That's cool that you believe that. But that's the thing; you believe it. It's a matter of blind religious faith, and one that is wrong.
It was chosen for the class it was running in. Thanks.
New ecoboost ford GT has worse mpg than any comparable supercar
- Thread starter mc01svt
- Start date
That's cool that you believe that. But that's the thing; you believe it. It's a matter of blind religious faith, and one that is wrong.
It was chosen for the class it was running in. Thanks.
Did you read the post I quoted? That's literally exactly what he was arguing.
I should just note, you can very well not like the GTDI V6, or not like it in the GT, as those are opinions. Fair enough. That said, whatever fantasies people have over why they picked an engine or not do not become reality just because they want to believe it. I was around when they were making the very, very brief deliberations on what engines they had around, and which one to put in it. The RY 3.5L going in the CGR DP starting in October 13 wasn't because of road car marketing.
What are the main differences between the normal 3.5 and RY 3.5? besides turbos obviously. I read somewhere that the only difference was heads, turbos and tune (of course it must be true on the internet!)
FYI I am in no way hating on the car, I even love the sound the race spec makes, just want to understand something that doesn't make sense to me
Oh hell yeah, I have wanted Ford to bring back another prototype car.
Is it a redesign or will it be similar to the last car?
the Ford GT is sorta like the Jaguar XJ220... and i'll still say it, from an engineering perspective it shouldn't be that bad on mpg.. the best? no, it doesn't have to be, but certainly shouldn't be the worst
That sounds like some pretty major differences. I wouldn't downplay them as the "only" difference.
Depends on how much downforce the GT makes compared to the others. Just because it looks small and "slippery" aerodynamically, doesn't mean it has a low Cd. Down force plays a huge role, which is something the GT body creates in spades.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant they put the 3.5L in the DP cars back in late 2013 knowing that they would prove it out in 14 and ultimately race it in the GT in 15.
well, yea.... thats why I want to know, turbo size and compression wont make gas mileage bad depending on tune. As far as I can see they just have zero tuning for eco/cruising, which imo is stupid as its still a street car regardless of cost
Haha, it actually makes sense now that I go and look at it, I was just too excited and figured for some reason Ford was going to debut a DP car October 13th.
My bad.
I just find it funny people think Ford would build a super huge pain in the ass hand-built carbon car that costs a silly amount of money because it was pure marketing for the engine. The GT is pretty much irrelevant for marketing the ecoboost moniker. How many people in the general car buying public even know what a Ford GT is? I've owned the last gen for 11 years. People still ask me what the hell it is.
It's nice to say EcoBoost is successful in racing, but they'd already sold well over 1 million F-150s with a GTDI engine in it as of last year. The demand for the new Raptor is insane. I would have thought it would have cooled, but it's even hotter than it was with the 6.2L, and at way higher prices. You can pretty much guarantee joe schmoe knows someone with the 3.5L, 2.7L etc in some vehicle. These are factors that shape the opinions of the public much more than supercars or road racing.
The discussion will be pointless in 10 years when the pure ICE vehicle is dead. This is a transitional period, and engines like the one in the GT aren't a setup for a future Ford knows doesn't exist.
(all contingent on the whims of government)
It's nice to say EcoBoost is successful in racing, but they'd already sold well over 1 million F-150s with a GTDI engine in it as of last year. The demand for the new Raptor is insane. I would have thought it would have cooled, but it's even hotter than it was with the 6.2L, and at way higher prices. You can pretty much guarantee joe schmoe knows someone with the 3.5L, 2.7L etc in some vehicle. These are factors that shape the opinions of the public much more than supercars or road racing.
The discussion will be pointless in 10 years when the pure ICE vehicle is dead. This is a transitional period, and engines like the one in the GT aren't a setup for a future Ford knows doesn't exist.
(all contingent on the whims of government)
I disagree to an extent. Doesn't matter how low marketing was on the priority list for Ford, its still a marketing ploy. The general public likes to say they have the "same" x,y, or z as the companies most exciting products.
Not saying the 3.5 isn't a great performing engine. Obviously it is.
I had a car with the 1.5 for a while. Loved the car, just needed more space. I never thought it was under powered, but it did not live up to the EPA ratings though.
I have said it many times, the ecoboost motors are just Ford's way of gaming EPA/CAFE testing. They look great on the dyno, but suffer in real life when under any sort of a load.
I'm not going to disagree, but look at it this way.
The government creates a guideline. The government creates a test to show the guideline.
The manufacturers aim to exceed the guideline. In order to succeed they have to make themselves test well.
Why wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to, legally, exceed the test?
They aren't illegally exceeding the test, but the dyno testing methods are biased towards small displacement, small turbo motors. Its great for steady state conditions, i.e. cruising down a flat highway, coasting down hill, or sitting at a stop light. As soon as you apply a load, i.e. drive up a hill, accelerate, etc. it consumes more fuel that a properly sized NA motor.
I drive through a small mountain range every day. We never got close to the EPA estimations unless we went on long trips up I-5 where our drive is 95% flat and cruising.
Yes, but when people say this, it's literally the same as saying every other decision that is made on a car is a marketing decision. Every decision is a marketing decision on some level. The decision to build a car, how it looks, whatever. All I can tell you is, regardless of what else gets said, Ford really wanted to win that ****in race on the 50th anniversary. Ford is into big anniversaries.
What do you think would have been the easier pure marketing decision, seeing the (obviously predictable) controversy around the V6? Would have been a lot easier hill to climb just chucking in the 5.2L...
Users who are viewing this thread
