Track comparison Mustang GT vs Commodore SSV

[HSE2]

Note mentioned at the bottom of the article



Slow gear shifts and any perceived handling deficiencies start with this. Dispite this they said the Mustang had the better engine, was the better looker and was the fastest and more economical around a race track. No I'm not put off. I feel more like The Mustang just lost the comparo with one arm (or hoof) tied behind its back.

They are describing a completely different car to the one Andrew and I tested.

I don't know how much difference mismatched tyres would make and I am not certain they are running the right pressure as our car was not set to 36 cold either.

When you form and write about a car, what you do and how you do it matters.

The on road stuff and comments suggests they have driven very hard, pushed further than i would on a road, yet their track times are not where the cars should be.

I like Paul Maric but you can't escape the fact that this publication supported a stance that basically said as a journalist, I won't drive this car out of fear for his safety.

There are some serious implication for credibility there they seemingly couldn't see and it's following on with David.

Some of it I get. The ergonomics are not good in places.

There are hard plastics, but the core of the car, the dynamics are sound. They are saying they aren't to the point when tested against a widely praised product in the SS redline, its times, it's right there.

When it comes to Winton, my theory is you don't take Pirelli there at all or not on something that weights 1900kgs.

That surface no longer works as well as it used to for some tyres.

That's my conspiracy theory anyway.