For those of you who have gotten rid of your 370Z

Pharmacist · 10-12-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

Any RWD car is going to oversteer with enough throttle, that's just simple physics. What I'm talking about is if you're going hard through a corner, let's say on entry to apex, the Z is most likely to lose front grip first. On throttle you can kick the back end out, but that's a different type of oversteer (and the type of oversteer you don't want too much of, I might add.)

Regarding track times, it depends on the track. The 5.0 and Z are about equal through the corners. Take a look at the most recent C&D "best handlers under $40k" as they have pretty good data that separates time through corners and time on the straights.

What I've been saying all along is that the two are "about the same" in the handling department, with the edge going to the 5.0 (TO ME) because of a more neutral balance (TO ME). It could be entirely different to someone else. Either way BOTH cars are excellent corner carvers.

Again, I'm not debating that. I have no doubt the new mustang has very good handling and is no slouch. And I wouldn't be surprised if it understeers less than the Z. After all it does have a square set up. You get 255 mm tires all over, which are quite large for front tires, but on the skinny side for rear tires. I actually think 245 mm are too skinny for front tires on the z, especially given the forward weight bias. That may be responsible for much of the understeer. 255 or even 265 mm fronts may be better.

I still don't think the mustang can carry as much momentum through corners as the z. If it laps a track on average at the same time as the z, give or take a second or so, then it has to be losing time somewhere given that it gains a lot of time over the z on the straights. I don't remember the C&D article. I'll check it when I go home. I do remember that in the recent DSport RWD car of the year, the mustang was a bit slower than the z, and actually was even slower than the camaro ss. Can't remember which track they did the testing though.

Red__Zed · 10-12-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

Again, I'm not debating that. I have no doubt the new mustang has very good handling and is no slouch. And I wouldn't be surprised if it understeers less than the Z. After all it does have a square set up. You get 255 mm tires all over, which are quite large for front tires, but on the skinny side for rear tires. I actually think 245 mm are too skinny for front tires on the z, especially given the forward weight bias. That may be responsible for much of the understeer. 255 or even 265 mm fronts may be better.

I still don't think the mustang can carry as much momentum through corners as the z. If it laps a track on average at the same time as the z, give or take a second or so, then it has to be losing time somewhere given that it gains a lot of time over the z on the straights. I don't remember the C&D article. I'll check it when I go home. I do remember that in the recent DSport RWD car of the year, the mustang was a bit slower than the z, and actually was even slower than the camaro ss. Can't remember which track they did the testing though.

Oh god the d sport article!!!!'

m4a1mustang · 10-12-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

Again, I'm not debating that. I have no doubt the new mustang has very good handling and is no slouch. And I wouldn't be surprised if it understeers less than the Z. After all it does have a square set up. You get 255 mm tires all over, which are quite large for front tires, but on the skinny side for rear tires. I actually think 245 mm are too skinny for front tires on the z, especially given the forward weight bias. That may be responsible for much of the understeer. 255 or even 265 mm fronts may be better.

I still don't think the mustang can carry as much momentum through corners as the z. If it laps a track on average at the same time as the z, give or take a second or so, then it has to be losing time somewhere given that it gains a lot of time over the z on the straights. I don't remember the C&D article. I'll check it when I go home. I do remember that in the recent DSport RWD car of the year, the mustang was a bit slower than the z, and actually was even slower than the camaro ss. Can't remember which track they did the testing though.

I wouldn't put too much faith into the DSport article. They have quite a notorious slant. If they are going to compare the 370 to the 5.0, the 370 will win regardless.

The C&D article is much more objective and the testing data is interesting. For instance, the Mustang actually had the lowest body roll angle of all of the cars tested. The Miata had the highest.

Also, regarding losing time in the corners, the Mustang and 370Z had the exact same lap time with the straightaways removed at 63.3 seconds each.

For all intents and purposes, the cars are dead even stock-vs-stock in the corners, which supports everything I can tell after having spent quite a bit of time with both cars.

shadoquad · 10-12-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

I wouldn't put too much faith into the DSport article. They have quite a notorious slant. If they are going to compare the 370 to the 5.0, the 370 will win regardless.

The C&D article is much more objective and the testing data is interesting. For instance, the Mustang actually had the lowest body roll angle of all of the cars tested. The Miata had the highest.

Also, regarding losing time in the corners, the Mustang and 370Z had the exact same lap time with the straightaways removed at 63.3 seconds each.

For all intents and purposes, the cars are dead even stock-vs-stock in the corners, which supports everything I can tell after having spent quite a bit of time with both cars.

If you look at the individual corner times, the Z beat the Stang in every corner except one, and by very slim margins. The sections of track without straights had some acceleration space, so that's where the Stang was able to even the test out.

That said, the Stang is dead even with the Z in handling in practically every objective measure and real world application. It wasn't faster through most corners, but it wasn't like it was even a half second behind in any of them either. It will outhandle most cars available for purchase, and that's in stock form.

m4a1mustang · 10-12-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadoquad

If you look at the individual corner times, the Z beat the Stang in every corner except one, and by very slim margins. The sections of track without straights had some acceleration space, so that's where the Stang was able to even the test out.

That said, the Stang is dead even with the Z in handling in practically every objective measure and real world application. It wasn't faster through any corner, but it wasn't like it was even a half second behind in any of them either. It will outhandle most cars available for purchase, and that's in stock form.

Which is basically why it's a wash. You could throw a blanket over both cars in the corners, pretty much.

shadoquad · 10-12-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

Which is basically why it's a wash. You could throw a blanket over both cars in the corners, pretty much.

Exactly. If I want to come out and say "Mustangs can't handle, SRA, blah blah blah", my supporting evidence is hundredths of a second on a track test done by donut eating magazine writers.

Pharmacist · 10-12-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadoquad

Exactly. If I want to come out and say "Mustangs can't handle, SRA, blah blah blah", my supporting evidence is hundredths of a second on a track test done by donut eating magazine writers.

Regardless, there is still the issue of tuning and adjustability. Ford may be able to extract great handling from that solid axle, but sooner or later you will hit the glass ceiling. Independent multilink suspension offers high levels of adjustability in terms of ride height, camber, toe, etc with aftermarket parts. With a solid axle, you're stuck with what the factory offers, without much room for improvement and customization.

shadoquad · 10-12-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

Regardless, there is still the issue of tuning and adjustability. Ford may be able to extract great handling from that solid axle, but sooner or later you will hit the glass ceiling. Independent multilink suspension offers high levels of adjustability in terms of ride height, camber, toe, etc with aftermarket parts. With a solid axle, you're stuck with what the factory offers, without much room for improvement and customization.

Well, once again we're splitting hairs about 10/10ths modified tracking of the cars.

m4a1mustang · 10-12-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

Regardless, there is still the issue of tuning and adjustability. Ford may be able to extract great handling from that solid axle, but sooner or later you will hit the glass ceiling. Independent multilink suspension offers high levels of adjustability in terms of ride height, camber, toe, etc with aftermarket parts. With a solid axle, you're stuck with what the factory offers, without much room for improvement and customization.

It doesn't really seem to hurt them much, though. The 5.0s are consistently ruling the charts in the Continental Tire series and all of the other cars there are running IRS setups.

I think partly due to advertising BS the SRA gets too much of a bad reputation. People just assume that IRS is better regardless, but let me tell you, a good solid rear axle is much better than a mediocre IRS setup (they do exist!).

I certainly don't feel left wanting when it comes to the performance of the rear end. It's very well controlled in corners, over bumps, etc. It's very well done and can be made even better with aftermarket Watts Link systems, better dampers, control arms, etc.

There definitely is plenty you can do to a solid axle setup. It's a different animal so it requires a different approach.

That said, if Ford can develop a good IRS for the next generation Mustang I will gladly welcome it. But I am not opposed to the SRA based on the fact that it's "old" and "not adjustable."