[crysalis_01]

Ford does like to put in the absolute minimum effort into their GT offerings... probably why I've never owned a GT. But the thought occurred to me, why should they?

Do I think it would be cool if they did? Yeah, hell yeah. But from a business point of view, what does Ford have to gain by shooting for the performance crown with the GT? A much larger investment cost due to tons more R&D?

Let's say they went this route, what would they gain? Sales, they seem to be doing just fine. Better results in mag comparisons? Aside from us enthusiasts, who reads these? A pat on the back from us, said enthusiasts? Ok, sure, but what's that worth to them?

Look, I'm by no means rooting for them to do the bare minimum. Its actually a bit annoying, to someone that understands performance metrics, but from a profit producing/business side, I can understand it. Mustang, as it stands, doesn't need to lead the performance pack to accomplish the goal set for it by Ford. The car market isn't exactly a cash cow, so why invest more than necessary in a niche segment in a dwindling market?

Honestly, I imagine I'll still continue just not buying GT's, currently I'm always on the look out for a deal on a used GT350 to pick up, maybe a early Tech Pack car, but I'm in no real hurry.

Anyway, carry on. This was just like...my opinion...man.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Ford does like to put in the absolute minimum effort into their GT offerings... probably why I've never owned a GT. But the thought occurred to me, why should they?

Do I think it would be cool if they did? Yeah, hell yeah. But from a business point of view, what does Ford have to gain by shooting for the performance crown with the GT? A much larger investment cost due to tons more R&D?

Let's say they went this route, what would they gain? Sales, they seem to be doing just fine. Better results in mag comparisons? Aside from us enthusiasts, who reads these? A pat on the back from us, said enthusiasts? Ok, sure, but what's that worth to them?

Look, I'm by no means rooting for them to do the bare minimum. Its actually a bit annoying, to someone that understands performance metrics, but from a profit producing/business side, I can understand it. Mustang, as it stands, doesn't need to lead the performance pack to accomplish the goal set for it by Ford. The car market isn't exactly a cash cow, so why invest more than necessary in a niche segment in a dwindling market?

Honestly, I imagine I'll still continue just not buying GT's, currently I'm always on the look out for a deal on a used GT350 to pick up, maybe a early Tech Pack car, but I'm in no real hurry.

Anyway, carry on. This was just like...my opinion...man.

Nobody can dispute it is a winning formula, it is just not the formula an enthusiasts wants to see. Watering down a performance car for business reasons has proven very successful, but it's very sad to see nonetheless.

I am fortunate it is currently not in my wheel house to drop $50K on a car, because outside that I would have bought a '17 GT350 by now I promise. I do not see a great deal of difference in price right now comparing '16 v '17 350's. Not enough a difference to not jump on a '17 anyway. For me, its Recaros and coolers or no thanks. The engine characteristics of the Voodoo are exactly what I am currently after in my sports cars. High revving N/A is a BLAST!!!

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Who decides the tire? And in order for it to work and be fair that tire would have to be better than the tires that come on both cars...or worse than the tires that come on both cars.

But then when the Camaro wins then the next excuse will be because the shocks are better and people will wanna put equal shocks on both cars. Or this...or that. These cars come from the factory equipped a certain way. The tires they have are factored into the price of the car and are part of the car itself. And a lot goes into the process of the manufacturer picking a specific tire. If people wanna give all the credit to the tire then so be it. But they would still be acknowledging that bone stock from the factory the Camaro outperforms the Mustang.

True, if doing tests was all about bragging rights which I don't think was really the intent in the beginning. If we can zip up our pants and put the measuring tapes away for a minute, it would be cool to talk about more than which one wins and more about why. We already know the 1LE is faster and there is a long list of reasons. We already know it turns lap times faster or as fast as cars MUCH more expensive, including the GT350.

It would be really cool and informative to see what happens in tire swap tests. For me tires and wheels never stay for me long, at least not tires, and I think that's very common among enthusiasts. This would be a very useful test to show what the suspension itself in the car is all about and capable of. Would be great to see for PP1 and PP2, v 1LE or not.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

Nobody can dispute it is a winning formula, it is just not the formula an enthusiasts wants to see. Watering down a performance car for business reasons has proven very successful, but it's very sad to see nonetheless.

I am fortunate it is currently not in my wheel house to drop $50K on a car, because outside that I would have bought a '17 GT350 by now I promise. I do not see a great deal of difference in price right now comparing '16 v '17 350's. Not enough a difference to not jump on a '17 anyway. For me, its Recaros and coolers or no thanks. The engine characteristics of the Voodoo are exactly what I am currently after in my sports cars. High revving N/A is a BLAST!!!

IMO paying anywhere near 50k for a new SS or GT is crazy! For that kind of money you can be in a very lightly used ZL1 or GT350. Chevy and Ford are doing a great job of driving the price of these vehicles up and offering performance that the majority of us will never even begin to test. I think back over the years of how much money I wasted buying the latest and greatest offerings and I honestly could have a house paid off with that money, giving me rental income for the rest of my life.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

....... These cars come from the factory equipped a certain way. The tires they have are factored into the price of the car and are part of the car itself. And a lot goes into the process of the manufacturer picking a specific tire. If people wanna give all the credit to the tire then so be it. But they would still be acknowledging that bone stock from the factory the Camaro outperforms the Mustang.

......

In my opinion, this is exactly the point. Tires are part of the larger equation of decisions each company has to make to strike the right balance of performance, price and profitability for the car they want to roll out the factory door. Chevy beats Ford on performance on a trim for trim comparison. They chose to do so. Ford beats Chevy on price, at least until 2018. They have had to compromise performance to achieve that. And they chose that path

The PP1 / PP2 split is probably designed to achieve better profitability. For customers not willing to pay to get to 1LE levels of performance, Ford can still squeeze out some revenue by having them pay a little more than half to get halfway there.

So if including Pilot Cup 2 on the PP2 package gets Ford the win against the 1LE, more power to 'em (no pun intended). It's part of the balance decision made in putting the car together.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by newmoon

IMO paying anywhere near 50k for a new SS or GT is crazy! For that kind of money you can be in a very lightly used ZL1 or GT350. Chevy and Ford are doing a great job of driving the price of these vehicles up and offering performance that the majority of us will never even begin to test. I think back over the years of how much money I wasted buying the latest and greatest offerings and I honestly could have a house paid off with that money, giving me rental income for the rest of my life.

Well said!

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Who decides the tire? And in order for it to work and be fair that tire would have to be better than the tires that come on both cars...or worse than the tires that come on both cars.

Equal to whichever car has the better tire (and wheel) package would be entirely sufficient. Just getting the playing field closer to level is all.

They COULD have. But why SHOULD they?

Because it's a waste of print and a waste of an enthusiast's time to read about something where the results should have been as apparent as the outcome between this year's LII Eagles and your local college team. The situation could have been completely reversed with the Mustang expected to come out on top by a similar margin (and doing so) - and I'd feel exactly the same about MT's decision.

I ask this again, why should everyone have to wait for Ford to get their shit together?

We all have that question. Ford may well have that as a problem, at least among the more hardcore enthusiasts.

And how many different version do they need before they can compete with the Camaro. The PP2 is already 2 trim levels up from the GT while the 1LE is 1 trim level up from the SS.

Because one giant step > one little one?


Norm

[davef]

Motorcycle mags that do track tests (obviously we're talking about sportbikes) of bikes that they're reviewing always put the same tires on all the bikes for the track portion of the evaluation. Of course, the set of tires only cost about $350 and they are almost always the same size front and back. Nonetheless, I've always wished that the car mags would do that as well. Along with dynoing each contestant like the bike mags do.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

In my opinion, this is exactly the point. Tires are part of the larger equation of decisions each company has to make to strike the right balance of performance, price and profitability for the car they want to roll out the factory door. Chevy beats Ford on performance on a trim for trim comparison. They chose to do so. Ford beats Chevy on price, at least until 2018. They have had to compromise performance to achieve that. And they chose that path

So just to invert that just a little, the tires (and wheels) supplied as OE do provide some insight into how seriously the performance term in that overall equation was taken.

I'd hate to think that Ford ran to PSC2 tires as simply a band-aid for the PP1 without doing much else. Or insisted on too many compromises in the PSC2 tires for their OE fitments and are relying on the PSC2's existing reputation, for that matter. Guess time (and hopefully the promised comparison) will tell.


Norm

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Equal to whichever car has the better tire (and wheel) package would be entirely sufficient. Just getting the playing field closer to level is all.

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.

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Because it's a waste of print and a waste of an enthusiast's time to read about something where the results should have been as apparent as the outcome between this year's LII Eagles and your local college team. The situation could have been completely reversed with the Mustang expected to come out on top by a similar margin (and doing so) - and I'd feel exactly the same about MT's decision.

How was it a waste when the Mustang just got all these performance improvements? Doesn't it seem fair to see how this 460 HP PP1 Mustang GT does as opposed to how the outgoing 435 HP PP1 Mustang did? And as mentioned before, back when this was scheduled, how do we even know that MT knew a PP2 was going to be available or what it would have? Ford plays these dumbass games where they keep people guessing for extended periods of time to the point that nobody cares anymore when they finally do release info. And even still we have to wait for the PP2. Why should this new and improved GT go almost an entire year without being tested against the Camaro? And since it is the best GT available right now, why shouldn't it be compared to the comparably priced, comparable trim level, and the best Camaro SS available right now?

Originally Posted by davef

Motorcycle mags that do track tests (obviously we're talking about sportbikes) of bikes that they're reviewing always put the same tires on all the bikes for the track portion of the evaluation. Of course, the set of tires only cost about $350 and they are almost always the same size front and back. Nonetheless, I've always wished that the car mags would do that as well. Along with dynoing each contestant like the bike mags do.

So would MT have to do this for every performance car they test all the time? How often should the tires be changed? And which ones should they use? And I ask again, what happens when the Mustang loses and the fanboys complain about the specific tire used or claim it had more wear on it than the Camaro or this or that or any other excuse they seem to excel at creating?

[davef]

When the bike mags do it they mount brand new, DOT track tires on every bike in the test. Minimal tread pattern and very soft rubber. On a liter bike with a fast rider they're only good for a day or two at the track. I assume that there are similar car options. But certainly it would be $$$ for the car mags to do and I imagine an even smaller percentage of sports cars find their way to the track than sportbikes so many many customers probably don't care.

Changing tires would be a can of worms and I understand why the car mags don't. But it would eliminate a variable.

[Mr. Wyndham]

It must also be considered that some manufacturers work directly with tire companies to develop specific compounds/patterns for their cars. ZL1 1LE is the latest example in a long list of high performance cars that have sought after every .1 they could get.

[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.

[Mr. Wyndham]

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.

True, and I'm not sure anyone is saying that.

Putting the same tire on both cars would very simple remove a variable, and could showcase each vehicle's driving dynamics/chassis more clearly.

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