[Rodan]

At Willow Springs the GT3RS was 5 seconds faster than GT350R... I found it interesting it was only 2.5 seconds faster at Chuckwalla.

I could easily see the GT500 being only 2.5 seconds faster than GT350R at Chuckwalla.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by 13vertss

That was my thought. The 350R was less then 2.5 sec slower being down 230hp and being a 6 speed. The zl1 is already faster then the R, and we know the 1le is much faster then the zl1. So it would only make sense that the 1le would be at least equal to the track gt500 is not faster. Also, a armature has already been faster then the base, and very close to the track car. So imagine a pro behind the wheel.

Dunno, it'll be interesting to get some more times from places like Laguna Seca etc. Or if/when they lighting lap the GT500s.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

No. You're just a butthurt GM fanboy who worships at the alter of Pobst.

I hope you're joking

Can we not agree that Randy should be faster in a ZLE, especially an A10 equipped one, than an amateur in an M6 car?

[BlaqWhole]

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.

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??

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by TreedYou

I love your conspiracy theories

Read the comments below this one. LOL!! Maybe they aren't conspiracy theories. Maybe I just see thru Ford's BS and you can't.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by minn19

That was one of the crazier things in that thread, especially their reasoning as to why?

Not sure if you are referring to me as well - I'm certainly confused as how I got labelled as Randy P worshipper?

[minn19]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Not sure if you are referring to me as well - I'm certainly confused as how I got labelled as Randy P worshipper?

No, I think you are taking Martin and I out of context. There is a thread on M6G and there are people there that claim Randy is a GM shill. They are saying he has twice sandbagged or purposely messed up to make the GT500 look bad or not as good. I think they are nuts and that is what we are talking about (I think).

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

It's hilarious...even more funny when you point out the prep, coaching, tire pressure changes, max RPM launch mode, etc. it took for SP to get the 10.6 - which I am GLAD he got to confirm Evan's time. Both at private track rentals with more prep than anyone will ever see at any event, but I digress - I must be a hater to realize these facts.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

No. You're just a butthurt GM fanboy who worships at the alter of Pobst.

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I hope you're joking

Can we not agree that Randy should be faster in a ZLE, especially an A10 equipped one, than an amateur in an M6 car?

You were s’posed to read that thru an M6G filter. That’s what they would say in response to what you posted above.

[NW-99SS]

My apologies gents, I avoid M6G like the plague - we are on the same page now, thank you both.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Regardless of the test

We are discussing the test YOU brought up. And this test you wanted to make a big stink about the braking and skid pad. YOU made it seem like another Ford fail. I presented you with evidence it's not far fetched for other or lesser models to do just that while still losing in other metrics. You tip toed around that and just said well that is ok bc the SSLE is awesome.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Where have you seen anything like this with GM? Ok so the SLE brakes better. Well that is the SLE which is awesome in it's own right.

So it's ok for GM to do it but not Ford or anyone else. Got it.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

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?

If you read the article, the GT350 did not lose at anything other than those two measureables. If you read the article C&D said the PP2 stopped better and had better grip because of the wider tires up front.

"The GT PPL2's slightly wider front tires bring plenty of stopping grip—stops from 100 mph require 281 feet to the GT350's 289


It was faster to 60, faster in the 1/4 mile, faster around the road course all while feeling more planted, more controlled and with better steering input.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

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.

Again if you read the article, they said this: "In other track tests we've managed to overheat the GT PPL2's differential in just a few laps"

Key Word In other tests. Not in this test. They did not say the PP2 began to overheat a few laps this time. They said other times it had, not this time.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

It is not about it not being fast in a straight line. Which is why I have no desire to debate with you anymore.

Hmmm

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

But when you have a chick in your $60K Mustang and you get walked by a $30K base model GT then what does that look like? Or when your $60K GT350 is capable of beating only a lower trim cheaper version of a Mustang that was built without coolers then what does that look like?

That sure implies straight line speed. You also have continually bashed it for it's 1/4 performance.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

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.

No, I think I actually get it better than you think. You say it's not about straightline speed but that's something you keep going back to. Your bashing of the 350 in a straightline would be like someone bashing a demon for having bad skidpad numbers or figure 8 numbers

I have said the GT350 should have gone away, it's had its time and has been passed by the competition. A compliment to how well GM did with their models that came out after the 350. At the time it came out there was nothing like it, and nothing performed like it. Now 5 years later yes it's been caught and passed. Yes Ford screwed up on the PP2 by not adding coolers but that is not why its 2 seconds slower on the track.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

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??

But I am not making excuses I am calling it like I see it. Do I lean more Ford yeah I do. But to me a car that has virtually everything designed on it for road courses I am not going to criticize it for it's straight line speed. You can't seem to get past this. And like hotlap says, that's 1 specific combination of GT. If you think that's an excuse fine by me.

I have stated ford has had many fumbles this generation. GT350 early models not having coolers, PP2 not having coolers, how long it took GT500 to get here.

I haven't really even said if the GT500 is a success or not (or at least I don't think I have haha) I know I have said the base car looks to be worth the money but still need more tests of the CFTP. I want to see it put against the ZL1 and ZLE. I want it to go head to head and see how it stacks up. Not mix matching articles. Line them up and go.


BTW I am still waiting for all those comparison tests of the GT500 where it had all the advantages and still lost.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Do you want to go over each comparison? because I'm pretty sure we'll find that in the majority of cases the 500 has had several advantages and still managed to lose somewhere.
.

As of right now, I am still pretty sure we only have the C8 Mashup test and the icons video

[TreedYou]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Read the comments below this one. LOL!! Maybe they aren't conspiracy theories. Maybe I just see thru Ford's BS and you can't.

No your "ford not letting magazines etc.." is a straight up tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

I'm glad I am around to witness the meltdown, looking forward to more

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Rodan

At Willow Springs the GT3RS was 5 seconds faster than GT350R... I found it interesting it was only 2.5 seconds faster at Chuckwalla.

I could easily see the GT500 being only 2.5 seconds faster than GT350R at Chuckwalla.

I keep hearing 2.5 but I think it was less than that. Like 2.3 slower than the gt3rs and 2.2 slower than the gt500.

For all the people doing lap time math that say how much quicker the gt3rs is than the zle/zl1, well it's way quicker than the gt350r at many tracks but it wasn't that at this one.

Btw I thought debating here is bad sometimes, you should check out he numnuts on YouTube comments. I commented about the lap time differentials of the gt350r and gt3rs and the amount of nonsense I got back was mind blowing. Most are either 12 year olds or adults with below 5th grade level reading comprehension lol.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

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.




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.

The fact that Ford is still making it, people are still buying it should be a good thing with whatever brand you support. With how much the segment is shrinking, its good that they still make cars like this



I have no words for that upcoming test other than what the actual **** but speaking of that



That upcoming R&T article aside bc yes GT500 will have every advantage there but where are all these other comparisons it had the advantage and lost? You said you would go through them so where are they?

This upcoming R&T article is as far as I know only the 3rd comparison for the GT500



It is odd very odd.



Hopefully

I tend to dismiss the whole notion of the gt350 being slower than the best GT. Makes no sense. I know I'll pick on the gt350 here and there to get under some fanboys skin but it's a badass car and m6 to m6 it always beats the best GT by at least 1-3 tenths at a much higher trap speed. It doesn't beat the camaro ss m6 to m6, they seem to be about the same, but it traps higher than the ss as well.

I don't see the point of comparing how the GT a10, really the GT a10*, is slightly faster. Really going by major magazine published run to published run the GT* is only a tenth faster at the gt350s best not counting fast list type times or prepped surface max effort "reviews" vs magazine times.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

My apologies gents, I avoid M6G like the plague - we are on the same page now, thank you both.

No prob.