GT350R Weight

[thePill]

My point is more weight to the rear is better than in the front...and 50/50 is better than 5X/4X

Clearly L/R ratio matters but most of the time it's not much different between cars...at least not that i've seen. Comparing both is rather pointless and a simple consumer understands front to rear better.

You should read my other post Pill before ya start going on on a tangent

and wtf are you going on about runflats for??

The SS comes standard in 245/275 Run-Flats... Why advertise an optimal front/rear distribution (which isn't truly balanced anyway) when it fails on so many other levels.

The 20 inch wheels are a joke, it has to be. The 245's in the front aren't winning any races either and, a Run-Flat is not a performance tire period. The wheelbase is almost full size and the wheelbase:track is slightly better than the 2014 Mustang GT. What is a 50/50 weight distribution going to do to help us?

What happens to that distribution when I run on a 1/4 tank of fuel? I need to sit in it too...

Vehicles always have a driver's side bias, no car is balanced so no need to really mention it. Even at 50/50, 70% of your rear 50 is on the driver's side when your driving. That isn't balanced at all...

Sponsored

 

[DivineStrike]

The SS comes standard in 245/275 Run-Flats... Why advertise an optimal front/rear distribution (which isn't truly balanced anyway) when it fails on so many other levels.

The 20 inch wheels are a joke, it has to be. The 245's in the front aren't winning any races either and, a Run-Flat is not a performance tire period. The wheelbase is almost full size and the wheelbase:track is slightly better than the 2014 Mustang GT. What is a 50/50 weight distribution going to do to help us?

What happens to that distribution when I run on a 1/4 tank of fuel? I need to sit in it too...

Vehicles always have a driver's side bias, no car is balanced so no need to really mention it. Even at 50/50, 70% of your rear 50 is on the driver's side when your driving. That isn't balanced at all...

Again, I'm not talking about the camaro at all...more than just GM advertises weight distribution. And Fuel always changes weight distribution, it doesn't matter whether it's 5x/4x, 50/50 or 4x/5x...what is your point? it's not even an argument. A car with 50/50 distribution on whatever tire is better than 5x/4x on the same tire...suspension setup is more important to tire choice than distribution is. Given that the distribution change isn't too radical

 

[thePill]

Again, I'm not talking about the camaro at all...more than just GM advertises weight distribution. And Fuel always changes weight distribution, it doesn't matter whether it's 5x/4x, 50/50 or 4x/5x...what is your point? it's not even an argument. A car with 50/50 distribution on whatever tire is better than 5x/4x on the same tire...suspension setup is more important to tire choice than distribution is. Given that the distribution change isn't too radical

Why bring up 50/50 if the 2016 Camaro has a shitty wheelbase, shitty WB:T ratio and poor performance equipment?

Is 50/50 suddenly the sole reason a car performs well? I think we need to check off a few more areas before we dig into the closet. If we are digging to find some area of superiority, it better have the standard areas covered first.

No, it's not an argument... It's a silly marketing angle brought into the discussion because nobody can defend its short-comings. There is suddenly a lump in everyone's throat and it's because they can't swallow a sub-3800lbs SS right now.

 

[DivineStrike]

Why are you going on about the camaro?

No it's not but like I said before, generally a vehicle will perform better with a natural bias that has more weight to the rear....

Again you're just mad because of, well gm among many other manufacturers use it as a marketing tool. But mainly you only hate it because of GM.

If you can stop going on these ridiculous tangents perhaps more than a few Ford diehards will take you seriously.

Anyhow, on to the 350r, as that is what this threads about....Not the camaro.

I am curious to know if they've improved the weight bias on any 350 model

 

[thePill]

Why are you going on about the camaro?

No it's not but like I said before, generally a vehicle will perform better with a natural bias that has more weight to the rear....

Again you're just mad because of, well gm among many other manufacturers use it as a marketing tool. But mainly you only hate it because of GM.

If you can stop going on these ridiculous tangents perhaps more than a few Ford diehards will take you seriously.

Anyhow, on to the 350r, as that is what this threads about....Not the camaro.

I am curious to know if they've improved the weight bias on any 350 model

I'm going to do exactly what I want...

It's not a ridiculous tangent... I'm tired of hearing about your 50/50 weight distribution fetish and how it's a crowning achievement. Optimal distribution is closer to 40/60 and is unachievable in a front engine rear drive.

GM constantly rings this bell and you fall for it. You never consider a driver, fuel or lateral balance or cross balance. 50/50 isn't even truly balanced...

I'm going on about the Camaro because shortly, they are going to market a 50/50 distribution but fail on so many other levels. It's a child's stat...

When someone says a car is balanced, they aren't talking front to rear, the car needs to be neutral. 50/50 as it sits with no driver and full fuel isn't balanced... If you remove the engine, every car would be 50/50. So what???

 

[w3rkn]

It is all a balancing act...

 

[Grimace427]

Gen 1-3 Vipers have 48/52 weight distributions, 4-5 have 49/51 and the AMG GT S has a 47/53. All front engine cars.

Front-mid-engine cars to be more precise.

 

[Nataphen]

Front-mid-engine cars to be more precise.

Exactly. You beat me to it. It's an easy mistake to make, but a slightly different layout designation on those cars versus the Mustang.

Griggs used to build a suspension system for the S197 that changed the weight to a rear bias if you relocated the battery. I'd have loved to check one out to see the difference.

 

[Nataphen]

It's just a slightly different car layout is all. The cabin is sitting right on top of the rear wheels on those cars. Mustangs and Camaros being 2+2 with a decent sized trunk make that difficult, if not impossible.

 

[Grimace427]

If you want to play with semantics, then by that definition so is a 1955 Thunderbird.

It's not semantics. A mid-engined car has its engine mounted between the front and rear axles. The engine's relation to the cabin is irrelevant.

 

[ForTehNguyen]

mid mounted means the engine is between the two axles, and it can be in the front or rear

 

[DivineStrike]

weight distribution is a meh spec to me. Some of the best handling cars in the world are 41/59. WD probably going to be similar to the GT

Yes, because having more weight in the rear is a good thing. More weight in the front is not. It's definitely not a "meh" Spec... I am very much interested in seeing how much weight can be lost out of front in the coming years. Aluminum knuckles, subframe, k member and such. I know 908ssp moved his battery to the back, however I don't like how much he cut his truck out. Would like to create a nook for it in the back so the truck mat sits even with less cutting.

Edit: researched Alex's build a little more...

Laugh all ya want though, while it's not ideal, it is definitely preferred in most cars...as most cars have the engine in the front. trying to market anything better than a 50/50 is just kinda asinine in a front engined car lol

I'm going to do exactly what I want...

It's not a ridiculous tangent... I'm tired of hearing about your 50/50 weight distribution fetish and how it's a crowning achievement. Optimal distribution is closer to 40/60 and is unachievable in a front engine rear drive.

GM constantly rings this bell and you fall for it. You never consider a driver, fuel or lateral balance or cross balance. 50/50 isn't even truly balanced...

I'm going on about the Camaro because shortly, they are going to market a 50/50 distribution but fail on so many other levels. It's a child's stat...

When someone says a car is balanced, they aren't talking front to rear, the car needs to be neutral. 50/50 as it sits with no driver and full fuel isn't balanced... If you remove the engine, every car would be 50/50. So what???

Read above, you will do exactly what you want, which is make a fool out of yourself because you don't know how to read.

Nowhere did I say 50/50 is the ultimate ratio, all i've ever said is that more weight to the rear is better and that with a front engined vehicle 50/50 is about the best you can hope for.

I don't talk about driver or fuel because both are required in a vehicle lol. Stop bringing up pointless items which are obviously part of the equation, you act like you're the only one who knows fuel and driver effect balance.

and last I checked GM was late to the game trying to market weight balance (although I'm not sure when they started marketing the vette that way), BMW does it all the time, same with Mazda, Toyota, Honda...please insert any company that has ever made a sports car with a front engine here and continue on...

but please carry on with your ridiculous tangents for no reason:lol:

 

[Stuntman]

It's not semantics. A mid-engined car has its engine mounted between the front and rear axles. The engine's relation to the cabin is irrelevant.

It's absolutely semantics when you consider that everything from grand Prix cars to drag racers all had their engines between the F&R axles, and the revolution of putting the engine behind the driver was then called "mid-engine". For well over half of the automobiles existence, the engine has been behind the front wheel centerline until about the 70s did car manufacturers start pushing the motor forwards to between the wheel centerline.

It would be silly for someone to argue a 1930s Packard is a " mid-engine" car, even though it is indeed a "front-mid engine", " front-mid ship" layout by definition. I get your point but its semantics and a waste of time to argue.

As far as a front engine (midship) 2+2, how about the Ferrari 612 with its 46/54 weight distribution?

 

[Nataphen]

I'm not trying to make this a sore subject, I just pointed out that Mustangs are proportioned differently. They are going to be more difficult to attain a rear bias with, especially for their price. The 612 also has an extremely rearward cabin and a pretty small trunk. I'm sure there are some cars out there that fit the description that you're mentioning, but they aren't proportioned like muscle/pony cars.

Sponsored