Stock Ford GT dyno

Just ran into this. It's on the hennessey website. That is a nice ass tq curve.

http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/hennesseyperformance/images/Pic4.php?id=52

Stock #'s are 515.1rwhp and 481.2rwtq. Not bad. Nowhere the 560rwhp that was rumored awhile back, but nice nonethelss. This is also one car/test. Numbers could be below average, average, or above average for all i know. Anyone else seen other stock figures?

835 miles on the odo... I'm sure it could improve quite a bit with some miles. But not 45rwhp that it'd need to match those #s.

What about the new Z06, what did it dyno at again?

515 RWHP is ~565-575 at the flywheel.

I believe the new Z06 was dynoing an average of

~440-450RWHP/410-420RWTQ stock.

~480RWHP/460RWTQ with headers.

~492 RWHP/472RWTQ with headers/no air filter/full redline fluids.

So yeah, the GT has more HP stock for stock. How much does it weigh? I know the Z06 is like at 31xx lbs.

515 RWHP is ~565-575 at the flywheel.

Right but from what I gathered, he's saying people were saying 560 rwhp.

Right but from what I gathered, he's saying people were saying 560 rwhp.

That was the rumor that was flying around a year or so ago. Rumor was that Roush or someone dyno-tested one and got like 550-560rwhp. This was before production started though and so it could have been a pre-production model. Either way, that was the rumor flying around a year or so ago.

Engine is still relatively new and going through the break-in process and so it should still have a few more ponies to gain, but nothing significant like you already mentioned.

Either way, the #'s are pretty solid.

So yeah, the GT has more HP stock for stock. How much does it weigh? I know the Z06 is like at 31xx lbs.
3150 lbs. I have a pull out from a mag when they ran a story on it.

I think the Ford GT is like 3500 or so.

A guy here from Bahrain ordered one. I was at the pier when he picked it up. We both looked it over and I must say it's a work of art. You cant imagine what he paid for it.

"But what if it had a pulley..."

:lol:

I'm the funniest guy I know...

Nice showing from the blue oval camp though.

I think the Ford GT is like 3500 or so.

Naw more like 3200 to 3300 lbs, there is only about a tenth difference in the power to weight ratio of Z06 and a Ford GT with the Z06 being the better of the two and with better aero and less weight, ergo it is the faster car.

In the GT's defense it wasn't about being the best, rather it was about generating excitement, however since it is an expensive rolling advert for Ford (unfortunately a flawed one), it had to post the numbers.

Interestingly The orginal GT's (GT40 being a nick name derived from its then measured height of 40 inches) had aero problems too, They would get light in the tail and spin out IIRC, until a ducktail was added to generate down force, but the GT did what it need to do back then and that was put the smackdown on Ferrari and claim a manufacturers racing cup. These cars were very sucsessful and lived a long long life in racing until Porsche came along with its two ton gorilla. If anybody thinks that the Ford GT's predecessors are insignificant, go and check out the used car market for the GT40.

"But what if it had a pulley..."

:lol:

I'm the funniest guy I know...

Nice showing from the blue oval camp though.


so true on both accounts..

That's a monster. Good job Ford for having the b@lls to put out a car with so much hp/tq stock.

I hope the jaggy curve is a function of the dyno used, and not the engine. Maybe they didn't use smoothing on the dynojet.

I'm a fan of making a lighter car, and not needing quite as much HP to get the same performance. The handling is better that way, all else equal.

Dan

Naw more like 3200 to 3300 lbs,

Ford GT - 3,489 lbs
Z06 - 3,147 lbs

Naw more like 3200 to 3300 lbs, there is only about a tenth difference in the power to weight ratio of Z06 and a Ford GT with the Z06 being the better of the two and with better aero and less weight, ergo it is the faster car.
Using the numbers above, and a weight of 3150 for the Z06 and 3500 for the GT, you get the following:

GT: 3500 lbs / 515 RWHP = 6.80 lb/HP
Z06: 3150 lbs / 445 RWHP = 7.08 lb/HP

I haven't seen drag coefficients for each, so I can't comment on the aero. However, GM claims a drag limited 198 mph for the Z06, and from C&D about the GT: "The projections in Dearborn are for more than 200 mph. Considering how mightily it was accelerating at 170 mph (it got there in only 23.0 seconds), we'd have to say Ford is right."

It would be interesting to hear if anybody had actually gone out and found the top speed limits of each.

I would think the if both cars were involved in a raw top speed battle, that the GT has it on the Vette, due to its higher raw power rating. How much does power-to-weight actually affect your ability to accelerate at those kind of extreme speeds?

The C6's coefficient of drag is .286, but I believe the z06's is .34, due to the wider tires and body work to keep the car planted and such. I have no idea what the Ford GT's coefficient of drag is though, although I thought I remembered reading a long time ago it was .38, but that was a long time ago, so I would highly suspect it got brought down quite a bit from that.

Ford GT - 3,489 lbs
Z06 - 3,147 lbs

These are the numbers from the automobile mag article BTW. They had the Viper at 3454 just for comparison's sake.

GM really nailed the total package w/ the power, weight, and gearing w/ the Z06. It oughta get it's assed kicked by the GT on paper even w/ the weight, yet it appears to at least hold it's own... Quite impressive.

I haven't seen drag coefficients for each, so I can't comment on the aero. However, GM claims a drag limited 198 mph for the Z06, and from C&D about the GT: "The projections in Dearborn are for more than 200 mph. Considering how mightily it was accelerating at 170 mph (it got there in only 23.0 seconds), we'd have to say Ford is right."

It would be interesting to hear if anybody had actually gone out and found the top speed limits of each.

Unless i'm wrong, there was talk of the GT doing 212mph. It'll do atleast 205mph, that much i know.

As for coefficient drag, z06 > GT.

GT's Cd is 0.39 :eek:. Original GT40 was 0.43.

C6 z06 is listed as 0.34. The regular c6 on the other hand is listed as 0.28.

515 RWHP is ~565-575 at the flywheel.
With only a 9% loss of power in the drivetrain, NHRA Pro Stock teams should start using the GT's drivetrain for their race cars.

(im being sarcastic, and doubting that there is less than a 10% loss from flywheel to wheel)

Because we don't really know what the flywheel HP is, and given that it is a street car with a street transmission on street tires with street gearing, I think a 50-60 HP loss through the drivetrain is reasonable - though I wouldn't at all be surprised if that is conservative and the actual flywheel HP is higher (and I'd rather be conservative...especially when discussing a Ford on this site).

I don't buy a generic percentage to convert from RWHP to flywheel HP. Never have. One reason is that I have shown a 15 RWHP (~5%) swing in my old 99 from one type of street tranny to another (300 RWHP vs 310 RWHP vs 315 RWHP - with only a tranny swap).

Because we don't really know what the flywheel HP is, and given that it is a street car with a street transmission on street tires with street gearing, I think a 50-60 HP loss through the drivetrain is reasonable - though I wouldn't at all be surprised if that is conservative and the actual flywheel HP is higher (and I'd rather be conservative...especially when discussing a Ford on this site).

I don't buy a generic percentage to convert from RWHP to flywheel HP. Never have. One reason is that I have shown a 15 RWHP (~5%) swing in my old 99 from one type of street tranny to another (300 RWHP vs 310 RWHP vs 315 RWHP - with only a tranny swap).

Well obviously different drivetrains will have different drivetrain losses, depending on the the setup. I wonder what kind of loss Ford's transaxle setup has in the GT. I guess the only way to know is to put the car on a chassis dyno, and then pull the engine and put it on an engine dyno. Does anyone have any links to any articles where any shops do this to any cars at all? I would be interested in reading the results.

That is the only way to know for sure. If I'm not mistaken, the GT uses a Tremec T56, similar to the Viper (and not much different than those found in the F-body, 03/04 Cobra, Vette, etc), though with different gearing.

The only real live numbers I've seen from the same car/engine on both a chassis and an engine dyno was from a racer friend of mine about 3 years ago. He was running in a Mustang Racing Organization (NMRA) in the "Factory Stock" class. His motor made ~390 HP on an engine dyno, and ~340 RWHP. I'm sure there are other examples out there (mostly from race cars), but I don't know of them.

I've learned in my aerospace classes here at school that aero has alot more to do with top speed than HP. Numbers like Cd have an exponential effect. I'd bet on the vette being faster. I wish I still had the book that compared aero to hp and how it effected top speeds.

drag=Cd*density*frontal area*0.5*velocity^2.

Nobody listed the reference areas for either the Z06 or the GT so you cannot say which one has "better" aerodynamics until you know that information.

The GT is faster than the Z06 by at least 7mph based on advertised numbers, so I don't know if that really leaves any room for speculation.

I've learned in my aerospace classes here at school that aero has alot more to do with top speed than HP. Numbers like Cd have an exponential effect. I'd bet on the vette being faster. I wish I still had the book that compared aero to hp and how it effected top speeds.

I know there is alot more to do with top speed than HP, my point was what does power-to-weight have to do with it? HAZ-Matt's equation makes no reference in regard to weight with it, so I am led to believe that it has very little bearing on a cars top speed, and therefore the Ford GT's portlyness will not be a disadvtantage when it comes to this.

Does anyone know the frontal area for the Vette and the GT?

That is the only way to know for sure. If I'm not mistaken, the GT uses a Tremec T56, similar to the Viper (and not much different than those found in the F-body, 03/04 Cobra, Vette, etc), though with different gearing.

The only real live numbers I've seen from the same car/engine on both a chassis and an engine dyno was from a racer friend of mine about 3 years ago. He was running in a Mustang Racing Organization (NMRA) in the "Factory Stock" class. His motor made ~390 HP on an engine dyno, and ~340 RWHP. I'm sure there are other examples out there (mostly from race cars), but I don't know of them.

The Ford GT does not use the T56, its transaxles are supplied by Ricardo. Here are its gear ratios for reference.

Gear Ratios
1 - 2.61
2 - 1.71
3 - 1.23
4 - 0.94
5 - 0.77
6 - 0.63
Reverse - 3.135
Final Drive Ratio 3.36:1

The Ford GT does not use the T56, its transaxles are supplied by Ricardo. Here are its gear ratios for reference.


You beat me to it.

To answer your question Russ, drag is only one force that acts on the car. Simply put, you have the power to weight ratio of the car which gives you an estimate of the force it can use to accelerate itself if there was no drag. So take that force and subtract drag and you get a better idea of how fast the car can really accelerate. At low speeds, drag doesn't produce much of an effect, so power to weight ratio works well enough to compare the cars. But around the 200mph range, aero becomes very important such that small changes in aerodynamics can give you much greater increases in top speed than large changes in horsepower.

AFAIK, the ZO6 is gear limited, not drag-limited... Stick a ~3:1 rear gear in there, and it might be a match for the GT, but stock for stock, the ZO6 redlines 6th at a hair under 200mph, while the GT goes on to 210-212mph.

I understand power-to-weight always plays some degree of a role in acceleration, but at some point doesn't its importance start to greatly diminish compared to aero? How much of a difference is there actually in rolling resistance at 199 versus 200 mph? I think you are overall agreeing with what I said, and I am sorry if I oversimplified it. You seem to know more about it then I do. It just seems to me HP and Aero are primarly what are considered important in top speed runs.

AFAIK, the ZO6 is gear limited, not drag-limited... Stick a ~3:1 rear gear in there, and it might be a match for the GT, but stock for stock, the ZO6 redlines 6th at a hair under 200mph, while the GT goes on to 210-212mph.

The z06 is drag limited. It does not redline in sixth gear, if it did it would be doing very well over 200mph. Supposedly it hits its aerodynamic wall at around 5000 rpm, and will not pull any farther, which equates to about 198mph. Although I do agree, with a little lower gear in there, maybe 3.73s or 3.90s, by the time the z06 is at 198mph it may be in a better part of its powerband, and may pull past 200. I guess only time will tell, as there are still too few of these cars out there.

That is the only way to know for sure. If I'm not mistaken, the GT uses a Tremec T56.

Ricardo or some such, I hear it is a very expensive transaxle,

oh,this is interesting when I went on a web search for the GT transaxle

http://montanafordstores.com/FordGT.pdf

Ford GT - 3,489 lbs
Z06 - 3,147 lbs


Damn, stupid memory :D I coulda swore it wasn't such a porker. Oh well, must be that 5.4! Although honestly I can feature where they put on the pounds being that the car uses alot of aluminum????? Then again if tey scrapped those 4v heads and put some 3v heads on there they could shed some 70 pounds (or atleast I hear that 4v castings are 35 pounds heavier than 2 and 3v heads)

The Ford GT does not use the T56, its transaxles are supplied by Ricardo. Here are its gear ratios for reference.

Gear Ratios
1 - 2.61
2 - 1.71
3 - 1.23
4 - 0.94
5 - 0.77
6 - 0.63
Reverse - 3.135
Final Drive Ratio 3.36:1
That's what I get for assuming.....I stand....errr sit corrected. :) I did a quick search on Ricardo Trannies, and could find virtually no info on them. Oh well - thanks for setting me straight.

Screw the top end who's gonna win the quarter mile?

MT reports 11.5 @127.1 for the ZO6 and 12.2 @118 for the viper. But I dont believe those numbers took place on the same day, let alone the same track. When are we gonna get a three way shoot-out?

BTW viper SRT10 Cd is .39

I understand power-to-weight always plays some degree of a role in acceleration, but at some point doesn't its importance start to greatly diminish compared to aero? How much of a difference is there actually in rolling resistance at 199 versus 200 mph? I think you are overall agreeing with what I said, and I am sorry if I oversimplified it. You seem to know more about it then I do. It just seems to me HP and Aero are primarly what are considered important in top speed runs.
Basically. Top speed is reached when the thrust force equals the drag force. 747s weigh a hell of a lot but they are still pretty fast.

Hah, was reading about the Veryon, it takes 500hp to hit 189 mph and another 500 to accelerate from 189 to 253 mph.

That's what I get for assuming.....I stand....errr sit corrected. :) I did a quick search on Ricardo Trannies, and could find virtually no info on them. Oh well - thanks for setting me straight.

I don't know much about them. I believe they are an Italian company, although I could very well be mistaken.

Screw the top end who's gonna win the quarter mile?

MT reports 11.5 @127.1 for the ZO6 and 12.2 @118 for the viper. But I dont believe those numbers took place on the same day, let alone the same track. When are we gonna get a three way shoot-out?

Vipers have been running in the 11s stock since the days of the 450 horse GTS models. I believe the z06 will be faster, do to its weight advantage, but the Viper can do much better than a 12.2. We were discussing top end because someone brought it up earlier, and it is advantageous to have all the top end you can get on a big horsepower track.

Or english?? Arent they used in formula one too?

http://www.ricardo-tarragon.com/


there, appendedddidididididididid it! yeah it looks like they are invovled in alot of stuff

Or english?? Arent they used in formula one too?

http://www.ricardo-tarragon.com/investors/download/annualreport2002.pdf#search='ricardo%20transmissio n'

Well, if they are English, looks like I stand corrected. I thought I remembered Clarkson remarking on the Ford GT having an Italian transaxle though. I must have misheard it for something else.

You would think italian with an name like Ricardo (not that I speak a whit of italian, but it has that nice chinese ring to it :D )

The Ford GT does not use the T56, its transaxles are supplied by Ricardo. Here are its gear ratios for reference.

Gear Ratios
1 - 2.61
2 - 1.71
3 - 1.23
4 - 0.94
5 - 0.77
6 - 0.63
Reverse - 3.135
Final Drive Ratio 3.36:1

and its rated at 750 Nm or 553 ft/lbs. of torque, pretty hefty trans I guess ,550 ft/lbs. of torque in a 3500 pound car, I wonder if it would blow tranny chunks all over the track with a good set of slicks?

and its rated at 750 Nm or 553 ft/lbs. of torque, pretty hefty trans I guess ,550 ft/lbs. of torque in a 3500 pound car, I wonder if it would blow tranny chunks all over the track with a good set of slicks?

Heh, I guess there is only one way to find out, huh? Maybe some hapless owner will answer that question for us at some point in the future.

and its rated at 750 Nm or 553 ft/lbs. of torque, pretty hefty trans I guess ,550 ft/lbs. of torque in a 3500 pound car, I wonder if it would blow tranny chunks all over the track with a good set of slicks?

T56 or this Ricardo transaxle? The ricardo transaxle should be rated for more than 553 lb-ft tq. Atleast i would think so.

We shall know soon enough i guess. Hennessey will soon be offering a 800hp Twin turbo upgrade for the Ford GT.

Damn, stupid memory :D I coulda swore it wasn't such a porker. Oh well, must be that 5.4! Although honestly I can feature where they put on the pounds being that the car uses alot of aluminum????? Then again if tey scrapped those 4v heads and put some 3v heads on there they could shed some 70 pounds (or atleast I hear that 4v castings are 35 pounds heavier than 2 and 3v heads)


The Supercharged 5.4 is what is killing it. On the z06, the Ls7 is fairly compact and lightweight helping the z06 maintain its light-weight nature. On the Ford GT, the blown 5.4 weighs around 690lbs, even with the aluminum block/heads. That's a lot of heft.

This is why i hope they ditch the blown 5.4 if they ever get serious about a GT replacement (which they kinda are). The 605hp 6.4L v10 on the Shelby Cobra concept is a much lighter alternative (200+lbs lighter than blown 5.4).

I don't think they would have used the supercharged 5.4 on the GT had they had time. As you recall, the GT was a rush job. On the GT replacement, they should have time to get an all-new and lighter engine in there.

T56 or this Ricardo transaxle? The ricardo transaxle should be rated for more than 553 lb-ft tq. Atleast i would think so.

We shall know soon enough i guess. Hennessey will soon be offering a 800hp Twin turbo upgrade for the Ford GT.

The ricardo transaxle is rated for 550 ft/lbs. I got that right off of the ricardo website, if you navigate down to the case studies, there is a small pic of the GT and a few blurbs about the tranny. Torque ratings are kinda nebulous at best, its all a matter of torque/weight/traction, change any of the three and it will effect the amount of abuse they tranny can take.