Just curious....what information are you basing this statement on? Link(s) to your source(s) would be appreciated.

guionM....at the weight posted above, and given stock rubber, 11.x in bone stock conditions seems a bit of a stretch. I've been wrong before, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Bob

 

Let me dig up the posts, especially the guy talking about the engine config. He seems to know his stuff (although the tone of his posts makes him come off as one of those, you know "gurus"

 

This is the consensus over at svtperformance as well based on information from some incredibly reputable sources. The rods are only safe to around 600rwhp. Beyond that and you are on borrowed time.

 

They were. If the GT500 engine is subject to the new SAE standards, than whatever it is rated at is whatever it is making, give or take a few hp (they are allowed to rate within a certain percentage of what the engine actually made). If Ford subjected the GT500 engine to this SAE protocol, than it is making 475hp.

 

No, if Ford tested the new engine using the new SAE protocol, it makes what it makes.

I have never heard of a bone stock Mach 1 in the 12s. Pretty close, yes, but not actually in the 12s. Bone stock Cobras have gone 12.4s before. I would say the Cobra is considerably faster than a Mach 1. Current Mustang GTs are not underrated at all. I don't know where you are getting this information from. They all dyno around 260 at the wheels, give or take. Pull a Mustang GT engine out and run it on an engine dyno, with all of it's accessories, and use an SAE correction factor (not the STD correction like some dynoers use), and it is going to yield 300hp.

Do you have any examples of this? I would really like to see which examples of the Northstar are underrated, because I have never come to know this engine as making any more than it is advertised.

Sorry if this sounds like an inquisition, but could you elaborate on this statement as well? How exactly have you come to the conclusion that the new 5.4 can take more boost than the 2v 5.4 in the Lightnings or the 4v 4.6 in the Cobras? What have they revised?

My bet is they went with iron for cost. You can still blow an iron engine up. Ask many of the guys that do top speed runs that have ran 03/04 Cobras. Ask them how their #8 pistons are doing.

 

Why does everyone keep bringing up the new SAE standards, they are NOT required yet. No where have I seen Ford saying that this new engine is under the new standard.

 

2003 mach1 != 2003 cobra

the mach1 is a similar (same?) 4 valve motor that is in the cobra, they just neglected to bolt on the blower. they were about as fast as an LS1 car.

 

No kidding. How does this equate to a Mach being as fast as a Cobra?

Yeah, that is kind of why I said IF Ford has the GT500 motor done to the new SAE standard.

 

If Ford uses the same basic rotating assembly in the blown 5.4 as they did in the blown 4.6, then the pistons (not the rods) will be the limiting factor. However, I have not seen exactly what pistons they are using in the new motor.

In any case, and IMHO, the blown 4.6 was "safe and reliable" to about 550 RWHP (some live long lives at higher numbers, some die quickly at lower numbers, but that seems to about the realiable limit). I would expect the 5.4 to be somewhat better, given that it is going to have ~100 more HP to begin with, and should be built with that in mind. But how much it will be able to handle is nothing but pure speculation at this time (including the speculation at SVTPerformance).

Bob

 

You are absolutely correct on everything Bob. However, the engine in the GT500 will be getting much better pistons than the Cobra and not as good of rods. I am drawing a blank on the rods, but I will look it up and update this post.

EDIT
Apparently they are Mahle forged rods with cracked caps and some respected sources have said they are not "safe" at more than 600rwhp. The pistons are supposedly very similar, if not identical, to those in the Ford GT.

 

Would still like to see those respected sources.

 

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...d.php?t=260087

 

LOL. I know a few of those folks personally. Some are quite knowledgeable - as far as I know, none have the inside knowledge needed to provide more than speculation.

I'll stick with a wait and see vice buying it as gospel because of that post.

No disrespect intended.

Bob

 

I'm just showing you that those ain't Manley H-beams in there anymore. They're "Ford Specials." As to how good they are, we'll know by July.

 

It will take quite a bit longer than that to get a good idea of how good (or not) they are, and if they will become the weakest link in the motor.

Bob