Ford could have made 500+hp naturally aspirated on the GT500

Discussion in '2007 - 2014 Shelby GT500 Tech' started by jazzwny, Jul 7, 2006.

  1. Ford could have made 500+hp naturally aspirated on the GT500.

    And the car would weigh 200-300 lbs less.

    Audi uses direct injection and is making 419 hp out of a 4.2L (254 cid) motor in their RS 4 sedan.

    That's 1.65 hp per cubic inch based on a quick running of the numbers.

    On a 5.4 (329 cid) Ford that's 544 hp. Subtract 44 hp to run at lower revs then the Audi and Porsches and you still meet your 500hp goal.

    Porsche on their GT3 makes 415 hp out of 3.6L (220 cid) and it didn't mention direct injection, and 605 hp out of their 5.7 L V10 in the Carerra GT.

    Toss the supercharger on the 5.4 and that should have paid for an aluminum block and an engine design that is current. They've been designing, building testing 4 cammers for well over 10 years!
  2. didn't you already post this over at the mustang source???How many boards are ya gonna post it at?
  3. Some of us are not members on all the other forums.

    As to the question posted, I know that with the 5.0L Ford Cammer engine they are achieving 440hp. Therefore, with the 5.4L, I am sure they can reach 500 if not close to it naturally aspired. Ford has already said that they can achieve over 600 horsepower with small changes to the current GT 500.

  4. I just love the way emotion gets substituted on these forums in place of physics and sound engineering.

    The 5.0 Cammer has a larger bore. You can't simply scale up the Cammer's HPs to a 5.4 which has a smaller bore and much longer stroke. Besides the 5.4 not being able to flow the same amount of air because of it's smaller bore, it's painfully long stroke won't let it rev as high either.

    Plus you're comparing an aftermarket engine (Cammer) that does not meet either emissions nor durability requiremenst of a street car.
  5. Not sound engineering?! Don't tell that to Honda, who on a $34,000 roadster makes 237hp from 131 cid. It hasn't been done under a rock-:) That's 1.8 hp per cube . On a 4.6 that comes to 505hp, right? Ford just took the easy way out...again.
  6. When you have an interesting topic to discuss, it has got to be tough for you never to repeat yourself, ever, in all the forums you may post in.-:)

    The same topics get discussed in all the Mustang magazines, but I doubt people take the time to complain about it.

    I like the challenge of seeing how much power a naturally aspirated motor can make while meeting emissions... talented people using brains and skill and 2006 hot rodding technology.

    Others find this optimizing n/a motors interesting on this forum, and the other forums.
  7. I applaud Fords use of a supercharged engine. Because of the supercharger it doesn't cost more then a few $100 and 30 minutes in the garage to pick it up 100 or so hp. To get that kind of power increase out of Chevy’s 505hp LS7 you need to do a cam swap, which costs more and isn't as easy to do.:nice:

  8. Do us a favour, go get the roadster. I'm just going to wait for the argument of $ per horsepower, modability, and the old HP/Weight ratio.


  9. And how much torqe and at what RPM does that Honda engine have?

    Why compare to the S2000 engine? Why aren't you comparing to some motorcycle engines that would scale up to 700 HP out of 4.6L?

    You are either a troll or someone who has zero knowlege of enginering & physics, or maybe both. :notnice:
  10. We'd argue more with you, but it would be akin to arguing politics with my cat.

    I can see the Ford powertrain development engineers right now, reading this thread, slapping their foreheads "Why didn't WE think of that!!! Awe MAN, SHUCKS!!! All those years at MIT, and a kid who likes bench-racing with stat sheets shows us up!!" :rolleyes:
  11. You do realize you are comparing Ford to cars that start at $73k. And I am sure you would be one of the first people to complain if Ford did develope such an engine. And then charged $73k for the GT500. And while I realize dealers are trying to get that much. Imagine them trying to tack on another $20k to an MSRP of $73k
  12. And has to be reved to the moon to get any performance out of it. Thing is a friggen slug in around town driving.

    Also why is this same thread seemingly in every Mustang forum I go on.

    I'd like to see an automaker get a n/a 4.6 to 505 hp and put it in a 40g car. Not gonna fn happen. Go talk to Ferrari and be prepared to spend 100k plus.

  13. Were those the same Ford engineers who said they had to go to the modular engine and can the 302, 351, and the 460 because they wouldn't be able to get pushrod engines to meet emissions?!

    I'll bet they were!

    And now is years behind and playing catch up in the V8 truck motor arena.

    (Poor Chevy and their 366 cid 400hp 427-500hp pushrod motor and Chrysler and their 425hp Hemi and their 500 hp Viper pushrod motors).

    Talk to Ford suppliers. They would amazed at how bright someone thinks all the Ford engineers are.

    Yeah, I can say it, I've had 5 new Fords, so I made my investment in them.

    Doesn't mean I have to believe their spin.

    All this n/a hp would cost to much, huh?!

    Henry Ford didn't believe "hitech" had to mean high price in his day, and wouldn't accept someone telling him it couldn't be done.

    So maybe I believe in the original vision behind Ford more than most people.

    You hear someone mention "foreign" and start personal attacks on posters out of immaturity.

    If Ford was afraid of opposing views on their products, they'd stop inviting the motoring press to drive their cars.

    So I guess you guys won't be working at Ford anytime soon.

    Ford purchases and analyzes foreign cars in depth to improve their product like every automaker does.

    Ford still can return to being THE force in the automaking world.

    You don't think all the bad press they are getting isn't making them change things for the better?!

    I hope none of our troops come on hear and make comments you don't like about the Shelby GT500, they'll find out free speech is dead, at least here.

    And I won't be wasting my time reading more immature replies here so you can save your time posting ....use the time to learn from your cat.

  14. The Chevy 366 cid @ 400 hp = 1.09 hp per ci
    The Chevy 427 cid @ 505 hp = 1.18 hp per ci
    The 6.1L Hemi (372 ci) @ 425hp = 1.14 hp per ci

    Mach 1 Ford 4.6L 4V (281 ci) @ 305 hp = 1.09 hp per ci
    01 Cobra 4.6L 4V (281 ci) @ 320 hp = 1.14 hp per ci
    4.6L 3V @ 300 hp = 1.06 hp per ci

    So tell me where Ford is playing catch up? It looks like what Ford is really lacking is displacement NOT power per cubic inch. That isn't even considering what the 4V 5.4L in the GT500 puts out without the supercharger.

    According to your assertion, the LS7 (427ci) should really be putting out 704 HP!!!!!
    That is, if it made the 1.65 hp per ci that you seem to think is so easy to make. Audi does it after all.

    Hell maybe if Honda got their hands on the LS7 they could get it to produce 767 hp bone stock.... It must be possible since they got 1.8 hp per ci on their S2000 engine!! Damn, the people who bought the 2006 Corvette Z06 sure got the shaft. It only makes 505 hp instead of 767 hp.

    Somehow I just don't think engine design is this easy or that simple to explain. In fact I know it isn't.
  15. Never confuse facts with an emotional argument. Somepeople want a 600cu motor with 900hp for $18k. And no amount of facts on how it can or cannot be done. Will ever change their point of view.
  16. Ford the record the Australian version of the N/A 5.4L 4V makes 388hp. That would put it at 1.175 hp per ci.

    By the way, as motors get smaller they automatically get more efficient. So the Honda S2000 engine will be slightly more efficient than an engine that is over twice the size, even without any engineering to make it do so. I don't know what the exact conversion would be, but once figured out I think the S2000 and Ford 5.4L N/A would be at least even, possibly with the Ford engine being more efficient for its size.
  17. You better hope Ricks don't read this thread. He'll tell you how the cow eats the cabbage! by God !
  18. 03 SVT VERT is exactly right. My 5hp briggs motor is incredibly small (less than 7ci) but makes over 10hp. This is not as possible on a bigger motor. The larger the displacement the more enefficient.

    Also look at the design of the Honda motor. It is high reving, which means torqueless and a pain on the street. Then you have Chevy who has one answer to all problems DISPLACEMENT. The ford Diesel was OWNING them so they made one that was 1.25 times bigger.

    Ford has a lot hidden from us. I believe they are waiting to see what gas will do before they show anyone there cards. Look at the Euro Focus. Theres one over there now with a 350hp turbo inline6 with AWD. Ford knows what they are doing, they just havent let us know what that thing is.
  19. Agreed....I was just using that guys logic applied to the LS7 to illustrate how absurd it was. Ford has hidden a lot from us, and they are still even playing around with the idea of that 6.2L hurricane engine.

    As far as the 6 cylinder 350hp focus with AWD....I haven't seen that here in Europe. I'm stationed over here and the largest offering the Focus has that I've seen in production is a turbocharged five cylinder that puts out 225hp. Still better than what we have in the states, but not quite a 350hp Focus.

    EDIT: I did just read about 300+ bhp AWD Focus RS, but that is in development. It is not yet a production car.
  20. I think you guys did an excellent job of presenting the facts and illustrating the continued absurdity... Good job..

    I've never heard that criticism and poking fun amounts to denial of free speech. That's a new one...