GT350/R Price Drop? Time to Buy?
- Thread starter s1ten
- Start date
If history repeats itself, which it usually does, the prices in both the 350 and 350R will continue to fall and even more so when the latest and greatest comes out. Can't wait to see the new 500. Hoping Ford doesn't disappoint.
A lot of the 'difference' is perspective though.
One thing I've learned in my short stent on this Earth, history always repeats itself.
That's what I said, too. Since you have intimate knowledge of both, do you think there is also a difference in the braking, ABS, stability control, and throttle response tuning in the R versus the standard [Track Pack] GT350? I feel there are some unadvertised differences that Ford just doesn't talk about or disclose to anybody. That would explain why some people who have driven the standard car complain about being underwhelmed with its power. I don't think I've seen any R owners complaining about a lack of around-town power.
I have a hard time believing a simple wheel/tire change is going to make the standard [Track Pack] GT350 perform similar to the R. The aero differences alone would make that an untrue statement, especially if you consider/believe the "duct tape" story about the '18 GT Level 2 Track Pack (what a horrible name). If you're just puttering about on the track, sure, the performance will be similar. If you're actually putting in work, I don't see a wheel/tire change bringing the standard [Track Pack] car up to R levels. If so, then Ford sure did pull a fast one on us, and ripped us off the same as the dealerships.
I've driven both briefly, no track time. I promise the largest difference is the tires.
50% of the performance difference between the two is the tires. The tires on the R are an inch smaller, which results in not only a simulated gearing advantage, but also a reduction in rolling inertia resistance at the most crucial location (the outer edge of the radius of the wheel/tire).
The wheels being lighter help, especially because it's unsprung weight and any weight saving is beneficial, but the biggest difference between the R and the 350 is the cup tires (and their size), both in acceleration and grip.
The front springs are slightly stiffer (20%) and the rear trac bar is ever so slightly beefier (stiffer), and the wheels/tires are the biggest difference.
No, there is no tuning or throttle response (again, if I take a 350 and slap 410s on the rear, you're going to notice a BIG difference in the accerlation).
The 1" difference in tire size can't be underestimated. These cars, even with the VCT behave like cammed cars do, which means they're underwhelming at lower rpms and wake up like a raped ape from 3500 and up. That means having final drive ratio (which is a combination of rear diff and tire size) is absolutely crucial in ensuring the car gets and stays in the power rpm band.
If you want to recapture 50% of the performance difference between the R and the 350 base, just swap the tires. About 40% is then the wheels and the seat delete and the remaining 10% is stiffer suspension components and settings.
The R wing is as most wings are, largely aesthetic and the downforce created on the rear between the R wing and the track pack wing isn't significant. The rest of the aero is the same.
This is mostly wrong, especially the part about the rear wing. The R's aero generates 290 lbs at 150MPH. The Track Pack GT350 might generate half that, and that's me being generous. I'll give you the final drive ratio argument. According to Edmunds.com, though, when they tested both cars "slapping the carbon fiber wheels on the GT350 Track Pack generated uncontrolled movement at the wheel ends" under heavy braking and turn-in; essentially the same as throwing lightweight wheels/tires on it. So, even with lightweight wheels/tires, a Track Pack is still not going to perform as well as an R, not unless you recalibrate the brakes and suspension for it. You have to remember that nowadays manufacturers don't just throw parts on high performance cars just because it might look cool. These parts are designed and engineered to work optimally together. That's why the R has bespoke PSC2 tires (among other things) and the standard GT350 has bespoke Super Sport tires (among other things).
There's probably a handful of people on this forum who've driven their 350 to 150 mph. At "mortal" speeds, the wing is largely an aesthetic value and the difference in downforce between them shrinks rapidly with speed.
There's no retuning of brakes. Brakes are brakes. They're the same brakes.
Physics doesn't lie. Two wheels, identical weight, one being with most the weight at the outer edge and the other being most of the weight at the center hub, are going to perform drastically differently in terms of rotational inertia and rolling resistance. As I admitted, weight savings is always beneficial, but what's really bigger than lb for lb is if you can save rotational weight further away from the center of the wheel hub (so a lb of weight saved by the tire is worth several lbs of weight saved at the hub). The R wheels are badass, but most of the actual performance affect is from the reduced radius (and weight), and traction of the cup tires (and the gearing advantage).
Yes, the suspension would need to be "retuned" to address the rebound of lighter tires and unsprung weight, but we're not talking about Godzilla vs. carebear disparity here.
My point is, the performance difference between the two isn't exactly drastic and a good portion of that can be made up with swapping the tires and throwing the rear seat in the dumpster. Given that most R's add back the electronics, that's no longer a weight savings.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. (BY THE WAY, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO'S COME UP WITH THIS IDEA).
Okay
I don't think he's read or watched any of the reviews from the pros AND folks who have owned both cars.
I certainly have. But I have yet to be regaled with actual facts, not just subjective statements.
I have yet to see facts like "The GT350 R managed the Nurbergring in 6:30 while it took the 350 8:30 with the same driver."
I have yet to see someone say "The R ran Pike's in 4:00 flat while it took the regular 350, 31:00."
I have yet to see someone say "The R reaches 1.2G while the 350 only tested at .80G" or "The R reached 120 mph in the slalom while the 350 could only manage 45mph."
I have yet to see any palpable facts or real analysis done on the issue.
But I'll tell you what I HAVE seen. I've seen countless videos where someone installed a CAI and some headers on a car and claimed it made a "huge" difference.
I'm cautious about claiming one car is "drastically" better than another until I see real facts and performance stats.
I'm certain based upon the mountains of reviews and anecdotal feedback that the R is better and feels better, but how to quantify that is another matter.
Are any of these comparisons by neutral parties, e.g., non owners and not Ford?
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
You mean there might be purchase bias? No.......never.
It goes both ways, I have a natural bias to conclude that my purchase of a regular 350 is better than it really is. I'm not immune to it. But I'd be cautious about words like "drastic" when comparing the performance difference between the two.
?
Did you actually see the "290 lbs at 150MPH" in print regarding the R wing or are you interpolating based on comments about the net lift reduction being roughly double that of the Porsche GT3?
Regarding adding light weight wheels/rubber to a Track Pack, the comment I saw was from Adam Wirth of Ford Performance that "simply bolting the carbon wheels and tires to the base car produced uncontrolled movement of the wheel ends during braking and cornering." Odd that I haven't seen that replicated from individuals that have done just that. We were also told that lowering a Track Pack car would require recalibration of the ride height sensors when the car came out yet Ford Racing now admits that is not the case. Ford Racing came out and said that R model cam chains were unique and stronger than all other 5.2/5.0 Coyote based engines until it was pointed out to them that they were in error and that the 5.2 engine is identical (aside from PCM calibration) in all GT350 models. In essence, there is a bit of misinformation that has surrounded the GT350 cars and some of it has come directly from Ford. The truth has come from those that have battle tested the cars and it doesn't necessarily agree with the marketing/advertising claims that were made early on (as well as recently regarding the chains).
1” difference in tires gets you about 100rpm higher for a given speed. 3.73-4.11 gets you over 300rpm higher. It’s not near the amount you’re suggesting, nor does it explain the difference.
Yes, third party testers agree the difference feels bigger than you would expect as well.
“And then we drove them back-to-back, and the R felt far quicker. Livelier, too—but also much lighter.”
They go on to explain the weight difference is only 67lbs and then tried to quantify it with dyno and acceleration testing. the grip accounts for some of it, in part again probably changing feeling due to the ECM pulling less power to keep the car hooked up in real world conditions which would change area under the curve.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/does...more-power-than-the-regular-gt350-wvideo/amp/
This doesn’t include aero on track or at speed either. The difference in springs, antiroll bars AND alignment explains quite a bit with the wheels.
Again, somehow the GT350R just feels like more than the sum of it’s parts. At the end of the day it’s a bit of the red pill vs blue pill discussion...does it really matter why a steak tastes good?
Last edited:
The R spoiler makes a difference.
I get it guys. I really do. I'm not saying the R is the same. I'm just saying that I think there MAY be a placebo effect among purchasers and a marketing effort among industry professionals to paint the differences between the R and the regular 350 as more than they really are.
I'm not a stranger to paying more for better. And I'm not averse to paying A LOT more for incremental improvement. I have a Schmidt & Bender on my long range rifle and a Zeiss on my hunting rifle. I run Elcans on my AR's and I pay a fortune to have most of my guns customized somehow via triggers, stippling, aftermarket furniture, milling, coatings, etc.
A Schmidt & Bender PMII costs probably 40% more than a top of the line Leupold tactical scope. Is it 40% better? No. It's not. incremental improvements become more and more expensive as you get near the top. So while you might be able to purchase 90% of the top product for 50% of the cost, the next 10% in performance increases are going to cost you increasingly more.
This isn't just true of cars, but of MOST things that are technical and even some that are subjective. Is a steak from Morton's or Ruth's or Sullivans twice as good as a steak from Outback?
Is staying at the Wynn or the Cosmo twice as good as staying at the Hard Rock? Is staying at the Mandarin 4x as good as staying at the Planet Hollywood?
For stuff that we can actually measure, this concept STILL holds true. What I'm saying is that yes, the R is better. In many ways it's BETTER.
There's just a huge "?" right now as to how much. Quantifiable. Measured. Not subjective. Not what it feels like, how it performs.
You've ALL seen videos or even real world examples of where someone puts a very minor modification on their car and claims "dude, it's COMPLETELY different." "It makes a HUGE difference."
Again, I think the R is better, I just don't think it's the massive jump all of you are hoping/experiencing (over the 350).
I'm not infallible or always right. Time may prove me wrong (with REAL numbers and testing) but for now, all we have to go on is..."it feels way better."
I'm not a stranger to paying more for better. And I'm not averse to paying A LOT more for incremental improvement. I have a Schmidt & Bender on my long range rifle and a Zeiss on my hunting rifle. I run Elcans on my AR's and I pay a fortune to have most of my guns customized somehow via triggers, stippling, aftermarket furniture, milling, coatings, etc.
A Schmidt & Bender PMII costs probably 40% more than a top of the line Leupold tactical scope. Is it 40% better? No. It's not. incremental improvements become more and more expensive as you get near the top. So while you might be able to purchase 90% of the top product for 50% of the cost, the next 10% in performance increases are going to cost you increasingly more.
This isn't just true of cars, but of MOST things that are technical and even some that are subjective. Is a steak from Morton's or Ruth's or Sullivans twice as good as a steak from Outback?
Is staying at the Wynn or the Cosmo twice as good as staying at the Hard Rock? Is staying at the Mandarin 4x as good as staying at the Planet Hollywood?
For stuff that we can actually measure, this concept STILL holds true. What I'm saying is that yes, the R is better. In many ways it's BETTER.
There's just a huge "?" right now as to how much. Quantifiable. Measured. Not subjective. Not what it feels like, how it performs.
You've ALL seen videos or even real world examples of where someone puts a very minor modification on their car and claims "dude, it's COMPLETELY different." "It makes a HUGE difference."
Again, I think the R is better, I just don't think it's the massive jump all of you are hoping/experiencing (over the 350).
I'm not infallible or always right. Time may prove me wrong (with REAL numbers and testing) but for now, all we have to go on is..."it feels way better."
Users who are viewing this thread
