Anyone else frustrated with Ford over the next GT500?

[Kaneda]

R is coming. I have a buddy at Ford.

 

[BlksvtCobra01]

R is coming. I have a buddy at Ford.

Same buddy as @DepWraith I’m sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MarcSpaz]

R is coming. I have a buddy at Ford.

What would you say if I told you an engineer working on this project is a longtime member of this forum, occasionally dropping hints but mostly sitting back and laughing?

 

[Tob]

Somebody asked about whether it looked as if the new GT500 hood would fit the GT350 or not. An entirely valid question as it'd be a heck of an upgrade if it did. So I set out to do some analysis based on some data I may or may not have and the hood photo that surfaced.

I started by importing an STL file into Solidworks. While the model is of a GT350R, the hoods on these cars are universal between the regular GT350 or the R version. This is it in Solidworks...

I then cropped the GT500 hood (from the newfound photo)and lowered the opacity, and placed it over a saved CAD image (from Solidworks) in Photoshop. The difficulty lied in trying to match perspectives. I found I had to tweak the GT500 hood by distorting it slightly to get it into position. Not really a good match. It also looked as if the front edge/radius of the hood didn't match up between the two either.

I probably spent 30 minutes in Solidoworks and then decided to try something different. I used another program, MeshLab, as I felt I could get some perspective from it that might be a better match to the hood in the GT500 photograph. So I once again started with the same STL file, only this time in MeshLab.

This is a quickie of the STL file that I took with my phone just to show it in "space."


This exercise would have been far easier (and more accurate) if I simply had two CAD models to work with. Sadly, Ford doesn't share this data with respect to anything Shelby, Cobra, or SVT related. Regardless, there's always a way, such as obtaining digitized data on your own. Interestingly enough, MeshLab showed the two to be very close.

Based not only on what I see (which is far from perfect) and a voice in the wind I don't think the new GT500 will match up. The contours look to be different. I suppose you could also add the GT500 fenders to your GT350 but then you'd likely need the GT500 fascia too. And that is assuming that the carbon fiber GOR is 100% carryover. So close, but no cigar.

The fenders, which are likely to also be SMC and come from the same supplier as the hood, continue to be a mystery and are likely to be right up until the moment the car is shown in Detroit. My interest lied in the potential for venting and I have only ever been able to find one photo, early on, that suggested that Ford was considering vents.

That's all that slipped out. And early development cars tried to mask the vents above by placing something both in front and behind the vent, followed by covering everything up to better cloak it, as shown in the following photos. Remember, these are early, so disregard much of everything else you see.

I sense that Ford may have bailed on the effort completely which is really too bad. There has absolutely nothing on them in quite some time. The two "dealer" photos that slipped out may indicate that the nail is in the coffin, vent-wise. Everything points to what was shown there as being the most representative of the finished car to date. RIP fender vents, we hardly even knew you.

With respect to the above photo, I believe you are seeing the R or KR version in the flesh. That is a pinned hood, those are carbon fiber wheels (with the white ceramic coating on the inner barrel), there are no fender vents, the recently patented aero bits up front are there, and the GT4-inspired wing out back is no doubt the road course mammy that this car will need to balance out the aero at speed.

I'm down to two questions. Will this car utilize a Tremec DCT (only?) and will the R/KR version be available initially, alongside the more mundane version. Nick, you know where my interest lies...

 

[csc427]

I’m down for red! I say we all get Nick to do a forum deal for a select few, myself included or no deal! MSRP for all and we kick him back a grand after the deal is done! Hell I will throw in another grand for good measure! Any takers?


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

Already on said list. He’s a good guy. Uncertain of the number of allocations he will get.

 

[csc427]

So,....there's going to be a "R" and/or a "KR" version of this car too?
Has that been confirmed?

Just saying I want one if there is such a thing.

 

[ON D BIT]

R is coming. I have a buddy at Ford.

Let me guess, you could care less about the gt500 or gt500r you just want the car that will get you the most likes on fbook....

I would skip the demon, gt500, and go straight for 720s.

 

[tones_RS3]

Just saying I want one if there is such a thing.

Got'cha!
I hate when people post stuff like I'm getting the R or the KR when there isn't any confirmation/talk of it. That's ****ing stupid.

 

[Tob]

For anyone interested in more on the SMC hood and fenders there is a plethora of general data out there you can peruse online. I'm digging as deep as I can to try to find the formulation that will be used but at this point have no way of knowing ultimately what Ford will use. Since the Raptor is using a SMC hood and fenders I've started there. I understand that that truck may have different needs over that of a Mustang in terms of formulation but at this point it is the best I can do. With that said, from a 2017 Raptor hood...

2017 Raptor fender...

Looks as if the same formulation is in place for both, >UP-(GF+M)75<. This is a mix of chopped fiber and resin (etc) that along with heat and a mold produces the types of panels we are talking about. The "UP" is likely for unsaturated polester. I know the "GF" delineates glass fiber but am still looking for the breakdown on the rest. Looking to find out what "M" and 75 are in this case (density related)?

Why the above has relevance lies in whether these panels end up being lighter or heavier than aluminum. CSP is now using "TCA Ultralite" but I can't verify if the GT500 will use that in it's hood and fender formulations. Regarding TCA Ultralite...

SMC already offered a host of benefits vs. steel and aluminum. It’s typically 40% lighter than metals in specification-comparable geometries. It also provides better low- and high-speed impact performance (energy management), so it brings safety benefits to vehicle occupants. Although it won’t rust or corrode and doesn’t need such treatment, it has the thermal and chemical resistance 
to survive the automotive electrophoretic (e-coat) deposition process used as a rust preventative on metallic chassis components. Hence, SMC parts can be attached to the body-in-white (the preferred assembly method) and don’t require special post e-coat assembly.

Far greater design flexibility is
 another SMC advantage (especially
 vs. aluminum), and that’s a real boon
to automakers who favor the use
 of surfaces with compound curves,
 which are either difficult and costlyor impossible to duplicate in metals,
 owing to the deep draw. Parts-consoidation opportunities and insert 
molding enable previously multiple
 subcomponents to be molded as
 a single complex composite part,
 reducing the number of tools (dies) 
and post-mold assembly operations 
necessary to make the same part
 from metal. Even better, because it’s
 molded on compression presses, SMC
 offers this styling freedom at lower
 tooling costs than metals at both low
 and moderate production volumes
 (typically 50-70% tooling cost savings 
vs. steel or aluminum at build volumes 
of less than 150,000 per year). Historically, at higher volumes, the greater 
raw material cost of SMC vs. metals 
and the slower part production cycle 
cancel out SMC’s overall cost advantage: SMC takes 2.0-3.5 minutes vs. 
20-30 seconds for metals, despite the fact that that’s per die for a metal version of the part that requires multiple subcomponents, which need subsequent assembly. So the SMC molder must multiply the number of tools and machines to maintain competitive production rates at the higher volumes. This normally puts SMC out of the running in the per-part cost sweepstakes.


With aluminum as their target, CSP researchers focused on ways to make SMC cost-competitive at any production volume. The key was to target specific gravity: “We kept running the numbers and our calculations kept telling us that we could take on aluminum if we could get to 1.2,” explains Guha. “We got down to basics and started analyzing each component’s contribution.”

That first application, on GM’s flagship Corvette, now totals 21 body panel assemblies (depending on model), including doors, decklids (trunks), hatches, door surrounds, quarter panels, fenders, convertible tonneau assemblies, and coupé roof bows (read more online about how the the current Corvette also represents the first use of a new out-of-autoclave carbon composite production method in “Faster cycle, better surface: Out of the autoclave" under Editor's Picks at the right). The technology has fulfilled its promise to reduce costs vs. aluminum at all volumes: Life-cycle analyses done by CSP reportedly show that even at volumes as high as 350,000-400,000 vehicles per year, TCA Ultra Lite costs less per part than aluminum.


“In materials engineering, shaving off a single pound per car is a significant accomplishment,” notes Corvette chief engineer Tadge Juechter, “so saving 20 lb per car is monumental.”

Low-density SMC: Better living through chemistry


There is no doubt that Ford was looking for panels that were strong, lightweight, and that could meet certain budgetary constraints. I don't believe we will see a CF formulation due to the volume of GT500's Ford may be considering but I found the following to be no doubt related to what Ford went through when finalizing the decisions they made.

I then quizzed both about the future of SMC for automotive, including carbon fiber SMC. Both pointed out a very key aspect of CSP’s SMC products. Macher says “Last year at the JEC World event, we won an award for a recycled carbon fiber SMC inner on an automotive deck lid. I want to stress that our thermoset SMC is able to go through an E-coat oven. We paint it with a conductive primer, and then it goes through E-coat at 400 degrees, and the assembly process doesn’t know the difference between that and a metal part. It goes thru body paint, and it provides a Class A finish, with dimensional stability, and with virtually the same orange peel ratings as a steel or aluminum part. So, carbon fiber SMC gives the lightest weight solution for that application, and gives you a cost profile that is equal or less – in that case, it turned out to cost 13% less than aluminum – because of the use of recycled fiber. Now, the next step is, how much of that carbon fiber do you really need? Do we need 50%, do we need 30%, do you modify it slightly to create a hybrid of glass and carbon fiber, which reduces the cost but also adds a little weight?”

Haiss drives home the point: “Other materials can survive in E-coat, but they undergo dimensional change and they’re not stable after that, which creates problems. CSP has worked with some OEMs in improving that capability through their E-coat ovens, and that’s a significant advantage.” Both point out that if a composite part is made with, for example, thermoplastic olefin (TPO), it simply can’t survive the ovens and has to be painted offline. Macher explains, “So now you have added complexity. The assembly plant, now instead of having one liftgate or decklid, now they have 10 or 12, in different colors, which have to be put on in some sequence, and they have inventory issues, and OEMS have to readjust their lines – it’s a big deal. We can give them one, and they put it on the same way, every day.”

Macher describes something that the combined companies are working on: a material matrix that will allow customers to easily choose various composite materials for their application: “We’re ultimately going to come up with a ‘plug and play’ concept, wherein along one scale you will have aramid, carbon fiber, and glass, and with the resins defined, after we’ve done all of our testing. So a customer can say, I want 50% carbon fiber, so we can say, OK, here’s what it will weigh and here’s what it will cost. So they may say, no, no, we don’t want that much cost, what if we put in 10% glass and take out some carbon? So we dial it up, and say here’s what it will weigh, here’s what it will cost, and here’s the performance characteristics you get. So we’re trying to create that matrix, which gives virtually an infinite number of approaches to the mix.

A tsunami of growth: An inside look at the CSP/Teijin merger

In a nutshell, pay very close attention when the car gets announced. Listen beyond simple mention of "composite, space age, etc." Ford Marketeers are likely to not get into specifics but the key will be...are these composite panels lighter than the aluminum ones they replace? That will say a lot about the formulation they ultimately chose.

 

[biminiLX]

Good reading. So I know our aluminum hoods are very light and I’ve heard some of the Raptor parts can be heavy.
For the GT500 application I would hope we have the lightest option, and between hood, fenders, decklid you may find a good savings.
I personally hope they push the light weighting hard on performance Mustangs. These are not small cars and every opportunity to save # helps.
772hp and 3900# sounds good to me
-J

 

[csc427]

Got'cha!
I hate when people post stuff like I'm getting the R or the KR when there isn't any confirmation/talk of it. That's ****ing stupid.

While no confirmation, there’s been a ton of talk about it. Various aero bits, etc. not sure about ****ing stupid. Thanks

 

[72MachOne99GT]

Interesting

 

[tones_RS3]

While no confirmation, there’s been a ton of talk about it. Various aero bits, etc. not sure about ****ing stupid. Thanks

Thanks!!!!

***edited to be more "family friendly". lol

 

[csc427]

Thanks!!!!

View attachment 1538353

***edited to be more "family friendly". lol

I’m merely stating that there has been talk of a higher model and I would be interested in adding one to my collection. You said there wasn’t talk of that. Not sure where the negativity or sarcasm is coming from. As a car enthusiast it’s quite frustrating to come on to this particular site because of this very thing. Im not in the know or predicting anything at all. Be nice to able to be excited about a car/potential model without being called ****ing stupid. Doesn’t happen on other forums that I participate in. Merry Christmas.

 

[Tob]

CSC, it's the world we live in. We're all excited and eager to see what is in store come the 14th. And after such a long wait the tension in the air is pretty darn thick.

Life is fragile and way too short. It would be nice, if even only for a few days, everyone eased up during the holidays. Then we can get back to the ugly just in time for the big moment. That's when the emotions will probably be the strongest we've seen in some time.

 

[Smooth]

I’m merely stating that there has been talk of a higher model and I would be interested in adding one to my collection. You said there wasn’t talk of that. Not sure where the negativity or sarcasm is coming from. As a car enthusiast it’s quite frustrating to come on to this particular site because of this very thing. Im not in the know or predicting anything at all. Be nice to able to be excited about a car/potential model without being called ****ing stupid. Doesn’t happen on other forums that I participate in. Merry Christmas.

Whoa! I read through this and I think there's been a misunderstanding.

Here's what Tony said in response to yer statement/question about an R/KR:

"Got'cha!
I hate when people post stuff like I'm getting the R or the KR when there isn't any confirmation/talk of it. That's ****ing stupid."

I know Tony. That was not directed at you. That was just an observation/opinion about a couple of people here that have claimed to have insider info on the new GT500. Tony didn't say that there was no talk of an R/KR version, he said there was no talk/confirmation. I share his frustration with all of the speculation on this car.

Again, YOU weren't being called stupid. Trust me. Tony is one of the nicest guys you'll find on this forum as evidenced by his self edited post just a couple of posts above.

 

[tones_RS3]

Whoa! I read through this and I think there's been a misunderstanding.
Here's what Tony said in response to yer statement/question about an R/KR:
"Got'cha!
I hate when people post stuff like I'm getting the R or the KR when there isn't any confirmation/talk of it. That's ****ing stupid."
I know Tony. That was not directed at you. That was just an observation/opinion about a couple of people here that have claimed to have insider info on the new GT500. Tony didn't say that there was no talk of an R/KR version, he said there was no talk/confirmation. I share his frustration with all of the speculation on this car.
Again, YOU weren't being called stupid. Trust me. Tony is one of the nicest guys you'll find on this forum as evidenced by his self edited post just a couple of posts above.

Thank you Brochacho! I appreciate the kind words.
Thanks for clearing that up as well. I gave up. lol

 

[Smooth]

Thank you Brochacho! I appreciate the kind words.
Thanks for clearing that up as well. I gave up. lol

Er'body frustrated Brofessor.

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

Merry BROMAS! Big happinesses to all the Bro’s, (& ho’s!) and even the asshats because its Christlike to be nice to all. (Except evil devils, they can go to hell)

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

Er'body frustrated Brofessor.


View attachment 1538515

Winter is coming...