2015 Mustang in Sept 2013 R&T article (rumors: flat plane crank, turbo 4 and 6, etc.)

[Norm Peterson]

9.5:1 on a port injected turbocharged engine? Sounded suspicious to me, so I did a brief search. Why is it that I can't find ONE source that defends this number? Low and behold, I find 8.4:1...which is very close to what I said, using numbers off the top of my head. I would hate to think that my common sense knows more than you do about your own car...

I'm afraid that your references are no match for mine.

Got to your Dad's local Subaru dealership's service counter.
Ask to look at page ME(H4DOTC)-2 in Section 3 of the 2010 Legacy and Outback Factory Service manual (subtitled 2010 Model Year Engine (H4DOTC).
1. General Description
A: Specification
In the Sixth row, I'm sure that the number you'll find in the right column next to "Compression Ratio" will match what I have right in front of me as I type this.


Just so you know I checked a little further, the H4SO (nonturbo 2.5L) carries a 10.0 CR (Same manual, Section 2, and no I'm not going to type the rest of it out).

If you learn nothing else about me from this exchange, know that I wouldn't post a hard, unqualified number like 9.5 without having done my homework.



Norm

Sponsored

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

I'm afraid that your references are no match for mine.

Got to your Dad's local Subaru dealership's service counter.
Ask to look at page ME(H4DOTC)-2 in Section 3 of the 2010 Legacy and Outback Factory Service manual (subtitled 2010 Model Year Engine (H4DOTC).

In the Sixth row, I'm sure that the number you'll find in the right column next to "Compression Ratio" will match what I have right in front of me as I type this.


Just so you know I checked a little further, the H4SO (nonturbo 2.5L) carries a 10.0 CR (Same manual, Section 2, and no I'm not going to type the rest of it out).

If you learn nothing else about me from this exchange, know that I wouldn't post a hard, unqualified number like 9.5 without having done my homework.



Norm

Ahem...uhhhh....?:shrug:

The only reference I can find to a 9.5 CR is in an 04 Legacy GT...which was a monsterous 2.0L NA behemoth.

Please explain, as it seems your facts, and thus opinions, are all wrong.

Oh, and Dad got rid of that POS. A car shouldn't need 3 throwput bearings in the first 5k miles of it's life.

 

[Twin Turbo]

Geeze..............will you two please get a room :frusty:

 

[Norm Peterson]

Ahem...uhhhh....?:shrug:

The only reference I can find to a 9.5 CR is in an 04 Legacy GT...which was a monsterous 2.0L NA behemoth.

Please explain, as it seems your facts, and thus opinions, are all wrong.

There are other differences on that same page. I suppose it's possible that either or both of us has a book with printing errors on that page, but even if they're all at this end that only buys you a few percentage points for the difference between 8.4 NA and 9.5 NA (less than 5% and probably closer to 2% - ref. David Vizard).



Twin Turbo - I could do without the personally-directed sniping, too. If it turns out that I have bad information, I'll admit as much. What I won't do is roll over, play dead, and let somebody walk all over me like all of my conclusions are wrong just because one fact I'm working from might be.


Norm

 

[Overboost]

Well, this thread is lost. Can a mod clean up the useless dribble?

 

[Norm Peterson]

Since when were we talking about 'enthusiastic' driving? I thought we were talking about keeping up w/ traffic? Ya know, whether the turbo came into play or not...and whether gas mileage suffers?

"Driving enthusiasm" isn't an all or nothing characteristic unless you really are an all or nothing driver. It's a spectrum ranging from about the way most people drive when they first get behind the wheel (as my oldest granddaughter has just begun to do) all the way up to the guy who always accelerates, brakes, and corners at the maximum levels possible (those limits being determined by the minimum of car capability or the presence of other traffic).

Maybe you really are an all or nothing sort of driver, and if so that's fine. Just that I'm not and never will be that driver, not in anything I've ever driven or in anything I ever expect to drive. I'm very much aware of what any car I'm driving "feels like" even in traffic or cruising around the neighborhoods at 25 or 30 mph. And I drive it in a fashion to make that "feel" agree with what I want at the moment. That's what I'm getting at with hardcore here. It's an attitude thing even more than it is about the actual performance used.

Let's see...2013 - 35 = 1978. The Fox platform was released that same year...soooo...it was outdated the year it was released?

Let's see, a modified Mac Strut up front with a rear suspension basically cribbed (in downgraded form) from a 1964 Chevelle . . . yup, outdated. Being better than leaf springs only made it more advanced than late 1940's / early 1950's rear suspension technology.


Norm

 

[Twin Turbo]

Twin Turbo - I could do without the personally-directed sniping, too. If it turns out that I have bad information, I'll admit as much. What I won't do is roll over, play dead, and let somebody walk all over me like all of my conclusions are wrong just because one fact I'm working from might be.

Hardly sniping, but if you two want to trade punches, do it via PMs. As Overboost says, this thread is now lost :(

 

[jimmythepage666]

It did get a little off topic huh?

No big deal, I want to know more about the flat crank v8!

How much would the gt350 cost if it truly had 600hp? I'm thinking since ford will be selling globally and increasing the base price on all models, it shouldn't be too bad. If the gt costs under $35k, could the cost of development for this new flat crank engine keep the msrp under $60k?

 

[Deroxas2.0]

It did get a little off topic huh?

No big deal, I want to know more about the flat crank v8!

How much would the gt350 cost if it truly had 600hp? I'm thinking since ford will be selling globally and increasing the base price on all models, it shouldn't be too bad. If the gt costs under $35k, could the cost of development for this new flat crank engine keep the msrp under $60k?

To get technical, a flatplane crankshaft means it has all crankpins in the same plane - at 0 or 180 degrees (vs a crossplane crankshaft which has pins at 90 degrees to each other).

The main benefits of a flatplane crank is that it can be lighter than a crossplane crank, resulting in a lower rotating mass than crossplane cranks. This allows for sharper response and allows higher maximum revs, useful when seeking higher power outputs. Another advantage is that it allows for a more efficient exhaust manifold design.

Its major downside is major increase in engine vibration harmonics.

A 180 degree crank is naturally timed but not naturally balanced so it sounds good but has a lot of internal stress in the crank.

I would think a 600HP GT350 would be high 50's / low 60's after options.

 

[S550Boss]

Don't forget how much of the 55-60k has to go to ole man Shelby for licensing his name. Of course, he has exactly as much to do with the actua development of the car now as he did when he was alive. Zero.

 

[jimmythepage666]

Don't forget how much of the 55-60k has to go to ole man Shelby for licensing his name. Of course, he has exactly as much to do with the actua development of the car now as he did when he was alive. Zero.

I thought the gt350 wasn't going to be a "Shelby" since ford owns "gt350".

Looking at the recent spy shot from Arizona, the s550 definitely looks smaller when looking at it head on. I would be tickled Shitless if the s550 ends up being lighter than the corvette. 300lbs seems a bit too unrealistic. I also think 420hp for the gt seems unlikely. Power to weight is key though, I would like to see the vette get trumped in that category. With the hellcat on the way, and the z28 hitting the streets soon, ford needs some street cred with the power of the gt350.

 

[OKCfan]

Looking at the recent spy shot from Arizona, the s550 definitely looks smaller when looking at it head on. I would be tickled Shitless if the s550 ends up being lighter than the corvette. 300lbs seems a bit too unrealistic. I also think 420hp for the gt seems unlikely. Power to weight is key though, I would like to see the vette get trumped in that category. With the hellcat on the way, and the z28 hitting the streets soon, ford needs some street cred with the power of the gt350.

I'd love love love to see the s550 GT match or beat the Corvette Stingray's power-to-weight ratio but that's gonna be a tall order.

At 460 HP and 3300lb curb weight the Corvette is good for 7.1 lbs/hp.

Let's say the next GT can lose 100 pounds and end up at 3500 lbs. It would need 490 HP to match the Corvette. And even if it could match the Corvette's 7.1 ratio, I'd rather the s550 accomplish that by losing more weight than just getting more and more HP. Would add to the car's handling and dynamics so much more.

 

[likeaboss]

I'd love love love to see the s550 GT match or beat the Corvette Stingray's power-to-weight ratio but that's gonna be a tall order.

At 460 HP and 3300lb curb weight the Corvette is good for 7.1 lbs/hp.

Let's say the next GT can lose 100 pounds and end up at 3500 lbs. It would need 490 HP to match the Corvette. And even if it could match the Corvette's 7.1 ratio, I'd rather the s550 accomplish that by losing more weight than just getting more and more HP. Would add to the car's handling and dynamics so much more.

The current curb weight of a C7 Vette is 3444 lbs with the Z51 package. Even base it's not under 3400 pounds.

 

[jimmythepage666]

The current curb weight of a C7 Vette is 3444 lbs with the Z51 package. Even base it's not under 3400 pounds.

Yeah that would make the power to weight 7.4 for the c7.

The s550 would have to be ...
3500lbs/470hp or 3300lbs/450hp to beat the c7.
Weight savings would make driving dynamics much better, but what costs more? Adding 20-30 horsepower to the boss motor, or shaving 300 lbs?

Another thought... if the gt weighed in at 3300lbs, what would the eco boost version weigh? 3200? That would be silly to see an eco boost with some bolt ons keeping up with old c6 corvettes! I have no doubts that tuner companies will offer 40hp/40tq gains with tune/intake/exhaust for the eco boost.

Also imagine the gt350 at 3500 lbs/580 hp... 6.2 lb/HP

 

[Deroxas2.0]

Yeah that would make the power to weight 7.4 for the c7.

The s550 would have to be ...
3500lbs/470hp or 3300lbs/450hp to beat the c7.
Weight savings would make driving dynamics much better, but what costs more? Adding 20-30 horsepower to the boss motor, or shaving 300 lbs?

Of course adding HP is the easier route. But I see that as the easy way out that manufacturers have taken in recent years, leading to the horsepower wars of the past decade (a good thing), but also resulting in heavy ass cars.

Seems manufacturers are finally starting to realize that they can't just keep adding HP to cars to get better LB/HP ratios and are starting to downsize cars and invest the engineering into making them lighter. I welcome this with open arms because there's no reason we can't have both lighter and more powerful cars going forward.

Thats my great hope for the s550... that it's got the trifecta of being lighter, smaller and more powerful.

Sponsored