Quote:
Originally Posted by Davey
Car and Driver? 
Who cares what those idiots think. The car with all of the electronic gadgets that help it drive itself is the best handling car, OK. 
And they said of the Mustang that you couldn't tell it was a live axle... The SRA is it's "best feature." Really? They complain about mid-corner bumps unsettling the Z, but the Mustang, you can't even tell it's a SRA?
But with the Mustang, even though the steering is fairly light (even in Sport mode) and has no feedback whatsoever, and any sort of mid-corner bump unsettles the 1950's suspension with a nice pogo-stick sidestep jump, it's still a great-handling car. What a bunch of clowns. 
Really the Mustang is a decent handling car for a 3600 lbs muscle car with a solid rear axle but I want to know how much Ford paid Car & Driver for these glowing reviews that completely ignore or gloss over the shortcomings. |
I always laugh when I see comments like this. You are like one of those wine experts who can "really tell" the difference in quality between that $5000 bottle of wine and the $100,000 bottle. Except I switched the labels
I won't deny that the rear end of the Mustang is prone to waft a bit at speed, but it is largely due to the underdamping. Honestly, anyone who claims they can feel the limitations of the SRA with the stock dampers is full of ****. There's no way you have such a discriminating *** that the subtle lateral movement is evident amongst the mud generated by the travesty of underdamping that is the rear of the car. You call out SRA because you are trained to, like when you are told your wine should have the scent of bananas, even though it doesn't
The reason that every set of objective reviewers that review the two cars back-to-back decides that the Mustang has a more settled rear end in corners is because
IT DOES. This is confirmed subjectively and objectively by a host of reviews and measurements. Anyone with an internet warrior's handbook can call out SRA and think they've won, but if you take a deeper look, the ridiculously high rear rate and extreme toe change under compression gives the 370Z a looser backside than a gay hooker (OK, maybe not, but it is prone to coming unglued like a cheap Chinese iPhone
) Can't drive with an objective backside? Hook the car up to anything that measures dynamic toe and let me know what you find. I found this quote from a very wise man:
Quote:
Most of the dynamic comes from the high wheel rate out back, as well as the dynamic change in rear toe mid-corner (both of which have been jacked up vs the 350)
Nissan basically improved full-on-throttle corner dynamics at the expense of off- and partial-throttle dynamic. The 350 had a tendency to step out under throttle due to insufficient toe in the rear. For the 370z, Nissan dialed in a suspension setup that would increase rear toe more significantly during cornering, and you wind up with a bit of a "floaty" or unstable feel from the excessive toe-in. You couple this with the high wheel rate, and you get exactly what you are talking about.
|
Quote:
|
the shortened torque arm and adjusted angle on the 370z changes things a bit vs the g35. The change results in the car generating additional toe-in under corner load, and if you take dynamic toe measurements, you will generally notice that the 370z is prone to over-toe, whereas the g35/350 struggle with stability due to no toe gain. It is a big part of the reason the 350 was unpredictable on corner exit.
|
But of course, let's take the approach that Ford had to pay for that finish. Had to sneak in to get their spot, despite laying the hottest lap time. Had Ford and Mitsu played fair, I bet the 370Z would be sitting on top the podium. Seems logical
[Somewhat in the defense of conspiracy theorist, I personally think C&D moved the Mustang & 370Z back in the rankings simply to give the appearance of being lap-time agnostic like they claimed...basically, they overcompensated to "prove" lap times didn't matter. But that is just my crazy theory
]