Is the GT500 already under development?

[CompOrange04]

Like stated previously, don't you guys think Ford would do something that we as the average consumer couldn't do? Just like developing the 5.2 in the GT350? Heck there's an article on the front page about a twin turbo kit S550 and it makes crazy hp and torque... Ford isn't going to just do this in a GT500. I really just hope they continue building upon what they've already done since they know the window for emissions and gov't regulations is closing very very quickly. This goes hand in hand about why they might just go balls out and do some big ass 429 variant just one more time before everything is v6 twin turbo, etc.

 

[mc01svt]

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.

incorrect, turbos increase power density (hp/L) not efficiency. Simply adding an exhaust driven compressor to a 4 cycle engine does not increase the thermodynamic efficiency and does not inherently reduce its fuel consumption at a given power level.

A high compression NA engine will always have a better BSFC (lb/hp-hr) than a similarly equipped turbo engine. This is a scientific fact and has been well documented. :read: The only "advantage" as far as mpg with turbo is the fact that you can downsize the engine and only sip fuel during light loads. The fallacy in that theory is in the average driving cycle the engine spends alot of time accelerating or under some variable loading condition (hills, wind, rolling resistance, passing).

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

incorrect, turbos increase power density (hp/L) not efficiency. Simply adding an exhaust driven compressor to a 4 cycle engine does not increase the thermodynamic efficiency and does not inherently reduce its fuel consumption at a given power level.

A high compression NA engine will always have a better BSFC (lb/hp-hr) than a similarly equipped turbo engine. This is a scientific fact and has been well documented. :read: The only "advantage" as far as mpg with turbo is the fact that you can downsize the engine and only sip fuel during light loads. The fallacy in that theory is in the average driving cycle the engine spends alot of time accelerating or under some variable loading condition (hills, wind, rolling resistance, passing).

Huh, you think so? I'm not so sure in this dialogue that we're understanding each other as an na engine in general would not be used by Ford for this application. Here's why I think it will be a boosted engine:

Preliminarily, let me clear the waters. I was comparing supercharged and turbocharged applications. The excerpt you quoted of my post was comparing specifically the Audi s4's mill. It's a supercharged hybrid drive 3.0L. You may have been thinking of the b6 s4's 4.2L v8, but I meant the supercharged b7. (as implied in context of my previous post). With that context in mind, I should also point out I think many would agree that there's little chance an na mill making 750hp will be fuel efficient enough for modern regulations without cylinder deactivation, variable valve and cam timing, direct injection, and decidedly high compression etc.

In the capacity of 750-800hp (what a new gt500 would need to regain the crown from dodge's 707hp hellcat decidedly) turbo's would be able to run less boost, have much less parasitic drag, and generally operate more efficiently out of boost. We're talking about a huge auto manufacturer that has teams of engineers to fine tune the turbo system so it can easily be achieved. 650-680whp from a turbo system is a breeze at around 10psi on a 5.5-6.0L dohc. The 5.8 trinity ran 15psi for 600whp so it's easy to see that dropping 5psi of boost will aid reliability, and cutting the sc out will reduce parasitic drag.

There is very little chance a 750-800hp na mill could run anything but hyper aggressive cams and short runner intake to stay in the 5.5-6.0L dohc size determined by the engine bays physical size. That combo will not produce mpg.

If we were comparing a 300hp turbo 4l vs a 300hp na 4L I would totally agree with most all of your points. You are absolutely correct that adding artificial aspiration to an engine can in no way improve it's natural efficiency. I never claimed that though, but it is a great consideration to bring into this dialogue as it does pertain in general to powerplant dynamics as a whole.

Many turbo combo's make 1000whp+ and knock down 25+mpg highway, my own can touch 28mpg highway on the right stretches. It's harder to do sc because it's important to richen fuel tables since boost is very near instantaneous and can easily demand more than lean fuel tables can supply in the traditional economic ranges of 1000-2000rpms.

You are also decidedly correct that an na mill with high compression, possibly direct injection, etc will run the leanest. The hard thing is reaching 750-800hp na without very aggressive cams and huge ci. Engine Masters champion builds are usually 400-440ci making 700-750hp with equavalent fuel efficiency to something like 15-20mpg but it's impossible to extrapolate from fuel per minute on an engine dyno because of all the missing variables.

Now that all said, if they found a way to run cylinder deactivation on a 7.0L na mill to cut it down to about 3.5L, like Chevy does with the lt1, then we could actually see a 25-30mpg 7.0L 750-800hp mill. It'd need variable valve timing, likely direct injection, and at least 11.5/1 compression, but it'd be awesome. It's wishful thinking but hey why not wish.

Lastly, to contradict some people's claims or fallacy, I'll offer that the driver makes the difference. I can drive my 2012 2.0T Buick Regal gs to 24mpg city, and 35mpg highway. It's rated for 19/27. How? I understand variable valve timing and keep at mild throttle pressure while staying under 1500rpms as much as possible. Go over 1/4 throttle and the timing drops from 30~ degrees to 12 or so... That's a huge loss to efficiency. I have gone 600+miles on 17.5 gallons in that car. Mind you if I drive like a convict, I only get about 23mpg per tank. Still that is the average of the testing loop on the sticker. It's fair to note most people's driving habits won't return EPA sticker numbers. I have friends with Eco boosts that have exceeded EPA ratings, and friends who say ford lies and the engines are garbage because they only get 10-12mpg. I won't go into details but if I borrowed their car, I'm sure I'd exceed EPA numbers. I trust EPA numbers as much as I trust that all taxes go for a great cause. I'm not a liberal so that trust is not strong.


Hope I don't seem rude or argumentative, I just think I wasn't clear enough on my first post so I was easily misunderstood.

 

[Lemers]

Do I get an engineer degree if I take a test after reading all that?

 

[Backorder]

Do I get an engineer degree if I take a test after reading all that?

:shrug: TLDR for me lol

 

[ON D BIT]

What about this one? 460ci n/a 8500rpm 800 crank horsepower!

http://bangshift.com/general-news/v...ures-460ci-scream-at-8500-rpm-and-make-800hp/

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

What about this one? 460ci n/a 8500rpm 800 crank horsepower!

http://bangshift.com/general-news/v...ures-460ci-scream-at-8500-rpm-and-make-800hp/

Mind....blown... Haha that's so sick.

I saw an article about the s197's lost components (budget cuts) from irs for the cobra as an 06, to a 3.0L dohc v6, to a 7.0L dohc high performance v8... Coulda been epic.

 

[ON D BIT]

Mind....blown... Haha that's so sick.

I saw an article about the s197's lost components (budget cuts) from irs for the cobra as an 06, to a 3.0L dohc v6, to a 7.0L dohc high performance v8... Coulda been epic.

Unlimited budget I dont put a twin turbo on a raptor, I build the motor to the above specs!!!!

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

Unlimited budget I dont put a twin turbo on a raptor, I build the motor to the above specs!!!!

That would be awesome. I'd love a high strung 7.0L dohc making 750hp in the fgt successor. Even a 400whp na mill feels so much faster than a 400whp sc mill in similar cars/weights/gearing. Na just feels so direct through the pedal at any rpm/pedal pressure.

 

[mc01svt]

Huh, you think so? I'm not so sure in this dialogue that we're understanding each other as an na engine in general would not be used by Ford for this application. Here's why I think it will be a boosted engine:

Preliminarily, let me clear the waters. I was comparing supercharged and turbocharged applications. The excerpt you quoted of my post was comparing specifically the Audi s4's mill. It's a supercharged hybrid drive 3.0L. You may have been thinking of the b6 s4's 4.2L v8, but I meant the supercharged b7. (as implied in context of my previous post). With that context in mind, I should also point out I think many would agree that there's little chance an na mill making 750hp will be fuel efficient enough for modern regulations without cylinder deactivation, variable valve and cam timing, direct injection, and decidedly high compression etc.

In the capacity of 750-800hp (what a new gt500 would need to regain the crown from dodge's 707hp hellcat decidedly) turbo's would be able to run less boost, have much less parasitic drag, and generally operate more efficiently out of boost. We're talking about a huge auto manufacturer that has teams of engineers to fine tune the turbo system so it can easily be achieved. 650-680whp from a turbo system is a breeze at around 10psi on a 5.5-6.0L dohc. The 5.8 trinity ran 15psi for 600whp so it's easy to see that dropping 5psi of boost will aid reliability, and cutting the sc out will reduce parasitic drag.

There is very little chance a 750-800hp na mill could run anything but hyper aggressive cams and short runner intake to stay in the 5.5-6.0L dohc size determined by the engine bays physical size. That combo will not produce mpg.

If we were comparing a 300hp turbo 4l vs a 300hp na 4L I would totally agree with most all of your points. You are absolutely correct that adding artificial aspiration to an engine can in no way improve it's natural efficiency. I never claimed that though, but it is a great consideration to bring into this dialogue as it does pertain in general to powerplant dynamics as a whole.

Many turbo combo's make 1000whp+ and knock down 25+mpg highway, my own can touch 28mpg highway on the right stretches. It's harder to do sc because it's important to richen fuel tables since boost is very near instantaneous and can easily demand more than lean fuel tables can supply in the traditional economic ranges of 1000-2000rpms.

You are also decidedly correct that an na mill with high compression, possibly direct injection, etc will run the leanest. The hard thing is reaching 750-800hp na without very aggressive cams and huge ci. Engine Masters champion builds are usually 400-440ci making 700-750hp with equavalent fuel efficiency to something like 15-20mpg but it's impossible to extrapolate from fuel per minute on an engine dyno because of all the missing variables.

Now that all said, if they found a way to run cylinder deactivation on a 7.0L na mill to cut it down to about 3.5L, like Chevy does with the lt1, then we could actually see a 25-30mpg 7.0L 750-800hp mill. It'd need variable valve timing, likely direct injection, and at least 11.5/1 compression, but it'd be awesome. It's wishful thinking but hey why not wish.

Lastly, to contradict some people's claims or fallacy, I'll offer that the driver makes the difference. I can drive my 2012 2.0T Buick Regal gs to 24mpg city, and 35mpg highway. It's rated for 19/27. How? I understand variable valve timing and keep at mild throttle pressure while staying under 1500rpms as much as possible. Go over 1/4 throttle and the timing drops from 30~ degrees to 12 or so... That's a huge loss to efficiency. I have gone 600+miles on 17.5 gallons in that car. Mind you if I drive like a convict, I only get about 23mpg per tank. Still that is the average of the testing loop on the sticker. It's fair to note most people's driving habits won't return EPA sticker numbers. I have friends with Eco boosts that have exceeded EPA ratings, and friends who say ford lies and the engines are garbage because they only get 10-12mpg. I won't go into details but if I borrowed their car, I'm sure I'd exceed EPA numbers. I trust EPA numbers as much as I trust that all taxes go for a great cause. I'm not a liberal so that trust is not strong.


Hope I don't seem rude or argumentative, I just think I wasn't clear enough on my first post so I was easily misunderstood.

I'm in general agreement with this post. :beer: My main point was to clear the water on all those that believe slapping a turbo on an engine actually increases it efficiency, which is a widespread belief that's completely and utterly wrong.

 

[14GT500Robert]

Seems like the timing is perfect to see a ecoboost V8 with the new 10 speed auto.

 

[1971mach1]

Has anyone heard any news ?

 

[DBK]

I will reiterate that the "TT V6 will power new GT500" articles all over the net are baseless clickbait.

 

[DHG1078]

I will reiterate that the "TT V6 will power new GT500" articles all over the net are baseless clickbait.

What headlines should we be looking for?

 

[DepWraith]

Has anyone heard any news ?

There is ZERO news.

 

[ON D BIT]

There is ZERO news.

Why should there be any news? People are complaining there is no news on the GT350 which is two years ahead of the new GT500.

In two years there might be some news...

 

[biminiLX]

I will reiterate that the "TT V6 will power new GT500" articles all over the net are baseless clickbait.

Thank god!
As much as I respect the Ecoboost V6, I personally wouldn't by the next gen GT500 without a V8.
I would however buy the Ecoboost Raptor.
-J

 

[jshen]

I don't know why this site logs me out after 30 seconds...but LL news again posted that garbage about TT Shelby. Reporters are like politicians, they will say anything, true or not, to get attention. (Clinton/Obama Syndrome)

http://www.leftlanenews.com/next-ford-shelby-gt500-to-get-twinturbo-v6-88929.html

 

[02GTKB]

Everything out there regarding the possibility of a new GT500 is all rumors and speculation at this point and there has not been any creditable information to get too excited about..I would rather see ford stick with a big v-8 s/c engine and crank out over 700hp and somehow get lighter..maybe cf body panels would be nice

 

[CompOrangeCobra]

Common sense leads me to think and I mean just think it will be a direct injected 5.x twin turbo V8 ecoboost based off of the coyote, it just seems like what the next move will be on Fords end, why would Ford stay with supercharging since both GM & Dodge have gone supercharged as well, I think Ford will switch it up and show something different, but again, this is all JUST speculation, just thinking out loud...