Traded in the Shelby for a 2018 GT

[Lorne34]

Risk? It's far more risky to dump $50k+ cash in a depreciating asset, lose 10-20% within the first 90 days and then tie the rate of depreciation of the rest to the amount you use it - all the while losing out on interest you could be making on the cash you just dropped on said asset for no reason.

We're car guys so - we're wasting the money either way.. Unless you're buying something like a Ferrari or GT3 RS and parking it.

But if you're thinking about paying cash for a car - consider this:

You're not saving a dime paying cash, you're losing money.. because the market will pay you more for your cash than the bank will charge you for their credit. So what's the point of swapping your cash for a less liquid depreciating asset?

https://www.kiplinger.com/tool/investing/T041-S001-top-performing-mutual-funds/index.php

I don't pay for my cars in cash, but what I always do is purchased used to avoid the up front depreciation hit (bought my 2016 used) and then put a good sizeable down payment on the vehicle so that it stays right side up and my payments are low. I put 10k down and my payments are approx $300/mo

Sponsored

 

[Lorne34]

Yes, indeed, didn't see the Koni's part. That's more like it.

A front sway bar is fine...to a point. People really need to stop getting all sway bar crazy and stop touching the rear sway bar. These aren't flop slop NA Miatas. Futzing with the rear sway bar is absolutely the easiest and quickest way for the S550 and S197 to lose its balance and ability to use all 4 tires and should be nearly one of the last things to be touched on the S550, at least for us normal drivers.

First order of business on ANY suspension modification plan should be a BMR cradle lockout kit or Steeda IRS subframe braces so the rear suspension can actually do its job and point the nose of the car (yes, the FRONT, not the rear) in the right direction.

Then tires.

Then caster camber plates a front sway bar at the SOFTEST setting until the driver learns how the car turns in. Then go mid or full stiff once autocross comes into the equation. Most road courses are actually good on soft to mid. You're nuts if you run the stiffest setting on a road course with a relatively street like suspension setup or if you're trying to push it.



Point also being, figure out what actually needs improvement based off of your own experiences too rather than what the forums say or what the sales pitch says. Vertical link upgrades do NOT stop wheel hop. Diff bushing inserts do NOT stop wheel hop. IRS cradle braces and lockouts stop wheel hop. Tires stop wheel hop. One step at a time and enjoy the process of improvement and tuning rather than throwing the kitchen sink at an issue that doesn't even exist.

I've already done the Steeda subframe alignment kit....
When you say: First order of business on ANY suspension modification plan should be a BMR cradle lockout kit or Steeda IRS subframe braces so the rear suspension can actually do its job and point the nose of the car (yes, the FRONT, not the rear) in the right direction.
are you talking about something different or is the subframe alignment kit the same thing as IRS subframe braces?

 

[Lorne34]

Where do people come up with this stuff. Equity? Really? I bought a GT350 in September for 60k. Two weeks later and 550 miles and it was worth 51k. That's not building equity.

I agree to a point....I think the one thing the shelby has going for it is once the initial depreciation hits, the rate of decline slows down... the other thing I have been thinking about is Insurance replacement. If I were to total my current ride I doubt very highly I will get any of my mod $ back.. I'll also be battling with the insurance company over the supposed blue book value of my vehicle as it currently stands. Maybe i'm wrong, but I think you would come out better with the 350 in that scenario as you would not have as much $ invested in mods that you could not recover as well as a higher blue book and overall staying value...

 

[Houston Kid]

Do you think the poor performance when driving in the rain could be contributed to the Michelin Super Sport tires?
Also, the oil consumption concerns me and has held me back from pulling the trigger on a gt350...whether they say that is normal in the manual or not-- unless you are hard tracking the car it should not be consuming that much. I have also read other forum threads on the gt350 side where users have had little to no oil consumption... so why is it all over the map? I think it is a problem with certain 350's that either had an issue in engine production, break-in or something else... the quality control should be better...

I think that and the width of the tire. The rears were 305 so plenty of surface area to cause the tire to hydroplane. The tire is definitely not designed for water. I never liked the tires anyway. Seemed way to slick as to sticky. Even when not trying, they liked to slide especially if cold.
On the consumption topic, I was at a loss. Some guys reported zero consumption to 1 quart or more per 1,000 miles. Like you said, all over the map. I agree with you, although 1 quart per 1,000 miles is within Ford’s specs, that seems high for a daily driver with no track time.
Some posts refer to the engine cylinders, rings, and overall engine design causing the oil consumption. If that were the case, why so much difference in consumption.

 

[Lorne34]

I think that and the width of the tire. The rears were 305 so plenty of surface area to cause the tire to hydroplane. The tire is definitely not designed for water. I never liked the tires anyway. Seemed way to slick as to sticky. Even when not trying, they liked to slide especially if cold.
On the consumption topic, I was at a loss. Some guys reported zero consumption to 1 quart or more per 1,000 miles. Like you said, all over the map. I agree with you, although 1 quart per 1,000 miles is within Ford’s specs, that seems high for a daily driver with no track time.
Some posts refer to the engine cylinders, rings, and overall engine design causing the oil consumption. If that were the case, why so much difference in consumption.

I agree! I saw a you tube video from a guy out in NY who daily drives his 350, even in the winter and he switched to the new mpss4s and his review said they were fantastic in the rain. He had the same trepidation with driving his 350 in the rain before getting the new tires..
[ame]

 

[MrCincinnati]

Also, the oil consumption concerns me and has held me back from pulling the trigger on a gt350...whether they say that is normal in the manual or not-- unless you are hard tracking the car it should not be consuming that much. I have also read other forum threads on the gt350 side where users have had little to no oil consumption... so why is it all over the map? I think it is a problem with certain 350's that either had an issue in engine production, break-in or something else... the quality control should be better...

It doesn’t appear to be a quality control issue. I’ve been able to correlate any oil consumption I experience to driving habits/style:

On the street If I engine brake excessively, stay in lower gear under partial throttle abnormally long etc or am on and off partial throttle abnormally I notice heavy (but within the boundaries of normal per the manual) consumption.

If I drive the thing like I have some sense I see much less to none - depending on how much sense I elect to have.

That doesn’t mean I can’t drive it like it’s meant to be driven. But if I ride the crackle allllll the time and find myself falling in love with rev match downshifts for no reason.. or I cruise around in 4th or 5th on the highway on and off throttle - light load high rpm etc.. I’m going to burn oil. If I wot here and there (or all the time lol) or drive like a sane person.. consumption is relatively little or none.

 

[GT Pony]

... light load high rpm etc.. I’m going to burn oil. If I wot here and there (or all the time lol) or drive like a sane person.. consumption is relatively little or none.

The early LS6 engines used in the C5 Z06 Corvette had a similar oil burning issue when driven at light load and high RPM. GM said it was due to low ring tension, and changed the ring design in the 2002 models to cure excessive oil burning.

Sponsored