2013 Ford Shelby GT500 certified at 662 hp and 630 pound-feet

[Tob]

What is interesting is that Ford still hasn't gotten the 5.8L engine for the 2013 certified by either the California Resources Board (California LEV-II LEV) or by the EPA (Federal Standards, Federal Tier 2 Bin 5). Certifications are usually granted for one year and historically, for the GT500 anyway, have already been in place by this time.

I can't find anything regarding the applicable engine family. I'm not even sure how Ford will label this one. The past few years were listed as follows:

2010 GT500 AFMXVO5.4VEK
2011 GT500 BFMXVO5.4VEK
2012 GT500 CFMXVO5.4VEK

Barring substantial changes to the nomenclature system, I'd guess that the GT500 for the 2013 model year would list as:

2013 GT500 DFMXVO5.8VEK

We'll see. Certifications have been in place for the 3.7 V6 engine as well as for the GT and Boss. The GT500 should be forthcoming rather soon...

 

[flyby763]

A stock C6Z comes with a 275/35 ZR 18 (F); 325/30 ZR 19 (R) and a stock viper comes with a 275/35 ZR 18 (F); 345/30 ZR 19 (R). I don't remember hearing any mags crying about the car's handling balance.

They also have an entirely different suspension design that greatly helps its handling characteristics.

 

[Nicolaskl]

A stock C6Z comes with a 275/35 ZR 18 (F); 325/30 ZR 19 (R) and a stock viper comes with a 275/35 ZR 18 (F); 345/30 ZR 19 (R). I don't remember hearing any mags crying about the car's handling balance.

And both of those cars have FAR less weight over the nose.

So you think Hameedi is lying? What do you think the real reason is? They just want the car to perform worse?

 

[03Cobra05GT]

So you think Hameedi is lying? What do you think the real reason is? They just want the car to perform worse?

Exactly. I don't understand why people nit pick about tires, when there is so much good stuff happening with the 2013 GT500.

If Ford wanted to put bigger tires on it, I'm sure they could have, and I don't think it would have cost that much more money. They obviously did it for a reason, which of course Hameedi explains in the video.

But your questions are point on for those that want to complain. Why would Ford choose 285s if not for the fact that they felt this tire size was the best choice for the car? They certainly didn't choose these tires sizes to make their halo car perform worse.

If you don't like the tire size, change it after you get it.

 

[Shaker1]

This car is going to be a real killer, seriously the new GT500 is going to kill more old men than prostate cancer!

If they ever take it out of the garage!:burnout:

 

[THE_EVIL_TW1N]

I honestly had to look up the SAE certification stuff because I don't quite understand the discrepancy between the ZL1 and GT500 numbers. It's clearly voluntary, and the only time you have to disclose it is when you are advertising your numbers as "sae certified". I don't see anything that says you have to adhere to maximums if you do it, i.e, if your engine makes a little more you can't say it's SAE certified.



If the ZL1 makes roughly 500-515 rwhp and the GT500 makes roughly 590-605 rwhp, the numbers seem a little off. Don't know what would account for the seeming disparity in loss getting to the tires.

I'll have to find it on their website again, It's been a while, but I know I have read that the engines must have a tolerance of +-1% of their certified power to be certified. It's really stringent.

 

[FordGTGuy]

I'll have to find it on their website again, It's been a while, but I know I have read that the engines must have a tolerance of +-1% of their certified power to be certified. It's really stringent.

Not when you think about it, I doubt too many fail but it's only fair to the consumer that they get what they pay for. Also when engines are built on a assembly line, all in the same way and with the same parts it is hard for them not to meet such a goal. If they don't meet it it usually means there is a faulty part or it wasn't put together correctly and that only helps prevent it from happening again from learning from the mistake.

 

[DBK]

Does anyone have the best dyno produced by a ZL1 to this point? I have to see something.... :lol1:

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

you mean the one that was drawn by some dudes kid in preschool?

:lol1:

 

[walt]

I thought it was funny that over on C5 a few guys were stating that Ford's SAE is to gross power instead of Net and that's why it shows more HP over the LSA.

 

[thePill]

I thought it was funny that over on C5 a few guys were stating that Ford's SAE is to gross power instead of Net and that's why it shows more HP over the LSA.

I have heard that GM is the first to use the new, more strict SAE rating which allows a 1% variances. Ford still uses the previous SAE rating (as there are more than one) which allows for more than a 1% variation. Even though Ford still uses the older system, it is still very close to 1%.... Perhaps 1-3%.

1% of 580hp would be 5.8hp + or - so a flywheel range would be from 574.2 to 585.8. With the recent dyno results of the ZL1, there is about a 14.287% variation. Either drivetrain losses are randomly between 12-20% or, the engine was dialed back. A 20% loss would be 464rwhp. The lowest stock dyno was 450rwhp which would be a 22.3% drivetrain loss. The highest dyno yet was 525rwhp and that is a 12.99% drivetrain loss which is nearly impossible with IRS. That is a 10% RWHP spread that equals 58 flywheel horsepower difference...

I'm not liking the large unexplainable gaps in horsepower from engine to engine...

 

[walt]

I have heard that GM is the first to use the new, more strict SAE rating which allows a 1% variances. Ford still uses the previous SAE rating (as there are more than one) which allows for more than a 1% variation. Even though Ford still uses the older system, it is still very close to 1%.... Perhaps 1-3%.

1% of 580hp would be 5.8hp + or - so a flywheel range would be from 574.2 to 585.8. With the recent dyno results of the ZL1, there is about a 14.287% variation. Either drivetrain losses are randomly between 12-20% or, the engine was dialed back. A 20% loss would be 464rwhp. The lowest stock dyno was 450rwhp which would be a 22.3% drivetrain loss. The highest dyno yet was 525rwhp and that is a 12.99% drivetrain loss which is nearly impossible with IRS. That is a 10% RWHP spread that equals 58 flywheel horsepower difference...

I'm not liking the large unexplainable gaps in horsepower from engine to engine...

From what I've been reading, it looks like all new motors thus the 5.8 that ford has is using the new method. Either way I don't believe this makes it about the same or less than the LSA.

 

[91svtbird]

I'm not liking the large unexplainable gaps in horsepower from engine to engine...

I've seen 12% differences between two different Mustang Dyno's testing with the same car so anything is possible while testing on these chassis dynos. Simply too many variables to compare numbers.

 

[SLGT750]

I've seen 12% differences between two different Mustang Dyno's testing with the same car so anything is possible while testing on these chassis dynos. Simply too many variables to compare numbers.

+1 Until we can get the two cars on the same dyno same day, but I'm guessing a 100rwhp difference.

 

[Devious_Snake]

not only dyno's but to get a good track time out of them, same driver, same day, back to back or a heads up race with equal drivers....anything else makes it a moot point with too many variables

I have been saying all along, no matter what times everyone wants to quote,most drivers will not be able to equal hero runs

 

[Captain Beyond]

I thought it was funny that over on C5 a few guys were stating that Ford's SAE is to gross power instead of Net and that's why it shows more HP over the LSA.

:lol:

 

[dirtyd88]

Damn. Read over half that thread on Camaro5 just now.

Anybody else want to tell that Lowdown guy to stop sucking is own wiener? Jesus...