The 2011 V6 is going to kick the 2005-10 GT's butt!
#21
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you didnt really get it, now you only have 2 data points, what you need to do is creat a projected acceleration curve as the vehicle passes from launch RPM to shift point and so on. that is why people discuss flat torque curves and wide power bands. you need to create formula based on gearing and the rpm band. ie at 2k rpm torque is XX in the V6 and XX in the V8, then at 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and so on upto rev limiter to get your curve all the way through the rpm band. then apply the portions that will be under the acceleration curve based on shift points, ie 0-30 first gear, 30-65 second gear and so on, basically applying the portion of the rpm band that will be used between shifts. while the v6 may technically be putting more torque down through multiplication at peak, is it higher all the way through the band? based on your data your a making an assumption that the curve shapes are identical and peak power and gearing are the only nessesary comparision values to make a statement on acceleration potential. until some of the V6s end up on dynos or if ford releases thier data you wont know.
#23
FR500 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you didnt really get it, now you only have 2 data points, what you need to do is creat a projected acceleration curve as the vehicle passes from launch RPM to shift point and so on. that is why people discuss flat torque curves and wide power bands. you need to create formula based on gearing and the rpm band. ie at 2k rpm torque is XX in the V6 and XX in the V8, then at 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and so on upto rev limiter to get your curve all the way through the rpm band. then apply the portions that will be under the acceleration curve based on shift points, ie 0-30 first gear, 30-65 second gear and so on, basically applying the portion of the rpm band that will be used between shifts. while the v6 may technically be putting more torque down through multiplication at peak, is it higher all the way through the band? based on your data your a making an assumption that the curve shapes are identical and peak power and gearing are the only nessesary comparision values to make a statement on acceleration potential. until some of the V6s end up on dynos or if ford releases thier data you wont know.
One possible clue is the fact that the new V6 is still making almost 88% of peak torque at 6500RPM, vs. the 4.6L's 82.5% at 6250. So assuming a fairly typical convex torque above 4250, I would be willing to bet that from 4250 to redline, the new V6 wins, given the gearing Ford went with.
#26
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you didnt really get it, now you only have 2 data points, what you need to do is creat a projected acceleration curve as the vehicle passes from launch RPM to shift point and so on. that is why people discuss flat torque curves and wide power bands. you need to create formula based on gearing and the rpm band. ie at 2k rpm torque is XX in the V6 and XX in the V8, then at 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and so on upto rev limiter to get your curve all the way through the rpm band. then apply the portions that will be under the acceleration curve based on shift points, ie 0-30 first gear, 30-65 second gear and so on, basically applying the portion of the rpm band that will be used between shifts. while the v6 may technically be putting more torque down through multiplication at peak, is it higher all the way through the band? based on your data your a making an assumption that the curve shapes are identical and peak power and gearing are the only nessesary comparision values to make a statement on acceleration potential. until some of the V6s end up on dynos or if ford releases thier data you wont know.
#28
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
'11 V6 manual vs 05-10 GT manual: GT will win the 1/4 mile by several tenths of a second and by 2-3 mph through the traps.
'11 V6 auto vs 05-10 GT automatic: GT will barely win the 1/4 mile by about a tenth of a second (maybe 2 tenths) and the trap speeds will be very similar with the GT barely edging out the V6 by maybe 1 mph through the traps.
Let's revisit this in the summer with actual, empirical evidence from timeslips.
Oh, the '11 V6 might come close to the 05-10 GT (may even match it, although I doubt that), but kick its butt? Gimme a break!
'11 V6 auto vs 05-10 GT automatic: GT will barely win the 1/4 mile by about a tenth of a second (maybe 2 tenths) and the trap speeds will be very similar with the GT barely edging out the V6 by maybe 1 mph through the traps.
Let's revisit this in the summer with actual, empirical evidence from timeslips.
Oh, the '11 V6 might come close to the 05-10 GT (may even match it, although I doubt that), but kick its butt? Gimme a break!
Last edited by Five Oh Brian; 2/8/10 at 06:27 PM.
#29
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 11, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though one will likely be shown to be the obvious winner, it won't be a "butt-kicking" as the original poster seems to think it will be. It should be very close, and I certainly wouldn't call a couple of tenths in the 1/4 mile a butt-kicking, just a close win or loss.
#30
FR500 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The debate will only last until magazines compare the two under similar conditions and/or owners actually take possession and take them to the drag strip. Then the debate will be over, as it should be.
Even though one will likely be shown to be the obvious winner, it won't be a "butt-kicking" as the original poster seems to think it will be. It should be very close, and I certainly wouldn't call a couple of tenths in the 1/4 mile a butt-kicking, just a close win or loss.
Even though one will likely be shown to be the obvious winner, it won't be a "butt-kicking" as the original poster seems to think it will be. It should be very close, and I certainly wouldn't call a couple of tenths in the 1/4 mile a butt-kicking, just a close win or loss.
#32
Cobra R Member
I like the new 3.7, it's the rest of the car I have a problem with. I wish that Ford just replaced the 4.0 with the 3.7 and left the rest alone, at least the base model.
My '06 V6 Conv. weighed 3384 lbs, (3.31 was standard), if they replaced the engine only it'd be close to 3300 lbs and that would make a nice car.
Instead they managed to make it even heavier which will cancel out a lot of the extra new power
My '06 V6 Conv. weighed 3384 lbs, (3.31 was standard), if they replaced the engine only it'd be close to 3300 lbs and that would make a nice car.
Instead they managed to make it even heavier which will cancel out a lot of the extra new power
#35
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 11, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the new 3.7, it's the rest of the car I have a problem with. I wish that Ford just replaced the 4.0 with the 3.7 and left the rest alone, at least the base model.
My '06 V6 Conv. weighed 3384 lbs, (3.31 was standard), if they replaced the engine only it'd be close to 3300 lbs and that would make a nice car.
Instead they managed to make it even heavier which will cancel out a lot of the extra new power
My '06 V6 Conv. weighed 3384 lbs, (3.31 was standard), if they replaced the engine only it'd be close to 3300 lbs and that would make a nice car.
Instead they managed to make it even heavier which will cancel out a lot of the extra new power
#36
'Kick its butt' would seem to imply blowing the doors off. Even with internet math I don't see that happening.
Seems like a little hyperbole to me. But it is the interwebs so I don't even know why I'm bothering to post this.
Seems like a little hyperbole to me. But it is the interwebs so I don't even know why I'm bothering to post this.
#37
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
What's the zero to sixty time for the 2011 V6 supposed to be? For the 2008 GT it's supposed to be 5.1 seconds. Is the 2011 V6 going to be quicker then that?
#39
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the new 3.7, it's the rest of the car I have a problem with. I wish that Ford just replaced the 4.0 with the 3.7 and left the rest alone, at least the base model.
My '06 V6 Conv. weighed 3384 lbs, (3.31 was standard), if they replaced the engine only it'd be close to 3300 lbs and that would make a nice car.
Instead they managed to make it even heavier which will cancel out a lot of the extra new power
My '06 V6 Conv. weighed 3384 lbs, (3.31 was standard), if they replaced the engine only it'd be close to 3300 lbs and that would make a nice car.
Instead they managed to make it even heavier which will cancel out a lot of the extra new power