Ford GT to be more powerful? - Page 2

skyline_r34v · 06-08-04, 07:19 PM

565rwhp?

Even with 25% driveline loss that's STILL over 700hp to the flywheel. Holy shit.
And it's still gonna put out even more rwhp when its broken in? Imagine the hp and torque that thing could put out bumpin it upto 20psi.
That'd be insane when a well broken in 13psi stock GT is pushin nearly 700 horse.

LateNightCable · 06-08-04, 08:15 PM

The thing is, the Viper was never intended to be an example of clean performance efficiency, it just happend to be a very successful racer. Though the handling is not " bad ", straightline is definitely the Viper's forte. Though the Viper and GT exist for similar reasons - to pump up the image of their respective manufacturers - their missions are quite different.

Viper = bad ass American muscle machine flagship - for the American public.

GT = bad ass American muscle machine flag ship - with International appeal.

Metfanant · 07-24-04, 06:07 PM

the GT is hardly a Viper slayer...its marginally better, but does it make the price jump practical? I think not. With dealer markup you will be VERY lucky to see a Ford GT sell for less than $250,000 USD,IF you can even get your hands on one. So that would put it at $120,000 MORE than a Viper SRT-10 and almost $200,000 more than a Corvette Z06!!

The performance is pretty close in reality. when MT tested the 2 cars the Viper eeked out the win in the 1/4, but the GT has since been tested to run an 11.6 in the 1/4. and the Viper has run an 11.77 so thats DAMN close braking actually still goes to the Viper (97ft vs 111ft). Slalom speed is won by the GT but only by 1mph!

I doubt the GT would be the Viper on a track by 5-6 seconds...I think in the proper hands it would be much closer than that. The Viper is more than capable of ripping through the corners....MT tends to feel as though their new figure 8 test is the real deal when assesing a car's handling abilities. So i decided to take a look at some of those numbers...

the SRT-10 ran the figure 8 in 23.9 seconds with an average lat. g of .86 to compare it to some other cars....

Ferrari 575M 25.2/.76g
Ferrari 360 CS 24.2/.77
Corvette Z06 24.8/.77g
Honda S2000 26.0/.71g
Murcielago 24.7/.83g
Lancer Evo VIII 24.9/.70g
911 GT3 23.9/.80

The GT was not tested.

Now these cars would be expected to surpass the Viper's level of performance in a test that is supposed to be really tough on a car that cant handle. But quite the contrary, the Viper seems to shine, only being matched by the 911 GT3 which is indeed a track car for the street. And the 911 was unable to sustain as high a lateral g rating as the Viper. Which leads me to believe that since the Viper was holding a wee bit more on the edge than the GT3, there may be a wee bit more speed left in the car's performance.

Now all these comparisons between the SRT-10 and these cars never seem to take into account that the SRT-10 is a true convertable. Therefore heavier, and less ridgid than a coupe. If the new Viper coupe is released(keep your fingers crossed for VOI 8 in september) with its rumored north of 600hp power levels then all this talk of the GT will die down, because the car will be lighter, more aerodynamic, and stiffer than the SRT-10 and have more power...but only time will tell....

Anthony

thepolarfoxqx · 08-06-04, 04:32 AM

GT wasn't meant to compete with viper. It does beat viper, if it has 700 motor horses, it really beats viper. In terms of numbers, i'm sure the viper is fairly close, the differnece i think is in feel. The viper never felt as good as it was, the newest one is clearly much better, but the GT is something else all together. Maybe ford will put their 610hp V10 Cobra into production - that would be a competitor to the viper, but the GT clearly had italian in mind, and seems to pay off. The 5.4L S/C V8 definately had potential past 500, i think it was a matter of fine tuning and calibration. They are claiming 550 now, but at a higher RPM than the 500 was at, i'm guessing there is still more power there. If they make a ford cobra, i'm sure it won't be more than 550 in production form, and i think they can squeeze more from the GT 5.4 to keep it ahead.

On an interesting note, i saw an original GT on the road the other day. I had to look twice to tell it from a new one, and was sure it was original when i got close enough to hear it and especially smell the exhaust - it was running on aviation fuel - 100LL.

qramos · 08-08-04, 05:48 AM

Look, you guys are using hearsay info for your power numbers. That amounts to nothing because the advertised HP numbers are CRANK HP, not RWHP. I think some Ford GT40 lover must have in his enthusiams just assumed it was RWHP. It is not unheardof to gain 15 HP when you break in an engine. SO that is probably just a Crank HP Figure if it was even accurate. Whats this annonymous engeneering firm, with no specefics at all anyhow?. Ford has been know to underrate thair power output, but never by any amount near this. The most underrrated engine I ever knew of was built by Carol Shelby and was underrated by approximately 90 Hp. Another reason to believe these figures are bogus. Again, remember why Ford built the Gt40; they had Italy in mind, and the maranelo and Gt3 in particular. If they had given the GT 700 horses, it would be way out of their class and wouldn't even compare. It was built to compare at their level.
Here is the biggest reason these number are surely bogus. WHy was the GT40 built in the first place? TO commemorate Ford's success with the GT!! The 5.4-liter engine easily produces 550 horsepower and 500 foot-pounds of torque. Those numbers are comparable to the race-prepared, blue-printed 427 (7.0-liter) big-blocks in the Ford GT race cars. Why would they go so close in body shape and interior, and then completely diverge from the GT in power figures??? Believe whatever you want to beleive.
BTW...A Ford GT on the ROAD??

...but that sure is strange, and a rare sight I'm sure.

thepolarfoxqx · 08-08-04, 06:39 AM

i'm saying I don't know about 700, that would be amazing, but when they rated it to 500, looking over their engine design specs, I just suspected it was really cranking more, i believed that setup should yeild 550-600, clearly the retuning they gave the motor shifted it up to 550, but my guess, just my guess is that that number is still on the conservative side.

qramos · 08-09-04, 05:47 AM

I agree. It probably is still underrated, and can do more if tuned for it.

thepolarfoxqx · 08-09-04, 05:55 AM

Well, I mean if koenigsegg can do 802 with the 5.4, i have to believe the 5.4 has some fire left. Interestingly though, the bore is identical between the 5.4 and 4.6, the 5.4 just has a longer stroke.