SVT Says, Less Flab, More Filling

Ford Motor Co. has no intention of letting the new 500-hp Dodge SRT-10 keep the title of world's fastest truck.

NoOp Comment: That's the attitude, Ford!

But John Coletti, director of Ford's Special Vehicle Team, acknowledges that automakers have hit a wall on how much horsepower they can give a vehicle. So the automaker will make the next-generation Ford F-150 Lightning pickup go faster by removing weight and improving handling.

NoOp Comment: Now you're following the right playbook!

"In the next generation, we've got to worry about efficiency, weight and better control," he says. "You can get great power-to-weight ratio without a fountain of horsepower."

NoOp Comment: Exactly! Less weight = more horsepower.

Until the Ram SRT-10 pickup debuted this year, the Lightning had been the unchallenged leader in performance trucks for more than a decade.

But in February, the SRT-10 clocked a record speed of 154.587 mph.

NoOp Comment: A brick going 154. Amazing, isn't it?

Ford SVT engineers have experience in reducing weight with the 2000 Mustang Cobra R, a version for performance enthusiasts.

NoOp Comment: Probably not the best example to site. Lets hope SVT does a better job removing weight on upcoming models.

Strong, lightweight materials such as carbon fiber, magnesium, aluminum, ceramics and plastics can substitute for steel parts without major re-engineering.

NoOp Comment: How 'bout instead just deleting some optional equipment? All you really need are: the top performing engine, a manual transmission and a good rear gear.

Coletti says lighter parts and better-handling suspension systems might not come simultaneously.

"You'll start seeing it in incremental steps," he says. "Now that we have the engines where we want them, the question is what do you do with the rest of the car? Clearly you have to start looking at the weight aspect of it. If I could take 300 or 400 pounds out of the car, I wouldn't have to add any more horsepower. It would just be an incredibly faster, better handling, better braking car. All the attributes would improve."

NoOp Comment: Johnny, think stripped. Stripped is the hottest thing in sport bikes. Now is the time to offer low/no-option performance cars. Lighter weight and lower cost means giving the more power to more people.

Coletti believes automakers risk attracting attention from government regulators and the insurance industry by constantly increasing horsepower in their performance-oriented vehicles.

In the last two years, the number of vehicles with engines producing

400 hp to 500 hp and more has grown quickly.

NoOp Comment: You won't find anyone shedding a tear over this.

"The focus now has to be better efficiency and weight reduction," Coletti says.

In the heyday of the American muscle car in the late 1960s, only a small number of limited-production vehicles made more than 400 hp.

The ratings of most Pontiac GTOs, Ford Mustangs, Dodge Chargers and Chevrolet Corvettes were in the 300-hp to 375-hp range.

Today, there are at least 14 cars and trucks with at least 400 hp.

Says Coletti: "We're hitting the limit."

NoOp Comment: Not technologically, only politically. Yep, so go the steathly route. Keep the horsepower, but improve the power to weight.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick
Loading thread data ...

Awesome, Patrick. F'ing awesome. Like the comments too... agree with nearly all of 'em.. just not this one:

I'm shedding tears dammit... *I* don't have 400-500hp lol =).

-Mike

98 Mustang GT

Reply to
<memset

I don't understand... Why not just start making real engines for cars again. Not those sissy little small blocks. Yeah a high revving small block is fun, but aint shit compared to a ground pounding FE or 385 series engine with modern computer controls, or better yet, a totally redesigned overhead cam big block shoehorned into a modern car.

Cory

Reply to
Cory Dunkle

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Agreed. Every maker should have this attitude. It's what made Dodge come up with the SRT-10 in the first place.

Hold the phone. Is this because the chassis can't handle the power, or because Ford's engines are already wrung out? Or both?

Point: The SRT-10 isn't even sporting an OEM blower (yet).

Sort of. Coletti's admission above was a pretty disheartening opener.

Yup. So why bother with an F-150? Why not take a Ranger and stuff a nice big Triton into it? Or put the Cobra motor in the Focus and make it RWD (as others have already done).

decade.

Yep. It's called 500 naturally-aspirated horsepower.

Definitely agreed.

without

Yes! Those space-age materials are wonderful, but they're going to push the cost through the roof.

Here we go again. Too little too late.

We do? Hmm.

Wrong!!!!! He still needs MORE HORSEPOWER!!! And not just from the a/c intercooler thing, which is temporary.

Agreed again. But I have to insist on power windows, seats, and a/c. I'm an old fart.

government

Not to mention the good ol' CAFE numbers...

Damn straight!

In part. Horsepower must not be forgotten. And don't ever forget about torque, either.

And that was SAE, not net.

Limit of what? Sounds like a self-imposed limit to me.

Indeed.

weight.

This is a good thing, but Coletti is too reserved IMO. With makers like DC putting vehicles like the SRT-4, SRT-10, and the Magnum out there right now, Coletti will always be playing catch-up.

As I've said in the past, Ford needs to stop responding to other makers and start leading them. 2 more cents...

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Reply to
Joe

. With makers

I would call the Ford GT with 500 rwhp, leading the pack, not playing catchup. The GT is using a 5.4L blown Triton engine. 500 plus ponies at the rear wheels!

205mph! All they need to do is up the boost a few more psi and look out! Ford could drop that engine into Mustangs, or Lightnings.

Erich

Reply to
Kathy and Erich Coiner

Hell, all the parts exist right now to build all-alloy 7-liter Windsor-based pushrod engines. Screw the overhead cams; they were a mistake to begin with. The way to combat porky curb weights is to stick a big arm in the motor and the few rpm's from the OHC design be damned. None of these current engines breathe well enough from the factory to take advantage of overhead cams anyway. (The 427 SOHC with headers could do nearly 9000 rpm. Why can't a dinky 281 do 9000 rpm from the factory?)

The problem with going back to 385's or FE's in passenger cars is this trend of designing swoopy, low-slung bodies. There's no room with a radically sloped hood to put long, tall engines in. Shivvy's idea of sliding half the mill under the windshield in the F-body was not warmly received by many people.

Ford needs to design a more traditional muscle car based on the Panther platform and slap an alloy 460 in it. That way the performance buyer can have a major step-up with more power and a better chassis than the Stang.

CobraJet

Reply to
CobraJet

"Kathy and Erich Coiner" wrote in news:wVrEc.16649$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:

True. But it's an extremely limited offering at a ridiculous price and won't be realistically available to the general public. For all practical purposes, it's unavailable.

a) See above.

b) All DC would have to do to wipe up the GT motor would be to bolt on a blower to the Viper motor. Ford's already shot the wad with the blown 5.4 in the GT. DC is only getting warmed up with the Viper motor, which is still, as you know, n/a.

Sure they could, but you know they won't. And that's exactly my point.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Reply to
Joe

Because you don't have to go to a big block in order to get displacement.

I saw a 454 ci small block Chevy for sale on Jegs.com, so it is certainly possible to make a large displacement motor without making the motor difficult to install and maintain.

It would be really cool to have new Mach 1 with a 428 ci small block under the hood. Do this with a small enough block and it won't be nearly impossible to change the rear spark plugs. Your comment about "shoehorning" is not something that I would want done.

Reply to
Mark Jones

Already available from Hennessey Motorsports.

formatting link

2003 & Up - Viper SRT10 Venom 1000 Twin Turbo Upgrade

Power Output:

a.. 800 - 950+ Rear Wheel HP (900 - 1,100+ Flywheel HP) a.. 900 - 1,000+ Rear Wheel Torque (1,000 - 1,200+ Flywheel Torque)

Reply to
Mark Jones

"Mark J> Already available from Hennessey Motorsports.

I appreciate performance vehicles about as much as anyone. But even I think that 800+hp on the street is getting ridiculous.

I have to agree with Coletti when he says that the engines are about at the limit for a street car. Traction is a serious issue with 500hp. Sure power is important...but it has to be usable. Ford doesn't have any technological limit keeping them from cranking out super high hp engines. They are trying to keep a couple of other important points in perspective. 1) They need to keep an eye on cost. 2) They have to be realistic with market demands. If you are pushing 800hp and you want the vehicle to last...you need to design it from the beginning to handle it (frame/body/transmission/rear-end/etc) ...and the cost is going to go thru the roof. They CAN do it...but it's just not practical in any real sense. I think that Coletti's approach may be the one way to keep it somewhat affordable to us peasants...yet still deliver more capability than most people will ever find the limits of (without going to jail).

My greatest fear is that they are going to go so overboard with all this...it will get to the point that the average insurance company won't even offer coverage on a lot of these vehicles anymore (or charge rates that effectively make them uninsurable). I see what I'm paying on a plain jane '03 Mustang GT ... and it makes me shudder to think where rates are headed with all these 500+hp rides.

I've seen my share of 300hp cars whip 400-500hp cars on the street. Weight and traction made a world of difference in these cases.

(*>

Reply to
Hawk

They have gotten one of these into the 8.9's at the drag strip.

Reply to
Mark Jones

Anyone that deals with that company (IMHO) is asking for serious heartache and trouble.

Don Manning

Power Output:

Reply to
2.3Sleeper

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote

I think that guy passed me on the freeway the other day.

Why is he saying "car" in a story about the SRT-10 and the Lightning? Not that he's on the wrong track. SVT should be concentrating on cars, not these silly supertrucks.

Anyway, going by the rule of thumb that 10 lbs per hp is where extreme performance begins -- low 13's, high 12's in the quarter -- taking out

400 lbs is the equivalent of just 40 hp, or less than what you'd get with the next smaller pulley on your blower. The cost of taking that much weight out of a production car -- while retaining the heavy power leather seats, sound deadening, and structural rigidity that the up-market demands -- is prohibitive. Again, Colleti's not on the wrong track. It's just that you have to design low mass into the platform from the beginning. When you start out with a 3800 lb Mustang or a 5000 lb F150, it's far more cost effective to turn up the hp than to try to trim a few hundred pounds.

No one will buy it. Consider the yo-yo's who buy these sportbikes. Not that many of them around, particularly with the cash for $35,000+ vehicles.

Well, I don't think he's going to be pulling the wool over any do-gooder's eyes by switching to superleggera models. Extreme 1/4 mile times and top speeds are what is going to bring the heat, not hp numbers.

180 Out TS 28
Reply to
180 Out

"Mark Jones" wrote in news:YcyEc.72$oD3.26 @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Yes, but I'm talking OEM to be on the same playing field with Coletti.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Reply to
Joe

Doesn't Ford have some kind of small block 427 out now? I'm sure I read something about one for experimental purposes.

Reply to
Richard

They do. Just like the 427 cammer, Ford's factory redline on the Mod 4.6 is conservative. I know several racers that shift in the 8.5k to 9k range regularly. The stock heads breath just fine and the cams do ok, but aftermarket cams do help out.

[snip]
Reply to
Dan

'Cause of guys like me :). My sissy small block with a lung is more than a match for any but the most modded FE or 385. I've driven both and the BBs offer nothing that my current roots blown, tiny motor doesn't have. The off idle air movement has no attraction to me and on the street VE from a 281 with a lung is indistinguishable from that produced by a bigger motor.

I wish SVT would go turbo and be done with it :).

Reply to
Dan

Cory,

Lets face it, the days of FEs, 385s and even my beloved 5-liters (302s) are over. Modern technology marches on. The LS1, LS2, LS6 (and soon LS7) and 5.7-liter Hemis are the ones caring the pushrod torch. And they're doing a DAMN good job too! The LS1s put down

280-290 at the wheels, the new Hemi is already packing 340 _NET_ horsepower, the LS2 is a full 6-liters and is rated at 400 NET horsepower.

Plus, Dodge will soon have a 6-liter Hemi, Chevy's upcoming LS7 will probably be good for 450-500 horsepower, and Ford is rumored to be working on a new 6.2 liter V8.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

Kathy and Eric,

My sources say 530 at the wheels/over 565 at the crank.

FYI - Ford has at least '05 Mustang mule sporting a blown 5.4 Triton.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

In stock trim, and for a warranty period?

They can. But there are two problems.

1) Accessory life. A/C compressors and alternators don't like 9,000 rpms. 2) American drivers like a little punch off the line, so automakers tune small modern V8s for torque. (i.e. the new Mach 1's DOHC, and the older 5-liter.

Unless of course Chrysler new 300 continues to have strong sales, then maybe we'll see less swoopy, taller bodies becoming popular again.

That engine bay was not user friendly.

Yep, and offer a 2-door Panther.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.