Skid pad numbers, we are 2nd to last. why?

[wjones14]

Originally Posted by perfxn

The numbers are lower than most thought they would be. but for all the cars, not just the camaro. my question is with the IRS and all are new high teech suspension why aare we 3rd? is it just the weight? did the added weight alot if people didnt like cause this isssue?

IRS by itself is not going to make a car go through a slalom course or go around a skidpad any quicker than a solid rear axle car. IRS comes into its own on real-world public roads, where there are bumps in the corners and other irregularities. On smooth tracks, IRS has no real advantage, and in fact, the solid-axle Mustang FR500C driven by Eric de Doncker won the GT4 European Cup sports car championship in 2007 and 2008 -- the competition included Porsche Cayman and 997 GT4, Corvette C6, BMW Z4, and Nissan 350Z. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_GT4_European_Cup

[DGthe3]

Anyone thats disappointed in those numbers, remember it was done in the winter in Michigan. Expect them to go up a bit when it isn't hovering around freezing. A warm test surface gives better grip than a cold one.

[wjones14]

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

Slalom is the same as skidpad...useless. A BMW M3 might slalom 69 mph...does that mean a Mustang GT handles better? I think not. These are just numbers.

Why is a slalom test and a skidpad test useless to determine a car's handling?

If you're saying that only a road course truly tests a car's handling, I disagree. Horsepower is a big factor on road courses. Slalom and skidpads negate horsepower for the most part, and are a truer test of actual handling. IMO. I'm open to debate however if I have this wrong.

As far as M3 vs Mustang GT... on Road & Track's website they have the 2008 M3 going around the skidpad at .98 G and going through the slalom at 71.4 mph. The 2010 Mustang GT (w/track pack) goes around the same skidpad at .93 G, and through the same slalom at 69.3 mph. So no, as you would expect, the Mustang GT does not outhandle an M3.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Anyone thats disappointed in those numbers, remember it was done in the winter in Michigan. Expect them to go up a bit when it isn't hovering around freezing. A warm test surface gives better grip than a cold one.

Quoted for truth.
- Xanthos

[Craig]

A big grain of salt is necessary with all of these numbers, until we get a heads-up comparison test where these cars are tested side by side on the same track under the same conditions with the same drivers. Otherwise there are too many unaccounted-for variables at work to simply make statements about which car performs better and by how much.

[AZCamaroFan]

They've probably tuned it for a great ride, and the weight can't be helping it.

[Bocephus]

Also you can't discount the weight issue. IMO, that's a big part of the reason the Mustang GT and V6 Camaro out handle the Camaro SS.

[Grimelock2009]

To be honest I like both V6 and SS but the main reason I'm getting the SS is because of the sound. If the V6 had the sound of the SS I would get the V6 no questions asked...

[eddiehaskell]

Originally Posted by wjones14

Why is a slalom test and a skidpad test useless to determine a car's handling?

If you're saying that only a road course truly tests a car's handling, I disagree. Horsepower is a big factor on road courses. Slalom and skidpads negate horsepower for the most part, and are a truer test of actual handling. IMO. I'm open to debate however if I have this wrong.

So if I slap some R-compounds on a 1993 Camaro and pull 1g, it handles as well as a Z06? That's ridiculous.

You will find many cars that handle very well without putting up high numbers on a skidpad. The Miata and Solstice are first that comes to mind.

Skidpad and slalom numbers are just that...numbers. Handling is better scored while transitioning around a road or track.

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by perfxn

But that doesnt explain why the mustang had better numbers, unless the driver felt more comfortable in the GT and pushed it more?

Weight .. pretty much .... that is why the V6 holds better than the V8 ..

Crowley

[Hesh]

As someone has already posted straight from MT:


"That cold, dense air boosts the observed engine performance, but our weather-correction program backs most of that out (increasing the time increments by roughly 4%). What our corrections can't account for is the drop in tire grip at these near-freezing temps. Summer and aggressive all-season tires (like these) become noticeably harder below 45 degrees, and even after lurid tire-warming burnouts, the manual V-6 and both V-8s remained very challenging to launch. We still managed to achieve Chevy's target numbers, but there may be another tenth or two to be had when we run them on a warmer day."

I think all the numbers posted are likely to go down. skidpad, slalom, 1/4 mile, and 0-60 times were all effected by the 33 degree day of testing. I think anyone upset with the times given should either wait till someone here can post some times or testing is done under a lil better conditons. If not then there are multiple other cars out there that many seem to think are better and thats just more people out of the way so I can recieve my order sooner.

[wjones14]

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

So if I slap some R-compounds on a 1993 Camaro and pull 1g, it handles as well as a Z06? That's ridiculous.

You will find many cars that handle very well without putting up high numbers on a skidpad. The Miata and Solstice are first that comes to mind.

Skidpad and slalom numbers are just that...numbers. Handling is better scored while transitioning around a road or track.

I would say this: The Camaro arguably has stickier and wider tires than the Mustang GT w/track pack, so how do you explain that the Mustang put up better skidpad and slalom numbers in Road & Track's test?

You're talking about hypothetical situations, and yet we have black and white numbers in front of our eyes, yet you are discounting them any way you can.

And I'll tell you why the road course doesn't tell you everything about a car's handling. As you said, the Miata is a fine handling car, no one really argues that. However, in the last 3 years at Car and Driver's annual "Lightning Lap" competition at the 4.2 mile Virginia International Raceway road course, some 50+ cars have been tested, and guess which one came in dead last for lap time? Yep, the Mazda MX5. It lapped the track at 3:29.3, which is almost 3 seconds slower than the next slowest car, a Volvo C30. The Honda Civic Si beat it by over 4 seconds. The Solstice (GXP version) was quite a bit better, lapping at 3:15.7, but I would say that is largely due to a 90hp advantage over the MX5, and not strictly due to better handling. Both the Mazda and the Solstice got smoked by a Cobalt SS turbo, btw, which lapped the track in 3:13.0.

So if a road course is the true test of handling (like you say), then the Mazda MX5 is the worst car out of 50 cars tested in Car and Driver's annual test... while at the other end of the handling scale, a Shelby GT500 absolutely crushes the Miata, lapping at 3:05.9.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by wjones14

I would say this: The Camaro arguably has stickier and wider tires than the Mustang GT w/track pack, so how do you explain that the Mustang put up better skidpad and slalom numbers in Road & Track's test?

You're talking about hypothetical situations, and yet we have black and white numbers in front of our eyes, yet you are discounting them any way you can.

And I'll tell you why the road course doesn't tell you everything about a car's handling. As you said, the Miata is a fine handling car, no one really argues that. However, in the last 3 years at Car and Driver's annual "Lightning Lap" competition at the 4.2 mile Virginia International Raceway road course, some 50+ cars have been tested, and guess which one came in dead last for lap time? Yep, the Mazda MX5. It lapped the track at 3:29.3, which is almost 3 seconds slower than the next slowest car, a Volvo C30. The Honda Civic Si beat it by over 4 seconds. The Solstice (GXP version) was quite a bit better, lapping at 3:15.7, but I would say that is largely due to a 90hp advantage over the MX5, and not strictly due to better handling. Both the Mazda and the Solstice got smoked by a Cobalt SS turbo, btw, which lapped the track in 3:13.0.

So if a road course is the true test of handling (like you say), then the Mazda MX5 is the worst car out of 50 cars tested in Car and Driver's annual test... while at the other end of the handling scale, a Shelby GT500 absolutely crushes the Miata, lapping at 3:05.9.

GOOD POINT!

[eddiehaskell]

Originally Posted by wjones14

I would say this: The Camaro arguably has stickier and wider tires than the Mustang GT w/track pack, so how do you explain that the Mustang put up better skidpad and slalom numbers in Road & Track's test?

Even if skidpad numbers were signifigant, you can't compare skidpad numbers from different test done on different days, done on different surfaces, done with different drivers, done in different tempertures. It's called magazine racing and you're doing it profusely.

You're talking about hypothetical situations, and yet we have black and white numbers in front of our eyes, yet you are discounting them any way you can.

We have nothing.

As you said, the Miata is a fine handling car, no one really argues that. However, in the last 3 years at Car and Driver's annual "Lightning Lap" competition at the 4.2 mile Virginia International Raceway road course, some 50+ cars have been tested, and guess which one came in dead last for lap time? Yep, the Mazda MX5.

Which supports what I've said. The Miata isn't a car known for pulling high lateral gs, yet it's world renowned for its handling. How do you explain this? Are you suggesting that the Mustang and Camaro handle better?

So if a road course is the true test of handling (like you say), then the Mazda MX5 is the worst car out of 50 cars tested in Car and Driver's annual test...

The road course is the culmination of power, grip, handling and balance. The time around a road course is objective. Handling is NOT objectively quantified - hence the reason I could slap R-compounds on a '93 Camaro, pull .98g and still not have the '93 Camaro handle better than many modern cars that score .90g....or a Miata that scores .87g. You are trying to objectify handling in terms of lateral gs and slalom numbers. That is a big NO-NO.

Hell, why even have magazines review cars? Just let them hook up some electronic equipment to measure lateral gs and then you'll know which cars handle best. Right?