Epiphany
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #1
There has been little breakdown from Ford as to all the details with respect to each iteration. So I asked my favorite Ford Parts expert if he could share with me a "Bill of Materials" (or HVBOM) for a '21 Base, CFHP, and a CFTP car. I don't have a complete list for each but I have enough to look at the suspension part numbers for some of the typical major components. I have also downloaded the As-Built data for the same three vehicles and run each through a comparator to look at programming differences. I planned on using Ford's ETIS site for even more data but Ford has taken it upon themselves to make that rather difficult (thanks Ford!). It would help if the GT500 Manual Supplement for 2021 got into details for the CFHP car as well as the Base and CFTP but they don't. So you have to know which parts are on which car in order to determine spring rates, for example, on the CFHP car. You can see the supplement here. I'm not getting into the As-Built data for now but will when I no longer feel the need to lounge by the pool and worship the sun for days on end.
So, the HVBOM is a few pages for a given car (via the VIN) that breaks down the bulk of the components that make up the car and shows both an engineering part number and service part number for a specific part. It isn't always clear cut and you find yourself either interpolating or using the process of elimination simply because the part descriptions can sometimes have quite a bit of ambiguity. Here's a quick sreenshot of the top of the first page of the CFHP car I looked at...
Anyway, I looked at the data for these three GT500's:
Base Car - 1FA6P8SJ3M5500663
CFTP Car - 1FA6P8SJ6M5502519
CFHP Car - 1FA6P8SJ3M5499918
I've been interested in seeing the mix of parts used on the CFHP car, kind of an oddball in the mix. I wondered if Ford actually took advantage of the lighter wheel weight in terms of suspension hardware and module calibration. Especially since the CFHP car is not using the CFTP's Cup2's - that's what throws a wrench into what would seem logical. So I scoured through each HVBOM and pulled numbers for sway bars, front hubs (which should and do match the wheels used), springs, struts, and shocks.
What have I found so far?
Front hubs - Base unique, CFHP/CFTP the same
Front sway bars - look to be the same for all three
Rear sway bars - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Front springs - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Rear springs - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Front struts - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Rear shocks - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
My initial thoughts? As cool and rare as the CFHP cars may be, why spend the extra coin for the lighter wheel$ when it looks as if Ford didn't maximize the potential performance benefit via matching suspension hardware? Did the tire choice for the CFHP option limit the performance potential to such a degree that Ford saw little benefit in terms of additional parts development? From a hardware perspective, the choice appears to have been to simply offer a cosmetic change without respect to a benefit beyond looks (yes Dorothy, the lighter CF wheel has its own inherent benefits but I'm talking about the entire spectrum here). This may lend creedence to the argument that the idea behind the CFHP car was to move some wheel blems by just painting them black, changing a given car to use the CFTP's hubs, and out the door it goes.
So, the HVBOM is a few pages for a given car (via the VIN) that breaks down the bulk of the components that make up the car and shows both an engineering part number and service part number for a specific part. It isn't always clear cut and you find yourself either interpolating or using the process of elimination simply because the part descriptions can sometimes have quite a bit of ambiguity. Here's a quick sreenshot of the top of the first page of the CFHP car I looked at...
Anyway, I looked at the data for these three GT500's:
Base Car - 1FA6P8SJ3M5500663
CFTP Car - 1FA6P8SJ6M5502519
CFHP Car - 1FA6P8SJ3M5499918
I've been interested in seeing the mix of parts used on the CFHP car, kind of an oddball in the mix. I wondered if Ford actually took advantage of the lighter wheel weight in terms of suspension hardware and module calibration. Especially since the CFHP car is not using the CFTP's Cup2's - that's what throws a wrench into what would seem logical. So I scoured through each HVBOM and pulled numbers for sway bars, front hubs (which should and do match the wheels used), springs, struts, and shocks.
What have I found so far?
Front hubs - Base unique, CFHP/CFTP the same
Front sway bars - look to be the same for all three
Rear sway bars - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Front springs - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Rear springs - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Front struts - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
Rear shocks - Base/CFHP the same, CFTP unique
My initial thoughts? As cool and rare as the CFHP cars may be, why spend the extra coin for the lighter wheel$ when it looks as if Ford didn't maximize the potential performance benefit via matching suspension hardware? Did the tire choice for the CFHP option limit the performance potential to such a degree that Ford saw little benefit in terms of additional parts development? From a hardware perspective, the choice appears to have been to simply offer a cosmetic change without respect to a benefit beyond looks (yes Dorothy, the lighter CF wheel has its own inherent benefits but I'm talking about the entire spectrum here). This may lend creedence to the argument that the idea behind the CFHP car was to move some wheel blems by just painting them black, changing a given car to use the CFTP's hubs, and out the door it goes.
Sponsored
