Same goes for a turbocharged 5.0. If it can make 500hp n/a, then it should make 1000 hp with 14 psi
Is the GT500 already under development?
- Thread starter NlGHTMARE
- Start date
Same goes for a turbocharged 5.0. If it can make 500hp n/a, then it should make 1000 hp with 14 psi
It's surprising that we haven't seen any GT500 test cars running around yet.
Maybe the GT350 has been eating up resources at Ford.
I doubt they have given up on the GT500 considering past history.
An 800hp TT 6.2 on low boost/mild tune, with the auto trans would be fine with me.
Maybe the GT350 has been eating up resources at Ford.
I doubt they have given up on the GT500 considering past history.
An 800hp TT 6.2 on low boost/mild tune, with the auto trans would be fine with me.
Lots of speculation which is fun but no real info coming out of Ford. If I had to guess for the GT500, I would predict a ecoboost (TT) based on the 5.0, probably a 5.2L. No way do I see a V6, the application for the GT was for a completely different and specific application. I think the more difficult thing to predict would be the option of a DCT, would love to see it but Ford has been reluctant to move in this direction because of cost, maybe this will be the right time to introduce it.
With the way a lot of these post are worded, there's going to be a bunch of butthurt people if the new gt500 does come out. I know we are all putting our wildest imaginations out there but for those who are semi-serious, I've got some bad news and it's called CAFE. If their top dog car didn't get a TTV8, what makes anyone think a lesser model would get one? At best a supercharged 5.X probably based on coyote architecture.
With 600 plus horsepower, I don't know how a GT500 could be called a GT500 any longer. In order to call a GT 500 a GT500 it should have a 500 cubic inch engine and then Ford could produce however much horsepower they want. Then a GT500 would mean it has a 500 cubic inch engine and the name would have real meaning.
Huh? The 350/500 designation has never had anything to do with HP or ci 's.
You do realize the 350 designation was the number of steps from Carroll's office to the assembly line. The 500, as I understand it, was the same where he said it was "Oh, about 500"
I think we just need to sit back and wait. Look at the bombs(in a good way) Ford has been dropping.
Sure, we can sit back and wait but I'm going to throw my prediction into the ring anyway. I'm thinking some form of 6.2L + (428 would be nice) single overhead cam, two valve engine for a Mach1 variant. Even in two valve form it would better anything the competition is offering and we'd finally be on equal footing in the cubic inch department.
And just like the Boss 429 with the canted valve hemi style heads, the new Boss will have special heads as well in the form of DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder.
Thing is, none of the guys "in the know" are disputing this 6.2L based engine combo (so far) and if anybody remembers when Ford quietly unveiled the new larger block it had "THE BOSS IS BACK" cast into the valley. Are they really going to make that bold of a statement for a block simply destined for a pickup truck? Maybe. But I suspect something bigger in the works.
And just like the Boss 429 with the canted valve hemi style heads, the new Boss will have special heads as well in the form of DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder.
Thing is, none of the guys "in the know" are disputing this 6.2L based engine combo (so far) and if anybody remembers when Ford quietly unveiled the new larger block it had "THE BOSS IS BACK" cast into the valley. Are they really going to make that bold of a statement for a block simply destined for a pickup truck? Maybe. But I suspect something bigger in the works.
Single OHC with 2 valves in todays new tech is so far off base it's crazy, no offense.
Not compared to the competition (Chevy, Chrysler). It's better than anything they have. And in 428/429 form it would trailer the current 5.0's mod for mod.
I like your thinking.
I want 500 cubic inches. Don't worry about gas guzzler tax. I will pay the tax in exchange for the power.
I just want a gt350 with usable horsepower rather have handling can always bot on a few mods and a tune for more h/p later I am really
liking the 350
liking the 350
So did Bunkie Knudson before getting shitcanned.
Buy a ford crate motor and drop it in a S550. About as close as you will get
My question is what difference does twin turboing a v8 have regarding cafe? I say this as presently at least 2 German manufacturer's have ttv8's, BMW, Mercedes, and I believe Audi has a ttv8 or v10. They all do fine with cafe.
Also, in what world does a supercharged v8 do better on cafe than a turbo mill? A turbo mill can run much leaner base, idle, and low load cruisable fuel tables and accordingly do much better mpg, lower emissions (exhaust is cycled twice, line a turbo down pipe or even parts of the hotside with catylitic element if you must, easy way to "clean" the exhaust twice. You couldn't do that to an sc car unless you simply ran quad converters).
Anyway my point is regardless of Ford's choice of powerplant, let's not assume what is and isn't going on. Turbos are actually better for fuel economy when designed accordingly. Even a hybrid supercharger system like Audi's s4 which couples and decouples to reduce parasitic drag at cruising load is still running richer fuel tables while doing so than if it was turbo.
You can lean turbo cars out at low load tables and it helps everything including spool and plug longevity.
End rant.
Oh, I also think it'd be cool if Ford made a 428ci engine for a 2017-2018 gt500... 50years...
If they can make a 5.2 fpc, I think they could make a 7.0 428ci with cylinder deactivation that ran as a 3.5 when cruising. Obviously the feature could likely be switched off for a more entertaining sound while cruising, or on if one wants to travel far on a road trip.
A 3.5L 214ci mill would easily meet 30 mpg IMO, and with a nicely spaced tr6060 or tc9007 dsg running .50 6th or 7th ratios, it'd have all the legs it'd needs with a 3.55 for both performance and efficiency vs the trinity's 3.31.
Now end rant. Obviously the above is wishful thinking but it could be done.
Also, in what world does a supercharged v8 do better on cafe than a turbo mill? A turbo mill can run much leaner base, idle, and low load cruisable fuel tables and accordingly do much better mpg, lower emissions (exhaust is cycled twice, line a turbo down pipe or even parts of the hotside with catylitic element if you must, easy way to "clean" the exhaust twice. You couldn't do that to an sc car unless you simply ran quad converters).
Anyway my point is regardless of Ford's choice of powerplant, let's not assume what is and isn't going on. Turbos are actually better for fuel economy when designed accordingly. Even a hybrid supercharger system like Audi's s4 which couples and decouples to reduce parasitic drag at cruising load is still running richer fuel tables while doing so than if it was turbo.
You can lean turbo cars out at low load tables and it helps everything including spool and plug longevity.
End rant.
Oh, I also think it'd be cool if Ford made a 428ci engine for a 2017-2018 gt500... 50years...
If they can make a 5.2 fpc, I think they could make a 7.0 428ci with cylinder deactivation that ran as a 3.5 when cruising. Obviously the feature could likely be switched off for a more entertaining sound while cruising, or on if one wants to travel far on a road trip.
A 3.5L 214ci mill would easily meet 30 mpg IMO, and with a nicely spaced tr6060 or tc9007 dsg running .50 6th or 7th ratios, it'd have all the legs it'd needs with a 3.55 for both performance and efficiency vs the trinity's 3.31.
Now end rant. Obviously the above is wishful thinking but it could be done.
Last edited:
428 cubic inches is 7.0 liters.
Whoops, good catch. I edited my post to reflect that now.
Side note, it'd be a lot of fun to get behind the marketing of
"750hp naturally aspirated 7.0L. 30mpg. Less c02 emissions than a BMW M4"
Again pipe dream stuff but hey the car is years off anyways so why not.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
