[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

It makes no sense. So they're lying or trying to save face. Because why benchmark the ZL1 then? Why plan to release it in 18, then backtrack and plan for 19, and then backtrack again for 2020? Why waste all that time trying to pus as much HP as they could out of it? And then why do all this testing they did up to 200 MPH, then cap it at 180 MPH because it's a track car, and then say they have no intentions to race it? Ford is stupid or they've lost their minds. The ZL1 must have been soo far ahead of them that even with all that HP and CF stuff at $94K they still can't match it so they have to save face so they won't get embarrassed.

In Ford’s defense, I’m pretty certain the longest part of the delay was caused by making a product change from the Ford 10AT to the Tremec 7DCT. That DCT was designed almost form the ground up to be tailored specifically for the GT500. I say almost, because the “bones” of it are likely very similar to the C8 8DCT. But making that significant a change in the middle of a program will cause significant delays. During that “downtime” I’m sure Ford was also doing as much as possible to maximize engine output, as they should.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

In Ford’s defense, I’m pretty certain the longest part of the delay was caused by making a product change from the Ford 10AT to the Tremec 7DCT. That DCT was designed almost form the ground up to be tailored specifically for the GT500. I say almost, because the “bones” of it are likely very similar to the C8 8DCT. But making that significant a change in the middle of a program will cause significant delays. During that “downtime” I’m sure Ford was also doing as much as possible to maximize engine output, as they should.

That is not a good enough excuse. GM took the ZL1 from the LSA to the LT4 with A10 trans with only a 1 year pause. The Corvette went to the C8 with the DCT and ME design with no break in the action. So Ford doesn't get to use that excuse. Not when after 6 years they limit the speed to 180 for some reason that they won't be forthcoming about, the thing weighs over 4100 pounds, it costs $95K, and now all of a sudden they're spouting some BS about not caring about track times or whatever. They lost their minds. The only logical reason for them not trying to catch track records is because it is under-developed which goes back to why they had to cap it at 180 MPH in the first place. That thing is a colossal waste of time and effort.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

That is not a good enough excuse. GM took the ZL1 from the LSA to the LT4 with A10 trans with only a 1 year pause. The Corvette went to the C8 with the DCT and ME design with no break in the action. So Ford doesn't get to use that excuse. Not when after 6 years they limit the speed to 180 for some reason that they won't be forthcoming about, the thing weighs over 4100 pounds, it costs $95K, and now all of a sudden they're spouting some BS about not caring about track times or whatever. They lost their minds. The only logical reason for them not trying to catch track records is because it is under-developed which goes back to why they had to cap it at 180 MPH in the first place. That thing is a colossal waste of time and effort.

Actually, that is exactly the excuse. The plan for the ZL1 6MT and 10AT started right around the time the Gen 5 ZL1 hit the pavement. That gave GM about 4-years to get it done. C7 was well on the way to being mid-engine, but bankruptcy tanked that plan, so C7 reverted to “improvement over C6”. In both cases, for C7 FE and C8 ME, a lot of the work had already been done. The long pole in the tent for C8 was....guess what....finding a DCT capable of handling the output of products you have not seen yet.

So, if Ford started working on the GT500 about the time that the 2014 GT500 hit pavement, time to market should have been late 2017 as a 2018, with a 10AT. But once it became evident what the ZL1 10AT would be....time to re-rack. Out with the 10AT, in with the DCT. That delayed the program. Most of the delay on the Tremec end, since they didn’t exactly have a high output DCT on the shelf, and the C8 DCT would not be a direct drop-in. So Ford had to wait while Tremec developed BOTH DCTs. There may very well have been language in the GM agreement impacting timing of C8 transmission relative to GT500 transmission. I don’t KNOW this, but I’ve seen similar technology restriction agreements, based on who pays for what tooling. Example...GM and JLR have been using the camera mirror for a couple years now. Nobody else is using it....yet. Why? Those who pay for the basic tooling can build in exclusivity clauses. If GM paid for the tooling for the DCT transmission case, for example, Tremec would have to either buy an additional set of tooling for the Ford transmission, get Ford to fund a second set of tooling, or negotiate with GM when they could use the tooling for other projects.

When I was still at GM, my Powertrain Competitor Intelligence team, with a lot of input from IHS Markit, was tracking the GT500 as a late 2017 entry with a boosted Voodoo (ok, truthfully we were assuming twin turbo) with a 10AT. By the time I retired from GM in 2017 we started to sense the delays. By the time I started working at IHS Markit, it had become a lock that it would be a DCT. The only question was would it be 7DCT or 8DCT as we were already tracking for C8.

The reason(s) for limiting top speed is something that I don’t have any intel on, so I stay out of that discussion.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually, that is exactly the excuse. The plan for the ZL1 6MT and 10AT started right around the time the Gen 5 ZL1 hit the pavement. That gave GM about 4-years to get it done. C7 was well on the way to being mid-engine, but bankruptcy tanked that plan, so C7 reverted to “improvement over C6”. In both cases, for C7 FE and C8 ME, a lot of the work had already been done. The long pole in the tent for C8 was....guess what....finding a DCT capable of handling the output of products you have not seen yet.

So, if Ford started working on the GT500 about the time that the 2014 GT500 hit pavement, time to market should have been late 2017 as a 2018, with a 10AT. But once it became evident what the ZL1 10AT would be....time to re-rack. Out with the 10AT, in with the DCT. That delayed the program. Most of the delay on the Tremec end, since they didn’t exactly have a high output DCT on the shelf, and the C8 DCT would not be a direct drop-in. So Ford had to wait while Tremec developed BOTH DCTs. There may very well have been language in the GM agreement impacting timing of C8 transmission relative to GT500 transmission. I don’t KNOW this, but I’ve seen similar technology restriction agreements, based on who pays for what tooling. Example...GM and JLR have been using the camera mirror for a couple years now. Nobody else is using it....yet. Why? Those who pay for the basic tooling can build in exclusivity clauses. If GM paid for the tooling for the DCT transmission case, for example, Tremec would have to either buy an additional set of tooling for the Ford transmission, get Ford to fund a second set of tooling, or negotiate with GM when they could use the tooling for other projects.

When I was still at GM, my Powertrain Competitor Intelligence team, with a lot of input from IHS Markit, was tracking the GT500 as a late 2017 entry with a boosted Voodoo (ok, truthfully we were assuming twin turbo) with a 10AT. By the time I retired from GM in 2017 we started to sense the delays. By the time I started working at IHS Markit, it had become a lock that it would be a DCT. The only question was would it be 7DCT or 8DCT as we were already tracking for C8.

The reason(s) for limiting top speed is something that I don’t have any intel on, so I stay out of that discussion.

Good info. I always appreciate your insider knowledge!

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually, that is exactly the excuse. The plan for the ZL1 6MT and 10AT started right around the time the Gen 5 ZL1 hit the pavement. That gave GM about 4-years to get it done. C7 was well on the way to being mid-engine, but bankruptcy tanked that plan, so C7 reverted to “improvement over C6”. In both cases, for C7 FE and C8 ME, a lot of the work had already been done. The long pole in the tent for C8 was....guess what....finding a DCT capable of handling the output of products you have not seen yet.

So, if Ford started working on the GT500 about the time that the 2014 GT500 hit pavement, time to market should have been late 2017 as a 2018, with a 10AT. But once it became evident what the ZL1 10AT would be....time to re-rack. Out with the 10AT, in with the DCT. That delayed the program. Most of the delay on the Tremec end, since they didn’t exactly have a high output DCT on the shelf, and the C8 DCT would not be a direct drop-in. So Ford had to wait while Tremec developed BOTH DCTs. There may very well have been language in the GM agreement impacting timing of C8 transmission relative to GT500 transmission. I don’t KNOW this, but I’ve seen similar technology restriction agreements, based on who pays for what tooling. Example...GM and JLR have been using the camera mirror for a couple years now. Nobody else is using it....yet. Why? Those who pay for the basic tooling can build in exclusivity clauses. If GM paid for the tooling for the DCT transmission case, for example, Tremec would have to either buy an additional set of tooling for the Ford transmission, get Ford to fund a second set of tooling, or negotiate with GM when they could use the tooling for other projects.

When I was still at GM, my Powertrain Competitor Intelligence team, with a lot of input from IHS Markit, was tracking the GT500 as a late 2017 entry with a boosted Voodoo (ok, truthfully we were assuming twin turbo) with a 10AT. By the time I retired from GM in 2017 we started to sense the delays. By the time I started working at IHS Markit, it had become a lock that it would be a DCT. The only question was would it be 7DCT or 8DCT as we were already tracking for C8.

The reason(s) for limiting top speed is something that I don’t have any intel on, so I stay out of that discussion.

I think we're talking about different things here. I understand there are delays when switching to a DCT etc. What I'm saying I can't excuse is that they did all of that, delayed the car by an extra couple years, made statements like "Venom kills Demons", led people all this time to think they're gonna bang heads with the ZL1 as payback for destroying the GT350R, and after all this they say they have no intentions to race the damn thing. That is what I can't excuse. Or better yet, it IS an excuse but not a good reason. Ford seems to always have an excuse when their Mustangs cost more than the competition but can't do half of what the competition does and/or doesn't have half the tech/options/features that is standard on the competition. They're just trying to protect their super expensive elite level super-car-overpriced 179 MPH 6 years in the making 4100 pound GT500.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I think we're talking about different things here. I understand there are delays when switching to a DCT etc. What I'm saying I can't excuse is that they did all of that, delayed the car by an extra couple years, made statements like "Venom kills Demons", led people all this time to think they're gonna bang heads with the ZL1 as payback for destroying the GT350R, and after all this they say they have no intentions to race the damn thing. That is what I can't excuse. Or better yet, it IS an excuse but not a good reason. Ford seems to always have an excuse when their Mustangs cost more than the competition but can't do half of what the competition does and/or doesn't have half the tech/options/features that is standard on the competition. They're just trying to protect their super expensive elite level super-car-overpriced 179 MPH 6 years in the making 4100 pound GT500.

Correction required?

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

That 11.8, while a great run, carries no more weight than fast list times or the really fast stock time slips on FB groups.

Actually it does because with private owners reviewing their times you have no idea whether the cars listed on the fast list were indeed 100% stock or not, who verified? A tune, weight reduction, E85, even DRs all simple mods to not disclose. If you are not skeptical when you read the fast list for any model you are simply being naive.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Actually it does because with private owners reviewing their times you have no idea whether the cars listed on the fast list were indeed 100% stock or not, who verified? A tune, weight reduction, E85, even DRs all simple mods to not disclose. If you are not skeptical when you read the fast list for any model you are simply being naive.

I am skeptical, that's why I made the comparison. However plenty of others as well as myself have witnessed some fast time equivalent runs from people who's cars I know are stock, and just like the 11.8 run some of them were at the strip all day messing with tire pressure and launch technique trying to get their best times, unlike most of the major publications posted times that we all typically assign more value to.

Also not saying it was the case, but that 11.8 run was much more of a spotlight to see what the car could do at it's best and make it look good at the strip, hardly a true overall review, wouldn't be out of the question for a biased source like that to do some fibbing of their own. So that can't get weighed too heavily either.

Not saying it was fibbed, just stating why I don't think it should really carry weight compared to a major publications review. I do believe both stock GTs and Ss's are capable of 12.0-11.8 under the right conditions regardless of the major publications not getting those times.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Pretty sure GM was putting out more powerful ohc v8 in the 90s than Ford was. Besides, is there really that much of a development difference between a v6 and v8 one? I won't bring up reliability because the Voodo sure isn't known for it.

The Northstar? I don't think anyone would say the northstars were great engines.

Originally Posted by Gunkk

WTH Ford?!

https://www.motor1.com/news/301700/f...-times-shelby/

What are they afraid of?

Old news. I don't know why some of you get so riled up about that. Ford doesn't/hasn't chased lap times with any performance cars. This is a discussion that's been had many times here. They don't use lap times as a marketing tool like GM does. Ford has always been fairly vague about actual performance numbers preferring to let third party tests get the numbers.

This is just off the top of my head so someone chime in if I am wrong but

They have never went out and chased a lap time. No Ford official lap times from
05 Ford GT
S197 GT
2012 Boss Laguna Seca= they named the package after the track, and no Ford official time
2012 Focus ST - no numbers
2013 Fiesta ST - no numbres
S197 GT500 no official performance numbers* Only thing I remember them saying was 13GT500 Could hit 200MPH
2015 GT no lap times, no 0-60 no 1/4 mile only that it should be faster than the Boss 302 which on some tracks it was some it wasn't
2015 GT350R again no lap times, no 0-60, no 1/4 mile
2016 Focus RS no numbers
Raptor no numbers
2017 Ford GT - no lap times, no performance numbers
2018 GT - no lap times, no 1/4 mile just that when properly equipped 0-60 under 4.0 seconds
2018 Bullitt- no 0-60, no 1/4 no lap times
2019 Edge ST - no numbers
2020 Explorer ST no numbers
GT500 - just that it 0-60 in the 3s, and sub 11 1/4 mile.

Ford is vague on performance times. It's just not something they do. They havent in the last 10 years that I can recall. I don't know why some of you are so shocked about it.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

There goes Ford with more of their dumb shit. Why even build the car then if they're not interested in lap times? It doesn't matter because they would have gotten embarrassed anyway. I guess it's better to make an excuse to not race than to get beaten. I'm still betting that even the standard ZL1 will beat the CF GT500.

Cool completely made up story.

It will be interesting to see once numbers finally pop up.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I also believe that although the trend has been to see an increase in HP, we might see less HP but a better performing car. I think the C8 is going to prove to be much better than some expect. The C8 Z06 will not need 700 or more HP. I'm betting that 550 will be enough to destroy records.

Agreed ^ it won't need that much power and if it stays NA personally I don't think it can make that much power(and pass emissions and reliability standards)

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually, that is exactly the excuse. The plan for the ZL1 6MT and 10AT started right around the time the Gen 5 ZL1 hit the pavement. That gave GM about 4-years to get it done. C7 was well on the way to being mid-engine, but bankruptcy tanked that plan, so C7 reverted to “improvement over C6”. In both cases, for C7 FE and C8 ME, a lot of the work had already been done. The long pole in the tent for C8 was....guess what....finding a DCT capable of handling the output of products you have not seen yet.

So, if Ford started working on the GT500 about the time that the 2014 GT500 hit pavement, time to market should have been late 2017 as a 2018, with a 10AT. But once it became evident what the ZL1 10AT would be....time to re-rack. Out with the 10AT, in with the DCT. That delayed the program. Most of the delay on the Tremec end, since they didn’t exactly have a high output DCT on the shelf, and the C8 DCT would not be a direct drop-in. So Ford had to wait while Tremec developed BOTH DCTs. There may very well have been language in the GM agreement impacting timing of C8 transmission relative to GT500 transmission. I don’t KNOW this, but I’ve seen similar technology restriction agreements, based on who pays for what tooling. Example...GM and JLR have been using the camera mirror for a couple years now. Nobody else is using it....yet. Why? Those who pay for the basic tooling can build in exclusivity clauses. If GM paid for the tooling for the DCT transmission case, for example, Tremec would have to either buy an additional set of tooling for the Ford transmission, get Ford to fund a second set of tooling, or negotiate with GM when they could use the tooling for other projects.

When I was still at GM, my Powertrain Competitor Intelligence team, with a lot of input from IHS Markit, was tracking the GT500 as a late 2017 entry with a boosted Voodoo (ok, truthfully we were assuming twin turbo) with a 10AT. By the time I retired from GM in 2017 we started to sense the delays. By the time I started working at IHS Markit, it had become a lock that it would be a DCT. The only question was would it be 7DCT or 8DCT as we were already tracking for C8.

The reason(s) for limiting top speed is something that I don’t have any intel on, so I stay out of that discussion.

Great insight as always! The turbo thing is interesting. I had read one rumor where that was where some of the initial delays came from. they wanted to go with a V8 ecoboost, but packaging it and making it pass pass all crash standards was going to be damn near impossible or something along those lines.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

That is not a good enough excuse. GM took the ZL1 from the LSA to the LT4 with A10 trans with only a 1 year pause. The Corvette went to the C8 with the DCT and ME design with no break in the action. So Ford doesn't get to use that excuse. Not when after 6 years they limit the speed to 180 for some reason that they won't be forthcoming about, the thing weighs over 4100 pounds, it costs $95K, and now all of a sudden they're spouting some BS about not caring about track times or whatever. They lost their minds. The only logical reason for them not trying to catch track records is because it is under-developed which goes back to why they had to cap it at 180 MPH in the first place. That thing is a colossal waste of time and effort.

It's a perfectly fine excuse as to why it's gotten delayed.

As I said before they have never chased lap times themselves. Go look at whatever track you want you won't see any marked * Ford Conducted test like GM does.

No the rest of your opinions could be fair game lol.

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

I am skeptical, that's why I made the comparison. However plenty of others as well as myself have witnessed some fast time equivalent runs from people who's cars I know are stock, and just like the 11.8 run some of them were at the strip all day messing with tire pressure and launch technique trying to get their best times, unlike most of the major publications posted times that we all typically assign more value to.

Also not saying it was the case, but that 11.8 run was much more of a spotlight to see what the car could do at it's best and make it look good at the strip, hardly a true overall review, wouldn't be out of the question for a biased source like that to do some fibbing of their own. So that can't get weighed too heavily either.

Not saying it was fibbed, just stating why I don't think it should really carry weight compared to a major publications review. I do believe both stock GTs and Ss's are capable of 12.0-11.8 under the right conditions regardless of the major publications not getting those times.

What people tend to over look in that review by Evan Smith is pretty much in the opening paragraph or so they stated the goal was to try and get the best possible 1/4 time possible. reviews from C&D, MT, R&T just run them post the correction data and post the number. The Evan Smith run they said they cooled teh car down on the track, short staged, adjusted tire pressures etc. They were open and upfront about chasing a great 1/4 time.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I think we're talking about different things here. I understand there are delays when switching to a DCT etc. What I'm saying I can't excuse is that they did all of that, delayed the car by an extra couple years, made statements like "Venom kills Demons", led people all this time to think they're gonna bang heads with the ZL1 as payback for destroying the GT350R, and after all this they say they have no intentions to race the damn thing. That is what I can't excuse. Or better yet, it IS an excuse but not a good reason. Ford seems to always have an excuse when their Mustangs cost more than the competition but can't do half of what the competition does and/or doesn't have half the tech/options/features that is standard on the competition. They're just trying to protect their super expensive elite level super-car-overpriced 179 MPH 6 years in the making 4100 pound GT500.

Yeah, we’re on the same page here. I was responding to your statement that the delay was because they were backtracking on putting out a competitor to ZL1. The delay was so that they could put out a credible competitor to ZL1. Unlike the times they missed the impact of the Z/28 and SLE, this time they paid attention and realized they had to come a lot stronger and it turned out that it took a lot longer.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Yeah, we’re on the same page here. I was responding to your statement that the delay was because they were backtracking on putting out a competitor to ZL1. The delay was so that they could put out a credible competitor to ZL1. Unlike the times they missed the impact of the Z/28 and SLE, this time they paid attention and realized they had to come a lot stronger and it turned out that it took a lot longer.

and a lot more expensive!

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by shaffe

The Northstar? I don't think anyone would say the northstars were great engines.

Actually for its day it was a pretty decent engine. There are stories of people going into Lincoln dealerships and asking of they could order it with a Northstar. At the very least, it was an awesome marketing campaign.....

Originally Posted by shaffe

As I said before they have never chased lap times themselves. Go look at whatever track you want you won't see any marked * Ford Conducted test like GM does.

I’ll go ahead and suggest that this is why Ford keeps getting caught with their pants down. And this is why non-PP Mustangs are seriously lacking in handling capability to any Camaro SS (and maybe even V6). GM puts a lot of time, energy, brain-power, and money into making certain every Camaro is an all around performer, not just a straight line killer. I didn’t say this in my review of the Bullitt (was trying to be nice to Bullitt owners that I know on the M6G), but it’s handling feel was at least a generation behind my car. And my car is a freakin’ convertible! If that is representative of non-PP Mustangs, then I am truly sad for people who want to do more than straight line sprints.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually for its day it was a pretty decent engine. There are stories of people going into Lincoln dealerships and asking of they could order it with a Northstar. At the very least, it was an awesome marketing campaign.....



I’ll go ahead and suggest that this is why Ford keeps getting caught with their pants down. And this is why non-PP Mustangs are seriously lacking in handling capability to any Camaro SS (and maybe even V6). GM puts a lot of time, energy, brain-power, and money into making certain every Camaro is an all around performer, not just a straight line killer. I didn’t say this in my review of the Bullitt (was trying to be nice to Bullitt owners that I know on the M6G), but it’s handling feel was at least a generation behind my car. And my car is a freakin’ convertible! If that is representative of non-PP Mustangs, then I am truly sad for people who want to do more than straight line sprints.

The sad thing is the Bullitt comes with PP1 as standard equipment. Not sure if the Bullitt you tested had MRC or not. But truthfully the PP1 feels a gen behind your convertible. A non PP1 Mustang feels really bad.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by shaffe

What people tend to over look in that review by Evan Smith is pretty much in the opening paragraph or so they stated the goal was to try and get the best possible 1/4 time possible. reviews from C&D, MT, R&T just run them post the correction data and post the number. The Evan Smith run they said they cooled teh car down on the track, short staged, adjusted tire pressures etc. They were open and upfront about chasing a great 1/4 time.

Exactly, so that's why that run carries about as much weight to me as someone privately doing that with their own car (ie the fast list). Those are all things I'm well aware of and didn't look over, especially the short staging.