Watch "Head to Head: 2015 Camaro SS 1LE vs. 2015 Mustang…" on YouTube

[tramtwo]

Head to Head: 2015 Camaro SS 1LE vs. 2015 Mustang…: http://youtu.be/jUQZwmTKMqw

[Tstormers]

Pretty good, thanks for posting!

[toehead93]

LOL @ Ford bench-marking the M3's performance as their target car. The 2014 M3 was already behind the 2014 1LE performance and so is their 2015 1LE equivalent "performance pack/track pack) Mustang. They should have looked more at what GM did to balance the car and minimize understeer. Now the new M3/M4 is another animal, it might even edge out the 1LE on a track. I will give it to Ford for adding the 6-piston Brembos but the fact that the Mustang took so much longer to stop is puzzling, perhaps the pads they are using are inferior? Well, they might not have as much bite but they should be less prone to fading on the track.

[Norm Peterson]

I seriously doubt that pad compound had much to do with it.

Think tires (285/285 vs 255/275) and wheels (10/11 vs 9/9.5) on a car of almost identical weight.


Norm

[Stingray]

Originally Posted by tramtwo

Head to Head: 2015 Camaro SS 1LE vs. 2015 Mustang…:

Thanks for posting my vid... just uploaded it last night.

[Stingray]

Finally, the official vid from MT....

[Billy10mm]

Originally Posted by toehead93

LOL @ Ford bench-marking the M3's performance as their target car. The 2014 M3 was already behind the 2014 1LE performance and so is their 2015 1LE equivalent "performance pack/track pack) Mustang. They should have looked more at what GM did to balance the car and minimize understeer. Now the new M3/M4 is another animal, it might even edge out the 1LE on a track. I will give it to Ford for adding the 6-piston Brembos but the fact that the Mustang took so much longer to stop is puzzling, perhaps the pads they are using are inferior? Well, they might not have as much bite but they should be less prone to fading on the track.

I wrote this in a previous thread a few weeks back:


Gentlemen, you must remember that single-distance braking tests are not a test of brakes, but a test of tires and suspension (suspension as far as using all 4 tires as effectively as possible).

There isn't a vehicle manufactured today that cannot activate its anti-lock braking system if you stand on the pedal. In other words, EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE ON THE ROAD already has more braking power than it can use. Larger rotors do not provide shorter stopping distances, they provide greater surface area with which to dissipate heat. The big difference between great brakes and okay brakes is all about repeated performance. An Escalade's brakes are more than powerful enough to lock up all four corners, but put it on a track and it will overheat those brakes in no time.

So, it should be ENTIRELY expected that the 1LE will stop shorter with the Z28s wheels and tires because those wheels and tires offer more grip. End of story. Now, put Z28 wheels and tires on BOTH vehicles, and run those vehicles at full speed on the track, and the 1LE will cook its brakes and the Z28 won't. That is the difference. That is what you pay the money for.

Suspension also plays a meaningful role in braking, as too much dive at the front and/or lift at the back will put too much of the overall braking responsibility on only 2 tires (the fronts). Porsche 911s always do phenomenally in 60-0 and 70-0 braking tests despite having relatively skinny front tires (I think a 911S only runs a 245 width front tire) because the rear-engine setup helps keep more weight over the rear wheels while braking. This allows the rear tires to help stop the car moreso than the rear tires on almost any other car on the road today.

It always kills me when a car magazine or journalist is impressed with a car's stopping prowess and praises the brakes. Brakes are what stop you repeatedly, tires are what stop you once.

[toehead93]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I seriously doubt that pad compound had much to do with it.

Think tires (285/285 vs 255/275) and wheels (10/11 vs 9/9.5) on a car of almost identical weight.


Norm

wow, i didn't realize they kept those skinny tires on the GT this time around...

[toehead93]

Originally Posted by Billy10mm

I wrote this in a previous thread a few weeks back:


Gentlemen, you must remember that single-distance braking tests are not a test of brakes, but a test of tires and suspension (suspension as far as using all 4 tires as effectively as possible).

There isn't a vehicle manufactured today that cannot activate its anti-lock braking system if you stand on the pedal. In other words, EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE ON THE ROAD already has more braking power than it can use. Larger rotors do not provide shorter stopping distances, they provide greater surface area with which to dissipate heat. The big difference between great brakes and okay brakes is all about repeated performance. An Escalade's brakes are more than powerful enough to lock up all four corners, but put it on a track and it will overheat those brakes in no time.

So, it should be ENTIRELY expected that the 1LE will stop shorter with the Z28s wheels and tires because those wheels and tires offer more grip. End of story. Now, put Z28 wheels and tires on BOTH vehicles, and run those vehicles at full speed on the track, and the 1LE will cook its brakes and the Z28 won't. That is the difference. That is what you pay the money for.

Suspension also plays a meaningful role in braking, as too much dive at the front and/or lift at the back will put too much of the overall braking responsibility on only 2 tires (the fronts). Porsche 911s always do phenomenally in 60-0 and 70-0 braking tests despite having relatively skinny front tires (I think a 911S only runs a 245 width front tire) because the rear-engine setup helps keep more weight over the rear wheels while braking. This allows the rear tires to help stop the car moreso than the rear tires on almost any other car on the road today.

It always kills me when a car magazine or journalist is impressed with a car's stopping prowess and praises the brakes. Brakes are what stop you repeatedly, tires are what stop you once.

Yeah, I was assuming the new GT performace/track pack was given real tires this time around. I did not know they kept the 255/275 combo. In fact, I'm not even sure what type of tires come on the GT so you're right, that is why I was confused. I should have looked that up first.

[Billy10mm]

Originally Posted by toehead93

Yeah, I was assuming the new GT performace/track pack was given real tires this time around. I did not know they kept the 255/275 combo. In fact, I'm not even sure what type of tires come on the GT so you're right, that is why I was confused. I should have looked that up first.

To be honest .. I don't see Ford going to this wide of a tire on a car of this price point in the near future. I'm pleasantly surprised that GM did it and would never have expected them to.

You have to, within reason, match the price of a vehicles tires up with the vehicle's price point. People don't buy a $14K Hyundai because they want to, they buy it because that's all they can afford, so putting $300/each tires on the Accent is going to be way too much for the majority of Accent buyers to stomach - thus, the car won't sell.

These 220-treadware G2s are, from what I see in the rest of the automotive market, out of the class of the 1LE from a price perspective. There are few, very few, other performance cars out there for sale under $80K that come with tires that won't last 10K miles and are over $200/each to replace. There are none of them under $40K except the 1LE.

There is a LOT of tire on our cars. We will be winning road tests for quite some time. Chevy did the same thing with the Z/28. Here's a car that's heavier than, less powerful than, and has two less drive wheels than a Nissan GTR yet it gets around the track quicker. That's because there are hyper-car tires on the Z/28. Those Trofeo Rs are going to last owners 5K miles if they are lucky and they cost $575 each + shipping from the Tire Rack. Try finding OE tires of that status on any production car with an MSRP of under $400K.

[tramtwo]

Originally Posted by Stingray

Thanks for posting my vid... just uploaded it last night.

Couldn't sleep and the one link back to MT didn't work. Goggle is fast cause it found your YT vid for me when it only had 3 views.

Appreciate it!

[charlie46]

Let's see now , the 1le beat the boss 302 , 2013 mustang gt with track pack and now the 2015 mustang gt with track pack ! Amazing ! "The 1 LE is 90% of the z28 with less power"

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Billy10mm

These 220-treadware G2s are, from what I see in the rest of the automotive market, out of the class of the 1LE from a price perspective. There are few, very few, other performance cars out there for sale under $80K that come with tires that won't last 10K miles and are over $200/each to replace. There are none of them under $40K except the 1LE.

One of those other "under $80k" cars is the ZL1 and another was the GT500. It doesn't make complete sense to me that one company would extend G:2 tire availability to a NA trim and the other not.

Nor is the G:2 priced all that far beyond other max or extreme summer performance tires that you'd find on the short list as replacement rubber for the track day or possibly autocrossers who would be buying the 1LE in the first place, or upgrading an SS or other car toward 1LE specs.


Maybe Ford is trying to play some sort of "98% of the performance for 90% of the tire and 75% of the cost" game, which still says "first loser".


Norm

[DivineStrike]

Originally Posted by Billy10mm

I wrote this in a previous thread a few weeks back:


Gentlemen, you must remember that single-distance braking tests are not a test of brakes, but a test of tires and suspension (suspension as far as using all 4 tires as effectively as possible).

There isn't a vehicle manufactured today that cannot activate its anti-lock braking system if you stand on the pedal. In other words, EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE ON THE ROAD already has more braking power than it can use. Larger rotors do not provide shorter stopping distances, they provide greater surface area with which to dissipate heat. The big difference between great brakes and okay brakes is all about repeated performance. An Escalade's brakes are more than powerful enough to lock up all four corners, but put it on a track and it will overheat those brakes in no time.

So, it should be ENTIRELY expected that the 1LE will stop shorter with the Z28s wheels and tires because those wheels and tires offer more grip. End of story. Now, put Z28 wheels and tires on BOTH vehicles, and run those vehicles at full speed on the track, and the 1LE will cook its brakes and the Z28 won't. That is the difference. That is what you pay the money for.

Suspension also plays a meaningful role in braking, as too much dive at the front and/or lift at the back will put too much of the overall braking responsibility on only 2 tires (the fronts). Porsche 911s always do phenomenally in 60-0 and 70-0 braking tests despite having relatively skinny front tires (I think a 911S only runs a 245 width front tire) because the rear-engine setup helps keep more weight over the rear wheels while braking. This allows the rear tires to help stop the car moreso than the rear tires on almost any other car on the road today.

It always kills me when a car magazine or journalist is impressed with a car's stopping prowess and praises the brakes. Brakes are what stop you repeatedly, tires are what stop you once.

Leverage of the larger brake system also comes into play. My ranger with it's 31x10.5's can't lock up the brakes or engage abs unless it's wet out. If I had larger brakes it would. Just saying, way more involved than just simply saying a smaller set of brakes can lock up the tires so there for it can brake just as fast as a larger set of brakes; given all other variables are equal, such as tires and vehicle. Didn't the Z28 brake like a foot shorter with it's brakes than the 1LE with the same tires? And isn't the z28 heavier? granted the suspension is different so it's not exactly apples to apples.

Larger brakes have a slight advantage in stopping distance, just not a big advantage, but the advantage is there. Especially at slow speeds such as 60 to 0. higher speeds the advantage increases. Anyhow carry on Billy, you still provide very good info