Mustang Shelby GT500 rumors starting to leak out

[akirby]

 

800 crank HP isn't that much these days, especially if the architecture gets unreliable beyond that.

700 rwhp is easy to come by for the GT500 and Hellcat.

Harder for the LT4, but still doable.

 

But at that point you might as well go full aftermarket with the engine and the rest of the drivetrain.

[akirby]

Are we sure sure that the GT 500 is getting a 5.2? I'm not so sure. The pics of that intake manifold look like the 5.2 numerals were glued on there to throw people off the trail.

 

I'll be the first to speak the unspeakable. THE GT500 WILL BE POWERED BY A 428" RAPTOR ENGINE!

 

I've been wrong before but you know what I'll bet Ford realizes that this is the "swan song" for outrageous muscle cars.

 

The next decade is gonna be about autonomous and electrification. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ford doesn't try to run the table at the end of the modern muscle car era with something completely off the charts.

 

My opinion for what it's worth.

 

 

You forgot about the leaked Engine document in post 1 that clearly says 5.2L Supercharged GT500.......

[White99GT]

 

But at that point you might as well go full aftermarket with the engine and the rest of the drivetrain.

 

Why? You don't have to with the previous engines.

[Stray Kat]

You forgot about the leaked Engine document in post 1 that clearly says 5.2L Supercharged GT500.......

Yes that's true but I still think Ford is up to something. They are being so coy about a car that is to introduced in just a couple weeks.

[akirby]

When have they not been secretive about new vehicles before they’re publicly introduced? In fact releasing Easter eggs about 755 hp and other things is way more info than they typically leak out.

[jcartwright99]

There are people who know but they are doing a real good job at misinformation. We'll know in less than a month. There are rumors that the info leaked is just that misinformation to make an even bigger surprise. One thing is clear, I don't think Ford is messing around with this GT500. I think this one, while not as pure as a track machine as a GT350, will wipe the floor with a lot of 6 digit sports cars in most venues. Truly a send off for these HP wars as emissions, electrification, and autonomous driving are barring down.

 

Knowns:

Supercharged 5.2 for minimum 755HP

7 speed DCT out of GT

 

Unknowns:

Possibly electric AWD (unlikely)

KR version (800HP)

[akirby]

I think they’ll advertise 755 hp (or say it’s at least 755) but will actually be closer to 800.

[TopCat501]

Yes and either that intake manifold is sitting on an empty box in that engine bay or the cylinder heads ain't on the engine block.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing any Coyote valve covers and I don't see no blower drive either.

 

That photo looks like a decoy to me.

 

That's no intake manifold; for a lack of better words think upside down s/c.

something along these lines

 

http://www.fordnxt.com/features/sema-coverage/sema-2017-3-0-liter-whipple-gen-5-2018-coyote-blower/

[Stray Kat]

That is a faked up picture because you can't see any Coyote parts under that paper mache' blower housing.

 

Ford is pulling one of the greatest slight of hands ever in automotive history. Bet on it.

[Stray Kat]

Why would they fake up an engine bay then leak it?

[silvrsvt]

Why would they fake up an engine bay then leak it?

 

Because its not fake...take a closer look at the photo...the Cobra and 5.2 are actually a cover for the super charger. The lines going next to where the intake/super charger are very similar to what is found on the 5.2 and 5.0L

[White99GT]

That is a faked up picture because you can't see any Coyote parts under that paper mache' blower housing.

 

Ford is pulling one of the greatest slight of hands ever in automotive history. Bet on it.

 

You can see Coyote style coil covers in the pic.

It doesn't appear to be fake.

 

It's an inverted mounted SC, similar to the LT4/Hellcat setup.

Probably a TVS 2650 s/c unit.

[SoonerLS]

Because its not fake...take a closer look at the photo...the Cobra and 5.2 are actually a cover for the super charger.

That doesn't look like a cover--it looks like they're cast into the blower housing. Look at the drive snout at the bottom left of the picture--the snout is bolted directly to the housing.

[Stray Kat]

Okay, I guess I'm all wet. I do see a Coyote style valve cover in there. I have a lot of faith in the Coyote platform to be honest. Doesn't seem there's much that one version or another of the Coyote can't do.

 

Still I think though we're in for a surprise.

[silvrsvt]

That doesn't look like a cover--it looks like they're cast into the blower housing. Look at the drive snout at the bottom left of the picture--the snout is bolted directly to the housing.

 

I see that now...I saw the cast line and thought it was a cover (for the super charger) due the the undercuts

[SoonerLS]

Still I think though we're in for a surprise.

That, I think, is a pretty safe bet. Surely they'll do something special for the 50th Anniversary of the GT500KR.

[blksn8k2]

From what I have read elsewhere, what you are seeing is the top of the intercooler which sits on top of the supercharger. Just the opposite of what Ford has done in the recent past. In some respects it is probably a more efficient design. In other words, the intercooler probably does a better job of dissipating heat which is exactly why it is there to begin with. I assume this is an air to water design so I am still a little skeptical about any efficiency gains.

 

However, this design does not appear to use the available space as efficiently as tucking the intercooler into the valley between the cylinder heads and there would seem to be a longer path from the blower to the heads when you have to push the air up through the intercooler and then back down to the heads as opposed to pushing the air down through the intercooler and then into the heads. Should be interesting to see what is really going on here.

 

Still not quite as convoluted as my '89 Supercoupe which had an air to air intercooler mounted in front of the radiator. Talk about a plumbing nightmare. The air was pushed out of the top of the blower, through the intercooler and then back up to the back of the intake manifold. Changing the spark plugs was a five hour ordeal due to having to remove some of the intercooler piping.

[White99GT]

From what I have read elsewhere, what you are seeing is the top of the intercooler which sits on top of the supercharger. Just the opposite of what Ford has done in the recent past. In some respects it is probably a more efficient design. In other words, the intercooler probably does a better job of dissipating heat which is exactly why it is there to begin with. I assume this is an air to water design so I am still a little skeptical about any efficiency gains.

 

However, this design does not appear to use the available space as efficiently as tucking the intercooler into the valley between the cylinder heads and there would seem to be a longer path from the blower to the heads when you have to push the air up through the intercooler and then back down to the heads as opposed to pushing the air down through the intercooler and then into the heads. Should be interesting to see what is really going on here.

 

Still not quite as convoluted as my '89 Supercoupe which had an air to air intercooler mounted in front of the radiator. Talk about a plumbing nightmare. The air was pushed out of the top of the blower, through the intercooler and then back up to the back of the intake manifold. Changing the spark plugs was a five hour ordeal due to having to remove some of the intercooler piping.

 

I'm not sure how intercooler efficiency would be impacted in any way by S/C position, in the end the intercooler still would ride directly aft of the S/C discharge port.

 

What this setup does allow is some intake runner length, which will improve mid-range power.

[fuzzymoomoo]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/possible-ford-mustang-gt500-engine-drawings-leak/

[SoonerLS]

Still not quite as convoluted as my '89 Supercoupe which had an air to air intercooler mounted in front of the radiator. Talk about a plumbing nightmare. The air was pushed out of the top of the blower, through the intercooler and then back up to the back of the intake manifold. Changing the spark plugs was a five hour ordeal due to having to remove some of the intercooler piping.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the coffee mug.

 

When I pulled the plugs on the driver's side of my '89 SC, they were still like new at 75K miles. The only reason I didn't put them back was that it was such a freaking ordeal to get them out that I wasn't about to have done it for nothing.

[jpd80]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/possible-ford-mustang-gt500-engine-drawings-leak/

I wonder if these are deliberate clues dropped by Ford knowing that someone will jump on them and post on social media.

[blksn8k2]

 

I'm not sure how intercooler efficiency would be impacted in any way by S/C position, in the end the intercooler still would ride directly aft of the S/C discharge port.

 

What this setup does allow is some intake runner length, which will improve mid-range power.

 

Good point.

 

However, is it possible that there would also be some charge cooling losses (heating) generated by the friction of the pressurized air traveling through those longer runners thus reducing the efficiency of the intercooling process? This is all happening after the air temp has been reduced to its lowest level. Runner length and shape also have a negative effect on system pressure. Increased friction results in pressure drop. The system has to be designed such that the benefits of a longer runner outweigh the potential losses. Increased velocity which, as you suggest, should result in improved mid-range power needs to counteract the potential losses of charge density and pressure.

[jpd80]

 

I'm not sure how intercooler efficiency would be impacted in any way by S/C position, in the end the intercooler still would ride directly aft of the S/C discharge port.

 

What this setup does allow is some intake runner length, which will improve mid-range power.

Of more importance, the intercooler serves to silence the supercharger somewhat,

FOA couldn't apply Shelby S/C because it failed drive by noise limit but this configuration

is very similar to the now defunct Miami S/C V8.

 

With a mere 9 psi boost, they made around 430 hp at the wheels.

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

 

[jpd80]

Only took 7 years to catch up...