Ford GT Facts

"CAcoalminer" (CAcoalminer) 04/14/2015 at 17:39 • Filed to: None

16

25

Due to the recent increase in discussions involving the 2005-6 Ford GT on the front page and the inevitable misinformation that comes along with it, I thought I would share a few facts to clear up the confusion.

For starters, many believe that the vehicle's MSRP was $150,000. This fact is only correct if referenced correctly. The 2006 car's MSRP was a shade under $150,000 but the 2005 car was actually a shade under $140,000.

Here's a full breakdown:

2005:

Base Price (MSRP)- $139,995

Fully Optioned (MSRP + all 4 available options + Gas Guzzler Tax)- $155,345

All In (MSRP + all 4 available options + Gas Guzzler Tax + Destination and Delivery)- $156,595

2006:

Base Price (MSRP)- $149,995

Fully Optioned (MSRP + all 4 available options + Gas Guzzler Tax)- $165,695

All In (MSRP + all 4 available options + Gas Guzzler Tax + Destination and Delivery)- $166,945

In case you're wondering, here's a break down of the options, destination and delivery charges, and gas guzzler tax individually:

Gas Guzzler Tax- $2,100

McIntosh AM/FM W/Single CD- $4,000

Lightweight Forged Aluminum Wheels- $3,500

Painted Brake Caliper- $750

Painted Racing Stripe- $5,350 (this option is the only one priced differently between the two, as the 2005 model had this option for only $5,000)

Destination and Delivery- $1,250

Second, there were these two terribly inaccurate posts by a very misinformed fellow:

Post #1

considering the last gt with 90k miles still sells for 70k more than MSRP was ... yeah i'd agree.

(I can not believe this post received 33 stars.)

Post #2

yep and it uses mostly mustang disposable bits.

I'll start by addressing Post #1 first. While the Ford GT has appreciated in value over the last few years, at this exact moment, there is no way a regular 90,000 mile GT will sell for $226,595 or $236,945 (these figures were achieved by adding $70,000 to the all in pricing of the 2005 ($156,595) and 2006 ($166,945) GT models, respectively). How do I know this? Because the current market doesn't support the commenter's assertion.

As can be seen in the very last listing, a 2006 Ford GT with all 4 options and 15,500 miles on the odometer is being offered for $239,980. Keeping this in mind, it's simply not realistic to expect that a car with 74,500 miles more will sell for only around $3,000 less. But wait you say, what about the Heritage Edition GTs that I see regularly selling for $450,000+? In this case, the original commenter's assertion may prove to be true but we won't know for sure because these cars will likely never make it to that kind of mileage due to their rarity. For instance, currently there are only 3 known GTs that have over 70,000 miles on them and none of them are Heritages. So, keeping this last fact in mind, we can safely assume that the original commenter wasn't referring to a Heritage in his comment anyway.

Now for post #2. So, many people believe that due to the fact that the Shelby GT500 and Ford GT both possess V8s with identical displacements of 5.4L, that they are the same engine. This is false. I'll let my good friends Bill and Gary explain:

There was a fair amount of technology transfer between the supercharged 5.4L engine in the MY2007 GT500 and the FGT. Many of the same engineers worked on both programs. Obviously the overall engine architecture (supercharged 5.4L displacement) is common, including the intake charging with an integral water to air intercooler. The engine blocks are significantly different as are the block materials (initial GT500 was cast iron, FGT cast aluminum). Engine development of the GT500 engine actually started before the FGT program was finished. For those with a deeper technical interest, our FGT owners are indeed lucky that Ford allowed the engine designers the time and effort to chronicle the FGT engine design (to the best of corporate disclosure limits) in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) technical paper 2004-01-1252.

Some of the more noticeable differences between the two 5.4L engines are:

Dry sump engine lubrication system with an external oil pump (FGT) vs typical wet sump oil pan on the GT500.

The cam drivetrain was redesigned on the GT500 engine to reduce engine width for packaging requirements on the narrower Mustang engine bay.

Forged steel Mahle connecting rods along with Mahle pistons were used on the GT500 while the FGT got Manley billet machined rods with Mahle pistons. If you have ever seen one of the connecting rods in our FGT engine, they really are a work of art. Believe we owners owe gratitude to Mr. Coletti for being a staunch supporter of a bullet proof engine design in our cars when a significantly lower priced rod option was proposed, could have been used and was ultimately rejected. Both engine programs utilized a relatively new purchasing logic of procuring an entire piston assembly (piston, connecting rod, wrist pin and circlips) from a vendor which was supplied to the Romeo engine niche line for assembly. This new process reduced complexity, improved quality/integrity and reduced system cost. Also the forged Mahle GT500 rods used a "fracture cap"design to center and align the removable connecting rod cap for assembly onto the crankshaft pin. The FGT Manley rod caps were fully machined to tolerances much tighter than those obtainable with a fracture cap design.

A "Roots" type supercharger was used on the GT500 engine while a "Lysholm" screw compressor was used for the Ford GT engine. Both compressor designs are twin rotor, positive displacement air pumps, but the Lysholm design utilizes a screw rotor design with tighter internal clearances which has been shown to be more efficient in terms of obtained boost pressure per unit of input horsepower and also lower compressor exit temperatures (less engine thermal load) than a similar Roots multi-lobe rotor design.

Cooling water enters the side of the GT500 engine block which was a carryover from the production 5.4L engine design architecture. On the FGT 5.4L engine, cooling water enters the front of the block and uses a reverse direction water pump for increased coolant flow.

• A single fuel injector per cylinder was used on the GT500 whereas the FGT engine has two dedicated fuel injectors per cylinder.

• Cylinder block oil return runs terminate above the oil pan joint face on the GT500 engine. The same oil return runs on the FGT engine mate to return passages in the oil pan for near zero "windage" (crankshaft spinning thru the returned oil).

• The FGT engine has a structural windage tray for added block rigidity.

• The production GT500 engine used a cast iron cylinder block until 2011 which differs from the aluminum block used on the FGT engine. After 2011 the GT500 block changed to aluminum with a metallic sprayed bore material for the rings to contact. The FGT aluminum block utilizes steel sleeves for each piston to travel within. This new GT500 block shared the same basic design feature of the preceding cast iron design block.

• Because of the availability of high pressure front vehicle cooling air as the car was driven, the GT500 crankshaft harmonic damper was a less costly elastomeric damper. The FGT 5.4L powerplant due in part to its buried mid-engine location and thus higher operating temperatures used a more expensive, multi tuned viscous harmonic damper.

• And finally the GT500 engine block had open bulkhead windows while closed bulkhead windows were used on the FGT engine for added stiffness.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The GT uses a mechanical throttle linkage to operate twin seventy-millimeter throttles. The GT500 uses drive-by-wire technology and twin sixty-five-millimeter throttles.

The GT twin fuel injectors are rated at 32 pounds per hour each. The GT500 single fuel injector is rated at 47 pounds per hour.

The GT valve lift is 11.2 mm intake and 11.5 mm exhaust. The GT500 valve lift is 10.1 mm intake and 10.9 mm exhaust.

The GT supercharger boost is about 12 psi max. The GT500 supercharger boost is about 9 psi max. (Surprising to me that rated hp difference is only 50. The difference in boost alone should give more than 50 hp).

I can cover all of the other differences between these two vehicles if any of you have questions, but felt that this is the most prevalent misconception.

To conclude, I hope that this post will be helpful in clearing up the rumors and misconceptions associated with this wonderful machine. If any of you have specific questions about the Ford GT, I would be happy to do my best to answer them.

Gamecat235 > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 17:44

3

Don't forget this one: http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/thank-you-and-…

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 17:50

1

Too bad the people who need to see this wont.

GTRZILLAR32-Now saving for Godzilla and a condo > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 17:52

1

Glad you shared this as I never heard most of it.

Brian Silvestro > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 17:57

1

This is a very good reference. Hopefully the right people will be smart enough to bookmark it.

E. Julius > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 17:58

1

Not a question about the Ford GT, but a question about something that came up in one of your block quotes. Regarding the use of the "fracture cap" design: can you or somebody who's familiar with the design and manufacturing of these parts clarify that a bit? What precisely is the advantage of a machined conrod end? The reason I ask is because of this excerpt from the 2004 SAE Internal Combustion Engine Handbook:

In preparation for cracking, notches are made in the side surfaces of the big-end eye by laser or broaching to achieve a deep notch effect at the desired separation plane (see Fig. 7-37). The large eye is positioned over a two-part breaker drift and fixed in place. The breaker drift is spread at high speed, and the stresses created in the workpiece initiate breaks within the notches. These breaks then propagate radially outward. If this process runs optimally to conclusion, then the out-of-roundness following cracking will be 30  m at the most.

The advantage offered by fracture splitting is found above all in reducing the number of processing steps. Machining the separation surfaces, which used to be standard, can be done away with. The two halves fit together exactly after cracking and, with the irregular surface, are secured against relative movement, eliminating the need for any additional guide elements. A further benefit is found in the use of a simplified conrod bolt since it does not need to carry out guidance or lateral fixing functions.

Fracture-split conrods are an economical alternative to conrods separated in a conventional fashion

The excerpt seems to suggest that the fit of the two pieces is greater than what would be possible with a machined end (if this weren't a professional engineering reference I would take the term "exactly" a bit more lightly), so is the advantage in achieving <30µm out–of–roundness? On the other hand, the paragraph is somewhat ambiguous as to whether this is a superior process from a quality standpoint, since it mostly speaks about the economic advantages, so I'm really not sure. Any clarification from anybody wold be helpful : )

$kaycog > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 18:00

1

Excellent write-up, sir! It most certainly should clear up some of the misinformation that was posted. You are the man!

HammerheadFistpunch > E. Julius 04/14/2015 at 18:07

2

This is what Car and Driver wrote about it recently

"The major technological shift is cracked big-end caps for both powdered-metal and forged connecting rods. Previously the rod and the crank-pin end cap were manufactured as separate pieces. Rods with cracked caps come out of the mold as a single, box-wrench-shaped piece. The crank-pin end is etched, then snapped in two with a press. The resulting irregular surface improves the alignment; yields a more secure cap-to-rod connection; and allows for a more slender, lighter connecting-rod assembly.

E. Julius > HammerheadFistpunch 04/14/2015 at 18:08

0

That's what I thought. So is the quote in the OP regarding the GT's conrods erroneous then?

Quote for reference: " The FGT Manley rod caps were fully machined to tolerances much tighter than those obtainable with a fracture cap design."

Levitas > E. Julius 04/14/2015 at 18:15

1

So interestingly enough, I just learned about another application of this style of fracturing: the screw mechanism on a jacobs chuck. And basically the idea is that by machining a single piece and fracturing it in half, when the halves are assembled they fit together as a much better ring than if you manufactured two halves of a ring.

Or think of it this way: lets say you manufacture two halves of a ring. How do you know what you just made, really is in fact a ring? Or is it close to visual/contact inspections, but doesnt create a true ring?

Because of this, they say its more economical. The odds that a true ring split in half correctly are much higher and thus cheaper to make than machining halves of rings, due to the minute tolerances.

Also, since this is related to the Ford GT, can I get authorship? I just learned this week that I'll be working a summer internship with Ford and will be located in PD at the test track/wind tunnel and would love to share my experiences.

HammerheadFistpunch > E. Julius 04/14/2015 at 18:17

1

I can't say. maybe?

E. Julius > Levitas 04/14/2015 at 18:17

0

I took you out of the gray, but you'll have to ask a mod for authorship. Going back to your comment: what you've said is pretty much inline with my previous understanding and the quote from the SAE manual. What I'm wondering is basically whether the quote in the OP regarding the fractured ends is outright wrong, which, given the comments I've thus received, appears to be the case.

CaptDale - is secretly British > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 19:37

1

STOP KILLING MY DREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

samssun > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 19:52

1

Question the first: pulley upgrade, or supercharger upgrade?

Question the second: why in the world not?

It's amazing that there's such a big-power aftermarket support for these, considering both the price/quantity, and that they've become such collectors items meaning no one will want to touch stock ones.

CAcoalminer > BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. 04/14/2015 at 20:04

0

Well, hopefully it will at least be informative for some people.

CAcoalminer > GTRZILLAR32-Now saving for Godzilla and a condo 04/14/2015 at 20:04

0

You're welcome.

CAcoalminer > E. Julius 04/14/2015 at 20:11

1

Sorry for replying late but I had a business matter to attend to. Honestly, I'm in over my head on this specific subject. As mentioned in the post, the quotes in question were provided by my friend Bill who is much more savvy in this area than I am. I'll contact him and see if he can clarify.

CAcoalminer > $kaycog 04/14/2015 at 20:12

1

Thank you, $kay.

CAcoalminer > CaptDale - is secretly British 04/14/2015 at 20:13

0

I'm sorry.

E. Julius > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 20:14

1

Oh wow I didn't realize you actually knew the person you were quoting. That'd be great to get some clarification on this. Thanks for the response!

CAcoalminer > samssun 04/14/2015 at 20:51

1

Concerning your first question, it really depends on how crazy you want to go with the car. Pulley/tune/exhaust cars usually make about 600-625rwhp (this depends on the dyno of course). As for supercharger upgrades, the 4.0L Whipple will get you around 730-770rwhp. However, with the supercharger upgrade, the biggest hinderances are the items around it. Some have said that the systems could easily make more but you would need a larger throttle body than is currently offered (somewhere around 80mm), a third external fuel pump, etc. However, there is always the third route of turbocharging. These typically make around 846-860rwhp. If I was choosing, I would say do the Whipple as you can get terrific power out of it and can always add the additional mods if/when they become available if you desire more out of it.

Concerning your second question, I guess the only thing I would say is the stock power is more than adequate. In short, the addition of more power is really a personal preference thing and not really a case of the car feeling like its lacking in that department.

Well, the modifications are easily reversible if the owners decide to sell and the engine and transmission are more than able to handle the power up to 1,000hp with just the need for a stronger clutch.

CAcoalminer > E. Julius 04/14/2015 at 20:51

1

No problem.

samssun > CAcoalminer 04/14/2015 at 21:32

1

See, now I'd consider a pulley upgrade a definite, a supercharger upgrade a maybe, and going to turbos a fundamental change of the car. A more relaxed purist, I guess. But even without yanking hardware, I think a pulley swap is such a minor change for such an awesome result that everyone should do it...

CAcoalminer > samssun 04/14/2015 at 22:00

0

Good points. It is incredible how much power can be achieved with only a minor change.

CompG > CAcoalminer 04/15/2015 at 02:13

0

Although the engine internals of the GT's block are well designed; upgrading/reducing the size of the supercharger pulley requires other parts of engine to me modified as well as to support the increased flow of air throughout the engine. Some requirements could be larger TB's as suggested, larger ports on the supercharger, and a redesigned intake. Dropping a pulley size also also take more power away from the wheel as more power is needed from the crank to drive the supercharger as the pulley size decreases because it needs to spin the supercharger must faster. While dropping a pulley size sounds easy to create more power, there are various other modifications necessary in order to actually increase engine output.

CAcoalminer > CompG 04/15/2015 at 08:59

0

While dropping a pulley size sounds easy to create more power, there are various other modifications necessary in order to actually increase engine output.

This is simply incorrect. I know quite a few people who are only running a Ford Racing 2.7 pulley and tune that are making around 600rwhp. Now, do additional supporting modifications like an Accufab throttle body, Whipple inlet support sleeve, GTG cold air kit, Ford Racing long tube headers, and GTG x pipe increase power even more? Yes, but they are not "necessary in order to actually increase engine output" like you stated.

upgrading/reducing the size of the supercharger pulley requires other parts of engine to me modified as well

This is also incorrect. As I point out in the main post, the Ford GT's engine is already very well built, so no additional modifications to the engine itself are necessary.