Mustang takes 51% of sports coupe market

[JYODER240]

A modified Jag S-type/Lincoln LS chassis based Mustang with 53/47 weight distribution is far from an ox cart.

It doesn't matter what platform or its weight distribution, the Mustang does not handle well. Don't get me wrong I love the new Mustang and its a fun car in that its so crude, but handling isn't exactly its forte.

[Nethead]

Thanks for the Welcome.

From Wikipedia

"Despite rumours, D2C is loosely based on the Ford DEW platform which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-Type. The 2005 S197 Mustang was originally designed to use a "Lite" version of the DEW98 platform, but while that plan was eventually scrapped as too expensive, most D2C platform development completed prior to that decision was retained. This led to the carryover of several DEW98 chassis components. These components include the floor pan, transmission tunnel, front frame rails, and fuel tank design.

Differences between D2C and DEW98 are most noticeable in the suspension: The DEW98-based Lincoln LS uses a 4-wheel independent double wishbone suspension. The D2C platform's MacPherson strut front suspension and solid axle rear suspension are less expensive to produce than DEW's more complicated setup. D2C also shares components with other Ford platforms. These include Ford's global C1 platform, with which D2C shares front strut and rear trailing arm components."

I think the floor plan/trans tunnel, front frame rails etc constitute a considerable portion of the unit body chassis.? Of course there are considerable differences but enough remains that such things as a two-piece driveshaft was necessary since the jag chassis IRS based structure would not allow enough travel for a traditional stick axle/single piece driveshaft.?

In any event, the DC2 is not an ox-cart by any means.

SVT32V:  It's been more than a year ago now, but some body/frame dude at FoMoCo said that by the time the S197s were finalized for production, only the floor pans remained from the DEW98.  The fuel tank design may also be retained, since the Mustang's fuel tanks are underneath the rear seats ahead of the rear axle for crash protection and to reduce COG shift as fuel is used up.  This location must work pretty well, since the Grand American Road Racing Association made the Mustang teams move the fuel tanks to the trunks because those ahead-of-the-rear-axle fuel tank locations gave the Mustangs too much of a handling advantage (lowered COG, and virtually no COG shift as fuel was used up).  There were not one, not two, not three, but twenty-eight test mules used in the Shelby GT500 chassis development program--and the frame/body weaknesses that 500 HP and 480 feet pounds of torque can reveal in a vehicle were addressed with additional welds and thicker metal in key locations to raise the body/frame torsional rigidity from an already excellent 6,000 pounds required to produce an inch of deflection to nearly 7,500 pounds required to produce an inch of deflection.  These modifications were incorporated on all 2006 and later S197s--the V6s as well as the V8s.  For comparison, an AWD Lambo Gallardo--considered to be very rigid--has a torsional rigidity of 6,000 pounds required to twist the body/frame one inch. 

[SVT666]

It doesn't matter what platform or its weight distribution, the Mustang does not handle well. Don't get me wrong I love the new Mustang and its a fun car in that its so crude, but handling isn't exactly its forte.

That's bullshit.  If the Mustang doesn't handle as well as the 350Z that's one thing, but to say it "doesn't handle well" and leave it at that is so wrong.  I have driven a 1996 Mustang GT with lowering springs as the only modification through the Rocky Mountains at very high speeds.  It handles fine.  The 2005+ Mustang handles 10X better then that car.  It's not a track car that's for sure, but who needs a track car on the street?

[Raza]

It doesn't matter what platform or its weight distribution, the Mustang does not handle well. Don't get me wrong I love the new Mustang and its a fun car in that its so crude, but handling isn't exactly its forte.

That's not correct.  It may not be the most precise machine, but it gets the job done.  The last generation was utter shit, but this one is competent enough to be considered a good, if not great, handling car.  I hear the stock rims and rubber don't help overall grip, but it's not a bad car in the corners.

[Ron From Regina]

It doesn't matter what platform or its weight distribution, the Mustang does not handle well. Don't get me wrong I love the new Mustang and its a fun car in that its so crude, but handling isn't exactly its forte.

From C and D Mustang Road test:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8778/ford-mustang-gt-page2.html

handling has improved. Not even the most recent independent-rear-suspension SVT Cobra can match the new GT's skidpad grip, which now also surpasses a Nissan 350Z Touring's, come to think of it

[LonghornTX]

That's not correct.  It may not be the most precise machine, but it gets the job done.  The last generation was utter shit, but this one is competent enough to be considered a good, if not great, handling car.  I hear the stock rims and rubber don't help overall grip, but it's not a bad car in the corners.

Yea, Mustangs are really very hindered by the unavailability of true summer tires from the factory.

[JYODER240]

Lets consider some competitors to the Mustang GT: GTO, 350Z, RX-8, G35c, possibly even the S2000. It doesn't handle nearly as well as any of those. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the previous gen but I still wouldn't call it a good handling car considering its competition.
I'm not saying the Mustang is a bad car, its a good car and does a great job at what its designed to do.

[LonghornTX]

Lets consider some competitors to the Mustang GT: GTO, 350Z, RX-8, G35c, possibly even the S2000. It doesn't handle nearly as well as any of those. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the previous gen but I still wouldn't call it a good handling car considering its competition.
I'm not saying the Mustang is a bad car, its a good car and does a great job at what its designed to do.

I definately think the Mustang handled better in some ways than the GTO I drove, that is for sure.  I especially felt that the steering in the stang had better feedback.  You should also consider that the mustang rides on all-season tires and has no optional sport suspension like some of the competitors you mention (like the 350z and G35c).  The S197 is a VERY capable chassis when given the right hardware.

[JYODER240]

From C and D Mustang Road test:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8778/ford-mustang-gt-page2.html

Come on now, thats comparing tests done on different days on different tracks under different conditions. It's widely accepted that a 350Z will pull more outright grip than a Mustang. Besides that more goes into a good handling car than a skidpad number.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Come on now, thats comparing tests done on different days on different tracks under different conditions. It's widely accepted that a 350Z will pull more outright grip than a Mustang. Besides that more goes into a good handling car than a skidpad number.

Stock Honda Fits are faster through the lane change then either one 

[Raghavan]

That's because Honda is t3h pwnz.

[JYODER240]

I definately think the Mustang handled better in some ways than the GTO I drove, that is for sure.? I especially felt that the steering in the stang had better feedback.? You should also consider that the mustang rides on all-season tires and has no optional sport suspension like some of the competitors you mention (like the 350z and G35c).? The S197 is a VERY capable chassis when given the right hardware.

The Mustang might be able to pull as much grip as the GTO but I didn't find it nearly as composed at the limit. Its impressive how far the Mustang has come with a solid rear axel but there's no hiding that it has one. BTW the 350Z doesn't have an optional sport suspension.

[SVT666]

The Mustang might be able to pull as much grip as the GTO but I didn't find it nearly as composed at the limit. Its impressive how far the Mustang has come with a solid rear axel but there's no hiding that it has one. BTW the 350Z doesn't have an optional sport suspension.

The Mustang also costs significantly less then any of those competitors you mentioned.  I could not have told you that the 2007 Mustang GT I drove had a solid rear axle if I didn't know it before getting into the car.  I find it truly amazing what Ford has done with it.  Granted I didn't drive it to it's limit, but it handled the hard driving I did with as much grace as any IRS equipped car I've driven the same way.

Besides, I always look at a stock Mustang as simply a starting point for what I want it to be in the end.  The aftermarket is huge for it and it's the most modified car in history.  No other car has an aftermarket that can rival the Mustang's.

[ChrisV]

The Mustang might be able to pull as much grip as the GTO but I didn't find it nearly as composed at the limit. Its impressive how far the Mustang has come with a solid rear axel but there's no hiding that it has one. BTW the 350Z doesn't have an optional sport suspension.

A solid rear axle only shows itself in bumpy corners. It has nothing to do with grip or even at-limit composure: that's tires. Tell you what, we shoud ltake your 350Z and a new GT out to a real test of handling, the road course or autocross track, and compare with equal tires.

[Nethead]

The Mustang might be able to pull as much grip as the GTO but I didn't find it nearly as composed at the limit. Its impressive how far the Mustang has come with a solid rear axel but there's no hiding that it has one. BTW the 350Z doesn't have an optional sport suspension.

JYODER240:  And a GT500--as well as an SRT8 Charger--easily outhandle a GTO (Motor Trend, July '06 issue).  And a GT500 is a Mustang with, among other things, upgraded suspension and tires.  If you've got Motor Trend figure-eight and slalom times for a 350Z, we can compare those to the GTO/SRT8/GT500 times in that issue and see how they compare.  I choose Motor Trend because their figure-eight and slalom tests are probably standardized, although weather and drivers are items that can certainly vary.  OTOH, that's what we got to work with...

And doesn't the 40th Anniversary Edition 350Z have a better suspension than a "regular" 350Z?  Early last year, Evo or some similar European mag drove a 40th Anniversary Edition 350Z and felt it was much improved over the "regular" 350Z in every way...

[JYODER240]

The Mustang also costs significantly less then any of those competitors you mentioned.? I could not have told you that the 2007 Mustang GT I drove had a solid rear axle if I didn't know it before getting into the car.? I find it truly amazing what Ford has done with it.? Granted I didn't drive it to it's limit, but it handled the hard driving I did with as much grace as any IRS equipped car I've driven the same way.

Besides, I always look at a stock Mustang as simply a starting point for what I want it to be in the end.? The aftermarket is huge for it and it's the most modified car in history.? No other car has an aftermarket that can rival the Mustang's.

I can agree with that. Like I said I was impressed how far they've come with a solid rear axel. True the Mustang still handles better than 90% of cars on the road but compared to the cars it competes with it comes up short.

[JYODER240]

A solid rear axle only shows itself in bumpy corners. It has nothing to do with grip or even at-limit composure: that's tires. Tell you what, we shoud ltake your 350Z and a new GT out to a real test of handling, the road course or autocross track, and compare with equal tires.

I know that a solid rear axle only shows itself on bumpy corners because it transfers the shock of the bump to the other side of the car. A car with extremely stiff sway bars will behave the same way.  There's still more to a cars handling than a skidpad number, and you know that Chris. In the real world of driving most corners aren't perfectly smooth. Back roads have mid corner bumps and other undulations in the road. Even if you gave a Mustang GT Pilot Sports like my car has it might be able to pull as high of a skidpad number but that doesn't mean it will handle as well. It's suspension is on the soft side and the suspension doesn't control the body that well. I also didn't find the Mustang to be as confident at the limit.

If you read the C&D Lightning Lap article the 350Z posted a time of 3:12.5 and the Mustang GT posted a lap of 3:20.9, behind the EVO, RX-8, and Cobalt SS. We know that the Mustang is quicker in a straight line than those (with the exception of a standing start against the EVO) so the Mustang had to fall down in 2 places: brakes, and suspension. Here's how C&D explained it:

"The Mustang was actually a couple mph quicker than the Cobalt on the straightaways, but the Ford suffered from weak brakes and a floppy chassis. After only two laps, the brakes started to give ground and the soft suspension allowed the car to move around too much to go quickly through the high-speed esses of Sector Two. The Cobalt averaged 4.7 mph faster through that part of the track. On the plus side, cornering grip and balance were decent. With more suspension control, the Mustang would have taken better advantage of these attributes."

[JYODER240]

JYODER240:? And a GT500--as well as an SRT8 Charger--easily outhandle a GTO (Motor Trend, July '06 issue).? And a GT500 is a Mustang with, among other things, upgraded suspension and tires.? If you've got Motor Trend figure-eight and slalom times for a 350Z, we can compare those to the GTO/SRT8/GT500 times in that issue and see how they compare.? I choose Motor Trend because their figure-eight and slalom tests are probably standardized, although weather and drivers are items that can certainly vary.? OTOH, that's what we got to work with...

And doesn't the 40th Anniversary Edition 350Z have a better suspension than a "regular" 350Z?? Early last year, Evo or some similar European mag drove a 40th Anniversary Edition 350Z and felt it was much improved over the "regular" 350Z in every way...

1) You're talking about the GT500, we were comparing the Mustang GT.
2) Numbers, figure-eight, and slalom times don't tell the whole story.
3) There is no 40th anniversary Z. The 35th Anniv. has the same suspension as other Z's but it does come with better tires. The only updates to suspension are the 04.5 got a slightly stiffer front sway bar and different dampening to reduce some of the "bounce" on the highway. For 06 the suspension was softened with a higher ride height. I don't think any changes were made for 07.

[Nethead]

JYODER240:? And a GT500--as well as an SRT8 Charger--easily outhandle a GTO (Motor Trend, July '06 issue).? And a GT500 is a Mustang with, among other things, upgraded suspension and tires.? If you've got Motor Trend figure-eight and slalom times for a 350Z, we can compare those to the GTO/SRT8/GT500 times in that issue and see how they compare.? I choose Motor Trend because their figure-eight and slalom tests are probably standardized, although weather and drivers are items that can certainly vary.? OTOH, that's what we got to work with...

And doesn't the 40th Anniversary Edition 350Z have a better suspension than a "regular" 350Z?? Early last year, Evo or some similar European mag drove a 40th Anniversary Edition 350Z and felt it was much improved over the "regular" 350Z in every way...

I didn't find the hardtop 350Z tested by Motor Trend (?), but I did find a 350Z Roadster Touring.  Plugging in the values for the 350Z into the July, 2006 Motor Trend comparo was a little silly, since the 350Z only has room for two passengers whereas the SRT8, the GT500, and the GTO can all seat four--but when you see where the 350Z fits in the performance categories the other three are not handicapped by their abilities to carry two more passengers:

         Weight     0-60    0-100    SS 1/4 & speed    Slalom mph    Figure-8                   Braking 60-0
SRT8       4266        5.0      11.9       13.5 @ 106.3        65.2 avg      26.3 secs @ 0.68G         124 ft
GT500     3990        4.5        9.6       12.7 @ 116.0        69.7 avg      24.5 secs @ 0.77G         110 ft
350Z       3576        5.7      14.6       14.3 @  98.7       (Not shown)  26.5 secs @ 0.65G         112 ft
GTO        3277        4.7       11.7       13.3 @ 105.9        62.4 avg     26.8 secs @ 0.66G         138 ft 

SRT8     $35,995
GT500   $41,950
350Z     $38,845
GTO      $32,685

So we see that the V6 350Z acquitted itself well against the V8 competition, but we also see that the four-passenger musclecars acquitted themselves well against the two-passenger sportscar.  Each reader will make of these statistics what they will.  Be aware that the 350Z was the only roadster--a handicap.  But it was the only two-passenger vehicle against three four-passenger vehicles--the SRT8 also had four doors and an automatic to boot!

[Eye of the Tiger]

Maybe you Mustang trolls should start your own forum 

[Raza]

A solid rear axle only shows itself in bumpy corners. It has nothing to do with grip or even at-limit composure: that's tires. Tell you what, we shoud ltake your 350Z and a new GT out to a real test of handling, the road course or autocross track, and compare with equal tires.

I call first in Stang.

[Raghavan]

I didn't find the hardtop 350Z tested by Motor Trend (?), but I did find a 350Z Roadster Touring. Plugging in the values for the 350Z into the July, 2006 Motor Trend comparo was a little silly, since the 350Z only has room for two passengers whereas the SRT8, the GT500, and the GTO can all seat four--but when you see where the 350Z fits in the performance categories the other three are not handicapped by their abilities to carry two more passengers:

Weight 0-60 0-100 SS 1/4 & speed Slalom mph Figure-8 Braking 60-0
SRT8 4266 5.0 11.9 13.5 @ 106.3 65.2 avg 26.3 secs @ 0.68G 124 ft
GT500 3990 4.5 9.6 12.7 @ 116.0 69.7 avg 24.5 secs @ 0.77G 110 ft
350Z 3576 5.7 14.6 14.3 @ 98.7 (Not shown) 26.5 secs @ 0.65G 112 ft
GTO 3277 4.7 11.7 13.3 @ 105.9 62.4 avg 26.8 secs @ 0.66G 138 ft

SRT8 $35,995
GT500 $41,950
350Z $38,845
GTO $32,685

So we see that the V6 350Z acquitted itself well against the V8 competition, but we also see that the four-passenger musclecars acquitted themselves well against the two-passenger sportscar. Each reader will make of these statistics what they will. Be aware that the 350Z was the only roadster--a handicap. But it was the only two-passenger vehicle against three four-passenger vehicles--the SRT8 also had four doors and an automatic to boot!

BS, since when did a GTO weigh 3200 lbs?

[JYODER240]

I didn't find the hardtop 350Z tested by Motor Trend (?), but I did find a 350Z Roadster Touring.? Plugging in the values for the 350Z into the July, 2006 Motor Trend comparo was a little silly, since the 350Z only has room for two passengers whereas the SRT8, the GT500, and the GTO can all seat four--but when you see where the 350Z fits in the performance categories the other three are not handicapped by their abilities to carry two more passengers:

? ? ? ? ?Weight? ? ?0-60? ? 0-100? ? SS 1/4 & speed? ? Slalom mph? ? Figure-8? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Braking 60-0
SRT8? ? ? ?4266? ? ? ? 5.0? ? ? 11.9? ? ? ?13.5 @ 106.3? ? ? ? 65.2 avg? ? ? 26.3 secs @ 0.68G? ? ? ? ?124 ft
GT500? ? ?3990? ? ? ? 4.5? ? ? ? 9.6? ? ? ?12.7 @ 116.0? ? ? ? 69.7 avg? ? ? 24.5 secs @ 0.77G? ? ? ? ?110 ft
350Z? ? ? ?3576? ? ? ? 5.7? ? ? 14.6? ? ? ?14.3 @? 98.7? ? ? ?(Not shown)? 26.5 secs @ 0.65G? ? ? ? ?112 ft
GTO? ? ? ? 3277? ? ? ? 4.7? ? ? ?11.7? ? ? ?13.3 @ 105.9? ? ? ? 62.4 avg? ? ?26.8 secs @ 0.66G? ? ? ? ?138 ft?

SRT8? ? ?$35,995
GT500? ?$41,950
350Z? ? ?$38,845
GTO? ? ? $32,685

So we see that the V6 350Z acquitted itself well against the V8 competition, but we also see that the four-passenger musclecars acquitted themselves well against the two-passenger sportscar.? Each reader will make of these statistics what they will.? Be aware that the 350Z was the only roadster--a handicap.? But it was the only two-passenger vehicle against three four-passenger vehicles--the SRT8 also had four doors and an automatic to boot!

Nethead, you seem to have a problem with your reading comphrension. I said several times that there is more to a cars handling that what some numbers on a paper say. I also said they we were talking about the Mustang GT, not the GT500. You're stats are flawed anyhow. You're comparing a convertable Z that was tested on a differnet day, different conditions, and most likely a different track with a different driver.

If you really want to compare the Z and Mustang, you can read this article: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0506_compact_sport_convertibles_comparison/

They're both convertable's but I can't find a comparison of two hardtops. Here's a few quotes of them comparing the handling of the two:

"The Z-Car is the carver and the Mustang is the cruiser," says Motor Trend road-test editor Neil Chirico

Nissan's 350Z delivers on its sports-car promise with precise, communicative steering, a crisp turn-in response, and taut suspension that keeps the car composed and ready for the driver's next move. In our testing, the Z's 0.87 g of lateral grip and 66.2-mph 600-foot-slalom speed easily bested the Mustang's 0.81g skidpad and 63.4-mph cone-threading performances.

Turn the steering wheel, and there's an initial reluctance to change direction, a noticeable phase lag in transitions. It's open to conjecture whether that's due to tires with wiggly sidewalls, suspension bushing compliance, steering freeplay, or just a body structure that misses its steel roof. The Mustang feels heavier than the 173-pound difference between it and the Nissan.

In the final analysis, the 350Z Roadster is the better sports car. It's the one you'll want to take for a spin over a challenging section of tarmac.

                                Mustang GT                      350ZR
600-ft Slalom:           63.4mph avg.                  66.2mph avg.
lateral accel.             .81g avg                          .87g avg.

[Raghavan]

We'll just call it even and say that the S2000 is the best car in class.

[JYODER240]

We'll just call it even and say that the S2000 is the best car in class.

Its the best handling and the most fun to drive.

[Raghavan]

You should've gotten an S2000.
It's not very fast though. Family sedans can almost keep up with it.

[Eye of the Tiger]

You should've gotten an S2000.
It's not very fast though. Family sedans can almost keep up with it.

Camries 

[JYODER240]

You should've gotten an S2000.
It's not very fast though. Family sedans can almost keep up with it.

The S2K moves well if you wind it out, but it never feels like you're accelerating as hard as you really are. I really like the S2000 but the Z more well-rounded and fits me better for a daily driver thats going to go through NE winter.

[Nethead]

1) You're talking about the GT500, we were comparing the Mustang GT.
2) Numbers, figure-eight, and slalom times don't tell the whole story.
3) There is no 40th anniversary Z. The 35th Anniv. has the same suspension as other Z's but it does come with better tires. The only updates to suspension are the 04.5 got a slightly stiffer front sway bar and different dampening to reduce some of the "bounce" on the highway. For 06 the suspension was softened with a higher ride height. I don't think any changes were made for 07.

JYODER240: Yeah, YoDude, comparing the preformance of any four-passenger vehicle to the performance of any two-passenger vehicle is gonna require some imagination--at the very least! 

But the GT500 is indeed a Mustang--the current top-of-the-line performance Mustang (in street-legal trim, that is), and so it's a proper comparison since there is no bread-and-butter 350Z built to please everyone like the Mustang GT.  The 350Z doesn't even come in a four-passenger version, y' know?  So ya gotta compare a Mustang built for kicking butt with a 350Z built for kicking butt.  There probably is a market for a four-passenger bread-and-butter 350Z, but that's not a choice you get with a 350Z.  But you do get that choice from Ford--a hot bread-and-butter Mustang GT that seats four and a kick butt GT500 for those who have other things in mind, which also seats four. 

In light of that, I can't see how comparing the top performance 350Z offered by the Nissan Corporation to the top performance Mustang offered by Ford Motor Company is anything but fair.  If you have valid counter-arguments, let's hear 'em!

[Raghavan]

The S2K moves well if you wind it out, but it never feels like you're accelerating as hard as you really are. I really like the S2000 but the Z more well-rounded and fits me better for a daily driver thats going to go through NE winter.

I definately would've gotten the S2000 (with a hardtop, they look sooo good) because it doesn't snow here so i could use it as a DD.