GT350 Supercharge or not?

[DrumReaper]

No, the 10-speed is only an integral part of the system. DI + VVT will make impressive gains in efficiency in maximizing the mixture and combustion process. The 10-speed will help apply that more efficiently you can bet... Especially if that video someone linked over in the S550 General forum of the new Camaro SS going from 0-60 pertains to a Camaro utilizing the new 10-speed auto. If so, it shifts pretty dang quick which will minimize energy lost between shifts.

If a stinking pushrod LS-Corvette can get 29mpg why is it so hard for you to believe that the 4.2L engine couldn't while using much more technology?

Also, look at the oil pan in the new 350... Where do you think that's going next? It's a mater of time before engines become more composite and lightweight.

Sponsored

 

[derpington]

No, the 10-speed is only an integral part of the system. DI + VVT will make impressive gains in efficiency in maximizing the mixture and combustion process. The 10-speed will help apply that more efficiently you can bet... Especially if that video someone linked over in the S550 General forum of the new Camaro SS going from 0-60 pertains to a Camaro utilizing the new 10-speed auto. If so, it shifts pretty dang quick which will minimize energy lost between shifts.

If a stinking pushrod LS-Corvette can get 29mpg why is it so hard for you to believe that the 4.2L engine couldn't while using much more technology?

Also, look at the oil pan in the new 350... Where do you think that's going next? It's a mater of time before engines become more composite and lightweight.

You keep saying it's DI and VVT, but every single Ecoboost engine manufactured today already has implemented this technology, so this wouldn't be a change or improvement that your theoretical engine would have.

As for the 10 speed minimizing energy lost between shifts, this should largely inconsequential for determining highway MPG, as it will not be shifting. It almost certainly have a largely overdriven 10th gear, and this should help, but it would be quite a feat of engineering to get the types of gains you're suggesting from this alone.

Also, I don't believe any LS-engine Corvettes have achieved 29 mpg, although I'd gladly be corrected. The LT1 in the C7 does, but I'm not sure what "much more technology" your theoretical engine would have over this, as the LT1 does use DI and VVT as well. And just as a history lesson, pushrod engines are actually a newer design than OHC cam engines (including DOHC).

It might only be a matter of time before powerplants are largely composite, but we're still a very long way away from seeing these in a mass production vehicle.

 

[Hack]

I was saying that it is extremely unlikely that a 4.2L V8 will get the same gas mileage as a 2.3L I4 from the same company in the same model of car, and I still haven't seen any convincing argument for this fantasy engine you have dreamed up. What advantage would it have over the 2.3L Ecoboost that would allow it to be more effecient?

You're right, of course. An imaginary 4.2 TT V8 wouldn't get better highway cruise fuel economy than a 2.3 EB unless there are some other significant changes. Odds are against seeing super high fuel economy from a power plant like that.

However, a 4.2 TT V8 could sound really great and make awesome power. It could also probably bypass the gas guzzler tax.

I'm hoping for a Mustang with a TT V8. I would like to see a version of the 5.0 with that setup.

 

[DrumReaper]

You keep saying it's DI and VVT, but every single Ecoboost engine manufactured today already has implemented this technology, so this wouldn't be a change or improvement that your theoretical engine would have.

As for the 10 speed minimizing energy lost between shifts, this should largely inconsequential for determining highway MPG, as it will not be shifting. It almost certainly have a largely overdriven 10th gear, and this should help, but it would be quite a feat of engineering to get the types of gains you're suggesting from this alone.

Also, I don't believe any LS-engine Corvettes have achieved 29 mpg, although I'd gladly be corrected. The LT1 in the C7 does, but I'm not sure what "much more technology" your theoretical engine would have over this, as the LT1 does use DI and VVT as well. And just as a history lesson, pushrod engines are actually a newer design than OHC cam engines (including DOHC).

It might only be a matter of time before powerplants are largely composite, but we're still a very long way away from seeing these in a mass production vehicle.

Smh...

So you are saying a pushrod LS/LT is more technologically advanced than a Coyote? Smh...

Second, I've already given you examples of a few cars that can hit the 30mpg mark that are utilizing v8 engines. You've yet to do anything to prove your point, which would mean discounting engines already producing specs close to what I'm saying.

You mentioned earlier that a 2mpg difference in efficiency on the F150 EB vs 5.0 was small beans... Smh. What is Ford's best selling vehicle? Go look at just how much a 2mpg savings in that vehicle helps.

Yes, DI + VVT are currently employed in some engines but what v8 does Ford make currently that has this techno? Smh...

Sheesh man...

 

[derpington]

Smh...

So you are saying a pushrod LS/LT is more technologically advanced than a Coyote? Smh...

I am saying the LT1 is more technologically advanced than the Coyote. The LT1 offers Direct Injection, Displacement on Demand and VVT. The Coyote offers VVT, but not Direct Injection or Displacement on Demand. What technologies does the Coyote have that the LT1 doesn't that makes it more technologically advanced?

Second, I've already given you examples of a few cars that can hit the 30mpg mark that are utilizing v8 engines. You've yet to do anything to prove your point, which would mean discounting engines already producing specs close to what I'm saying.

You have actually given zero examples of V8s that hit the 30 MPG mark. The closest you have gotten is 29 MPG, which is 10% less than what you claim Ford would do.

You mentioned earlier that a 2mpg difference in efficiency on the F150 EB vs 5.0 was small beans... Smh. What is Ford's best selling vehicle? Go look at just how much a 2mpg savings in that vehicle helps.

What Ford's best selling vehicle is is inconsequential, but you've apparently missed the point entirely, which is not surprising. The point is that the current 3.5EB in the F150 gets >10% increase over the 5.0. Therefore, it can be extrapolated that a 3.5EB in the Mustang would get similar gas mileage, putting it around 28 MPG. You claim that a 4.2EB would get 32 MPG, or approximated 15% better gas mileage at a 20% increase in displacement and two extra cylinders, but you fail to explain what would cause this to happen. The 3.5EB already has DI and VVT, so you can't say those. What is it, then?

Yes, DI + VVT are currently employed in some engines but what v8 does Ford make currently that has this techno? Smh...

Sheesh man...

Ford makes no V8s with this technology, as far as I'm aware, but I don't see what this proves. The point was that you claimed a 4.2L EB V8 with these technologies would get better gas mileage than a 3.5L EB V6 and equivalent mileage to a 2.3L EB (and here's the important part, so please pay attention) that already employ these technologies.

But please, by all means, keep shaking your head.

 

[derpington]

Here's another way to look at it, since you're apparently having difficulty understanding the argument.

Let's say I claimed Chevy was coming out with a new large displacement V8 to replace the LS7 based on the LT1. The LT1 is a 6.2L V8. We are going to say the LT7 is going to be a 7.3L V8. The LT1 currently gets 29 MPG highway. I am going to claim that the LT7 gets 34 MPG, and it does this through the use of a DI (with the LT1 already has), VVT (with the LT1 already has) and a 10 speed transmission. Would you find these claims plausible? Why or why not?

Your claim is virtually identical to this. You are claiming that Ford is going to produce an engine with 20% larger displacement than the current largest (3.5L) Ecoboost engine based on the same technology that will get 15% better fuel economy with the only difference being a 10 speed transmission.

 

[mattlqx]

Can we stop engineering via target specs now? Typical forum BS.

 

[DrumReaper]

Derpington, no offense but you seem to have your mind affixed to certain mindset. I do hope in fact you are absolutely wrong, which I do believe could easily be the case... But time will tell. I can see you're passionate about this topic given your constant percentages and faith in the LT1. Enjoy that bro.

So what was the original topic again? ;)

 

[w3rkn]

Here's another way to look at it, since you're apparently having difficulty understanding the argument.

Let's say I claimed Chevy was coming out with a new large displacement V8 to replace the LS7 based on the LT1. The LT1 is a 6.2L V8. We are going to say the LT7 is going to be a 7.3L V8. The LT1 currently gets 29 MPG highway. I am going to claim that the LT7 gets 34 MPG, and it does this through the use of a DI (with the LT1 already has), VVT (with the LT1 already has) and a 10 speed transmission. Would you find these claims plausible? Why or why not?

Your claim is virtually identical to this. You are claiming that Ford is going to produce an engine with 20% larger displacement than the current largest (3.5L) Ecoboost engine based on the same technology that will get 15% better fuel economy with the only difference being a 10 speed transmission.

??

RPM's and gearing..
Fuel efficiency is not a sole matter of displacement, or cylinders. Why do try to make this argument?

 

[krt22]

Can we stop engineering via target specs now? Typical forum BS.

Hey man, this magazine says a CAI nets 20hp, headers adds 15hp, and a full catback 17hp. If I get all three im looking at 52hp extra!

 

[65Terdlingua]

should I buy a 911 GT3 and turbo it?

Donson did. I'm sure he could chime in on how that went and his updated opinion on the topic.

When ever this topic comes up, no one ever wants to look at what is really affected by a FI setup. Yes the crank is stout, the rods are quality, the valvetrain is equipped to handle high rpm. But look at the pistons and ring pack. Very light pistons with a small compression height, and small lightweight rings for low drag and high RPM. With 10 psi boost, you will definitely get blow by. Donson did on his 12.5:1 CR 911. It will happen with the 5.2l also if the internals are left stock.

Yes the 5.0 is high compression and can be charged without issue, but this is a step beyond that. Someone will do it, but I guarantee it will cause issues, if not damage.

 

[GTA Mustang]

Donson did. I'm sure he could chime in on how that went and his updated opinion on the topic.

When ever this topic comes up, no one ever wants to look at what is really affected by a FI setup. Yes the crank is stout, the rods are quality, the valvetrain is equipped to handle high rpm. But look at the pistons and ring pack. Very light pistons with a small compression height, and small lightweight rings for low drag and high RPM. With 10 psi boost, you will definitely get blow by. Donson did on his 12.5:1 CR 911. It will happen with the 5.2l also if the internals are left stock.

Yes the 5.0 is high compression and can be charged without issue, but this is a step beyond that. Someone will do it, but I guarantee it will cause issues, if not damage.

I read somewhere else that Shelby American did not choose to built the next supercharged SuperSnake based on the Voodoo equipped GT350, but instead offer it on the Coyote equipped Mustang GT for that or some similar reasons. See www.shelby.com for their current offers.

 

[65Terdlingua]

I read somewhere else that Shelby American did not choose to built the next supercharged SuperSnake based on the Voodoo equipped GT350, but instead offer it on the Coyote equipped Mustang GT for that or some similar reasons. See www.shelby.com for their current offers.

I assume you work for Shelby American, as this is the second time I have seen you post trying to push their product. For $80k in total cost I could just buy a GT 350 and beat the Super Snake...

 

[GTA Mustang]

I don't work for them but I have a Snake in the pipeline............................

 

[65Terdlingua]

I don't work for them but I have a Snake in the pipeline............................

Well, no offense, but the SUper Snake and GT 350 don't really compare. A factory designed race car for much less than an add on after market built car, albeit by Shelby which I in no way am against, that can't beat your hellcat just seems silly. But you also have a hellcat which means you like big horsepower cars which the Super Snake is, and that's great. But I don't know that anyone here who is interested in a GT 350 would rather get the Shelby SS because it has a SC. If someone just wants bragging rights about horsepower, the SS is the way to go. For people interested in a more track capable car with with plenty of power for that environment, the 350 clearly wins.

Sponsored