Some Thoughts on the Ford GT V6 "Controversy"

"BeMark" (BeMark) 01/13/2015 at 15:18 • Filed to: None

8

37

After some reflecting and the initial reservation about it not having a red blooded V8, I've come around. I'm actually glad it has a sixer. Not because it allows the GT to make race spec and give chase to the Italians. I'm happy it has a six because the tech they develop for the GT is now much more likely to make it into the regular lineup. If they produced some whack-a-do fancy V8 it would never see the light of day outside of this car. I'm hoping for a very turbo friendly Ford future...

A classic GT for your troubles.

For Sweden > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:23

3

Don't blame Ford, blame the ACO and FIA

BeaterGT > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:23

0

All of their other models have turbo options, I don't know how people are surprised. Some people see it as OMG THE FUTURE OF RACING and others see it as selling out. Oh well.

oldirtybootz > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:24

0

Before we got the news of the blown 6, I was sure that this was getting the flat crank 5.2L. Surely that engine was destined for the GT, I assumed incorrectly.

ACESandEIGHTS > For Sweden 01/13/2015 at 15:25

5

* and Obama. Thanks, Obama.

djmt1 > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:27

3

Huh, why can't they use a V8 for racing?

Considering McLaren just made this, I'm guessing they haven't been outlawed.

StingrayJake > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:28

1

I'm a little confused. How would a V8 not be race spec? So long as it fit displacement limits, would have been fine, no? Corvette, Ferrari, and BMW all run V8s... And the Z4 doesn't even come with a V8 option.

camaroboy68ss > oldirtybootz 01/13/2015 at 15:29

0

someone will swap it in, and everyone will want it then

Dusty Ventures > djmt1 01/13/2015 at 15:30

2

Technically they could, but the engine size limit for a turbo motor is 4.0L, regardless of cylinders. Ford doesn't have experience building an 8 that small. A <4.0L 6 on the other hand...

Cé hé sin > Dusty Ventures 01/13/2015 at 15:32

1

Ford have in fact made 2.2 litre V8s, albeit a very long time ago.

carcrasher88 > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:32

3

Besides, isn't the EcoBoost V6 in this essentially a road-going version of the one in their United Sportscar Championship Daytona Prototypes?

Dusty Ventures > StingrayJake 01/13/2015 at 15:32

0

It would have taken more time and money for Ford to develop a V8 that's less than 4 liters, and since they're on a deadline with this whole "50th anniversary" target it was a more practical decision to go with a V6.

Brian Silvestro > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:33

2

The V8 is already in another car, that makes no sense

Dusty Ventures > Cé hé sin 01/13/2015 at 15:34

0

Fair point. I guess I should have said they don't have recent experience building an 8 that small. Or, alternately, they don't have experience building a performance 8 that small.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > Dusty Ventures 01/13/2015 at 15:34

5

The Corvette engine is 5.4 I think. Only turbos have to be no larger than 4.0

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > carcrasher88 01/13/2015 at 15:34

0

Yes, yes it is.

djmt1 > Dusty Ventures 01/13/2015 at 15:36

0

Considering Aston built a 6.0l V12 by bolting two Duratec V6s together and people were easily getting over 600 HP out of the Noble M400's TTV6 Duratec, I'm pretty sure Ford could build a 4.0l Twin Turbo V8. I reckon they just followed the LFA school of thought of "The engine is pretty heavy, let's try making a lighter one by knocking of some cylinders".

Cé hé sin > Dusty Ventures 01/13/2015 at 15:41

1

Indeed. That 2.2 produced the magnificent total of 60bhp. Different times!

BeaterGT > StingrayJake 01/13/2015 at 15:49

0

Even the GTR runs a V8 in Japan!

BeMark > Cé hé sin 01/13/2015 at 15:53

0

Yes I agree, but what car will they really put a tiny v8 into without causing "problem" for the total line up and possibly fleet efficiency? And would we really be happy with a tiny v8 when it should really be a massive v8?

472CID > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 15:53

2

Personally I'd rather see it a V8 (the way God intends!) but with enough power (600 is enough) six cylinders is fine. Max displacement for GT classes is 5.5liters btw, but Ford probably figures it's easier to make power and tie-in market a turbo six.

BeMark > oldirtybootz 01/13/2015 at 15:54

0

I assumed the same thing

Converse > djmt1 01/13/2015 at 15:58

0

The McLaren is made according to the GT3 regulations that are a lot more inclusive of multiple configurations of chassis and engines and then performance balanced to a single level.

The Ford GT is presumably intended to race in the GTLM class of racing that has a more strict rulebook and (from what I understand) a limit of under 4.0L for turbocharged engines. This class is where the factories race their GT cars against each other in the WEC, Tudor, and at Le Mans.

BeMark > 472CID 01/13/2015 at 16:00

0

Yeah I see your point about the GT class but I think the development time would have made them miss the mythical 50 anniversary. I honestly thought the flat crank engine was going into this car, maybe it still could. And yes this things is an affront to God, Country, Apply Pi and clearly a sin against petrol. Oh, I mean gas.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 16:10

1

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Tech can trickle regardless of the platform that it's developed on. I would bet a lot that they sunk just as much if not more into the flat plane 5.2L V8 for the Mustang GT350 and I think you'd be a lot less likely to see any of that tech trickle down.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Dusty Ventures 01/13/2015 at 16:15

0

5.4L is the limit for naturally aspirated engines. And Ford I'm sure sunk a ton of money into that magnificent 5.2L V8 for the Mustang GT350/R. Can we say bore & stroke?

DeLM > StingrayJake 01/13/2015 at 16:18

0

It is so they can race a lower class, making it easier to win and say "We won again at Le Mans. In the GT 40 again." Too bad the original would be considered a "prototype". So I was expecting something more like Mr Glickenhaus car.. P1 class and street legal..

Dusty Ventures > Snuze: Needs another Swede 01/13/2015 at 16:39

0

I know naturally aspirated engines can go up to 5.4, clearly they felt they'd get better performance (and better tie-in to their consumer products) with a turbo engine.

Dusty Ventures > norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback 01/13/2015 at 16:41

1

I know. I mentioned the 4.0 limit was for turbo motors only in one of my other comments, should have included it here as well :)

BeMark > Snuze: Needs another Swede 01/13/2015 at 16:42

0

I think we actually agree more than you realize. I share your same concern about the flat crank v8, I don't think we will see much of it outside the Mustang. Ever worse it will result in a 70K+ Mustang that will be outside the normal mans reach. This is why I eventually became happy they went with a v6 platform instead of creating a new engine. I honestly thought the flat crank was really intended for the GT, and maybe it still is, but I think it is less likely we will see flat crank tech in something like a Focus.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > Dusty Ventures 01/13/2015 at 16:44

0

Ah, OK. All's good.

Dusty Ventures > djmt1 01/13/2015 at 16:46

0

You're right, I'm sure weight was a factor. They're also on a deadline since they've got that whole "50th anniversary" thing going on. Given infinite time I'm sure they could develop a 3.0 W12 quad turbo producing 1,000 horsepower, but when you need to build the motor, build the car, test it all together, build the race version of the car, test that, made adjustments to find those extra tenths, then run some practice races to see how you stack up, all in a few years, it's a lot harder to try and work with an entirely foreign motor design.

nafsucof > BeMark 01/13/2015 at 17:04

1

MARKETING, It gives that TT V6 tons of street CRED

StingrayJake > DeLM 01/13/2015 at 17:22

1

Prototypes in 1965 weren't quite what prototypes are in 2015. And engine choice wouldn't have much difference on class in this case. The GT doesn't even remotely fit the prototype rules and they were only ever going to be able to go the GTE route in that thing. Sticking a V8 in it wouldn't change that fact.

And with regard to the Glickenhaus car, he might see it as a P1 for the road but there's no way it could ever be homologated for P1 at Le Mans. His first big goal is 1OA at the Nurburgring and ultimately sell enough to get it homologated for GTE at Le Mans (if I remember right).

DeLM > StingrayJake 01/14/2015 at 09:39

0

Still, I get what you are saying, but I hate marketing.. the car IS shit. nough said. And the point is YES THEY are just as much a"prototype" as today's P1 cars.. they were the top of tech and performance of their time! The world was just a little less uppity and full of themselves back then. AND???? Why not build the GT to Prototype specs?? If they are as good as the are, If ford is as big as they are, if they actually gave a shit.... we'd be seeing a GT for the Prototype class. And for Ole Glick' At least he is trying, and not bullshitting like lets say ford. I have no pity for marketing and or accountants. they ruin everything!

Snuze: Needs another Swede > BeMark 01/14/2015 at 09:58

0

Oh, I completely agree with you about the flat crank. I think it's really awesome they did that, I love flat crank V8s, but they are a niche thing - they only really work in V8s (maybe V12s?) and even then have a lot more NVH issues than a 90 degree crank, which limits them to small displacement, high winding, race engines. Putting in a special street Mustang is brilliant, but as you say, it's going to be pricey and a very limited market.

I also just had a great thought, talking about tech trickle down - remember how the last GT had the 5.4L supercharged V8 that eventually ended up with an iron block (for cost reasons and to hold MOAR POWER) in the Mustang GT500? What if Ford is going about it backwards this time? Maybe the GT350/R is/was the test bed for the flat plane V8 that Ford is going to run in the GT, and the GT show car got a V6 Ecoboost because marketing?!?

BeMark > Snuze: Needs another Swede 01/14/2015 at 14:18

0

To the trickle down comment we are again of the same mind. I wrote a post a few weeks back speculating that the GT350R was a clever way to do GT engine testing without having to hide it... I still have my fingers crossed that Ford will pull the old switheroo and maybe field cars with both engines.

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/ford-flat-cran…

Snuze: Needs another Swede > BeMark 01/15/2015 at 14:59

0

I missed your post, but I like it. I hope you're right!