Ford GT dyno numbers are in !

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by Avenger, Mar 9, 2004.

  1. The styling put's some people off. I liked it a lot better in person.

    The ergonomics and interior is WAAAY better in the new one.
  2. It's you.

    I DO NOT like the orignal Viper. It looks like a styling kludge. But I find the new Viper very attractive, much more refined looking.

    The only thing wrong with the new Viper is that oversized truck engine. It should have a lightweight highly tuned V8 around 6 - 6.5L.
  3. Wrong and oversized engine should not be in the same sentance.:D They wanted to make a V8 Viper, but Viper fans NO, it needed to have a V10. Viper compression is only 9.6:1, just imagine if they up it to 11.0:1, they should be able to get 650HP out of this engine with no problems.
  4. z28... the MT test was a farce. They didn't test the two on the same surface, which shoots any accuracy of the test to oblivion. Add in to the fact that that is the fastest the Viper has ever run, but Car and driver was able to run considerably faster in the GT. Then they have had quite a bit more experience launching the viper than the GT, a considerably more unique car. And finally, the GT was still preproduction, even if it did have the twin screw on it.

  5. Very good points, what did C&D run for Ford GT times? I think the final Ford GT will be able to do at least 11.4, if a 600HP 427 Camaro can do that time with a front end, the GT should at least be able to do it with the better weight disto of a mid engine.
  6. i'm pretty sure i remember 3.3 seconds to 60 in C&D. They also said they can't imagine finding a faster ride without going up to an S7 or even the Enzo.
    Yeah, the MT test results are messed up. Somebody wrote in about how wierd it is that the GT beat the viper in all the acceleration times, and yet the viper just barely beat out the GT in the quatermile. Turns out the viper times were a composite of a bunch of other track times or something like that. Like they couldn't take all the times on the same day or something, so they had to take results from ealier tests. You can't really compare two cars when they're being tested in completely separate road and atmospheric conditions. I was really suprised when i first read MTs test results, i'm pretty sure those numbers'll change a bit once they get a full production car and actually do a real direct comparison. i'm looking forward to their next "speeding" article, should be interesting. Next year's car of the year should be pretty cool to, what with the new vette and new stang. Ford'll have a couple entries this year. Go Freestyle!
  7. As was just stated, Car and Driver ran it and got a 3.3 to 60... I believe they had it at mid-11s, but C&D has the same penchant (or lack thereof) for launching torquey rear wheel drive cars. the 0-60 time put it right next to the Enzo and S7, which both have gotten around 3.3 0-60 times in most magazines that I've seen.
  8. Looks like GT engineers *did* take notes on the Koenigsegg CC8S--heck they got that kind of power/reliability out of the 4.6 cobra motor!

    I wonder if they were running OEM-production rated boost levels or 'slappin' on a smaller pulley ;)
  9. 565? Awesome! But now dyno chart? :shrug:
  10. It's you. I love love love the 1st gen coupes, but I know I'll like the new coupe (when it comes out) a ton better. The "edge" that the new car has really takes the Viper upscale, less teenage pubescent fantasy. I think it looks fabulous, you've just got to quit wishing it was a carbon copy of the 1st car. The 1st gen RT-10 cars with the removable toupe' roof and rear hoop are just plane goofball looking. Every time I see some guy driving around in one of those clown cars with his head poking up above the roofline with his Oakley Blades on, I can't get the image of Hardcastle & McCormick cruising the abismal "Coyote" around solving crimes out of my head LOL!
  11. I'll believe it when I see it on a dyno. 124mph traps speed is what they were getting. Were they detuned? Who knows. I would be hard pressed to belive the production 565rwhp numbers.
  12. i wish people would quit using that MT "comparison" of the GT and Viper.

    for the Viper no doubt.

    the highest trap speed i've heard of for the GT so far was 128mph. and that was by C&D, and they drive like old women. bring on Evan Smith.
  13. Yeah, but then you would be paying insane prices to feed it with high octane. Today's diluted gas can't power anything over about 9.6.
  14. Two points:

    1. If you own a viper than you can pay for the gas.

    2. All viper owner's will use the highest octane available (91 in Cali, and 93 everywhere else). 93 octane is easily capable of being used with 11.1 CR. I am running 10.5:1 stock and I have no problems with 93 octane with my factory timing advanced. I know other with stroker fbodies (383's, 396's) and theyt run 11.0-11.5 on street gas.
  15. Huh :shrug: The 2005 Mustang V8 has a 9.8:1 compression ratio and is specified for 87 octane.

    Also, you can't compare the octane ratings today with what they were many years ago. The measurement method was changed. IIRC the old 100+ octane pump gas from years ago would only be rated around 94 or 95 octane under the present rating method.
  16. LS1 = 10.1:1
    LS6 = 10.5:1
    LS2 = 10.9:1

    They all run 91, the LS1 can even run fine on 87, although Chevrolet recommends 91 for peak performance.
  17. That isn't an ad. The times you see advertisement are for the little embedded ads they have in the middle of the article.

  18. What's the HP loss on 87?
  19. Maybe like 20hp? :shrug: I know it is 20hp on the DOHC Acura V6. I ran tanks of 87 on my LT1 and LS1 before, you can't really notice a difference. The difference between 87 & 93 feels about the same as with and without a K&N. I guess with 87 the gas milage also goes down 1mpg or so.
  20. I've tried using 87 octane in my 2000 Lincoln LS V8. It has 10.55:1 compression ratio and is designed to run on 91 octane. It has a knock sensor and will retard timing with lower octane.

    With 87 octane highway only driving mileage is about 1 MPG worse. In around town driving it's over 1 MPG worse and it just plain feels like it doesn't have the same zip. I'd guess about a 5% HP loss, maybe 15 HP.

    I talked to a Continental owner - 4.6L DOHC and he told me he saw about the same degradation with 87 in his car (also 91 recommended).

    C&D did a study on this a few years ago and did dyno runs. They tested 5 or 6 cars including a Mustang GT. They found that the cars designed to run on 87 octane had little or no improvement on 91 or even 93. But the cars designed to run on 91 octane showed a measurable loss in HP and mileage when run on 87.

    It kills me to put 91 or 93 in my Lincoln since it cost around 20 cents more where I live. Some stations have now bumped that difference up to 22 - 23 cents which is a rip off as 91 only cost a few cents more a gallon to make. 91 & 93 are high profit products for both the oil companies and the gas stations.

    I am very happy that the 2005 GT is designed for 87. :banana: :banana: