If said 300hp mustang was equipped with something sporty like the suspension bits and pieces off of the GT500 or even the suspension bits and pieces used on the Shelby GT, things might have been different. However, you are right. I lighter car can and does usually handle and brake better when you limited on the amount of tire you can run (witness the stopping capability of a mega ton tank with thier rubber heeled treads).

From what I understand, the GT is tuned with an "every mans" sort of ride.

 

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but I would much prefer #2, simply because its a lot easier for people who want more horsepower to add that, than for people who want less weight to take it off.

 

How? Why that's easy.

General Motors took great pains to develop the handling of the Cobalt SS, going so far as tuning it at Nurbring. Ford, on the other hand, took the traditional (for US) approach of compromising handling and ride (don't forget, Mustang's claim to fame is personalization and that dictionary of Mustang performance & handling parts called Ford Performance Catologue).

Reread my post.

I said "3800 pounds ALONE means nothing with regards to handling".

With ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, of course a lighter weight car will outhandle a heavier one.

BUT...........
Engineering, tires, time, money, and effort are the great equalizer. Sure a 2900 pound Cobalt SS will outhandle a 3500 pound Mustang GT. At the same time, I'm willing to bet my 3800 pound Thunderbird SC would make shortwork of a 3500 pound Mustang GT. I'm sure a 4000 pound Charger SRT-8 would make short work of a host of lighter weight performance cars.

Pretty much anything with 4 seats can be carved up by the 3900 pound GT500, and you'd be hard pressed to make a 3500 pound Camaro keep up with a 3700 pound GTO or a 3800 pound CTSv without running off the road or ending up nose first into a wall.


So... after all that, we're on the same page afterall.

FWIW: I can understand the argument of having an indestructable drag racer like the GT500 that also handles like mad. But for me, I use the limits of handling far more often than I use foot-to-the-floor acceleration or run 150+ mph top speed.

 

I'm really suprised how many people here are voting against the top dog. In the original post, it was said that the top dog would handle "exceptionally well", so why is everyone against this car? Personally, I'd rather my 500+hp Camaro have a 100,000 mile factory warranty, than a warranty thats voided if the engine broke because of me adding power later. That's part of my decision making process anyway. I'm not likely to drive mine at either limit, so I'll settle for the coolness factor.

 

Well don't mention weight as a reason not to choose it. That's taboo.

 

Can I mention mass then?

 

because youre definition of "top dog" is MUCH different than mine. Ill take the lighter better handling car with a few less horse power any day. Personally I may or may not modify to add hp later.