Nope. 87.
Cory Stansbury
stansbca
My friend briefly met him and said he was the nicest, most-genuine guy you could hope to meet.
I’d say that’s nothing new. The 6.0 LS and 6.4 hemi for HD trucks were massively derated. I don’t know the specifics of the LS, but I know the Hemi uses a forged crank and the same basic block/heads developed for the Hellcat (improved alloys and more ribbing/reinforcement). They’re also down 75 HP vs. the car version.…
I posted a comparison dyno chart elsewhere on this thread. Between 2000-4000 RPM (note, Ford says the control logic aims to stay below 4000 RPM), the 6.6 is so close to identical that I would be shocked if anyone could notice a difference. The 6 speed vs. 10 speed will be far more noticable.
They have been very open in having three goals; operation at 4000 RPM and below, extreme durability (typically suggests mild cams), and operati on at stoich on 87 gas. That’s not a recipe for big power. Btw... Here is a graph I made of the three engines, using the best public sources I could find and a bit of…
You are starting with the wrong assumptions. If exhaust was a pure waste product to be pumped out, you’d be entirely correct. However, it still contains a lot of energy. If this can be captured, it can provide more energy in compression than it saps in pumping work. As such, the intake stroke becomes a power stroke, a…
If the exhaust backpressure ratio is under 1, the intake stroke is creating more power than the exhaust stroke is sapping. Much of the energy in a well-designed turbo system is derived from the blowdown energy pulse which occurs during the bdc dwell time. This can be especially apparent at low boost, where I've seen a…
Are you hand calculating the mileage? I’ve found rental Hyundais to be wildly optimistic. The one I had yesterday was over 9% overestimated.
Depends on the turbine and hot side sizing (and ideally port and manifold design too). When sized for maximum power (not necessarily response), turbos will make more power than the pressure ratio would indicate and have better BSFC assuming you have sufficient octane to avoid enrichment and allow optimum timing.
I am figuring Z51 is <$70k. 6*70k is still $30k short of the Ford GT. Considering the number of pedestrian cars that have run with the FGT, I expect the basic C8 with Z51 package to give it a run for its money.
3366 is dry weight. Wet will be >3500 I bet.
More like 1/6 the price.
Yes... They showed the pictures.
Did you mean $59,999?
3366 is dry weight. I'm guessing 3520 or so wet.
Yeah, they could reduce costs by making it a V-6...errrrr wait...
It’s going to be super embarrassing when a Z51 C8 beats the amazingly-underwhelming FGT around some racetrack (and sounds 100000x better doing it).
Make an old school, folding jump seat for that "2 golf bag" rear trunk. It will be very brass age.
It could have been done elegantly and emphasized the "moonshot" of giving us this seemingly incredible car for $60k, but what they did was forced and contrived. I got douche chills. Let's accept that GM is terrible at marketing, but great at engineering (when the bean counters get out of the way).