RPMs

[Khell86]

That was my concern and reason for posting it as well. People were concerned with thin piston skirts and now it seems that is the least of our concerns.

I don't mind voiding my warranty (been there done that with every car I've bought) but I don't want to have to shell out 15-20k for a new long block for adding 50-100hp or so.

You act like you're genuinely interested in the GT350. In the past all you've done is dog on the mustang.

Sponsored

 

[Big reg]

You act like you're genuinely interested in the GT350. In the past all you've done is dog on the mustang.

I've owned several Mustangs so try again. And show me one time I said anything negative about Mustangs in general. I'll wait.

 

[RustedAngel]

If I were told to place a wager on why this was implemented, I'd throw money down on the fact that it's a brand new engine design, a first run production of cars to the public, and they're unable to do the type of extended long term testing they'd like to, capable of simulating the driving habits of said public - so this was implemented to turn the first run of cars into long term test subjects.

As has been said about the Coyote, it's gotten stronger each year. I'd expect this engine to be the same line of thinking. Protecting Ford from warranty claims and giving them a structure with which to judge long term durability, possibly restricting the nanny, or even firing her completely in generations to come, opening up the engine more and more.

Early adopters will unfortunately be a victim of release woes.

 

[Trackaholic]

Went back through the RPM and speeds for each year and realized I had read that sawtooth chart wrong. The nice thing is that the RPMs do go below 6250 for the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts. So it's only the real high speed runs that would likely be an issue. I think for normal track work (road course and 1/4 mile), the car will be fine. It's is also still possible that we aren't interpreting this info properly. Overall, I'm no longer worried about this feature from a performance standpoint, but it will be interesting to see how it is handled in car reviews, especially since the quoted power figure is above the limiting threshold. The other interesting aspect is wondering about the reason for this feature in the first place. What exactly is it protecting and how robust is the engine overall if this feature is required.

Gear:.....Starting RPM:.....Top Speed:
1.................0..................55.4
2..............5620................80.7
3..............5915..............111.9
4..............6312..............145.4
5..............6612..............180.3
6....1785 RPM @ 62 MPH (69.5 MPH @ 2000 RPM)

-T

 

[SILVER GT]

I truly hope there is more to this then what was written in the training guide. I got the green light to order a '17 when the time comes over a GT, but this 8 second limit thing would be a huge issue. Not just for the limit, but why did they have to limit it so much in the first place?

Hope we find out more information soon...

 

[350Mike]

If you read it carefully it does not state redline for 8 seconds, it states above 6250 for 8 seconds which is what most are commenting on. If you are at 8250rpm for 8 seconds you are an idiot plain and simple. Above 8k I could see this feature but 6250 seems a bit conservative and to me brings up questions of long term longevity.

Normally OEM's use hard rev limiters not premature electrical nannies to protect the engine which is why it concerns some after this engine was touted and compared to Ferrari etc..It would not have been put into place if it did not concern the bean counters over warranty claims, plain and simple. They are not protecting you from yourself, they are protecting themselves from future losses plain and simple.

Some will say screw it, throw up the :ford: and rationalize why it's great. If it were a GM or BMW product with this feature it would be blasted to holy hell and back. I am a modder and it changes my outlook on purchasing for sure as I am not a brand loyalist.

I know how many Voodoo prototypes destroyed themselves during testing. This is exactly why I have said all along, everyone jump on and pay what you feel it's worth. I will wait to see how they perform as opposed to basing my 60k purchase on manufacturer marketing campaigns.

You bring up a good point. How many were destroyed and what was the failure?
I am just assuming that the powerband is it so broad that 7500-8250 will be seen for extremely short durations. I do believe Ford is protecting themselves, but not because the product is bad. They wouldn't and haven't put out Products that aren't durable lately. They are innovating the way things are done because there is a lot of brilliant people on board. Waiting like you are is smart, I'm not because I believe, and these are going to be the hottest cars of 2016. I'm not a fan boy, I just like great engineering and beautiful design, don't care who made it.

 

[350Mike]

Isn't peak power at 7500rpms? Isn't that the goal on a high rev motor to stay near peak power while racing?

Peak power isn't all there is to the story. Neither is RPMS. It's a combination of HP/Torque over an RPM range that make a race car fast. There is a lot of ways you can slice this pie. Look at the Le Mans Audi prototype diesels. The RPMS are way lower and super fast. They have a very wide flat powerband and they use it well.

 

[Mystic_Cobra]

Went back through the RPM and speeds for each year and realized I had read that sawtooth chart wrong. The nice thing is that the RPMs do go below 6250 for the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts. So it's only the real high speed runs that would likely be an issue. I think for normal track work (road course and 1/4 mile), the car will be fine. It's is also still possible that we aren't interpreting this info properly. Overall, I'm no longer worried about this feature from a performance standpoint, but it will be interesting to see how it is handled in car reviews, especially since the quoted power figure is above the limiting threshold. The other interesting aspect is wondering about the reason for this feature in the first place. What exactly is it protecting and how robust is the engine overall if this feature is required.

Gear:.....Starting RPM:.....Top Speed:
1.................0..................55.4
2..............5620................80.7
3..............5915..............111.9
4..............6312..............145.4
5..............6612..............180.3
6....1785 RPM @ 62 MPH (69.5 MPH @ 2000 RPM)

-T

Yeah, I think people are getting worked up over nothing. If you look at the rpm graph, you'll see that if you shift at 6500, 7000 or even 7500 in the upper gears, you will drop below 6250.
Getting the reset (15 sec below redline plus dropping below 5000 rpm) seems like it will be tough for a road course RACE where you never want to take a break. For anyone doing a drag race or even a Time Trial event or typical track day/HPDE, you can take 15 seconds in top gear to let it reset.
If you are using the car in a real road course race, you'll have made so many changes to the car (including the tune) that none of this will matter.

 

[turbo_fox]

I don't think the reasoning behind this is a lack of development. Maybe in the public sector, but definitely not in the engineering department. I personally seen a gt350 in operation and talked to one of the developing engineers last August at the launch of the S 550.

 

[likeaboss]

I completely understand the warm-up feature, but it's sad that a NA motor needs to have an over rev feature.

I had the same feature on my 14 GT500, but it was a much smaller RPM range and a FI application. Where the Boss 302 is 7500 straight up with many tuning it to hit 8250. Hopefully someone from Ford will chime in and provide more details around this decision.

 

[dbk]

There is no 8 second redline overrev on the GT350.

 

[Nataphen]

There is no 8 second redline overrev on the GT350.

Do you care to let us know how you know this?

 

[chopsui]

Hopefully someone from Ford will chime in and provide more details around this decision.

I think that might have just happened.

 

[SILVER GT]

Do you care to let us know how you know this?

What he said.

 

[dbk]

The piece of literature the statement was made in has been removed.

Rest easy, there is no 8 second overrev function.

Sponsored