Road and Track
- Thread starter Apollo
- Start date
![20170707_232636[1].jpg](https://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/data/attachments/34/34539-6c8aae30e21ae635abcf79ee74cb1efd.jpg?hash=bIquMOIa5j "20170707_232636[1].jpg")
texas mongrel
GT Owner
Their instrumented data seems slow - zero to sixty in 3.2 and the quarter in 11.1. I'd put money that its quicker, sub-three and mid/high tens
Those tests were done at about 4500 feet and probably on tires that had been thrashed by countless Utah track drives and using 91 octane west coast gas. I'm sure that a lower altitude test on fresh rubber will yield better results.
Chip
Cobrar
GT Owner
Disappointed in R&T; my understanding was that instrumented testing was specifically excluded from the media ride/drive by agreement as part of the baseline product evaluation. Everyone looking for an edge in 'journalism' I suppose. Quite a bit different than the relationship that R&T 'enjoys' with GM. I look forward to an early evaluation by Popular Science on the new mid-engine 'Vette.
Sinovac
GT Owner
I would take these "instrumented" test results with a grain of salt. Look no further than the braking distances. The measured distances are about what you would expect from a sedan. Seriously?
maxemus
GT Owner
maxemus
GT Owner
Surely Ford has done these tests and can challenge this in the media. Wondering if their silence till now only serves to reinforce these results. For instance Porsche has just announced the GT2RS who has a 0-60 of 2.8. Why hasn't ford done something similar?
Sinovac
GT Owner
The GT's straight-line performance numbers won't be class leading given its weight, power, purpose and cars like the 720s. People hung up on these stats should look elsewhere.
Last edited:
FikseGTS
GT Owner
Sinovac
GT Owner
11.1X elapsed times were outliers for the 2005-2006 cars, and certainly not at 4,320' elevation where R&T conducted its "test."
New GT ran 130mph at this elevation.
Last edited:
Sinovac
GT Owner
:lol
From the article: "Note that these numbers were obtained at 4350 feet of elevation, which may have also cost time."
May have cost time?
It's really lousy to run an acceleration test at this elevation, particularly when they don't give the reader additional information to determine what the DA was at the time.
FikseGTS
GT Owner
I never trust any magazine numbers, they typically 'correct' them, and if they didn't' in this case, it would be pretty suspect.....
Sinovac
GT Owner
I agree. What's really egregious in this instance is that they weren't allowed to test the beater press cars at altitude in the first place and, even though they had all the information to correct the "test data" for sea level (barometric pressure, temperature, etc.), they didn't do so. It's a disingenuous way to present the data.
Anyway, I'll go out on a limb and say the car should run 10.8 or so at about 135 mph.
PeteK
GT Owner
Fine point: These engines are highly turbocharged, so altitude "should" not affect power. MAP (manifold absolute pressure) should be the same at sea level or altitude. That's one of the advantages of turbocharging and why it's used in airplanes. Maybe something in the Ecoboost design affects that general rule, but it shouldn't account for much of the difference. Now, the tires and 91 octane gas I'd expect to have some effect. For a car that's lighter than the 05-06, has better aero, and has about 100 more HP, it should handily beat the 05-06 in any power/speed matchup. Air temp would also have an effect--does anyone know if it was a particularly hot day?
One other thought, Ford may have put some limitations in the engine software to keep the inky wretches from wringing it out.
One other thought, Ford may have put some limitations in the engine software to keep the inky wretches from wringing it out.
Last edited:
LOVE CHP
GT Owner
Sinovac
GT Owner
Turbo FI engines are much less affected at altitude, but are affected nevertheless. If you look at the NHRA correction factors, you can see that at 4000' plus elevation, the correction can be significant.
Cobrar
GT Owner
Never underestimate the result of putting a $50K butt in a $500K seat. The intent was to expose 'media' to a car that othverwise doesn't need their review or input to be sold. It was merely an offer of goodwill that Ford didn't have to provide. As they say, a good deed never goes unpunished.