2017 Camaro ZL1 comes up juuuuust shy of M4 GTS (Nurburgring) Nordschleife lap time

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Towerworld

Oh yeah haha but the GTS is really a special edition version of an entry level luxury sedan-3 series so its performance is always going to be capped- even the mustang is a better platform to build from . That said though it's in a class of its own and feels, looks and sounds very special.

I'm interested to hear you expand on that. I don't know all that much about the S550 (6th gen Mustang) platform. The main thing I know about it is that it was Ford's first big push for independent rear suspension across the entire Mustang line-up, which was previously reserved for special models. Other than that, I haven't read anything remarkable about it. I do know that it is larger and heavier than the F32/F82 chassis, and that's not a good thing for a sports coupe.

If we're comparing the chassis, I think it's hard to build a case for Ford's S550 vs BMW's F82. Just have a look at torsional rigidity (source):

BMW F80: 40,000 Nm/deg
Ford S550: 27,510 Nm/deg

The BMW chassis absolutely destroys the S550 in a weight and torsional rigidity comparison, so there'd have to be some significant advantage elsewhere in order to support your claim.

Side-note: You may have noticed that the S550 isn't in the source data cited above. Figures for the S550 Mustang are harder to come by. This excellent presentation (worth looking at, btw) cites the S550 torsional stiffness as 31% greater than the predecessor, so I derived as follows.

Ford S197: 21,000 Nm/deg
Ford S550: 27,510 Nm/deg (+31%)

This statement also misses the mark a bit, IMO:

Originally Posted by Towerworld

the GTS is really a special edition version of an entry level luxury sedan-3 series

The GTS platform lineage is: GTS -->F82 --[50%]--> F32 --> F30

And just to clarify for those who will freak out and say the F32 & F30 aren't direct descendants, I'm only inferring a relationship. The F32 is based on the F30 chassis to some degree.

The GTS is pretty far removed from the base 3-series. It's also significant to note that the F80/F82 have 50% unique parts compared to the F30/F32. The differences show up in the torsional rigidity data cited above.

F30: 29,300 Nm/deg
F80: 40,000 Nm/deg

But yes, the chassis overall design still traces its way back to the F30, and I agree with you that ultimately, this limits the F82, but that's only compared to something like a completely different chassis architecture. Something like aluminum space frame or carbon fiber monocoque. The Mustang is also a steel unibody chassis. When the "entry level luxury sedan" starting point actually weighs less and has better torsional rigidity than the competitor's coupe starting point, it's hard to use that as a downside.

Don't get me wrong though. This is just what I found when taking a quick look in to the S550 chassis. I'm no expert, and I'm 100% open to hearing how it is superior.

[Towerworld]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I'm interested to hear you expand on that. I don't know all that much about the S550 (6th gen Mustang) platform. The main thing I know about it is that it was Ford's first big push for independent rear suspension across the entire Mustang line-up, which was previously reserved for special models. Other than that, I haven't read anything remarkable about it. I do know that it is larger and heavier than the F32/F82 chassis, and that's not a good thing for a sports coupe.

If we're comparing the chassis, I think it's hard to build a case for Ford's S550 vs BMW's F82. Just have a look at torsional rigidity (source):

BMW F80: 40,000 Nm/deg
Ford S550: 27,510 Nm/deg

The BMW chassis absolutely destroys the S550 in a weight and torsional rigidity comparison, so there'd have to be some significant advantage elsewhere in order to support your claim.

Side-note: You may have noticed that the S550 isn't in the source data cited above. Figures for the S550 Mustang are harder to come by. This excellent presentation (worth looking at, btw) cites the S550 torsional stiffness as 31% greater than the predecessor, so I derived as follows.

Ford S197: 21,000 Nm/deg
Ford S550: 27,510 Nm/deg (+31%)

This statement also misses the mark a bit, IMO:



The GTS platform lineage is: GTS -->F82 --[50%]--> F32 --> F30

And just to clarify for those who will freak out and say the F32 & F30 aren't direct descendants, I'm only inferring a relationship. The F32 is based on the F30 chassis to some degree.

The GTS is pretty far removed from the base 3-series. It's also significant to note that the F80/F82 have 50% unique parts compared to the F30/F32. The differences show up in the torsional rigidity data cited above.

F30: 29,300 Nm/deg
F80: 40,000 Nm/deg

But yes, the chassis overall design still traces its way back to the F30, and I agree with you that ultimately, this limits the F82, but that's only compared to something like a completely different chassis architecture. Something like aluminum space frame or carbon fiber monocoque. The Mustang is also a steel unibody chassis. When the "entry level luxury sedan" starting point actually weighs less and has better torsional rigidity than the competitor's coupe starting point, it's hard to use that as a downside.

Don't get me wrong though. This is just what I found when taking a quick look in to the S550 chassis. I'm no expert, and I'm 100% open to hearing how it is superior.

Guess I was wrong never looked at the rigidity of either chassis but I was making an assumption based on the higher cornering speed the GT350 has over the M4 and comparing the mustang GT to a base 3 series for instance. And I assumed that because of the Mustang chassis large size compared to its modest interior space I figured that it was more performance oriented but I haven't looked into the technical information of either.

[Leaveit2bevo]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

You've got to be kidding me. Plenty of 14-year-old internet wannabes know the power distribution of the GT-R.

I love how people love to take what someone says, extrapolate it to some ridiculous extreme, and just run with that. I never said it would be "slow AF". How about you quit being so disingenuous? No one is impressed that you own a GT-R.

When exiting a corner, traction limits your ability to apply power. AWD, and especially the spectacular AWD system in the GT-R, allow you to apply power earlier. Much, much earlier in many cases.

If AWD only makes you faster on a dry track, then why does every series that Audi races an AWD car in add ballast to slow them down? Or do I need to own an Audi race car to understand that too?

I don't need to own an AWD car to understand why it's an advantage; I only need to understand basic physics.

No ones flaunting anything, I just think its funny that you guys are bench racing a bunch of cars you dont own and have never driven.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Leaveit2bevo

No ones flaunting anything, I just think its funny that you guys are bench racing a bunch of cars you dont own and have never driven.

So, by the standard you're setting, we should only be discussing — oh, sorry, "bench racing" cars that we owned or have driven?

[Leaveit2bevo]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

So, by the standard you're setting, we should only be discussing — oh, sorry, "bench racing" cars that we owned or have driven?

Whatever helps you sleep at night sweetheart, but theres a big difference between discussing and what youre doing aka bench racing.

[Karmic Man]

AWD adds weight, a lot of weight to the drivetrain so its traction advantage is offset by the addition of weight.

Tractions can be managed by tyre size, suspension settings, aero down force...etc

The World Time Attack Challenge recently held at Sydney Motorsport Park shows that in the dry AWD is not a definitive advantage. The top 4 positions in Pro Class are all RWD.

http://www.worldtimeattack.com/index.php/2016-results/

The notion that by disabling the AWD on a GTR will lead to poorer performance is a flawed idea because the GTR was engineered as an AWD car from the ground up.