GT500 in the 11s with minor mods!!!!!!

[ChrisV]

When even a 3 series BMW is tapping on 4000 lbs, this Mustang isn't as heavy as it could be. Even cars like the last AWD turbo Mitsubishi Eclipse was as heavy. Civics are no longer 1800 lbs, and Mustangs are not 3000 lbs. But this one is as light as the considerably less refined big block Mustangs of the past. Let it fucking go already.

[the Teuton]

There are Japanese motors that can handle that kind of power with the stock blocks.? But all of the ones I know of that can handle that kind of power use iron blocks (RB26DETT, 2JZ-GTE, VG30DETT...).?

I'm relatively sure that the high performance Subaru engines are alumninum block, and with forged internals can handle around 500ish horsepower.  I might be wrong, but the EJ18 that I have is an iron block and the 25 is aluminum, and not too many people tune the 18.

The biggest reasons I can think of why manufacturers detune engines are for liability and the reputation of their higher end products keeping that halo effect.  No one would want to buy a $140k Ford GT if the Mustang made the exact same power and cost $100k less.  While the GT has a lot more in it to justify the price difference, some people shop on horsepower numbers or other trivial numbers.

[MX793]

I'm relatively sure that the high performance Subaru engines are alumninum block, and with forged internals can handle around 500ish horsepower.  I might be wrong, but the EJ18 that I have is an iron block and the 25 is aluminum, and not too many people tune the 18.

Yes, I'm pretty sure the current crop of EJs (including the 2.5 in the STi) are aluminum blocks with iron cylinder sleeves.  Nissan's SR20DET used an aluminum block as well.  But the much loved 4G63 still uses an iron block and is capable of impressive power from the stock block.

[Tave]

If the capacity is already there, why not do it from the factory?

Because Ford and its affiliates can make more money selling the aftermarket parts.

Think about it. They could sell you a $28k car with 400 hp, or they could sell you a $28k car with 300 hp, and a $3k supercharger.

What would be the point of Ford SVT if they made their cars balls-to-the-wall from factory?

[SVT666]

Nevermind Saleen, Roush, and Steeda who all sell tuner Stangs with Ford factory warranties.  If the capacity wasn't there, Ford wouldn't warranty these pumped up Stangs, would they?

[GoCougs]

Remember, this engine is also used essentially in the Ford GT with considerably more output. The extra capacity is there, just detuned for Mustang work. The factories have been doing this for years.

The argument about "well, if it's so easy, why doesn't the factory do it" has been put to bed decades ago.

The GT 5.4L doesn't share a whole lot with the GT500 5.4L. There obviously economies of scale as displacement and perhaps some elements of reciprocating assembly and block design.

The additional 50hp rating tht the GT holds over the GT500 dictates a dry-sump system, completely redesigned aluminum block, h-beam con-'rods, Lysholm screw-type s/c (as opposed to the GT500's Eaton roots-type), dual fuel injectors, different cams, different throttle body (GT's is unique, GT500 uses a close variant of the 6.8L V10's) and oil squirters for piston skirts, amongst other items I'm sure.

And yes, if it were so easy, the factory would indeed do it. They don't, because they have their reasons; from emissions, to fuel economy, to brand protection, to reliability, to cost, to who knows what else. There's always a reason.

[SVT666]

The GT 5.4L doesn't share a whole lot with the GT500 5.4L. There obviously economies of scale as displacement and perhaps some elements of reciprocating assembly and block design.

The additional 50hp rating tht the GT holds over the GT500 dictates a dry-sump system, completely redesigned aluminum block, h-beam con-'rods, Lysholm screw-type s/c (as opposed to the GT500's Eaton roots-type), dual fuel injectors, different cams, different throttle body (GT's is unique, GT500 uses a close variant of the 6.8L V10's) and oil squirters for piston skirts, amongst other items I'm sure.

And yes, if it were so easy, the factory would indeed do it. They don't, because they have their reasons; from emissions, to fuel economy, to brand protection, to reliability, to cost, to who knows what else. There's always a reason.

Don't forget room to modify. 

[SVT666]

I have seen several GT's running 700+ hp on otherwise stock engines.  There is in fact a 1500 hp twin turbo GT running around on stock internals and stock block.  If the reason the factory doesn't do it is for emissions or for fuel mileage, then that does not mean a damn thing about the engine being able to run reliably with more power.  The 1996 Mustang GT and the 1999 Mustang GT share everything except heads and intake but have a 45 hp difference and the engine runs perfectly fine, does it not?  You keep forgetting that Ford supplies a warranty on Saleen, Roush, and Steeda Mustangs that all have superchargers and a lot more power then the stock GT.  Ford would never supply a warranty on these cars if the engine and drivetrain weren't more then capable of handling the power...reliably.

[GoCougs]

What justification they use I don't know. The only two comments I have are:

1.) Engine design life is well beyond the warranty period (200k vs. 50k for example);

2.) I am of the firm opinion that a modified 400hp Mustang GT motor will not last nearly as long as the stocker and a 1500 hp GT won't last long at all.

[Soup DeVille]

What justification they use I don't know. The only two comments I have are:

1.) Engine design life is well beyond the warranty period (200k vs. 50k for example);

2.) I am of the firm opinion that a modified 400hp Mustang GT motor will not last nearly as long as the stocker and a 1500 hp GT won't last long at all.

So you've never seen any 'one-size-fits most components?' Never used a 1/4 watt resistor that will never carry more than 1/10th of that simply because they're cheap and plentiful? Same concept.

Ford uses the same basic casting in many different applications; designing to accomodate future possible improvements is a long standing practice. After all, you don't want to retool an entire line just because next year's model will need 10 more HP to keep up with the competition.

It doesn't make sense to re-engineer an engine from the oil pan up for every new application; what does make sense is to engineer a durable, flexible platform that will accomodate the needs of a wide variety of vehicles.

[GoCougs]

So you've never seen any 'one-size-fits most components?' Never used a 1/4 watt resistor that will never carry more than 1/10th of that simply because they're cheap and plentiful? Same concept.

Ford uses the same basic casting in many different applications; designing to accomodate future possible improvements is a long standing practice. After all, you don't want to retool an entire line just because next year's model will need 10 more HP to keep up with the competition.

It doesn't make sense to re-engineer an engine from the oil pan up for every new application; what does make sense is to engineer a durable, flexible platform that will accomodate the needs of a wide variety of vehicles.

I completely agree. There's quite good economies of scale in the 4.6L and 5.4L design; both between current models and accomodating future applications.

Nonetheless, the GT 5.4L doesn't share much in the way of components with the GT500 5.4L; ditto for the Mustang 4.6L and the F-150 4.6L. Same basic layout and dimensions? Sure. Same block material? Same 'rods? Same cams? Same ECU? Same pistons?

When you're making 1,000,000 full-size pickups and SUVs, 160,000 Explorers, 80,000 Mustang GTs, and 50,000 Crown Vics per year, there is plenty of emphasis to maximize cost savings in direct material wherever possible. Sometimes product strategy allows for cookie cuttering (I suspect the F-150 and Crown Vic 4.6Ls are almost identical), and sometimes not (GT vs. GT500, Mustang GT vs. F-150).

[Soup DeVille]

I completely agree. There's quite good economies of scale in the 4.6L and 5.4L design; both between current models and accomodating future applications.

Nonetheless, the GT 5.4L doesn't share much in the way of components with the GT500 5.4L; ditto for the Mustang 4.6L and the F-150 4.6L. Same basic layout and dimensions? Sure. Same block material? Same 'rods? Same cams? Same ECU? Same pistons?

When you're making 1,000,000 full-size pickups and SUVs, 160,000 Explorers, 80,000 Mustang GTs, and 50,000 Crown Vics per year, there is plenty of emphasis to maximize cost savings in direct material wherever possible. Sometimes product strategy allows for cookie cuttering (I suspect the F-150 and Crown Vic 4.6Ls are almost identical).

Yes, but its not much of a stretch to understand why the majority of parts in any engine will be at least slightly over-engineered (you know what I mean, don't bust my ass on that term).

[the Teuton]

There's a reason why Ford calls it their modular V8 line.

[Lebowski]

And a fat chick can run pretty fast going downhill.

Regardless of the tires she's wearing, the GT500 is the fat chick that I'd gladly pass up as a dancing partner.

[ro51092]

And a fat chick can run pretty fast going downhill.

Regardless of the tires she's wearing, the GT500 is the fat chick that I'd gladly pass up as a dancing partner.

[SVT666]

GoCougs: You don't get it do you?  Why would Ford design an engine that is not reliable once modified when it gets stuck in a car that is the most modified car in the world?  An aftermarket that Ford fully supports and takes part in.  Ford seels Ford Racing superchargers that increase horsepower in an otherwise stock Mustang GT by 50% (read 450 hp) I read articles where a Ford engineer stated that the Mustang would not be getting rid of it's live rear axle until the faithful asked for it, because drag racers hate IRS.

[GoCougs]

GoCougs: You don't get it do you?? Why would Ford design an engine that is not reliable once modified when it gets stuck in a car that is the most modified car in the world?? An aftermarket that Ford fully supports and takes part in.? Ford seels Ford Racing superchargers that increase horsepower in an otherwise stock Mustang GT by 50% (read 450 hp) I read articles where a Ford engineer stated that the Mustang would not be getting rid of it's live rear axle until the faithful asked for it, because drag racers hate IRS.

IMO, your argument breaks down in that most first-owner Mustang GTs are not modified extensively, and the overwhelming majority are not modified with 150hp blower kits (the majority of which I'd wager are not from Ford). So why would Ford accomodate this tiny, tiny, tiny minority of new Mustang GT owners? There's simply no business case that I can see.

Beyond this, I'm afraid I'm chewing up valuable CarSPIN bytes. My parting comments are that a stock Mustang GT motor making 450hp isn't going to last very long, and that the Mustang has a live axle because it's cheaper than IRS.

[SVT666]

A tiny, tiny, tiny minority of new Mustang owners modify their cars?  You must be on crack or something.  Pick up any Mustang magazine or go to any performance parts companies website.  The 2005+ Mustang GT's are being modified by a lot more then a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of owners.  Never before in my life have I seen this many new Mustangs being modified.  There are nearly as many parts on the market for the 2005+ Mustang GT as their is the legendary 5.0L, and the 3 valve 4.6L has only been around for 2 years.

[Nethead]

GoCougs: Yeah, Cougs, there are a lot of parts in the Ford GT's 5.4 that are unique to that application, and not shared with the GT500's 5.4.  OTOH, there are a lot of important parts that are--such as the aluminum dual-injector 4-valve DOHC heads.  The blocks aren't shared for (A) cost, (B) dry sump vs. wet sump, (C) lack of a starter mounting point (the Ford GT's starter mounts to the transaxle instead of to the engine block, and consequently the Ford GT's engine block does not have starter mounting points), (D) lots of other differences, too, such as main bearings which are designed to feed engine oil to the piston-cooling sprayers in the Ford GT's 5.4.  I once saw some Ford SVT dealership's ad which offered a Ford GT engine in a crate for $36,000--it don't take no rocket scientist like MX793 to see what that would do to the window sticker on a GT500...I've just recently seen an ad offering a GT500 engine in a crate for something like $16,995.
But the point is that if Ford does offer a 450 HP derivative of either size modular (4.6, 5.4, or the rumored 5.0), they'll peruse the parts bin for parts that will work reliably and within whatever cost target a Mustang with such an engine would be designed to meet.  There are current rumors that a 5.0 with 425-450 HP is brewing for release in 2008.  Some say it will be the 4.6 with the Grand Am 3.70" steel cylinder liners and others say it will be the smallest displacement offered in a new V8 that once went by "Hurricane" and may now be going by "Boss".  Rumors are hard to bolt up to your 6060 Tremec, so I'd recommend hardware you can see and feel today...
About Mustang/GT500 weight:  It's all steel sheetmetal, as befits an affordable performance car.  But as also befits an affordable performance car, the frame/body torsional rigidity of all 2006 and later Mustang V6s, Mustang V8s, and Shelby GT500s is nearly 7500 pounds/inch (the Gallardo AWD is considered to be an extremely stiff frame/body with a torsional rigidity of 6000 pounds/inch for comparison).  That's one of the big reasons the GT500 outhandles the IRS-equipped SRT8 Charger and greatly outhandles the IRS-equipped GTO, even though the GTO is 200 pounds lighter.  It's also the reason that the GT500 handles 500 HP and 480 feet pounds of torque so easily.  Compare these torsional rigidity figures with the previous edition Mustang or any year of the GM F-Bodies, the Barracuda/Challenger, the Javelin, the Cougar, or any of the dozens of long-gone musclecars built on what was termed "intermediate" chasses back in the day.  Yeah, it's weight--but frame/body torsional rigidity is better built in than bolted on (the Mustang FR500C, which has a roadracing rollcage, has a bridge-girder rigidity of 15,000 pounds/inch!!!), something that you don't get using a one-size-fits-all frame/body that's shortened, stretched, narrowed, or widened to fit a wide range of vehicle models. 

[Danish]

If the capacity isn't there, then why does Ford Racing offer a programmer that raises the redline and keeps the factory warranty in place?  Answer that question first.

pwned

[Nethead]

"Every now and then the sun shines on a dog's asshole."
Which is why they created the Camaro convertible.

[Raza]

The Z06 is atleast 20K more expensive.

But still.  I'd rather have Gisele Bundchen.

[SVT666]

But still.? I'd rather have Gisele Bundchen.

For a few million more.

[Nethead]

But still.? I'd rather have Gisele Bundchen.

Talk Shmalk.  Post some pics of Gisele, the nakeder the better...

[SVT666]

I prefer girls with a little more meat, resulting in curves...something these supermodels don't have.

[Nethead]

Gisele!  WooHoo!

[SVT666]

Gimme a woman like Kate Winslet any day over these anorexic supermodels.

[southdiver1]

OK.... So slicks, a modded CPU and better flowing exhaust takes almost 1 second off the 1/4 mile? Whodathunk it?
Hell, I was able to take 3/10th with just a better (non slick) set of tires on my Camaro. Thats it. No slicks, chip, anything.
The GT500 is a fantastic car no duubt but taking off less then 1 second for this car as really not that hard to do.

[SVT666]

OK.... So slicks, a modded CPU and better flowing exhaust takes almost 1 second off the 1/4 mile? Whodathunk it?
Hell, I was able to take 3/10th with just a better (non slick) set of tires on my Camaro. Thats it. No slicks, chip, anything.
The GT500 is a fantastic car no duubt but taking off less then 1 second for this car as really not that hard to do.

When you are already in the bottom half of the 12s, it's a lot harder to shave a full second off then it is when you're trying to take a second off a 14 second car.

[southdiver1]

When you are already in the bottom half of the 12s, it's a lot harder to shave a full second off then it is when you're trying to take a second off a 14 second car.

I have never driven the 500 so I can only go by what I read.
Every mag that I read about this car is saying that it suffers from small tires (when compared to the Z06 and the Viper) and that hard launches simply destroy the stock tires.
If you can get a hookup then your 60 fot time should go WAY up. We already know that the car has the horsepower to do whatever it wants to do so the weak part was the stock rubber.
As I said, I shaved off time with ONLY a swap to better tires. Hell, a set of slicks would probably put me into the 13s