Notices
GT350

Shelby GT350 Officially Gets 526 Galloping Ponies!

Old 6/2/15, 12:54 PM
  #1  
TMS Editor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: July 29, 2014
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shelby GT350 Officially Gets 526 Galloping Ponies!



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. >>
AdPock is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 02:53 PM
  #2  
Mustang Fanatic
 
Stage_3's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 9, 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,175
Received 414 Likes on 376 Posts
It's "okay", I guess.
Look at that poor torque curve. Man,.....that is disappointing on how low and fast it drops off.
Stage_3 is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 05:58 PM
  #3  
Shelby GT350 Member
 
dmichaels's Avatar
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: CT
Posts: 2,460
Received 109 Likes on 100 Posts
disappointing? over 100 hp/litre sounds pretty excellent to me. Perfect for road courses. Can't wait to see one out on the track
dmichaels is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 06:24 PM
  #4  
Shelby GT500 Member
 
5.M0NSTER's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 2, 2013
Location: Little north of Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 2,986
Received 231 Likes on 211 Posts
526hp and ~425 tq? When can I get one of these installed in my S197??
5.M0NSTER is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 06:57 PM
  #5  
Mustang Fanatic
 
Stage_3's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 9, 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,175
Received 414 Likes on 376 Posts
Originally Posted by dmichaels View Post
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 will agree with you 100% about being on the road course or auto-x. That's some power and you don't need a ton of torque. And the high revving engine will do great for those events.
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.
Stage_3 is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 07:25 PM
  #6  
Cobra R Member
 
Joeywhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 6, 2014
Location: Motor City
Posts: 1,552
Received 38 Likes on 35 Posts
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.
Joeywhat is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 07:29 PM
  #7  
Mustang Fanatic
 
Stage_3's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 9, 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,175
Received 414 Likes on 376 Posts
Originally Posted by Joeywhat View Post
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.
I think you're looking at the HP curve and not the TQ curve. TQ drops off rather quickly. The HP curve does go up and up. lol
Stage_3 is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 07:38 PM
  #8  
Cobra Member
 
typesredline's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,148
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Stage_3 View Post
It's "okay", I guess. Look at that poor torque curve. Man,.....that is disappointing on how low and fast it drops off.
Originally Posted by Joeywhat View Post
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.
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.
typesredline is offline  
Old 6/2/15, 10:02 PM
  #9  
bob
GTR Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Location: Newport News, Va
Posts: 5,027
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Stage_3 View Post
It's "okay", I guess.
Look at that poor torque curve. Man,.....that is disappointing on how low and fast it drops off.
Just means you have to drive it like you stole it. I find myself having to readjust my driving habits going from the Shelby (overdriven 2.9 Whipple) to the GT. Driven like the Shelby the GT feels lethargic unless I keep the revs between 3500 and 4000 rpm.
bob is offline  
Old 6/3/15, 07:42 AM
  #10  
bob
GTR Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Location: Newport News, Va
Posts: 5,027
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
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.
bob is offline  
Old 6/3/15, 04:18 PM
  #11  
Mustang Fanatic
 
Stage_3's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 9, 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,175
Received 414 Likes on 376 Posts
Originally Posted by typesredline View Post
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 will say this though,.....it's nice to see the HP stay up throughout the curve. The torque curve looks lower because it is lower. Is that not correct?
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.
Stage_3 is offline  
Old 6/3/15, 04:33 PM
  #12  
Cobra R Member
 
Joeywhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 6, 2014
Location: Motor City
Posts: 1,552
Received 38 Likes on 35 Posts
The left side of the chart reads torque, the right side reads power. The two are not scaled identically.
Joeywhat is offline  
Old 6/3/15, 04:53 PM
  #13  
Mustang Fanatic
 
Stage_3's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 9, 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 8,175
Received 414 Likes on 376 Posts
Originally Posted by Joeywhat View Post
The left side of the chart reads torque, the right side reads power. The two are not scaled identically.
Okay,.....I see it now upon closer inspection Joey.
Thanks for that.
Stage_3 is offline  
Old 6/3/15, 06:17 PM
  #14  
Shelby GT350 Member
 
SpectreH's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 5, 2015
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 2,347
Received 294 Likes on 264 Posts
If they were in the same scale, they would intersect at 5252 RPM.
SpectreH is online now  
Old 6/3/15, 11:24 PM
  #15  
Cobra Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Smile

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.
2 Go Snake is offline  
Old 6/4/15, 09:34 AM
  #16  
Bullitt Member
 
P0 Corsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
P0 Corsa is offline  
Old 6/4/15, 11:40 AM
  #17  
Cobra R Member
 
rmurer's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 29, 2012
Location: S.E Michigan
Posts: 1,651
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by P0 Corsa View Post
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.
source?
rmurer is offline  
Old 6/5/15, 06:03 AM
  #18  
Bullitt Member
 
P0 Corsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by rmurer View Post
source?
?? As I stated in my post it is In My OPINION (IMO) based on knowledge of the engine development program and my background. I might be wrong but time will tell.

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?

Last edited by P0 Corsa; 6/5/15 at 11:44 AM.
P0 Corsa is offline  
Old 6/5/15, 10:43 AM
  #19  
bob
GTR Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Location: Newport News, Va
Posts: 5,027
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by P0 Corsa View Post
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.
That's cool, I would be mainly interested in the intake and heads and possibly the block if a cross plane crank could fit in there. The cams obviously are specific to the firing order of the FPC engine and it's valve events.

We've seen the run of the mill coyote eclipse 100 hp/l and rev to 8k or more.
bob is offline  
Old 6/5/15, 12:06 PM
  #20  
Bullitt Member
 
P0 Corsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
P0 Corsa is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Shelby GT350 Officially Gets 526 Galloping Ponies!


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.