Donohue v PJ Jones. Camaro v Mustang. On the Track.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Donohue v PJ Jones. Camaro v Mustang. On the Track.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
I thought I'd cut and paste the best part of the article for you lazy guys:
Gentlemen, start your engines!
Each driver gets one session to familiarize himself with the cars and the circuit, and being pros, they're up to speed almost immediately. Then, they each do a series of timed hot laps. After Donohue finishes his session in the Camaro, his feedback begins with an eternal verity: a street car--even a really hot street car--isn't a race car. Not even close. There's just too much compliance in the Chevy's suspension; otherwise, the car wouldn't be livable in the real world
But as he drills down to specifics, Donohue's assessment is upbeat. "The engine's a stump-puller," he says. "It doesn't matter what gear you're in. And the brakes are excellent." Almost too good, in fact. "Under hard braking," he says, "it almost feels like axle hop. There's so much weight on the nose that the rear lifts up and the ABS kicks in."
The biggest flaw, though, is persistent understeer. "It wants to push just about everywhere," Donohue says. "I even tried pitching it on the way into the corners to wag the rear end out, but that just caused the front end to wash out worse--and earlier. So it's not nimble. But it's not nervous, and it doesn't want to bite you. It's a friendly car that you can get out of shape without worrying about going off the road."
Jones is up next, and I'm expecting him to be unhappy with the Mustang's old-school live axle. But he's amped when he pulls off his helmet. "It's very well balanced," he says. "It doesn't have a lot of push, and the longer I ran, the looser it seemed. I was getting some wheel spin off the slow corners, but it's pretty good in the tight stuff. You can miss your mark and still make the corner and have a good lap."
Jones's major gripe is the brakes. Also, the gearing is such that he was caught between second and third in several corners--an annoying problem because the engine didn't seem to come on the cam until about 4000 rpm. But the big picture looks awfully appealing. "The Mustang is very predictable and real forgiving," he says. "It's a car that you can hustle."
Next, the drivers swap cars. When this session is over, Donohue is the guy wearing the big smile. "Just driving down pit lane, the Mustang seemed much lighter," he says. "The low-speed grip is so much better, and you can toss it into the corner sideways." Jones, on the other hand, looks worn out by the Camaro. "It's a pig," he says bluntly. "The brakes are much better, but it just won't turn. The Mustang is a lot more fun to drive."
Fun? We're not here to have fun. This is a racetrack test, and the measure of success is speed. To our surprise, and based on the lap times posted in each car, the Camaro is 0.7 second quicker than the Mustang, which translates into an average speed of 80.9 versus 80.3 mph on the 2.25-mile Thunderbolt circuit. (Comparative lap times suggest that this isn't too far off the speeds that Trans-Am racing cars would have posted back in 1969.) When Jones and Donohue return to the track for some wheel-to-wheel dicing, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the cars become painfully obvious.
The Mustang eats the Camaro alive in midcorner but never threatens to get by. "The only way I could pass him," Jones acknowledges, "is if he makes a mistake--or I don't mind bruising a door." (Sounds like Parnelli's son, all right.) But vastly superior torque (420 to 325 lb-ft) allows the Camaro to pull clear on acceleration. And on the fast corners in the last segment of the circuit and honking down the front straight, the Camaro runs away and hides.
"I was shocked by how quickly you could pull up to me," Jones says afterward.
Donohue grins. "There's no replacement for displacement." Not for nothing did his father title his memoir The Unfair Advantage.
More power and better brakes mean the Camaro is consistently faster than the Mustang, while nearly 300 pounds less weight, higher grip, and more tossable handling make the Mustang more rewarding to drive. Sounds like a photo finish to us. The big news is how robust the cars prove to be despite clicking off lap after lap at seriously impressive speeds. "We took production cars and beat the crap out of them on a racetrack," Donohue says, "and they're still good to go."
Each driver gets one session to familiarize himself with the cars and the circuit, and being pros, they're up to speed almost immediately. Then, they each do a series of timed hot laps. After Donohue finishes his session in the Camaro, his feedback begins with an eternal verity: a street car--even a really hot street car--isn't a race car. Not even close. There's just too much compliance in the Chevy's suspension; otherwise, the car wouldn't be livable in the real world
But as he drills down to specifics, Donohue's assessment is upbeat. "The engine's a stump-puller," he says. "It doesn't matter what gear you're in. And the brakes are excellent." Almost too good, in fact. "Under hard braking," he says, "it almost feels like axle hop. There's so much weight on the nose that the rear lifts up and the ABS kicks in."
The biggest flaw, though, is persistent understeer. "It wants to push just about everywhere," Donohue says. "I even tried pitching it on the way into the corners to wag the rear end out, but that just caused the front end to wash out worse--and earlier. So it's not nimble. But it's not nervous, and it doesn't want to bite you. It's a friendly car that you can get out of shape without worrying about going off the road."
Jones is up next, and I'm expecting him to be unhappy with the Mustang's old-school live axle. But he's amped when he pulls off his helmet. "It's very well balanced," he says. "It doesn't have a lot of push, and the longer I ran, the looser it seemed. I was getting some wheel spin off the slow corners, but it's pretty good in the tight stuff. You can miss your mark and still make the corner and have a good lap."
Jones's major gripe is the brakes. Also, the gearing is such that he was caught between second and third in several corners--an annoying problem because the engine didn't seem to come on the cam until about 4000 rpm. But the big picture looks awfully appealing. "The Mustang is very predictable and real forgiving," he says. "It's a car that you can hustle."
Next, the drivers swap cars. When this session is over, Donohue is the guy wearing the big smile. "Just driving down pit lane, the Mustang seemed much lighter," he says. "The low-speed grip is so much better, and you can toss it into the corner sideways." Jones, on the other hand, looks worn out by the Camaro. "It's a pig," he says bluntly. "The brakes are much better, but it just won't turn. The Mustang is a lot more fun to drive."
Fun? We're not here to have fun. This is a racetrack test, and the measure of success is speed. To our surprise, and based on the lap times posted in each car, the Camaro is 0.7 second quicker than the Mustang, which translates into an average speed of 80.9 versus 80.3 mph on the 2.25-mile Thunderbolt circuit. (Comparative lap times suggest that this isn't too far off the speeds that Trans-Am racing cars would have posted back in 1969.) When Jones and Donohue return to the track for some wheel-to-wheel dicing, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the cars become painfully obvious.
The Mustang eats the Camaro alive in midcorner but never threatens to get by. "The only way I could pass him," Jones acknowledges, "is if he makes a mistake--or I don't mind bruising a door." (Sounds like Parnelli's son, all right.) But vastly superior torque (420 to 325 lb-ft) allows the Camaro to pull clear on acceleration. And on the fast corners in the last segment of the circuit and honking down the front straight, the Camaro runs away and hides.
"I was shocked by how quickly you could pull up to me," Jones says afterward.
Donohue grins. "There's no replacement for displacement." Not for nothing did his father title his memoir The Unfair Advantage.
More power and better brakes mean the Camaro is consistently faster than the Mustang, while nearly 300 pounds less weight, higher grip, and more tossable handling make the Mustang more rewarding to drive. Sounds like a photo finish to us. The big news is how robust the cars prove to be despite clicking off lap after lap at seriously impressive speeds. "We took production cars and beat the crap out of them on a racetrack," Donohue says, "and they're still good to go."
Last edited by Z284ever; Aug 8, 2009 at 08:56 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
Nice to know that the stock brakes on the Camaro are up to it. On the road course, I rather take the car with the dependable brakes. Its a horrible feeling when you trying to brake at the end of the front straight, and you aren't slowing down as fast as you thought you would be. Kudos to Ford in tuning their suspension though.
GM, sounds like we need a Z28 RPO?
GM, sounds like we need a Z28 RPO?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Donohue grins. "There's no replacement for displacement." Not for nothing did his father title his memoir The Unfair Advantage.
5.4 liters, its was that simple Ford, really
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
From: Florida
I don't understand what the problem is. The camaro WEIGHS 300lbs more then the mustang and STILL puts 0.7 seconds a lap on it. That's just 1 lap. So, if it was a actual race, lets say 100 laps, we are talking a margin of victory of ridiculous proportions.
Yeah, it's heavy. But at nearly a second a lap why would you complain. Anybody that races would gladly succumb to the perceived shortcomings (weight disadvantage) of the camaro in order to win a race by such a grand margin.
Also, if we are talking track performance as a benchmark (as this article is) then it is not fair to talk about street feel. This article is about a 2.25 race track and the camaro was nearly a second faster a lap.
C'mon now, the camaro wins in straight line performance and on the twisites in every article that is released. But, it always seems to come back to "well it weighs more and doesn't feel as connected as the mustang." Too bad for the mustang. It still lost.
At their price points the camaro wins. I don't care that the mustang comes in with a power-plant that doesn't match up with the camaro's. "Run what you brung." Camaro is heavier and still trumps mustang in NEARLY every performance category. That extra 300lbs necessitates the horsepower advantage. It's all relative to an extent.
When the new mustang comes out with the 5.0 then it's a different story. I expect team camaro not to sit idly and let mustang trump them. We will have to wait and see what the future holds for the upcoming camaro vs. mustang.
The way I see it now is team camaro fired the first salvo and the mustang was hit dead on. Just sit back and see what the future holds.
Cheers!
Yeah, it's heavy. But at nearly a second a lap why would you complain. Anybody that races would gladly succumb to the perceived shortcomings (weight disadvantage) of the camaro in order to win a race by such a grand margin.
Also, if we are talking track performance as a benchmark (as this article is) then it is not fair to talk about street feel. This article is about a 2.25 race track and the camaro was nearly a second faster a lap.
C'mon now, the camaro wins in straight line performance and on the twisites in every article that is released. But, it always seems to come back to "well it weighs more and doesn't feel as connected as the mustang." Too bad for the mustang. It still lost.
At their price points the camaro wins. I don't care that the mustang comes in with a power-plant that doesn't match up with the camaro's. "Run what you brung." Camaro is heavier and still trumps mustang in NEARLY every performance category. That extra 300lbs necessitates the horsepower advantage. It's all relative to an extent.
When the new mustang comes out with the 5.0 then it's a different story. I expect team camaro not to sit idly and let mustang trump them. We will have to wait and see what the future holds for the upcoming camaro vs. mustang.
The way I see it now is team camaro fired the first salvo and the mustang was hit dead on. Just sit back and see what the future holds.
Cheers!
Last edited by roccopewterss; Aug 9, 2009 at 01:40 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
I don't understand what the problem is. The camaro WEIGHS 300lbs more then the mustang and STILL puts 0.7 seconds a lap on it. That's just 1 lap. So, if it was a actual race, lets say 100 laps, we are talking a margin of victory of ridiculous proportions.
Yeah, it's heavy. But at nearly a second a lap why would you complain. Anybody that races would gladly succumb to the perceived shortcomings (weight disadvantage) of the camaro in order to win a race by such a grand margin.
Also, if we are talking track performance as a benchmark (as this article is) then it is not fair to talk about street feel. This article is about a 2.25 race track and the camaro was nearly a second faster a lap.
C'mon now, the camaro wins in straight line performance and on the twisites in every article that is released. But, it always seems to come back to "well it weighs more and doesn't feel as connected as the mustang." Too bad for the mustang. It still lost.
At their price points the camaro wins. I don't care that the mustang comes in with a power-plant that doesn't match up with the camaro's. "Run what you brung." Camaro is heavier and still trumps mustang in NEARLY every performance category. That extra 300lbs necessitates the horsepower advantage. It's all relative to an extent.
When the new mustang comes out with the 5.0 then it's a different story. I expect team camaro not to sit idly and let mustang trump them. We will have to wait and see what the future holds for the upcoming camaro vs. mustang.
The way I see it now is team camaro fired the first salvo and the mustang was hit dead on. Just sit back and see what the future holds.
Cheers!
Yeah, it's heavy. But at nearly a second a lap why would you complain. Anybody that races would gladly succumb to the perceived shortcomings (weight disadvantage) of the camaro in order to win a race by such a grand margin.
Also, if we are talking track performance as a benchmark (as this article is) then it is not fair to talk about street feel. This article is about a 2.25 race track and the camaro was nearly a second faster a lap.
C'mon now, the camaro wins in straight line performance and on the twisites in every article that is released. But, it always seems to come back to "well it weighs more and doesn't feel as connected as the mustang." Too bad for the mustang. It still lost.
At their price points the camaro wins. I don't care that the mustang comes in with a power-plant that doesn't match up with the camaro's. "Run what you brung." Camaro is heavier and still trumps mustang in NEARLY every performance category. That extra 300lbs necessitates the horsepower advantage. It's all relative to an extent.
When the new mustang comes out with the 5.0 then it's a different story. I expect team camaro not to sit idly and let mustang trump them. We will have to wait and see what the future holds for the upcoming camaro vs. mustang.
The way I see it now is team camaro fired the first salvo and the mustang was hit dead on. Just sit back and see what the future holds.
Cheers!
Also, your definition of "margin of victory of ridiculous proportions" might need revisiting considering these simple numbers:
1. The fastest lap time of the Camaro was 1.40. The Mustang was 1.40.7.
2. Average speed was 80.9 Camaro and 80.3 Mustang.
.007 seconds and .6 mph
Hardly annihilation.
Not sure of what you mean regarding "Street Feel". The issue is how a car performs at it's limits, and how it feels going up towards it's limits. Doesn't matter if it's street or track.
Not sure what 100% stock car goes on a track and runs in a 100 lap race. the test was made to see how both cars stack up in a more competitive enviroment than the typical car mag test.. so they used a race track. They even say so on page 41, last full paragraph, Automotive Magazine September. I have the magazine.
Predicting how both cars will wind up after 100 laps as 100% stock is just flat out silly because there's far more to racing than simply a chock full of horsepower.
Which car has cooling that will withstand the demand of NJMP or any particular raceway?
How will the brakes of each hold up?
What will break in which car?
Which car has an engine computer that will step in and start pulling horsepower to protect the engine at the lowest threshold? (2004 GTOs were nortorious for having engine computers that took out serious bites of power when temperatures started heating up).
Then there's driver's fatigue. Don't underestimate the car that fatigues the driver more than the other.
The test demonstrates, rather, how things will likely measure up on a road course, or coming up against each other on an abandoned winding road. Also, being that it's more difficult to build surpreme handling in a car than put more horsepower (especially if you're dealing with a live axle), the Mustang seems to have the upper hand.
Racetracks beat the living daylights out of a car. Racetracks will also bring any car's shortcomings to the surface far and away quicker than you will ever (or, if you ever will) find out in day to day driving.
This is NOT to say that the new Camaro SS can't handle. It will throw the gauntlet complete with smackdown to any Camaro before it, and no one's ever said a 4th gen Z28 can't handle.
Note, nowhere in any of this did I mention weight. That is because there is no magic weight number that makes a car handle better. It's all engineering. The 1985 Mustang GT weighed barely 3200 pounds. But the heavier 3rd gen ran circles around it. The new Camaro SS will leave it in the weeds on a course.
New BMW M3s weigh as much as Camaro SSs. When was the last time you heard anyone whine about those car's not handling?
The bottom line is how much time and resources one wants to put in dialing in handling, and what type of handling one wants to dial in. Between these 2 cars, Ford hit a higher standard with the Mustang than GM did with Camaro.
But there's always tradefoffs.
GM wanted the Camaro to have a very rock steady and smooth ride which by it's very definition means a disconnect between you and the road and what the road's telling you.
That doesn't make the Camaro SS bad.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Here is my take. The last Camaro was a bruising race machine in that it was more set up for performance than livability. I think with the new Camaro, the new SS is more of a BLVD crusier for every man. Something someone can ride around in and look bad ***..yet still hold it's own at a track day (it still beat the mustang outfitted with special track pack). I think the understeer is likely to make the steering feel better (this is subjective), and to make it more forgiving to the average driver. At least those are the only reasons I can think to make it steer like that. For instance..my G8 is very comfortable to drive everyday and on the street feels awesome because the steering has a very tight feel. However in the hands of someone looking to run the thing on a road course, it would feel like it is understeering.
All that being said, the Camaro is not "fully baked" yet..where the Mustang has been on the shelf for years. I think we may see track versions set up as well as the Mustang down the road.
All that being said, the Camaro is not "fully baked" yet..where the Mustang has been on the shelf for years. I think we may see track versions set up as well as the Mustang down the road.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 455
From: Stafford, Va
Also, your definition of "margin of victory of ridiculous proportions" might need revisiting considering these simple numbers:
1. The fastest lap time of the Camaro was 1.40. The Mustang was 1.40.7.
2. Average speed was 80.9 Camaro and 80.3 Mustang.
.007 seconds and .6 mph
.
1. The fastest lap time of the Camaro was 1.40. The Mustang was 1.40.7.
2. Average speed was 80.9 Camaro and 80.3 Mustang.
.007 seconds and .6 mph
.
Guy, shouldn't it be .7 seconds as in tenths not .007 as in thousandths of a second?
Last edited by posaune; Aug 9, 2009 at 01:03 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
GM does have an obsession about tuning Camaro's with a big hunk of understeer. I was thinking about it today when I was driving around, and then I remembered how much my stock Camaro understeered until I did some minor tweaks of alignment, shocks, and a front sway bar - essentially a F-Stock AutoX setup.. (I guess some AutoX experience helped too :P)
Heh.. I wonder if the powersteering pump on this generation is up the task too.. I haven't heard of any frothing over?
Also I don't remember reviewers complaining about the new Camaro "tramrailing" around? Now that I'm older, and have a motorcycle, heh, I'm willing to trade a bit of civil street-ability for all out twitchy performance in my cars.
Here's hope that GM will find the resources to bring a track orientated suspension option.. and Ford will put out a factory big brake package.
Heh.. I wonder if the powersteering pump on this generation is up the task too.. I haven't heard of any frothing over?
Also I don't remember reviewers complaining about the new Camaro "tramrailing" around? Now that I'm older, and have a motorcycle, heh, I'm willing to trade a bit of civil street-ability for all out twitchy performance in my cars.
Here's hope that GM will find the resources to bring a track orientated suspension option.. and Ford will put out a factory big brake package.
