I'm very surprised!!

[BillyGman]

I just noticed an article in a car magazine which was about my favorite car of all time (the 2005 Ford GT supercar). They ran a slightly modified GT at a dragstrip and turned 11.0 ET's on the stock tires, and then high 10's on some drag radials. But what really surprised me is that this extraoridinary car only turned a 1.6 second 60' time. And that's the same 60' time that my car has turned repeatedly.

I know that the Ford GT is not a drag car by any means, and that it really shines on a roadcourse, or a circle track the best. But with 550 RWHP, and 500 FT/LBS of torque, and a mid engine design that has most of the car's weight being in the rear, I expected better 60' times than that. What do you guys think? Perhaps this has alot to do with this car having 3.36:1 gears in the rear. perhaps if it had 4.10's or even 4.56's like my car has in the rear, it would be turning 1.3 second 60' times. right? :confused:

[Ross]

Sounds surprising to me, too, Billy. I'm not an expert on the GT, or on cars in general, but it sure seems that a car with that much power and torque, in the hands of a good driver, would do better than that.

[Mike Poore]

4.56's like my car has in the rear, it would be turning 1.3 second 60' times. right? :confused:
Yeh, Billy, but if it had 4:56's it couldn't get up to 200mph when the control arm lets go, and the left front wheel falls off. (as per the re-call) :eek:

[wesman]

What magazine Billy?

[Joe Walsh]

What magazine Billy?

MM&FF....May '05 issue

Colletti let them loose with a red GT with the instructions to get it in the 10s.
Launch technique: Rev the S/C 5.4 to 4500rpm and slip the clutch to avoid obliterating the tires...1.66 sec - 60 foot
11.02 @ 130.52 using stock rubber :bows:
10.92 @ 128.07 using BFG P345/30ZR18 drag radials
then they smoked the clutch....OH WELL :shake: :dunno:

(They think that the smaller diameter drag radials were affecting the computer/electronics as a 10.92 was not a huge improvement over stock rubber.)

[merc406]

Yeh, Billy, but if it had 4:56's it couldn't get up to 200mph when the control arm lets go, and the left front wheel falls off. (as per the re-call) :eek:



.....^ that :laugh: and it's the end result that matters........ :burnout:

[BillyGman]

Yeh, Billy, but if it had 4:56's it couldn't get up to 200mph when the control arm lets go, and the left front wheel falls off. (as per the re-call) :eek:and your point is?

[BillyGman]

Okay, I just read that magazine article over again, and I caught something in there that I overlooked before. Not only did they install a smaller pulley on that Ford GT, but despite the car running high 10's in the quarter mile, the car turned a best 1/8th mile time of 7.92 seconds. Again, that surprised me also. Because my tank of a Marauder turns 7.6 second 1/8th mile times. But here's what I think is the most interesting of all.......Despite my car being quicker in the 1/8th mile than the mighty GT supercar is with it's weight being 800 LBS less, and having about 4 LBS more of boost pressure than my Marauder is pushing, ( with the smaller pulley that those guys had on it), the GT is already moving 13 MPH faster at the 1/8th mile mark than my Marauder does (my 89 MPH to the 102 MPH of the GT).

So the bottom line is that after 90 MPH, the Ford GT would simply dominate in a straight line competiton. But as an amatuer drag racer, I still find it fascinating, that my lowly Marauder would outrun a 2005 Ford GT from 0-90 MPH despite the GT puting over 150 HP more to the rear wheels, and having 800 LBS less weight, than my Marauder does. You'll have to excuse my rant here, but I find this very surprising. Obviously, this is how much of a dramatic difference rear end gears can make (the 3:36's of the GT as comapred to the 4.56's of my car).

[MENINBLK]

Billy,

Without comparing the HP/TQ curves of the two vehicles,
all you are doing is guessing.

If the GT 5.4L Torque starts out with higher gains at a higher RPM than the Marauder 4.6L does,
then that's your explanation.
If it doesn't, then all I can say is maybe the GT has a binding caliper ???

[Captain Steve]

1.6s in a GT is probably a result of not enough torque on the nut behind the wheel :)

[BillyGman]

Pete and Steve, thanks for your interest and for your comments. this is the way that I see it..... First, as far as what you've implied Steve, just keep in mind that these guys are the same ones who took a stock Cobra, and turned a 12.43 second ET with it, while the other magazines turned 13's (Constable told me about that, and he was correct). Second, there's a guy who I work with who I just learned races a jap bike that turns high 9's in the quarter, and he just told me that he turns a 1.6 second 60' time with that same jap bike (which BTW also surprised me).


And thirdly Pete, the torque curve doesn't need to be looked at here since we have my time slip numbers, and that of the slightly modified Ford GT in question. You might call this "bench racing", sure, but keep in mind that I did the same "bench raising" to predict what would happen before me and John (aka "Jet") raced our two Marauders with the different mods that we both have, simply by comparing our previous timeslips, and as it turns out, I was correct.my car jumped out ahead, and was ahead for the first 1/8th mile, and then at the 900' mark, John's car caught up and just barely won. I had stated that it would be very close despite John's car puting 60 more HP to the wheels than my car does, because the gears that I have in my car, and I had also stated that my car would jump out ahead, and that John's car would catch up. I knew all that by looking at our timeslip #'s.

I don't know if you guys ever go to the track to race your cars, but if you have, then take a look at your timeslips. Because the info that is provided on those pieces of paper that they give to you after every run is for a reason. You can look at the figures on there to determine exactly where in the quartermile that you car is the strongest as compared to other cars IF you are given a look at their timeslips too.

And this is precisely why I've stressed that people post their timeslpis in the "timeslip" database on this board. But some people who do not understand any of this squaked about me saying that, and Lo and behold, as a result, now we have a "timeslip" database that will no longer accept timeslip entrees (atleast not the last time that I tried to post my latest ones anyway:rolleyes: ).However, you can still plug in some of the actual numbers in there from your timeslips (although not all of them such as the 330' times).

I think you should atleast read the article for yourselves if you get a chance, because it doesn't sound like you have yet. I found it to be some very interesting reading. ;)

[Jerry Barnes]

Billy,

I agree. Looking at dyno numbers is good, but what happens in the real world is another matter. That's why we did the "value of performance chart" and we came away with the same questions. Lots of money with little gain at times.

Now let me say that if I had enough money to buy a Ford GT, it would be in my garage right now. And I would not line up against one on the Mulsan Straights at Le Mans.

But, you can get a lot of performance for relatively low dollars. That's why the Ricers have so much success. Lots O Bang For The Buck.

Thanks

jerry

[BillyGman]

Billy,

Now let me say that if I had enough money to buy a Ford GT, it would be in my garage right now. And I would not line up against one on the Mulsan Straights at Le Mans. I hear ya Jerry.....I'm well aware of the fact that the 2005 Ford GT supercar would utterly take over and destroy my Marauder after the 90 MPH mark.

But, you can get a lot of performance for relatively low dollars. That's why the Ricers have so much success. Lots O Bang For The Buck.Uhmm, I think that I was just called a "Ricer"!!! :eek: :D