Is Ford lacking on performance?

[Nagare]

Obviously the car doesn't compete where you think it should, but is the name really so wrong when compared to the line up of the Mustang? Could it be better? Yes. But does it offer more performance than a base GT? Definitely yes. Therefor it is a Performance Pack for the GT. Braking performance is improved, cornering performance is improved, acceleration performance is improved.

Now I don't have any of the experience you guys have with it, but I think that merits the name. The competition's car is just better equipped from the start and the 1LE is their version of a Performance Pack and further improves on it.

Again, I understand that the competition is there and should be better addressed, but I think Ford is more working just on its own line up and naming things based on that in somewhat of a silo. Hopefully the GT500 is a complete beast of a machine that addresses the issues from this thread, but we won't know more on that for awhile.

Sponsored

 

[bootlegger]

Well that dirty dealer lied haha... I would have to have leather over cloth tho, but good to know

Leather is pointless if you are most concerned with track performance. In fact, I would say it is less performance oriented (I never feel as planted as with cloth). If you want to beat the 1LE on the track, buy a PP2 base, add rear diff cooler, and spend the money you saved on more track days.

 

[bootlegger]

That's what I'm saying, you market and advertise functional aero, wide tires, stiffer suspension blah blah blah, then end with it is not a track car or competition to the 1le....what the hell Ford

How a PP2 compares to a 1LE on the track is yet to be determined. The PP2 has the right suspension components and tires to compete. Longer track runs may bring the lack of coolers into play, but these are cheap fixes. It's all about compromises. With the 1LE, you compromise with less visibility, less ergonomics, and less space. With the PP2, you compromise with less drivetrain cooling.

And GM knows they missed the mark on the SS, making it too performance oriented (more $$$)...so they are reducing content and tire sizes to better compete with the GT. It goes both ways.

The way I see it, the Camaro ONLY offers a performance package car. The "base" SS is a performance pack, while the 1LE is the track pack. The Mustang GT is a real base, and priced that way. I think horse has been dead for months. Some people just think Ford shouldn't offer a true base. I think it is a smart decision. Hardcore racers will prefer buying a cheap base and build the car to fit their needs.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Yes, it's a performance car. That's what spawned this conversation, was that Norm was saying the car isn't deserving of the "performance pack" moniker, which I am saying is incorrect.

Try looking at it like this; Ford's PP1 would compare about to where your own Nurburgring S197 build would have ended up if you'd chosen Eibach Pro springs, one of the better mass-market choices in OE-replacement dampers, and 18x9 wheels with Kuhmo Ecsta PS31 tires. Better than base OE? Sure. But not all that much of a step up, and you'd have known that you left some low-hanging fruit.


I suppose for those who don't ever intentionally drive beyond about 0.3g (in any direction), the PP1 actually would feel like it was performance-intended. That doesn't make it true for those who drive somewhat harder.


Norm

 

[Grintch]

That's similar to my thinking. Ford used to have a track pack for the S197s, but they changed the name to Performance Pack for the S550 GTs, so I figured they were protecting themselves from saying it's a full-on track car.

Who is talking about the PP1? Most of us are talking about the new PP2, that just happens to be priced almost exactly like the 1LE. Why did Ford introduce a new Performance Package? The enthusiast press and me think it was to compete with the 1LE. And the pricing reinforces that opinion. Too bad it doesn't come will all the equipment of the 1LE.

Try driving the Sport Cup 2 tires in snow or heavy rain, and you will find out quickly how track oriented the package (or at least parts of it) is.

 

[Arthonon]

Who is talking about the PP1? Most of us are talking about the new PP2, that just happens to be priced almost exactly like the 1LE. Why did Ford introduce a new Performance Package? The enthusiast press and me think it was to compete with the 1LE. And the pricing reinforces that opinion. Too bad it doesn't come will all the equipment of the 1LE.

Try driving the Sport Cup 2 tires in snow or heavy rain, and you will find out quickly how track oriented the package (or at least parts of it) is.

I think if you look at my comments in context you'll I was replying to a different post that referred to the name. And I'm also not making any claims one way or the other on what these performance packs should or shouldn't do, I'm just saying what I think Ford's approach was.

If you look at the development of PP2, it wasn't driven by Ford corporate, it was a group of engineers doing it on their own, so they probably had limited support and resources. Ford decided to sell it, but I don't think they had a real plan for marketing it.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not making any claims on what Ford should have done, or that they're doing it the right way or the wrong way, just that I think they changed the names to avoid committing to supporting track use.

 

[morgande]

At first I thought this thread was going to be about Fords performance portfolio as a whole and the areas it was perhaps deficient in. This topic is very much misleading.

Fact: The Mustang GT in stock form is not as performant in the function of its handling characteristics as its comparable GM competition.

Fact: The Mustang GT PP in stock form is not as performant in the function of its handling characteristics as its comparable GM competition.

Fact: The Shelby GT350 and GT350R in stock form* IS performant in the function of its handling characteristics AND its comparable GM competition or better. *2017 model years or 2016 with track packages.

So your real question is: why does Ford keep the GT models a leg behind GM in the function of handling? Nobody would argue you can buy a better handling car from GM. Hell Ford itself sells 2 different suspension upgrades for the GT that bring the car more in line with what you can get out of a stock vehicle from GM. So what gives?

The answer, quite simply, is Ford isn't interested in doing this. Ford builds cars people want to buy. They are not in business to build the best performing car they can. They are in business to sell most car's they can! As long as the Mustang continues to outsell the GM and Chrysler competition, Ford will not mess with this formula.

This is consistent with Ford DNA for as long as Ford as been Ford. Ford built the original GT 40 to beat Ferrari. But they were only trying to beat Ferrari because of a deal gone sour to acquire Ferrari. Why did Ford want to buy Ferrari? So it could dominate racing? Nope. They just wanted to sell more cars across the pond, and racing recognition at that time was much stronger selling point. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. Failing to acquire Ferrari turned into a grudge match. Grudge match created a car that dominated. Ford got its recognition. Sold some more cars, and quit racing. Took another 50 years for Ford to even get back into that level of competition.

My point to all this is, Ford doesn't build these things to beat the competition in any one area of performance. They do it to sell cars. As far as the GT goes, Ford has analyized, researched and calculated that their target buyer only needs the car to perform at level XYZ in areas ABC. And based on how many cars they sell, the average transaction price, and how they sell relative to their competition, Ford was right in their performance targets for the average buyer.

We, the collective community, are not the average buyer. We want more. We want a car that is not just performant as its competition, but that best its competition. Unfortunately, in stock form, the GT doesn't do this. Thus we are forced to rely on the aftermarket. Mustang is the #1 customized vehicle on the planet. Im sure the collective aftermarket industry is glad that Ford has built a car that people love to buy and love to customize. It's a win-win. And while in stock Ford maybe the GT isn't quite as good as the SS or the 1LE, you can MAKE it better if you wish. In a mater that fits your style, your taste, and your budget.

Now, lets get to the real discussion: Where the HELL is my 4-door Mustang? :cheers:addle:

 

[Hack]

I don't think a company like Ford, with decades of racing experience, assumed this would fill the role of a track car.

No reason that base V6 and GT Mustangs can't be used as track cars completely stock. I took my 2015 GT to the track. It was fun and I passed some people in Corvettes and other "performance" cars. I didn't even change the tires. HPDEs are about fun and the Mustang is plenty fun at the track.

I never did consider the PP1 to be on the same level as the 1LE, not even when it first appeared. But for some reason, MT compared those two not once, but twice. With the same general result (just more so the second time around).


So suppose I take my cornering standards (whatever those might be) and turn that 90° so that it's about forward acceleration instead? How much more commotion do you think there would have been if the PP1 had started out being clearly beaten at the dragstrip, and instead of catching up in round 2, fell still further behind?

Norm

I don't see the big deal, frankly. A very, very small percentage of the population buys a new car for only track use. When I compare Camaro to Mustang, I realize that daily livability is also important. On the road course it doesn't matter if some other car is faster than mine. I'm not "racing". I'm just having fun. And both cars are plenty of fun. Splitting hairs on performance specs is barely a consideration for me.

I suppose for those who don't ever intentionally drive beyond about 0.3g (in any direction), the PP1 actually would feel like it was performance-intended. That doesn't make it true for those who drive somewhat harder.

Norm

WUT? 0.3 G? Seriously? :doh:

 

[EJS2016]

The S197 “Track Pack” was a solid overall performance and handling upgrade over the standard GT...and a terrific bargain as well.

For 2018, the standard GT should have based on the PP1 package.
The PP2 package should have been the only optional performance/handling option offered.

Marketing hype=confusion for the average buyer.
Only true enthusiasts know/care these packages even exist and what the distinctions are between them.

Addressing the post topic and regarding the Mustang specifically, I believe that Ford’s primary goal/mission is to position and present the Mustang as a very strong competitor in it’s market segment, but not necessarily as the top performer in all measured performance tests.

The goal is provide a very well balanced machine at an acceptable price point that can be driven and enjoyed everyday, no matter what performance level vehicle is purchased...base, PP1, PP2, GT350/R.

These are also my thoughts regarding the upcoming GT500.
I believe it will an awesome overall/dual purpose/extreme performance machine that offers daily street drivability and comfort.

I just don’t think it will dominate at the track or the strip...perhaps in one area, but not both.
Looking forward to the it’s reveal/final specifications and engine output ratings.:ford:

 

[cosmo]

I don't see the big deal, frankly. A very, very small percentage of the population buys a new car for only track use. When I compare Camaro to Mustang, I realize that daily livability is also important. On the road course it doesn't matter if some other car is faster than mine. I'm not "racing". I'm just having fun. And both cars are plenty of fun. Splitting hairs on performance specs is barely a consideration for me.

Splitting hairs is one thing, these cars are not splitting hairs. In the GT350R vs ZL1 Motortrend review it was mentioned by the editor that he actually preferred the SS 1LE handling over both cars. That's a bit more substantial than splitting hairs. If someone isn't an enthusiast and only cares about straight line performance, then yes I can see the GT PP1 being preferred over the SS 1LE. If someone is an enthusiast, I can't see how they can prefer the GT unless they acknowledge there must be a substantial amount of work to make up the difference. It's more than just tires; you're down cooling, suspension, chassis stiffness, and the differential.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford...l1-vs-2017-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350r-review/

I will also go on record stating that I preferred the way the SS 1LE handled compared to the ZL1—and also to the GT350R.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...-ford-mustang-gt-performance-pack-comparison/

“There’s about 4,000 years of evolution separating the two.”

 

[Norm Peterson]

Obviously the car doesn't compete where you think it should

When they don't compete well enough, it makes me think that they're only paying lip service to one of the more important things I look for in a car. Like they'd rather the Mustang stop at being only a little more than a RWD version of the Fusion or Taurus.

I think Ford is more working just on its own line up and naming things based on that in somewhat of a silo. Hopefully the GT500 is a complete beast of a machine that addresses the issues from this thread, but we won't know more on that for awhile.

Maybe they need more 'car guys' in decision-making positions. More Hacketts and Hackett-wanna-be's isn't going to be the right answer.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

I don't see the big deal, frankly. A very, very small percentage of the population buys a new car for only track use. When I compare Camaro to Mustang, I realize that daily livability is also important. On the road course it doesn't matter if some other car is faster than mine. I'm not "racing". I'm just having fun. And both cars are plenty of fun. Splitting hairs on performance specs is barely a consideration for me.

Let's just say it goes to mfr intent, where coming up short starts looking more and more like lip service.

WUT? 0.3 G? Seriously? :doh:

That really is about the upper end of most drivers' intentional driving experience. I've repeatedly found that to be true from pacing traffic and actually measuring it. Very few people keep up at 0.5g laterally, and 0.7g runs away and hides from just about anybody you'll ever share the same stretch of road with.

These days, 0.3g braking is being considered "hard braking" by some of the insurance companies who offer discounts based on monitoring such things about your driving (0.5g being 'extreme').

Those 0.3g-max drivers have no idea what car behavior is really like, and even the occasional 0.5-er's are only getting a hint.


Norm

 

[Strokerswild]

Good thing my insurance company isn't monitoring my car.

 

[Fatguy]

No reason that base V6 and GT Mustangs can't be used as track cars completely stock. I took my 2015 GT to the track. It was fun and I passed some people in Corvettes and other "performance" cars. I didn't even change the tires. HPDEs are about fun and the Mustang is plenty fun at the track.



I don't see the big deal, frankly. A very, very small percentage of the population buys a new car for only track use. When I compare Camaro to Mustang, I realize that daily livability is also important. On the road course it doesn't matter if some other car is faster than mine. I'm not "racing". I'm just having fun. And both cars are plenty of fun. Splitting hairs on performance specs is barely a consideration for me.



WUT? 0.3 G? Seriously? :doh:

You can race anything but I have no qualms running my V6 Mustang around any track.


Having said that I just checked out a brand new Camaro ZL1 and two Corvette Grand Sports. As strange as this sounds from a Mustang guy of over 20 years and 3 Mustangs, that ZL1 really got my heart pumping more than the GT350s down the road. I hate big hiked up wings (my two Previous 5.0s had no scoops or spoilers) but that carbon fibre one on the ZL1 I could actually live with (sort of a higher GTR that I looked at on the weekend). The wheels and aero package comes as close to race car as you can get. I just love those two big open holes on the bumper for the coolers - just big holes with no grills with the coolers naked. Just like dedicated race car! And the hollowed out bow tie. :lol:


I have to admit that car had me excited in a way the Mustang didn’t. I won’t buy it but I entertained the thought. I have a formula for buying performance cars. Buy new and buy base which for me is a low option Stingray. The Mustang is my daily driver and I love her. But I have to be honest and say that Camaro was truly exciting. Ford has the performance but gets stingy on the consumer cars. Let’s get no-nonsense cooling like on the Camaro. It’s obvious on that car from a glance.

 

[Rocketman]

The S197 “Track Pack” was a solid overall performance and handling upgrade over the standard GT...and a terrific bargain as well.

For 2018, the standard GT should have based on the PP1 package.
The PP2 package should have been the only optional performance/handling option offered.

Marketing hype=confusion for the average buyer.
Only true enthusiasts know/care these packages even exist and what the distinctions are between them.

Addressing the post topic and regarding the Mustang specifically, I believe that Ford’s primary goal/mission is to position and present the Mustang as a very strong competitor in it’s market segment, but not necessarily as the top performer in all measured performance tests.

The goal is provide a very well balanced machine at an acceptable price point that can be driven and enjoyed everyday, no matter what performance level vehicle is purchased...base, PP1, PP2, GT350/R.

These are also my thoughts regarding the upcoming GT500.
I believe it will an awesome overall/dual purpose/extreme performance machine that offers daily street drivability and comfort.

I just don’t think it will dominate at the track or the strip...perhaps in one area, but not both.
Looking forward to the it’s reveal/final specifications and engine output ratings.:ford:

No it shouldn't. As an owner of a PP1, I find the ride a bit jarring sometimes depending on the road. That wouldn't bode well for the baby boomers, who make up a large percentage of Mustang sales, that desire a smooth ride which a non-PP1 GT provides.

Sponsored