2007 ford shelby GT500 to come with its own gravitational pull

:eek:

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=23327

is this the first official press release saying the final HP rating will be 500hp/480tq?


should move the 2 ton beast quite well :)

It's got some power goin' on.

Ayup, 500HP...

Sure needs every pony and ft-lb of torque it's got when it weighs in at almost 4000 lbs (that mass also accounts for that gravitational pull and distortion of space/time :))!

Still cool as hell though; I wonder how much the same basic mods done by owners of the last Cobra will net?

Well, that settles it.................LS7 it is!

Great power. However, the 3.55 bore, and 4.165 stroke is poor. All that DOHC technology on a motor that peaks at 6000 rpm. I know it is a solid piece, but it is a lot of complexity for nothing.

Great power. However, the 3.55 bore, and 4.165 stroke is poor. All that DOHC technology on a motor that peaks at 6000 rpm. I know it is a solid piece, but it is a lot of complexity for nothing.
Hence the Hurricane commeth.

Great power. However, the 3.55 bore, and 4.165 stroke is poor. All that DOHC technology on a motor that peaks at 6000 rpm. I know it is a solid piece, but it is a lot of complexity for nothing.

Yea - you really have to wonder what was going through everyone's heads when this engine was developed. OHC with a small bore and long stroke engine wasn't exactly a great design direction.

With respect to the GT500, how could we have gotten this many posts in so far without someone saying, "But, yea, if you put a blower on an LS1/LS2/LS7..."?

Yea - you really have to wonder what was going through everyone's heads when this engine was developed. OHC with a small bore and long stroke engine wasn't exactly a great design direction.

Could they be trying to leave some room to bore it out in the future? I really don't know alot about the upcoming mustangs

With respect to the GT500, how could we have gotten this many posts in so far without someone saying, "But, yea, if you put a blower on an LS1/LS2/LS7..."?
...but as for the Camaro, your statement might not be too far off. ;)

Could they be trying to leave some room to bore it out in the future? I really don't know alot about the upcoming mustangs
There is no room for more bore on the Mod motors.

500hp from any kind of motor is very good for around $40,000(at least im paying sticker).Weight is not perfect,but lets see how much the camaro ends up weighing. just be glad Ford made the new stang,which kicked chevy in the butt to do another camaro,and now the GT 500 will guarantee you a top end camaro with 500+ hp.Be glad,be happy,american muscle rules.:D

A small bore and large stroke is a great combination for a street motor. The small bore usually allows for the combustion to more completely burn and the long stroke will give you the lowend you need. It was a good idea, I just don't think they saw the need for something bigger then a 5.4L when they were designing the engine. Back then HP wars were far from anyones minds.

its peak boost is 9psi. I wonder if this engine will respond to mods as well as the 03/04 cobras or maybe *gasp* better?

weren't there reports of this engine generating 600 rwhp with a pulley swap and a tune? I don't see 550 rwhp being too far fetched.

...but as for the Camaro, your statement might not be too far off. ;)

hehehe ;)

its peak boost is 9psi. I wonder if this engine will respond to mods as well as the 03/04 cobras or maybe *gasp* better?

weren't there reports of this engine generating 600 rwhp with a pulley swap and a tune? I don't see 550 rwhp being too far fetched.

Possibly, if the Factory Drivetrain can pull it off which will be the real question...

A small bore and large stroke is a great combination for a street motor. The small bore usually allows for the combustion to more completely burn and the long stroke will give you the lowend you need. It was a good idea, I just don't think they saw the need for something bigger then a 5.4L when they were designing the engine. Back then HP wars were far from anyones minds.
The 4.6 was the standard Mod. It was designed to be used in a FWD Lincoln, which I don't think got made. The 5.4 was the long deck truck verson of the Mod motor.

eh? the DOHC 4.6 was used in the FWD continentals (275 horse), the mark VIII's (285-290 hp) before it ever met a cobra.

Can you imagine what happens when those cobra guys go crazy and start putting on like twin screw KB blowzillas?!?!

can we say 800ish wrhp!!!

That pigs gonna fly.

Yea - you really have to wonder what was going through everyone's heads when this engine was developed. OHC with a small bore and long stroke engine wasn't exactly a great design direction.

I am thinking maybe it was Ford's way of keeping emissions friendliness in mind. Of course, the Mustangs still ended up with a hell of alot more catalytic converters on it than I would have thought necessary.

Sounds like the car might already have an issue with breaking crank snouts off.

Sources close to the 2007 Shelby GT500 program are alleging that the crankshafts in the 5.4L GT500 engines are fracturing or breaking at the snout (nose) where the engine damper rides. The sources are alleging that the GT500 crankshaft breakage can be attributed to two complimentary issues. According to our reliable sources, Ford designed a crankshaft damper specifically for the GT500, but the damper weighs in at a hefty 26 pounds.

http://www.stangsunleashed.com/index.php?categoryid=18&p2_articleid=94&s=&


If what that article said was true about the weight of that blower pulley... :shame: :no: 26 pounds? Who's the genius that thought that thing up? If this says anything about the rest of the car then Ford might have a real piece of work on their hands.

I'll bet the main bearing at the front of the engine will look real good after a while of spinning that 26# brick around for a while too. :thumb:

Sounds like the car might already have an issue with breaking crank snouts off.



http://www.stangsunleashed.com/index.php?categoryid=18&p2_articleid=94&s=&


If what that article said was true about the weight of that blower pulley... :shame: :no: 26 pounds? Who's the genius that thought that thing up? If this says anything about the rest of the car then Ford might have a real piece of work on their hands.

I'll bet the main bearing at the front of the engine will look real good after a while of spinning that 26# brick around for a while too. :thumb:


Thank you for that moment of clarity. :bow:

All that weight. All that power. All that complexity. Somehow, I'm not as excited about it as everyone else.

With respect to the GT500, how could we have gotten this many posts in so far without someone saying, "But, yea, if you put a blower on an LS1/LS2/LS7..."?

I don't know, but apparently you couldn't...


:D

Nice specs, and good chance it will be underrated.

What's the EPA mileage numbers for it? FI, 4000lbs, 500HP...

Nice specs, and good chance it will be underrated.

What's the EPA mileage numbers for it? FI, 4000lbs, 500HP...
Nope, no chance it'll be underrated.

The 500 hp rating was obtained using the Society of Automotive Engineer's latest standard and was witnessed by an objective third party. The Shelby GT500's 5.4-liter supercharged V-8 will be built at Ford's Romeo Engine Plant in Romeo, Mich. Pricing will be announced closer to launch.
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=23327

Here's some more dirt from the same link I posted earlier:


Should the GT500 crankshaft allegations prove to be true and the launch of the GT500 is delayed, it could have a potentially devastating affect, not only on the GT500, but it could throw off the timing of other SVT products like the 2008 GT500. Moreover, consumers' feathers are already ruffled over the GT500 due to a variety of issues. Even though order banks opened weeks ago, Ford has failed to provide exterior color examples. They have also failed to provide consumers with absolute horsepower/torque ratings, MSRP pricing and keep in good communication with their PowerLease (http://www.stangsunleashed.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=785) customers.
Could a crankshaft issue/delay be the reason why Ford has not released any new information on the 2007 Shelby GT500? On 19 April, we asked Ford questions about this story, however, they never responded.

Maybe it's part of their new "Bold Moves' campaign. :shrug:

Thank you for that moment of clarity. :bow:

All that weight. All that power. All that complexity. Somehow, I'm not as excited about it as everyone else.

Kind of makes the LSx engines and the Z06 all the more beautiful, eh?

Kind of makes the LSx engines and the Z06 all the more beautiful, eh?


No doubt.

Great power. However, the 3.55 bore, and 4.165 stroke is poor. All that DOHC technology on a motor that peaks at 6000 rpm. I know it is a solid piece, but it is a lot of complexity for nothing.
The 5.4 is capable of far more rpm. I have a personal friend that spun a n/a version to 7800 at will. Street car that made 430 RWHP on pump gas (stock displacement).

On the other hand, while 500 HP is a lot in a factory car, the thing is still a fat pig that needs to go on a 500 lb diet.

/beating dead horse.

The 5.4 is capable of far more rpm. I have a personal friend that spun a n/a version to 7800 at will. Street car that made 430 RWHP on pump gas (stock displacement).

On the other hand, while 500 HP is a lot in a factory car, the thing is still a fat pig that needs to go on a 500 lb diet.

/beating dead horse.


A 7800rpm 5.4 4v motor from Ford is going to cost them so much too make that it would in no way be worth it for them, and that is if they can certify it for emissions compliance. Besides, a 5.4 spinning to 7800rpm is going to create a piston speed of 5,408fpm, which is far more than I would ever want on a street engine that is supposed to be reliable. That is the kind of piston speed a ProStock car has to deal with, and those engines only have to run on boil for 6 1/2 seconds.

That's an odd bore/stroke combo.

Great for pulling a trailer or heavy cars I guess.

the crank breakage problems are just another internet rumor.The shelby is on schedule for a june startup with july or aug deliveries.My car has even got a vin # already.

a) Sure does sound like alot of complexity... until you actually realize we're talking 500 horsepower. Think about this.....Five Hundred frigging horsepower!!! On a regular 4 passenger car!! Out of 329 cubic inches!!! :shock:

b) Haven't heard anything about production problems. Not saying it doesn't exist, but with Ford's heavy involvement in racing, and the fact that the Ford GT has had no engine problems (and the GT500 is basically a fortified version of that engine), I'd take rumors of engine problems with a grain of salt.

c) Every since Ford got burned on horsepower ratings on a previous Cobra, they have been padding their numbers, and I don't expect the GT500 to be any different. Like the Ford GT, it's pretty suspicious that the numbers keep going up. We won't know for sure till someone gets a production model on a dyno.

d) Easy on the Z28 hints. I think that's a revelation that should be left to a certain person. ;)

According to an article on the GT's supercharged 5.4L a couple of years ago, that motor also had a problem with breaking the crank snout during dyno tests. It was supposedly fixed by adding a simple undercut to the crank to eliminate a stress riser. Not sure if that's the same thing that's going on here, and if it is, I hope that someone gets the appropriate lecture about not repeating the same mistakes.

I am indeed curious to see how the rest of the powertrain holds up to this monster motor on one end and two tons of mass on the other. The GT500 on display at the Chicago Auto Show did appear to have a pretty trick multiplate clutch; it'll be interesting to see if that makes it to production.

Oh, yea, I'm drooling over this thing like I have few other production cars in recent history. It's a close #2 to the Z06 on my list of cars that I'd buy if someone handed me a $100K check tomorrow.

GT500's will be running 10.9x@130+ for about a grand in bolt ons and tuning. Who gives a rat's pitoot what they weigh?

People who care about how it will handle.

People who care about how it will handle.
Exactly. Personally, I'd rather have a less powerful C5 Z06 than a 500hp pig. But then again, that's just me. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will still buy this car, for one reason or another.

i would like to see how it handles in street trim by non-ford people before i cast judgement on how horrible it does or does not handle due to its tide-altering size.

there are a few decent cars out there that handle quite well despite their weight.

A 7800rpm 5.4 4v motor from Ford is going to cost them so much too make that it would in no way be worth it for them, and that is if they can certify it for emissions compliance. Besides, a 5.4 spinning to 7800rpm is going to create a piston speed of 5,408fpm, which is far more than I would ever want on a street engine that is supposed to be reliable. That is the kind of piston speed a ProStock car has to deal with, and those engines only have to run on boil for 6 1/2 seconds.
I'm in no way implying that Ford could or should build a 7800 rpm street 5.4. I'm simply saying that even with the "poor" bore/stroke, the layout is still capable of it - not just 6000 rpm as was inferred above.

GT500's will be running 10.9x@130+ for about a grand in bolt ons and tuning. Who gives a rat's pitoot what they weigh?
Me. Lighter cars go faster, handle better, break fewer parts, and get better gas mileage (yes, some of us do pay attention to gas mileage).

Bob

GT500's will be running 10.9x@130+ for about a grand in bolt ons and tuning. Who gives a rat's pitoot what they weigh?

IMHO that's a little on the optimistic side. Not putting down the car by any means it does have five hundred friggin HP. :D

3900 lbs, 500HP and a decent 60' say 1.8 sec. 11.7 @ 117 or there abouts... that that might be a little optimistic still.

IMHO that's a little on the optimistic side. Not putting down the car by any means it does have five hundred friggin HP. :D

3900 lbs, 500HP and a decent 60' say 1.8 sec. 11.7 @ 117 or there abouts... that that might be a little optimistic still.

He meant after $1000 in mods

It'll be interesting to see how that powerplant holds up in the Mustang. It should see quite a few real world road miles in that car versus the "sunday driver" Ford GT supercar.

He meant after $1000 in mods

Gotcha, I over looked that part. For a comparison I had a 556 RWHP car at 3650lbs that ran 11.0@132 complete with 6pt roll bar and all safety gear. Again not taking anything away from the FIVE HUNDRED HP factory offering, and I'm by no means any type of racing authority, nor do I intend to be. :D .... adding an additional 100 to 120HP along with the required safety gear to run 10.9's your looking at a car weighing north of 4000lbs IMHO still gonna be tough to squeak out 10.9's. Going to be interesting to see the results once people start to tinker with them. :eek: Who knows what the top benchmark will be once the Camaro and Challenger hit the streets as well. :eek:

I'm in no way implying that Ford could or should build a 7800 rpm street 5.4. I'm simply saying that even with the "poor" bore/stroke, the layout is still capable of it - not just 6000 rpm as was inferred above.


Me. Lighter cars go faster, handle better, break fewer parts, and get better gas mileage (yes, some of us do pay attention to gas mileage).

Bob

I apolgize for inferring that that was all that they are capable of. I am aware that many run far beyond that. I do find it more or less curious that OHC gets touted for all its rpm capability, and efficiency, and Ford went a built something (that in every day use) is heavier, less effecient, more complex, and does not have a distinct rpm advantage (in stock trim) over its direct OHV competitors.

I apolgize for inferring that that was all that they are capable of. I am aware that many run far beyond that. I do find it more or less curious that OHC gets touted for all its rpm capability, and efficiency, and Ford went a built something (that in every day use) is heavier, less effecient, more complex, and does not have a distinct rpm advantage (in stock trim) over its direct OHV competitors.


The 5.4 was never meant to be a performance car engine.

The 5.4 was never meant to be a performance car engine.

You could argue that the 4.6 never was either. Did the 4.6 not debut in the trucks first, before the Mustang? My memory is hazy here, as the 4.6 has been around for a long time now.

I apolgize for inferring that that was all that they are capable of. I am aware that many run far beyond that. I do find it more or less curious that OHC gets touted for all its rpm capability, and efficiency, and Ford went a built something (that in every day use) is heavier, less effecient, more complex, and does not have a distinct rpm advantage (in stock trim) over its direct OHV competitors.

Can't (and won't) argue with that.

You could argue that the 4.6 never was either. Did the 4.6 not debut in the trucks first, before the Mustang? My memory is hazy here, as the 4.6 has been around for a long time now.
There is no arguement - neither was developed as a performance engine. The Modular engine layout was designed to be used in a variety of configurations and in a variety of platforms. That, in and of itself precludes them being designed primarily with what most of consider "performance" in mind.

Then again, you could probably say the same about most engines that have ever been massed produces (notice I said most, not all).

Bob

If I remember, the main purpose Ford had in developing their OHC V8s was that it was both concieved as easier to add future technology such as VVT, and DOHC was seen as necessary to compete with the then new age of luxury cars such as Lexus & Infinity.

Also, if I remember my history, Ford originally was co-developing the engine with another company but had a number of areas where they disagreed (one instance was Ford wanted timing chains for durability while the the other company wanted nylon for less noise). In the end Ford decided to go it alone.

I apolgize for inferring that that was all that they are capable of. I am aware that many run far beyond that. I do find it more or less curious that OHC gets touted for all its rpm capability, and efficiency, and Ford went a built something (that in every day use) is heavier, less effecient, more complex, and does not have a distinct rpm advantage (in stock trim) over its direct OHV competitors.

I dunno, in the world of Ford, the 4.6 is like an epoch ahead of the old windsor motors. I've been reading about a 5.0 liter mod motor build up using ported stock 2v heads, aftermarket cams, high compression (as if they had a choice) and a factory intake. The rascal put down 425hp, then fitted with a sheetmetal intake in knocked down 490hp.

I don't think I've ever seen a 5.0 with ported factory heads (E7TEs), high compression, and an aftermarket bumpstick put down 400+hp let alone almost 500hp with a custom intake. Well at least that easily. I'd even say the 347 I got collecting dust in my garage would be hard pressed to put out 500 hp and all thats stock on it is the block.

I dunno, in the world of Ford, the 4.6 is like an epoch ahead of the old windsor motors. I've been reading about a 5.0 liter mod motor build up using ported stock 2v heads, aftermarket cams, high compression (as if they had a choice) and a factory intake. The rascal put down 425hp, then fitted with a sheetmetal intake in knocked down 490hp.

I don't think I've ever seen a 5.0 with ported factory heads (E7TEs), high compression, and an aftermarket bumpstick put down 400+hp let alone almost 500hp with a custom intake. Well at least that easily. I'd even say the 347 I got collecting dust in my garage would be hard pressed to put out 500 hp and all thats stock on it is the block.


I've seen a friend's 351 put down 500+ on an engine dyno but it was almost a race engine.

Back to the shelby. If they used the Viper's T-56 ratio's {.75 and .50} with a 3.55 rear end. I imagine it would get decent mileage.