Track comparison Mustang GT vs Commodore SSV

[Futura]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/549248/f...on-track-test/

Sandown best lap times:

Ford Mustang GT- 1:30.88
Holden Commodore SSV- 1:32.14

Ford Mustang 1.26 seconds faster than the Holden Commodore.

Even though it was meant to be a track comparison article, the win went to the commodore. in other words, the slower time around the track by 1.26 seconds wins the comparison.

Then these article comments.

"The Commodore offers more car, more space, more practicality, and more flexibility than the Mustang, as well as some better technology, better dynamics, and arguably better performance. And all for less money"

This is a track comparison right? Comparing a two door against a 4 doir?

"This is the last locally-built Holden Commodore, and it’s based on an 11-year-old platform that debuted beneath the*billion-dollar VE Commodore back in 2006. That’s 11 years of development, of engineering work, suspension work, chassis tuning, refinement, tweaks, and so on. That’s eleven years of honing, effectively the one product, to get it to where it is today – and honestly, that level is pretty bloody good."

Never hear so much praise for a old 11 year old platform. Let me guess, its a Holden.

[andrewforbes]

Credibility has gone right out the window there. Change the title to 'slower around a track, has more doors, is cheaper, old platform being more refined, last Ozzie made' ah just go with 'last commodore beats new comer ???' courtesy of Holden/gm. now we know why gm are scaling back

[TS50]

That is crap
they were comparing track cars, not which one had more space
Bugger me to give the holden the win for that, they didnt even need the cars, just looked at the specifications page

Pretty poor form on this test

[flappist]

These things always make me laugh.

The usual suspects almost always spin doctor the articles which is why you very seldom see things like best muscle car poll.
It would have been extremely annoying for not only to it be won by Ford but no holden even came close in the heats. 5 Fords and a Valiant.
They can wank on all day about how much better they think the holdens are but this will never ever change what happens in the real world.
Holden always under perform and Ford always over perform. It happens on tracks, on dynos and even just on the roads.

[WASP]

Note mentioned at the bottom of the article

Note: After the conclusion of this comparison two things happened. One; Ford Australia acknowledged that our long-term Mustang had been fitted with the incorrect rear Pirelli tyres (all four should have been a matching set of Pirelli P Zeros). And Two; a crunching fourth-gear issue that reared its head while we were at Sandown Raceway was confirmed as a broken fourth-gear synchro. Both matters have since been rectified.

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.

[TS50]

Note mentioned at the bottom of the article



Low 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.

Its like they didn't realise they were comparing a coupe against a sedan
I suppose it would be a easy thing to overlook

[4Vman]

Just pointing out what we're losing from the market.

Once Commodore is gone (the real one) that versatility will come at a huge price if you want performance too.

[TS50]

Just pointing out what we're losing from the market.

Once Commodore is gone (the real one) that versatility will come at a huge price.

everyone knows that
make that comment in a single car review, but don't test it against a car that doesn't have those attributes
then make that car a loser because its not a 4 door or has space
That is just stupidity

Might as well test it against a Porsche, the declare the Commodore the winner, even tho it was 10 seconds a lap slower, because it had more space

Remember this was a track test, not a family test


ohh ,and dont we have the Stinger coming?

[4Vman]

That's Fords fault, everyone knows Red V Blue sells mags and gets Clicks.

What did you want them to compare? Mondeo Titanium?

[TS50]

That's Fords fault, everyone knows Red V Blue sells mags and gets Clicks.

What did you want them to compare? Mondeo Titanium?

Well you don't compare a ute aganst a sedan, then say the ute doesn't have a back seat
its the same thing

they don't compare the SSV against a Toyota Camry do they?
No because they are not directly comparable
Either is a 2 door coupe directly compareable against a sedan

If you are doing it as a performance vehicle against performance vehicle around a track, the deciding parts that either win or lose should be performance , not space

Its no wonder I stopped buying their rubbish