SoonerLS Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 I don't see the need for more than 400 hp in a transverse engine/part time AWD setup. You probably didn't see the need for more than 640K of memory, either... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 You probably didn't see the need for more than 640K of memory, either... TWO floppy drives? Who would ever use TWO floppy drives??? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 I suspect it will be designed to handle up to 400 lb/ft (current 3.0LEB output) without the need for torque management. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your still going to need Torque management even with (current) AWD setup, due to its nature for FWD bias and Torque steer. Yes, there are ways around that, but are they worth it in a mass production car. Heck my 6F (so far) has survived 60K tuned miles...but I don't beat on it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Correct me if I'm wrong, but your still going to need Torque management even with (current) AWD setup, due to its nature for FWD bias and Torque steer. Yes, there are ways around that, but are they worth it in a mass production car. Heck my 6F (so far) has survived 60K tuned miles...but I don't beat on it either. The AWD system handles torque steer - it sends power to the rear before the front tires break loose in hard acceleration. That's not the issue. The issue is the tranny/ptu can't handle more than 350 lb/ft from the engine at certain RPM so the engine has to be electronically limited. Don't forget the torque converter multiplies the input torque to the transmission at low RPM. With a more robust tranny and ptu they won't have to limit engine torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 TWO floppy drives? Who would ever use TWO floppy drives??? pffft. I have 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 TWO floppy drives? Who would ever use TWO floppy drives??? At my first real job, my computer had a 40MB hard drive. Such an embarrassment of riches; how could one possibly use that much storage space? Well, by splitting it between DOS 6 and Linux, of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Big deal! I got 52 MPG highway with my wife's 1996 Nissan Sentra 5 speed overdrive. I got 31 MPG with my uncle's 85 Caddy 4.1 L V8 that I inherited ( I never would have bought one!), and I got 30 MPG with my 2001 Taurus V6, both on secondary roads with an average speed of 45 MPH because I time myself and never have to stop DEAD at traffic lights! I use some other new methods now but you have to be a good driver to implement these ideas safely so I won't list them here. No, it's not drafting a tractor trailer! We should have cars getting 60 MPG by now, but apparently the car mfrs. are still in bed with the oil companies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) I still have a 5 1/4' floppy but it won Bingo. I don't see the need for more than 400 hp in a transverse engine/part time AWD setup. Especially if you can handle all 400 lb/ft without limiting it. Or will there be several sizes like they do with the 6F (6F15 to 6F55) That way, they could have a big dog for HP EB V6 and LEVs. Edited October 16, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Big deal! I got 52 MPG highway with my wife's 1996 Nissan Sentra 5 speed overdrive. I got 31 MPG with my uncle's 85 Caddy 4.1 L V8 that I inherited ( I never would have bought one!), and I got 30 MPG with my 2001 Taurus V6, both on secondary roads with an average speed of 45 MPH because I time myself and never have to stop DEAD at traffic lights! I use some other new methods now but you have to be a good driver to implement these ideas safely so I won't list them here. No, it's not drafting a tractor trailer! We should have cars getting 60 MPG by now, but apparently the car mfrs. are still in bed with the oil companies! Well, then you should be able to get 50 in a car rated 32 MPG with those same techniques. Remember, hypermiling to the nth degree does not equal EPA ratings. I routinely get 35-40 MPG in my Super Duty. Then I have to go uphill... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Big deal! I got 52 MPG highway with my wife's 1996 Nissan Sentra 5 speed overdrive. I got 31 MPG with my uncle's 85 Caddy 4.1 L V8 that I inherited ( I never would have bought one!), and I got 30 MPG with my 2001 Taurus V6, both on secondary roads with an average speed of 45 MPH because I time myself and never have to stop DEAD at traffic lights! I use some other new methods now but you have to be a good driver to implement these ideas safely so I won't list them here. No, it's not drafting a tractor trailer! We should have cars getting 60 MPG by now, but apparently the car mfrs. are still in bed with the oil companies! A 5.0V8 probably puts out 1/10 of the pollution of that 96 Sentra. Blame emissions and crash tests not the oil companies. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Only on FWD vehicles to protect the tranny/ptu. No reason to do that on mustang. The 6Rs also have a program in the trans to retard timing just as the shift was about to occur. what is limited on the 6Fs is peak torque because they're limited to 550 nm (6F55) Edited October 17, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 To poke a hole in this argument...it appears from a quick search that Ford is using Torque management even on RWD products like the Mustang and F-series. So to me, that would make it more about fuel savings/protecting the drive train against stupid drivers then protecting it against high power applications full time, which IMO is just a bandaid and even with the newer 8/9 speed FWD transmission, there still will be Torque management, even if it had a higher rating then the current 6F55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 I dont think Ford is using torque management with the new 10 speed in the Mustang when youre in Drag Strip mode. I believe it is used in all other settings. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 To poke a hole in this argument...it appears from a quick search that Ford is using Torque management even on RWD products like the Mustang and F-series. So to me, that would make it more about fuel savings/protecting the drive train against stupid drivers then protecting it against high power applications full time, which IMO is just a bandaid and even with the newer 8/9 speed FWD transmission, there still will be Torque management, even if it had a higher rating then the current 6F55 My only point was if they're designing a brand new tranny it should be capable of handling at least 400 lb/ft and not require as much torque management as the 6F55. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 To poke a hole in this argument...it appears from a quick search that Ford is using Torque management even on RWD products like the Mustang and F-series. So to me, that would make it more about fuel savings/protecting the drive train against stupid drivers then protecting it against high power applications full time, which IMO is just a bandaid and even with the newer 8/9 speed FWD transmission, there still will be Torque management, even if it had a higher rating then the current 6F55 Yes another couple reasons to use torque management are to protect driveline components and tires, but also to protect drivers from themselves. Most folks wouldn't know how to handle all that torque down low if they stomped the accelerator. They'd be in the ditch in a heartbeat. The Super Duty diesel is torque-limited in gears 1-3 for single rear wheel trucks and in first gear for duallies. But yes, the new transmissions should be capable of more and not need as much torque management to protect the transmission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Torque management also improves shift smoothness. No matter how robust the transmission is, there needs to be some torque management to avoid neck snapping shifts. Livernois and other tuners employ torque management even on their most aggressive tunes. Of course it can be reduced or even eliminated in the case of the Mustang in drag strip mode. When my tuner looked at datalogs of my stock Continental, he was surprised to find that the drive-by-wire throttle closed so long before, during and after the shifts - quite a bit longer than on an SHO. He adjusted it so the throttle closing was of shorter duration but even with the tune, the throttle closes during the shift. Would it improve the 4.0 second 0-60 time if it didn't close at all? Maybe...but it would be too rough for street use as well as probably leave bits and pieces of 6F55 on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 The 6Rs also have a program in the trans to retard timing just as the shift was about to occur. what is limited on the 6Fs is peak torque because they're limited to 550 nm (6F55) That's 550 ft-lbs of torque, not sissy metric units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 That's 550 ft-lbs of torque, not sissy metric units. And that's the torque on the input shaft of the transmission, after the torque converter. The torque converter multiplies the engine torque so the rating has to be higher than the engine output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) Hmm, could be right on that. I was lead to believe the two digits after 6F indicated the nominal input torque in newton meters as supplied in front of the torque converter... 6F55 would mean 550 nm or 407 lb ft. I was further lead to believe that was why we never saw engines with more than 400 lb ft, the Lincoln 3.0TT is limited to 400 lb ft, within the nominal design limit of the gearbox. Edited October 18, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Meh..in 65 you could get 25 out of a notchback coupe with 6 banger...whopping 7mpg increase in 52 years..weight is the enemy of mpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehaase Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Meh..in 65 you could get 25 out of a notchback coupe with 6 banger...whopping 7mpg increase in 52 years..weight is the enemy of mpg That 6 banger also did 0 to 60 in about 18 seconds too. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Hmm, could be right on that. I was lead to believe the two digits after 6F indicated the nominal input torque in newton meters as supplied in front of the torque converter... 6F55 would mean 550 nm or 407 lb ft. I was further lead to believe that was why we never saw engines with more than 400 lb ft, the Lincoln 3.0TT is limited to 400 lb ft, within the nominal design limit of the gearbox. I think the confusion came from the fact that the tranny torque rating has to take into account the multiplication of the torque converter. An engine that puts out 400 lb/ft at the flywheel ends up with way more than that on the input shaft of the transmission at lower RPM due to the torque converter. Some people assumed it was N/M because the math was a lot closer to the engine output. SoonerLS - keep me straight here. I know we discussed this with Mark K years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 The 1965 model also didn't offer power windows, power seats, power outside mirrors, several air bags, collapsible steering column, climate control (even air conditioning was a rarity on Mustangs in those days) and much in the way of sound deadening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 SoonerLS - keep me straight here. I know we discussed this with Mark K years ago. Yep. He was the one who clued us (or me, at least) in on the "55" in 5R55 being the torque rating in tens of ft-lbs. It was the same discussion about the AJ's peak torque, when doubled, would exceed 550 ft-lbs, but peak torque RPM didn't match the torque converter's peak multiplier RPM. Or something like that. Also, Ford is a 'Murican company and rates its engines in 'Murican units, not sissy metric units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 18, 2017 Author Share Posted October 18, 2017 Meh..in 65 you could get 25 out of a notchback coupe with 6 banger...whopping 7mpg increase in 52 years..weight is the enemy of mpg More like 17.1 http://https://m.facebook.com/groups/360848450751344.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/mustang_1gen/mustang_1gen_base_convertible/1965.html Then lets not forget that ratings have changed over the years also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.