Official 2013 GT500 662hp Ford Press Release
#101
Didn't the additional 0.4L displacement come from increasing the bore only? I know they used a new cylinder liner technology to achieve this, but increasing the cylinder bore (while keeping the same bore spacing) is the LAST thing you want to do when it comes to block integrity.
#102
^^^^ yeah they did alot to reach the new power levels and you would think adding a longer stroke to keep the walls as thick as possible would have been better but that may affect other things that could not have been fixed with a special coating. Guess only time will tell if ford hurt the long term durability or not hopefully not for the consumers sake,hell I'm still waiting to see how much abuse the cast bottom end of the zl1 can take:-/
#103
#105
^^^^ yeah they did alot to reach the new power levels and you would think adding a longer stroke to keep the walls as thick as possible would have been better but that may affect other things that could not have been fixed with a special coating. Guess only time will tell if ford hurt the long term durability or not hopefully not for the consumers sake,hell I'm still waiting to see how much abuse the cast bottom end of the zl1 can take:-/
#106
you are correct, the GT-R uses Ford's proprietary method...and as you can see, the GT-Rs have been proving it works.
#107
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
PTWA was used on the 5.4 aluminum block as well.
Modular V8 bore spacing is 3.937 and the 5.8 has a 3.68 bore. Leaves 0.1285 wall thickness
LS9/LSA is a 4.4 bore spacing and 4.06 bore. Leaves 0.17 wall thickness.
The long bores needed to get any displacement was something that always bothered me about the Modular family. They went with all the fancy cams and valves and then packaged the whole thing with midget bore spacing so that it could fit in FWD applications. For a long time the Modular family and the LS series had very similar 6200ish fuel shutoffs in factory trim. What was the point of all the complexity and weight for a package that made less or similar power and wouldn't outrev a "dinosaur" pushrod aplication.
Modular V8 bore spacing is 3.937 and the 5.8 has a 3.68 bore. Leaves 0.1285 wall thickness
LS9/LSA is a 4.4 bore spacing and 4.06 bore. Leaves 0.17 wall thickness.
The long bores needed to get any displacement was something that always bothered me about the Modular family. They went with all the fancy cams and valves and then packaged the whole thing with midget bore spacing so that it could fit in FWD applications. For a long time the Modular family and the LS series had very similar 6200ish fuel shutoffs in factory trim. What was the point of all the complexity and weight for a package that made less or similar power and wouldn't outrev a "dinosaur" pushrod aplication.
#108
Well like I said i hope it works because even as a GM guy I would hate to see something like that be the week point if a nasty ride. Now as far as proving its worth on the gtr how thick are the walls of that motor compared to a gt500 motor plus does it leave any more for a rebuild lets say at 30 over and if the motor is rebuilt how strong will it be not having that coating? And for the comment about small bore spacing I would love to see a 400+ci gt500 motor it would be crazy.
#109
This 2013 Ford Shelby GT500 durability prototype, however, has a different future; it will be in the hands of a private collector. Ford is auctioning off the car to benefit the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation at Barrett-Jackson this Saturday at 8:30pm.
Originally built in 2007, this car was converted to 2013 specs (5.8-liter, 650-horsepower) and tested for 24-hours at Sebring.
Originally built in 2007, this car was converted to 2013 specs (5.8-liter, 650-horsepower) and tested for 24-hours at Sebring.
#110
PTWA was used on the 5.4 aluminum block as well.
Modular V8 bore spacing is 3.937 and the 5.8 has a 3.68 bore. Leaves 0.1285 wall thickness
LS9/LSA is a 4.4 bore spacing and 4.06 bore. Leaves 0.17 wall thickness.
The long bores needed to get any displacement was something that always bothered me about the Modular family. They went with all the fancy cams and valves and then packaged the whole thing with midget bore spacing so that it could fit in FWD applications. For a long time the Modular family and the LS series had very similar 6200ish fuel shutoffs in factory trim. What was the point of all the complexity and weight for a package that made less or similar power and wouldn't outrev a "dinosaur" pushrod aplication.
Modular V8 bore spacing is 3.937 and the 5.8 has a 3.68 bore. Leaves 0.1285 wall thickness
LS9/LSA is a 4.4 bore spacing and 4.06 bore. Leaves 0.17 wall thickness.
The long bores needed to get any displacement was something that always bothered me about the Modular family. They went with all the fancy cams and valves and then packaged the whole thing with midget bore spacing so that it could fit in FWD applications. For a long time the Modular family and the LS series had very similar 6200ish fuel shutoffs in factory trim. What was the point of all the complexity and weight for a package that made less or similar power and wouldn't outrev a "dinosaur" pushrod aplication.
#114
AND from about 79 till about 90-91, it was the other way 'round.
#117
If we're simply talking 'revability'/RPMs and not just total peak power outputs that is.
#118
i know what he was talking about. i just like to remind you guys that there were camaros before the 4th gen....and they weren't that fast. but they were built in the good ole usa at least.
#119