Hello all,
I know that there are many threads out there that cover the differences between the ‘07-‘14 GT500’s and all of the updates, changes, and improvements that Ford made to them over the years.
This post is intended to specifically talk about the 2010 Model Year GT500, and why I sought it out over all other production years of the S197 GT500. The idea here is to discuss my thought process when searching for the right GT500. Hopefully this serves as a good reference for other 2010 owners, and any other prospective buyers looking to get into a Shelby.
Now before I go any further, I want to clarify that I am not trying to step on anyone’s toes here. You can’t go wrong with owning a GT500, regardless of the year. All GT500’s are excellent vehicles that have the look, performance, prestige, excellent re-sale/appreciation value, and have stellar performance-to-dollar ratios. If you own an ‘07-‘09 or ‘11-‘14, awesome and good for you. Hope to see you on the road.
So before making the switch from my 2011 GT Coyote and pulling the trigger on a GT500, I spent months reading various reviews, articles and buyers guides that covered the ‘07-‘14 cars. I couldn’t help but notice that the 2010 was often neglected, and even referred to as the “bastard child” of GT500s. This made me curious.
With the 2010, I’d be getting the new body style paired with the old powertrain. I thought that was odd. It almost seemed like Ford should have waited to release the new body and aluminum block together in 2011. Well, I’m glad that that they didn’t. The “bastard child” 2010 ended up being my favorite, and in my opinion, the best year of the S197 GT500.
To make my decision, I looked at three major aspects of the car; exterior styling, interior styling, and most importantly, powertrain. I’ll elaborate below, and knock out the easy ones first.
1) Exterior Styling
Now obviously, this is going to be a subjective topic and is going to depend largely on ones own opinion. I won’t bring aerodynamics into this, largely because the differences (drag, down force, heat extraction, etc.) between the ‘07-‘14 years are negligible.
‘07-‘09: Timeless, retro-styling that calls back on the original Shelby cars. Makes you feel like you own a piece of that ‘60’s Shelby legacy. These will likely be the cars that you see in a classic car calendar one day in the future.
‘10-‘14: Updated, modern-day styling that brings the Mustang platform into the new age. These are the cars that cemented the revival of the Shelby name and what performance means for Ford. This is especially true for the 2013/2014 model years.
This was a hard choice to make, but at the end, I simply preferred the updated bodylines, aggressive stance, and exterior styling components (lights, aero bits, wheels, etc) of the ‘10-‘14 model years. Right off the bat, this had narrowed my search down to the ‘10-‘14.
Decision: 2010-2014 Model Years
2) Interior Styling
Again, this is going to be a slightly subjective topic, but I think it’s pretty obvious that the ‘10-‘14 (especially the ’13/’14) cars are superior to the ‘07-‘09 when it comes to the interior. In fact, after many critics, reviews and customers described the ‘07-‘09 cars as having too much interior plastic, Ford put a lot of effort into improving this for the following years.
I think a lot of ‘07-‘09 owners would tend to agree; the ‘10-‘14 model years simply had better build materials, ergonomics, styling flow and overall construction. I mean, the Recaro buckets and glass roof offered in the late models were some pretty sweet options.
This one was easy for me. I preferred the refinements of the updated interior. Plus, I’m a sucker for alcantara, and the way Ford incorporated it into the ‘10+ interiors was just perfect. With that, my search had been narrowed down to the ‘10-‘14 model years even more so than before.
Decision: Again, 2010-2014 Model Years
3) Powertrain Setup (single most important factor in my decision)
The powertrain was single handedly, the biggest factor for me while choosing the right GT500. Now that I was only looking at the ‘10-‘14 model years, I found that the 2010 offered me something that the ‘11-‘14 couldn’t: complete peace of mind. I will elaborate below.
The ‘11-’14 GT500’s were the first production car to utilize Ford’s all new Plasma Transfer Wire Arc (PTWA) cylinder lining process. You can read all about this Ford-invented process online, but in a nutshell, it replaces conventional cylinder liners (sleeves) with an extremely thin and hard spray-in coating. There are three major advantages that the PTWA process provides over conventional cylinder liners (sleeves).
-Reduced operational friction. This reduces drivetrain loss, allowing more power to make it to the ground.
-Reduced block weight. Improves overall vehicle weight distribution, handling, braking, and acceleration.
-Saves precious cylinder space. Allows the block to achieve maximum displacement. Higher power potential.
This new PTWA technology sounded great and there were some clear advantages to utilizing it in a high performance powerplant such as the engine found in the GT500. I know that the Ford engineering team spent hours developing and testing their PTWA technology. I also know that Ford put multiple PTWA engines through the ringer, for a combined total of two-million+ simulated miles. The Ford engineers did their due diligence before releasing PTWA to the production floor. Now, I am not implying that utilizing PTWA on the ‘11+ GT500 was a mistake by any means, but I had some concerns. I’ll elaborate below.
A little bit of background. As a mechanical design engineer who has worked on many product lines (aerospace to heavy equipment) I can tell you first hand that the initial release of a product is where we learn the most. This is where we discover what’s going to work in the real world and what isn’t. Obviously we’re going to do our best, but there are things that slip past even our most advanced calculations, computer models, simulations and tests.
You must understand that engineers operate under immense pressures, many of which are not understood by the common public and product consumers. A few of these pressure sources…
- Meet or exceed product specifications set forth by the marketing team, who often times have little technical knowledge of what they are demanding. Think “we want a model that is safer, faster, more reliable, better on fuel, and cheaper to build than the year before, and we want it now.”
- Meet or exceed product deadlines set forth by the sales team, who often times have already promised customers the moon and more. This sets the engineering team up for failure, and unjustly highlights them as the “bad guys” in the eyes of the customer. When my car breaks down, I’m going to blame it on poor engineering, not the commission hungry salesman who rushed an incomplete product out the factory.
- Support service and parts departments by maintaining component and manufacturing commonality across platforms. The creation of every new part eats away at the overall project budget. It also makes field service a nightmare down the road. Remember when the Ford Ranger and Explorer shared the same chassis and sub-systems? It was almost too easy to find the right service parts when you needed them.
- Support the prototype and R&D departments who are actually going to build, assemble and test the product for the first time. This phase is often the last thing a potential product sees before it hits mass production. It also acts as a budget/time safety margin for the overall project. If the design team needs more time, those hours can be stolen from the R&D testing department. As you can probably guess, this often leaves the R&D dept. with inadequate time to perform critical tests and gather the valuable data they need to relay back to the engineering department. Engineering is then shortchanged, out of time and rushed to make final revisions to the product before it is released to production.
Having experienced these workplace dilemmas first hand, I can tell you that no matter how good a design looked in a CAD model, how great it sounded on paper or performed in a simulation/test, there is always the potential for unforeseen problems and failures to arise once the product is in the hands of the customer. On the other hand, this leaves room for improvement for the next iteration of the product. Think of the early Triton 4.6’s and 5.4’s and their spark plug debacle. Granted these were largely a vendor issue, it still took Ford four tries and multiple TSBs to resolve the issue. But, I bet they won’t make that mistake again.
Given my background, I had reasonable doubt in shelling out $40,000-$60,000 hard earned dollars for a vehicle that came with a brand new, relatively untested manufacturing process. This became an especially important factor when considering that a PTWA treated block is not re-buildable due to various reasons. In the event of a major failure, I would have no choice but to source another block, most likely from Ford (FRPP) and of course, this would come at a hefty premium. My 2010 advantages/drawbacks list below…
2010 (07’-09’) Model Year Powertrain Advantages:
- Iron block is bulletproof, traditional, and has withstood the test of time
- Iron block retains greater wall thickness between cylinders, a critical area for strength
- Iron block is 100% rebuild friendly. Plenty of extra material for re-machining operations
- Iron block replacement cost is close to free when compared to an aluminum PTWA block
- Iron block can be pulled, torn down and reassembled in ones own garage with ease
- Iron block can be taken to any local reputable machine shop and easily repaired/modified
- Iron block can take more punishment from overheating and resist warpage issues
- For big power (800whp+), Aluminum block will need to be sleeved anyways. Defeats purpose of PTWA and is quite expensive.
- Hydraulic power steering is nice for driving feel. Can also be a drawback.
- Cool factor, likely the last Mustang to come with a traditional cast iron block
- Peace of mind during duration of ownership and all spirited driving. Priceless.
2010 (07’-09’) Model Year Powertrain Drawbacks:
- Iron block is approx. 100lbs heavier than the aluminum block.
- Iron block GT500s have inferior handling characteristics compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have an inferior weight distribution compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior weight transfer compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior center-of-gravity compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior acceleration compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior braking distance compared to AL block GT500s
- Hydraulic power steering is more complicated and parasitic. Can also be an advantage.
- Lack of wideband sensors. This adds a bit of complexity when it comes to aftermarket tuning options. Can be remedied easily with an aftermarket wideband install kit. Not a big deal.
In summary, while PTWA technology sounds excellent on paper, I couldn’t rationalize owning a GT500 without the peace of mind of a bulletproof powertrain. If I bought an ’11-’14 and ever experienced a critical engine failure, I would be kicking myself in the ass for not trusting my instincts. On the other hand, even if my iron block was to explode one day (God forbid), I can live with that. I did everything I could to the best of my knowledge to prevent it. I played it as safe as I could when investing in my Shelby GT500.
To further emphasize my point, had the 2010 model year come with the aluminum PTWA block, I would have sacrificed my ‘10-‘14 exterior/interior styling preferences and started searching for an ‘07-‘09 model year.
Now it’s very possible that all of my concerns are exaggerated. As time goes on and PTWA treated engines have time to age, take abuse and rack up the miles, they could prove to be just as good, if not better than conventional sleeved engines. It would be great to see PTWA developed and implemented into more applications. Powerstroke anyone? Who knows, with all of the advantages PTWA offers, maybe we’ll see the process replace conventional press-in sleeves all together.
For me and for now, the 2010 GT500 is the car I could enjoy, feel confident in, and have total peace of mind even when driving her like a Shelby was meant to be. In my opinion, the 2010 offered the best balance between exterior styling, interior styling and powertrain setup.
Final Decision: 2010 Model Year
Thanks for reading. I hope this little write up serves as a good reference for other 2010 owners, and any other prospective buyers looking to get into a Shelby. See you guys on the road.
Thanks all,
Vuskool
Other reference notes:
Another pool I looked into was the 3rd Generation Coyote engine found in 2018+ Mustang GTs and F150s. I think these will likely be the first Ford PTWA engines that will see extensive service, high mileage, and be used a variety of ways; high revving acceleration, low range towing, etc. They will also be the first Ford PTWA engines that have a population large enough to actually pull failure data from. Unfortunately, the 3rd Gen Coyote doesn’t have the best track record, plagued by a number of issues with the most severe resulting in early on, low mileage failures. What I found really interesting was the number of 3rd Gen Coyote owners that theorized a correlation between the “BBQ tick”/premature failures and the newly implemented PTWA process. From all of my research, I found a number of GT owners talking about tolerance stack-ups within the rotational assemblies and PTWA lined cylinders. Although there was no real hard evidence connecting these failures and PTWA, it was enough to give me additional cause for concern. Hopefully someone else can shed more light on this.
I was also aware that other major manufactures such as Nissan and BMW/Toyota had utilized the PTWA process (licensed by Ford) on their flagship, high performance sports cars (R35 GTR and MK.5 Supra respectively). Granted the PTWA application process (block preheating, cleanliness, surface preparation) varies between manufacturers, at least we know that other major manufactures are using PTWA in some capacity.
However, I think its important to remember that the R35 GTR and MK.5 Supra have relatively low production numbers and subsequently, a low active population count out in the field. A lower population means that there are fewer potential cases of failure.
In addition to the already low R35 GTR/MK.5 Supra population, both car bases have a large portion of owners that treat them as collector cars. This means that they are kept in the garage and under a car cover in an effort to keep condition up, miles low and to maximize resale value for one day in the future. These cars are more of an investment then they are for driving pleasure, and therefore, they aren’t driven nearly enough to develop issues associated with usage. Relatively speaking, a car can’t fail if it’s not being driven.
Given these considerations, you have to wonder about the validity of any failure data gathered from the R35 GTR/MK.5 Supra populations. In my mind, the numbers are just too low to draw any conclusions about the reliability and longevity of PTWA in other high performance designs. This is especially true once you factor in potential variances in the PTWA application process.
I know that there are many threads out there that cover the differences between the ‘07-‘14 GT500’s and all of the updates, changes, and improvements that Ford made to them over the years.
This post is intended to specifically talk about the 2010 Model Year GT500, and why I sought it out over all other production years of the S197 GT500. The idea here is to discuss my thought process when searching for the right GT500. Hopefully this serves as a good reference for other 2010 owners, and any other prospective buyers looking to get into a Shelby.
Now before I go any further, I want to clarify that I am not trying to step on anyone’s toes here. You can’t go wrong with owning a GT500, regardless of the year. All GT500’s are excellent vehicles that have the look, performance, prestige, excellent re-sale/appreciation value, and have stellar performance-to-dollar ratios. If you own an ‘07-‘09 or ‘11-‘14, awesome and good for you. Hope to see you on the road.
So before making the switch from my 2011 GT Coyote and pulling the trigger on a GT500, I spent months reading various reviews, articles and buyers guides that covered the ‘07-‘14 cars. I couldn’t help but notice that the 2010 was often neglected, and even referred to as the “bastard child” of GT500s. This made me curious.
With the 2010, I’d be getting the new body style paired with the old powertrain. I thought that was odd. It almost seemed like Ford should have waited to release the new body and aluminum block together in 2011. Well, I’m glad that that they didn’t. The “bastard child” 2010 ended up being my favorite, and in my opinion, the best year of the S197 GT500.
To make my decision, I looked at three major aspects of the car; exterior styling, interior styling, and most importantly, powertrain. I’ll elaborate below, and knock out the easy ones first.
1) Exterior Styling
Now obviously, this is going to be a subjective topic and is going to depend largely on ones own opinion. I won’t bring aerodynamics into this, largely because the differences (drag, down force, heat extraction, etc.) between the ‘07-‘14 years are negligible.
‘07-‘09: Timeless, retro-styling that calls back on the original Shelby cars. Makes you feel like you own a piece of that ‘60’s Shelby legacy. These will likely be the cars that you see in a classic car calendar one day in the future.
‘10-‘14: Updated, modern-day styling that brings the Mustang platform into the new age. These are the cars that cemented the revival of the Shelby name and what performance means for Ford. This is especially true for the 2013/2014 model years.
This was a hard choice to make, but at the end, I simply preferred the updated bodylines, aggressive stance, and exterior styling components (lights, aero bits, wheels, etc) of the ‘10-‘14 model years. Right off the bat, this had narrowed my search down to the ‘10-‘14.
Decision: 2010-2014 Model Years
2) Interior Styling
Again, this is going to be a slightly subjective topic, but I think it’s pretty obvious that the ‘10-‘14 (especially the ’13/’14) cars are superior to the ‘07-‘09 when it comes to the interior. In fact, after many critics, reviews and customers described the ‘07-‘09 cars as having too much interior plastic, Ford put a lot of effort into improving this for the following years.
I think a lot of ‘07-‘09 owners would tend to agree; the ‘10-‘14 model years simply had better build materials, ergonomics, styling flow and overall construction. I mean, the Recaro buckets and glass roof offered in the late models were some pretty sweet options.
This one was easy for me. I preferred the refinements of the updated interior. Plus, I’m a sucker for alcantara, and the way Ford incorporated it into the ‘10+ interiors was just perfect. With that, my search had been narrowed down to the ‘10-‘14 model years even more so than before.
Decision: Again, 2010-2014 Model Years
3) Powertrain Setup (single most important factor in my decision)
The powertrain was single handedly, the biggest factor for me while choosing the right GT500. Now that I was only looking at the ‘10-‘14 model years, I found that the 2010 offered me something that the ‘11-‘14 couldn’t: complete peace of mind. I will elaborate below.
The ‘11-’14 GT500’s were the first production car to utilize Ford’s all new Plasma Transfer Wire Arc (PTWA) cylinder lining process. You can read all about this Ford-invented process online, but in a nutshell, it replaces conventional cylinder liners (sleeves) with an extremely thin and hard spray-in coating. There are three major advantages that the PTWA process provides over conventional cylinder liners (sleeves).
-Reduced operational friction. This reduces drivetrain loss, allowing more power to make it to the ground.
-Reduced block weight. Improves overall vehicle weight distribution, handling, braking, and acceleration.
-Saves precious cylinder space. Allows the block to achieve maximum displacement. Higher power potential.
This new PTWA technology sounded great and there were some clear advantages to utilizing it in a high performance powerplant such as the engine found in the GT500. I know that the Ford engineering team spent hours developing and testing their PTWA technology. I also know that Ford put multiple PTWA engines through the ringer, for a combined total of two-million+ simulated miles. The Ford engineers did their due diligence before releasing PTWA to the production floor. Now, I am not implying that utilizing PTWA on the ‘11+ GT500 was a mistake by any means, but I had some concerns. I’ll elaborate below.
A little bit of background. As a mechanical design engineer who has worked on many product lines (aerospace to heavy equipment) I can tell you first hand that the initial release of a product is where we learn the most. This is where we discover what’s going to work in the real world and what isn’t. Obviously we’re going to do our best, but there are things that slip past even our most advanced calculations, computer models, simulations and tests.
You must understand that engineers operate under immense pressures, many of which are not understood by the common public and product consumers. A few of these pressure sources…
- Meet or exceed product specifications set forth by the marketing team, who often times have little technical knowledge of what they are demanding. Think “we want a model that is safer, faster, more reliable, better on fuel, and cheaper to build than the year before, and we want it now.”
- Meet or exceed product deadlines set forth by the sales team, who often times have already promised customers the moon and more. This sets the engineering team up for failure, and unjustly highlights them as the “bad guys” in the eyes of the customer. When my car breaks down, I’m going to blame it on poor engineering, not the commission hungry salesman who rushed an incomplete product out the factory.
- Support service and parts departments by maintaining component and manufacturing commonality across platforms. The creation of every new part eats away at the overall project budget. It also makes field service a nightmare down the road. Remember when the Ford Ranger and Explorer shared the same chassis and sub-systems? It was almost too easy to find the right service parts when you needed them.
- Support the prototype and R&D departments who are actually going to build, assemble and test the product for the first time. This phase is often the last thing a potential product sees before it hits mass production. It also acts as a budget/time safety margin for the overall project. If the design team needs more time, those hours can be stolen from the R&D testing department. As you can probably guess, this often leaves the R&D dept. with inadequate time to perform critical tests and gather the valuable data they need to relay back to the engineering department. Engineering is then shortchanged, out of time and rushed to make final revisions to the product before it is released to production.
Having experienced these workplace dilemmas first hand, I can tell you that no matter how good a design looked in a CAD model, how great it sounded on paper or performed in a simulation/test, there is always the potential for unforeseen problems and failures to arise once the product is in the hands of the customer. On the other hand, this leaves room for improvement for the next iteration of the product. Think of the early Triton 4.6’s and 5.4’s and their spark plug debacle. Granted these were largely a vendor issue, it still took Ford four tries and multiple TSBs to resolve the issue. But, I bet they won’t make that mistake again.
Given my background, I had reasonable doubt in shelling out $40,000-$60,000 hard earned dollars for a vehicle that came with a brand new, relatively untested manufacturing process. This became an especially important factor when considering that a PTWA treated block is not re-buildable due to various reasons. In the event of a major failure, I would have no choice but to source another block, most likely from Ford (FRPP) and of course, this would come at a hefty premium. My 2010 advantages/drawbacks list below…
2010 (07’-09’) Model Year Powertrain Advantages:
- Iron block is bulletproof, traditional, and has withstood the test of time
- Iron block retains greater wall thickness between cylinders, a critical area for strength
- Iron block is 100% rebuild friendly. Plenty of extra material for re-machining operations
- Iron block replacement cost is close to free when compared to an aluminum PTWA block
- Iron block can be pulled, torn down and reassembled in ones own garage with ease
- Iron block can be taken to any local reputable machine shop and easily repaired/modified
- Iron block can take more punishment from overheating and resist warpage issues
- For big power (800whp+), Aluminum block will need to be sleeved anyways. Defeats purpose of PTWA and is quite expensive.
- Hydraulic power steering is nice for driving feel. Can also be a drawback.
- Cool factor, likely the last Mustang to come with a traditional cast iron block
- Peace of mind during duration of ownership and all spirited driving. Priceless.
2010 (07’-09’) Model Year Powertrain Drawbacks:
- Iron block is approx. 100lbs heavier than the aluminum block.
- Iron block GT500s have inferior handling characteristics compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have an inferior weight distribution compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior weight transfer compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior center-of-gravity compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior acceleration compared to AL block GT500s
- Iron block GT500s have negligibly inferior braking distance compared to AL block GT500s
- Hydraulic power steering is more complicated and parasitic. Can also be an advantage.
- Lack of wideband sensors. This adds a bit of complexity when it comes to aftermarket tuning options. Can be remedied easily with an aftermarket wideband install kit. Not a big deal.
In summary, while PTWA technology sounds excellent on paper, I couldn’t rationalize owning a GT500 without the peace of mind of a bulletproof powertrain. If I bought an ’11-’14 and ever experienced a critical engine failure, I would be kicking myself in the ass for not trusting my instincts. On the other hand, even if my iron block was to explode one day (God forbid), I can live with that. I did everything I could to the best of my knowledge to prevent it. I played it as safe as I could when investing in my Shelby GT500.
To further emphasize my point, had the 2010 model year come with the aluminum PTWA block, I would have sacrificed my ‘10-‘14 exterior/interior styling preferences and started searching for an ‘07-‘09 model year.
Now it’s very possible that all of my concerns are exaggerated. As time goes on and PTWA treated engines have time to age, take abuse and rack up the miles, they could prove to be just as good, if not better than conventional sleeved engines. It would be great to see PTWA developed and implemented into more applications. Powerstroke anyone? Who knows, with all of the advantages PTWA offers, maybe we’ll see the process replace conventional press-in sleeves all together.
For me and for now, the 2010 GT500 is the car I could enjoy, feel confident in, and have total peace of mind even when driving her like a Shelby was meant to be. In my opinion, the 2010 offered the best balance between exterior styling, interior styling and powertrain setup.
Final Decision: 2010 Model Year
Thanks for reading. I hope this little write up serves as a good reference for other 2010 owners, and any other prospective buyers looking to get into a Shelby. See you guys on the road.
Thanks all,
Vuskool
Other reference notes:
Another pool I looked into was the 3rd Generation Coyote engine found in 2018+ Mustang GTs and F150s. I think these will likely be the first Ford PTWA engines that will see extensive service, high mileage, and be used a variety of ways; high revving acceleration, low range towing, etc. They will also be the first Ford PTWA engines that have a population large enough to actually pull failure data from. Unfortunately, the 3rd Gen Coyote doesn’t have the best track record, plagued by a number of issues with the most severe resulting in early on, low mileage failures. What I found really interesting was the number of 3rd Gen Coyote owners that theorized a correlation between the “BBQ tick”/premature failures and the newly implemented PTWA process. From all of my research, I found a number of GT owners talking about tolerance stack-ups within the rotational assemblies and PTWA lined cylinders. Although there was no real hard evidence connecting these failures and PTWA, it was enough to give me additional cause for concern. Hopefully someone else can shed more light on this.
I was also aware that other major manufactures such as Nissan and BMW/Toyota had utilized the PTWA process (licensed by Ford) on their flagship, high performance sports cars (R35 GTR and MK.5 Supra respectively). Granted the PTWA application process (block preheating, cleanliness, surface preparation) varies between manufacturers, at least we know that other major manufactures are using PTWA in some capacity.
However, I think its important to remember that the R35 GTR and MK.5 Supra have relatively low production numbers and subsequently, a low active population count out in the field. A lower population means that there are fewer potential cases of failure.
In addition to the already low R35 GTR/MK.5 Supra population, both car bases have a large portion of owners that treat them as collector cars. This means that they are kept in the garage and under a car cover in an effort to keep condition up, miles low and to maximize resale value for one day in the future. These cars are more of an investment then they are for driving pleasure, and therefore, they aren’t driven nearly enough to develop issues associated with usage. Relatively speaking, a car can’t fail if it’s not being driven.
Given these considerations, you have to wonder about the validity of any failure data gathered from the R35 GTR/MK.5 Supra populations. In my mind, the numbers are just too low to draw any conclusions about the reliability and longevity of PTWA in other high performance designs. This is especially true once you factor in potential variances in the PTWA application process.
