GT500 testing in Arizona

[btown93]

Interesting a 5.5L.

I can't quite see ceramic brakes but it's possible.

Are they using a composite subframe in the front? News of that was just released but no better way to test on a limited vehicle, just like the carbon wheels.

808hp is huge too.

22 cups = 5.2 liters

Sponsored

 

[DrumReaper]

Interesting a 5.5L.

I can't quite see ceramic brakes but it's possible.

Are they using a composite subframe in the front? News of that was just released but no better way to test on a limited vehicle, just like the carbon wheels.

808hp is huge too.

We have good reason to believe there will be at least 750hp. Ceramic brakes at this price-point has a negative value-to-cost benefit ratio, as witnessed in the new ZL1 and GT350 utilization of iron rotors.

A composite "subframe" is already in use on the 350.

 

[BmacIL]

Two piece, with removable rotors, though not carbon ceramic (too expensive). Composite suspension components.

 

[DrumReaper]

I agree with all that. Is that S550 not already capable of AWD? I think they'll us the TTv6 from the raptor as it'll achieve much better fuel efficiency than the version from the GT.

There is a lot of speculation that since the s550 platform is kin to the Fusion platform, and since the front hubs are splined that AWD is feasible but the packaging with a longitudinal v8 would be a costly engineering feat.

The Raptor TTV6 is based off the Ford GT TTV6.

 

[Darkane]

22 cups = 5.2 liters

Yeah you're right. I should have used 237 instead of 250ml.

 

[Darkane]

We have good reason to believe there will be at least 750hp. Ceramic brakes at this price-point has a negative value-to-cost benefit ratio, as witnessed in the new ZL1 and GT350 utilization of iron rotors.

A composite "subframe" is already in use on the 350.

This is what I was talking about:

http://www.magna.com/media/press-re...to-vehicle-structure-with-innovative-subframe

Edit: The GOR in the 350 is not a subframe. Totally different piece.

So no, there is no composite subframe in the 350, AND it's still steel (99% sure).

 

[ttime500]

There is a lot of speculation that since the s550 platform is kin to the Fusion platform, and since the front hubs are splined that AWD is feasible but the packaging with a longitudinal v8 would be a costly engineering feat.

The Raptor TTV6 is based off the Ford GT TTV6.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15917

Sure looks like there's plenty of room to use lighter weight material to me.

I understand that the GT is based on the raptor V-6 but the tuning in the GT makes that engine very inefficient from the fuel standpoint. The EPA numbers on it are pretty bad for a car that weighs 3k. They can't have that in the mustang that's gonna sell at the numbers it's going to. I see it as a mid-level trim may be a Mustang GT replacement making 450-500 hp.

 

[DrumReaper]

You can't play EPA numbers with the supercars... makes no sense. Just because the GT doesn't get 30mpg doesn't mean that it is not an efficient powerplant. There are other factors at play, such as all the drag the car creates and uses as downforce. It also employs a more aggressive tune. I can assure you, that engine is VERY efficient as it is able to funnel fuel/air to only 3.5L of cylinder chambers and convert that reaction to 650hp. That's pretty darn efficient.

And, you misspoke... the Raptor engine is based off the GT.

 

[l'Ingegnere]

And, you misspoke... the Raptor engine is based off the GT.

The Raptor TTV6 is based off the Ford GT TTV6.

This is not true. The Raptor V6 is made on the same engine assembly line as the new Expedition/Navigator. The GT V6 is made by Roush Yates, along with the competition GT engines. They may share similar geometry as far as bore spacing and other parameters are concerned, but that's true for every 3.5 EB.

 

[ttime500]

You can't play EPA numbers with the supercars... makes no sense. Just because the GT doesn't get 30mpg doesn't mean that it is not an efficient powerplant. There are other factors at play, such as all the drag the car creates and uses as downforce. It also employs a more aggressive tune. I can assure you, that engine is VERY efficient as it is able to funnel fuel/air to only 3.5L of cylinder chambers and convert that reaction to 650hp. That's pretty darn efficient.

And, you misspoke... the Raptor engine is based off the GT.

I thought C and D said it was based on the raptor maybe I misread that. Either way using those large turbos is going to gulp fuel fast. 30 mpg it doesn't get 20! It's about as fuel efficient as a superveloce V12. I do agee the tune is very aggressive but that's what it took to make 650 hp. If that tune is more conservative like 500 it'll be more fuel friendly.

 

[BmacIL]

I thought C and D said it was based on the raptor maybe I misread that. Either way using those large turbos is going to gulp fuel fast. 30 mpg it doesn't get 20! It's about as fuel efficient as a superveloce V12. I do agee the tune is very aggressive but that's what it took to make 650 hp. If that tune is more conservative like 500 it'll be more fuel friendly.

Fuel efficiency (MPG) is not the same thing is thermal efficiency (% of chemical energy in the fuel turned into work). The GT is quite thermally efficient, and quite good BSFC.

 

[DrumReaper]

This is not true. The Raptor V6 is made on the same engine assembly line as the new Expedition/Navigator. The GT V6 is made by Roush Yates, along with the competition GT engines. They may share similar geometry as far as bore spacing and other parameters are concerned, but that's true for every 3.5 EB.

"Ford says the new truck will make more power than the previous model, which was rated at 411 hp and 434 lb-ft of torque, but didn’t tell us exactly how much. It did say that the engine is a version of the 600-plus-hp mill that will power the Ford GT. It’s paired with a 10-speed automatic transmission, four-wheel drive and a torque on demand transfer case, which distributes power between the front and rear wheels."

Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/detroit...-turbo-v6-10-speed-transmission#ixzz4dObBp94l

Sorry to burst your bubble Bro, but such is true... the Raptor TTV6 only shares displacement with the common F150 TTV6.

 

[ttime500]

Fuel efficiency (MPG) is not the same thing is thermal efficiency (% of chemical energy in the fuel turned into work). The GT is quite thermally efficient, and quite good BSFC.

Correct, sorry I should have been more specific. In regards to it being in the mustang and future cafe regulations that 650 hp version does not appear to be fuel efficient enough. And I think it would require a lesser tune and result in less hp.

 

[Flat Plane Drifter]

It roars with greater than 8/7 a Hellcat from 22 cups. It shifts with the speed of a related supercar. It has lightweight materials in unusual places. It has rear tires the size of the bearing that Captain Marko Ramius gave Jack Ryan when they had a torpedo chasing them. It has light brakes that fill wheels the size of huge pizzas. It uses some 'screws' to do some cool things.

You are a fine American!

:ford:

 

[DrumReaper]

ttime500, look at the 2005/6 GT and the 2007 GT500... nearly the same engine, sans block and S/C, and despite the lighter weight of the GT (rated 13/21 mpg), the GT500 was rated at 15/21 mpg and Ford sold them like hotcakes.

Sponsored