It's not going to be fun for the guys who run through the mile traps on the rev-limiter and leave 6-8 MPH on the table because Ford hasn't heard of standing mile events and can't understand why guys would take their 750+ horsepower cars to them...
2020 GT500 top speed limited...
- Thread starter Tob
- Start date
It's not going to be fun for the guys who run through the mile traps on the rev-limiter and leave 6-8 MPH on the table because Ford hasn't heard of standing mile events and can't understand why guys would take their 750+ horsepower cars to them...
I don't know why anyone would be worried about a speed limitation, if it means that much to a buyer, they can always have it turned off in a tune.
I don't remember reading about anyone complaining about the previous 155 MPH limitation, those who wanted to go faster saw it as a challenge and found a way around the problem or in this case the programming.
I don't remember reading about anyone complaining about the previous 155 MPH limitation, those who wanted to go faster saw it as a challenge and found a way around the problem or in this case the programming.
the %of standing mile event participants is the lowest of the lowest of racing participants.
Shows how many guys are missing out. Ask ANYONE who's done one. They should take the limiter off and tell buyers to exceed at their own risk.
I actually plan on a base car for street and top speed events, so we’ll see what mild bolt ons and an E85 tune does for top speed. I expect more than 180. My Hellcat Charger was VERY stable right at that speed. I actually have thought of doing some events like your Colorado Mile. Seems like what this car will be good at. We’ll see.
-J
I doubt it’s the tires this time, but I’m leaning towards the aero drag, not wanting the base to out run the significantly more expensive CF Track Pak, and that CF wing potentially buckling the trunk like someone said in GT4 cars.
-J
-J
No, like that's literally the law... Look up a Pilot sport 4s and it's a speed rated Y tire, which is 186 MPH.
A speed limiter (a hard limit set by the factory ECU), and being speed limited (aero drag, gearing, etc...) are not the same thing.
A speed limiter (a hard limit set by the factory ECU), and being speed limited (aero drag, gearing, etc...) are not the same thing.
FORD TAKES THE 2020 GT500 TO THE TRACK! | *EXCLUSIVE*
Great video, Snoopy! Thanks for posting that.
Looks like the base model will be my choice.
And "Sub 11-sec quarter miles..and I don't mean 10.99" - Love it!
Can't wait to see what 700++ actually means.
Looks like the base model will be my choice.
And "Sub 11-sec quarter miles..and I don't mean 10.99" - Love it!
Can't wait to see what 700++ actually means.
I am thinking the 180 mph limit was an afterthought. Tire capability and/or downforce of CF wing potentially damaging decklid? The reason I say it may have been an afterthought is because the speedo was bumped to 220 mph earlier in development.
Nobody likes being lied to. In the case of the self-imposed top speed, Ford floating the concept of equalizing the three GT500 iterations (Base, Handling Pack, CF Track Package) bothers me the most.
I can understand doing it from a cost perspective. In theory, the across the GT500 board limitation should have simplified development in this regard. There are a number of both direct and indirect variables that different speeds would have impacted and by reducing those variables Ford could better control testing (and ultimately production) outcomes that should help to meet budgetary constraints or mandates.
What would rub me the wrong way if any part of the argument had to do with buyer satisfaction. In other words, did Ford not want to upset the CF Track Package owner because a Base owner blew past him in Mexico? Better put...did Ford not want negative media attention in this regard, therefore a preemptive strike in the form of uniform emasculation was executed?
Decklid deflection can be dealt with so I give zero credence to that argument.
There may indeed be an issue with the volume of air entering the large grille openings at speed in terms of how well it is evacuated at speed. Hear me out - Ford patented numerous system and control designs that would limit the speed of this car if the rain tray was still in place and reduced airflow through the large hood opening. I wondered why Ford was patenting this a few months ago and hearing of a top speed limitation now it definitely falls in line.
I give zero support to any tire argument regarding this limitation.
Could there be a potential issue with the engine at those speeds? We'd all like to believe there couldn't be but I can't help but wonder how this engine would perform, durability-wise, when stressed for long stretches at the level necessary to maintain 200+mph speeds...
And was there any pressure from the legal department to put a cap on this car for whatever reason? I'm certain Ford wouldn't want to admit that and we certainly don't want to learn of that being behind it.
Thankfully, the Mustang community eventually learns most anything, eventually. We'll find out the why in due time.
I can understand doing it from a cost perspective. In theory, the across the GT500 board limitation should have simplified development in this regard. There are a number of both direct and indirect variables that different speeds would have impacted and by reducing those variables Ford could better control testing (and ultimately production) outcomes that should help to meet budgetary constraints or mandates.
What would rub me the wrong way if any part of the argument had to do with buyer satisfaction. In other words, did Ford not want to upset the CF Track Package owner because a Base owner blew past him in Mexico? Better put...did Ford not want negative media attention in this regard, therefore a preemptive strike in the form of uniform emasculation was executed?
Decklid deflection can be dealt with so I give zero credence to that argument.
There may indeed be an issue with the volume of air entering the large grille openings at speed in terms of how well it is evacuated at speed. Hear me out - Ford patented numerous system and control designs that would limit the speed of this car if the rain tray was still in place and reduced airflow through the large hood opening. I wondered why Ford was patenting this a few months ago and hearing of a top speed limitation now it definitely falls in line.
I give zero support to any tire argument regarding this limitation.
Could there be a potential issue with the engine at those speeds? We'd all like to believe there couldn't be but I can't help but wonder how this engine would perform, durability-wise, when stressed for long stretches at the level necessary to maintain 200+mph speeds...
And was there any pressure from the legal department to put a cap on this car for whatever reason? I'm certain Ford wouldn't want to admit that and we certainly don't want to learn of that being behind it.
Thankfully, the Mustang community eventually learns most anything, eventually. We'll find out the why in due time.
Tob, I feel these two statements contradict one another? You're not willing to support that a vehicle's speed limiter is always set by the factory tires (at, or below, rather), but state you can see pressure from legal to limit it? Yes, imagine if Ford put a Y rated tire (186 mph) and then allowed it to go 200+ and it had a blow out. 100% that scenario results in one hell of a lawsuit.
A manufacturer legally cannot release a car allowed to faster than the tires are rated for. This is really cut and dry in my opinion, especially when that car has aero capable of adding another 550+ lbs of downforce at those speeds.
The same could be said of a manufacturer releasing a car in the winter with summer tires. Ford never had a problem with this when they sold the last run of GT500's.
Again, I don't believe it is tire related at all. Legal influence that helped to push for a limit? Possibly a component that helped to formulate the decision. But not because the speed rating was exceeded. The 2013 GT500 was seven years ago now. Tire technology has not gone backwards.
Agreed, they could have simply specified a (Y) rating as other makes utilize.
I think it’s almost entirely related to the hierarchy of the CF Track Pack being the top dog. Still, 180mph is pretty much Vmax at almost every road course I’ve seen. Any examples of tracks with long enough straights to accelerate to 180 and still have room to brake safely?
I’ll be glad to tune and swap tires on a base model and see where she tops out.
Last thought, the DCT gear ratios with 3.73s may not be optimal for 180+?
-J
Personally believe it has to do with the the hood and turbulence.
Users who are viewing this thread
