Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaCamaroKid
Not to be rude, just straight foward, whats the excuse for the boss 302 LS?
|
Ford put the package together with tire size stagger that only makes sense in a normally aspirated car when it is also being sold on appearance. And when you crutch the resulting inherent understeer from the tire stagger with roll stiffness distribution and other suspension tuning to "make the numbers" you're covering an understeer tendency all the time with oversteer from something else some of the time and making the car a little trickier to drive.
No autocrosser staggers tire sizes in a front engine rear drive car, never mind by 30mm worth of section width. Neither did Chevy with the 1LE. All that does is throw away grip that could have been.
You don't suppose that the SS's tire size stagger had anything to do with the Mustang GT's getting the handling nod over it in all of the earlier ponycar comparos now, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc7000
There have been two comparisons between the BOSS 302 Mustang and 1LE Camaro and the 1LE Camaro I believe was about 2.3 seconds a lap faster at GingerMan. I think everyone is coming to the conclusion that the 1LE Camaro is faster then both the BOSS 302 and BOSS 302 LS. Though Ford fans or Ford apologist are using the excuse that Ford made for the simple fact that its baby with a stripped interior can't handle a 3,900 pound car with less horsepower.
|
It's a little more complicated than power to weight, but it is what it is.
I am a little surprised that the Boss didn't put up a better showing, though I haven't chased down any of the reading material to find any hints. But I am convinced that for some odd reason Ford went down the wrong path and crutched it as best they could.
What can't be denied is that eight years of S197 Mustang and three years of C5 production went by before Chevy got there. That's an eternity, so the 1LE absolutely had to produce (doubt we'd have heard of it yet had the 1LE not delivered).
Norm