New Ford GT 600 Horse Power Mid Engine....Oh and its a V6!

The great part of the internet, instead of rolling eyes and closing your ears you just skip over words and state your already formulated opinion.
Click to expand...

All I'm going to say is this. It's not like there was ONE guy...or maybe TWO guys in the entire nation that pulled a 13.9X out of their 11-14 V6 Mustang. Rather there are a lot of guys running 13's. Some as deep as a mid 13. If you want to contend that it's a fallacy, just because the car has to be optioned a certain way, I would remind you that many cars run an array of times depending on how they are optioned.

Also, many people do make exceptions for a car having drag radials or slicks - yet being a stock car. You can't be 100% stock. You can lose 100lb of weight by running a low gas tank and removing a spare tire and jack. Are you stock? Did you change the oil, did you change the air filter, if so, what brand....who wants to get into that semantic bullsh*t. If it's stock from the airbox to the exhaust tip, most people are going to be ok if you did some "reasonable" weight reductions and did some tricks to gain traction which can vary from air pressure adjustments to different tires.

Finally, your experience, no matter how extensive it may be, isn't the standard for this discussion. The fact that you are discounting anyone elses "experience" IMO is quite patronizing because I think you would be surprised to find out who some of these internet people are.
 
jdsgallops said:
I don't see where the HP war is going to affect insurance rates that much. Consider the HP war in the family sedan class. Even the 3.5 in the Taurus puts out more than 250hp in stock form. That is more than what the original 5.0 did in it's heyday. Ford tried the turbo 4 thing in the 80's with the SVO and turbo coupe. And tried reimagining the Mustang into the Probe. Though we have come far since then I don't see where the demographic has changed. We still want v8 muscle, sound and performance. Americans are known for loving low end torque. The Real problem as I see it is the price of the v8 cars. A new Mustang Gt is 30+k with any decent options on it. What working man family can justify that car at that price? The v8 cars are going to price themself out of affordability before the insurance premiums have that great of affect.
Click to expand...

GREAT points. I was going to bring up the price of a GT, but was wondering if anyone else would have. I priced out a 2015 GT, using Ford's online calculator, and it was $669 or so a month for a 72 month term. Granted, I already have two cars (SC and a '99 Mustang), but $669.....to put it in perspective, my rent for my apartment is $720 a month, and that's cheap for around these parts. I make a very good salary at work, have no kids......and buying a 2015 GT is not an option for me. I'd have to sell the other two cars, but even after doing that and paying for insurance, I'd be looking at about $800 a month for the 5.0.

All I can say is that Ford is going to have a tough time selling the cars to anyone that isn't old, well off, and/ or retired, at least in terms of anyone who doesn't want to constantly be hard up and have some spending money left over for other things. Every now and then, a Bunkie Knudsen (ie: responsible for the '71-'73 Mustangs) gets the formula wrong and kind of loses sight of what made the Mustang what it was--a lightweight, sporty, affordable car, not necessarily a muscle car. My '99 V6 weighs about 3100 lbs. Power to weight-wise, the newer Mustangs have a better power to weight ratio than that, but cars being 3500+ lbs and often closer to 4000 lbs is kind of a disturbing trend, especially since Ford had some really good weight saving ideas on the SN95's (plastic composite hood/ trunklid, the window surrounds that sweep over the windows and to the windshield on both sides of the car, etc) that they have since seemed to have dropped.

Anyways, the Ford GT having the twin turbo and an extremely great power to weight ratio bodes well in that dept. 600 hp, may still seem tame, but there's many things that don't show up on a dyno graph.
 
pro street rich said:
Well for those that are not sure about the ecoboost, they just WON the 24hours at Daytona with the 3.5Ecoboost... So is that good or what???..........Rich
Click to expand...

Nice! That should help things. It will still take a lot of effort to get people to deviate from the typical muscle car, gas guzzler type of mindset. Some old school guys still don't want to deal with fuel injection, for example, and stick with carbed motors.
 
Micahdogg said:
All I'm going to say is this. It's not like there was ONE guy...or maybe TWO guys in the entire nation that pulled a 13.9X out of their 11-14 V6 Mustang. Rather there are a lot of guys running 13's. Some as deep as a mid 13.
Click to expand...

Please take some reading lessons. Then quote me were I said it WASN'T possible. I own one of these cars. I have followed what is going on with then since purchasing it. IMHO it is the new Fox 5.0. They respond great with bolt on mods. BOTTOM LINE IS THE MAJORITY OF V6 11-14 MUSTANGS ON THE ROAD ARE NOT OPTIONED TO MEET THIS PERFORMANCE LEVEL. Caps are there for a reason so you quit trying to debate something with me I already know and have never said. I would not be arguing in favor of keeping the 3.7 over the turbo 2.3 and ecoboost technology if I didn't know the capability of this engine. STOP ALREADY!

In digging around to throw out that pile of magazines I have sitting around I came across the Nov 14 issue of Car and Driver. Ecoboost Mustang first road test. Their results? 13.9@98 in an auto equipped car. Performance pack option. 3.55's and 255/40/19 tire. I also happen to know they tested an 11 with the v6 and performance pack. Quick dig on the Internet brought up the article. 11 v6 6 speed, 3.31's and the same 255/40/19 tire. 14.0@104. Funny how I haven't seen any manual trans Et's for the 2.3 yet. And both cars have the same EPA readings. The new independent rear may may be the cats meow but I would much rather have the 13-14 body style and performance. Oh wait I already do, though my 11 is an auto the tuner and k&n have helped immensely with gears sitting and waiting to be installed. At which point in time it should be capable of that 13. Keep preaching to the choir though.
 
Maybe I misread your love for the 3.7L when you so quickly poo-poo'd nearly the whole lot of them on the road for not living up to the internet mythology of 13 sec times. I should have read into your fallacy statements about its performance as, "Gee, this guy LOVES the car, other than the fact that his appears to be one of the slowest ones in the nation." My bad for not picking up on your diehard enthusiasm. It must have been lost in your recounts of events you participated in, tracks you have visited and raced at, cars you have owned and raced, and quarter mile time achieved in your own experience and documented in magazines. And you thought I was skipping over your posts to restate my already formulated opinion.

I will agree that the 3.7L is impressive though. And I also considered it to be like the new 5.0L in terms of performance. But you are fooling yourself if you think its going to be superior to the 2.3L in terms of overall performance, performance for the dollar, or durability. In certain regards the 3.7L may have an advantage - say in a magazine test comparing an IRS manual car to the older 3.7L manual car or some other bs, but........

[youtube]mJ3MrtNmAnY[/youtube]
 
The scary thing is, They didnt upgrade the internals on the 3.5 in the GT. Its the same engine thats in the Eco F150's but with KO4 turbos instead of the KO3s, and of course they're doing direct and multiport injection.
My 13 EcoBoost F150 popped a rod through the block at 503hp and 616 tq to the wheels. And I rarely ever pushed it hard at all. These 3.5's are popping left and right. Its not going to be pretty I think. We shall see.
Unfortunatly since I had full bolt ons, Fords telling me to go kick rocks. Warranty is voided. So I'm gonna buy the Livernois Motorsports short block with Bullett rods and Forged pistons.
 
Apparently you did skip over the posts. Because if hadn't you would have noticed this whole discussion is in a thread devoted to the new Ford GT-40 that has an ecoboost engine in it. I then lamanted about how it doesn't make sense to me to install the ecoboost 2.3 when the 3.7 can do the same thing and has proven reliable in the Mustang then the 3.7 discussion followed. YOU ARE THE ONE who can't comprehend that vast majority of 3.7 Mustangs on the road are not equipped with the performance pack from the factory that allows those performance figures. I am not going to rehash everything I have already said in this thread again and spell it out for you because apparently to you if 1 or 2 or a handful of people have done it everyone can. If you own a v6 11-14 it runs 13's; not it is capable of running 13's with the right factory options/aftermarket mods. The real shame here is the 15 DOES come with the 3.7 but is regulated to rental duty and will therefore be a redheaded step child with no aftermarket support. Especially with Ford making no mention of it in the press and pushing the Ecoboost as it has.
 
Shoot my ALMOST stock 89 vert ran 14.0 @ 99mph bogging off the line to not spin. I said almost stock as I removed the air silencer, upped the timing and had 255 tires all around. (Non drag radial probably slowed it down). Most 5 speed foxes when driven properly (key) with slicks would go 13.5's all day.

Now back to the Ford GT. Ford wants to race Lemans. That's why v6. No other reason. Now why they want to run lemans...Well showcase the ecoboost...Why? Its the future.

Now you complain about hp??? Why not use a v8? Well how much HP do you need. Lets say 600 flywheel hp..Great aerodynamics....The car hooks well and weighs close to 2500 lbs (well see) We are talking 9 second territory. Even at 3,000lbs we are talking mid tens. I DOUBT it will weight more than 3,000. So a reliable 9-10 second exotic which can win lemans potentially and drive all day. Complain all you want. How many exotics do that?

2014 McLaren P1 9.8 sec @ 148.9 mph
2015 Porsche 918 Spyder 9.8 sec @ 145 mph
2012 Bugatti Veyron Super Sport 9.9 sec @ 145.8 mph
2012 Lamborghini Aventador 10.4 sec @ 136 mph

These are the cars Id say its competing with. Perhaps a pipe dream...But lets see if Ford made this car able to put that power to the ground. If they did its right there with these cars..And the cost of admission to that list is high
 
jdsgallops said:
Apparently you did skip over the posts. Because if hadn't you would have noticed this whole discussion is in a thread devoted to the new Ford GT-40 that has an ecoboost engine in it. I then lamanted about how it doesn't make sense to me to install the ecoboost 2.3 when the 3.7 can do the same thing and has proven reliable in the Mustang then the 3.7 discussion followed. YOU ARE THE ONE who can't comprehend that vast majority of 3.7 Mustangs on the road are not equipped with the performance pack from the factory that allows those performance figures. I am not going to rehash everything I have already said in this thread again and spell it out for you because apparently to you if 1 or 2 or a handful of people have done it everyone can. If you own a v6 11-14 it runs 13's; not it is capable of running 13's with the right factory options/aftermarket mods. The real shame here is the 15 DOES come with the 3.7 but is regulated to rental duty and will therefore be a redheaded step child with no aftermarket support. Especially with Ford making no mention of it in the press and pushing the Ecoboost as it has.
Click to expand...

Please take some reading lessons starting at post #6 where I was talking about the similarities between it and a classic Jag supercar. I don't know how you passed English/reading class. Also stop quoting me inaccurately. I never said anything about skipping "posts," but rather skipping "your posts," which I am not. I don't know why you took it upon yourself to even bring the 2.3 Ecoboost into the conversation. Furthermore, if you don't understand why a turbocharged performance based engine would lose power by a retarded owner insisting on using 87 octane, then there is nothing I can say to change your already formulated opinion.

Also, more proof that you aren't reading anything I'm posting, I never said that 1 or 2 people doing something makes it the standard to follow. Actually I argued the complete opposite by pointing out that its NOT JUST 1 or 2 people getting 13's out of the 3.7L. It's not such a fallacy afterall. At this point, I would love to be sitting down at a table drinking a beer with you. I would stay entertained all night long.

P.S. You really thought there would be a booming aftermarket for a base model engine? You should be lucky for what you got! For real.
 
Unrelated, but get this, 77 Buick Le Sabre base model engine was a turbo blow through carburetor 3.8 v6. Options were 2 and 4 barrel making 160hp and 165hp.

How about that for the base engine? Definitely had more potential than the next step up which was the boat anchor 301 v8.
 
not any time soon David

David Neibert said:
So when will the 3.5 ecoboost start going into the Mustang ?

David
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the ordering books now and nothing has been said anywhere else.. I think that they are going to hold off on that one for a while. The 5.0 still has to be king of the hill, or so it looks....Rich
 
HwyStar said:
Unrelated, but get this, 77 Buick Le Sabre base model engine was a turbo blow through carburetor 3.8 v6. Options were 2 and 4 barrel making 160hp and 165hp.

How about that for the base engine? Definitely had more potential than the next step up which was the boat anchor 301 v8.
Click to expand...

Good point. Have you ever read or heard about the 1976 Buick Century? I believe it was a '76.....anyways, it was a turbo'd 3.8 that was a one off by some inventive custom guys (I don't believe that it was actually Buick, themselves), and the turbine rims, color scheme and the turbo 6 logo all showed up on the Grand Nationals. Buick continued on the turbo'd Century route with the Turbo Coupe.

It's too bad that so many terrible turbo setups were done in the 80's (Turbo Trans Am....not the '89, but the 1980), turbo Monte Carlo, early turbo 2.3 Mustangs were poorly thought out designs.....it had set back people's perceptions of the capabilities of FI. It wasn't until Ford had refined the engine in the Turbo T-Birds and GM with the 3.8 in the Grand Nationals and later Turbo TA's that it really had got great. I wonder how many blown head gaskets in the SC's that it took for people, as well, before the legend got out that FI wasn't worth it. Properly maintained, of course, is the key phrase, but automakers have to assume that people won't maintain the cars. Nowadays, with the efficiency of the computers in cars, it's removed almost all of the problems that were associated with carbed FI setups and the initial burst of fuel injected FI cars, and it's made it so much easier to tap into the cars' potential. Even back in the 80's, the FI cars weren't usually gutsy enough for many people (especially with turbo lag and with the cars being usually on the conservative side in psi and timing), so the cars often hit the scrap heap and just weren't really seen as being worth it to fix or keep on the road for reliable transportation.
 
Very true. I've heard of these early combos, and would love to see them in person. Despite the issues they had I'm still curious to see them. All the stuff I missed.
 
HwyStar said:
Very true. I've heard of these early combos, and would love to see them in person. Despite the issues they had I'm still curious to see them. All the stuff I missed.
Click to expand...

Not to threadjack this too much, but thought this article about the turbo Buick Century was relevant in the origins of an American V6 turbo being considered a serious platform for power:

http://www.junkyardlife.com/2013/02/first-turbo-buick-legend-of-buick.html

....i'd never heard of it until a few months ago, when I was surfing some car stuff on the 'net.
 
Man, that was a good article. They had the idea and just did it right then. To think, the SC was planned in 86 and released late 88.
 
Looks pretty good in Silver

http://jalopnik.com/the-new-ford-gt-is-one-sexy-shark-in-silver-paint-1685549947

wcvydr2c4j5wnvajpu5g.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top