Cusp

Its odd how braking distances are measured from 60-0 when the reason for big brakes is to go from 120-60. The Braking energy required goes something like this. Mass times Velocity Squared. All else being equal except for speed we can take the Square of 60 which is 3600 vs the square of 120 which is 14400. And because I used 120 to 60 not 120 to 0 remove the 60 - 0 amount of 3600 leaving 10800 more to slow from 120 to 60 than from 60 - 0. This is the reason for the big brakes. If you don't drive like that, you don't need them.

hawkeye18

60-0 stopping distance measures are really nothing more than measures of how good the OEM tires are, since even the tiniest brakes won't start to fade from one 60-0 stop.

A 70-0 stop is a little better measure of brake fade-fighting powers, as the tiny brakes will start to peter out.

A 100-0 is a good test, as anything below average braking power will really start to show its weaknesses. If you look at charts, you can see that an Ariel Atom, one of the lightest, best-braked cars with the stickiest tires money can buy nowadays, has a stopping distance of 276.5ft from 100-0. That basically represents no brake fade stopping distances.

An average car stops from 100 in almost 550ft. This is twice the distance, representing not only a much greater mass to stop, but that the brakes are really beginning to fade towards the end. Also of note that an increase of 40mph results in a braking distance increase of over 400% for an average car (with a 110ft 60-0 distance average).

So in order to show the effectiveness of the Brembos over the stock brakes, I feel a 100-0 test is required. I think the Brembos will really shine there, and I predict more than a 10% improvement with identical tires.

Glenn

but they look pretty cool too! I say better to have them and not have to use them than to not have them and need to use them.

95cobraR

The owner's manual clearly states that the tires should not be driven in cold temperatures. It mentions 40 degrees. At ~50 degrees, you just need to wait until the tire gets some heat in it.

In the rare occassion that we see a frozen road in the deep south, I drive my Ford truck. It has pulled out a few Chevy trucks from a ditch in its road service.

Nokternal

The information on this thread has really reaffirmed my decision to order my GT 5.0 Premium with out the Brembo brake package. I will be getting the 3.73:1 rear end though. I will be using the car to cruise down the boulevards at slow *burble burble burble* speeds, and to drive on the interstate at speeds not normally exceeding 75 to 80mph (98% of the time, with the exception of the very occasional 70-to-120-back-to-70mph). I may tear off from a stop light here or there as well but that's about it.

Besides 18" and 19" wheels are way to big any way. I want to buy 17" rims with some healthy thick rubber on them, the kind of tires a real muscle car is supposed to have. I would buy 16" wheels if only I could find some which would clear the non-Brembo brakes lol. Low profile tires are for cheesy imports and on SUVs owned by "rappa's and gansta's"



Sorry to burst your bubble but this is completely wrong. I don't know where you got this info but the 19" Brembo wheels weigh ~28.5 lbs (give or take a few tenths of a pound) and the tires weigh ~30lbs

If what you say is true then that would mean that the standard 18" wheels must be weighing in the low 30 pound range... which I highly doubt.

Put it together and you've got 57-58 lbs per corner *AKA* the weight of a yacht's anchor, give or take.

OAC_Sparky

Not sure what brand of drugs you have in your neck of the woods but please share. You're still stuck in the 60's.

The reason for low profile tires (on a performance car) is to limit sidewall flex making cornering and carving more exact.

The only benefits to high sidewalls is that on poor roads it's a buffer between pavement and rim, and it's got a softer ride quality. The extra benefit is that they're also cheaper.

You can buy whatever you like, no harm in that. But your assumption that low-profile tires are for looks only just displays that you don't know what you're talking about and you've never driven a car with low-profile tires to know the difference. If you're only a stoplight racer and your roads are straight and flat you'll be just fine. The rest of us might live in areas that have roads that are a little more challenging. I would rather my car drive like a sportscar; if I wanted my sportscar to drive like a truck I'd just drive my truck.

Nokternal

Easy there Sparky, I understand the benefit of have shorter sidewalls in a racing situation but on public roads, which is the only thing my 5.0 will see, and at legal and safe driving speeds the benefits diminish.

My S2000 has low profiles and is used on the track and handles great. My 5.o will be used for cruising to and from work, taking my girl to the movies or to dinner nice and slow, cruising on the interstate at 65 to 75 mph.. and just looking good. I love the slightly softer ride of a taller side wall on a heavy (comparatively) a$$ car like a Mustang. And when I do want to do a burn out or stomp on it down a straight road or up an on ramp, I will have all the tire I could need for it.

For 98% of daily driving on public roads at legal speeds low profile tires are for nothing but looks. I have had low profile tires on ALL of my cars to date since I was sixteen years old (Dodge Neon SRT-4, Mazda RX7, 09' Civic Si, 09' RX8, 08' Honda S2000) and they are great for what I use those cars for. All of those cars are considerably lighter than a Mustang, so low profiles are slightly more appropriate for public roads. Slightly. Alll of those cars were also used part time for either auto X or track events. I also have an 05' WRX STI which came with 18" wheels and low pros, and now wears 15" wheels with tall side wall tires, as it is used for off road racing and winter driving. It would NEVER get by on low profile tires doing what it does on rally type trails.

For the way MOST people who buy Mustangs will be using them, smaller wheels/taller side walls would be ideal as well as cost effective.

To put it more to the point, unless you are racing this car near its cornering limits on a regular basis (which would obviously mean illegal speeds on public roads) the cons of low profile tires outweigh the pros on a hefty muscle car like this.

I live in western New York. The roads get badly torn up by the winters here.

I am 26 and this is going to be my first domestic vehicle purchase ever. 60's lol

If switching from 18" wheels to 17" wheels will give a 2011 Mustang GT the handling characteristics of a truck maybe I should look at buying a better car? lol

Aside from all that I really don't consider the Mustang to be a true sports car when compared to true modern sports car offerings. It is excellent performance per dollar and in the early 90's maybe it would have cornered and carved like the sports cars of that time, but does not compete through the corners with the sports cars of today. It is a Muscle car through and through, which is what I love about it.

Audi R8, Porsche 911, Lotus Exige, Mecrcedes Benz SLS AMG, Ferrari Enzo, Corvette Z06 and ZR1, Nissan GTR, are a few examples of what I would consider to be SPORTS cars.
Just FYI
You might want to think a little harder before you pipe up calling a guy an idiot or saying he is on drugs just because of his tire preference. Makes you look kind of dumb and naive.

CO_VaporGT_09

Gotta agree there, and at least you didn't berate him on it.

You consider the M3 a sports car? Cause the 5.0 will beat (or hang) with it...
And gets quite close to the base Vette, definitely not the Z06. But for a car with 4 seats it does quite well. I agree, though, it's not a sports car.
Course, not a muscle car either -- that's the Challenger, in my book.
Mustang is THE pony car

I see what you're saying in general, and in fact if you look at the real racers out there, they're generally not on more than 18s, partially due to rules/cost, but also due to the added weight and inertia of anything bigger. Lightweight 18s are common, not so much 19s, and definitely not 20s. Not to mention a bigger sidewall is less susceptible to curb damage for those that are a bit more aggressive.

Still, I like the look of 20s

Nokternal

The M3 isn't a true sports car either. It's soft and most definitely not designed specifically for the track. It is also WAYYYY overpriced. It's a great car but it is still more luxury than it is sport, and 99.9% of M3 buyers would get just as much performance out of a 135i as far as real-world public road driving goes.

The M3's performance is more about "Do you know what this car can do?"
rather than "Watch what this car can do!" for the average person who owns one. It is a statement.

Yup

OAC_Sparky

So what are you saying? Your S2000 is a "cheesy import"? Or that you only drive it on the track? Or that you're a "rappa or a gansta"?

Do you even know what you're saying? Are you even thinking when you hammer out letters on a keyboard? Because if you were, you wouldn't contradict yourself.


What I said was:
So I never called you an idiot, you inferred it. And I didn't actually say that you were on drugs. I implied it. I didn't say that you were from the 60s. But your statement that high sidewalls are "the kind of tires a real muscle car is supposed to have", well, yes, if you drive a '68 Mustang that would be more fitting. Because that was the general concensus on performance -- in the 60s!

The reality is, that you appeared to put down in your original post, is that lower profile tires do indeed help your car handle better. That's why they're offered. Of course, you have to balance that handling with your local road conditions and cost; but nevertheless it doesn't change the overall fact that lower profile tires handle better and aren't just for "rappas and gangstas". In a few words, you're wrong.

If you're only 26, I've been driving since before you were born. I've had "real muscle cars", when they were coming off a used car lot not when they were coming out of "Cassic Car Autotrader". And while they were nice and cool for their time, compared to today's cars they are slow and dangerous and handled like crap. I went though my period of time in my youth where I had a 350HP '72 Gran Torino Sport that could do 150, but when you hit 110MPH the suspension float was made the car handle like a drunk in a bouncy castle.

I'll tell you this; my '05 Focus ST (152HP/155TQ) is nothing incredibly special but on its 50 profile tires could run rings around my Torino. In handling, cornering, an a lot of acceleration stats. It's not more powerful, it just make better use of the power it does have. Its 0-60 would walk all over the Torino, I would daresay that in a quarter mile the Torino would only be less than a few carlengths ahead.

Muscle cars were great, but at the same time they're made even greater than they really were when viewed with a nostalgic eye. I'd rather my $45000 sportscar handle like a car from 2011 not 1972.

Nokternal

^ You change the subject a lot. There is A HELL OF A LOT more at play when comparing a 72' Gran Torino to an 05' Focus than sidewall height on the tires.. so what does this even have to do with anything? I could literally put truck tires on my STI and still mop the floor with your Focus.. but is that relevant to the conversation we were having? Or to this thread in general? lol I do not think so.

With modern tire technology there is no reason your daily driver can't have a some what taller side wall with out still having a substantially stiff side wall. Will the 235/45R18 be 100% stiff as compared to the same tire in the 235/45R19 size? No but it will not be any difference you would notice when cornering on any public roadway in a normal street legal car. Ever. Period.

You are seriously splitting hairs here sir and it is a bit childish to be honest.

Another benefit besides all the others listed of the 17" wheel over a larger diameter is reduced wheel weights, and having more of the weight closer to the center of the wheel, both of which reduce the amount of torque needed to accelerate the wheel's RPM. This also reduces unsprung weight at the outer four corners of the car which can be greatly beneficial under hard cornering, and it allows the car to power out of a corner more efficiently, effectively decreasing lap times. These are all widely known and undisputed facts.. and they are not new concepts.. it seems strange to me that an old man apparently needs them explained to him.

The "rappas and ganstas" thing was just a joke..
you asked me for a suggestion of drugs.. try a Zanax and wash it down with a beer man because you need to chill dude

OAC_Sparky

Hmmm.. no or anything hinting a joke. Reminds my of my ten year old when he asks, "can I have a chocolate bar" and when you say "no" he says "Just kidding".

No I didn't. Another reading comprehension fail.

Here's your prescription: Take two "Hooked on Phonics" lessons, get your story together and call me in the morning.

Nokternal

^ Once again your post entirely avoids the subject at hand, as well as the fact that I am right and you are wrong. Smaller diameter (to a point) wheels are in fact better when it comes to performance.

The way you talk about everything and anything else kind of reminds me of my five year old avoiding the subject when some one points out that he is wrong.


And I did not have a comprehension failure, you asked me to "please share" my drugs. Read your own post.

OAC_Sparky

How many times do you need to edit your post, anyways?

I work in the industry, son. 23 years for Ford which would make you still in daipers.

You'd be the last person to teach me anything automotive related. Be on it.

LEwis26

Can you two stop? The bickering is pointless.

Nokternal

Well he is older and obviosly faaaaaaaar more mature than a man-child such as I.. he should know better.



Ok then "Dad" if that is the case why are you having such a hard time grasping basic concepts?

BtW dont most kids know how to use a toilet when they are three? I know mine did.. or maybe late development is hereditary in your family.. IDK.

I can do this all night gramps

OAC_Sparky

That's NOT what she said.

Nokternal

OUCHHHH. Touche sir.

We probably should quit before we become further mired in base conversation though lol. I say lets agree to disagree. That is unless you now agree with me that smaller diameter wheels are usually better for the track, for cornering, and for all around performance. You do right? I assume so since you dropped the topic all together a few posts back.

Itravelalot

He might not come out and call you an idiot, but I will. You are an idiot.

Sparky has built a good reputation here, and if you were not so blinded by your thirst to prove yourself right, you might just learn something.

As for sports vs muscle vs pony, that is a topic for a whole different thread. Whatever you call it, stock or with a few very reasonably priced mods the mustang can hang with performance cars 2, 3 or more times its own price even with mods. When most of us have seen the videos of people in mustangs passing 2 Porsches in a row on the track (and similar great feats like that), it is you who seem ignorant. The mustang is what it is, but it handles on a par with your sports cars and has the power to keep up or beat them in the straights. The mustang can be made easily to get faster quarter mile times than any Porsche I have seen while at the same time keeping the road handling to hold its own.

As for your whole argument about wheels, tire aspect ratios, and gangstas, your lack of specificity and your over-generalization lumping all such tires together did your view point a disservice. There is certainly much truth to be had on both sides of the argument, but instead of proving a point well, you just made a bunch of people mad. Now I know that slightly inflammatory posts can be good to get a discussion going, but yours just came of as young, uninformed, and arrogant. I hope that you can find the maturity to calm down then get back to topic so you can actually learn to contribute something meaningful to this forum.

Nokternal

Way to back up your boy. I can respect that. I am not wrong for preferring taller side walls though, and the guy basically attacked me for it and implied I must be on drugs and that I was stuck in the archaic '60's. I did explain later that the "gansta and rappas" thing was a tiny joke, apparently a little to dry for some. Oh well.


As for the Mustang's status as either a Pony car or a Sports car, nothing you say will convince me that the GT in stock form is a sports car. It is really quite subjective to argument though and we could go on arguing the point forever. FWD Euro spec and JDM Honda Civic Type R's can be modded to pass stock and lightly modded Porsches on the track. Impressive but still does not make a Honda Civic a true sports car in my book.

Obviously I am very impressed with the mustang though, I am buying one aren't I?