Repair-It

After the Focus RS review I really wanted to see his take on the GT350R.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dui1wN9GeDE

He focused a lot on "build quality" and "the interior." First, I am tired of people using the term "build quality" to describe panel gaps because that shit has nothing to do with anything except aesthetics. Ok, if it was really bad it could affect aero. But I guess the point is, it has nothing to do with how the car drives or how long it will last. The people/robots responsible for body panels have nothing at all to do with other parts of the car, component suppliers, the engine, and so on. These British people who seem to really have started this "build quality" meme are thinking of totally hand built cars where all that stuff may actually be related. Apples and oranges. OK.

The real problem with the GT350R is that I still say those wheels are integral to the brilliance of the overall package, and they frankly are something you should be afraid to drive on the street. I am not going to harp on the tires because they aren't the first to use the Pilot Cup Sport 2s.

The other real problem is the dealer markup. The car is kind of theoretical. "Well, if you could somehow get one for MSRP, that would be sweet."

My issue with this particular review is all of his superlatives were devoid of obvious comparisons to the Camaro lineup. He may have not driven a ZL1 yet, but the others have been long available and I think how the Mustang GT350R (or GT350 for that matter) compares to cars like the Camaro SS 1LE is more interesting than how it compares to the Mustang GT or whatever.

I guess my only other issue with the car itself is that the GT350R is basically unavailable, which may drive people to the GT350. He didn't touch on this but I don't think the GT350 possesses the magic feel of the GT350R and again I think those wheels are a huge contributor to that. How does the GT350 compare to the competition, particularly at its price point? That's what I want to know.

Ok, if it was really bad it could affect aero. But I guess the point is, it has nothing to do with how the car drives or how long it will last. The people/robots responsible for body panels have nothing at all to do with other parts of the car, component suppliers, the engine, and so on. These British people who seem to really have started this "build quality" meme are thinking of totally hand built cars where all that stuff may actually be related. Apples and oranges. OK.

I disagree. Everything is computer based/CAD now, and the details really do show how much time was spent on sweating the details and being able to mass produce things to small tolerances. Sure the guy bolting the front quarter may not be as skilled as the (whoever else that you think has more skill) guy, but if the design wasn't done to a certain level of detail and accuracy, it won't batter. Pretty much everything is money. How precise, build materials, tolerances etc. if a company goes above and beyond on the small stuff, there is a perception that they did this with everything. I'm not saying the Mustang is good or bad, but in general if the less important things are above expectations, people believe the entire thing is.

The other real problem is the dealer markup. The car is kind of theoretical. "Well, if you could somehow get one for MSRP, that would be sweet."

I do agree that MSRP is meaningless if the actual transaction is really much more. Magazines and reviewers should review cars on their actual purchase price.

How does the GT350 compare to the competition, particularly at its price point? That's what I want to know.

If we started our show 3 years ago, me might have enough credibility to do this test/review... I have a camera now.

billgiacheri wrote:I disagree. Everything is computer based/CAD now, and the details really do show how much time was spent on sweating the details and being able to mass produce things to small tolerances. Sure the guy bolting the front quarter may not be as skilled as the (whoever else that you think has more skill) guy, but if the design wasn't done to a certain level of detail and accuracy, it won't batter. Pretty much everything is money. How precise, build materials, tolerances etc. if a company goes above and beyond on the small stuff, there is a perception that they did this with everything. I'm not saying the Mustang is good or bad, but in general if the less important things are above expectations, people believe the entire thing is.

I think specifically for body panel alignment, there is always slop and it requires final alignment on each car. Maybe they just don't take the extra step to make sure everything is aligned. It is possible that the sheet metal is cut with less precision and therefore the gaps are bigger. That's the way American cars used to be. But again, my entire point is that perception is not reality. If the panels aren't perfectly aligned or have gaps, then it means that the panels aren't perfectly aligned or have gaps. It doesn't mean they will fall off at 100k, or that the engine will stop working or anything else.

My biggest issue is the use of the term "quality" in a way that implies the car will somehow not last as long or have more reliability problems. That is where the use of the word for things like panel gaps is very misleading. That is the inference I get when I hear that word being used and I think most other people do, as well. The discussion should be straight forward: what you see is what you get. Not: "oh man, look at these gaps, good luck after the warranty expires.". The tremendous irony is, many cars that have supposed build quality are actually not reliable after the warranty expires (or DURING the warranty even), which is the other point I should have mentioned earlier. Interior material quality and assembly precision on something like a VW is high. Reliability is low. Aston Martin. Jaguar. Range Rover. Same deal. There are examples of the inverse. There are examples where both are bad (Russian cars? or probably some 70s and 80s American small cars). There are also examples of getting both right (90s Japanese cars come to mind). Turns out, it is just not related.

billgiacheri wrote:I do agree that MSRP is meaningless if the actual transaction is really much more. Magazines and reviewers should review cars on their actual purchase price.

I heard someone (maybe it was even Matt Farah) say something like, do I review this at the actual current price now or do I review at MSRP because there may be a bubble when the car is first available? Do you give something a bad score for costing $100k when in a year it will be available to everyone for $65k? I guess you just make it clear if any of your opinions/ratings are based on the actual transaction prices and what those prices are.

billgiacheri wrote:

How does the GT350 compare to the competition, particularly at its price point? That's what I want to know.

If we started our show 3 years ago, me might have enough credibility to do this test/review... I have a camera now.

I think the best we can hope for is Motor Trend w/ Pobst (on and off track) as well as C/D VIR LL. Not just for lap times but driving impressions (feel at the limit, etc.). I want to see the ZL1, SS 1LE, V6 1LE and even the regular SS if possible on the track at the same time as the GT350R, the GT350 and even the GT PP. For that matter I want to see the new Alfa sedan on the track w/ ATS-V and CTS-V. Some good competition brewing.