http://www.roushind.com/news_downloa...04-01-1252.pdf

this link detials some of the design criteria and tests that went into the Ford GT, kinda dry but interesting none the less.

 

Intresting stuff.

 

Sometimes I think the avergae Joe thinks these things just jump out of someone's head and into a car. This is a BRIEF (and I mean really brief) overview of what engineers and technicians do behind the scenes that nobody ever knows about.

Nice to see a little detail come public from time to time.

This is so unlike the average race shop that simply picks "good parts" and slaps them together and tests the results on the street or the strip.
These guys knew what they would have before the first chip ever hit the floor in a machining center.

good stuff.

 

That's what I was thinking - this isn't "dry" except in the sense that it barely whets my appetite for info

Most folks have absolutely no idea what level of engineering and validation goes into a vehicle like this; it's just assumed that the stuff works. That paper has a few hints at to the difficulties of making high-performance parts work for the life of the vehicle.

And, damn, am I ever glad I'm not the poor dude that had to design the accessory drive

 

There were just 15 pulleys to rotate... what's the problem?!?!

I personally would not have wanted the heat transfer projects.
Could you imagine trying to control heat and air movement for this car?
Getting engine heat out of a mid-engined vehicle that also incorporates an intercooler, an A/C system for the cabin, a transaxle, and rear disc brakes - all in the same basic proximity?!?!?!
Just cooling the S/C'ed 5.4 with a (very) remotely placed radiator would be chore-enough for the average Joe - nevermind all the other stuff.
And, oh yeah - We CAN'T sacrifice the Cd, top-speed, or aesthetics of the car either.

The car truely is an engineering marvel. What's more, these have been out for 5 years now, and we all know they have had the pizz beat out of them by mags, rags, and wealthy care-free warriors, yet we have heard of no severe failures, shortcomings, or problems about them. Some busting 1000hp mark, some turned drag-queens, some turned track warriors... you name it - they have been modded and rodded, yet they survived.
AGAIN, a true testimonial to the engineering laid down in the early stages by some d@mn-smart guys that were allowed to do what they do best.

 

Huh?

I mean, they're very, VERY cool cars but...... huh?

Oil leaks from the crank seal fixed with Speedi-Sleeves on a car that expensive?

Cracking control arms?

Granted these (and others) were all corrected as production continued but still, there were some issues.

 

Considering that it was a grounds up supercar............... can you at least admit that they did good???

There were VERY FEW issues with these cars. The few issues that happened, only affected a few cars................. and in the case of the control arms, (remember that the car that had the cracks was a heavily abused mule. No cars in customers hands ever actually had a problem, yet Ford replaced all the control arms with billet machined arms............. so they would match) Ford really went out of their way to make things right. As for the speedy sleeve, well, you sure haven't heard of any problems with them, have you??

However, I understand the bias against these cars, on a primarily GM based website. The silly thing, I thought we were all enthusiasts.

 

Gloria made all good points.

I think you have been washed in the media, friend.
Anything negative seems to have stuck, but the cause or extent of the negative issue seems to be missing from your explanations.

More directly to the point... I would love to see you - personally - go from clean sheets of paper to production of a supercar in less than 24 months - AND have to put a warranty on that vehicle knowing it's gonna get the cream wrenched from it in the hands of eccentric people and magazines.
YOU. PERSONALLY. TRY IT.
It's hard enough getting an already-existing car into the 10's on a dragstrip while maintaining quiet, creature comforts, and daily streetability.
It's hard enough getting an existing car to corner and stop on a road course like a dedicated race car, while keeping it streetable and docile enough to drive to dinner at night.
Now imagine trying to do BOTH, on a platform you have not yet designed, with a body that does not exist, suspension that does not exist, and a complete powertrain that has not been developed.

YES - I still say it was an awesome feat, and every team member gets an "attaboy" from me.

For comparison-sake, let's see here.... we have been waiting on a new Camaro for how long since the first proto was shown at NAIAS? And we have how much longer to wait for production units? And the platform was essentially developed already down in Oz? And the powertrain was largely developed (at least conceptually) for other vehicles already in production? And the performance levels are, well, maybe we don't need to go on in this direction.

Heck, it took GM nearly half the time it took to do the GT just to put a front fascia and change the Monero to LHD and boat it to the US. The car was DONE in OZ - completely done and being sold to the public.

If these examples don't help you to see what the GT team accomplished in record-setting time on a vehicle that really has a spotless record in the hands of the owners... well, I just can't help you. This was EXACTLY the sentiment that Eric and I were writing about in the first few posts - so many people don't understand what all really goes on behind the actual building of the car. They just bash and crash on the car when it comes out not meeting their expectation of perfection, not knowing what other sacrifices and small miracles went into making a truely "good" machine.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE THE CAR... just give credit to the car and the people who deserve it, for what they pulled off in the time they had. That's all I'm saying.

 

Bravo.

 

Take it easy there killers. Did either of you actually read anything I typed in my short post before your knees jerked?

1) For the both of you.... I said it was a very, VERY cool car. Perhaps this was not clear enough so I'll spell it out.... I like the car. A lot.

2) For the both of you.... By bringing up GM and the Camaro, you are implying that I feel or said that GM could have done it better. I never once said some other company would have done a better job. GM would never have the corporate will to build such an exotic car or the Cien would have been built after it's rave reviews.

3) PP.... You said there were no shortcomings or failures. I pointed out where that statement was in error. The other poster mentioned "few issues". I mentioned a few issues.

4) It was said that these problems did not affect all cars. Did I not state that Ford had fixed all the problems with the car as production continued?


Engineers get so touchy when they make the mistake of speaking in all encompassing absolutes (no severe failures, shortcomings, or problems about them) and then get called on it.


PP.... That last one was a joke my friend. I can't remember if you or Eric or both are engineers.

 

With humor - I promise ... I really DO get fired-up when engineers get a bad wrap for something they didn't do. We live in a world where every single thing is scrutinized to the Nth degree by everyone taking a breath, yet only the tiniest percentage of people actually understand what might go on behind the scenes, and even a smaller percentage of those who undestand can actually DO the work itself. As an example, do you personally have any idea how long it would take to create a 3d model of the entire 5.4 powerplant including the blower, now take that model and perform finite element analysis on every part for both structural strength and integrity as well as thermal expansion and growth? Now perform longevity calculations on every part for fatigue strength, ultimate life, and failure mode analysis. Call me when you are done, and we will begin talking about manufacturing techniques, tooling, and machining, tolerancing of the parts, and assembly process including tooling and fixtures - all of which have to go through the same processes. Then there's actual prototyping and testing. You see, it's not so easy or simple.
Again, I mean this light-heartedly - honest I do. I am trying to explain it without being "involved" in it.

An example of what fires me up is the bridge in MN that fell earlier this year... it took precisely ONE interview of a witness on the news to hear that the bridge was not designed properly, and it was probably an engineering problem. I WENT APE-****!!!
What if the investigation actually comes back and proves that the design was 100% safe and spot-on, but the lack of MAINTENANCE caused the failure... you know, the city council who are often some of the most idiotic people living in an area, that want to cut costs and save money by not buying paint and paying for rust to be removed and the iron repainted every so-often? I have actually heard that they are considering the Pigeon-poop as a major factor in acidic decay of joints in the steel as well. It will be a bad plate of crow for someone if they prove that bean-counters and politicians caused that failure because of saving money and neglecting maintenance, but the engineer won't get to serve that plate.

My point is - engineers do an INCREDIBLE amount of analysis, study, calculations, trials, tests, and so on before any civilian ever sees the typical product or structure, and as long as everything goes as planned, nobody says anything - not "good job", or "gee what a tough project you pulled-off there", or anything - in fact it is usually "why did that cost so much, can't you do it cheaper?" But, as soon as something goes wrong, there was immediately some "dumb-@ss engineer to blame - regardless of why it really failed or did not work right.

As an engineer, I have a DEEP and SIGNIFICANT appreciation for the project that was pulled-off on the Ford GT. It was awesome as a project and the folks that did it really produced a small miracle. Likewise to the folks that put out the Z06 with it's incredible weight figure and HP ratio - that was NOT an easy task given a budget and time window. I just had the opportunity to express that thought, and find myself - yet again - defending the unrecognized job that was accomplished - as usual.

'Nuf said - I posted about the article in the fist post, and I'm good to go. All done!

 

No, what's silly is generalizations based on one post from one person, especially considering that the rest of the thread is nothing but high praise for the car and the effort that went into it.