Ford Performance and lack of Performance Numbers

[bpmurr]

The new Viper ACR Performance info in the link below has me pretty fired up about Ford Performance's policy of not publishing performance numbers.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/11/04/2016-dodge-viper-acr-13-lap-records-video/

It's beyond me how a division dedicated to performance has not published any official times for the GT350 and GT350R. Heck I don't even think they've published the official top speed. While I know neither GT350 will slay track records like the ACR it's important to let potential buyers know what the car is capable of in the hands of a good driver in good conditions. Instead Ford puts itself at the mercy of crap testing like Motor Trend did.

I'd really like to see Ford follow SRT's lead and demonstrate what their vehicles are really capable of and end this silly policy of not providing performance info. Partnering with a third party like the SCCA would be even better.

 

[72MachOne99GT]

I would venture to guess that Ford will sell every GT350 they intend to produce without releasing a single performance number.

I don't understand the need for a manufacturer to release a set of numbers to validate a purchase of this magnitude.

If the car speaks to you, get one. If you need performance metrics, wait until some comparisons are released and go from there.

I highly doubt many interested parties are going to cancel their order, or place one when they hadn't planned to, if Ford releases some numbers that are surprising (good or bad).

 

[GT Premi]

...

I don't understand the need for a manufacturer to release a set of numbers to validate a purchase of this magnitude.

...

It's not to validate the purchase (for people with serious interest in the car's capabilities), it's to give a general baseline of what the car is capable of. Even after M/T's video, it's still anybody's guess as to what the car is truly capable of because there are no numbers to even compare what they ran on that track. With the press embargo apparently lifted, you'd think there would be a flood of GT350(R) timed performance review videos hitting the internet.

As excited as most everyone is about the car, its end performance could end up just being "meh." We know Ford claimed the R is within .01 of a 991 GT3 around Grattan, but manufacturers make lots of bold claims. Look at GM. I'm not saying I don't believe it. I certainly hope it's true. But it would be nice to see some video proof. Hopefully some magazine will post video of a real test between the two.

 

[bpmurr]

For me it's not for purchase validation, but more information is helpful in the purchasing decision. It just seems weird that a division focused on performance gives you everything but performance data. Ford Performance certainly could have done the same thing SRT did with the ACR. Like GT Premi said the Motor Trend article still leaves us all with a lot of questions. I guess we can say we know what the car can do on crap gas in extreme heat on a track Motor Trend doesn't normally use for lap times?

 

[johnny-longtors]

If the car speaks to you, get one.

All very well put. This is why I really want an "R". The odds of me every tracking it are low (I won't say nil - but low) - but I just love the idea of the car as it exists. All that awesome engineering coming together. I just want one because I want one

 

[krt22]

I would venture to guess that Ford will sell every GT350 they intend to produce without releasing a single performance number.

I don't understand the need for a manufacturer to release a set of numbers to validate a purchase of this magnitude.

If the car speaks to you, get one. If you need performance metrics, wait until some comparisons are released and go from there.

I highly doubt many interested parties are going to cancel their order, or place one when they hadn't planned to, if Ford releases some numbers that are surprising (good or bad).

Agreed

I also dont get why some folks are so wrapped up in lap times by professionals, when they them self admit to likely never going to the track. And even if they did go to the track, likely wont invest nearly enough money on seat time and consumables to ever get remotely close to the magazine published times.

 

[bpmurr]

Agreed

I also dont get why some folks are so wrapped up in lap times by professionals, when they them self admit to likely never going to the track. And even if they did go to the track, likely wont invest nearly enough money on seat time and consumables to ever get remotely close to the magazine published times.

So you pretty much just proved why it's important to know what the car can do even if you don't actually do it. It also provides the owner something to benchmark against if you choose to track it.

For instance I go out and run a 12.8@114 in a GT350 without any baseline I have nothing to say that's ok or not. If Ford said its good for 11.9@118MPH than I know I have a lot of work ahead or there might be something wrong with the car.

I don't see what's wrong with Ford saying. During testing we constantly saw 0-60 runs of 3.9 and 1/4 mile runs of 11.9@118MPH. Your results may vary.

Oh and they haven't published a top speed. So do I have to go out and find a long highway stretch to see when the limiter kicks in or just say I don't know when someone asks?

 

[krt22]

So you pretty much just proved why it's important to know what the car can do even if you don't actually do it.

So, for the bench racers?

 

[bpmurr]

So, for the bench racers?

So if I'm at a car show and someone asks what it does in the 1/4. Do I say I don't know? I think it would be better to be able to say. "With a good driver and good conditions Ford was able to run a 11.9@118." Then if I have ran it at the track I can say: "and I did 12.2@118. Need to work on my 60."

I don't think it's ok for a performance division of a car manufacturer not to provide some performance baselines. They spend all this time talking about the engineering put into the car. Great, as the engineering is important stuff. Now that you did all that what does it equate to? It's like writing a story and not providing an ending.

 

[krt22]

It's a track car, if you are worried about theoretical best 1/4 miles to tell random passerbys at car shows, I'm not really sure what to tell you.

 

[DSG2003SVT]

I'm not sure why anyone is worried about impressing strangers with stats. Take them for a ride instead if they want to know how the car is.

What do I know though? I hate car shows and clubs. I'm antisocial and usually go to the track alone or with my family. I'm not worried about what people think about my cars as long as I enjoy them.

 

[bpmurr]

It's a track car, if you are worried about theoretical best 1/4 miles to tell random passerbys at car shows, I'm not really sure what to tell you.

I'd like to be able to discuss things like 0-60, 1/4 mile, top speed and track times. Sorry I didn't spell out each category. FYI, there are plenty of track cars that are also fast in a straight line. You act like a car can't be good at both because "track car".

I'm not sure why anyone is worried about impressing strangers with stats. Take them for a ride instead if they want to know how the car is.

What do I know though? I hate car shows and clubs. I'm antisocial and usually go to the track alone or with my family. I'm not worried about what people think about my cars as long as I enjoy them.

So because you're antisocial my desire to discuss the capabilities of a car, with people, in person, in an informed fashion doesn't matter? Interesting...

 

[DSG2003SVT]

I said to take someone for a ride in the car instead. Numbers are just numbers. The people you tell those things to are just going to forget about them. I'm not saying that my being antisocial is better than you wanting to go to car shows, I'm just saying why not let someone actually experience the car rather than regurgitate statistics?

Also, in this case, it's the gearing that makes it not great for accelerating from a stop. It's geared for minimal shifting on a road course, not running from 0-60 as fast as possible. In this particular case, because track car actually applies. It doesn't have a PDK, or AWD, or a ton of low end torque to make up for its intentions. So, it's kind of a niche car. It really isn't going to be for everyone.

 

[krt22]

I'd like to be able to discuss things like 0-60, 1/4 mile, top speed and track times. Sorry I didn't spell out each category. FYI, there are plenty of track cars that are also fast in a straight line. You act like a car can't be good at both because "track car".

So, for the bench racers?

If this is truly the case, then I can understand your frustration. Give it time and the magazine will post all the info.

 

[DBK]

Lotta cryin.

Top speed in the 170s. No clue what a base car runs (has to be a few tenths slower), but R will run 11.70s, and I'm sure some shoe in good weather will run 11.60s.

They've already told you this, but to reiterate: GT350 is the track equal of a C7 Stingray equipped with the Z51 performance package. The R is substantially faster than a Z28 around a road course.

Below is a helpful reference chart for you. You can re-read the above and figure out where the two models fit in the performance hierarchy and if that's good enough.

 

[krt22]

They want solid numbers, solid numbers or damn ford to hell

 

[bpmurr]

Don't get me wrong. I understand some of your points of view even if I don't agree with them. I think the better question to ask is. What does Ford have to lose publishing performance data? I'd love to know why Ford Performance thinks it's bad for business.

 

[johnny-longtors]

They want solid numbers, solid numbers or damn ford to hell

I lol'd. I read that shaking a mental fist in the air....

 

[BrunotheBoxer]

For me the better question is why did ford release all the numbers on the 13 GT500 and not release any numbers on the gt350?

 

[bpmurr]

For me the better question is why did ford release all the numbers on the 13 GT500 and not release any numbers on the gt350?

I'm as big of a Ford fan as they come, but it's confusing and comes off as if they're hiding something. Much like the launch of the S550 last year. We were told it's faster than a 12-13 Boss 302 around the track, but no published times. Just like we are hearing with the GT350 and the comparisons to the GT3 and Z51. Just general statements. Well with the 15 GT we also found out it wasn't any faster than the previous gen GT in a straight line.