I was reading this months issue of Car & Driver only because I saw an s2k on the front cover. They tested the cars and rated them as follows.
4th Audi TT Coupe
3rd S2k (w/hardtop)
2nd Mustang Mach 1
1st 350 Z
Can someone tell me whats going on? Is this right for them to place a mustang over an s2k? Im personally disagreeing with this half ass rating system of theirs. How in the hell does that Mustang compare to the s2k when it comes to handling? The Mach 1 may have a few extra goodies than a GT but its still a mustang. I know its not that big of a deal they all are close in some ways but this cant be true.

 

There is a lot to be said for torque... which we just don't have. That's why the 350Z lap times are good. But, as they say, ours is designed for the track. Being a former Mustang owner, I can say this car is more fun on the track...

But, I don't see this as being any kind of apples-to-apples comparison. The Mustang is in a different league entirely.

And, BTW, having woned both, the Mach 1 has an entirely different engine than the GT - it is "not* a "GT". It's Tokico shocks and large front brakes (combination of Brembo rotors and PBR twin-piston calipers) does work well. But it still has a live axle that can move a considerable distance side-to-side as cornering forces increase. The Cobra with it's IRS works considerably better and would be a far superior "track" car (IRS Cobra was my former track car). See my site for more comparison info (that is, if the damned RoadRunner site is even up today, it's down more than it's up!)..

 

Wrong forum - this has been beat to death over in Car Talk, so you might want to venture over there.

My $.02

 

Oops, wrong forum well I just wanted to get this off of my chest.

jwfisher. I wont argue torque is nice, I just didn't know what the mach 1 was all about.

 

Ya gotta love the shaker too.
Darron

 

I agree w/Chris, it was one of the worst articles in C&D ever - I predict it will generate huge mail in next month's issue.

Shaker "scoop" doesn't do anything particularly valuable, it's for poseurs only. Doesn't even shake.

They got my note of condemnation (constructive condemnation...). And, not because S2Ks ended up third, but for comparing apples and oranges.

 

Jeff and Chris, what do you think about the whole "if you have to enter a slow corner you fall into a hole and its hard to get out" comment?

Honestly, if you're in the right gear, there shouldn't be a problem....

Blake

 

I can't imagine being in a corner so slow you would have that problem if you're in the correct gear. At least on a race track for sure. Maybe the old farts were tired of shifting and expected a 2 liter engine to pull like the 4.6 liter in the 'stang.

It was just a stupid article. After the precedent they've set with this article, I'm expecting in their next SUV test to have an Expedition, Navigator, Denali, Escalade, and a Dodge Ram pickup with a camper. Then they'll complain about how loud and uncomfortable the rear seating is in the Dodge.

 

No problems here...just rev it like a sportbike, and all is good. Still, more tq. would make it easier to drive fast.

 

Exactly, that comment was BS. I've driven the entire lengths of both MSR and TWS above 6k RPM. The gearing is perfect for this car and more than makes up for it's lack of torque.

I think the whole C&D article was purposely designed to be put into a glossy reprint for Nissan showrooms. Disappointingly, they do that from time to time.