GT350 vs Mach 1 vs Dark Horse (Same Price Now?) – Real Drive Comparison

[LetsFnGo_GT350]

You can still get a Ford ESP for the GT350, you just need to call vs buying online. The rumor of them not covering GT350’s is a combination of not being able to add it online as well as the MY cut off date due to age. That’s not GT350 specific just age specific.

I got my 2018 covered until 2031 or 40K miles premium ESP.

Not a daily driver, but I’ve test drove a DH, Mach, and GT350.. because it’s a play car I went with a GT350 as it was the most raw experience and it’s just a blast to drive compared to the others.

Currently getting the OEM stripes replaced, paint correction, Modesta 10 year Ceramic, and PPF.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

Just for funsies…

It doesn't surprise me that the GT350R outperforms the Mach 1 in all the acceleration tests.

Frankly though, I'm shocked that the Mach 1 out stops the GT350R. I'm not sure how to explain it. Possibly better antilock brake programming? You could say that they were tested on different days, but if pavement grip was the key variable, that would impact acceleration just as much as it does braking.

 

[Mikepol2]

Frankly though, I'm shocked that the Mach 1 out stops the GT350R. I'm not sure how to explain it.

That never made sense to me either. The Mach brakes seem to be the same ones that are on a PP1.

 

[Hack]

That never made sense to me either. The Mach brakes seem to be the same ones that are on a PP1.

The benefits from the fancy 2 piece rotors and the caliper mounting on the GT350/R are more in feel, immediacy and track durability.

For a single stop like C&D is doing in testing, it's more of a tire grip test, because there won't be any brake fade. But the tires look to be the same. And the GT350R is slightly lighter as well. So to me what's left is ABS programming and possibly Magneride programming. I suppose it could be a test issue, but I tend to trust C&D on their test methods.

 

[Clover]

For a single stop like C&D is doing in testing, it's more of a tire grip test, because there won't be any brake fade. But the tires look to be the same. And the GT350R is slightly lighter as well. So to me what's left is ABS programming and possibly Magneride programming. I suppose it could be a test issue, but I tend to trust C&D on their test methods.

Exactly, a single stop is 100% related to traction, not your braking system. Every single car sold for decades has a brake system that can lockup the tires on the first stop. No mod can help brake any more than that. Braking systems modifications only help with standing up to heat over repeated stops. Your ultimate stopping distance for a single stop limit is your traction. The shorter stopping distance of the Mach 1 are from the tires and the Magneride calibration giving better traction to the Mach 1 than the GT350 had while braking in their test. The track temperature and life of the tires would have played a role but those factors are very hard to make consistant.

This traction advantage also showed up in the lop times for Car and Driver's Lightning Lap tests they do at VIR. The DH ran a 2:51.2 the Mach 1 was two tenths behind at 2.51.4 and the GT350R is another four tenths back from that at 2.51.8. Each run a different year. I would consider that a drivers race if you had all three cars together at the same time. No car has enough advantage to overcome the impact of the draft and the best driver will win the race on a road course. These cars are fairly evenly matched, so it is no real surprise their values are also similar. I'd guess the GT350s are the most desirable, but also the most risk which balances that out a bit. Go with whichever one you prefer and stop getting worried if someone else has a different preference. Most people don't get offended when their friend picks a different ice cream flavor right?

 

[LetsFnGo_GT350]

100% this… a single stopping test isn’t going to really test the stopping effectiveness of a brake setup. If the brakes can lock up the wheels, then it comes down to ABS, Suspension, and Tire tuning.

If they ran a continued test on a track or did several 1/4mile hot laps where brake fade would come into play, I’d be curious what the end results would be.

 

[svttim]

Exactly, a single stop is 100% related to traction, not your braking system. Every single car sold for decades has a brake system that can lockup the tires on the first stop. No mod can help brake any more than that. Braking systems modifications only help with standing up to heat over repeated stops. Your ultimate stopping distance for a single stop limit is your traction. The shorter stopping distance of the Mach 1 are from the tires and the Magneride calibration giving better traction to the Mach 1 than the GT350 had while braking in their test. The track temperature and life of the tires would have played a role but those factors are very hard to make consistant.

This traction advantage also showed up in the lop times for Car and Driver's Lightning Lap tests they do at VIR. The DH ran a 2:51.2 the Mach 1 was two tenths behind at 2.51.4 and the GT350R is another four tenths back from that at 2.51.8. Each run a different year. I would consider that a drivers race if you had all three cars together at the same time. No car has enough advantage to overcome the impact of the draft and the best driver will win the race on a road course. These cars are fairly evenly matched, so it is no real surprise their values are also similar. I'd guess the GT350s are the most desirable, but also the most risk which balances that out a bit. Go with whichever one you prefer and stop getting worried if someone else has a different preference. Most people don't get offended when their friend picks a different ice cream flavor right?

Tests not done on the same day under the same condition are somewhat useless. I ran a race car an Road America on several different days and times varied more than you would expect. I know a Ford driver and he claims the GT350 is faster on course than the Mach 1. But any day at a road course is a drivers race unless your talking pro drivers. All we have to do is bring out three cars, Ask Billy Johnson to run them at a small, medium and large track then we may have real answers. At this point its bench racing

 

[Mach 307]

Tests not done on the same day under the same condition are somewhat useless. I ran a race car an Road America on several different days and times varied more than you would expect. I know a Ford driver and he claims the GT350 is faster on course than the Mach 1. But any day at a road course is a drivers race unless your talking pro drivers. All we have to do is bring out three cars, Ask Billy Johnson to run them at a small, medium and large track then we may have real answers. At this point its bench racing

I mean, I could be wrong, but I don’t believe you’re at the same skill level as the C&D test drivers, which could account for the further variation in times at Road America for yourself. IMO it’s more so bench racing to go he said she said, to question the real world tests that have been done, no? Not sure what more to ask for other than same tires on the same track in clear weather. I mean, I just find it kind of funny how defensive 350 owners become over these tests that were done, that’s all it ever is. If I owned one, I’d take them for what they are and not start lowkey coping. All of a sudden nothing matters or can be accurate. In that case we can throw out all the ZR1x and GTD discussions as well guys, world peace at last! All jokes aside, they’re all 3 in the exact same class and run near identical times, chocolate, vanilla or strawberry, you choose.

 

[svttim]

I mean, I could be wrong, but I don’t believe you’re at the same skill level as the C&D test drivers, which could account for the further variation in times at Road America for yourself. IMO it’s more so bench racing to go he said she said, to question the real world tests that have been done, no? Not sure what more to ask for other than same tires on the same track in clear weather. I mean, I just find it kind of funny how defensive 350 owners become over these tests that were done, that’s all it ever is. If I owned one, I’d take them for what they are and not start lowkey coping. All of a sudden nothing matters or can be accurate. In that case we can throw out all the ZR1x and GTD discussions as well guys, world peace at last!

Driving skills are a directly connected to the track time a driver puts in. The more time, the better you become (all things equal) C&D drives whatever the manufacturer gives them. When they tested the GT500 as an example, the tires were worn out. Ford did not understand they were lapping the car. Automotive Journalists are not what they used to be.
Its not about being defensive at all. Different weather affects performance. Don't believe me, dyno your car on a 60 degree day and then try the 90 degree day. Try at 15% at humidity and 95% humidity.

 

[Mach 307]

Driving skills are a directly connected to the track time a driver puts in. The more time, the better you become (all things equal) C&D drives whatever the manufacturer gives them. When they tested the GT500 as an example, the tires were worn out. Ford did not understand they were lapping the car. Automotive Journalists are not what they used to be.
Its not about being defensive at all. Different weather affects performance. Don't believe me, dyno your car on a 60 degree day and then try the 90 degree day. Try at 15% at humidity and 95% humidity.

I get what you’re saying. My point is, if you argue the objective data to the point of saying it has no value or weight at all, then at that point you can say what’s the point of any comparison of any performance car because none of the tests matter. That’s where it becomes defensive in my opinion. You’re not going to see me saying my car smoked your car over .4 seconds. That’s just as extreme as saying the tests don’t matter at all, in the opposite direction. I edited my original post, and to be honest, the cars are all within the same time/bracket. There’s really no reason to be arguing over tenths of a second, they all ran a 2:51 at the end of the day.

 

[svttim]

I get what you’re saying. My point is, if you argue the objective data to the point of saying it has no value or weight at all, then at that point you can say what’s the point of any comparison of any performance car because none of the tests matter. That’s where it becomes defensive in my opinion. You’re not going to see me saying my car smoked your car over .4 seconds. That’s just as extreme as saying the tests don’t matter at all, in the opposite direction. I edited my original post, and to be honest, the cars are all within the same time/bracket. There’s really no reason to be arguing over tenths of a second, they all ran a 2:51 at the end of the day.

I just spoke to a friend of mine who has tested cars for a living. He said unless they are on the same tires, same driver and within 30 minutes of each other you cant compare the two cars. Now, the results are still valid for each car. Both are extremely capable and as you cited, all at 2:51. So, yes the tests matters, just not as a comparison.

 

[luc]

Who care ???
Bragging rights and ego maybe
What really matters is how much you enjoy the car
I don’t enjoy automatic in a sport car and therefore i buy a manual
Couldn’t care less if the auto is faster
Some track, like bw in socal can have a delta of 2 seconds between morning and afternoon

 

[skinnyb]

Was just there for PITS

That was a GOOD run

 

[Clover]

I just spoke to a friend of mine who has tested cars for a living. He said unless they are on the same tires, same driver and within 30 minutes of each other you cant compare the two cars. Now, the results are still valid for each car. Both are extremely capable and as you cited, all at 2:51. So, yes the tests matters, just not as a comparison.

Seems awfully odd to me. Your friend tests cars for a living but does not think the vast majority of testing is at all comparable? Okay, sure. Who pays him for these 30 min tests and why do they do them if can't compare to anything later to show improvement. The next test with the new part you develop later could not be compared according to him. I'd sure like this car tester to come on here and explain how the vast majority of car test are invalid but I'm guessing that would be like an accountant telling you not to check your balances except at the end of the month and arguing that accountants are generally useless. Why do companies post Ring times again?

Of course you would prefer to test the cars on the same tires at the same time. That does not make any other test invalid. It would be great to get all three with the same driver within 30 mins on the same tires. That would also be a single lap at speed in each car with the needed time to warm up the car and tires and get back to the pits after your hot lap. Actually, you're not even going to make it through 3 cars with a warmup, hot, lap, and cooldown/pit lap in 30 mins at VIRs Grand Prix circuit. Your friend might also tell you a single lap won't tell you ultimate performance and is going to have variation. Let's just hope you already learned the limits on another set of tires and nothing has changed since then so you know how hard you can push if you take this approach.

Track temps play a role, but these times were are all the best times they could get over multiple days there each year. They are not comparing the peak temp slippery track time against another ideal lap. They did not take the top DH time and the worst GT350 time of the weekend. It is the best they could do over a couple days against the best they could do another couple days. Will there be variations, of course there will be. However, I strongly doubt there is anywhere near enough gap between these cars if equally driven to overcome the draft. It seems defensive to not be able to accept that. Nobody even said your car was slowest, we simply said it is not clearly fastest and to pick your preference. In response you start claiming an unnamed Ford driver told you X or you called your also unnamed "friend who tests cars for a living" said Y but you are not defensive. Okay.

 

[svttim]

Seems awfully odd to me. Your friend tests cars for a living but does not think the vast majority of testing is at all comparable? Okay, sure. Who pays him for these 30 min tests and why do they do them if they could never show improvement. The next test with the new part you develop later could not be compared according to him. I'd sure like this car tester to come on here and explain how the vast majority of car test are invalid but I'm guessing that would be like an accountant telling you not to check your balances except at the end of the month and arguing that accountants are generally useless. Why do companies post Ring times again?

Of course you would prefer to test the cars on the same tires at the same time. That does not make any other test invalid. It would be great to get all three with the same driver within 30 mins on the same tires. That would also be a single lap at speed in each car with the needed time to warm up the car and tires and get back to the pits after your hot lap. Actually, you're not even going to make it through 3 cars with a warmup, hot, lap, and cooldown/pit lap in 30 mins at VIRs Grand Prix circuit. Your friend might also tell you a single lap won't tell you ultimate performance and is going to have variation. Let's just hope you already learned the limits on another set of tires and nothing has changed since then so you know how hard you can push if you take this approach.

Track temps play a role, but these times were are all the best times they could get over multiple days there each year. They are not comparing the peak temp slippery track time against another ideal lap. They did not take the top DH time and the worst GT350 time of the weekend. It is the best they could do over a couple days against the best they could do another couple days. Will there be variations, of course there will be. However, I strongly doubt there is anywhere near enough gap between these cars if equally driven to overcome the draft. It seems defensive to not be able to accept that. Nobody even said your car was slowest, we simply said it is not clearly fastest and you start claiming a unnamed Ford driver told you X or you called your also unnamed "friend who tests cars for a living" said Y, but your not being defensive. Okay.

Some people refuse to be helped (you). I can tell you who pays for those test, Ford does. And, I really don't care if you believe me or not. Feel free to believe what you believe. Not the first person to believe in Santa Clause. With the exception of the one driver who felt the 350 was faster, I never said my car was fastest. I said the results by the magazines are not a basis for comparison. Each time can be taken on its face value. They are all very close. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

Sponsored