Cars.com compare the PP1 vs PP2

[Ace21]

Dinosar,

My thoughts exactly on many of your points, but only when considering these newer automated manuals or automatics that react like an automated manual. The reason I make that distinction is for many of the reasons Norm stated. I want that consistency and control over the drive-train. A typical auto does not have the responsiveness to do that, however, the 10r80 does!

Please don't get me wrong, I am not bashing a PP2 by any means, but when I looked at upgrading to an '18 from my '16 MT82, the PP2 made me think back to when I was buying my first Mitsubishi Evo. The Evo 9 MR(like the PP2) was claimed to be more track focused with its Cloth RECAROS, track focused ABS and ACD(Active Center Diff.) tuning, track focused suspension, 4 pot Brembo front/2 pot Brembo rears, and a 6 speed manual where as the Evo 9 GSR had leather RECAROS, a 5 speed manual, 4 pot Brembo front/2 pot Brembo rears, and a whole lot of amenity shit that made the price only a couple of grand cheaper than the MR. In the end the 6 speed was weak and broke even under stock power, the ABS and ACD tuning was indistinguishable without looking at the actual ROM code, and the suspension made little if any difference at all.

Then there was the Evo 9 RS which was always meant to be the actual "Track" ready trim, which is the one I bought, and it had a different turbo, the same ABS and ACD tuning as the MR, the same 5 speed manual as the GSR, and did not have all the amenities like radio, power windows, or sound deadening. On the track, road and strip, the GSR and MR models were almost identical and the RS beat both all day long. To top it off the RS was almost 10k cheaper!

Like I stated before the 10r80 is the benefit of the PP1 over the PP2, as it is the superior trans atm IMO. However, I do feel that the PP2 is great in terms of what it offers but I would most definitely think that PP2 owners should have gotten MORE for the package, i.e. proper wide fenders for the rubber, coolers, and Brembo rears, maybe some weight shaved. I think the PP2s advantages do make it the faster around a road course in stock form for sure, but the gap is much closer than what this video shows.

Sponsored

 

[Dinosoar]

They do though. Automatics are not good track transmissions, simple as that. It’s not all about throttle, brake, and wheel, it’s also about driveability and longevity. They run hotter, they’re not as precise, and they’re harder to modulate. Now, keep in mind, there’s a difference between an “automatic” like the 10R80 and an “automated manual”, like the DCT in most high end sports cars

We'll have to agree to disagree. All you're saying then, is put a trans cooler in there. You are wholly right, they do get hotter, but that's manageable. It's not really my point either. I disagree that it is about drivability and longevity. I remember listening to Hurley Haywood talk about how difficult it was to race turbo Porsches in the 80s...drivability sucked. But, a great drive masters that...as he did. I agree on the liner feel of the driveline is better with DCTs or Manuals than torque converters, but that's just a mechanical discussion in my eyes. I am saying a clutch pedal doesn't change the basic concept of driving at the limit...as I see it; adding power, using brakes, turning the wheel...and only through those four tires. Master that, and you master a car at the limit. clutch pedals just change that style and approach. Again, I point to the major race series that do not have manual clutches. I agree, they don't often have torque converters...because they get hot, but I thought we are talking about two pedal and three pedal cars.

 

[Dinosoar]

Dinosar,

My thoughts exactly on many of your points, but only when considering these newer automated manuals or automatics that react like an automated manual. The reason I make that distinction is for many of the reasons Norm stated. I want that consistency and control over the drive-train. A typical auto does not have the responsiveness to do that, however, the 10r80 does!

Please don't get me wrong, I am not bashing a PP2 by any means, but when I looked at upgrading to an '18 from my '16 MT82, the PP2 made me think back to when I was buying my first Mitsubishi Evo. The Evo 9 MR(like the PP2) was claimed to be more track focused with its Cloth RECAROS, track focused ABS and ACD(Active Center Diff.) tuning, track focused suspension, 4 pot Brembo front/2 pot Brembo rears, and a 6 speed manual where as the Evo 9 GSR had leather RECAROS, a 5 speed manual, 4 pot Brembo front/2 pot Brembo rears, and a whole lot of amenity shit that made the price only a couple of grand cheaper than the MR. In the end the 6 speed was weak and broke even under stock power, the ABS and ACD tuning was indistinguishable without looking at the actual ROM code, and the suspension made little if any difference at all.

Then there was the Evo 9 RS which was always meant to be the actual "Track" ready trim, which is the one I bought, and it had a different turbo, the same ABS and ACD tuning as the MR, the same 5 speed manual as the GSR, and did not have all the amenities like radio, power windows, or sound deadening. On the track, road and strip, the GSR and MR models were almost identical and the RS beat both all day long. To top it off the RS was almost 10k cheaper!

Like I stated before the 10r80 is the benefit of the PP1 over the PP2, as it is the superior trans atm IMO. However, I do feel that the PP2 is great in terms of what it offers but I would most definitely think that PP2 owners should have gotten MORE for the package, i.e. proper wide fenders for the rubber, coolers, and Brembo rears, maybe some weight shaved. I think the PP2s advantages do make it the faster around a road course in stock form for sure, but the gap is much closer than what this video shows.

I hear you. And I ain't bashing the PP2 either; I looooove that car. I am also not touting any particular auto over another. I do like torque convert trannys, like the A10, but I agree, I would prefer an automated conventional clutch. I am merely saying auto technology has a place on the track, including torque converters. I think guys who focus on rowing gears as the core aspect to track work are missing, to me, the real point of driving at the limit. It is true the PP1/A10 combo is quicker than the PP2 and Shelby. The tires give the latter two the advantage. Why not have the quickest driveline on the best suspension? That's why I put the Shelby's tires on PP1/A10 car. I did skip the Magnaride...DK if that was a good idea or not. Saved money though.

Regarding the Cars.com compare, I'd love to see a PP1 with the A10, Magnaride and PP2 tires, along with the PP2 car to really see the differences in transmission utility WRT track time. I agree with Jake above, it'll probably overheat. But again, just put a cooler in there like that of the ZL1. I am merely arguing that autos are the preferred tech for speed. Manuals are just a style difference...though, agree that they are simpler and more reliable, of course. Neither compromises the purity of driving at the limit, as is the claim of many.

 

[Ace21]

Good video to watch, just wish that a PP2 would get a good lap on the same track for comparison.

 

[Aliaszero]

interesting that he had the fastest time there in stock trim. He's obviously an experienced driver. i have no doubt that the car is fast. I love mine much more than the 2011 GT500 that I had before. But i agree that it needs a few things to be a real track car that is used primarily to turn winning lap times. Key there would be winning lap times. If you're not an advanced driver, i'm sure this car is more than capable.

 

[w3rkn]

Okay, that gag video is freaking hilarious. But here's my rub with the comparison video. The two cars have the same brakes and engine...exact same. The tire and suspension tuning is everything between these two cars. It cannot be overstated. I know they mentioned it in the video, but it should be the focus of the video. I am glad the PP1 was an A10 car. Comparing two exact drivelines is moot because we KNOW the PP2 is faster...or Ford wouldn't have built it. But those tires improve braking and handling (namely apex speed especially). I too felt the guy was a bit clueless in what seemed to be coincidental mention of the tire's effect. The comparison over cost was just dumb. I got a PP1 with A10 and did not spend $52K nor $42K...what a dope. No one mentioned how that A10 would hold up on a track with heat...that is a critical point to be made that wasn't. So, what if I put GT350 tires on my PP1 (I did), or better, the PP2 tires on my PP1 A10 car...then what? I think the video merely explained to us the equivalent argument that "water is wet" without really even explaining why.

Final note, while the gag video is awesome and funny, automatics are getting a raw deal. Anyone who thinks sports cars, performance cars, race cars, or performance driving must have a manual does not get it! The lack of a third pedal has nothing to do with the core of race driving or high performance driving. It is all about the throttle, brake and wheel all managed through the four contact patches; that's it. A clutch just changes how you do that. Either an auto or manual you still mange the four contact patches through those same three dynamics. Arguing between manual or automatic is like arguing which color is better, red or blue; which is crazy! Cuz everyone knows blue is better!! Hey, I love my manual-tranny race car...love it! And, I ain't no don't-know-how-to-drive-a-manual millennial, either. Autos are faster and don't compromise the core of driving at the limit. It is just technology progression. Get upset over ABS, rear steer (you listening Porsche) and launch control...they all take away from the driver's responsibility (at some level) at the limit and give it to the computer. Autos don't do that. Hell, look at F1, WEC, WRC, IMSA and many other race series. Are those cars not pure because they have paddle shift transmissions and no third pedal?

And yet, in F1 you have a gaggle of engineers trying to decide the proper gear slippage moments before each race, to get the best start.... not the best shift.

That is.. the difference between the two, is that in a manual you can slip the clutch.... & you can over-rev and bang the next gear and step the rear out... etc.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Anyone who thinks sports cars, performance cars, race cars, or performance driving must have a manual does not get it!

But for some drivers, having a MT in such cars is still a 'must'. Perhaps for a few of those drivers, any car they care to own must have a MT. It's not about the car "needing" to be MT beyond the individual driver level.

FWIW, I agree that the time spent discussing cost was a complete waste.

Hey, I love my manual-tranny race car...love it! And, I ain't no don't-know-how-to-drive-a-manual millennial, either. Autos are faster and don't compromise the core of driving at the limit.

I won't argue the first couple of sentences, but playing copilot to somebody else's programming absolutely does fit within the definition of compromise.

It is just technology progression. Get upset over ABS, rear steer (you listening Porsche) and launch control...they all take away from the driver's responsibility (at some level) at the limit and give it to the computer. Autos don't do that.

Actually, they always have. They were perhaps the first technology to do so (the logic was all hydraulic in nature rather than electronic), but they've been around for so long and with such widespread acceptance that I doubt it occurs to people in today's world to look at them as items of technological progress. ATs are just the way most cars these days drive, and most people accept that with as little thought as they give to whether the sun will come up tomorrow.


Norm

 

[Dinosoar]

And yet, in F1 you have a gaggle of engineers trying to decide the proper gear slippage moments before each race, to get the best start.... not the best shift.

That is.. the difference between the two, is that in a manual you can slip the clutch.... & you can over-rev and bang the next gear and step the rear out... etc.

And with manuals, you can install different clutches and adjust linkages, and of course these days auto blips. And surely you're not saying F1 isn't pure performance driving...which is my ultimate point. And, there are other ways to step out the rear...if one is banging a gear to do it, I may consider that a more undesirable method...like down shifting to slow the car; brakes are for that, not the drive line. shifting forward balance and wheel inputs can step the car out. Trail brake oversteer. Throttle oversteer...all with an auto too. I would concede the point that F1 starts can be as much engineer than pure driver input, but that's such a small, small part of F1 and it still involves the driver modulating that throttle. They don't just flatten the throttle.

 

[Dinosoar]

But for some drivers, having a MT in such cars is still a 'must'. Perhaps for a few of those drivers, any car they care to own must have a MT. It's not about the car "needing" to be MT beyond the individual driver level.

FWIW, I agree that the time spent discussing cost was a complete waste.



I won't argue the first couple of sentences, but playing copilot to somebody else's programming absolutely does fit within the definition of compromise.



Actually, they always have. They were perhaps the first technology to do so (the logic was all hydraulic in nature rather than electronic), but they've been around for so long and with such widespread acceptance that I doubt it occurs to people in today's world to look at them as items of technological progress. ATs are just the way most cars these days drive, and most people accept that with as little thought as they give to whether the sun will come up tomorrow.


Norm

I agree, some people want a MT. That's not part of my debate. Again, that preference is almost just as the same as color choice...it is just preference, not performance or purity. I am saying autos are the performance choice. They don't compromise the purity...the claim of so many auto journalists. I only ask, if an MT is a "must"...why?

I am not following the programming bit on an auto. I am referring to paddle shifting no matter if it is a torque converter or automated clutch type. This leaves the driver with choices and options with power just like that of the manual rowing process. I'd concede the argument that just leaving it it full auto does involve a computer that affects vehicles performance, sure. My whole premise, though is the automatic with paddle shifting...I thought this was assumed. My fault for not making that clear. I know what you may say next, the computer still manages that gear shift. Meh, true, but the power delivery is still in the driver's control...AND, my core argument stands, the going, slowing and turning through the four tires is all that is the focus. As long as the driver is wholly doing those bits (not TC, ABS, etc...), then it is pure driving all up to the driver. I see why some feel doing more with the manual makes that more pure, but in my opinion, it does not. I only makes it different...and I get some dig that. All the basic physics are still there regardless of AT or MT.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I agree, some people want a MT. That's not part of my debate. Again, that preference is almost just as the same as color choice...it is just preference, not performance or purity. I am saying autos are the performance choice. They don't compromise the purity...the claim of so many auto journalists.

While accepting the performance side of your argument here, the actual operation of an AT - whether left to do its own thing or manually commanded - still amounts to having a filter between what you the driver provide as input and what eventually shows up at the tires. You aren't directly making the shifts happen, which I contend is an important distinction to make regardless of whether you don't mind having only indirect control over the gear choice or hate having to drive that way with a passion.

I am not following the programming bit on an auto. I am referring to paddle shifting no matter if it is a torque converter or automated clutch type. This leaves the driver with choices and options with power just like that of the manual rowing process. I'd concede the argument that just leaving it it full auto does involve a computer that affects vehicles performance, sure. My whole premise, though is the automatic with paddle shifting...I thought this was assumed. My fault for not making that clear. I know what you may say next, the computer still manages that gear shift.

Of course. Once a computer sits between you and the various clutches and brakes in the transmission, you can't take it out of the loop. It's still in full control over how quickly and how firmly those elements are applied and also for getting the timing right between releasing some elements and applying others in order to effect the shift you're asking for. It's still going to operate according to somebody else's programming, rather than how you might prefer, for any given shift.

Meh, true, but the power delivery is still in the driver's control...

Power delivery is the drag racer's argument in favor of automatics, where ETs are all that matter.

AND, my core argument stands, the going, slowing and turning through the four tires is all that is the focus.

That's a good overview, but as a driver involved in the process of all that, it's not enough. I'd rather have to work my ass off to shave another second off my personal-best lap times than have two seconds handed to me on a silver platter.

As long as the driver is wholly doing those bits (not TC, ABS, etc...), then it is pure driving all up to the driver. I see why some feel doing more with the manual makes that more pure, but in my opinion, it does not. I only makes it different...and I get some dig that. All the basic physics are still there regardless of AT or MT.

If I had two cars available to me to drive that were identical except for MT vs AT transmission, and knew that I could reliably turn faster lap times in the automatic car . . . the AT car still wouldn't be the car I'd choose to drive from my own free will. Let's just say I have had a same day/same course driving experience close enough to that to know this about myself (yes, I was faster in the AT car, by about a full second).

I also know that I'd prefer manual operation of an AT by a +/- gate or by other shift lever method of control rather than paddles. This one is not even close, and it's also based on actual driving experience. I actually do pay attention to this sort of thing.


Norm

 

[Ace21]

Norm,

Your aurguments over the two are getting wildly into preference over performance, and while the two easily go hand in hand in terms of ooe chooseing the right street car just for them, the very topic of which is better in terms of performance should always be the one that gives MORE performance.

Haha, I mean we get it, you are a visiral purist through and through, nothing wrong with that at all, but at the end of the day the computer controlled box is the faster unit in terms of either shift speed or shift consistency. In your mind preferring one or the other doesn't determine ones abilities or skills does it?

Your statements about the programming can be placed anywhere into modern day car unless it's non-abs, carb engine, and manual transmission. Everything in the modern car is commanded minus the steering, and even that it starting to become commanded and not direct.

I am a little confused with your mindset on the matter, at some points you are agreeing that the AT is faster and gives more performance, and then at others you elude to the driver of ATs as inferior to those who row their own gears. I guess I just don't get the constant disregard for performance over preference.

While this has drastically gone away from the comparison of the PP1 vs PP2, there will always be a preference in a match up between two performance car trims, but lets be honest, the perfomance comparison should always be the best of those trim performance wise!

 

[Dinosoar]

While accepting the performance side of your argument here, the actual operation of an AT - whether left to do its own thing or manually commanded - still amounts to having a filter between what you the driver provide as input and what eventually shows up at the tires. You aren't directly making the shifts happen, which I contend is an important distinction to make regardless of whether you don't mind having only indirect control over the gear choice or hate having to drive that way with a passion.



Of course. Once a computer sits between you and the various clutches and brakes in the transmission, you can't take it out of the loop. It's still in full control over how quickly and how firmly those elements are applied and also for getting the timing right between releasing some elements and applying others in order to effect the shift you're asking for. It's still going to operate according to somebody else's programming, rather than how you might prefer, for any given shift.



Power delivery is the drag racer's argument in favor of automatics, where ETs are all that matter.



That's a good overview, but as a driver involved in the process of all that, it's not enough. I'd rather have to work my ass off to shave another second off my personal-best lap times than have two seconds handed to me on a silver platter.


If I had two cars available to me to drive that were identical except for MT vs AT transmission, and knew that I could reliably turn faster lap times in the automatic car . . . the AT car still wouldn't be the car I'd choose to drive from my own free will. Let's just say I have had a same day/same course driving experience close enough to that to know this about myself (yes, I was faster in the AT car, by about a full second).

I also know that I'd prefer manual operation of an AT by a +/- gate or by other shift lever method of control rather than paddles. This one is not even close, and it's also based on actual driving experience. I actually do pay attention to this sort of thing.


Norm

I agree with your first comment wholly, Norm. I just don't see it relevant to my point in any measurable sense. There are all kinds of "filters" in sports and race cars. I would contend that you are not directly making the shifts happen either case, MT or AT...just more work with a MT.

I always talk in the context of road racing where power launches occur out of most all turns. ATs shine over MTs here too. In fact, MTs are a huge liability in road racing compared to ATs, but that's another debate.

I hear you on wanting it to be more challenging for lap times with an MT...that's still a style choice. My argument is merely the point that ATs are still pure like that of MTs because the purity of driving at the limit doesn't rest with operating a third pedal and a gear lever at all, IMO.

I just think most of your comments are style-based...and I agree as well. I just hear so much bashing of ATs that seem to move the idea of driving at the limit is something it's not. It pervades auto journalism as well. I think it's all wrong. IMO, the dying manual must be merely a discussion style, not a claim of incompatibility with pure driving. Hell, my 2014 Track Pack Mustang GT sucked with that crappy, terrible MT-82 manual. There are good trannys and bad trannys of both types. NONE of them, IMO, take away from the driver's job of see how they can maximize speed through the tires using the three dynamics of power, brakes and steering. It amazes me when guys slam a 911 for its PDK but not for its computer controlled rear steer...and, that PDK is soooooo damn great. I also contend ABS is "blasphemous" in the idea of the driver must manage braking. I won't turn mine off because my tire budget ain't that big (LOL).

I do like this discussion. I love pure driving. I dig both transmissions, AT and MT, I just feel the open debate of it has gotten mixed with people's personal preferences, not the true physics of driving...again, in my humble but impassioned opinion.

 

[dman]

The idea was to compare two different factory available versions of the same model, not to compare a modded PP1 vs a stock PP2. Maybe they should have thrown in a manual PP1 to have a three way comparison testing manual PP1 vs manual PP2 but also manual PP1 vs auto PP1.

4 secs is a bit...but pp1 suspension, was first thing I changed. cup2 tires should be faster on track but, be ready to buy early as a street tire. for the way Ford forces you
into packages to have the pp2 shocks and "big wheel package" seems like a...pp match. money honey! just think of the first 350 gt's where you couldn't have both
track and tech...they re-thought that one. especially after track events revealed the problems big time. guess they did offer a fix...eventually. lastly can the guy drive
consistently? probably more important than set ups...entry-apex-exit!!! dman

 

[Dinosoar]

Norm,

Your aurguments over the two are getting wildly into preference over performance, and while the two easily go hand in hand in terms of ooe chooseing the right street car just for them, the very topic of which is better in terms of performance should always be the one that gives MORE performance.

Haha, I mean we get it, you are a visiral purist through and through, nothing wrong with that at all, but at the end of the day the computer controlled box is the faster unit in terms of either shift speed or shift consistency. In your mind preferring one or the other doesn't determine ones abilities or skills does it?

Your statements about the programming can be placed anywhere into modern day car unless it's non-abs, carb engine, and manual transmission. Everything in the modern car is commanded minus the steering, and even that it starting to become commanded and not direct.

I am a little confused with your mindset on the matter, at some points you are agreeing that the AT is faster and gives more performance, and then at others you elude to the driver of ATs as inferior to those who row their own gears. I guess I just don't get the constant disregard for performance over preference.

While this has drastically gone away from the comparison of the PP1 vs PP2, there will always be a preference in a match up between two performance car trims, but lets be honest, the perfomance comparison should always be the best of those trim performance wise!

I am visceral, yes (LOL). I get a little too jazzed about hit topic, I know.. And all I'm saying is note when it's style and preference, and know when it is compromising to the cause. I agree with a previous feedback comment about ATs in full auto...that's compromising. That's leaving part of the driver's duties to a computer. No, one preference does not determine one's abilities...it is hard to go faster in a manual; that's what cool about that now! I love passing 911s in my track prepped Mustang GT. It's kinda the same now with MTs. But I am saying ATs aren't compromising to the purity of the sport....that's all. Yes, computer "filtering" is everywhere in today's cars. But so are mechanical designs. The solid rear axles, single piston brakes, and MTs provide a mechanical filter too, but I don't think they interrupt that pure engagement.

I am not following on you thinking I "...elude to the driver of ATs as inferior..." I hope I never conveyed that. Not my point at all. I agree ATs are faster now that MTs. Those of us who grew up with cars from the 70s and 80s know it was completely the opposite; manuals ruled and you winced at the site of a sports car with an automatic. This day in age, I just don't agree it's awful to see a 911 or a Mustang or anything else, with an automatic. AND, when I consider the purity of driving at the limit, I don't think ATs mess that formula up. I hope I didn't convey any one is better than the other. I guess I started this debate in this thread from the hilarious "gag video" about the guy with the AT in the car. Funny, but so 1980s.

 

[Mazman]

Read this in a local magazine yesterday. Maybe quite obvious...

They tested among others the PSS4 and the Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires on a BMW 2

Compared to the regular sport tires the r-compound tires ran almost 4 seconds quicker around the track. They have not stated which track but if it was in Sweden the longest track is around 3 km. I'll try to find out which track.

They also clearly state that the r-compound tires and rain should be avoided.

The PSS4 and the Cup 2 won their respective category from an allround perspective.

Sponsored