Why is the GT so heavy?
- Thread starter lthlvpr
- Start date
All I'm saying is that it's what I read, Until ANYONE on this board goes that speed in an Mc F1 I doubt anything could be said (my self included). And Now that you mention it, it was Mario in that Road and track Review (haha, "some race car driver", Got to lay off the Vodka). And in that artical they got it up to 227, not 240+ (even though i fully understand the Diff. from 205 and 240+), and i believe they got it up to that speed once, and only once, because it was so scary. Pissed or not, it has to take alot to make Mario nervous at the wheel.
I, myself, would like to see a TT S7 at those type of speed's. Ive heard somthing about it being able to produce enough downforce to basicly drive upside down, Can anyone elaborate? :shrug:
TacticalKaos - Genius when you look at the spec sheet, Once you Open the door and sit down in it, im sure there are cars that will Uphold it to a specific standard. :beer:
Edit: Don't get me wrong, Im not defending any "sport" car, "super" car, Or "pony" car that is a porker. Hell, anycar that is meant to go fast, should not weight, IMO, over 3500 pounds, but that is just me. Also, The top gear video was In the Enzo Test, but i am not 100% sure, i will get back to you guys on it.
I, myself, would like to see a TT S7 at those type of speed's. Ive heard somthing about it being able to produce enough downforce to basicly drive upside down, Can anyone elaborate? :shrug:
TacticalKaos - Genius when you look at the spec sheet, Once you Open the door and sit down in it, im sure there are cars that will Uphold it to a specific standard. :beer:
Edit: Don't get me wrong, Im not defending any "sport" car, "super" car, Or "pony" car that is a porker. Hell, anycar that is meant to go fast, should not weight, IMO, over 3500 pounds, but that is just me. Also, The top gear video was In the Enzo Test, but i am not 100% sure, i will get back to you guys on it.
Last edited:
No,no,no, Never said that your video was not a mclaren, I'm saying, Top gear had an episode where they where complaining about the Mclaren F1's driving caracteristics, and i believe it was the same episode that they tested the Enzo.
Ry_Trapp0 said:
Very good point!.. The fiberglass makes the car very light but the body about as strong as a styrofoam cup. I wouldn't ever want to get in an accident in a vette. In the end, I would either have a totaled car or a totaled car and burns all over. Sorry, I'm just not a fan of fiberglass.
TRXboy said:
Kind of weird you asked that question. I work for a car dealer and the Saleen rep was here today talking about that stuff. So here how it was explained to me.
The design of the S7 is for one thing and just one thing only - to move air around the car as fast as the air would move and to create downforce. Apparently there is so much down force created that there is literally suction to the pavement. Think hot a toy hot wheels track when you speed the toy car fast enough to make it go through the loop. Basically the S7 has enough downforce using all the scoops and aerodynamics that at about 160mph this car (in theory) drive upside down. But who is going to build a paved road upside down to prove it. But in computer studies it is possible.
Hope this helps.
:beer:
TRXboy said:I, myself, would like to see a TT S7 at those type of speed's. Ive heard somthing about it being able to produce enough downforce to basicly drive upside down, Can anyone elaborate? :shrug:
The car was tested in a wind tunnel and the down force created by the precision molded body is enough to hypothetically allow it to go upside down at speeds of 200mph+... Though such was never done, it is said to be able to... There was a whole show on discovery channel about the making of the S7 in which they touched on your question. Also, I recall it being the S7, not even the TTS7, that was capable of doing such.
Last edited:
GTSpartan said:
I'm not talking about being hurt from impact damage. Fiberglass is highly flammable. also, if you get in a bad accident in a vette, the odds are your car will be a total loss.
TRXboy said:
:dw:
I had a corvette (C-5) and drove the Ferrari F360 and Viper S..
The Gt may be heavy, but mine is really fast none the less, and handles like a dream. Practical this car is not, not even close. There is NO storage at all, the GT is all business, I expect a hundred or so pounds go to the tires, they are twice the size of the corvette and Vipers.
If a few hundred pounds scares you away, your not interested in a GT for the right reasons.
The Gt may be heavy, but mine is really fast none the less, and handles like a dream. Practical this car is not, not even close. There is NO storage at all, the GT is all business, I expect a hundred or so pounds go to the tires, they are twice the size of the corvette and Vipers.
If a few hundred pounds scares you away, your not interested in a GT for the right reasons.
The GT's frame is friction-stir welded, a first in the industry. Weight is something that every engineer tries to avoid but look at the exterior dimensions of the car, it's a large vehicle! They couldn't change too much or else it wouldn't look like a GT anymore.
My main criticism of the GT comes from the engine choice. That bore-undersquare 5.4 wasn't the only engine tested. Before Ford cancelled the Hemi-fighter Hurricane engine, it made 605 horsepower and weighed over 100lbs less than the blown 5.4. I applaud Ford for making the GT at all, but part of me wishes the V-10 would have made it instead.
My main criticism of the GT comes from the engine choice. That bore-undersquare 5.4 wasn't the only engine tested. Before Ford cancelled the Hemi-fighter Hurricane engine, it made 605 horsepower and weighed over 100lbs less than the blown 5.4. I applaud Ford for making the GT at all, but part of me wishes the V-10 would have made it instead.
The blown 5.4, fits the bill, it would have been nice to see a big ol n/a engine in there but Ford doesn't have anything to compare that doesn't have at least 2 extra cylinders. A 4v 6.4L v10 would likely have been the most production feasible (for Modulars anyways they also had the engines in the Aston's...) but they wouldn't have made the power the 5.4 makes. Ford really needs a different cylinder spaced engine with large bores with the 4v heads, look at the potential of the big bore variants, the only thing that holds them back is the crappy bore spacing, that'll be the only way they make big emissions friendly power, and with the current situation, I wouldnt hold your breath.
xr7boost said:
I used to think the same way but changed my mind. I really don't think the extra 100 lbs. is an issue for a street car and the GT's 5.4 already makes 600 HP. One thing the V10 can't do is 700rwhp with bolt-ons. Once you do a little reading on that Aluminum 5.4 block you find out just how trick that motor is.
Last edited:
yeah i agree.. i'd like to see what they can do with something up over 5.4 liters or so. 5.4 n/a would be sweet and i think they should make that the base motor. GM stuck with the 350 when they considered using the 305 as the performance motor. and its payed off i think. Mopar is using big inches too with 5.7 and 6.1 liter v8's. ford should up the game abit
Users who are viewing this thread
