Easy there, buddy... You don't sound like you're laughing to me.
Maybe before you went all keyboard commando because you were butthurt I said something negative about your glorious Mustang, you should have take a deep breath, relaxed, and read what I wrote objectively.
I said it handles well, but you can certainly tell it's a solid rear axle... And you can. Or at least, since I learned to drive in heavier cars with live axles and drove them for years, and recall what they felt like, the Mustang brings back faint memories of 1970's GM handling that weren't all that welcome, which I, perhaps incorrectly, attribute to the SRA. But whatever the reason, the handling is far from flawless.
It does float a bit, it does take some time to "set" into a corner, and it does feel a little odd when changing directions quickly or over mid-corner bumps. Is it the SRA? Is it the inadequate stock damping? I really don't care, I just found it less than ideal, and overall it just didn't feel as great to me as I thought the magazines have implied.
And I said that I feel that C&D glossed over the shortcomings of the suspension and car in this review, and made a joke that Ford probably paid them to. Then I said it's a really great handling car for what it is. I mean, regardless of whether those shortcomings are that horrid mess of underdamped whatever you said, or the SRA, they made it sound like it is without flaws, and it certainly is not.
As far as the lap time, well, it's putting down almost 100 HP over anything else in the game so, hey, that's just terrific, who would have expected that.
Have a terrific day arguing about magazine numbers and chassis dynos, I'll be driving my Z.
