Oh Snap! 2018 Mustang GT PP1 vs. Camaro ILE

[2012-Boss]

The size of the LS has a big impact on how far back and how low the engine can be placed in a chassis. For example, you would be hard pressed to get an engine the size of the coyote as low and as far back as the LS in the Corvette. Where the engine is positioned has a huge impact on the vehicles handling dynamics. The Corvette has a 50/50 weight distribution, and the LS physical size is a factor in this.

 

[Grant 302]

GM can not compare to the mighty ford mod motor.

I couldn't say *that* back in 2000. At least not with a straight face.

 

[8250RPM]

The size of the LS has a big impact on how far back and how low the engine can be placed in a chassis. For example, you would be hard pressed to get an engine the size of the coyote as low and as far back as the LS in the Corvette. Where the engine is positioned has a huge impact on the vehicles handling dynamics. The Corvette has a 50/50 weight distribution, and the LS physical size is a factor in this.

I’m well aware of the effects of engine placement and it’s effect of handling.
Since when has a coyote been installed in a corvette? The corvette wasn’t built around a ford mod motor.
Again your talking about engine swaps.
The topic is about camaros and mustangs. Not engine swaps.

Your wrong about engine dimensions.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Pemberton]

..ah , yes we do that Voodoo that we do so well ( paraphrased of course, ha)

 

[Norm Peterson]

I’m well aware of the effects of engine placement and it’s effect of handling.

It's not about swapping at all, it's about the CG location (height, mostly) of the heaviest single mass in the car. It still affects the car it's installed in.

Four cams weigh more than one, and they're mounted higher up. The heads are wider (heavier at any given length of head, and your length measurements do not support the modular heads being enough shorter than the LS heads to buy it all back). This is mostly a weight distribution thing, as the engines are reasonably close in overall weights. Just not where all this weight is.

Now pay particular attention to the 2.5" difference in height between the crankshaft centerlines and the bottoms of the oil sumps. You'd have to put the Mustang's crankshaft about 2.5" closer to the ground than the Camaro's in order to put the engine CGs at the same heights for that reason alone (i.e. ignoring the previously mentioned differences involving the heads & cams, which in reality are still going to be present).


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Hopefully the PP2 with 305 square SC2 tires can close the gap significantly if not be faster. It better be because it's going to cost a lot more money. The Camaro is a very capable car as was the previous generation Z/28.

My thoughts exactly . . . actually I'd rather see a PP2-equipped car crowd the SS/1LE on truly comparable tires.

The PP1 is about where the base suspension and wheel/tire sizing should have been from the get-go.


Norm

 

[JDee]

The PP1 is about where the base suspension and wheel/tire sizing should have been from the get-go.

I agree, totally, and it could be even stiffer, for me. But Ford's trying to serve so many masters. Spoke to a guy today with an Ecoboost loaded with everything, said he tried a PP and found it rode way too rough, liked the stock suspension on the EB much better. One size never fits all. And what a boring world it would be if it did!

 

[2012-Boss]

My thoughts exactly . . . actually I'd rather see a PP2-equipped car crowd the SS/1LE on truly comparable tires.

The PP1 is about where the base suspension and wheel/tire sizing should have been from the get-go.


Norm

That’s what I would like to see too.

Norm also did a better job explaining why an engines size and weight matters. Without the alternator kit in the LT1 crate engine diagram, the LS engine is about 2.5” narrower and 3.5” shorter.

Does this matter in the Camaro? Probably, but not to the extent it does in a Corvette. Either way, a smaller package helps get the weight lower and further back.

In my opinion, GM makes some good performance engines. Are they as good as Ford’s? I really do not know. But I do know that the Ford engines take a lot of abuse and if they do fail Ford generally does not hassle people about replacement. GM is just recently realizing that they need to honor warranties for track day cars.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I agree, totally, and it could be even stiffer, for me.

Understood, and that's why you and I might well opt for what they currently have to call 'PP Level 2' because 'PP' is already taken. Wheel rates in my '08 GT are comparable to those of the GT350R, so it's probably a bit beyond the PP2 in terms of potential ride quality. But as long as I dial the Konis back from their track settings my wife (late sixties) doesn't complain about riding in it. Stick axle and all.

But Ford's trying to serve so many masters. Spoke to a guy today with an Ecoboost loaded with everything, said he tried a PP and found it rode way too rough, liked the stock suspension on the EB much better. One size never fits all. And what a boring world it would be if it did!

Sounds like that guy is a prime candidate for mag-ride, possibly with a softer calibration available. But I do think he should at least try out a PP car that's had a few miles run up. Shocks and struts do tend to be a little harsh when they're new (I'm thinking seal friction and other internal friction being mainly responsible - friction damping is inherently harsh), and it does diminish with miles. I've noticed this in the '08 GT's OE's, more than one set of Konis, Bilsteins, various KYBs and Ranchos in my earlier days (various cars). Tokico Illuminas . . . they just stayed harsh.


Norm