Riiiight PX. Whatever you want to think. Z28 shouldn't be the top model and everyone buys a Camaro because they can't get a Corvette too.

Z28W, you're comparing a regular IROC-Z to a 1LE 4th Gen. Even if the 1LE 4th came close, it didn't beat it and you didn't have to buy a 1LE to get that kinda handling in the 3rd Gen, every IROC had this sharp .9 G ride on the tires and 16" rims they had at the time. (But I'd bet on the 15" equipped IROC-Z's 88-90 getting less, but they were few) Todays BFG g-Forces with little tire pressure changes should give a nice skidpad improvement over stock IROC tires. Even if you take a 4th that has a close G reading, 3rd's still feel better. They don't have that tough steering wheel and they are just more responsive when whipping a car around. I'm the type of guy that notices every little thing about a car, a person not like that would understandably not notice these kinds of differences. Anyone that truly knows suspension/handling will tell you which is better. Suspension mod for mod a 3rd Gen will out-class a 4th, that's a fact. The only car Chevy.com bragged about its handling/skidpad reading was an IROC-Z when that Camaro section was up.

BTW, Chevy built a 506 big block IROC-Z once to take on 2 modified M*stangs built buy aftermarket companies. (it dominated the M*stangs overall) With just 17" rims, 275/40/17 tires, (with 80's tire tech) and shocks made to handle the new weight, this 3,670 Lb, heavy, big block, roll caged car got .95 g's on the skidpad. That's almost 1 g on otherwise stock suspension, not even SFC's for the chassis. (which was noted for holding up nicely) Kinda difficult to argue with that. The weight of this car slowed down it's slalom though compared to the light F*rds. Put equal rims/tires on an IROC-Z and the margin only gets bigger between them and 4th's, regular or 1LE. Keep thinking the opposite guys. This is common knowledge among people that know better.

Many publications/tests will tell you the same thing. See what just a few of your own unbiased people say:

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...&highlight=gen
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...&highlight=gen

 

I think when comparing a 3rd gen to a 4th gen's dynamics...it's important to compare a new car to a new car.

It's easy to say that a newer 4th gen outhandles an old, used up 3rd gen.

GM gave me an early production '93 Z/28 to ring out for a day...a couple of months before the 4th gens were introduced. At the time, I was also the original owner of a low mileage '89 G92 IROC (a car I still have, with less than 10,000 miles on it). I had the chance to compare a new 4th gen to a nearly new 3rd gen.

Theoretically the 4th gen should have had the advantage. It's SLA front suspension should have provided less deflection than my IROC's MacPherson struts....and the 4th gen's Goodyear GSC's were the next gen rubber from my car's Goodyear Gatorbacks. The 4th gen's rack and pinion should have felt superior to my car's recirculating ball as well. But I guess the two car's suspensions were tuned for different things.

The '93 rode better than my '89. But my IROC turned in much faster, it was more responsive...and just seemed more eager to change direction.

Like I said...the '93 had a better ride and rattled less...but compared to my IROC...it seemed alittle lazy....dynamically.

When I handed that early production '93 back to GM...I came away abit disappointed. I was hoping the new car would ride more comfortably...AND handle better.

It hit the mark on only one of those criterion.

 

You interviewed him?

 

I just cant get over all this emphasizing of how great the "new" setup is that the CHIEF engineer was doing.

I mean it uses what, 80's technology...It will compete in the handling department against cars from the late 80's and early 90's, which utilized extremely dated tire technology. Yea, its going to handle pretty well because those cars handled pretty well, but by no means is a 2005 Mustang handling as well as a 1989 Iroc a big deal that the CHIEF Engineer should be emphasizing, in my opinion.

This whole post and discussion just enlightened me to how terrible the handling of the Mustang was, and how far behind Ford is. Competeing with an old canceled platform is nothing to get excited about, unless you are an F-Body driver.

15 Years later Ford finally stepped up to the plate

 

I doubt it'll handle better than an IROC-Z. I doubt it'll handle better than a 4th Gen.

 

Yes, he interviewed him...Interview

If a regular GT with 300 HP and solid axle is only .5 seconds behind a BMW M3 with 333 HP with IRS/great breaks/handling, I'm impressed to a certain degree. After all, for $26,000 you can have a coupe that nearly performs as well for half the price. This also leads me to believe the Cobra and Boss are going to be some nasty cars to tango with on the road course. A few cheap upgrades and your Mustang GT could be hanging with M3's at the strip and track. The full interview is worth the read.

 

Thanks PT. Glad you thought so.

 

Just read it.....great job Dan.

 

Can't wait to find out how it drives!

 

Indeed. The only thing that really scares me in that interview is that he said the pedals would be closer together for better heel/toe driving. I wear size 15 D shoes and it scares me to think there will be another car that I want and can't buy because one foot covers two pedals. That's why I dropped the Lotus Elise from my list of possible cars to own in the next couple of years (could have been this year if I hadn't of bought a house).

 

Interesting interview: Couple of thoughts from a product desiner's perspective:

Getting input from executives: My experience is this is very bad. Executives relly don't know design and especially how to take it to the next level. Thus, I guess, is why we have a redux of a '68.

"With Mustang we didn’t do any research, J Mays position is “If we don’t know what a Mustang should look like, then we have hired the wrong people to work on it” - I dunno, I'm a firm believer of doing as uch research as you can to see what people like. Too many times I've had people tell me they wouldn't like something until they see and try something new.

"We basically had a board put up with all the best features of past mustangs showing taillights, scallops, grilles. We basically looked through it and picked out our favorite elements." - Thus I revert back to my 'tracing paper' analogy of retro design and styling.

"He made a great quote from J Mays on the styling on the car: “I want people to quiver when they see a Mustang in their rear-view mirror” - I probably will quiver, as I'll never understand the markets' current infatuation with rehashing the past.

...luckily tho, that will be the only place I see a new Mustang.

 

That you will admit to

 

Why is Mustang so far behind in the handling and especially the power? I mean Mustang GT finally has 300hp in 05' and the Camaro SS had 345hp UNDERRATED in 02'. And the handling gap has already been mentioned by myself and others. It really is puzzling? Is this what Ford has to do to keep the Mustang cheap?

 

$26,000 for a GT Thats almost overpriced GTO territory since they are selling for MSRP and under at some places now.

 

LOL!