HP and TQ curves

[Boss1601]

Nothing released yet but I am wondering about track vs road use of the GT 350 how the torque curve will match up to a BOSS. Not magnitude but profile. Will there be enough low end torque to be superior to the boss in regular street driving?

Kill the thread if you want but I just thought it would be an interesting and slightly different conversation than the typical ADM, build date, deposit stuff

 

[Grant 302]

Early on there were a lot of people who were mistakenly concerned about the Boss having 10 less torque than the GT. It was never an issue for the Boss.

It will not be an issue for the GT350.

 

[ArizonaBOSS]

My slightly-educated opinion: low end torque should be at LEAST equivalent due to the increased displacement in the 350.

 

[Boss1601]

My slightly-educated opinion: low end torque should be at LEAST equivalent due to the increased displacement in the 350.

Would tend to agree. I was thinking of other higher revving engines like an S2000 that made squat down low. Of, course displacement is a big help here.

 

[VoodooBoss]

My slightly-educated opinion: low end torque should be at LEAST equivalent due to the increased displacement in the 350.

And I bet that was the driving force for increasing the displacement. I think the curves will be very similar but a slightly steeper slope in HP above 5,000 RPM's up to the 8,200 rev limit.

There was a post on another forum about revving the voodoo to 10,000 RPM's. I'm not surprised by that and remember they revved the roadrunner to 9,000 in testing.

 

[ArizonaBOSS]

Here are some details from SVTP that came from a Ford Media Day (today/now):

• The official horsepower is 526!!!
• Torque peaks at 429 lb-ft
• Blocks are described as second generation and made in Windsor, Ontario
• The valves are "much larger" and the cams provide 14mm of lift
• The throttle body measures 87mm
• Cylinder heads feature active exhaust valves and cams with 14mm of lift
• Crankshaft is rifle drilled
• Block is honed with torque plates
• 12:1 compression and burns 93-octane fuel
• The rev limiter cuts fuel at 8,250 rpm
• The crankshaft is only 15 percent of the rotational inertia of the engine
• The oil pan and windage tray are all one piece
• Cylinder heads machined for reduced weight, 6-percent lighter than Coyote heads
• Intake flows better than a Boss 302 intake
• The 87mm throttle body is the largest single-bore unit ever used by Ford

From R&T:

 

[Grant 302]

Good numbers for me, but I think some will be disappointed. Thanks for posting.

Not sure why that chart is on slightly different scales for HP/TQ. Should have just used the same scale.

 

[cloud9]

Looks good to me. I assume 93 was used for the test but not minimum required? We don't have 93 around here so would have to mix with race fuel to get there. I'm pretty stoked with those numbers. Think about it, 82 hp and 50 ft/lbs tq more than the Boss and I thought the Boss pulled hard. Pretty awesome for an NA engine, not to mention the ridiculously high rev limit

 

[dmichaels]

Here are some details from SVTP that came from a Ford Media Day (today/now):

From R&T:

Sounds quite impressive to me! over 100 hp more than my GT right out of the box. can't wait to see one of these come to a track day

 

[ufnavy06]

So 400+ lbft from about 3300 to 7000 rpm. Not too shabby. I don't remember if gearing has been mentioned (I haven't been paying attention since I'm not a player in the market), but if it keeps it in that band, the car will scream.

 

[ArizonaBOSS]

Not sure why that chart is on slightly different scales for HP/TQ. Should have just used the same scale.

Agreed.

 

[ArizonaBOSS]

So 400+ lbft from about 3300 to 7000 rpm. Not too shabby. I don't remember if gearing has been mentioned (I haven't been paying attention since I'm not a player in the market), but if it keeps it in that band, the car will scream.

The TR3160 ratios are a little different in 4th gear but more optimized for this sort of thing--it's a little more space from 3rd to 4th.

 

[ArizonaBOSS]

Looks good to me. I assume 93 was used for the test but not minimum required? We don't have 93 around here so would have to mix with race fuel to get there. I'm pretty stoked with those numbers. Think about it, 82 hp and 50 ft/lbs tq more than the Boss and I thought the Boss pulled hard. Pretty awesome for an NA engine, not to mention the ridiculously high rev limit

The SVTP article says unlike the GT, the cats BOLT to BOTH headers--so you can ditch those quick and probably pick up a few more ponies.

 

[Grant 302]

Looks good to me. I assume 93 was used for the test but not minimum required? We don't have 93 around here so would have to mix with race fuel to get there. I'm pretty stoked with those numbers. Think about it, 82 hp and 50 ft/lbs tq more than the Boss and I thought the Boss pulled hard. Pretty awesome for an NA engine, not to mention the ridiculously high rev limit

Exactly. Even if the numbers were on the low side of 500 hp and 400 torque, it would pull at least as hard as the Boss and have way more 'head room' up top. That's where the Boss shines, IMO...and this will just *have to* be better!

 

[cloud9]

Exactly. Even if the numbers were on the low side of 500 hp and 400 torque, it would pull at least as hard as the Boss and have way more 'head room' up top. That's where the Boss shines, IMO...and this will just *have to* be better!

No doubt those hp/tq curves are perfectly built for road racing Ford nailed it.

 

[mwilson7]

Those numbers should be with 91 octane fuel as that is considered the "standard" for premium fuel now.

 

[fuhrius]

How can Mark Wilson have zero 'likes' ?!?! ;-)

I'm going to hit the 'like' button twice...once for using 91 for the tests / public numbers, and once for having Mark Wilson coming to the forum to chime in. Right on!
As a proud ex-Ford employee, I gotta say that I think Ford is absolutely nailing it on so many levels these days.

 

[Fat Boss]

Good numbers for me, but I think some will be disappointed. Thanks for posting.

Not sure why that chart is on slightly different scales for HP/TQ. Should have just used the same scale.

No kidding. By not using the same scale, the curves don't even cross at 5252 RPM.

 

[mwilson7]

How can Mark Wilson have zero 'likes' ?!?! ;-)

I'm going to hit the 'like' button twice...once for using 91 for the tests / public numbers, and once for having Mark Wilson coming to the forum to chime in. Right on!
As a proud ex-Ford employee, I gotta say that I think Ford is absolutely nailing it on so many levels these days.

I'm here almost every day but I don't have much news from my current location in China!

Although I'm heading home for a few weeks soon and plan on having a close encounter of the GT350 kind!!! ;D

 

[cloud9]

I'm here almost every day but I don't have much news from my current location in China!

Although I'm heading home for a few weeks soon and plan on having a close encounter of the GT350 kind!!! ;D

Lucky dog! Won't the 302S be jealous? : Hope you have time for both.