Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Articles and News
Front Page Articles
Video: Jamal Hameedi Interview
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tob" data-source="post: 14563662" data-attributes="member: 83412"><p>Finally!:thumbsup:</p><p></p><p>Some interesting commentary for sure. Especially when Jamal stated that they never even thought about putting in a TR6060 just because "they are way too heavy." So ultimate torque capacity was sacrificed due to weight considerations. No built-in <em>over capacity</em> beyond typical safety factoring. With that compromise in mind one thing is for certain...this new gearbox better shift well <em>at the very least</em>. Hopefully the shifter was given more attention than even that of the regular Mustang GT.</p><p></p><p>The use of a two-piece steel driveshaft is a bit of a letdown. I hope we can get more detail as time passes because to be quite honest, I'm struggling with Jamal's comment that the engineers couldn't get a CF shaft that was "stiff enough." <a href="http://www.mustangandfords.com/car-reviews/m5lp-1209-2013-shelby-gt500-chassis-development/fuel-system.html" target="_blank">From Tom Wilson's article </a>of a couple of years ago we learned that the 662 hp, 200+ mph car, was using a CF shaft. Why?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Another interesting tidbit from that article.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Saves weight, has the ability to transmit more torque, and has the potential to eliminate friction when in comparison to a two-piece steel shaft with a center support bearing. In other words, a CF shaft represents everything Ford was looking to accomplish with the GT350. Yet we now have commentary that Ford couldn't get one "stiff enough" for use behind a similar wheel base vehicle that has less horsepower/torque, and undoubtedly a lower top speed.</p><p></p><p>Suddenly, cost rears its head (but not openly). Especially given the context Jamal provided in that same article.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What is most ironic is that the pre-production GT350 used for the reveal in Las Vegas, looked to be sporting a CF shaft. Hopefully, Ford "found" a way to get one stiff enough for the "R" model so that it can be retrofitted back and onto a standard GT350. Arrgh...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tob, post: 14563662, member: 83412"] Finally!:thumbsup: Some interesting commentary for sure. Especially when Jamal stated that they never even thought about putting in a TR6060 just because "they are way too heavy." So ultimate torque capacity was sacrificed due to weight considerations. No built-in [I]over capacity[/I] beyond typical safety factoring. With that compromise in mind one thing is for certain...this new gearbox better shift well [I]at the very least[/I]. Hopefully the shifter was given more attention than even that of the regular Mustang GT. The use of a two-piece steel driveshaft is a bit of a letdown. I hope we can get more detail as time passes because to be quite honest, I'm struggling with Jamal's comment that the engineers couldn't get a CF shaft that was "stiff enough." [URL="http://www.mustangandfords.com/car-reviews/m5lp-1209-2013-shelby-gt500-chassis-development/fuel-system.html"]From Tom Wilson's article [/URL]of a couple of years ago we learned that the 662 hp, 200+ mph car, was using a CF shaft. Why? Another interesting tidbit from that article. Saves weight, has the ability to transmit more torque, and has the potential to eliminate friction when in comparison to a two-piece steel shaft with a center support bearing. In other words, a CF shaft represents everything Ford was looking to accomplish with the GT350. Yet we now have commentary that Ford couldn't get one "stiff enough" for use behind a similar wheel base vehicle that has less horsepower/torque, and undoubtedly a lower top speed. Suddenly, cost rears its head (but not openly). Especially given the context Jamal provided in that same article. What is most ironic is that the pre-production GT350 used for the reveal in Las Vegas, looked to be sporting a CF shaft. Hopefully, Ford "found" a way to get one stiff enough for the "R" model so that it can be retrofitted back and onto a standard GT350. Arrgh... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Articles and News
Front Page Articles
Video: Jamal Hameedi Interview
Top