That's awesome right there. Wonder what would happen if GM went multi-valve. Oh wait...they did and it made a killer 400hp (C4 ZR1). I kid, I kid...

I wish people would watch this video before they go out and put the biggest tire on their car that will fit thinking that wider is better.

 

Or OVH LS7 which already rev'ed to 7000RPM.

Ford didn't really credit the OHC layout as much as they credited a change in valve springs to allow them to rev that high.

 

Now if only they could get rid of the Shelby name and ridiculous added fee that goes with using his name, just bring back the Cobra without Shelby attached and save everyone some dough. Impressive car though, especially 60mph in first gear from the grar reduction, I never understood why they bothered with 3.55's and 3.73's in the Gt500 to begin with since it was traction limited form the factory, those gears were really only of use on a drag strip with slicks.

 

Wishful thinking on renaming it Cobra; you will get neither a reduction in price nor increased content. Although if/when Ford drops the Shelby name and goes back to Cobra they will be laughing all the way to the bank since their margin will have improved.


Indeed, the 07-09 cars came with 3:31s originally and you can easily do 60 in 1st and hit the trap in 3rd, I dont know why Ford went away from that with the 2010-2012 cars?

In comparison Ford is doing 7k with the 5.8 without resorting to titanium valves and rods amd the handicap of a longer stroke. Had they used a 2v layout and as large a valve as the LS7 they would have probably had to have used titanium at least in the valvetrain to get any reliability like GM.

 

Perhaps. What is cheaper, 8 titanium intake valves and 8 sodium filled exhaust valves, or 3 extra cams and 16 extra valves and springs?

It is somewhat interesting that they have gotten that rev limit with the same forged rods and 105.8mm stroke (vs 102mm in LS7). But they are running forged rods. Titanium was chosen for LS7 rods to save weight since it is NA, as opposed to a forged rod. I agree about weight savings in the valvetrain re: titanium... unnecessary for Ford since it is OHC.

But back to the piston speed, the 5.8L should hit nearly ~4860ft/min piston speed at 7000RPM whereas the LS7 is ~4667ft/min. I suppose if Honda was able to do 4965ft/min with the F20C then Ford will be ok. But then again that was NA and with less rotating mass.

 

The only two truck I could find under .45 (easily) were the GM Hybrids. Most were much higher. Most 200mph cars are close to .3, but few are under. Ultimately we will see if Ford can get there.

 

isn't it rated at 204 or 205?


EDIT: 202mph:

http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2011/1...speed-202-mph/

 

Yeah. Part of this has to do with increasing downforce increases the drag coefficient. This is why the Z06 has higher Cd than the base car (for both C5 and C6 gens actually).

 

I wish Ford would release pricing, I've heard 62.9 for the base car. My Mustang buddies seem to think thats a fair price but thats not even comparatively equipped. In order to get the adjustable suspension and added coolers you have to spring for the performance pack which would bring the Shelby up to a similar level of equipment. A fully loaded GT500 in that case would probably top out over 70k for a coupe.

Long story short, if that doesn't send a signal that Ford is about to take big **** on Mustang owners I dont know what would.

 

Pretty sure I read and saw a picture of sodium filled valves in the new GT500 5.8.

 

They turned the new GT500 into a near Ford GT replacement though. With all the stuff they have thrown into it, I wouldn't be surprised if it does hit $70k. That sounds quite expensive for a Mustang, but then again it might be fair for the hardware you are getting.

The base car probably isn't going to change much in price. I don't think you can guarantee that the GT will remain relatively inexpensive.

 

It doesn't seem so to me, not when GM is offering a higher standard level of equipment for 8 grand less (I know at this point its all conjecture) and in order to get the same level of equipment your gonna have to spring for the performance pack which would more than likely add another 3-4 grand making it a 12k difference.

I could see maybe if the car was filled to the gills with CF fenders, roof, trunk, and hood. If it came two-piece brakes at all four corners, if it came with a light weight rear axle. If a GT500 weighed nearly the same or less than a GT Mustang.

Since its not, I would expect the base GT500 to come in around the ZL-1's price (well I would expect slightly cheaper for the base car) and an optioned up GT500 to maybe hit 60 grand sans the glass roof and over 60k for the glass roof car

Frankly it seems as if Ford is defintely heading in the direction that previous generation japanese sports cars did. Great product, but too damned expensive for the people who really liked the cars. If this is the case, GM should definetly send a thank you note to Mullaly and Farely for handing GM whats left of Mustang's market share in the segment provided GM isn't considering the same since they will have the only affordable V8 RWD performance game in town.

 

I think Ford is making this GT500, like they did with the 2003-2004 Terminator Cobras. These are the last years of this Mustang. This GT500 is the swan song. Probably a 2 year car max. However a Terminator new was around $35k-$43k just a smudge below the corvette price range at the time.

 

This motor in the Ford GT would have been awesome.

 

If only they made a Ford GT to put it in. I think the GT would benefit most from the valvegear though.

It has a Lysholm blower IIRC and the under blower heat exchanger is still better than what the 2013 GT500 has and mostly likely the rest of the system is better as well.

The added displacement would be nice but you'd lose the dry sump without heavy modification to the GT500 engine's oil system.