GT500 Performance Test New C&D

[200MPHCOBRA]

Someones head should roll at Eaton IF they can't produce enough screw superchargers. Ford should find someone else to supply the superchargers. With modern CNC machining it shouldn't be such a big deal to kick out that many.

I bet there is more than a few chinese companies that could kick out that many for less money.

 

[Captain Beyond]

The only thing that pisses me off, is that if this makes around 450whp it would trap 125 if it was on a civic.

Don't worry, this beast will probably make closer to 500 hp. Keep in mind that Ford has a habit of underating hp in their performance vehicles. This car will dip well into the 11s and trap 120 with a good driver. :burnout:

 

[BillyGman]

Someones head should roll at Eaton IF they can't produce enough screw superchargers. Ford should find someone else to supply the superchargers. With modern CNC machining it shouldn't be such a big deal to kick out that many.

I bet there is more than a few chinese companies that could kick out that many for less money.

I understand your sentiment, but as far as I know, there are only two types of Twin-screw supercharger designs in existence. One being the Autorotor design ( which is what Kenne belle manufactures) and the other being the Lysholm design which is what Eaton and Whipple manufacture. To my knowledge, both of those designs are patended, and only those three companies have Licenses to manufacture them. So I believe that they are the only ones who Ford ( or any other car manufacture) can turn to for a twin-screw supercharger. But I'm not going to believe that there can't be enough of them produced, nor half of the other stories I'm hearing about the GT500 until next year. There's just too many stories floating around about these cars right now, and who knows which ones are accurate, and which ones aren't? Right now, even if some info comes directly from Ford, or SVT, I still don't believe it since it isn't written in stone at this stage of the game anyway. A lot can change from now until next year.

 

[COBRA32]

I think we need to start a Letter to make sure SVT does not think that it would be OK to use the Eaton roots style blower in place of the Twin Screw with as many signatures as possible and send it to SVT. Staten that we want the twin screw and will settle for nothing else. I for one do not want the rattling Eaton roots blower on the GT500. The Eaton roots blower is just too inefficient and makes too much heat compare to the Twin screw lysolms blowers. If the car came with the twin screw. We would not have to worry about voiding are warranty because of the change out of the blower for a twin screw blower.

 

[jshen]

I Agree - BillyGMan

But I'm not going to believe that there can't be enough of them produced, nor half of the other stories I'm hearing about the GT500 until next year

To say they're only "marginally better" is a slap in the face. Are the Ford bean counters at work, or the conservative.." we can't let them have such a powerful car" contigency at Ford...running the ship here

 

[jasil]

They are only marginally better on the top end vs the extra mid/low punch of a Roots. Do you think Ford cares what blower is better when pulleys are swapped and people blow up cars and try to get them fixed under warranty?

It a trade off.

 

[BillyGman]

They are only marginally better on the top end vs the extra mid/low punch of a Roots. Do you think Ford cares what blower is better when pulleys are swapped and people blow up cars and try to get them fixed under warranty?

It a trade off.

I didn't think that roots superchargers were any better for the low-end and midragne power than the twin-screw is. It's my understanding that the the twin-screw superchargers offer the best of both worlds.....the high RPM power of a centrifugal along with the low end grunt of a roots.

I know that you didn't address your comments directly to me, but as far as adding more boost to the GT500, I'd be looking to just run the car the way it is, along with perhaps some exhaust and gear changes.

 

[SynMan5.0]

Actually C&D is the best of all the trio...R&T, MT, and C&D. R&T and MT ran low 13's with the 03 cobra while C&D was the only one to get into 12's with a 12.9 @111mph...

Not true. Motor Trend ran a 12.8 with an '03 Cobra. In my opinion most of the high end magazine editors aren't the best 1320 drivers. You have to keep in mind that they test thousands of cars, all which require significantly different driving styles to wring the best times out of them. I do think it's funny to see the 13.3s-13.5s from the mags, though. Hell, I ran a 13.35 at 5000 ft. bone stock! If I remember I was trapping a whopping 105 mph, too. :lol1:

 

[SynMan5.0]

And to anyone who hasn't read the article in question, it was basically just full of BS. C&D drove the car, but they didn't run any test numbers. Everything they list is simply their best guess. We need to remember that these are still prototype vehicles.

If the Shelby weighs near 3850 lbs. that will be a big disadvantage, but it won't stop me from buying the car. I haven't driven a new Stang yet, but everything I read and hear is that they are 100 times more refined and just overall better built vehicles. That combined with the looks is enough to sell me on one. The fact that they'll be making at least 60 more HP is just an added bonus! :rockon:

 

[BillyGman]

And to anyone who hasn't read the article in question, it was basically just full of BS. C&D drove the car, but they didn't run any test numbers. Everything they list is simply their best guess. We need to remember that these are still prototype vehicles.

:

That's true. I remember when one of the magazines test drove one of the prototype Ford GT supercars about one year before it came out, and it didn't even have a 5.4L engine it it. It had a 4.6L because at the time, Ford was just tweaking the suspension on it. There were several prototype cars that Ford had at the time, and there were things about all of them that were different. So who knows what was, or wasn't included on this GT500 test mule that they had which isn't going to be on the full fledged production car? It's too early to draw any conclusions.

 

[onebadwop]

The 07 Cobra is beast. It might due 12's with stock tires. But it should run 11's with slicks.

 

[Black2003Cobra]

I don’t have the maps for the M122, but if I compare the Eaton M112 to the 2.3L Lysholm at 10 psi, the Eaton really is more volumetrically efficient at low to mid rpm. It’s at higher boost levels where the larger twin-screws really shine. One of the rags even did a dyno comparison some time back on an '03, and the Eaton made more power at low to mid rpm at this lower boost level. As far as the warranty issue goes, however, even if it does come w/ the Lysholm, as soon as you put the pulley on, your warranty will come off. But don’t misunderstand – I’d rather see the 2.3L Lysholm on it, too.

 

[BillyGman]

I don’t have the maps for the M122, but if I compare the Eaton M112 to the 2.3L Lysholm at 10 psi, the Eaton really is more volumetrically efficient at low to mid rpm. .

I wasn't aware of that. I've always thought that the Twin-screw design offers the best of both worlds. But I've never had one on any of my vehicles.

 

[djt81185]

From the inside:

It will run 11s stock (11.9)...I've seen it with my own eyes. It was actually a discussed item that it must be able to.

If you dont believe me check my posts.

I called the 5.4 and DOHC and the power level over a year before the specs were released. I was wrong on the IRS but that was because our car was an early mule...not using the production platform

 

[Black2003Cobra]

I wasn't aware of that. I've always thought that the Twin-screw design offers the best of both worlds. But I've never had one on any of my vehicles.

Yeah, it is true. If I could post a pic I could show you the data off the maps. The magazine that did the testing was MM&FF. The title was "Blower wars" or something like that. They ran both the stock M112 Eaton and a 2.2L KB at 11 psi. I'll try to find the issue.

 

[Black2003Cobra]

Found it. Boost Bash, Dec. 2004.

 

[jshen]

I hope you're right !

From the inside:

It will run 11s stock (11.9)...I've seen it with my own eyes. It was actually a discussed item that it must be able to.

If you dont believe me check my posts.

I called the 5.4 and DOHC and the power level over a year before the specs were released. I was wrong on the IRS but that was because our car was an early mule...not using the production platform

DBK? What do you say to this...

 

[Captain Beyond]

From the inside:

It will run 11s stock (11.9)...I've seen it with my own eyes. It was actually a discussed item that it must be able to.

If you dont believe me check my posts.

I called the 5.4 and DOHC and the power level over a year before the specs were released. I was wrong on the IRS but that was because our car was an early mule...not using the production platform

It will have the potential. :burnout:

 

[BillyGman]

Found it. Boost Bash, Dec. 2004.

I missed that one. Thanks for the info. :thumbsup: