structures. I haven’t hit one yet after 20k miles/27 months.

The Camaro’s visabilty is unconventional and the truck opening should have been optimized with a lower lift over to improve accessibility. As you acknowledged through your wife’s dislike of your previous Mustang, the S550 also wouldn’t appeal as a daily because it is actually only marginally better.

Hopefully Chevy address both issues in gen7 in order to remove obstacles to ownership. The driving experience and off idle torque is sublime.

See my wife has an Explorer so one would think we should be able to make that compromise. My problem is I am an active person and my trunk in the summer is always loaded with with stuff. Mostly because I leave right from the office to go play lol. So Bat bag, ball bag, cleats and not as much this year but normally my golf bag as well. All that stuff fit in my S197 with no problem, and it all fits in my Focus' trunk now with no problem either. Now with the kid I can even fit the stroller and other stuff in the trunk while keeping my softball and golf bag in there(its super tight but it does all fit). The S550 trunk is actually slighty bigger than my Focus so I know I can fit all that stuff in there.