What does 815 horsepower and 664 lb.-ft. of torque from a 5.2-liter V8 in the Ford Mustang GTD compare to? Per liter, that’s better than a Porsche 911 GT3 RS, which has a 4.0 liter putting out 518 horsepower. Oh yeah, and the GTD has a top speed of 202 mph. (To continue the comparison, the 911 maxes out at …
Not that impressed with the output per liter. That's 156 bhp/l.
My street sports car has a 2.0 engine putting out 187 bhp/l and gets 28 mpg if you keep your foot out of it.
So, supercharged V8 vs NA Flat 6, comparing HP/Liter? Not a great comparison, and usually HP/Liter comparos are like inductions at least.
A sub-7 minute time at the 'ring would be an impressive engineering feat.
However, and more of an authentic concern for many prospective owners, what is the "Mustang Leaving Cars & Coffee-To Impacting a Curb, Guard Rail, Telephone Pole, and Pedestrians" time? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
wspohn said:Not that impressed with the output per liter. That's 156 bhp/l.
My street sports car has a 2.0 engine putting out 187 bhp/l and gets 28 mpg if you keep your foot out of it.
Specific output usually falls off with engine size. It's easier to get 187 bhp/l out of a small 2.0 than an engine more than 2.5x that size.
Also, note that your car actually made 145 hp/l when delivered, assuming you got the optional power bump - and only met 2009 emissions standards. Then, I assume, you turned up the boost and now you wouldn't meet OE durability requirements, have no warranty and may no longer meet those old emissions targets. Were your higher power numbers measured using the SAE standards, or are you extrapolating from a chassis dyno test?
This is a car that meets 2025 emissions, measures power at the flywheel using the strict SAE test regimen and comes with a warranty. So yeah, "only" 156 bhp/l.
It's not fair to compare specific output to the naturally aspirated 4.0 in the GT3 RS, though.
shouldn't this be shooting to best a GT2RS lap time?
...and then here comes the C8 ZR1, then Zora...undercutting both
It *can* still be fair to compare specific outputs when crossing different induction types because the piston doesn't know where the air came from. However it makes the horsepower, 160 bhp/l is a LOT of stress. NA specific output is impressive because it is tells you how well-engineered the flow tracts are, and boosted specific output is impressive because the engine carries a warranty and didn't explode. Different things, both impressive in their own ways.
The engine is probably the least radical thing about that car!
Yeah but, how much is it going to cost? And will any of us "Grassroots Motorsports" types, if we could buy it, actually risk it in competition?
In reply to rlyons13 :
Supposed to start around $325k. And you're looking at huge consumables bills each time you take it out.
In reply to Tig :
The ZR1, sure. It sounds like the Zora will be the ZR1 with the E-ray hybrid pack. I'm not entirely convinced that will reduce lap times significantly (if at all), however, due to the weight penalty (though the AWD nature might mask that).
I thought I was flying high at around 130 hp per liter
wow.. a $325k car running Pilot Sport Cup 2 R, targeting to lap the ring ~2 seconds less than a $115k 2017 Dodge Viper ACR (that wasn't even a factory prepped car), that ran on V720s.
WHAT A DEAL!! = )
Davidlu03 said:wow.. a $325k car running Pilot Sport Cup 2 R, targeting to lap the ring ~2 seconds less than a $115k 2017 Dodge Viper ACR (that wasn't even a factory prepped car), that ran on V720s.
WHAT A DEAL!! = )
Please find me an ACR for 115k to purchase. Thanks you.
Although guessing I won't be able to purchase THIS car for 325k either :-)
Beating the ACR's time is a feat for any car regardless of price it seems.
A 401 CJ said:I thought I was flying high at around 130 hp per liter
Kriedler 50cc Gran Prix bikes were putting out 480bhp per liter when the class was dropped back in the 80s.
Seems odd to compare NA and boosted applications for specific output... I mean, even mildly sorted Supras put out 200hp/L all day long, and do that for a VERY long time.
Makes me wonder what sort of outputs NA F1 engines had? Totally understand that it's an apples and bubblegum comparison there, but it makes me wonder how fast you have to spin an NA to make mildly boosted engine power levels...
The Mustang GTD is impressive don't get me wrong, but for the price I could buy two C8 ZR1's, a coupe for myself and a convertible for my wife.
The vast majority of these will be put away and never seen again. One or two will be crashed continuing the mustangs legendary cars and coffee exit strategy and a couple will be YouTube cars.
dean1484 said:The vast majority of these will be put away and never seen again. One or two will be crashed continuing the mustangs legendary cars and coffee exit strategy and a couple will be YouTube cars.
Probably. It would be interesting if they would only sell to people who can prove an active race team, at least initially. I really hope the solution is that they make enough for anyone with the money to get one.
In reply to deaconblue :
Or a house.
te72 said:Makes me wonder what sort of outputs NA F1 engines had? Totally understand that it's an apples and bubblegum comparison there, but it makes me wonder how fast you have to spin an NA to make mildly boosted engine power levels...
IIRC, the peak NA horsepower in F1 was right around 1000 hp out of a 3L V10, so 333.
Current F1 engines make around 1000 hp too, out of a 1.6L. That 625 hp/L, but with substantial boost behind it. (I don't think the electric motor horsepower is included in that "1000" number, but might be wrong)
theruleslawyer said:dean1484 said:The vast majority of these will be put away and never seen again. One or two will be crashed continuing the mustangs legendary cars and coffee exit strategy and a couple will be YouTube cars.
Probably. It would be interesting if they would only sell to people who can prove an active race team, at least initially. I really hope the solution is that they make enough for anyone with the money to get one.
How big is the market for a $325K Mustang?
If I had a race team with that kind of budget and I wanted to buy a Mustang, I'd go for a GT4 before a GTD. Half the price and it's a factory-built race car instead of a street car.
I have a friend who owns a McLaren that sees regular track use (and no it's not Andy Hollis) who is interested in the GTD. Unfortuantely he has no Ford history so he was rejected. When a mutual friend at Ford reached out for a GTD engineer to see if he could get an allocation, the question was "has he purchased all the shirts and all the swag?"
So if you want one, you have to show enthusiasm by buying branded GTD stuff :) Like a white t-shirt with a single color silk screened logo for $80.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:te72 said:Makes me wonder what sort of outputs NA F1 engines had? Totally understand that it's an apples and bubblegum comparison there, but it makes me wonder how fast you have to spin an NA to make mildly boosted engine power levels...
IIRC, the peak NA horsepower in F1 was right around 1000 hp out of a 3L V10, so 333.
Current F1 engines make around 1000 hp too, out of a 1.6L. That 625 hp/L, but with substantial boost behind it. (I don't think the electric motor horsepower is included in that "1000" number, but might be wrong)
The electric motor HP is included in that number.
The turbo engine by itself is in the 830-850 range, with the electric part of the drivetrain adding 160hp.
It would be cool to see them uncork the fuel flow limit and see how much HP the engine on it's own could make. They can rev to 15k, but the fuel flow rate makes peak power around 10.5k.
In reply to brandonsmash :
It would likely make a noticeable difference in tighter corners, especially with torque vectoring being possible.
You'll need to log in to post.
