Will there be a S650 PP2?

[shogun32]

I too am dumfounded at Ford's insistance on under-tiring the Mustang, both EB and GT. The PP1 wheels are so preposterously heavy it's a sick joke. Chevy Camaro 1LE rims are "forged" but aren't exactly light. So I'm not so sure about them being really comporting with that manufacturing process.

The Mustang should have come with 19x9 at minimum from day one, and shod with 255/40. Any higher trim should have been 19x10et40 with 275 or 285s.

But at the end of the day, Ford only cares about extracting MPG and nothing more, and taller and narrower applies even if it ruins the very premise of the car and it's reason d'arte.

Sponsored

 

[Ewheels]

With performance being a relative attribute. And if a "performance bargain" is what this exercise is designed to illustrate, I would say that there are too many variables to accurately define what "performance" actually is.

Ok dude.
You asked to add $ per hp/lbs so you made it about "performance bargains."
I was simply reading the data in the charts and the BRZ and C6Z are at the top of both charts.
Everyone and their grandmother knows what performance means but if you want to over analyze this and come up with reasons why those two cars are not "performance" cars, be my guest.

My original point to this whole thread was that even the Performance Pack Mustang is under-tired, but in typical M6G/M7G fashion, the thread quickly went on a nit-picking tangent. I'm done here; you can continue this thread on whatever topic you want.

 

[Bikeman315]

I too am dumfounded at Ford's insistance on under-tiring the Mustang, both EB and GT. The PP1 wheels are so preposterously heavy it's a sick joke. Chevy Camaro 1LE rims are "forged" but aren't exactly light. So I'm not so sure about them being really comporting with that manufacturing process.

The Mustang should have come with 19x9 at minimum from day one, and shod with 255/40. Any higher trim should have been 19x10et40 with 275 or 285s.

But at the end of the day, Ford only cares about extracting MPG and nothing more, and taller and narrower applies even if it ruins the very premise of the car and it's reason d'arte.

So would you rather have undersized wheels and tires that you can replace with your own preferences or have Ford do it, have the mileage go down and have to pay a gas guzzler tax. Also are you really willing to pay for lighter wheels? What are the odds that you're going to like the styling of them? Or the actual size? The answer is slim and none. That's what the aftermarket is for. Personal choice. Ford is just opening the door to the party. What you drink once you get inside is up to you.

 

[shogun32]

So would you rather have undersized wheels and tires that you can replace with your own preferences or have Ford do it, have the mileage go down and have to pay a gas guzzler tax. Also are you really willing to pay for lighter wheels? What are the odds that you're going to like the styling of them? Or the actual size? The answer is slim and none. That's what the aftermarket is for. Personal choice. Ford is just opening the door to the party. What you drink once you get inside is up to you.

AMR has 19x9+ versions of the same pattern as stock wheels Ford provides. And you can buy FF wheels the live long day that are 5+lbs lighter and for a quarter of the Ford price. If Ford can't leverage their buying power of 200,000/yr run-rate to incentivize a FF wheel-maker there is something SEVERELY wrong with their contracts when no-name, maybe 5000 units/yr outfits make a living outfitting disgruntled Mustang buyers.

I don't know what the rolling resistance difference is between the garbage OE Pirelli in 235/50/18 vs the same compound/construction in 255/40/19. But I'd guess it's measured in tenths of a percent.

As it is, Ford maintains what 8+ SKU on Mustang wheels? Imagine the efficiency gains when it's 3 or 4. The number of buyers who replace wheels is what, half a percent? Why not offer the 99.5% a driving experience that is for REAL instead of shittier than a low-rent Camry?

 

[bnightstar]

So would you rather have undersized wheels and tires that you can replace with your own preferences or have Ford do it, have the mileage go down and have to pay a gas guzzler tax. Also are you really willing to pay for lighter wheels? What are the odds that you're going to like the styling of them? Or the actual size? The answer is slim and none. That's what the aftermarket is for. Personal choice. Ford is just opening the door to the party. What you drink once you get inside is up to you.

The biggest question is how much more than 305/315 tires (what Mach 1, GT350, GT4, GT500 and now Dark Horse come with) you need.

P.S. that GT350FS factory race car seams like a good bargain performance wise.

 

[Hi-PO Stang]

The # 33 post by Bikeman315 is one of the most profound post I have read in ages. Lots of wisdom there.

 

[Hack]

With performance being a relative attribute. And if a "performance bargain" is what this exercise is designed to illustrate, I would say that there are too many variables to accurately define what "performance" actually is.

You just didn't like the answer.

I too am dumfounded at Ford's insistance on under-tiring the Mustang, both EB and GT. The PP1 wheels are so preposterously heavy it's a sick joke. Chevy Camaro 1LE rims are "forged" but aren't exactly light. So I'm not so sure about them being really comporting with that manufacturing process.

The Mustang should have come with 19x9 at minimum from day one, and shod with 255/40. Any higher trim should have been 19x10et40 with 275 or 285s.

But at the end of the day, Ford only cares about extracting MPG and nothing more, and taller and narrower applies even if it ruins the very premise of the car and it's reason d'arte.

Not only did they under tire it, they also screwed up the gearing for the manual transmission making the car a lot less fun to drive.

However, people are funny. They say they want "race" cars or performance cars, but a lot of the time they don't want to live with the consequences of what a performance vehicle is. Wide, sticky tires pick up nails really easily, wear fast and cost a lot to replace. Light wheels are damage prone and must be replaced regularly.

So would you rather have undersized wheels and tires that you can replace with your own preferences or have Ford do it, have the mileage go down and have to pay a gas guzzler tax. Also are you really willing to pay for lighter wheels? What are the odds that you're going to like the styling of them? Or the actual size? The answer is slim and none. That's what the aftermarket is for. Personal choice. Ford is just opening the door to the party. What you drink once you get inside is up to you.

I blab about what I want all the time. I want the entire car redesigned to be much lighter. I want a transaxle for better weight distribution. If the car is light enough, enormous, sticky tires won't be needed nearly as much.

 

[stevyirwin]

Ask and you shall receive.

Sorted by Dollar per Tire-to-Weight Ratio

Sorted by Dollar per Power-to-Weight Ratio

So looks like a used C6 Z06 or a new BRZ are the most performance per dollar out there whether for cornering or power

Just FYI the labels for Tire to Weight and Power to Weight should be flipped to Weight to Tire and Weight to Power respectively.

Sponsored