[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I got bored and looked up the GT350 transmission, which is the TR3160. It's 121 lbs but only has a torque capacity of 405 lb ft so I don't see the GT350 making anywhere near the torque of the LS7 but, if the weight rumors are true, it won't need to.

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

405 Ft LB's based on a 6,000LB vehicle.

Just like how the MT82 is limited to "only 390 ft lbs" of torque..but then everyone fails to mention "in a 10,000lb vehicle".

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

You do not know what you're talking about.

A transmissions torque capacity is at a given gross vehicle weight rating. In the case of the Tremec 3160 it is at 4700 pounds gross vehicle weight.

Mkay? Mkay, glad you learned something today.

Who? No consistency in your statements Speed. 425 lb-ft input max torque. 4700 lb maximum vehicle weight. Link to spec sheet below. What was your point again...?

http://www.tremec.com/anexos/File/TR...ansmission.pdf

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

Who? No consistency in your statements Speed. 425 lb-ft input max torque. 4700 lb maximum vehicle weight. Link to spec sheet below. What was your point again...?

http://www.tremec.com/anexos/File/TR...ansmission.pdf

Yeah I got the original gross weight wrong. What I was meaning was the torque rating was based on a much much heavier vehicle

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Yeah I got the original gross weight wrong. What I was meaning was the torque rating was based on a much much heavier vehicle

It happens but your point is not true. The max allowed input torque rating is what it is.

It's true that a lighter vehicle will develop less total drive line torque (depending on rear gears and tire size) but that doesn't free an engineer to back calculate and up the input.

Bhobbs original point was that the FPC is a low torque engine relative to the LS7 (470 lb-ft). I question the driving experience on the street with a (relatively) low torque, high reving engine that doesn't come alive until ~4000 rpm

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

It happens but your point is not true. The max allowed input torque rating is what it is.

It's true that a lighter vehicle will develop less total drive line torque (depending on rear gears and tire size) but that doesn't free an engineer to back calculate and up the input.

Even though his numbers are incorrect, he is correct. Torque ratings for a transmission can't be interpreted the same as the peak torque of an engine. The torque rating of a transmission is the failure force given resistance. The pound rating is the resistance to movement against which the force (torque) is applied. 400 ft-lbs applied against 4000 lbs of resistance will result in a different outcome than 400 ft-lbs applied against 10000 lbs.

Bhobbs original point was that the FPC is a low torque engine relative to the LS7 (470 lb-ft). I question the driving experience on the street with a (relatively) low torque, high reving engine that doesn't come alive until ~4000 rpm

Remember, gearing is a torque multiplier. So you can get a similar experience from a motor that develops less peak torque at higher RPMs via gearing (transmission and differential).

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

It happens but your point is not true. The max allowed input torque rating is what it is.

It's true that a lighter vehicle will develop less total drive line torque (depending on rear gears and tire size) but that doesn't free an engineer to back calculate and up the input.

Bhobbs original point was that the FPC is a low torque engine relative to the LS7 (470 lb-ft). I question the driving experience on the street with a (relatively) low torque, high reving engine that doesn't come alive until ~4000 rpm

Then I ask why Ford used the MT82 which has a "rated" torque limit of 380lbs on the 5.0?

Considering there are S/C's 5.0's putting out WAAAAAY more than that on a MT82 transmission without problem?

[NASTY99Z28]

Originally Posted by SEVEN-OH JOE

Speaking of "trolling":



You did say that, didn't you?

And THEN you said this:



Which really means:



Apparently so, friend, apparently so.

You don't think Ford will offer a gt500? If so judge by the past you don't think it will be faster then the next zl1 or hellcats? Remember by answering you put yourself in the same boat as me with the "predictions" "tarot cards" or "talking out of my ass".

Btw nice way of dodging around the part where you put words in my mouth that I never said.

Remember I'm just making predictions based on the past sorry if you choose to disagree.

Gt>vette
Gt500> "Chevy had nothing to compete"
Zl1<gt500
Z06<hellcats,viper (probably the next gt500 and GT. Lemme check my tarot cards)

^^^reffering to straight line speed which is the biggest comparison of any two cars

[NASTY99Z28]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Then I ask why Ford used the MT82 which has a "rated" torque limit of 380lbs on the 5.0?

Considering there are S/C's 5.0's putting out WAAAAAY more than that on a MT82 transmission without problem?

Not completely true.

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Then I ask why Ford used the MT82 which has a "rated" torque limit of 380lbs on the 5.0?

Considering there are S/C's 5.0's putting out WAAAAAY more than that on a MT82 transmission without problem?

Simple. The answer mirrors the history of the Mustang, from '64-forward: CO$T.

When you base a "performance" car like the Mustang on such engineering dreamcars as the Falcon, Pinto and Fairmont, you're bound to run into issues. The S550 was developed NOT just for the Mustang alone but to be shared with other higher base-priced applications yet to be unveiled. And THAT is why it was heavily revised in late-'10, and THAT is why it weighs as much or more than comparable Alpha platforms. To bandaid the weight deal, components like the transmission are being engineered and fitted that just meet necessary specs while saving a few pounds. And a few buck$.

Does Ford have to worry about warranty replacements for modded Mustangs? No. And your statement that MT82s are "transmissions without problems" is not accurate. Even without s/c's. There were a batch of them that experienced failures. Right? It doesn't enjoy the stronger reputation of the Tremec, that's for sure.

Question: how many Mustangs have featured a Tremec 6060 6-speed, a transmission available in several torque ratings and a transmission that enjoys a near-bullet-proof history?

Remember GM's 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Remember, too, DOHC engine architecture typically produces lower torque ratings than equivalent OHV engines of similar displacement.

Installing mechanical components that barely meet engineering specs may save a few precious pounds, and even more precious dollars, but it doesn't bless the vehicle's driveline with a robust, long-lasting abuse potential.

You get what you pay for.

[ilirg]

.

[ilirg]

Originally Posted by NASTY99Z28

You don't think Ford will offer a gt500? If so judge by the past you don't think it will be faster then the next zl1 or hellcats? Remember by answering you put yourself in the same boat as me with the "predictions" "tarot cards" or "talking out of my ass".

Btw nice way of dodging around the part where you put words in my mouth that I never said.

Remember I'm just making predictions based on the past sorry if you choose to disagree.

Gt>vette
Gt500> "Chevy had nothing to compete"
Zl1<gt500
Z06<hellcats,viper (probably the next gt500 and GT. Lemme check my tarot cards)

^^^reffering to straight line speed which is the biggest comparison of any two cars

You are just being a Ford Fanboy, that's where your predictions are coming from. Everyone else here are enthusiasts that appreciate both sides and having a grown up conversation.

[Q'smuscle]

Ugly! The GT350 is the only 15 mustang that I would get !

[Q'smuscle]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to go as long as the Hellcat challenger thread! Lol...

[khell86]

Originally Posted by SEVEN-OH JOE

Simple. The answer mirrors the history of the Mustang, from '64-forward: CO$T.

When you base a "performance" car like the Mustang on such engineering dreamcars as the Falcon, Pinto and Fairmont, you're bound to run into issues. The S550 was developed NOT just for the Mustang alone but to be shared with other higher base-priced applications yet to be unveiled. And THAT is why it was heavily revised in late-'10, and THAT is why it weighs as much or more than comparable Alpha platforms. To bandaid the weight deal, components like the transmission are being engineered and fitted that just meet necessary specs while saving a few pounds. And a few buck$.

Does Ford have to worry about warranty replacements for modded Mustangs? No. And your statement that MT82s are "transmissions without problems" is not accurate. Even without s/c's. There were a batch of them that experienced failures. Right? It doesn't enjoy the stronger reputation of the Tremec, that's for sure.

Question: how many Mustangs have featured a Tremec 6060 6-speed, a transmission available in several torque ratings and a transmission that enjoys a near-bullet-proof history?

Remember GM's 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Remember, too, DOHC engine architecture typically produces lower torque ratings than equivalent OHV engines of similar displacement.

Installing mechanical components that barely meet engineering specs may save a few precious pounds, and even more precious dollars, but it doesn't bless the vehicle's driveline with a robust, long-lasting abuse potential.

You get what you pay for.

So you already know that the 6th gen camaro on the alpha platform will weigh as much or less than the current mustang?

Theres's been plenty of issues in regards to the TR6060, experienced across all three brands with issues including the GT500.

I guess we could also compare GM's new 5.3 ecotech with Ford's current 5.0L in the F150. Both produce identical tq ratings, while the 5.0 has more HP. This of course is achieved without D/I yet. We could go on and on about this.

[Bhobbs]

My point was that the 5.2 probably won't make much more than 400 lb ft of torque. Nothing more nothing less.

Edit: Maybe not. The ATS-V also has the TR3160 so clearly there are variants with much greater torque capacity.

Originally Posted by khell86

So you already know that the 6th gen camaro on the alpha platform will weigh as much or less than the current mustang?

Theres's been plenty of issues in regards to the TR6060, experienced across all three brands with issues including the GT500.

I guess we could also compare GM's new 5.3 ecotech with Ford's current 5.0L in the F150. Both produce identical tq ratings, while the 5.0 has more HP. This of course is achieved without D/I yet. We could go on and on about this.

You can compare them but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Dual over head cam allows more horsepower from smaller displacement due to the greater flow through two valves instead of one.