The ultimate GT

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pebb
  • 22 comments
  • 1,164 views
Pebb

Pebb

Messages
16,737
England
Southampton, UK
Messages
Pebb--
Messages
Pebb
Source: AutoCar

25771022521.jpg


Ford might have stopped production of its GT retro supercar, but American tuning firm Roush will still provide you with an even more extreme GT.

Roush has applied its spanners to the GT and produced the GT 600RE, which, as the name suggests, packs 600bhp.

As well as the 50bhp upgrade, there's 532lb ft of torque at 3800 rpm (an increase of 32lb ft), a Tubi exhaust system, black powder-coated wheels and tinted glass. All for the bargain price of £141,000.

Only 10 GT 600REs are being produced, all made by Roush’s European division in Essex, and on sale exclusively at Avro Cars in Surrey.

You don't have to have the all-black 'Batman's weekend wheels' look of the GT pictured, either, although we think it adds to the car’s appeal. All the standard GT colours are available, and stripes are still an option, so there's really nothing stopping you.
 
Yup, I think thats the best looking GT in my view. I love the blacked out look. I went to the website for Avro Cars and got some better pics. (Clickable)


 
I cannot tell you how great the Cat in the Hat has become...

I hope he's right there between HKS and REAmemiya in the next GT.
 
Can't you do a pully-replacement on the 'standard' GT and bump it up to 600 BHP? (I'm not up on Ford modifications...)
 
Yes YSS you can.

And this thing is just beautiful. I love the all black look.

My approval rating: 98% - Needs more power to get that extra 2%
 
Seems a bit too expensive for an extra 50bhp. How much is/was a standard Ford GT with options? Around $170k? 141k gbp is around $280k US. That's a $100,000 more.
 
I am going to be heading down to that dealership on Tuesday, so I try and get as many photos as possible.
 
Why do you think they are only making ten? That gives them a reason to charge crazy amounts for it just because it will be "rare".
 
YSSMAN
Can't you do a pully-replacement on the 'standard' GT and bump it up to 600 BHP? (I'm not up on Ford modifications...)
Click to expand...

GT's dyno between 520 and 550 whp, putting them near 600hp stock.
From Motor trend:
112_0512_Right_Stuff_30z_Ford_GT_Horsepower_Chart.jpg


112_0512_Right_Stuff_31z_Ford_GT_And_Dodge_Viper_Coupe_And_Chevrolet_Corvette_Z06_Horsepower_Chart.jpg


Anyway, heffnersperformance.com offers a 750 hp package for only $10,000
 
That "loss" isn't quite accurate. They are meauring the "loss" from brake horsepower to actual WHEEL horsepower. They need to correctly add the drivetrain loss % to the brake horsepower number THEN publish it. I do agree that Ford has (and always will) under-rate their higher end sports cars (and in this case supercar). The '03/'04 Cobra was a prime example. Rated at 390bhp but the actual whp was around 375~385--which at a conservative 25% drivetrain loss that puts it over 450bhp at the crank. Which would explain why '03/'04 Cobras keep up with the ZO6's of that year.

*edit*
Oh and I love the insane amount of drivetrain loss on the SRT-10. It makes my day.
 
What dyno was Motortrend using?

It's not actually an insane amount of loss. 12% loss probably means that it's stated just right.

The Corvette's loss indicates that the stock figures are understated, too.

It may be possible that the Ford's power is overstated to ensure that people aren't too disappointed in hotter climes. Stock forced induction motors tend to under-read a bit in this country.
 
JCE3000GT
That "loss" isn't quite accurate. They are meauring the "loss" from brake horsepower to actual WHEEL horsepower. They need to correctly add the drivetrain loss % to the brake horsepower number THEN publish it. I do agree that Ford has (and always will) under-rate their higher end sports cars (and in this case supercar). The '03/'04 Cobra was a prime example. Rated at 390bhp but the actual whp was around 375~385--which at a conservative 25% drivetrain loss that puts it over 450bhp at the crank. Which would explain why '03/'04 Cobras keep up with the ZO6's of that year.

*edit*
Oh and I love the insane amount of drivetrain loss on the SRT-10. It makes my day.
Click to expand...

The average drivetrain loss for FR cars is about 13-15%, meaning he viper is about where it should be, though a little overated in torque.
 
Well actually the going price for a delivery milage well spec'd Ford GT in the UK seems to be £134,950. Avro themselves have a couple of 'standard' GT's for this price. An extra £6k for those mods doesn't sound too bad to me.
 
super cirrus
The average drivetrain loss for FR cars is about 13-15%, meaning he viper is about where it should be, though a little overated in torque.
Click to expand...

No no no, you are not getting what I was trying to say. Let me try again to explain why that pic is not accurate.
  • Automakers use brake horsepower for their cars and not wheel horsepower.
  • Motor Trend does a test to get the wheel horsepower not the brake horsepower.
  • Motor Trend then decides to compare the drivetrain loss of the wheel horsepower number to the manufacturer's claimed brake horsepower.
  • They do not compare the actual brake horsepower at the crank to the wheel horsepower. They compare the estimated brake horsepower to the actual wheel horsepower.

See what I was trying to say yet?

And I have seen cars with a 20%+ drivetrain loss. It does happen, and it is usually down to the transmission being crap.
 
JCE3000GT
And I have seen cars with a 20%+ drivetrain loss. It does happen, and it is usually down to the transmission being crap.
Click to expand...
No, it is down to the dyno software. I have seen 350Zs dyno from 190whp to 260whp and they are all actually making within 5 horsepower of each other. Mustang dynos will read really low, Dynapacks high, and Dynojets in the middle. Dynojets are the most common and also tend to vary the most.

For example, my 290hp Z spun the rollers to 231whp, and I think that was spot-on.
 
iceburns288
No, it is down to the dyno software. I have seen 350Zs dyno from 190whp to 260whp and they are all actually making within 5 horsepower of each other. Mustang dynos will read really low, Dynapacks high, and Dynojets in the middle. Dynojets are the most common and also tend to vary the most.

For example, my 290hp Z spun the rollers to 231whp, and I think that was spot-on.
Click to expand...

dynojets are sopposed to be pretty bad,a tuner in scotland got one and he was getting 4wds with 5% tranmission loss and wouldnt admit they werent set up right :lol:
 
Dynapacks only read high compared to Mustang dynos, simply because Mustang dynos read low. Dynapacks, in general, have more repeatable results, simply because you're eliminating roller friction, wheel slippage, camber effects (camber can add 5-10 hp, don'tcha know...), and poor tie-down effects (another 5-10 hp...).

Besides wheel slippage, with extreme power and slippage generating heat, you get low readings from sticky tires adhering to the rollers, causing even more friction.

Mustangs claim to be realistic because they simulate real world conditions, yada yada yada... but if I wanted to know what my car did in the 1/4 mile, I'd go to the track to find out (which I will when my clutch is done). Dynapacks offer greater possibilities in terms of accurate tracking of power modifications.

The misconception that they read high comes from the fact that you take the wheels off. In general, a dynapack will read about 5-10 hp higher depending on wheel weight... but dynapack numbers are very, very repeatable between different locations.

I've dyno'd my car (futile, with the pathetic set-up I have, yes) on the Dynapack and a Dynojet. I read about 6 hp higher on the jet. What was even more surprising was that I was reading only 5 hp down from a car that, by all rights, should've had 10-15 hp more... and 10 hp down from a car that should have been putting down at least 20 hp more.

I went back to the Dynapack half a year later, and the readings from my mods were in line with the gains I expected from them at high rpm, and my low rpm readings (3 - 4k) where the mods wouldn't have changed the power (my variable intake manifold keeps the car from losing torque with big exhausts) showed an almost point for point parallelism.


(don't mind the crank estimate... the real numbers are 130 or so for the first set, and 138.4 whp for the second set... spot on for 155-160 bhp at 12-15% drivetrain loss.)

-----

The idea of comparing manufacturer's stated brake horsepower to dyno results is valid. Whether the engine delivers less power to the wheels because it's not as powerful as promised or because the transmission is crap (something us Mazda owners know only too well), it helps to know how well a vehicle delivers on its power promise, and how it stacks up against the competition.
 
JCE3000GT
No no no, you are not getting what I was trying to say. Let me try again to explain why that pic is not accurate.
  • Automakers use brake horsepower for their cars and not wheel horsepower.
  • Motor Trend does a test to get the wheel horsepower not the brake horsepower.
  • Motor Trend then decides to compare the drivetrain loss of the wheel horsepower number to the manufacturer's claimed brake horsepower.
  • They do not compare the actual brake horsepower at the crank to the wheel horsepower. They compare the estimated brake horsepower to the actual wheel horsepower.

See what I was trying to say yet?

And I have seen cars with a 20%+ drivetrain loss. It does happen, and it is usually down to the transmission being crap.
Click to expand...


motor trend did compare the actual bhp to whp (saying that the dyno showed the vette and GT made more bhp then theier respective factories claim) in the body of the story, but in the chart they only compared factory claimed bhp to whp. Don't ask me why.
 
super cirrus
motor trend did compare the actual bhp to whp (saying that the dyno showed the vette and GT made more bhp then theier respective factories claim) in the body of the story, but in the chart they only compared factory claimed bhp to whp. Don't ask me why.
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone understood me. lol I was starting to worry. :)
 

Latest Posts

Back