MY 19 GT350 vs any GT350R?

[526 HRSE]

Technically, you don’t use money to purchase these cars... unless you have a huge stash of it.

Are we talking about your currency, or mine?.. maybe for your currency the difference isn’t justified. On the other hand, for mine, and many other R owners, our currency has been well spent.

Of course you have to justify it, otherwise you wouldn't have bought it. They are nice cars, but for ME and many other base owners, we cannot justify it.

The same can be said, i cannot justify buying this car to have it sit in the garage and only put 1000 miles on each year. I drive my car all the time. Almost every day, so an R is not for me.

But to stay on topic, OP was asking for opinions on whether or not an R is worth it. He specifically stated he was making a "budget friendly" decision.

Sponsored

 

[DrumReaper]

Of course you have to justify it, otherwise you wouldn't have bought it. They are nice cars, but for ME and many other base owners, we cannot justify it.

The same can be said, i cannot justify buying this car to have it sit in the garage and only put 1000 miles on each year. I drive my car all the time. Almost every day, so an R is not for me.

But to stay on topic, OP was asking for opinions on whether or not an R is worth it. He specifically stated he was making a "budget friendly" decision.

Gotcha... again, a budget is relative what you are willing to dish out for what you really desire.

I could deal with a non-R GT350, but I’ve had one R and I’m going for another.

 

[foolwithtools]

Here’s a picture of a spoiler vs an automotive wing as it relates to airflow. The top picture is a spoiler, where you can see the airflow being spoiled behind the car, creating drag. The bottom picture depicts a wing. You can notice the airflow seems much smoother which in turns means less drag. Air is deflected up which creates downward lift. Most automotive wings operates much more like a fighter jet wing than that of other airplanes whereas the majority of lift is created from deflecting air, not the presence of camber.

I got a good chuckle out of “I have a degree in aeronautics, it is my specialty.” As if a degree obtained for flying airplanes makes you an expert in aerodynamics (which I’m sure someone in this forum probably is.)

If you really want to be technical you can say that there is better pressure recovery in the bottom picture, therefore less drag.

Also I'd like to point out that fighter jet wings do indeed have a decent amount of camber in them. Just look at the F-102/106/15! A craaaaap ton of camber on those wings on the outboard sections. I have no clue what you mean by deflecting air rather than the presence of camber... All wings work by deflecting air... One way of explaining how wings work is that it changes the direction of the air and causes downwash (as in the wing deflects the air downwards), and therefore by Newton's third law there is an equal force applied to the wing in the opposite direction, which is lift...

 

[Tomster]

While I hear what you’re saying, lift is a Bernoulli effect, usually applied to the aerofoils of aircraft.

I’m not going to dive deeply into Mr. Bernoulli’s principle, I will simply state that “lift” is usually associated with a positive effect in flying. Without it, flight doesn’t occur.

Downforce, results from the application of a reversed wing in racing applications. Racing wings flow air under the foil faster, thus creating “downforce”, or for some people who like to utilize the Bernoulli effect in automotive applications, “negative lift”.

Here is a good racing explanation of downforce. http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/downforce.html

For simplistic reasons, using the word “lift” in racing is not generally accepted when referring to negative lift, as no one worth their salt in racing cares to hear the term “lift”, especially when approaching a turn. Pilots, love the term lift, and I don’t think in any of my years as a Flight Surgeon, or during my pilot training, have I ever heard a trainer or pilot inform me that, “We have too much downforce.”

You still don't get it.

Lift is lift no matter which way you point it.

Go ahead, try to spin it some more.

The GT350R has a wing, not a spoiler.

 

[pilotgore]

If you really want to be technical you can say that there is better pressure recovery in the bottom picture, therefore less drag.

Also I'd like to point out that fighter jet wings do indeed have a decent amount of camber in them. Just look at the F-102/106/15! A craaaaap ton of camber on those wings on the outboard sections. I have no clue what you mean by deflecting air rather than the presence of camber... All wings work by deflecting air... One way of explaining how wings work is that it changes the direction of the air and causes downwash (as in the wing deflects the air downwards), and therefore by Newton's third law there is an equal force applied to the wing in the opposite direction, which is lift...

I apologize my explanation sucked, I was flying a plane at the time and wasn’t remotely precise in my explanation. Well, actually autopilot was flying....anyhow.

“Pressure recovery” I learned something new today. Thanks!

The majority of supersonic capable fighter jets lift is produced using Newton’s 3’rd law (“deflecting air” such as sticking your arm out of a moving car window,) vs lift created by Bernoulli’s (which would be a bad thing at high speed and inverted flight.). Since these types of wings are often very thin and either double wedge or biconvex in shape, I said they didn’t have much camber (or often no camber). NASA defines camber as the distance between the mean cord line and the mean camber line. Mean cord line is the line from the front to the back of the wing, mean camber line is essentially middle of the airfoil itself. So, a wing can be thick in places and still have no camber (like a diamond.) Most airplane wings use a combination of Newton’s and Bernoulli’s to create lift. The higher the designed speed of the wings, the lower the camber.

I guess my point was, I wonder what part of the GT350R spoilers downforce is created via deflecting air (Newton’s 3’rd) vs camber (Bernoulli’s.) Just because it has thickness does not mean it has enough camber to product lift utilizing Bernoulli’s.

But, I think almost everyone can agree.... the thingy in the back of the 350R is a wing

*Disclaimer* I have no idea what I’m talking about and I may be 100% wrong. If I am wrong about any aspect of this (And I probably am), please submit a request for an apology and I will provided a personalized apology via usps mail at my convenience.


Sources:https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/geom.html

http://www.ltas-cm3.ulg.ac.be/AERO0023-1/ConceptionAeroFighter.pdf

 

[Frank.Herbst]

Sorry if this has already been said. I read many but not all posts.
It's been documented the 19 closes the gap with the R. Many changes to the 19 improve handling. I haven't read if the 20 R has improved handling, but with the cost up I would hope it's a little quicker.

 

[foolwithtools]

I apologize my explanation sucked, I was flying a plane at the time and wasn’t remotely precise in my explanation. Well, actually autopilot was flying....anyhow.

“Pressure recovery” I learned something new today. Thanks!

The majority of supersonic capable fighter jets lift is produced using Newton’s 3’rd law (“deflecting air” such as sticking your arm out of a moving car window,) vs lift created by Bernoulli’s (which would be a bad thing at high speed and inverted flight.). Since these types of wings are often very thin and either double wedge or biconvex in shape, I said they didn’t have much camber (or often no camber). NASA defines camber as the distance between the mean cord line and the mean camber line. Mean cord line is the line from the front to the back of the wing, mean camber line is essentially middle of the airfoil itself. So, a wing can be thick in places and still have no camber (like a diamond.) Most airplane wings use a combination of Newton’s and Bernoulli’s to create lift. The higher the designed speed of the wings, the lower the camber.

I guess my point was, I wonder what part of the GT350R spoilers downforce is created via deflecting air (Newton’s 3’rd) vs camber (Bernoulli’s.) Just because it has thickness does not mean it has enough camber to product lift utilizing Bernoulli’s.

But, I think almost everyone can agree.... the thingy in the back of the 350R is a wing

*Disclaimer* I have no idea what I’m talking about and I may be 100% wrong. If I am wrong about any aspect of this (And I probably am), please submit a request for an apology and I will provided a personalized apology via usps mail at my convenience.


Sources:https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/geom.html

http://www.ltas-cm3.ulg.ac.be/AERO0023-1/ConceptionAeroFighter.pdf

Fighter planes can have highly cambered wings, like this one. There are other examples out there as well. This is mainly because part of their mission is to maneuver extremely hard, which requires a lot of lift. Also, highly cambered wings stall at higher angles of attack, which is also beneficial for fighter planes. Fighters that fly at supersonic/near supersonic speeds do tend to have very thin airfoils.

The whole Bernoulli thing and Newton's third law are related. I was saying Newton's third law happens with a wing because of the effect where air flows faster/there is lower pressure over the top than the bottom (by the way, DO NOT EVER SAY IT'S BECAUSE THE TOP SURFACE IS LONGER THAN THE BOTTOM AND THAT CAUSES THE AIR PARTICLES ON TOP TO HAVE A LONGER DISTANCE TO TRAVEL TO MEET THE ONES ON THE BOTTOM. This is known as the equal transit time theory and will make every aerodynamicist pull out their hair! The air particles do not meet at the trailing edge. There is nothing that causes them to meet at the trailing edge). The faster airflow/area of lower pressure over the top of the surface is what causes air to be deflected downwards. It's also not quite kosher to define lift in terms of Bernoulli's equation, just fyi! All wings, regardless of camber or lack thereof work by changing the direction of the air flow.

Anyhow I digress. Yes, I agree that the GT350R has a wing.

My source: An undergraduate class and graduate-level class in aerodynamics and a few years volunteering at an air museum. The math really sucks and I'd rather not break out my textbook and look for those equations again. The math sucks so much in fact the pros use computer programs to do it instead of doing it by hand

 

[pilotgore]

Fighter planes can have highly cambered wings, like this one. There are other examples out there as well. This is mainly because part of their mission is to maneuver extremely hard, which requires a lot of lift. Also, highly cambered wings stall at higher angles of attack, which is also beneficial for fighter planes. Fighters that fly at supersonic/near supersonic speeds do tend to have very thin airfoils.

The whole Bernoulli thing and Newton's third law are related. I was saying Newton's third law happens with a wing because of the effect where air flows faster/there is lower pressure over the top than the bottom (by the way, DO NOT EVER SAY IT'S BECAUSE THE TOP SURFACE IS LONGER THAN THE BOTTOM AND THAT CAUSES THE AIR PARTICLES ON TOP TO HAVE A LONGER DISTANCE TO TRAVEL TO MEET THE ONES ON THE BOTTOM. This is known as the equal transit time theory and will make every aerodynamicist pull out their hair! The air particles do not meet at the trailing edge. There is nothing that causes them to meet at the trailing edge). The faster airflow/area of lower pressure over the top of the surface is what causes air to be deflected downwards. It's also not quite kosher to define lift in terms of Bernoulli's equation, just fyi! All wings, regardless of camber or lack thereof work by changing the direction of the air flow.

Anyhow I digress. Yes, I agree that the GT350R has a wing.

My source: An undergraduate class and graduate-level class in aerodynamics and a few years volunteering at an air museum. The math really sucks and I'd rather not break out my textbook and look for those equations again. The math sucks so much in fact the pros use computer programs to do it instead of doing it by hand

For the record....I don’t see a picture of an airplane. I see a picture of a missile with a couple of gas tanks and some small pieces of curved plywood sticking out the side. Can you please circle the camber for me?

 

[Seven]

Folks - I appreciate the on-topic responses. Lot's of insight here that I didn't have previously and will weight into my decision.

I don't appreciate dick-measuring about proper terms in relation to aero. Kindly take that crap elsewhere... it's not useful to me (or likely anyone else frankly) - If personal attacks about things that truly don't matter in regards to the thread topic are typical here or for 350/R owners, maybe the decision is to buy neither lol.

 

[Tomster]

Folks - I appreciate the on-topic responses. Lot's of insight here that I didn't have previously and will weight into my decision.

I don't appreciate dick-measuring about proper terms in relation to aero. Kindly take that crap elsewhere... it's not useful to me (or likely anyone else frankly) - If personal attacks about things that truly don't matter in regards to the thread topic are typical here or for 350/R owners, maybe the decision is to buy neither lol.

I believe your questions have been addressed. Unfortunately, threads digress, but all the information is there. What decision will you make?

 

[Rusherific]

I guess my point was, I wonder what part of the GT350R spoilers downforce is created via deflecting air (Newton’s 3’rd) vs camber (Bernoulli’s.) Just because it has thickness does not mean it has enough camber to product lift utilizing Bernoulli’s.

Having just finished washing my car a couple hours ago I can say with certainty the R wing is indeed highly cambered (which does not require some amount of thickness; a cord line can exist outside its airfoil). But that doesn't mean anything regarding Newton or Bernoulli. They are just two laws of physics involved in lift, not competing theories for, or different "types" of lift, which I think foolwithtools was trying to explain.

Just because an airfoil is symmetrical like in a supersonic aircraft doesn't mean it turns airflow any differently than a cambered one, it just requires some angle of attack to do the same thing, at least at subsonic speeds, which I assume is the operating envelope we're talking about here in terms of downforce on a car . Netwon's 3rd considers both top and bottom flows (where bernoulli comes in) in calculating reactionary lift, not just the air hitting the pressure side of the wing if that's how you're imagining it, which....is just a stalled wing. And we all know stalled wings don't work so good.

 

[Trackaholic]

I don't appreciate dick-measuring about proper terms

I believe the term you are looking for is "wiener war."

On topic though, I have a GT350 non-R and love it. Mine is a 2016 with 41,000 miles and it is an awesome car. While there are some things about the R I wish I had, there are also many things about the non-R that I prefer.

1. When I purchased, finding any GT350 without massive ADM was a challenge. I was happy to get the non-R at a good price.
2. Before the GT350, I had a 350Z with two sets of wheels, track pads, adjustable shocks, etc. I love the regular GT350 because the PSS tires are great for the street and plenty good at the track (if you manage then appropriately), the wheels are heavy (not ideal) but strong for street use, and the brakes are excellent for street and track as well. I can drive 200 miles to the track in a very comfortable, fun car, and then push it to my limits on the track, then drive home without any major setup/teardown requirements or worries. Now that I have kids, the multi-purpose nature of the non-R is a great benefit.
3. Back seats (there was a rear seat kit for the R, not sure if it is still available)
4. I scrape the front often enough as-is, can't imagine how bad it would be on the R.
5. I use my cars, prefer having one I don't need to worry about as much (the CF wheels are awesome, but also $$$ if one needed to be replaced).
6. Much prefer having one set of wheels with street tires over multiple sets, expecially when I'd want to use the CF wheels all the time since they are so awesome.

There are definitely times where I wish I had an R, but there are also far more times where I am glad I don't.

I really don't think you can go wrong either way. Just be honest with yourself about what you want. If you need the top Mustang, the GT350R is the way to go (even better IMO than a GT500 since I am a huge fan of the stick shift). If you are more value oriented, then a strong argument can be made for the non-R, although an R will likely hold its value better over time, so the long term costs may be more similar that initial prices would indicate.

Good luck with the decision.

-T

 

[Seven]

I believe your questions have been addressed. Unfortunately, threads digress, but all the information is there. What decision will you make?

A fair question... And tbh I don't have an answer just yet. The main reason being, trying to find an R to drive and assess is rough. They're hard to come by and even harder to get to drive.

The list currently is this...

• 18+ SS 1LE (w/ 2SS trim, which is only 18+ so 2017s are out)
• 19+ GT350
• 16+ GT350R

I've owned a '17 SS 1LE, and did a cam and some mods and it made 575whp on E85 and with a race alignment the steering feel/handling/chassis was otherworldly - it's truly hard to state how good the Alpha chassis is. I sold my C7Z because it wasn't as good as the Camaro I owned before it.
Since then, the only chassis that was close to as good that I've driven was a '16 Cayman GT4.
I can't spend GT4 money as a good one (no accidents/damage, clean title, the right options) is around $90k.
I have a feeling that the GT350/R will be somewhere between 1LE and GT4 (and it's largely priced at that point as well)... However I have only been able to DRIVE a '19 GT350, and that drive was a little highway and some surface streets. The steering felt nice but I couldn't show it any corners to really feel it.

So I'm in this position where I'm thinking a 2SS 1LE is gonna be low 40s, and it'll cost me about $5k in parts/my own labor to get it to where my last 1LE was in performance terms.

A 19+ GT350 is going to be high 50s/low 60s depending on new leftover vs mildly used - but it has a LOT of the goods and I think it will be likely as good/better chassis/steering/suspension than a 1LE, but a little less power (after 1LE mods)

a GT350R is in the high 50s for a 16-18 and 19s are mid-high 60s... but obviously are pretty much ready to drive on-track immediately.

I'm not ultimately sure... I really wish I could at least drive a 16+ R or 19+ non-R in an area with some corners to really get a feel if the extra money will be well spent.

 

[Tomster]

A fair question... And tbh I don't have an answer just yet. The main reason being, trying to find an R to drive and assess is rough. They're hard to come by and even harder to get to drive.

The list currently is this...

• 18+ SS 1LE (w/ 2SS trim, which is only 18+ so 2017s are out)
• 19+ GT350
• 16+ GT350R

I've owned a '17 SS 1LE, and did a cam and some mods and it made 575whp on E85 and with a race alignment the steering feel/handling/chassis was otherworldly - it's truly hard to state how good the Alpha chassis is. I sold my C7Z because it wasn't as good as the Camaro I owned before it.
Since then, the only chassis that was close to as good that I've driven was a '16 Cayman GT4.
I can't spend GT4 money as a good one (no accidents/damage, clean title, the right options) is around $90k.
I have a feeling that the GT350/R will be somewhere between 1LE and GT4 (and it's largely priced at that point as well)... However I have only been able to DRIVE a '19 GT350, and that drive was a little highway and some surface streets. The steering felt nice but I couldn't show it any corners to really feel it.

So I'm in this position where I'm thinking a 2SS 1LE is gonna be low 40s, and it'll cost me about $5k in parts/my own labor to get it to where my last 1LE was in performance terms.

A 19+ GT350 is going to be high 50s/low 60s depending on new leftover vs mildly used - but it has a LOT of the goods and I think it will be likely as good/better chassis/steering/suspension than a 1LE, but a little less power (after 1LE mods)

a GT350R is in the high 50s for a 16-18 and 19s are mid-high 60s... but obviously are pretty much ready to drive on-track immediately.

I'm not ultimately sure... I really wish I could at least drive a 16+ R or 19+ non-R in an area with some corners to really get a feel if the extra money will be well spent.

I've done it for other members, you can drive one of mine if needed. The problem is im down in FL.

I can save you a bunch of trouble.... I started out in a standard 350 and wound up in 3 Rs. I had to let one of them go for my current CFTP.

I know that doesn't help you much, but the value in the VIN itself would be enough for me.

Oh, and if at all possible an HEP would be icing on the cake.

 

[Rusherific]

The list currently is this...

• 18+ SS 1LE (w/ 2SS trim, which is only 18+ so 2017s are out)
• 19+ GT350
• 16+ GT350R

I feel like I have to agree that if the choice is between a newer 350 or an older R I think a 19+ GT350 is just better spent money, it's got a lot of upgrades compared to early 350's. For ~60k I'm not sure personally I could justify a used Voodoo 1 engined R that has a rarity premium baked in regardless of year. That, as you said is also not even counting trying to find just the right R, which is part of the reason I went new myself, I didn't want to deal with searching all across the land for the perfect used R that I'd either not be able to evaluate or have to travel to test drive. If you're buying the car with the intention of driving the pants off it whether its frequent street driving or heavy track use I think a regular 350 is just less to worry about or deal with. If you're cross shopping with a Camaro then I assume the "magic" of the R's CF wheels are not really a dealbreaker anyway, so it's not fair to hold that against the regular GT350 for not having them, if that makes sense.

Sponsored