• Welcome to SVTPerformance!

Latest Boss Info

Discussion in 'SVT Shelby GT500' started by Fourcam330, Jan 12, 2007.

  1. Ry_Trapp0

    Ry_Trapp0 Condom Model Established Member

    Messages:
    12,289
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    Hebron, Ohio
    dude, you know too much!!!(as well as DBK and fourcams) lol

    yea, i guess this is what happens when you let politicians think they are smarter than engineers. doesnt it only seem reasonable to have the companies affected by this involved in the creation of a piece of legislation so major, as well as some neutral parties of equal knowledge(I.E. SAE or EPA engineers or something) so that the legislation makes sense in the large scale and when compared to current and potential technologies(bio-mass-gas, hydrogen, hybrides, plug-ins, etc.)? but, instead, they just quickly come up with some sugarcoated legislation that makes it appear as though they are doing something about some "major" problem. politics, gotta love it.
     
  2. 68fastback

    68fastback Need DOHC Alloy Big Block Established Member

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Location:
    Catskill Mtns of NY
    Having the auto industry engineers directly involved (rather than having to defend against targets made in a vacuum) makes total sense to me too -- clearly we're being too logical :rollseyes ;-) But clearly they're the 'evil-ones' and cannot be believed! :-D

    I can't help but recall that the model-T was the first volume production vehicle designed to run on ethanol. It also got 23 mpg on gas. I'm actually an environmentalist (active for over 30 years) but disagree with many of the 'blind-greens' -- those that feel blind insistance on change is just as important as content and prudent change. With today's tech, only nuclear can bring us affordable and 'clean' hydrogen, imo, but many greens still see it as the devil-incarnate not realizing nuclear technology has changed dramatically -- even tho it still scares me a bit, I see real promise in nucs.

    So while they demand cars that can flip-over and flatten into concrete walls with high-surviveability, and carry the weight of the structure and all the systems that go along with safety, the average fleet still only gets about 23 mpg -- 80+ years later. The greens see that as a total lack of progress -- even a conspiracy -- while I see it as getting what was asked for. Personally, I'd rather own a 2500 lb super-fast curve-carver that cruises at 35 mpg than a 4000+ lb 'safe' beast that struggles to get 20-25 mpg. Of course, that would require folks to actually know how to drive :dw: rather than relying on the car to protect them from themselves. There's merit to both approaches, imo, but then reason should dictate that the CO2 footprint will be worse for a 'safe' 4000lb'er.

    The 'blind-greens' are sure it's a conspiracy sereptitiously driven by big-oil with a wink from the auto manufacturers. The more sensible greens see it as a genuine dilemma but demand change -- now --anyway ...that still tends to lead to premature mandates without sufficient (imo) auto-industry engineering input. Of course, that is also problematic, since the manufacturers 'play' competitive strategy games to favor their own technologies, so each brand does have it's biasses too...

    But, underneath it all, I agree that more realistic, more engineering-driven and 'pre-tested' peer-reviewed goals are needed based to drive the core assumptions that government commits to manage to -- so the stated goals don't change more frequently than the half-life of the technologies trying to achieve them. If we could only suck the politics out of the debate we (USA) might actually be able to do this and even assume a leadership role to the extent U.S. tech can rightly achieve that. Of course the auto industry did try to take the easy way out in the '60s, but that was the first turn of the screw -- I think everyone is taking this FAR more seriously now ...I hope I'm not naiive.

    Sorry for the long post ... I get carried away sometimes <lol> It's frustrating to stare down the potential boresight on the demise of high-performance vehicles when it's not at all necessary -- or even significant -- in the overall dilemma. But, I predict, we'll see more ethanol and E85 racing for political reasons when it's neither total-energy-cycle viable (presently) nor friendly to the massive investment in existing infrastructure. Bio fuels (diesel, jet-kero, gasoline) and nuclear-hydrogen are just so superior -- even if we have to use clean-coal for the +/-20 years it will take to ramp-up those techs to full throttle and full capacity.

    Hopefully we'll look back on these years as the "thanks-I-needed-that" slap that woke us up -- change takes awareness and a public mandate ...as long the public doesn't get to 'engineer' the solutuion. ;-)

    ---

    < Andy, sorry for the hijack... it seemed like a worthwhile diversion lacking any new Boss info <lol> ;-) --Dan >
     
  3. JohnZ

    JohnZ New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    While we wait for new news about the Boss engines, may I pose a question about chassis engineering? I think I get it that new engine architectures are hugely complex and research is costly and time consuming. I can't quite grasp though why chassis are also so complex and costly.

    The recent news that Ford is planning a new RWD chassis is exciting, but I read that there is considerable risk in getting it right and at an affordable cost. It boggles my mind that the engineering for the RHD-only Aussie Ford chassis and superb Lincoln LS chassis are not reusable in another modern chassis.

    What is it about chassises (chassi?) that is so dammed costly? Is it the mechanicals? Vehicle Dynamics? Computer assist stuff? Testing?
    Isn't this stuff portable from one chassis architecture to the next?
    Who knows about this stuff and why it is so costly?
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2008
  4. 68fastback

    68fastback Need DOHC Alloy Big Block Established Member

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Location:
    Catskill Mtns of NY
    I'm not a chassis engineer but I suspect there's several dimensions to devising an excellent, cost-effective, tortionally-rigid, structurally-sound, crash-worthy, lightweight, business-plan-friendly and manufacturable chassis. :shrug:

    Several of those considerations (and there's likely others) seem to pull in conflicting directions and likely stand to make the overall design process complex, computationally/modelling-intensive and costly as well (??). And that's if the assessment of the fundamental requirements successfully anticipated the true wants & needs and unplanned/extended plan usage, etc. The rolling chassis IS the vehicle so to speak -- the rest is sort of various shades of tailored window-dressing in a sense.

    One unanticipated chassis flaw can potentially put the entire revenue plan of a whole series of models (or even brands) in jeopardy. Good news travels fast but bad news travels even faster, is more interconnected, and decidely more prone to word-of-mouth exaggeration and media hyperbole, e.g. the Explorer Firestone tires/rolll-overs.

    I would also like to hear a genuine chassis engineer's thoughts on this subject too -- great topic, John!
     
  5. CobraRed01

    CobraRed01 CornerCarvinCravin Established Member

    Messages:
    3,580
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Location:
    New Jersey
    68fastback...Well, hell that's two things we agree on 1) "Need DOHC Alloy Big Block" and 2) the need to be sensibly "green". Now let's see if the "powers that be' can satisfiy both desires.

    The nuke power issue, sadly, makes a lot of sense. I think technologically we may have matured to actually be able to handle it. What scares me is the need to truck/train tons of waste across America's heartland to Yucca mountain. Closest rail line to me is 1 mile. Could be a terrorist's dream. I know the casks are strong....but. Wonder what would happen if we REALLY put our collective minds and dollars into fusion. Crack fusion...problem solved. Of course, anything smacking of nuclear technology transfer will remain a closely and wastefully guarded secret. You should open this thread up else where in here. Your balanced viewpoint needs to be heard...by gearhead and environmentalist alike. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
     
  6. 68fastback

    68fastback Need DOHC Alloy Big Block Established Member

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Location:
    Catskill Mtns of NY
    Thanks, RedCobra. I'm just a generalist, not a specialist. Everyone wants to listen to the specialists. Problem is, the specialists necessarily think narrowly, imo, and that tends to make real progress against broad problems difficult, if not impossible since each view the world thru the lens of their area(s) of expertise.

    Certainly I do not have all (or even the critical mass of) the needed answers, and my generalist persective has gaps in it, but I think it's critically important that the big-picture is wrestled-down to a core consensus that can both guide the individual pieces/disciplines and permit their contributions to be evaluated in light of broad and fairly stable goals. And no one *owns* the big picture -- as in a unified national energy policy -- and that's abig problem, imo.

    Congress has that responsibility by default, but therein may lie the quagmire, since I see no one working systematically to define the big picture. While ideally this should be an aim->shoot process, the varying maturity and uncertainties of some of the tech pieces may require an iterative shoot->aim->shoot approach, where the goals of the first 10 or 20 years may be different than the longer term goals. Admittedly easy to say but daunting to do define and do. But without such a plan it may be impossible (not just daunting).

    Historically, the transcendant/major breakthrus have come from the cross-discipline application of technology by folks who were able to either break out of the constraints of a single discipline or teams that could successfully collaborate toward common goals -- and bring new and meaningful persectives to the challenges of the day (Einstein and Boeing's skunkworks being examples respectively). I think the generalists help focus the broad goals and thereby define the backdrop and opportunity for the evaluation of individual/emerging technologies in the context of the big picture.

    Put another way, my solar friends largely spend their grey matter thinking in a solar perspective (how to advance the solar industry, how solar solves this or that, etc) but rarely focus on what solar can and [more importantly] cannot realistically achieve in the context of the big energy picture -- largely because there is no big goals-driven energy picture. Ditto for wind-power, hydro, fuels, H2, etc, etc. The old saw comes to mind: anything can get you there if you don't know exactly where you're going.

    In my gut, I feel that we're missing the big picture -- which should have a level of investment and focus akin to the '60s space-program and the Manhattan Project until a cohesive 20-year plan can be developed -- likely the shortest horizon that will get the attention of long-term deep-pocket commercial investment. For example, refineries and nuclear plants have depreciation schedules on the order of 40-50 years. Pipelines on the order of 20-40 years. Big business is rightfully reluctant to make such huge new investments or put existing ones in jeopardy without some assurance that such investments will have a decent chance to reach maturity for their businesss/stockholders -- and they won't feel secure in such investments without a national energy plan (not just an energy policy) that provides a stable backdrop to evaluate whether any given investment is likely to achieve it's planned returns based on how it contributes to the whole.

    Investors can often handle abreviated life-cycles -- it will just cost more and can be evaluated in that context -- but no real plan makes investment nearly impossible because it often must assume unacceptable risk. It's why, in the face of rising fuel prices, the US has still not built one new refinery in the past couple of decades -- the very uncertainty of oil makes such investments too risky. Ironically, not building for needed capacity helps assure those uncertainties become real -- and the cycle continues. That's bad for the companies, bad for the economy and bad for national security, whereas if the plan addressed (just for example) a ramping of x and y technologies to assume 20% of present oil consumption by 2032, then at least potential investment risks and returns can be realistically evaluated.

    Solar and wind folks are incensed at the incentives the oil industry gets, but those incentives aren't 'gifts' -- they're risk-containment measures that permit certain key investments to be financially viable as oil capacity shrinks relative to energy demand -- to prevent abrupt capacity shortages from a lack of critical capacity/investment is in the best interest of national security, even tho it produces CO2 until alternatives start picking up the load. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are on a fairly steep growth curve and while they too can benefit from durable incentives, the lack of such is far less damaging to national security in the face of financial constraints. Still I think the solar & wind federal incentives that expire the end of this year should be extended because of their potential (not security), but that's another topic.

    In such a scheme, plug-electrics might actually spike CO2 emissions (at the coal burning electric plants) unless off-peak charging can be used to fill-in overnight plant capacity -- since coal-fired turbines must suck fuel and spin at 60-hertz whether the load is 20% or 100%. If so, then daytime charging of plug electrics needs to be solar or wind-based -- especially during sumer A/C peak loads -- or not permitted, i.e. if you commute longer than your plug-electric can store in its batteries, it may be better for the country to drive home on gas rather than add to peak datime charging. I use that just as an example, but each tech needs to similarly be evaluated in the context of the big picture during it's relevant window of applicablilty.

    Only then can we make intelligent trade-offs, imo, such that in the coming decades of somewhat turbulent transitions we make, on balance, the best decisions *overall* -- for our needs, for the country, for the planet -- and still retain our freedoms in the process. To my mind that has to be the goal of government. Admittedly a tall order but doable, imo, with a real national energy plan.

    I'm talking too much and don't want to make it seem like I have all the answeres because I certainly don't ... just have a bad case of generalist big-picture frustration <lol> -- my bad! :rollseyes ;-)

    ---

    Red Cobra, I'm so hoping the '10MY BOSS is a GDI/VCT alloy modular (with power and mileage) and only hope I live long enough to see the Hurricane/Boss 'big-block' mature into a DOHC alloy 'killer' in some fun rear-drive FoMoCo curve-carver -- how about a BOSS 429?!! :pepper: ;-)

    < notice how I deftfully got back on topic there at the end :-D >
    :burnout:
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2008
  7. MedVader

    MedVader New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Spring, TX

    What is the expected hp of the new 5.0?

    I've seen the post about the Ford survey mentioning a 370hp 5.0.
     
  8. Fourcam330

    Fourcam330 New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    6,743
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Location:
    OH
    400hp/360tq (flywheel) direct injection, variable valve timing, 3.6X" bore and 3.6x" stroke with a modified block (longer sleeves) to accomodate the longer stroke.
    I'm assuming they will use Ford GT/GT500 heads or a variant of them.
     
  9. Fourcam330

    Fourcam330 New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    6,743
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Location:
    OH
    No apologies necessary Dan, I enjoy your commentary as I'm sure others do as well.
     
  10. MedVader

    MedVader New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Spring, TX

    Thanks for the info.

    Why is the 5.0 being delayed till the 2011 model? Is it still under development or does Ford want to get a good look at the Challenger and Camaro before commiting?
     
  11. Fourcam330

    Fourcam330 New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    6,743
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Location:
    OH
    It's coming in '10, fixed the typo in the OP. Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2008
  12. JohnZ

    JohnZ New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    Thanks for the feedback fastback. It looks like we are coming up short with some real knowledge about chassis engineering, although it seems to be one of the most important topics when it comes to performance cars and possibly Ford's future.

    Some of my confusion on the topic are things like, why does the Lincoln LS get high marks for it's chassis while the current Mustang, which I understand has the same chassis, gets such low marks. If they are the same basic chassis, then surely the difference between live-axle and IRS isn't the whole story of Mustang's low marks. And why is Ford at the top of the class for chassis dynamics in Europe, yet struggling with under-performing chassis in NA?

    I tend to visualize "chassis" as meaning "frame" with sprung bits hanging off of it and an interface to a computer. I'll admit that is likely a very simplistic view, but with that understanding, I don't get what is the big deal of upgrading it or converting it from RHD to LHD, or stretching it or shortening it.
    What am I missing?

    If "chassis" is more about the sprung bits, then it seems even simpler. If a spring or damper or shock or rack works well on one car, then use it or get a bigger or smaller one of the same type for the new chassis. If the mounting point is critical, then weld in a bracket. What's the problem?

    I would also like to hear some encouraging rumors about a stunning new chassis that Ford is working on for the next generation of Mustangs. I'm not trying to start a rumor, just trying to find out if there is a rumor.

    My ignorance about chassis engineering is really starting to cost me some sleep, so I would appreciate any pointers (other than to an automotive engineering school) that would relieve me of my ignorance.
    :??:
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  13. snooter

    snooter New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    illinois
    any chance windsor is getting the 5.0L
     
  14. Falc'man

    Falc'man Turbo? WHAT turbo? Established Member

    Messages:
    76
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    Sydney
    This (below) is something quoted in an interview with the President of Ford Australia, Bill Osborne. The article was supposed to be about whether or not Ford Au may drop the V8 but it's only the typical sensationalism we put with from auto writers when they have nothing good to say about a Ford product here in Aus. Anyway, reading between the lines, Bill mentions the possibility of the 5.0 being used in the Falcon, which to me was (would be) the obvious option. However, reading further down there is reference to boosting as an option. This would indicate production of this unit in FI form is very likely.

    http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=51383
     
  15. Fourcam330

    Fourcam330 New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    6,743
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Location:
    OH
    The Aussie's have had turbo powerplants that we'd drool over for years, this will probably be the case again--they'll get it, we won't. :dw:
     
  16. Falc'man

    Falc'man Turbo? WHAT turbo? Established Member

    Messages:
    76
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    Sydney
    Are you talking about the same turbo that's got 417ft/lb (+10% overboost)
    from 1950-5200rpm, and 415HP? And does 0-100km/h (62mph) in about 4.5
    seconds in the 3950lb rwd F6? :p

    [​IMG]





    The way the GRWD is headed, we'll be sharing the same platforms ie, Crown
    Vic, Mustang and Falcon, and therefore motors too. (I'm guessing this platform
    may be an evolution of the FG platform ^^ in the pic)

    But our beloved inline 4 litre 6 will die in 2010, replaced with the ecoboost 35
    or 37, not sure which. However if we do get the ttv8, rest assured, Mustang
    should have it first. Ford Au will be making alot of key decisions shortly (with
    regards to which V8 we'll use in 2010) so nothing is locked in yet. Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2008
  17. Fourcam330

    Fourcam330 New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    6,743
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Location:
    OH
    That's one of them.


    The 5.0 4v Mustang GT is locked in for 2010 regardless of what happens in Australia. It's possible the TT 5.0L could be the next gen GT500 engine (post 2015ish) but you never know.
     
  18. Dave07997S

    Dave07997S New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    When do you really think we will see this..I understand the 09 Stangs are suppose to be a short year. Will this motor see production by next summer (09)?

    I may actually put off the BMW E92 M3 for this car..same power, more tq. and probably some $20k cheaper.

    Dave
     
  19. Dave07997S

    Dave07997S New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Ford need to dump the 4.0L V6 in the Mustang in a bad way...a high revving V6 3.5L in the 270-300hp range would be sweet.

    Dave
     
  20. Fourcam330

    Fourcam330 New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    6,743
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Location:
    OH
    MY '10. 400hp/360tq without DI--which will come later.
     

Share This Page