Prediction: Reviewers will spec the ZL1 close to the GT500 but not "better" than

[91Z28350]

Lingenfelters top package for the CTS-V put down 623 RWHP. They seem to be pretty good, from what I can tell/read about not overdoing it on engines.

[KILLER74Z28]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I didn't realize GM had made any performance claims for the ZL1 yet? I must have missed that.

[ironpeddler]

I'm sure that the LSA could handle 700rwhp but for how long is the question. Could be 1 minute or could last the whole life of the car, I dunno. What might happen is the engine can handle the power but the supporting components (clutch, driveshaft, axles, w/e else) might not be able to. So you will make the power but will s**t the driveshaft out the first time you romp on it. Some people forget that you have to also upgrade supporting mods when u/g the power. You can't just slap on +200rwhp more hp from a bigger blower or something and be like, ok this thing is ready to go without doing anything to the supporting components.

Me personally, I would feel very uneasy about having 700rwhp on a engine that doesn't have forged internals. Just upgrading the internals before the power is added would probably be worth the extra cost. The feeling you get when modding a car to massive power levels only to throw a rod or something, is like one of the worst/helpless feelings in the world lol. :/ Just do it right the first time and don't worry about it down the road IMHO. It ends up being cheaper in the long run also.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by thePill

An SHO Mustang might be fantasy, it is too close to the 5.0... But the TT 5.0 will be cheaper to run than the S/C 5.4 that uses a TR 6060... Do you realize that a 5.4 S/C cost $20,000 dollars alone? Have you ever wondered why the GT500 never gets better suspension, tires, wheels or anything for that matter? Because the GT500 is the 5.4... that is it.. It is a great car but big improvements cannot be made when the base engine is 20 grand.. Now, take the 5.0, that uses a global Getrag, the 5.0 and Getrag combine cost $9,000.. The 5.4 and TR6060 cost way over 20k... I always want to see a bridge between V6 and V8, at least an option to do so.. Would it be expensive? probably.. But as the article I posted above states... there are 3 options... Option #1 and turbo 4 (too close to the brand new V6), Option #2 a TT V6 (too close to the 5.0), Option #3 is a TT 5.0 to take the place of the S/C 5.4 and eliminate the use of the expensive 6060, cut weight again by 100lbs, have more money to put that cherry GT350 suspension into the SVT and still be able to out power the Godfather of pony cars the 5.4 and the GT500, sending them into retirement.. unchecked.. unchallenged... and undefeated..... Only to tip their hat to the Terminator....

So... after reading the article.. YOU as a market man.. what would be the best option? A Turbo I4? a TT V6? or a TT 5.0? Lets try to "Bench" market and "Bench" engineer, what seems more feasible?

I'm not really coming at this from marketing. Marketing might want a TT. But simply adding manufacturing complexity of another powertrain combination can be quite difficult.

But here are my "concerns" about turbos. Many here think the a TT V6 should be the Z28 or something engine. Because it would save "hundreds of pounds".

1) Customers perceive a Turbo as a higher tech solution. Even though for most daily driving situations, a SC is better. I've driven a few turbos in my day and off the line with a reasonable setup, they have the performance of the base displacement. My Sky Redline is this way. Even with the GMPP calibration, you have to get it up in the RPMs to find that extra HP. Off the line it feels an awful lot like a 2.0L 4 cylinder. Yes, a TT setup would help this and spool up faster. But not like a SC.

2) A TT set up is not cheap or light weight. Two turbos and a charge air cooler aren't cheap by a long shot. And the mass alone approaches that of the NA larger displacement alternative.

3) Unless you can do something like BMW and put the turbos in the valley, packaging two turbos is a nightmare. You can't simply say "I'm adding two trubos".

4) Heat - and this is simply adds to the packaging issue. You now have two very hot things under the hood that you can't rout hoses or wires around. And for the FST application, if you are towing up a hill or hauling large loads, a TT is a heat rejection nightmare.

5) Unless you are in a market that has a displacement based tax structure (China for example) a TT just puts you on top of naturally aspirated and cheaper alternatives. I would imagine a NA Coyote is cheaper than a TT Ecoboost. So why would you want to give the customer two choices in your assembly plant and offer them the chance to pay more??

6) FE - if you need a FE alternative, then a TT V6 "can" be a better choice than a V8. In Ford's FST application, the TT gets you 15/21 while the naturally aspirated V6 gets you 16/21. But the TT provides the HP of the 5.0L NA and also better torque. So this is ideal "marketing" play. Problem is the TT V6 costs a lot more than the 3.7 or 5.0 L NA engine.

7) There may be overall Ford issues at play here. First, they may have to create volume for the 3.5L TT. They may not be selling as many in the Taurus or Lincoln as they might need to keep the line running. So there are cases where adding volume in a P/U for example or a Mustang might be a better overall business situation for Ford. This is why low volume engines work well for a facility like Wixom. You aren't forced to add volume just to keep a line running efficiently.

8) A TT V6 can be a wonderful solution. But the more cost effective one is simply a larger displacement NA engine. But as we go forward in a world of CAFE and emissions laws around the world, T and TT engines will be more and more popular to REPLACE those larger NA engines.

9) So for Ford? A TT 5.0 would be a replacement for the 5.4 SC engine. Not an addition. But packaging a DOHC TT in a car the size of the Mustang will be a real engineering challenge for Ford, which I know they can do.

Originally Posted by thePill

If you honestly don't know that there is a TT 5.0 that started testing in October 2009, then you need to talk to the people that skim the Ford forums and fire them....

Also, fire the guy who was in charge of production last year....

Actually, I can quit defending my country and come and work for you... The war is over so I need to find something else to do.

Sounds like a good plan


As far as the internets, I can assure you, at least from a GM standpoint, the reports are far from accurate. I can tell by the information how old it is or where it likely came from and in most cases it is off in content, off in timing and in most cases, both. The only thing close to certainty is when the camo'ed cars start showing up in spy photos is an indicator something is in the works and $$ has been committed to the program. But as demonstrated very recently, the "experts" couldn't even guess right about a bunch or recent spy photos. What generally happens is someone "hears" something and then runs off and tells someone. But those that know........know to keep the information to themselves. So the internets is full of "3rd hand" information, that is often less than accurate.

I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the industry. We have a group that does simply that and I get all the reports. We also work with the same suppliers that the other OEMs do so it is sometimes not too hard to know what Ford is doing for example. But I'm not coming on here to report that anymore than telling you GM's future plans. If I come on here telling you what I believe Ford is doing, then they can figure out how GM knows and shut down a source of intel.

But I thought you were referring to a 5.0 TT as if it were available now which I wasn't aware of.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by porcupinekiller

Some guys say the LSA is good for 620 rwhp and others are saying up to 700 rwhp.

Seems with limited numbers CTS-Vs running around, there just are not a lot of blower options for the LSA for upgrade. Most modded LSAs seem to get a cocktail of Cam, Headers, Heads, Port n Pulley, resulting in ~630HP. We know from experience that you can only take a small blower so far, since at some point faster spinning becomes counterproductive. A 700+ RWHP LSA is likely getting there briefly via laughing gas?

[Darkflow]

Originally Posted by 91Z28350

Lingenfelters top package for the CTS-V put down 623 RWHP. They seem to be pretty good, from what I can tell/read about not overdoing it on engines.

But the questions are, how long will the motor last at that hp level and does that package upgrade to forged internals? Is the car daily driven or a weekend/garage queen/track car only? Need to keep those kind of things in mind. Im sure some ZL1 owners will daily drive the car, others will keep it a weekend/track car.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Number 3

1) Customers perceive a Turbo as a higher tech solution. Even though for most daily driving situations, a SC is better. I've driven a few turbos in my day and off the line with a reasonable setup, they have the performance of the base displacement. My Sky Redline is this way. Even with the GMPP calibration, you have to get it up in the RPMs to find that extra HP. Off the line it feels an awful lot like a 2.0L 4 cylinder. Yes, a TT setup would help this and spool up faster. But not like a SC.

Customer perception is a big deal with US carmakers and tending to that perception and building confidence is common practice now. This is one of the major changes I have seen over the last 10 years that really comforts me.... and it comes from all three houses. If the average buyer were to read our last few post just on this subject, I'm afraid they wouldn't be able to follow. Even if that is true, at least car companies are making the right choices for them and attempting to educate that base.

The slower acceleration from a T or TT is absolutely correct, There will never be a turbo system to mimic a superchargers low end. I mentioned a few post ago that a turbo would indeed help a vehicle that has traction issues, accelerating just as the base engine would and spool at mid/high RPMs. This would be a great thing for the current GT500 with the current axle/tire combo...

2) A TT set up is not cheap or light weight. Two turbos and a charge air cooler aren't cheap by a long shot. And the mass alone approaches that of the NA larger displacement alternative.

Quoted for truth, a TT V6 would not be worth it unless it completely eliminated the V8 option.

3) Unless you can do something like BMW and put the turbos in the valley, packaging two turbos is a nightmare. You can't simply say "I'm adding two trubos".

The valley setup is the best option for a twin turbo setup. In fact, it was GM I believe that actually pionneered the valley turbos... but, Ford snatched it up and pushed it to market... Currently, the 6.7 powerstroke uses a turbo. As you can see below, the VT eliminates the intake manifolds so a Direct Injection fuel system would be optimal...

4) Heat - and this is simply adds to the packaging issue. You now have two very hot things under the hood that you can't rout hoses or wires around. And for the FST application, if you are towing up a hill or hauling large loads, a TT is a heat rejection nightmare.

Again, I agree... The only two feasible options are the valley set up (pictured above) and the Tranny straddle (I posted a couple post back). There will be advancements in cooling just as there were with a supercharger and I am excited to see what those may be. Turbo's will most likely always run hotter than an S/C mostly due to the high RPM in which it can operate vs. the limited range of a supercharger... Turbo's are very high rev friendly so the trade off is tolerable.

5) Unless you are in a market that has a displacement based tax structure (China for example) a TT just puts you on top of naturally aspirated and cheaper alternatives. I would imagine a NA Coyote is cheaper than a TT Ecoboost. So why would you want to give the customer two choices in your assembly plant and offer them the chance to pay more??

I still agree, a TT V6 and a NA 5.0 will not offer a wide enough spread when horsepower, torque and fuel milage are concerned. Cost will fluctuate depending on how long the engine has been to market and how broadly it is used acrossed the fleet.. But it still doesn't change my mind about the previous factors we agreed on...

6) FE - if you need a FE alternative, then a TT V6 "can" be a better choice than a V8. In Ford's FST application, the TT gets you 15/21 while the naturally aspirated V6 gets you 16/21. But the TT provides the HP of the 5.0L NA and also better torque. So this is ideal "marketing" play. Problem is the TT V6 costs a lot more than the 3.7 or 5.0 L NA engine.

Truth...

7) There may be overall Ford issues at play here. First, they may have to create volume for the 3.5L TT. They may not be selling as many in the Taurus or Lincoln as they might need to keep the line running. So there are cases where adding volume in a P/U for example or a Mustang might be a better overall business situation for Ford. This is why low volume engines work well for a facility like Wixom. You aren't forced to add volume just to keep a line running efficiently.

Now your just trying to give me more homework.. The 3.5L is being used in other applications but it would take me some time to peel that banana... I would have to find just how many 3.5 equipped models are being sold and produced at what cost, then repeat that process with the 3.7.. It will give me something to do though...

8) A TT V6 can be a wonderful solution. But the more cost effective one is simply a larger displacement NA engine. But as we go forward in a world of CAFE and emissions laws around the world, T and TT engines will be more and more popular to REPLACE those larger NA engines.

Its CAFE that is causing all of this more than just brand vs. brand competition.. and I really don't feel like mucking up this conversation with idiocy.. Don't get me wrong though, those standards have forced our US companies into great decisions but I doubt they will stop there...

9) So for Ford? A TT 5.0 would be a replacement for the 5.4 SC engine. Not an addition. But packaging a DOHC TT in a car the size of the Mustang will be a real engineering challenge for Ford, which I know they can do.

A Twin Turbo 5.0 would be a direct replacement for the outgoing 5.4. It wasn't so bad when Ford Australia was using the 5.4 but the EURO4 standards (CAFE downunder) has made the 5.4 unusable. Now that Ford's trucks are going up to 6.2's and 5.0's, that makes the GT500 the only vehicle that uses it.. and if that isn't bad enough, the transmission used is a transmission produced by an outsourced company, Tremec. I'm not saying Tremec is a bad company because that is not the case. So, the 5.4 is no longer global, is limited to just a single model, uses an outsourced transmission and is ridiculously cost inefficient. I love the 5.4 and it will no doubt become immortalized in the pages of the Ford Racing catalog for those who can afford it.. But, the Mustang IS NOT a Corvette, single applications of exotic hardware should not be used regardless of its low production volume... It begins to separate the vehicle from its roots and ultimately, out of the hands of those who ensured the continued existence of the car.... that in which were its fans...

Edit: If some of my post is unreadable or hard to follow I apologize.. I am currently medicated...

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Darkflow

But the questions are, how long will the motor last at that hp level and does that package upgrade to forged internals? Is the car daily driven or a weekend/garage queen/track car only? Need to keep those kind of things in mind. Im sure some ZL1 owners will daily drive the car, others will keep it a weekend/track car.

When horsepower reaches a certain level, the engine, regardless of make or model, will be limited in one way or another. Just supercharging (or any kind of forced induction) an engine decreases the life span. Everytime you upgrade a single piece of the engine, another weak link will surely come to light. This doesn't necessarily mean that weak link will even be any of the engines nomenclature but could occur somewhere else within the drivetrain. For example, what is thought to be the weak link in the 5.0? The clutch... upgrade the clutch? now its the two piece driveshaft.. and so on... The GT500 is almost bullet proof but in the end... the tires fail... Just because something isn't forged doesn't mean it can't get down to business. Can the LSA support 1000hp? I doubt it... but the cost to achieve 1000hp would have made the LS9 a better base to start with in the first place. Manufacturers have to balance quality and affordability with the soul intention of getting a great car in our hands at a reasonable price...

[Darkflow]

^^ Yea i know and understand all of that. What im trying to get at is alot of these guys want this engine to push more then 550hp. Which is fine but what kind of hp can this engine really handle? We dont have enough info to see just what this engine can handle and how long its been running at that level of hp. So why push it? around the 550hp rating is plenty enough IMO.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Darkflow

^^ Yea i know and understand all of that. What im trying to get at is alot of these guys want this engine to push more then 550hp. Which is fine but what kind of hp can this engine really handle? We dont have enough info to see just what this engine can handle and how long its been running at that level of hp. So why push it? around the 550hp rating is plenty enough IMO.

They also have to take into consideration that the transmissions have maximum torque ratings. The TR6060 MG9 (Manual) is rated at 560ft lbs and the possible Hydra-matic 6L90 MYD is rated at 550ft lbs. GM won't want to push it beyond that...

[hairtrigger]

Originally Posted by thePill

They also have to take into consideration that the transmissions have maximum torque ratings. The TR6060 MG9 (Manual) is rated at 560ft lbs and the possible Hydra-matic 6L90 MYD is rated at 550ft lbs. GM won't want to push it beyond that...

However,,, there is a whole world out there pushing Powerglides, TH350's 2004R's 700R4's TH400's 4L80E's way beyond that in the drag racing world.
Those are GM transmissions and they know a thing or two.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by hairtrigger

However,,, there is a whole world out there pushing Powerglides, TH350's 2004R's 700R4's TH400's 4L80E's way beyond that in the drag racing world.
Those are GM transmissions and they know a thing or two.

What drag racers use in the drag racing world is irrelevant, I am talking about a car manufacturer that must uphold any warranties if and when a failure occurs. Besides, you will probably find that those transmissions that are widely used in drag racing has had extensive gear set upgrades to handle the torque. Rarely will a drag racer run a stock transmission...

[nak3dsnake]

Originally Posted by thePill

They also have to take into consideration that the transmissions have maximum torque ratings. The TR6060 MG9 (Manual) is rated at 560ft lbs and the possible Hydra-matic 6L90 MYD is rated at 550ft lbs. GM won't want to push it beyond that...

Actually, according to GM powertrain the max for the TR6060 MG9 is 600 lb/ft and the Hydra-matic 6L90 MYD is 885 lb/ft. Manual doesn't have much more wiggle room, but that auto sure does.

[sixty9fordkiller]

Love it! The car hasn't even came out yet and already trolls from other brand enthusiasts are preaching about what it will and will not do.