Staggered or not

[Egparson202]

Staggered. Cost is so low on the hierarchy of consideration related to this vehicle.

Expensive to buy
Expensive to build
Expensive to fuel
Expensive to insure

What’s a few more bucks to have the best look and best performance by not cutting corners on where the rubber literally meets the road?

I like this logic. I use it all the time to justify getting what I want. However I also value utility. For me they means I lean towards the ability to rotate tires with maximum flexibility. Square for me.

Sponsored

 

[GetYourWheels]

I personally would go with a Staggered setup. There's a reason why Ford offers a staggered setup for the 5.0 and a square setup for the eco-boost

Staggered Setup Pros and Cons

Pros

• Improved Traction
• Faster Cornering
• Better Launches

Cons

• Can cause understeer
• Can't rotate tires
• Wider tires are heavier

Square Setup Pros and Cons

Pros

• Front end grip while cornering
• High-Speed Stability
• More "planted" front end
• Reduced understeer

Cons

• Can feel less responsive
• Less comfortable for some

 

[K4fxd]

There's a reason why Ford offers a staggered setup for the 5.0 and a square setup for the eco-boost

.
It's to try and keep GT mustangs from hitting utility poles when leaving car shows. Didn't work

These cars understeer bad enough square, I wouldn't want staggered unless drag racing.

 

[luc]

Staggered. Cost is so low on the hierarchy of consideration related to this vehicle.

Expensive to buy
Expensive to build
Expensive to fuel
Expensive to insure

What’s a few more bucks to have the best look and best performance by not cutting corners on where the rubber literally meets the road?

Best performance, as in handling, is squared for sure. The Mustang is a front heavy, understeering pig that need all the rubber it can get in front

 

[luc]

I personally would go with a Staggered setup. There's a reason why Ford offers a staggered setup for the 5.0 and a square setup for the eco-boost

Staggered Setup Pros and Cons

Pros

• Improved Traction
• Faster Cornering
• Better Launches

Cons

• Can cause understeer
• Can't rotate tires
• Wider tires are heavier

Square Setup Pros and Cons

Pros

• Front end grip while cornering
• High-Speed Stability
• More "planted" front end
• Reduced understeer

Cons

• Can feel less responsive
• Less comfortable for some

Faster cornering with a staggered set up ?????
That’s stupid and an oxymoron since understeer is listed in the con…, it’s a Mustang, not a Porsche

 

[Prodigal]

Best performance, as in handling, is squared for sure. The Mustang is a front heavy, understeering pig that need all the rubber it can get in front

This makes no sense. My M1 is promoted as a track car by the manufacturer and comes with a staggered set up. If squared was best for a track car, I would assume Ford would install it from the factory. Additionally a staggered set up doesn’t prevent you from having as much tire up front as possible, you can still put the widest tire that will fit up front as you could with a staggered set up. Regardless of what you put up front, you will always be able to fit more meat on the rear.
Cost and convenience aside, I’m not sure squared offers any advantages over staggered. All the high performance cars regardless of manufacturer come with staggered arrangements. There must be a good reason for it.

 

[Bikeman315]

This makes no sense. My M1 is promoted as a track car by the manufacturer and comes with a staggered set up. If squared was best for a track car, I would assume Ford would install it from the factory. Additionally a staggered set up doesn’t prevent you from having as much tire up front as possible, you can still put the widest tire that will fit up front as you could with a staggered set up. Regardless of what you put up front, you will always be able to fit more meat on the rear.
Cost and convenience aside, I’m not sure squared offers any advantages over staggered. All the high performance cars regardless of manufacturer come with staggered arrangements. There must be a good reason for it.

Of course there a reason for it…..they look good. Seriously, it‘s only a plus 1 (305 to 315) so not a large amount of extra rubber back there. Meaningless on the street. So you can go 305 all around and be able to rotate your tires. Whatever floats your boat!

 

[K4fxd]

There must be a good reason for it.

It looks better and the factory wants the car to under steer and it helps reduce throttle oversteer.

 

[NightmareMoon]

This makes no sense. My M1 is promoted as a track car by the manufacturer and comes with a staggered set up. If squared was best for a track car, I would assume Ford would install it from the factory. Additionally a staggered set up doesn’t prevent you from having as much tire up front as possible, you can still put the widest tire that will fit up front as you could with a staggered set up. Regardless of what you put up front, you will always be able to fit more meat on the rear.
Cost and convenience aside, I’m not sure squared offers any advantages over staggered. All the high performance cars regardless of manufacturer come with staggered arrangements. There must be a good reason for it.

almost, but not quite.

marketed as a track car means almost nothing, Ford knows 98% of the people that buy them will be more likely to loose control on the street than push them on the track.

Like it or not the Mach 1 is just a 2015 GT in most ways, including fender and control arm dimensions, which makes a full size 11” front hard to fit while keeping to conservative manufacturer guidelines.

for my money, square 10” for the street, and square 11” for handling. If money is no object then maybe staggered 11”/12” which is about the most you can fit under the car, but its overkill. (i have all of the above BTW)

is a 10/11” wrong for a daily driver? No its fine, but you’ll pay more when it comes to replace tires, and the looks are the same as a 10/10 square setup except looking directly at it from behind. From the side you can’t tell an 11” wheel from a 10” wheel. If a 10/11 combo makes you happy and its just a street car, do whatever you want, but plenty of us are perfectly happy with 10” square setups.

photos - 19x10 square with 285, 19x11 square with 315s, and 18x11/12 staggered with 315s

 

[K4fxd]

If you look in the road race section most of the fastest laps are on a squared setup.

 

[MAGS1]

I’m 20x10 285/35R20 square. I don’t feel any meaningful difference in ride quality compared to the stock 18’s. All depends on what you prefer, but I daily mine so going with a fully rotatable setup makes the most sense for me.

 

[luc]

This makes no sense. My M1 is promoted as a track car by the manufacturer and comes with a staggered set up. If squared was best for a track car, I would assume Ford would install it from the factory. Additionally a staggered set up doesn’t prevent you from having as much tire up front as possible, you can still put the widest tire that will fit up front as you could with a staggered set up. Regardless of what you put up front, you will always be able to fit more meat on the rear.
Cost and convenience aside, I’m not sure squared offers any advantages over staggered. All the high performance cars regardless of manufacturer come with staggered arrangements. There must be a good reason for it.

ok, let me try to explain it
First you have to differentiate between front engine cars, such as the Mustang and rear engine cars such as the Porsche 911
Mustang has a lot more weight In front than on the rear and, from the factory, understeer badly, and that includes you m1
To cure that understeer you need bigger tires and more negative camber in front
To go fast around a track you need a car that is neutral to slightly oversteering, an understeering car is a disaster on a road racing track
So, why do most manufacturers design cars to be understeering?.. Too many lawyers!!!!
Seriously, an understeering car is safer for the average driver because if the car start to push/understeer in a turn, the normal reaction is to step off the gas and even brake…
What happens when you do that ? Weight is transferred to the front, creating extra traction, and the car finally turn…
Simple as that
It’s all about weight transfer. Same reason why brakes are always bigger in front
Now, for the average driver, a neutral to slightly oversteering car, requires much, much more skills to control and if the rear end is coming around, you want to transfer more weight to the rear, by putting more gas instead of removing weight by lifting…
Make sense now?
It’s all a matter of balance
Porsche, that by far are the most track ready cars, have staggered tires.. larger in the rear than the front because. Due to the engine, they have more weight on the back

 

[m3incorp]

Step up to a 20" and those options increase greatly

I prefer the ability to rotate all 4 tires so I’d vote square setup. All depends on what you want. If you go staggered and want to go 305/35 in the rear, the options for tires are pretty limited. Not a very common size for whatever reason.

 

[MAGS1]

Step up to a 20" and those options increase greatly

Yes they do!

 

[m3incorp]

I wonder if carving corners can relate to tracking...... lots of cars considered to be track cars come staggered. Just saying

If you like to race stop light to stop light, go staggered. If you like to carve corners go square.

Sponsored