Limp Mode on the Track

[lemers]

Whatever the fix and who ever pays for it, I want ford to stand behind it and cover it under the original warranty.

I don't want to add coolers at my cost only to find out that ford will void the warranty.


2016 GT350 Magnetic w/Black Stripes / Black Roof /Tech Package Build January, ETA March (US Port), Germany Apr, under MSRP

Sponsored

 

[Caballus]

So far, I haven't seen a credible analysis of the problem - just a bunch of guessing. At this point, no one really knows if it's a problem. Maybe it's a sensor or wiring problems on the early cars. Maybe it's drivers who use the transmission to brake. Maybe it's the bean counters and market research people at Ford who guessed wrong on how buyers would view (and ultimately use) the Tech Package, which accounts for more than 60% of the build so far.

I suggest everyone remain civil and maintain some level of common sense until we know what the real problem is. The only thing talk of a lawsuit will do is cause Ford Legal to shut down the public's connection to Ford Perfomance. And yes, to use the worst pun I can think of, I do have a horse in this race: My 2016 Tech Package is on the line at Flat Rock now.

Good points. It seems you think some sort of yet to be determined flaw is causing the problem. Am I right?

 

[stanglife]

Whatever the fix and who ever pays for it, I want ford to stand behind it and cover it under the original warranty.

I don't want to add coolers at my cost only to find out that ford will void the warranty.


2016 GT350 Magnetic w/Black Stripes / Black Roof /Tech Package Build January, ETA March (US Port), Germany Apr, under MSRP

That's a good position.

 

[TRACK CRAZY GT350]

I like your points, though many of them don't seem well founded.


You say, for instance, that "Everyone claims deception." But then you say, "Common sense dictates that if they needed coolers for track models to run all day, tech models likely would NOT run all day." (knowing from above you meant something less than all day--but more than 10-20 minutes now stated by FP)

Regarding common sense, if everyone (or even a lot of people) feel deceived, then the "common sense" says they were deceived. That's the definition of common sense, that which is expected by the majority of the people, at least the majority who are affected by this situation.

The divide seems to be between many of those who bought either the Base model or Tech Pkg (the majority) and many of those who bought the Track Pkg or the R (there is also a very vocal group who bought nothing). Perhaps the track and R buyers are blessed to have something greater than common sense--or are simply hard core track enthusiasts who never considered a base or tech anyway. Don't know. What is for sure though is that they are the minority--the least common among us. Also clear is that the track and R buyers have nothing at stake. Zero.

Speaking only for myself, the only person I am qualified to speak for, I do not expect anything extra for free. Nor, however, do I expect to pay extra for what Ford led me (and it seems many others) to believe. I should not be expected to dig down to page 25 of an owners manual to find out a car won't do what it was marketed to do. Add to that the date that the owners manual was published and my position is reinforced.

I don't expect the car to compete on the track with a Track Pkg or R. The ability to complete a full day on the track should be my burden, hopefully with Ford's R&D support since they recommended an aftermarket add-on. I simply expect Ford to provide a vehicle that can handle more than 10-20 minutes on the track and sustained high speeds, just as ANY base competitor vehicle can do. In fact, base versions of cars well below this class can out perform the base and tech GT350 on the track--time wise. So, Ford fell short, and needs to fix it--that's where integrity comes in. There are lies of commission and lies of omission. This car's shortcomings were omitted from any and all marketing. The car, as a whole, was advertised as very track capable, to include a suspension upgrade being added to the tech pack.

Does that make the whole car a bad deal? No. It simply makes it something less than what it was marketed to be.

Finally, while I understand your interpretation of the situation, I don't understand the basis of it. As an R buyer, what is your stake in this? Are you affiliated with Ford or do you simply believe that I (and others in the same position) was stupid for believing what Ford advertised (outside of a later printed owners manual) and should now pay the price for my stupidity and inability to apply "common sense"? If the latter, I obviously disagree, but am interested in understanding your dog in this fight. Thanks.

Caballus your the man. Thanks for that post.

 

[Caballus]

Caballus your the man. Thanks for that post.

Just venting while preparing for the worse and hoping for the best, like many others here. Confident it will all work out in the end, but will be SUPER upset if I have to pay tuition for a lesson that teaches me that a corporation that symbolizes America did not stand behind it's product--page 25 of the owner's manual notwithstanding. Appreciate the compliment, by the way.

 

[Spa2k]

Good points. It seems you think some sort of yet to be determined flaw is causing the problem. Am I right?

I'm just saying no one can know what the problem is, because the sample size is way too small. In addition, we don't have a single, credible analysis of the problem.

I cringe when I see guys cancelling orders or changing to '17s because of what's been posted here regarding a handful of cars going into limp mode. Maybe it will happen with Track cars too, but not enough have been on enough tracks to find out. Who knows? Some of those guys probably would change their minds again if I said I just got off the phone with FP and was told that Triple Yellow cars were the fastest versions because they had special pearl downforce particles in the base coat.

So far, we just don't have enough documented reports of transmission problems - like happened with the paint problems and the transportation issues - to condemn Ford for producing "limp" Tech Packages. I can show you dozens of photos of GT 350s with really bad paint, but so far no one has come up with verified evidence of transmission cooling problems. I'm not saying it won't happen, but so far the reports of problems barely reach beyond rumor status.

 

[Caballus]

I'm just saying no one can know what the problem is, because the sample size is way too small. In addition, we don't have a single, credible analysis of the problem.

I cringe when I see guys cancelling orders or changing to '17s because of what's been posted here regarding a handful of cars going into limp mode. Maybe it will happen with Track cars too, but not enough have been on enough tracks to find out. Who knows? Some of those guys probably would change their minds again if I said I just got off the phone with FP and was told that Triple Yellow cars were the fastest versions because they had special pearl downforce particles in the base coat.

So far, we just don't have enough documented reports of transmission problems - like happened with the paint problems and the transportation issues - to condemn Ford for producing "limp" Tech Packages. I can show you dozens of photos of GT 350s with really bad paint, but so far no one has come up with verified evidence of transmission cooling problems. I'm not saying it won't happen, but so far the reports of problems barely reach beyond rumor status.

Makes sense. But do you think the base and tech should be able to handle more than 10-20 minutes on the track before going into limp mode?

 

[Texas Gator]

Whatever the fix and who ever pays for it, I want ford to stand behind it and cover it under the original warranty.

I don't want to add coolers at my cost only to find out that ford will void the warranty.


2016 GT350 Magnetic w/Black Stripes / Black Roof /Tech Package Build January, ETA March (US Port), Germany Apr, under MSRP

This is where I am at as well. I would have added the coolers as options when I ordered the car back in June... but of course I couldn't (and I couldnt do the track pack as the Recaros are likely way too tight for me)

Originally, the ordering guide stated that none of the 3 coolers would be on the base/tech cars. I suspect that by the time Ford got enough thermal data to find that temps were higher than they expected, they already had too many base/tech transmissions in WIP. Adding the oil cooler to all cars was relatively straight forward, but I bet there were major cost/material issues with either scrap or rework of all the transmissions to change to the one in the track/R cars. So there may have been a business decision to ride it out for 2016 and use up all the base/tech transmissions, and then switch them all over to enable use of the cooler starting in 2017.

So hopefully FP can work out a reasonable solution that tech/base owners can choose to have installed and we can get this behind us. :cheers:

 

[Spa2k]

Makes sense. But do you think the base and tech should be able to handle more than 10-20 minutes on the track before going into limp mode?

That would be my hope, but not necessarily my expectation.

You have to remember that my perspective is a little differerent. I ordered my car last May 3, and the biggest thing I didn't like about the Tech Package was the lack of coolers. Even after driving a Track Package at the Track Tour, I still struggled with the Tech vs. Track issue right up until I dropped off my deposit check at the dealer. But I knew then (and still know) that my track use will be minimal - 1 or 2 events a year. That was long before Ford released the document about the Tech Package needing coolers - and long before most of the guys here ordered their cars.

 

[jaubrey]

I don't expect the car to compete on the track with a Track Pkg or R. The ability to complete a full day on the track should be my burden, hopefully with Ford's R&D support since they recommended an aftermarket add-on. I simply expect Ford to provide a vehicle that can handle more than 10-20 minutes on the track and sustained high speeds, just as ANY base competitor vehicle can do. In fact, base versions of cars well below this class can out perform the base and tech GT350 on the track--time wise. So, Ford fell short, and needs to fix it--that's where integrity comes in. There are lies of commission and lies of omission. This car's shortcomings were omitted from any and all marketing. The car, as a whole, was advertised as very track capable, to include a suspension upgrade being added to the tech pack.

Does that make the whole car a bad deal? No. It simply makes it something less than what it was marketed to be.

BRAVO!

 

[Caballus]

That would be my hope, but not necessarily my expectation.

You have to remember that my perspective is a little differerent. I ordered my car last May 3, and the biggest thing I didn't like about the Tech Package was the lack of coolers. Even after driving a Track Package at the Track Tour, I still struggled with the Tech vs. Track issue right up until I dropped off my deposit check at the dealer. But I knew then (and still know) that my track use will be minimal - 1 or 2 events a year. That was long before Ford released the document about the Tech Package needing coolers - and long before most of the guys here ordered their cars.

Ok, makes total sense.

Minus the test driving, I'm in a similar boat. Not only was money on it, there was no way to get it back without taking a huge hit. Won't track a ton, but did plan a few track sessions per year. Also, my decision wasn't between track or tech, it was between tech or M3. Based on the marketing, I expected the tech to be able to handle at least as much as the base version of that vehicle can. Guess I didn't read the tea leaves well enough.

I also agree with you on the lack of data, but the talking point FP is now using is 10-20 minutes. So, it doesn't seem like they plan to commit to more without a mod. Either way, the future will tell.

 

[Katastrophe]

So is FP actually working on a solution for this...or to a lesser extent, even investigating this?

Obviously, the number of cars affected (so far) is small, but it should bring up some curiosity from FP, no?

 

[montreal ponies]

So is FP actually working on a solution for this...or to a lesser extent, even investigating this?

Obviously, the number of cars affected (so far) is small, but it should bring up some curiosity from FP, no?

I'm pretty sure they already know about the issue as that's probably why they're
offerering the coolers as standard equipment on the '17.

Why else would they offer coolers on tech cars, just to bump the base price. :shrug:
Just doesn't add up to me.

We're actually waiting on member SVTDSM to check back with us what he found out with talking to Mike from FP.

 

[montreal ponies]

That's where differ--even if you bring great beer (I live in Germany, so it better be super great!).

I honestly think it's Ford's responsibility to make the 'basic' fix. The fix that will get to Matt's point.

You mentioned reading between the lines. I believe you have to read between the lines to conclude that the tech would not be able to live up to Matt's description of basic track capability. A few people have confirmed that by thanking this thread for preventing them from buying a base or tech for that very reason. I've read and re-read to find someplace that they tried to even vaguely make that point. I see the opposite.

And I honestly don't believe when you buy a sports car of this calibre that you should have to dig through the owners manual to find that it can't do what (I believe) was advertised, even if the manual had been published before orders were taken.

Don't sell me a rifle that's supposed to shoot to a thousand meters, then when it fails say, "oh, you didn't see that the manual said you need the heavy barrel version?" I know that's different than your position, but it's how I see it.

Well said, you wanna be our official voice within this Forum and start maybe a petition or poll ? :shrug:

 

[Spa2k]

FP is aware of the issue and has passed along phone notes, comments, etc. to the higher-ups at Ford.

Sponsored