GT350 article on weight, price, Z28

[Grimace427]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2016-mustang-gt350-performance-estimates-how-quick-is-a-flat-snake/

They are comparing to a GT at 3,800lbs but not mentioning that is a Premium GT weight, not base. The GT350 looks to be more closely related to the Base GT unless optioned up with the still specifics-unknown Tech and Track packages.

Sponsored

 

[scottpe]

^^^
They failed to mention bits like the aluminum hood. Ford has already stated that the GT350 will weigh less than the GT, right? We just don't know by how much?

ALL S550s have aluminum hood and fenders (and rear deck). It is nothing new for the GT350. That is why it is not really noteworthy...

 

[Jimdohc]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2016-mustang-gt350-performance-estimates-how-quick-is-a-flat-snake/

Nice article. thank you for sharing!

There is a distinct possibility that the GT500’s carbon-fiber driveshaft is currently spinning underneath development mules, which will save a few pounds.

GT350 doesn't have a carbon-fiber driveshaft.

 

[RocketGuy3]

I'm not really sure Ford will ever say anything like that. They will always be vague with their wording until the car is released.

FYI the regular GT already has an aluminum hood and front fenders.

ALL S550s have aluminum hood and fenders (and rear deck). It is nothing new for the GT350. That is why it is not really noteworthy...

Ah, I thought they so, but the article in the OP of this thread seemed to indicate that was going to be an upgrade for the GT350.

That clears up a good bit of my confusion, heh. Thought that seemed like a strange thing to disclude on the "regular" Mustang.

 

[WestRace]

Nice article. thank you for sharing!



GT350 doesn't have a carbon-fiber driveshaft.

I guess it's a good news bad news thing. With less exotic parts, it will be more affordable but just less performance ... seems like a strategy even with the regular GT. Ford will give you a good starting point but you can spend more money upgrading.

There are a lot of debate about rotational mass (drive shaft, carbon wheels, wheel hubs ...) whether they help acceleration. People said their 0-60 or 1/4 mile don't make that much difference.
I think the difference is more in the transient response of constant change in speed for example at track or just daily stop and go traffic. When the car accelerates, it takes energy to build up speed so the more rotational mass the more energy required to build up speed but those energy is not lost but it is stored in the rotational components and help the car to keep the constant speed. I guess the rotational mass is like your flywheel.
I think the difference is when the cars slow down or decelerates, all those energy that was built-up now lost. I think 0-60 may not be different but 0-60 then back to 0 will probably be different. There are people who claimed they got better mpg with lighter wheels.

 

[RocketGuy3]

I guess it's a good news bad news thing. With less exotic parts, it will be more affordable but just less performance ... seems like a strategy even with the regular GT. Ford will give you a good starting point but you can spend more money upgrading.

There are a lot of debate about rotational mass (drive shaft, carbon wheels, wheel hubs ...) whether they help acceleration. People said their 0-60 or 1/4 mile don't make that much difference.
I think the difference is more in the transient response of constant change in speed for example at track or just daily stop and go traffic. When the car accelerates, it takes energy to build up speed so the more rotational mass the more energy required to build up speed but those energy is not lost but it is stored in the rotational components and help the car to keep the constant speed. I guess the rotational mass is like your flywheel.
I think the difference is when the cars slow down or decelerates, all those energy that was built-up now lost. I think 0-60 may not be different but 0-60 then back to 0 will probably be different. There are people who claimed they got better mpg with lighter wheels.

Based on personal experience combined with just some physics logic, I think it can actually HURT acceleration to an extent.

On my last car (IS350), I bought wheels that shed like 6-7 lbs per corner (obviously a significant difference). Before the change, I could easily drop the hammer from a dig in just about any conditions, and the tires would just stick, and the car would just go. But after I got the new wheels, if I wasn't careful with the throttle from a stop, the wheels would break traction SO easily and just spin and spin. There was just so little rotational inertia. I noticed the problem here and there on the track when accelerating out of turns, too.

Of course at speed it still helped a bit, and less unsprung weight is nice, too, but the real bottlenecks for acceleration were still mostly power and traction.

I think it's difficult to say what the perfect balance is, even for many people well versed in physics and engineering. The math and science behind automotive performance is pretty fascinating stuff.

 

[BlackWidow]

Based on personal experience combined with just some physics logic, I think it can actually HURT acceleration to an extent.

On my last car (IS350), I bought wheels that shed like 6-7 lbs per corner (obviously a significant difference). Before the change, I could easily drop the hammer from a dig in just about any conditions, and the tires would just stick, and the car would just go. But after I got the new wheels, if I wasn't careful with the throttle from a stop, the wheels would break traction SO easily and just spin and spin. There was just so little rotational inertia. I noticed the problem here and there on the track when accelerating out of turns, too.

Of course at speed it still helped a bit, and less unsprung weight is nice, too, but the real bottlenecks for acceleration were still mostly power and traction.

I think it's difficult to say what the perfect balance is, even for many people well versed in physics and engineering. The math and science behind automotive performance is pretty fascinating stuff.

Your first set of statements pretty much just argued against your own point :shrug:. There is less rotational inertia, therefore more power is being transmitted to the ground. If your tires are incapable of handling the added power you would expect to lose traction. You did, in fact, increase performance (power), your tires just weren't up to the job. Something has to give. Performance is only going to suffer if you are not providing a means for that power to transfer to the ground effectively (read: get better tires )

I will agree with your remaining statement. It is a fascinating subject and is almost an art form in a way. When striving for the best out of our cars we walk a very fine line between improving performance and pushing the boundaries of what our cars can handle (traction, component strength, etc.)

 

[WestRace]

Based on personal experience combined with just some physics logic, I think it can actually HURT acceleration to an extent.

On my last car (IS350), I bought wheels that shed like 6-7 lbs per corner (obviously a significant difference). Before the change, I could easily drop the hammer from a dig in just about any conditions, and the tires would just stick, and the car would just go. But after I got the new wheels, if I wasn't careful with the throttle from a stop, the wheels would break traction SO easily and just spin and spin. There was just so little rotational inertia. I noticed the problem here and there on the track when accelerating out of turns, too.

Of course at speed it still helped a bit, and less unsprung weight is nice, too, but the real bottlenecks for acceleration were still mostly power and traction.

I think it's difficult to say what the perfect balance is, even for many people well versed in physics and engineering. The math and science behind automotive performance is pretty fascinating stuff.

It's possible that with lighter wheels, less rotational mass, your wheels now can spin up faster initially hence loosing traction more easily. Up after a certain speed has been reached, the existing momentum will determine how fast the extra speed will be obtained afterward. I still think the best analogy is the flywheel. Rotational mass helps store energy at the expense of transient response. Of course you do need some rotational mass to smooth out the response a bit.

It also depends on the speed. If the car is traveling at constant velocity, theoretically more or less rotational mass will not affect the total amount of energy to keep the car moving. But if there is change in speed such as acceleration or deceleration then rotational mass comes in to play because the energy will be more efficiently used with less rotational mass.

Think of a step response. If there is too much overshoot or undershoot, more energy will be expended to achieve the final response, but if you can get there with less overhoot or undershoot, then less energy expended. With less rotational mass then the amount of overshoot or undershoot is lessened.

 

[Pablo GT350]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/5-thin...he-2016-mustang-shelby-gt350s-flat-crank-v-8/

3. It’s lighter than the Coyote 5.0-liter.

Ford’s folks steadfastly refused to divulge concrete numbers, but performance division chief engineer Kerry Baldori said the 5.2 “definitely has a weight advantage” over the 5.0. We already love the moves of the latest 10Best-winning GT, so we’re completely stoked to find out what pulling a bit of weight off the nose—combined with the GT350’s myriad other chassis tweaks—does to a V-8 Mustang. Also saving weight: There won’t be a plastic engine cover.

 

[WestRace]

Your first set of statements pretty much just argued against your own point :shrug:. There is less rotational inertia, therefore more power is being transmitted to the ground. If your tires are incapable of handling the added power you would expect to lose traction. You did, in fact, increase performance (power), your tires just weren't up to the job. Something has to give. Performance is only going to suffer if you are not providing a means for that power to transfer to the ground effectively (read: get better tires )

I will agree with your remaining statement. It is a fascinating subject and is almost an art form in a way. When striving for the best out of our cars we walk a very fine line between improving performance and pushing the boundaries of what our cars can handle (traction, component strength, etc.)

I think a lot of time we use the term "black art" to substitute for something we don't entire understand. If we can reduce something that we ascribe to "feel" to the basic underlying engineering logic or math, then it will be easier to understand.

 

[minjitta]

If vodoo come in crate, and its boost friendly, i 'll be looking for used blown up 15' GT and added vodoo engine, transmision, brakes, suspension, and twin turbos, its be good for street car.

 

[Jimdohc]

I guess it's a good news bad news thing. With less exotic parts, it will be more affordable but just less performance...

I'm not complaining. I trust their judgment. Watched the video yesterday and remembered no CF driveshaft. Then read the article stating might have CF. Just wanted to pass along the info.

Sounds like carbon fiber wasn't "stiff enough" for FPC and not a cost saving measure. I'm sure people will still use aftermarket Al & CF shafts.

But I agree with the sentiment. Great tuner cars are overbuild in difficult/costly places for owner to change and cost effective & NVH conscience in easy places. :hail:Mustangs are great cars in my opinion.

 

[Jimdohc]

If vodoo come in crate, and its boost friendly, i 'll be looking for used blown up 15' GT and added vodoo engine, transmision, brakes, suspension, and twin turbos, its be good for street car.

Good idea.

How about a FF GTM with Voodoo TT & GT40 transmission?

 

[likeaboss]

Don't be surprised if the GT350R has a carbon fiber driveshaft. Think of it as the all performance no expense spared model.

 

[RocketGuy3]

It's possible that with lighter wheels, less rotational mass, your wheels now can spin up faster initially hence loosing traction more easily. Up after a certain speed has been reached, the existing momentum will determine how fast the extra speed will be obtained afterward. I still think the best analogy is the flywheel. Rotational mass helps store energy at the expense of transient response. Of course you do need some rotational mass to smooth out the response a bit.

It also depends on the speed. If the car is traveling at constant velocity, theoretically more or less rotational mass will not affect the total amount of energy to keep the car moving. But if there is change in speed such as acceleration or deceleration then rotational mass comes in to play because the energy will be more efficiently used with less rotational mass.

Think of a step response. If there is too much overshoot or undershoot, more energy will be expended to achieve the final response, but if you can get there with less overhoot or undershoot, then less energy expended. With less rotational mass then the amount of overshoot or undershoot is lessened.

Makes sense, but as you were getting at (and my example showed), it would seem that there is a sweet spot. Plus, I think the advantages are relatively minimal overall... But I guess it all adds up. And it'll of course just save on the overall weight of the car, too.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/5-thin...he-2016-mustang-shelby-gt350s-flat-crank-v-8/

3. It’s lighter than the Coyote 5.0-liter.

Ford’s folks steadfastly refused to divulge concrete numbers, but performance division chief engineer Kerry Baldori said the 5.2 “definitely has a weight advantage” over the 5.0. We already love the moves of the latest 10Best-winning GT, so we’re completely stoked to find out what pulling a bit of weight off the nose—combined with the GT350’s myriad other chassis tweaks—does to a V-8 Mustang. Also saving weight: There won’t be a plastic engine cover.

That's what I saw! I KNEW I wasn't crazy.

Don't be surprised if the GT350R has a carbon fiber driveshaft. Think of it as the all performance no expense spared model.

Everybody keeps talking about the GT350R. Has Ford made any kinda official acknowledgement that such a car will be made yet?

Sponsored