PP2 is up on configurator.

[Hack]

Well that's totally uninformed BS. Options always add to resale value. In 50yrs at auction do you think people will be bidding more on a base 2018 GT or a GT Premium with PP2? You can bet it's the PP2.

If 2 GT's get totalled do you think the PP2 owner or the Base model owner will get more payout? The PP2 owner will.

Base GT's are a dime a dozen. The PP2 will be looked for by anyone interested in buying a used manual GT and draw a premium over a Base. Not as high as a GT350, and MAYBE not as high as a Bullitt, but it will still pull a premium.

From what I've seen around here the options don't help resale prices very much. Maybe you get a little bump, but typically the extra from options declines even faster than the resale value of the basic car.

In 50 years we will be fortunate if the government still lets us drive our own cars - or even purchase gasoline. I wouldn't worry about the value of a 201X Mustang 50 years from now.

Sponsored

 

[Norm Peterson]

The PP2 is attractive but has some not insignificant downsides.

1 - The "splitter on a splitter" doesn't look good. More specifically, it doesn't look professional/OEM. It looks like a poor fitting aftermarket job.

Aerodynamic function has been clashing with most peoples' aesthetic preferences since the 1930's. Just saying . . .

2 - The wheel gap. Most people feel the wheel gap on regular PP1 looks excessive. The PP2 wheel gap is more. Makes the tires/wheels look small. Yes, this could be corrected with any number of lowering springs, but why not either lower ride height, or go with 20" wheels from the facory.

You do realize that most any car "settles" by about a quarter inch for every person that's riding in it, and that a PP2 is by definition expected to be using more of its suspension travel than any Mustang of lesser track focus (in spite of spring and sta-bar differences). 305's are going to be right out there at or very close to 'flush' and might not 'tuck' far enough under all conditions if there isn't enough vertical clearance for the camber gain effect to do its job of pulling the tire tops inward.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

The front tires' sidewalls are taller than the rear.

With 305/30 square??? :shrug:

Though I suppose it's at least possible for a very sharp eye to pick up an optical illusion where the front tires being mounted on slightly narrower wheels would end up with a really tiny bit more sidewall bulge (0.1" per side). There's probably other optical illusions going on with wheel well opening sizes and shapes.


Norm

 

[Infidex]

Aerodynamic function has been clashing with most peoples' aesthetic preferences since the 1930's. Just saying . . .



You do realize that most any car "settles" by about a quarter inch for every person that's riding in it, and that a PP2 is by definition expected to be using more of its suspension travel than any Mustang of lesser track focus (in spite of spring and sta-bar differences). 305's are going to be right out there at or very close to 'flush' and might not 'tuck' far enough under all conditions if there isn't enough vertical clearance for the camber gain effect to do its job of pulling the tire tops inward.


Norm

Mine poke a good amount out on my PP2, I've never measured, but I'd be worried about dropping too low and having rub, I could see there being tuck issues. For me personally, with the splitter, I'm like 1/8 inch from scraping in my driveway and I can just clear speed bumps at various places in town, so I am good with ride height and tire gap. It's actually a pretty even gap all around, but looks bigger depending on where car is sitting, but when it's flat, the gap is ok for me, again my opinion and taste. I'd be more tempted to go 305/35 tires to take up some space and not lose ride height for my driving conditions here.

 

[Infidex]

It gets pretty hot here where I live. I have cooled seats in my F-150. I never use them. When I turned them on for the first time, it felt like I had pissed my pants. I'll see how they are in the Mustang when it arrives, but I doubt I'll use the feature.

They feel about the same. The thing I like about cooled seats is when you use remote start on a hot day, it cools your leather. On cold days, the heaters will come on and heat the seat (even in texas i get more use out of heated seats, it can even help keep the pizza a little warmer on the way home).

Downside for this discussion, you won't have remote start on your PP2 so only time you'll use heated or cooled seats is when you manually turn them on.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Mine poke a good amount out on my PP2, I've never measured, but I'd be worried about dropping too low and having rub, I could see there being tuck issues.

As long as the tread is under the sheetmetal, there doesn't seem to be any downsides to having a little 'poke'. Wide tires and a little poke, the track guys will get it without any explanation required. For the Cars & Coffee set, you might not be able to provide enough explanation.

For me personally, with the splitter, I'm like 1/8 inch from scraping in my driveway and I can just clear speed bumps at various places in town, so I am good with ride height and tire gap. It's actually a pretty even gap all around, but looks bigger depending on where car is sitting, but when it's flat, the gap is ok for me, again my opinion and taste. I'd be more tempted to go 305/35 tires to take up some space and not lose ride height for my driving conditions here.

You could also consider 295/35's, which would be slightly narrower (about 5mm). Even 285/35's will gain you a fraction of an inch of ground clearance and another 5mm width-wise - and work on 11" wide rims if you don't mind having a mildly stretched look (the above matter of explanations and track vs C&C people plays out here, too).


On edit, I still can't get the 'Build & Price' to work.


Norm

 

[TomcatDriver]

Aerodynamic function has been clashing with most peoples' aesthetic preferences since the 1930's. Just saying . . .

The splitter is fine, it's the "splitter on a splitter" that's unattractive. I'm sure there is some other car that does it out there, but in general if a manufacture wants to put a bigger splitter on, they take off the old smaller one, not stack them on top of each other. The splitter on a splitter looks exactly like what it is, a second splitter bolted on to the bottom of the first one.

You do realize that most any car "settles" by about a quarter inch for every person that's riding in it, and that a PP2 is by definition expected to be using more of its suspension travel than any Mustang of lesser track focus (in spite of spring and sta-bar differences). 305's are going to be right out there at or very close to 'flush' and might not 'tuck' far enough under all conditions if there isn't enough vertical clearance for the camber gain effect to do its job of pulling the tire tops inward.
Norm

I don't know how BMWs, Camaros manage to do it, but none of those have awkward looking fender gaps in their performance cars. Nor does the GT350. Unless you are loading up with 4 construction workers (which seems unlikely on the track) there is no way it is going to make a significant difference.

Yes, I realize these are largely aesthetic complaints, but if we can argue forever about color choices I think it's fair to say that aesthetics count. The PP2 sounds great on paper but it looks thrown together.

Edit: Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that the PP2 is not necessarily a "no brainer" if you are planning on using it mostly off the track, which is what I was originally replying to.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I don't know how BMWs, Camaros manage to do it

I don't get how BMW in particular does it. But I do have to wonder how tightly BMWs are tied to using OE wheel widths and tire sizes. You plus an instructor - or a daily-drive/weekend passenger - is still around half an inch. I'm not trying to be argumentative either. Not beyond questioning why people put so much emphasis on the car's appearance when it's just sitting there with nobody in it when it doesn't look quite like that when they're driving it, anyway.

Edit: Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that the PP2 is not necessarily a "no brainer" if you are planning on using it mostly off the track, which is what I was originally replying to.

Fair enough, and I guess that's what the PP1 is supposed to be for even though it seems to be a lot closer to base than PP2 in its intent. It's harder to see things that way when you'd opt for the PP2 even if you knew you weren't ever going to actually be tracking it.


Norm

 

[UAmach1]

The splitter is fine, it's the "splitter on a splitter" that's unattractive.

So you're more worried about a performance based package looking pretty than you are about its function?

If you don't like it then take it off when you're not at the track.

 

[TomcatDriver]

So you're more worried about a performance based package looking pretty than you are about its function?

If you don't like it then take it off when you're not at the track.

I don't think it's too much to ask for both.

 

[Rocketman]

I don't think it's too much to ask for both.

When it comes to effective aerodynamics, then yes it is. Just look at the mess that is the ZL1 1LE.

 

[TomcatDriver]

When it comes to effective aerodynamics, then yes it is. Just look at the mess that is the ZL1 1LE.

Come on now, there are lots of great looking cars with great aerodynamics. How about the Ford GT, or any number of Ferraris. In fact, what we consider good looking is largely driven by aerodynamics. Sure there are ugly aerodynamic cars (Prius, and IMO Bugatti).

The ZL1 is actually a good example of redesigning the front (like it or not) rather than just sticking something on top. I'm not much of a Camaro fan, but if I was I wouldn't have a problem with it.

My problem with the PP2 splitter is not the splitter itself, but the tacked on nature of it. There is no aerodynamic principal that this serves over changing the front end to just have a differnent splitter.

Do you honestly prefer the "splitter on a splitter" over having a single larger splitter? I am honestly suprised this is a debate.

 

[Hivel]

Do you honestly prefer the "splitter on a splitter" over having a single larger splitter? I am honestly suprised this is a debate.

I do prefer the bolt on splitter. But, not because it looks good. I actually drive my car and stuff happens. So, I expect a bolt on splitter will be cheaper to replace.

I appreciate the fact that the PP2 splitter and spoiler are an engineered combination. That means they have been designed and proven to work together. I don’t see any other engineered aero packages offered for the S550.

Cheers,

 

[Norm Peterson]

I don't think it's too much to ask for both.

On the one hand, it does seem that they could have come up with a more conventional-appearing solution (that doesn't unbalance the aero into either an aero-loose condition by being too effective for the rear spoiler or an aero-tight condition by being not effective enough). But on the other, if the PP2 is really as track-focused as we're being led to believe, I don't think it should be made any prettier (in a conventional sense) than its function needs it to be just for the sake of appearance.


Norm

 

[UAmach1]

On the one hand, it does seem that they could have come up with a more conventional-appearing solution (that doesn't unbalance the aero into either an aero-loose condition by being too effective for the rear spoiler or an aero-tight condition by being not effective enough). But on the other, if the PP2 is really as track-focused as we're being led to believe, I don't think it should be made any prettier (in a conventional sense) than its function needs it to be just for the sake of appearance.


Norm

A "more pretty" option would also probably cost more, raising the price.

Sponsored