The $33,590 2014 Mustang GT

[OX1]

My next project. Not sure it will help or not. A set of 19 inch Drift Tires and Boss Sway Bar. The sway bar does use one time bolts at 160fp. I need to order those.

Should help a lot. The track pack cars typically tested out to .94 G's, so the car itself should be very capable with the new meats.

 

[LarryJM]

If I go by Roush Stage 3, it's 1G all the way around. If that readout is some sort of I-Phone GPS, it's really not hooked up to an accelerometer and also has 1 second updates. I am really not sure how good Bridgestone RFT really are. I just know they protest in the .75G range. Then people taking delivery of new 3 mile Track Pac Mustangs have one side measuring 1.5G. Some people think it's a last minute test by Ford to see if the airbags will pop. The Mustang I test drove had the same thing. That's 1.5G on one side and .75 g on the other. It had 33 miles on it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I believe it was turn 10 on Lightning, but it was 3 years ago and the HLT vids are stuck on my old phone. I did download a couple back then and this screen shot seems to line up. The distance, I think, is multiple laps (like total). Only my second or 3rd time on a track, so I figured Fusion would at least allow me to drive, not having to shift.

That's about where your distance plots on NJMP's own track map (1.9 miles is about 10,000 feet). Track-out for T9 isn't where I'd expect to see that many g's at that speed.


OP has been doing his testing in a street setting, where 0.7g cornering represents pretty hard driving.


Norm

 

[OX1]

If I go by Roush Stage 3, it's 1G all the way around. If that readout is some sort of I-Phone GPS, it's really not hooked up to an accelerometer and also has 1 second updates. I am really not sure how good Bridgestone RFT really are. I just know they protest in the .75G range. Then people taking delivery of new 3 mile Track Pac Mustangs have one side measuring 1.5G. Some people think it's a last minute test by Ford to see if the airbags will pop. The Mustang I test drove had the same thing. That's 1.5G on one side and .75 g on the other. It had 33 miles on it.

According to guy that runs HLT message board (or at least someone from that company who responds on the board), "Typical accelerometer precision for smartphones seems to be 0.01 to 0.02 G". It uses accelerations directly off smart phone accelerometer.

I believe it only uses GPS for track position, which is definitely delayed, so as Norm pointed out, it may be a previous corner (or different spot on that corner). You can see the delay here when I tried it on the street.
http://luxjo.supermotors.net/FUSION SPORT/HLT/LapTimerOverlay-20180407-063532.mp4

I assumed that the G-forces you posted were about the max you could get out of them, especially since you said they were howling in protest, I thought you meant they were at their limit. That's crazy it arrives with that high a number, but we are talking peaks here, which is a lot easier to get a high number vs a continuous, which I believe has always been 3 seconds or more @ certain lat accel.

 

[OX1]

That's about where your distance plots on NJMP's own track map (1.9 miles is about 10,000 feet). Track-out for T9 isn't where I'd expect to see that many g's at that speed.


OP has been doing his testing in a street setting, where 0.7g cornering represents pretty hard driving.


Norm

OK, that makes sense, thanks. I never really looked at it closely. So you think the HLT data is wrong? It is just a peak reading, not what I was getting through the entire corner. Pretty sure that is what the "Ford" value is giving that OP posted.

I still have a G-tech from the early 90's that you could mount sideways for G-forces. That company, ironically called "Tesla Electronics" claimed these accuracies and even my 80's fox body could get inst readings in the low .8's with 225 orig Gatorbacks" back in the day pretty easily.

If the .7ish G's are driver or setting limited, than I'll retract my statement about the tires, but not sure we have established if the OP was pushing a comfortable (for the car/tires, not him) maximum or not.

 

[LarryJM]

Right now I am just playing with my newly installed Track Apps Cluster and what does it all mean. For sure go to a dealer and look at the Accelerometer on a new 3 mile car and it will have a 1.50g reading on one side. A bump on the drivers side to test the airbags? You don't want the airbags going off in a turn.

 

[Iceman62]

Used vehicles are going at a "premium" rate w/ the chip shortage & pandemic whiplash, but that's a tad over the top (IMO). Nice car tho.

 

[OX1]

Right now I am just playing with my newly installed Track Apps Cluster and what does it all mean. For sure go to a dealer and look at the Accelerometer on a new 3 mile car and it will have a 1.50g reading on one side. A bump on the drivers side to test the airbags? You don't want the airbags going off in a turn.

I'd like to know how they got that 1.5G peak. Did they run it into a curb on purpose, LOL!!
I don't think the new Stangs could even peak at 1.5 during actual driving. Maybe if they did it
at a slower speed, and cranked the wheel so the car almost flips over??

 

[Pentalab]

I'd like to know how they got that 1.5G peak. Did they run it into a curb on purpose, LOL!!
I don't think the new Stangs could even peak at 1.5 during actual driving. Maybe if they did it
at a slower speed, and cranked the wheel so the car almost flips over??

That or perhaps drove it at 50-80 mph down an airport runway, cranked the wheel hard over, and simultaneously applied the E brake. That or perhaps slid it sideways at 120 mph...with brake pedal mashed to the floor. I think the most Vorshlag got from their 2011 with a ton of mods was like 1.36 to 1.39 G.

 

[OX1]

That or perhaps drove it at 50-80 mph down an airport runway, cranked the wheel hard over, and simultaneously applied the E brake. That or perhaps slid it sideways at 120 mph...with brake pedal mashed to the floor. I think the most Vorshlag got from their 2011 with a ton of mods was like 1.36 to 1.39 G.

Or maybe now that I think about it somemore, they did not drive it at all. Maybe they simulated an input signal to the module/display, and picked those two numbers. Maybe a max or close to max, and another in the normal range of spirited driving.

For kicks, I just ran my fusion on a local 45 MPH road, @ my normal 7 MPH over, through a short sweeping turn and got .83 as a max (again, using HLT on my Galaxy S10). So .75 (the other reading Larry says new Stangs come with), is right in there of what you might see pretty easy, even on the street (and maybe why Ford picked it as a second test point).

 

[WJBertrand]

I think that 1.5G reading is probably residual from a quality tests of the G sensor or track apps cluster itself before it was ever assembled into a car.

 

[Norm Peterson]

OK, that makes sense, thanks. I never really looked at it closely. So you think the HLT data is wrong? It is just a peak reading, not what I was getting through the entire corner. Pretty sure that is what the "Ford" value is giving that OP posted.

No, I'm not saying that at all. It could have just as easily been a brief spike if you felt you were needing to dial in a little more steering lock in the hopes of not going at least 2-off.

On Aim Solo data and a few more track days under my belt, I'm only seeing 0.8-ish lat-g at somewhere over 82 mph through that same stretch of track. T9 should be a reasonable approximation of steady state g's once you've got the car settled into it.

I still have a G-tech from the early 90's that you could mount sideways for G-forces. That company, ironically called "Tesla Electronics" claimed these accuracies and even my 80's fox body could get inst readings in the low .8's with 225 orig Gatorbacks" back in the day pretty easily.

Sounds about right . . . I had a '79 Malibu that was running a triangulated 4-link very similar to the Fox-body (the UCA splay angles were 45°/side as opposed to ~33°). Magazines had it cornering in the low 0.7x range, but I'm sure I had mine up to the mid-0.8g range by the time I was done with it. I had a purely mechanical protractor device with balls that ran in a circular tube that I recalibrated to approximate g-levels. Yes, I was roughly correcting for body roll. In fact, measurements made with that arrangement were my early basis for estimating the cornering g comfort levels of drivers around me.

If the .7ish G's are driver or setting limited, than I'll retract my statement about the tires, but not sure we have established if the OP was pushing a comfortable (for the car/tires, not him) maximum or not.

I have no idea what his tires are good for, either potentially or on his car the way it is currently set up. But assuming that they have a nice, safe-for-everybody progressive behavior as their limits are approached I certainly would expect them to be talking back at him by 0.7g.

But then again I've never bought tires that weren't suited to hard cornering unless they were what the car was OE-equipped with. Even in the early 1970's I was buying top-shelf low profile radials (Pirelli CN36, think Fiat Dino and Porsche 911) and mounting them on wide wheels. Gatorbacks, Dunlop D40 M2, Bridgestones (original RE71, RE9xx all-seasons), Goodyear's original Asymmetrics, and Michelin (MPSS, Pilot Sport all-seasons).

For me, the S197 GT was a near-perfect combination of cornering potential and adequate power. Traditional sports cars and sports coupes (Datsun 230Z) had the cornering potential but not the power, the muscle cars of my very early driving years certainly had the muscle and the sound but not much else.


Sorry for the slow response time. I was, shall I say, indisposed most of yesterday.


Norm

 

[gbstang]

Over 1 G is easy, I do it all the time mowing my lawn

 

[LarryJM]

Over 1 G is easy, I do it all the time mowing my lawn

Exactly.

 

[OX1]

Here is the full video. In turn 9 (had to be, after I re-looked at the track map, which makes sense if you watch my street vid I posted earlier), I was above .9G for 7 seconds and above 1.0G for almost 3 (starts @ 1:12 on vid). The limits on that car, before you have to start making any corner steering correction from overdriving it, are way higher than I would have ever guessed they could be (for a 4000+ lb family 4-door) with just PS4S's and sway bars. One could argue it is displaying higher than actual I guess, but the designer of the software claims it actually reads a little lower than a V-box. I don't know if it compensates for roll and/or of the factory Ford app does.

http://luxjo.supermotors.net/FUSION SPORT/NJMP/LIGHTNING/13 APR 2018/LapTimerOverlay-20180414-093024 1G.mp4
(just a note, vids are very large, and sometimes require clicking on the 3 dots, and downloading before they show vid, sorry)

Understand what you guys are saying, you can jerk the wheel and get a very high number, but that is not what is going on here. Even with the crappy quality of video, as I hadn't figured out the best settings yet, you can tell it's not being driven erratically to get "false" instantaneous peaks. In fact, it's pretty boring to watch. Those cars are super quiet, and even the scrub of the tires @ whatever max accel I was at, certainly was not what I would consider "howling". Now when it does get overdriven, it understeers and plows horribly. It's just the limits are very high for what it is. My S197 had kind of the same mods, 295 NT05's rear and 255 NT555's fronts, and larger sway bars front/rear. It's much more neutral over the limit, but not even close to be as planted feeling under/near the limit.

Another vid on Thunderbolt, with much better quality. Think I maxed out @ .94ish that lap. It's was over .9 (not some instant peak) 4 or 5 times. The only thing you can hear the whole time was that erratically driven STI in front of me.

http://luxjo.supermotors.net/FUSION SPORT/HLT/00186.mp4

Anyway, when you are done with the mods Larry, you need to get out on a race track. I wish I had started younger. I always thought I pushed cars pretty hard on the street, but it's nothing like the level you push on a track (even being a track newb, at the semi-lame pace I was going in those vids). One of the most fun things I've ever done.

For reference, this was the first time out in my EVO8 (shod with 265 RE-71R's/Sways/Bilstein's/slightly stiffer springs), and first time ever with a man trans. Trying to keep up with the instructor, 2 C7's, and a ZL1 Camaro. Don't think I'll ever track the Stang, probably be too many cooling issues, and I'd kill my self with all that power.

http://luxjo.supermotors.net/EVO/NJMP/LapTimerOverlay-20190226-065401.mp4

So Norm, if you really think that app is that far, off, I'd like to try and fix it. It has a calibration setup, which I did according to instruction. Also going to pull off the DR's on the Stang, put my summer tires back on, see what I can get out of that with the same app.

Lightly sorry for the huge hijack.............

 

[LarryJM]

I am not sure I want to go there. In the news tonight a Ford dealer in the area sold it's last car yesterday. The have no cars at all new or used. They say this chip thing might not clear even in a year.

 

[eighty6gt]

I wonder what tiger is doing these days

 

[Norm Peterson]

Here is the full video. In turn 9 (had to be, after I re-looked at the track map, which makes sense if you watch my street vid I posted earlier), I was above .9G for 7 seconds and above 1.0G for almost 3 (starts @ 1:12 on vid). The limits on that car, before you have to start making any corner steering correction from overdriving it, are way higher than I would have ever guessed they could be (for a 4000+ lb family 4-door) with just PS4S's and sway bars.

PS4S tires are remarkable, and FWIW tire grip is not as sensitive to tire width as you may think. I have it on good authority that tire grip is roughly proportional to width^0.15. Meaning that (all else constant) a 245-wide tire can be expected to develop within about 5% of the grip of a 305. Wider tires are more durable, however, as all that cornering energy gets distributed over more rubber.

One could argue it is displaying higher than actual I guess, but the designer of the software claims it actually reads a little lower than a V-box. I don't know if it compensates for roll and/or of the factory Ford app does.

http://luxjo.supermotors.net/FUSION SPORT/NJMP/LIGHTNING/13 APR 2018/LapTimerOverlay-20180414-093024 1G.mp4
(just a note, vids are very large, and sometimes require clicking on the 3 dots, and downloading before they show vid, sorry)

After numerous viewings, my best guess is that you were basically maintaining the same radius while increasing your speed exiting 9. As V goes up, so does V^2/R. So the g's go up faster than your speed.

I have no idea how Harry's handles banked turns.


Norm

 

[Pentalab]

I wonder what tiger is doing these days

Good question. My guess is..he has gone through a bunch more cars..and is in the process of buying a Tesla..and mating solar panels.

 

[LarryJM]

There has to be more to this. The 13,000 mile 2012 GT-500 handled like crap. Even Road and Track said that. The 2020 Track Pak Mustang handed like a slot car. Mine is in the middle. All were around the same power. Brakes were mushy on the GT-500, I think very nice on mine and very grabby on the 2020.