Shelby GT350 Officially Gets 526 Galloping Ponies!
https://themustangsource.com/wp-cont...32-876x535.jpg
Thanks to a Road & Track tweet, we now know the official horsepower rating of the 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang. Read the rest on the Mustang Source homepage. >> |
It's "okay", I guess. :dunno:
Look at that poor torque curve. Man,.....that is disappointing on how low and fast it drops off. :bad: |
disappointing? over 100 hp/litre sounds pretty excellent to me. Perfect for road courses. Can't wait to see one out on the track
|
526hp and ~425 tq? When can I get one of these installed in my S197??
|
Originally Posted by dmichaels
(Post 6929384)
disappointing? over 100 hp/litre sounds pretty excellent to me. Perfect for road courses. Can't wait to see one out on the track
I do neither, so maybe that's why it doesn't appeal to me. It's still a nice car though, don't get me wrong. |
Are we looking at the same chart? It doesn't seem to drop off until 7k rpm (that's redline for everyone else...) and it doesn't exactly drop off fast after that.
|
Originally Posted by Joeywhat
(Post 6929414)
Are we looking at the same chart? It doesn't seem to drop off until 7k rpm (that's redline for everyone else...) and it doesn't exactly drop off fast after that.
|
Originally Posted by Stage_3
(Post 6929349)
It's "okay", I guess. :dunno: Look at that poor torque curve. Man,.....that is disappointing on how low and fast it drops off. :bad:
Originally Posted by Joeywhat
(Post 6929414)
Are we looking at the same chart? It doesn't seem to drop off until 7k rpm (that's redline for everyone else...) and it doesn't exactly drop off fast after that.
First off, 90% of the tq is from 3500 to 7500 rpms and it's far from "quickly dropping off". Secondly, the chart is not linear. The tq and hp columns are on different scales. Therefore the tq curve looks lower than it is in relation to the hp curve. If the numbers went up equally on each side, the tq curve would be higher vs the hp. Plus keep in mind, higher revving engines can handle more torque multiplication through gearing. |
Originally Posted by Stage_3
(Post 6929349)
It's "okay", I guess. :dunno:
Look at that poor torque curve. Man,.....that is disappointing on how low and fast it drops off. :bad: |
Anybody take notice of the 12:1 compression ratio and it's still port injected. By way of comparison GM's LT1 is 11.5 and direct injected.
|
Originally Posted by typesredline
(Post 6929416)
I agree Joey. But this is a common post from Stage_3. He's very critical in a troll kind of way.
First off, 90% of the tq is from 3500 to 7500 rpms and it's far from "quickly dropping off". Secondly, the chart is not linear. The tq and hp columns are on different scales. Therefore the tq curve looks lower than it is in relation to the hp curve. If the numbers went up equally on each side, the tq curve would be higher vs the hp. Plus keep in mind, higher revving engines can handle more torque multiplication through gearing. I don't understand what you mean the chart not being linear and the HP and TQ numbers are on different scales? Can you explain it so I understand it better? I'm not being facetious, at all, just want to know what you see that I am missing. Thanks. |
The left side of the chart reads torque, the right side reads power. The two are not scaled identically.
|
Originally Posted by Joeywhat
(Post 6929601)
The left side of the chart reads torque, the right side reads power. The two are not scaled identically.
Thanks for that. |
If they were in the same scale, they would intersect at 5252 RPM.
|
From what I hear , the FPC engine is lighter than the coyote engine. Sounds like the FPC engine would make for a great engine in a 32 Ford street rod.
|
Unfortunately for those dreaming of installing the 5.2 FPC engine in ANY other car, I believe you will be pretty disappointed. The damping systems developed specifically for the GT350 application are complex and integrated in the engine/vehicle as a package system. Unlikely (IMO) this engine will be offered as a crate engine for just this reason.
|
Originally Posted by P0 Corsa
(Post 6929766)
Unfortunately for those dreaming of installing the 5.2 FPC engine in ANY other car, I believe you will be pretty disappointed. The damping systems developed specifically for the GT350 application are complex and integrated in the engine/vehicle as a package system. Unlikely (IMO) this engine will be offered as a crate engine for just this reason.
|
Originally Posted by rmurer
(Post 6929794)
source?
But you have to ask yourself, now that the engine specs have been released, Ford is building (or close to building) and shipping the GT350 to retail customers, have you heard of this engine being offered by Total Performance as a crate engine? Being located in SE Michigan, do you work for Ford? |
Originally Posted by P0 Corsa
(Post 6929766)
Unfortunately for those dreaming of installing the 5.2 FPC engine in ANY other car, I believe you will be pretty disappointed. The damping systems developed specifically for the GT350 application are complex and integrated in the engine/vehicle as a package system. Unlikely (IMO) this engine will be offered as a crate engine for just this reason.
We've seen the run of the mill coyote eclipse 100 hp/l and rev to 8k or more. |
From Car and Driver-
“Despite some similarities to the 435-hp5.0-liter Coyote V-8 in the current 2015 Mustang GT,the 5.2 is virtually an all-new engine from top to bottom; bore spacing and deck height are the same as the Coyote’s for production reasons, but little else is. The 5.2’s cast-aluminum block initially travels down the same production line as the 5.0 in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, but is bored out from the lesser engine’s 92.2 millimeters to 94.0 and blessed with other tweaks to reduce weight and cope with the greater output. The stroke has increased slightly from 92.7 millimeters in the 5.0 to 93 mm here, yielding 315 cubic inches of displacement. The 5.2-liter V-8’s 32-valve cylinder heads have to cope with enormous stress during 8000-rpm blasts and were perhaps the greatest challenge for the engineers at Ford Performance. Taking advantage of the larger cylinder bores, hollow steel intake valves and sodium-filled exhaust valves are larger and more widely spaced than in the 5.0, and they’re governed by Ford’s Ti-VCT variable valve timing. The heads themselves are also fully CNCmachined, with additional production steps added solely to eliminate excess material. The profiles for the four camshafts are similarly aggressive, with monster lobes capable of raising the intake valves up to a gaping 14millimeters.” Perhaps Bob, but there are a number of differences which will need to be considered for direct substitution. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:51 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands