DragTimes uses burnout mode in the Ferrari F8 Tributo launching so hard the front wheels came off the ground in the quest for a 9 second 1/4 mile pass in stock form.
Watch DragTimes race the Taycan Turbo S vs the Model S Performance down a real drag strip while one sets a record for the quickest production electric car down the 1/4 Mile.
I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one.
The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would have bumped me up a class. With price and PAX/PIP points not being an issue for a takeoff set, I pulled the trigger and they were at my door a week later.
Size Matters
Of course, the first thing you do when you receive a brand new set of tires is compare heights! Stacked up, they measured about 49.5", almost exactly 1" wider overall than RE 71R's. That also means they are almost exactly 315/30/19 tires if going by a direct conversion, and they were not even mounted whereas the 71R's were mounted when I stacked them. This was a good first impression. The other good first impression was how wide and minimally grooved the outside shoulder is.
Quick heavy cars like Mustangs', Camaro's, M3's, etc. put huge amounts of load on outside shoulders and the Boss 302 is no exception. Wide tread blocks with little grooving suggested to me that they would handle the abuse relatively well (historically a weak point for street Michelin's) and have good response. They absolutely did not disappoint in that regard.
First Impressions
After the first drive was in the rain, it left two very strong impressions. Very good wet grip (no puddles or standing water, just rain, so can't comment on hydroplaning resistance) and excellent steering response. Compared to RE-71R's, the Cup 2's felt telepathic. You touch the steering wheel, and the car starts to turn. That was fantastic when you want it, but it has a downside. Tramlining was an order of magnitude worse than the 71R's which, when combined with the much faster steering response, made them feel nervous on the highway. If you have to choose between these tires for strictly street driving, the RE 71R's would be better (I would recommend neither for strictly street driving, but I know some people do that).
On track, however, the improved steering response was fantastic. When combined with better feedback, it made the car feel easier to push. It encourages you to trail brake a bit deeper, so you stay in the power longer and carry more speed into a corner. The 71R's also seemed to breakaway a little more abruptly whereas the Cup 2's were more progressive, helping confidence in corner exit as well.
On the other hand, the Cup 2's felt like they definitely had less longitudinal grip - traction - at least in colder temps. During the morning Time Attack sessions, it was much easier to spin compared to the RE-71R's in similar conditions (cool temperatures and overcast). Wheel/axle hop was also worse than RE-71R's so leaving the pits I had to really feather the throttle. Later in the day when it warmed up, axle/wheel hop wasn't that pronounced anymore but the car still felt a little more neutral than on the 71R's, although that could just be subjective due to the faster steering response. So far, subjective impressions are:
1. Good in the wet, comparable to 71R's (absent puddles or standing water, which I have no experience with on either tire).
2. Better steering response than 71R's
3. Bad tramlining, almost nervous on the highway
4. Less traction and harder compound at cool temps, leading to more axle/wheel hop.
5. More progressive loss of traction, good feedback at the limit.
Lap Times
Objective comparison? Well, at face value, it would seem like the Sport Cup 2's are in a league of their own but the reality is that the 71R's were on their last leg. And that leg was broken. This isn't really a fair comparison by a long shot as far as lap times go. In warmer weather, in HPDE setting (longer sessions as I was tuning damper settings), the RE-71R's set a best lap time of 1:17.02 as they were on their way out (they corded in several spots at the end of that very session). A couple of weeks later, my first time driving on the the Sport Cup 2's in a cool morning Time Attack session (about 54 deg F/12 deg C and overcast), that dropped to 1:15.52 with a few other 1:15 laps, suggesting it isn't a one lap wonder. The best lap is a whopping 1.5 s drop on a 77-second lap (excluding out- and in-laps):
Session 1
Conditions: 52 deg F/11 deg C, overcast
Tire pressure: 36 psi hot
Lap 1: 1:16.296 (first hot lap ever on these tires)
Lap 2: 1:15.639
Lap 3: 1:15.523
Session 2
Conditions: 54 deg F/12 deg C, overcast
Tire pressure: 37 psi hot
Lap 1: 1:15.643
Lap 2: 1:16.036
Lap 3: 1:15.979
For that best lap of 1:17.02 lap on the 71R's, conditions were different: approx. 65 deg F/18 deg C on the readout, and sunny. Looking at some of my lap time data over the last couple two seasons, I lose about half a second every 10 deg F (all else being equal) so that 1:17.0x might have been a 1:16.5 judging by temperatures on both days, plus or minus a tenth or two. Then you have to account for old vs fresh RE-71R rubber. On the stock suspension last season, the 71R's lost approximately 0.7 s from new to later days with more heat cycles so that 1:16.5 might have been a 1:15.8, plus or minus, on that same day with new tires which would put it very close to the Cup 2's. At the very least, I think a very low 1:16.xx would be doable on fresh 71R's in cooler temps as the car sits now.
One noticeable difference, however, is how much tire marbles the Sport Cup 2's pick up, even in comparison to sticky fresh 71R's. If the above estimates are true on the fast end (mid-high 1:15.xx lap time range) and the two tires really are close in terms of ultimate performance, it could be that they achieve their performance differently with the 71R's being a softer compound that generates more of its grip by deformation (interlock with road surface) vs the Cup 2's which could be a harder/stiffer compound that is more sticky (more grip due to adhesion as it gets hot). That would make sense given their main purpose; the 71R's ultimately an autocross tire that needs to work cold and the Cup 2 is an OEM trackable street tire.
Of course, those estimates are no way to figure out a lap time for a tire... the way to do it is to get a fresh set on the car and run it. But taking into account weather and heat cycled worn tires makes it seem at least possible that the two tires would be close. From behind the wheel, it feels that way as well. I think ultimate lap times would be comparable but with very different attitudes. The 71R's are a bit more secure but relatively numb. The Cup 2's are relatively more responsive and neutral.
Finally, one other difference is that Sport Cup 2's like more pressure. They seemed to run well at 36-37 psi hot while the 71R's got greasy quickly at pressures higher than 34 psi. I haven't had a chance to really push the Cup 2's in a long 15-20 minute session to see how bad they get those higher pressures but they do seem to like higher pressures.
Verdict
I'm not sure when or if I will be going back to 71R's because the Sport Cup 2's are a great value. Wear so far after an "easy" day - three time attack sessions and one short lapping session (picture above of the two front tires) - is not bad at all. With rotation, I see getting 8-10 "easy" days out of a set, less with longer lapping/HPDE days. As long as I can continue to find low mileage GT PPL2 or Mach 1 takeoff sets for a good price, I probably will keep using them. I wouldn't hesitate to run RE-71R's again if Bridgestone sent me a set of 305/30/19 RE-71R's to put head to head with the Sport Cup 2's... but I won't hold my breath for that. With that said, I will be able to get a much better apples to apples comparison next season as the Sport Cup 2 wear and get more heat cycles on them so if you are curious how they compare under similar conditions and wear/heat cycles, make sure to follow for updates next season!
Follow Rams Eye The Track Guy on Facebook and Instagram!
I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one.
The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would have bumped me up a class. With price and PAX/PIP points not being an issue for a takeoff set, I pulled the trigger and they were at my door a week later.
Of course, the first thing you do when you receive a brand new set of tires is compare heights! Stacked up, they measured about 49.5", almost exactly 1" wider overall than RE 71R's. That also means they are almost exactly 315/30/19 tires if going by a direct conversion, and they were not even mounted whereas the 71R's were mounted when I stacked them. This was a good first impression. The other good first impression was how wide and minimally grooved the outside shoulder is.
Quick heavy cars like Mustangs', Camaro's, M3's, etc. put huge amounts of load on outside shoulders and the Boss 302 is no exception. Wide tread blocks with little grooving suggested to me that they would handle the abuse relatively well (historically a weak point for street Michelin's) and have good response. They absolutely did not disappoint in that regard.
After the first drive was in the rain, it left two very strong impressions. Very good wet grip (no puddles or standing water, just rain, so can't comment on hydroplaning resistance) and excellent steering response. Compared to RE-71R's, the Cup 2's felt telepathic. You touch the steering wheel, and the car starts to turn. That was fantastic when you want it, but it has a downside. Tramlining was an order of magnitude worse than the 71R's which, when combined with the much faster steering response, made them feel nervous on the highway. If you have to choose between these tires for strictly street driving, the RE 71R's would be better (I would recommend neither for strictly street driving, but I know some people do that).
On track, however, the improved steering response was fantastic. When combined with better feedback, it made the car feel easier to push. It encourages you to trail brake a bit deeper, so you stay in the power longer and carry more speed into a corner. The 71R's also seemed to breakaway a little more abruptly whereas the Cup 2's were more progressive, helping confidence in corner exit as well.
On the other hand, the Cup 2's felt like they definitely had less longitudinal grip - traction - at least in colder temps. During the morning Time Attack sessions, it was much easier to spin compared to the RE-71R's in similar conditions (cool temperatures and overcast). Wheel/axle hop was also worse than RE-71R's so leaving the pits I had to really feather the throttle. Later in the day when it warmed up, axle/wheel hop wasn't that pronounced anymore but the car still felt a little more neutral than on the 71R's, although that could just be subjective due to the faster steering response. So far, subjective impressions are:
1. Good in the wet, comparable to 71R's (absent puddles or standing water, which I have no experience with on either tire).
2. Better steering response than 71R's
3. Bad tramlining, almost nervous on the highway
4. Less traction and harder compound at cool temps, leading to more axle/wheel hop.
5. More progressive loss of traction, good feedback at the limit.
Objective comparison? Well, at face value, it would seem like the Sport Cup 2's are in a league of their own but the reality is that the 71R's were on their last leg. And that leg was broken. This isn't really a fair comparison by a long shot as far as lap times go. In warmer weather, in HPDE setting (longer sessions as I was tuning damper settings), the RE-71R's set a best lap time of 1:17.02 as they were on their way out (they corded in several spots at the end of that very session). A couple of weeks later, my first time driving on the the Sport Cup 2's in a cool morning Time Attack (short) session, that dropped to 1:15.52 with a few other 1:15 laps, suggesting it isn't a one lap wonder. The best lap is a whopping 1.5 s drop on a 77-second lap:
1:16.296 (first hot lap ever on these tires)
1:15.639
1:15.523
1:15.643
1:16.036
1:15.979
Now, about that 1:17.02 lap on the 71R's. That was in warmer weather than these sessions and looking at some of my historical lap times, that 1:17 might have been a 1:16.5, plus or minus a tenth or two judging by temperatures on both days. Then you have to account for old vs fresh rubber. On the stock suspension last season, the 71R's lost approximately 0.7 s from new to later days with more heat cycles so that 1:16.5 might have been a 1:15.8, plus or minus, on that same day which would put it very close to the Cup 2's. At the very least, I think a very low 1:16.xx would be doable on fresh 71R's in cool temps as the car sits now.
One noticeable difference, however, is how much tire marbles the Sport Cup 2's pick up, even in comparison to sticky fresh 71R's. If the above estimates are true on the fast end (mid-high 1:15.xx lap time range) and the two tires really are close in terms of ultimate performance, it could be that they achieve their performance differently with the 71R's being a softer compound that generates more of its grip by deformation (interlock with road surface) vs the Cup 2's which could be a harder/stiffer compound that is more sticky (more grip due to adhesion as it gets hot). That would make sense given their main purpose; the 71R's ultimately an autocross tire that needs to work cold and the Cup 2 is an OEM trackable street tire.
Of course, those estimates are no way to figure out a lap time for a tire... the way to do it is to get a fresh set on the car and run it. But taking into account weather and heat cycled, worn tires makes it seem at least possible that the two tires would be close. From behind the wheel, it feels that way as well. I think ultimate lap times would be comparable but with very different attitudes. The 71R's are a bit more secure but relatively numb. The Cup 2's are relatively more responsive and neutral.
Finally, one other difference is that Sport Cup 2's like more pressure. They seemed to run well at 36-37 psi hot while the 71R's got greasy quickly at pressures higher than 34 psi. I haven't had a chance to really push the Cup 2's in a long 15-20 minute session to see how bad they get at higher pressures but they do seem to like higher pressures so far.
I'm not sure when or if I will be going back to 71R's because the Sport Cup 2's are a great value. Wear so far after a short day - three time attack sessions and one lapping session (picture above of the two front tires) - is not bad at all. With rotation, I see getting 8-10 "easy" days out of a set, less with longer lapping/HPDE days. As long as I can continue to find low mileage GT PPL2 or Mach 1 takeoff sets for a good price, I probably will keep using them. I wouldn't hesitate to run RE-71R's again if Bridgestone sent me a set of 305/30/19 RE-71R's to put head to head with the Sport Cup 2's... but I won't hold my breath for that. With that said, I will be able to get a much better apples to apples comparison next season as the Sport Cup 2 wear and get more heat cycles on them so if you are curious how they compare under similar conditions and wear/heat cycles, make sure to follow for updates next season!
Follow Rams Eye The Track Guy on Facebook and Instagram!
If you've been following me, it's no secret by now that I recently got a sponsored set of Pedders eXtreme xA Coilovers to test, thanks to American Muscle. I have been wanting to do something about the stock suspension on my 2012 Boss 302 for a while but budget didn't allow. When the opportunity came knocking, I couldn't be happier. The kit includes coilovers only up front to replace the stock struts but maintains the separate "divorced" damper (shock/shock absorber) and spring setup in the back, a common solution for plenty of entry level/budget coil over options as well as more established brands like KW and Eibach until you get to their flagship or race kits. Even the Maximum Motorsport (MM) JRi coilover kit - a package that is far from a budget or mild street option - retains the divorced spring/damper mounting.
While a true coilover setup in the back would be better, it would be more expensive and at this price point, I think the money is better spent on the damper itself rather than a coilover design. Plus, the divorced spring/damper setup separates forces going through the spring vs the damper. The factory developed Boss 302S and Boss 302R cars used true coilovers in the back but tied the top of the rear damper/shock mount to the cage to reinforce the mounting point. Absent reinforcement and/or a thoroughly tested upper pad design with no failure, there is an increased risk of cracking or failure so its best avoided in my opinion in a budget option.
Specs
With that out of the way, let's get straight to the kit itself. In addition to the coilovers and springs and dampers/shocks in the back, it comes with shortened front sway bar end links and coilover spanners/wrenches for height adjustment. First off, let's start with specs:
Pedders xA front spring rate: 7 kg/mm - 392 lb/in.
Pedders xA rear spring rate: 5 kg/mm - 280 lb/in.
Compared to the stock Boss 302 spring rates:
Stock Boss 302 front spring rate: 2.6 kg/mm - 148 lb/in.
Stock Boss 302 rear spring rate: 3.3 kg/mm - 185 lb/in.
Given the same mounting setup in the back (i.e. separate spring/damper in stock mounting locations) and a solid axle, motion ratios are the same in the back. Front motion ratio would be slightly different due to the drop and possible camber (if you get the camber plates, more on that below), but at stock height and stock camber, it is also virtually unchanged. Given essentially unchanged ratios compared to stock, there is a very clear change to the stock handling balance with all else being the same. This is also true for S197 stock/base GT, Brembo/Track Pack GT, and Boss 302 Laguna Seca, all of which have different spring rates but still use numerically higher (stiffer) spring rates in the back than the fronts.
The reversal in stiffness balance front-to-rear is the status quo for all mainstream S197 aftermarket lower springs, though, (i.e. Ford Performance, Steeda, Eibach, SR, H&R, and BMR) or coilover kits. The spring rates in this kit are significantly stiffer than the majority of lowering springs as you'd expect but they are on the softer side for a coilover setup which makes the rates a great match IMO for dual duty street/track setups without big aero.
Unfortunately, I don't have more specs to give you. I requested shock dyno results/graphs from Pedders but they said that was confidential. This is not unusual for shock/damper manufacturers to not share but it would have been nice to see before committing to the kit for moderate to heavy track use, especially if buying outright.
Adjustability
For a car that will see track time, the most important thing to know is that the S197 Pedders eXtreme xA coilover kit does NOT come with adjustable front coilover mounts. Pedders does offer S197 eXtreme XA camber plates but they are sold separately which are a must for a car seeing regular track time. Fortunately, whether you get just the coilovers or the camber plates, you don't have to worry about compatibility or fitment depending the S197 year and whether you have the early strut mounts (05-10) or newer (11-14). The non adjustable mount with the kit and the camber plate do away completely with the factory strut mount as you would with a coilover kit.
Aside from the camber plates, the package has plenty of adjustability built in. Height is adjustable from 1-3" both front and back compared to a standard GT according to Pedders. On a Boss 302 like mine, you can maintain stock height up front if you want, but you'll have a minimum drop of approx. 1" in the rear with the adjustable spring perches set to their max height. For a starting point to try to maintain stock geometry and clearance for my driveway, I left the rear at their max height (1" lower than stock) and dropped the front approx. 1/2".
On a side note, if you have the stock driveshaft, you don't have to worry about pinion angles and potentially needing an adjustable rear upper control arm, but you would need at least an adjustable panhard bar to recentre the rear axle with a wide tire setup. However, I would strongly recommend a Fays2 Watts Link. You will never have to worry about adjusting a bar every time you make a small drop, it makes the car far more approachable and settled over bumps, and I have had mine for several years with countless track days and it shrugs off any sort of abuse you can throw at it with fantastic support, plus offering additional tuning by allowing you to move the rear roll centre.
The dampers are adjustable for both compression and rebound, although not separately. Pedders touts that they are monotube dampers which makes for good PR but whether they will hold up like a more premium twin-tube design such as Koni remains to be seen (make sure to follow for updates!). Both fronts and rears have 30 positions with nice distinct detents for each position and each position stiffens or softens compression and rebound at the same time.
Adjustability is also very easy and accessible for damper settings and ride height. A knob at the top of each damper/shock adjusts stiffness and you can access the front coilover height adjustment without affecting preload or taking it off the car, you just have to jack/lift the car, take the wheels off, and loosen the locking ring at the base of the threads, and screw the threaded damper/shock body into or out of the coilover sleeve to lower or raise the front. Likewise in the back, the adjustable spring perches are accessible just by jacking/lifting the rear end and taking the wheels off.
The camber plates are unfortunately not as accessible. I had Maximum Motorsports (MM) Caster/Camber plates up until now on the stock struts and they (like plenty of other motorsport/track focused products) allow adjustment without dropping the struts, but the Pedders camber plates don't. The top of the strut tower conceals four nuts that lock the bottom plate the coilover mounts to to the top plate that mounts to the car/the strut tower. It's a simple universal design that Pedders (and others) uses across multiple platforms likely for cost and only customizes the shapes of the plates to suit the application/specific car.
As a result, this is more of a "set it and forget it" camber plate unless you feel like jacking your car up at the track, dropping the strut, and dialing more or less camber. I suspect that won't hurt them, though, since the camber plates are not marketed as a standalone upgrade and neither should they be. They are only compatible with the Pedders coilovers. On the bright side, they do have a good range of adjustability which I will talk about in the next post.
Installation
I decided to find an installation video and follow it. With the help of a good buddy of mine and his garage/lift, the install took about 2.5 hours (except for the rear dampers which would not have taken any longer but more on that in a sec).
I found more than one installation video on YouTube but unfortunately they all didn't detail a step in the rear damper installation. While the front coilover doesn't use any stock components aside from hardware/fasteners, the rear damper uses the factory rubber pad/mounts and I had two issues with that:
1. The damper rod for the Boss 302 is a larger diameter (thicker) than the GT. Since this kit is built around the GT dampers, the top washer/bushing assembly was too wide for the threaded end. I needed GT mounting bushings/nuts (stock Tokico rear damper/shock on the left with stock Boss 302 upper mount bushing and Pedders rear damper/shock on the right with stock Mustang GT upper bushing/nut assembly above). This is why we couldn't finish the installation the first time through. We wrapped it up with the Pedders coilovers and sway bar end links up front and Pedders springs and perches in the back.
2. The Pedders washer on the damper side (i.e. where the bushing on the damper side mounts to the chassis) is very small. The rubber bushing itself would have a very small seating area as a result compared to factory dampers/shocks (above on the left) which have a large seat right into the body of the damper/shock. I didn't like the Pedders washer at all (below).
For the rear damper install, I picked up a couple different parts; I bought genuine OEM upper bushing/washer assembly for a stock GT from our local Ford Dealer (pictured above) so it could match the size of the threads on the Pedders rear damper/shock body. I also bought Monroe OEM equivalent dampers/shocks from a local parts store as a back up to make sure I had all mounting hardware/bushings just in case. I ended up using bits of both.
Each Monroe replacement damper/shock came with two round rubber bushings, two large washers, and a top mounting nut. I liked those larger washers much better than what came with the Pedders kit (pictured below is one of those rubber bushings and one washer on top of the Pedders washer for size comparison).
I was going to use those round bushings that came with the aftermarket damper (above) which felt a bit stiffer than factory, but after mounting it I found the damper rod tilted towards the inside of the trunk. I ended up using the factory lower bushing that came with the car since they had a self centring boot (two pictures up) that ensured the damper/shock is centred in the chassis mounting hole for even distribution of loads to the chassis mounting point/pad (pictured below). I combined that with the large aftermarket washers (above picture) due to their thickness and far larger diameter, and took out the Pedders small washers. Finally, I used the Ford OEM GT upper bushing/washer assembly that I had picked up from the dealer (three pictures up).
Swapping the rear shocks was simple which I did a few days later in my driveway once I had all the parts. You just undo the rear sway bar end links to rotate the sway bar out of the way, undo the upper and lower mounts for the dampers, and slide the damper out as you can see in the video. With that done, the car was finally ready for an alignment and corner balancing. Stay tuned for the next post very soon covering the track setup including alignment and corner weights, as well as review on the street and the track.
Follow Rams Eye The Track Guy on Facebook and Instagram!
