"Jcarr" (jcarr)
11/02/2015 at 09:32 • Filed to: GT350, Mustang, Motor Trend
4
10|
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
11/02/2015 at 09:32 • Filed to: GT350, Mustang, Motor Trend | 4
| 10 |
Skip to 6:08 if you want to miss out on all the other good stuff hear it.
Jayhawk Jake
> Jcarr
11/02/2015 at 09:58 |
|
That torque curve though...ew. I have a car that gets no torque til 3200RPM, it blows.
PS9
> Jcarr
11/02/2015 at 09:59 |
|
They got the crankshaft weight down from 55 to 50, but the last Ferrari Crankshaft I weighed was 35, so they still have a long way to go....
This car costs about 1/4 what a Ferrari would. You cannot be serious with that... Wait, don’t tell me what you going to say next. It’s something about HP/L...right?
...you might have some Audi-loving friends who will point out that they made an 8200 RPM V8 that made 101 HP/L 9 years ago. But today this V8 only makes 102 HP/L and has this expensive flat-plane thing...
God-fucking-damnit.
Snuze: Needs another Swede
> PS9
11/02/2015 at 10:59 |
|
I think he has a point in the first part, but not so much the second.
I loved the idea of the flat-plane V8 in the Ford but as I learn more about it I can’t help but feel that Ford missed the mark, slightly. It’s extremely cool, don’t get me wrong, and I love the new soundtrack. But I think in some ways this is a marketing exercise - I think Ford could have achieved the same or similar results with the existing Coyote. In the modern age, RPM is limited by valvetrain, not rotating assembly. So shaving 5lbs off helps, it reduces stress a bit, but in terms of performance it could also be accomplished with different rods and pistons and/or a lighter flywheel. So why spend all the time time and money developing a flat plane for such a modest gain?
The second part though, you’re spot on. A Ferrari 458, with that 35lb crank, makes 562HP out of 4.5L. Thats a high strung engine, with even less torque down low, but it does have a fancy computer controlled 7 speed flappy paddle box to help it out. A 5.2L making 526HP is probably a much nicer balance between HP and TQ because most people are going to buy this car to DD and take to HPDE’s a few times a year, so it’s going to be more livable. And being less high strung means it’s going to live a lot longer between service intervals and be able to be serviced by your average shadetree mechanic vs. an exotic where the whole car has to be taken apart to have anything done to it.
Grab Paddle
> Jcarr
11/02/2015 at 11:27 |
|
I really dont like this new host. I know, this post isn’t witty, but I’m hungover.
Opposite Locksmith
> Jayhawk Jake
11/02/2015 at 11:47 |
|
I've ridden in one. It feels grunty off the line and the power never stops. It's a great powerband
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Opposite Locksmith
11/02/2015 at 11:53 |
|
The reviewer said repeatedly no ones home under 3200.
My issue with that is the reality of every day driving. On a track you'll be in the power, but city driving you're always down low.
TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
> Jayhawk Jake
11/02/2015 at 12:50 |
|
lol chevy fanboys getting scared haha
lol really its made for high rpm dont need not low end torque
|
Jayhawk Jake
> TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
11/02/2015 at 13:38 |
|
I’m not scared, I’m just commenting on the torque curve. It’s fine for the track but outside of that environment it’s not what I’d like to see.
Besides, if we really want to discuss the Chevy vs Ford aspect the review said they got 0-60 of 4.1 seconds while Chevy claims 4.0 for the normal SS, not some track-focused variant like the GT350. Frankly there isn't really a Chevy to compare the GT350 to yet: there's been no announced ZL1 or Z/28 for the 6th gen Camaro
|
TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
> Jayhawk Jake
11/03/2015 at 00:10 |
|
ever drive a high hp turbo car? same power band
|
Jayhawk Jake
> TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
11/03/2015 at 07:09 |
|
I know it's the same, but it isn't a turbo. I'm just saying I would prefer an LT1, or even a 5.0