2011 GT finally hits the street!

[iggster]

I paid 107k out the door. Dunno where you got 150k from. :shrug:



Thanks Bret. :beer: I'm ready when you are. Just holler.

107k? dam what I could do with that money in my mach :thumbsup:

 

[mrlrd1]

and it will get you onto the bottom of the top 50,000 out there. its not really special or important. its just a vette. its not a lambo, or ferrari, or maserati is it? 107k. kinda expansive for a chevy. it is just a chevy. a camaro engine with a supercharger.

$150K+ for a lousy Ford is any better? Much less one with a supercharged Ford truck engine. Lets hope the spark plugs stay in the cylinder heads.

a Ford GT is another animal altogether. its slower than your car by a lot. but its an american exotic. it has a LeMans heritage. build a chaparral....now thats something special.

kinda get what i mean. a vette can never be an exotic worthy of a place as top dog. no matter how much power it has.

Much unlike Ford, the Corvette has modern racing heritage as well. One of domination. One where Ford has NOTHING to offer for competition. NOTHING. GM doesn't have to refer back to 40 years ago to show a win, they can look at what's currently happening.

 

[assasinator]

the ford GT was winning the GT1 class at lemans when it was hit from behind by a prototype. beating C6R's BTW.

 

[2KBlackGT]

Here is an article where an 03 mach 1 ran 11.98@112 after it had barely been off the showroom floor. This isnt Evan Smiths pass. These were the exact mods the car had as quoted from the article tho:

"Out went the back seat, the spare tire, the front and rear sway bars, and the stereo amplifiers from the rear parcel shelf. On went a K&N conical filter in a prototype PHP airbox, new March SFI-approved underdrive pulleys, a PHP-ported intake and spacer, a PHP A/C bypass kit, and the company's torque link to stop the modular from flopping around on its mounts. On the exhaust side, Paul's guys fitted a pair of new midlength headers; a 2.5-inch, no-cat X-pipe; mufflers; and turndowns-all from Bassani.

Since it was Mr. Svinicki's full intention to launch just as hard as he possibly could on 26x10 slicks, a different 8.8-inch housing was also bolted up, containing Moser 31-spline axles, an Eaton Posi differential, and 4.30:1 gears. The axles and diff certainly wouldn't make the car any faster, but they were good insurance when dropping the clutch at six grand. Paul then burned a DiabloSport chip to try and sharpen the fuel and spark curves, but with only limited success-especially on the timing side-before we again had to hit the track. (It seems Ford's been moving some stuff around inside the '03 EEC V, and finding things would have taken more time than we had.) It's worth noting that we left the factory mass air meter and throttle body in place."

They also state that off the showroom floor this particular 03 mach 1 made 274 rwhp and 301 rwtq. This article is back in 02'.

Here's the link:

2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1 - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine

That's a far cry from your "gears and DR's only" statement. After seeing what was actually done to it, it makes sense now.

 

[FMX05]

Except that there are videos all over youtube of mach 1s beating ls1 4th gens and ls1 4th gens beating mach 1s. It goes back and forth. However, the weight difference is more than you think. Bone stock with me in it my car weighed 3503 lbs and that included the spare tire. Thats less than an fbody weighs without a driver. While 4.6 4vs can make in the upper 300s to low 400s N/A LS1s can make in the low to mid 400s N/A. Most ppl dont build an N/A 4.6 because you can make more power for cheaper by just going FI. Im one of em. I made 476 to the tire with 9 psi on a basic eaton m112 with no headwork, stock cams, stock catback, stock headers, stock intake, conservative tune and stock tb.

Im putting my motor back in the car next week. Forged internals, stock cams advanced 4 degrees, no headwork, arp everything, pacesetter ceramic coated longtube 1 5/8" headers with 3" collectors and a stainless steel 2.5" o/r x pipe with the stock catback. Nothing else will be changed beyond that as Im still running the same pulley making 9 psi. At least for now. I expect to be somewhere in the low 500s. I want to see how far this lowly eaton will go with some more boost and more fuel with better cooling are in its future.

See you just showed how biased and/or ignorant you are. You said LS1's make it into the low/mid 400's N/A (trying to compare them to mod motors). They can do that cam only. An average budget heads and cam car makes the same power I'm making. I OWN one. Plenty of people make well into the 480's on stock cubes. You can make over 500whp on 346 cubes while staying hydraulic roller if you put together a well thought out combo and don't cheap out on the heads. It's been done over and over. There's actually a giant sticky on LS1tech titled "The recipe for 500whp N/A with Heads and Cam." If LS1's only made mid 400's the Stock bottom end N/A record wouldn't be mid 9's would it?

 

[assasinator]

both ZR1's retired
a saleen S7 won the gt1 category

two of three matech ford GT's finished ahead of the ZR1's. that means they beat them.

the third matech finished ahead of the final C6R.

i guess the Ford GT is still racing. and beating ZR1's at the track. maybe you should check things out first. eh?

 

[assasinator]

$150K+ for a lousy Ford is any better? Much less one with a supercharged Ford truck engine. Lets hope the spark plugs stay in the cylinder heads.

wow you got me there. every truck has an all aluminum dry sump 4 valve engine. i should have googled it first huh?

 

[NoSVT's4me]

You do realize both engines are OHV right? 4 valves per cylinder may be a more efficient design but look at what "real" drag race engines use. Outside of that, look at some head flow numbers. Is there a modular head that flows well over 400cfm? The C5R head did that 5 or 6 years ago.

Why would I realize the 4.6L or 5.4L engines are OHV engines? They're not.

And for the 100 billionth time, FLOW IS NOT EVERYTHING! If a cylinder head flows 10,000cfm and another flows half, it's easy to think the 10K flow is better. That's not always the case. Heads still need valves in general and, once those are added, flow drops. More area exists to flow past 4 valves than 2. So while a flow test may make one design look great as compared to another, we don't run empty cylinder heads...

To back up my point, show me a SINGLE LSx car, save the actual LSX version, which has run as well as even the 4.6L DOHC on the drag strip... Can you find such a vehicle?

The original LS1 crank has seen over 1200hp without a problem. The LS9 crank is significantly stronger. The LS1 wasn't designed to be boosted like the 5.4 in the GT was. It had rods designed for an N/A motor, pistons designed for an N/A motor, and rings designed for the N/A motor. When you want to build a 1000+whp engine you honestly shouldn't be using stock pistons and rings. The manufacturer designed them for a certain boost and power level. The engine reacts completely differently at higher boost levels and higher RPM. That's common sense. If Ford designed the piston and ring combo for the GT around a 1000hp setup there is efficiency, power, and reliability left on the table for the 550hp level it came with.

It's great that the LS1 parts were designed for all those things... Now if only the BLOCK was! It doesn't matter if the crank is good to 30,000hp... The engine is only as strong as the weakest link. The only way anyone really knows how strong the LS1 crank is, they put it into a stronger block.

And are you seriously complaining... I mean, that's what it sounds like. If Ford designed... They did, obviously. The 5.4L in the GT is ultra tough. That said, before that engine, the stock cranks, and every other part, was designed to handle big power. Factory 5.4L blocks have been used in the 2000hp range, probably more. One powered a Mustang to low 7's in 2001... before the GT engine was available. It used the factory crank and heads and I remember being told the rods were stock, but the pistons weren't, because it was a turbo build. The intake wasn't stock either.

 

[NoSVT's4me]

What is up with you guys and this "stock motor/stock bottom-end" stuff? It's really played out. Who cares what brand the block is as long as it can hold the power.

It's pretty clear, GM's blocks in typical applications aren't as strong as those used in Ford modulars... That's pretty much it.

 

[NoSVT's4me]

$150K+ for a lousy Ford is any better? Much less one with a supercharged Ford truck engine. Lets hope the spark plugs stay in the cylinder heads.

Obviously, you've never taken note of the GT engine. It's only common part with any other 5.4L is the size.

And while SOME 1999 model 5.4L's had a problem with spark plug threads, that was over 10yrs ago and hasn't been a problem since. Funny how you GM guys can only seem to remember problems with Fords, but not the good stuff... like low 6 second drag builds... which has NEVER been done with any production block GM vehicle.

Much unlike Ford, the Corvette has modern racing heritage as well. One of domination. One where Ford has NOTHING to offer for competition. NOTHING. GM doesn't have to refer back to 40 years ago to show a win, they can look at what's currently happening.

Domination? Yeah, the Dodge Viper never existed... ;-) Not to mention the GT, which has done quite well in non-factory backed form.

What's currently happening is GM's top car is doing well in racing... While Ford didn't file for bankruptcy, they don't have a factory GT1 racing program... Still, the GT has evidently gone faster than the Corvette on top end and we all know the Mustang has outrun it on the drag strip... along with all other GM cars... You're spinning wheels on this one.

 

[Klay]

A 'lil butt hurt are you? :lol: After reading through most of this thread it appears to me that Mike is simply telling it like it is, without any sugar-coating. Seems some folks can't deal with the truth.

Well while I don't think everything he says is wrong, it is quite clear that he believes that the LS series of engines are better than anything Ford has produced. If you look at this comment (which was a reponse to the 5.0 being faster than an LS1)

I don't think so, atleast according to the video it wasn't.

It is easy to see why people have been arguing with him. It is pretty obvious that the 5.0 mustang is faster than the LS1 camaro. This one video that shows contrary is not representive of every encounter if you consider what people have actually been running at the track. The best time for a stock 5.0 is 12.5 which is several tenths faster than the fastest LS1 camaro. Not too mention LS1 camaro's do not average mid to high 12's stock while it is becoming apparent that the 5.0 mustang will.

Obviously, a stock or near stock LS1 (and LS3) camaro can beat a stock 5.0 mustang but that just means the driver in the camaro is better.

Also I didn't quote it here but you said the LSA engine is better than the 5.4 found in the GT500 or GT. If anything they are pretty equal on paper in stock form based on their output. 5.4 in the Shelby puts out 550 hp and 510 ft/lb torque. The GT put out 550 hp and 500 ft/lb torque. The LSA that was found in the CTS-V by contrast puts out 556 hp and 551 ft/lb torque. While the LSA has more, it isn't much more. Hardly makes it better than the 5.4.

 

[FMX05]

Why would I realize the 4.6L or 5.4L engines are OHV engines? They're not.

And for the 100 billionth time, FLOW IS NOT EVERYTHING! If a cylinder head flows 10,000cfm and another flows half, it's easy to think the 10K flow is better. That's not always the case. Heads still need valves in general and, once those are added, flow drops. More area exists to flow past 4 valves than 2. So while a flow test may make one design look great as compared to another, we don't run empty cylinder heads...

To back up my point, show me a SINGLE LSx car, save the actual LSX version, which has run as well as even the 4.6L DOHC on the drag strip... Can you find such a vehicle?

It's great that the LS1 parts were designed for all those things... Now if only the BLOCK was! It doesn't matter if the crank is good to 30,000hp... The engine is only as strong as the weakest link. The only way anyone really knows how strong the LS1 crank is, they put it into a stronger block.

And are you seriously complaining... I mean, that's what it sounds like. If Ford designed... They did, obviously. The 5.4L in the GT is ultra tough. That said, before that engine, the stock cranks, and every other part, was designed to handle big power. Factory 5.4L blocks have been used in the 2000hp range, probably more. One powered a Mustang to low 7's in 2001... before the GT engine was available. It used the factory crank and heads and I remember being told the rods were stock, but the pistons weren't, because it was a turbo build. The intake wasn't stock either.

Ask yourself this. In reference to the piston, are the valves "Overhead"? If the answer is yes, it is an OHV engine. Just because your engine is overhead cam does not mean it isn't overhead valve. You are looking for "Cam in Block". Both "Cam in Block" and "OHC" engines use an "I-Head" design with the valves residing in the upper surface of the combustion chamber inside the head.


As for your take on cylinder head flow... You are correct flow is not everything. Flow, velocity, and turbulence are everything. With all of those taken into account my statement still stands. Those 440cfm C5R heads ported by SAM racing students and instructors still had amazing velocity. They are flowing big block numbers through a small block head. That's why the 3400lb camaro they powered ran 8.60's N/A with a 4 speed. Stock flow numbers on most 2 valve heads don't break 200cfm (those are honda numbers) and 4 valves do good to hit mid 200's. The head that flows more without sacrificing velocity will ALWAYS have more potential. That's just how it works. When you bring boost into play (the drag radial cars you keep talking about) this isn't as big of an issue. Boost is a measure of restriction. You can run as much boost as your turbo can push as long as you can keep the bottom end together and keep the heads from lifting. You can take those 200cfm heads and put 50 psi on them and make roughly the same as a 400cfm head with 25psi on it. Those modular powered drag radial cars are running significantly more boost than their LSX counterparts. The downfall of the OEM LSX blocks is not their actual strength like you think. People were running in excess of 1500hp on them back in the early 2000's. Wheel 2 Wheel went 6.86@ 205 in 2003 I believe. Their weak point is head sealing. They use a 4 bolt head design and they like to lift at around 20-24psi. With the advent of 6 bolt heads it isn't nearly as big of an issue. There are quite a few 1,800+whp LSX cars out there. Why haven't they matched the times the mod motor guys have? There is more to running that time than the engine. Almost all of the big drag radial LSX guys are funding shit themselves and working out of their garages. The power is there, it's all about getting it down the track.





EDIT: I need to clear this up, you asked me to show you 1 LSX car that has run as well as even the 4.6L DOHC modular engine on the drag strip. You asked this in reference to head flow. Boosted cars should not be in this conversation because head flow is a negated factor in a way. If you are looking at the true potential of a head, you have to look at N/A numbers and times. That's common sense. Without a doubt the LSX head is a better head in terms of flow and power potential. The current N/A record is over 1000bhp from a 433ci solid roller turning 9,800rpm. The N/A record ET and MPH are from the same car. [email protected] with a 3500lb raceweight on a 1.275 60'. There is still more left in it. N/A power is the true measure of a head design. Is there an N/A mod motor in the 9's?

 

[S8ER01Z]

IN case you forget there's a member on here and LS1tech that has shown his TS numerous times. 13.2 @105. Bone factory stock. Granted I'm no 3V guru, but I have yet to hear of that ET from an average joe in an S197. Bone stock.

that's not to say an S197 isn't right on a mach's ass though. :lol:

IMO....3V=99/01 Cobra.

You know what I was trying to get at.

...FWIW (on the record end) a 3V has gone 13.2 @ 104mph
Stock 2005 Ford Mustang GT 1/4 mile Drag Racing timeslip specs 0-60 - DragTimes.com

 

[S8ER01Z]

Comparing time slips from around the country is the same as comparing dyno sheets, useless. I've raced a few S197 GTs(some stock and some slightly modded) at the track I attend to and my stock and minor bolt on Mach beat them by a couple tenths. Stock LS1s too.;-). Remember my track isn't the same as yours.

You are correct..though I don't exactly live in the greatest place on earth when it comes to track conditions/DA... So I see what you are getting at...

Summer Time...
13.4 @ 104mph 2.1 60ft @ 3200DA

 

[S8ER01Z]

I guess the LS guys are right though. Myself and the other Mach guys I've run with all have factory freaks AND the LS drivers either weren't racing or they weren't on top of their game.:bash:

Well to be honest I personally would never claim to beat every single stock Mach 1 like I've seen claimed from the Mach 1 guys about LS1 cars. Making the excuses for the other LS1 guys seems stupid but at the same time you are either a much better driver or have a much better car than the other M1 guys I see around because they are not faster than every LS1 car like you are. :shrug:

 

[pho_phizzat]

You are correct..though I don't exactly live in the greatest place on earth when it comes to track conditions/DA... So I see what you are getting at...

Summer Time...
13.4 @ 104mph 2.1 60ft @ 3200DA

better than my summer/only time
:beer:

 

[S8ER01Z]

SSSHHHH............hold on!!.....Did you hear that?

LS1TECH IS CALLING FOR THEIR TROLL BACK.......:bash:

I'll give you props though. You have taken GM kawk gobbling to a whole new level. Watching you post about GM is almost like reading porn...... do you swallow too? Why don't you go back to where you will have your fellow fanbois worship the ground you walk on. You will get very little love or sympathy here. Especially since you very clearly live in some fantasy land.

Psst... he doesn't go back because he doesn't get love or sympathy there either. :burnout: Even fellow GM owners get raw nuts from all the licking after a while.

 

[S8ER01Z]

Except that there are videos all over youtube of mach 1s beating ls1 4th gens and ls1 4th gens beating mach 1s. It goes back and forth.

:beer:

However, the weight difference is more than you think. Bone stock with me in it my car weighed 3503 lbs and that included the spare tire. Thats less than an fbody weighs without a driver.

My car with full tank (nothing removed/stock) was 3440lbs..

with me (150lbs)...

3590lbs

Not a huge difference really.

 

[assasinator]

$150K+ for a lousy Ford is any better? Much less one with a supercharged Ford truck engine.

gee a ls9 is really a truck engine.

The 2007 Cadillac Escalade has a 6.2 L Vortec 6200 (RPO L92) (≈376 cu in) engine. It is an all-aluminum design which, while still a pushrod engine, boasts variable valve timing, a first in a mass-produced non-overhead cam V8 engine.

just as much a truck engine as a GT supercar engine.

 

[FastOldGuy52]

$150K+ for a lousy Ford is any better? Much less one with a supercharged Ford truck engine. Lets hope the spark plugs stay in the cylinder heads.

Dry sump aluminum block super charged. Not really a truck engine. One just went > 265 at the Florida mile.