6654ae No.2330
so…….?
6654ae No.2331
9c4f5c No.2332
>New Ford gt
>V6
9c4f5c No.2333
Seriously, it looks awesome. Mericas back to kicking ass and taking names.
The new acura nsx was also reavealed today
7b48d3 No.2334
looks great but the V6 disappoints me, and at 700HP or so it will probably have a hard time competing with the 2016 Z06/ZR1 especially at the 185K price point
af488e No.2337
Only 600 HP? The 2015 Z06 can do 650.
6654ae No.2338
There must be something wrong with me, im a young guy, 18 to be exact and i think it's pure shit… serious
yeah it has great technology in it, good quality build and all that but still pure shit… like a tesla
09241c No.2340
God, it's so fucking terrible.
It's for softies.
>full plush interior (see: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ford-gt-detroit-auto-show-2015-2015-1)>V6>only 600 hp>mushier stylingIt's like West Coast Customs got an Ford GT and decided to 'remix' it.
6654ae No.2341
>>2340it looks like some poverty children's toy
you know the sub-par toy company that copies the quality toy company but in the end still a kid's toy
I legit thought it was a joke at first
looks like a car from GTA/Watch dogs etc…
35545a No.2342
I don't understand why its a dual clutch transmission. Dual clutch transmissions are banned by the ACO so it cant be used at lemans. Why couldn't it be a stick shift or a sequential with a clutch pedal?
bff6e8 No.2344
File: 1421185673525.jpg (1.93 MB, 3814x2498, 1907:1249, Alfa_Romeo_8C_2,3_l_Kompre….jpg)
why is it that every auto company has forgotten that high cylinder count and low displacement engines exist
pic is a 2.3l Inline 8
c0c8fc No.2349
>>2344its just like how in f1 they act as if 2.4 liter v8s are enormous and archaic.
that said, its extremely unpopular to have balanced high cylinder count engines because crash homologation and transverse front wheel drive make them fit in a very small number of cars.
bff6e8 No.2351
>>2349>Volvo found a way to mount an I6 transverselyVolvo will become the best automotive company, calling it now
e9237e No.2355
Its very cool. I'll be seeing it in person next week
c1df14 No.2357
Ford announced that they will discontinue the V-8 in all their future vehicles
>yfw the great american v8 is kill
bff6e8 No.2359
>>2357>v8 is killthe worst part is, the V6 is whats replacing it.
e9237e No.2361
>>2357what are you talking about?
c1df14 No.2365
09241c No.2372
>>2365Holy fucking hell. It's the 80's all over again. RIP motoring, RIP ford, fuck everyone.
At least based Chrysler is still shitting out absurd displacement engines for the time being.
bff6e8 No.2377
>Cadillac is making 6.2L 640hp supercharged sports sedan in 2016
>ford cant even manage to put a v8 in their high performance car
is this some kind of sick joke?
7b48d3 No.2378
>>2365Fucking Ford
>if Ford does this, it could become more acceptable for GM and Chryslerpls no
bff6e8 No.2379
>>2378all we can hope for is that ford sales dip low enough when 2018 F-150 comes out that they remember "there is no replacement for displacement"
7db87f No.2382
>>2338>There must be something wrong with me, im a young guy, 18 to be exact and i think it's pure shit… seriousBeacuase it is shit.
>Ford>technologyEverything about it looks wrong too. Where's the wedge? Why does it look so anemic in the middle?
Where's the fastback? Fuck me if the back end doesn't look like the before shots in a Korean plastic surgery magazine.
It doesn't even have go-fast stripes.
44405c No.2419
>>2365"source"
Wow, it's fucking nothing.
c0c8fc No.2422
>>2419I wanted to think the same, but lately I've been really torn up about how right the rumors have been. like how they kept reporting on the ford gt and then it actually happened. I fear that this means they (the shitty corrupt automotive press) will be right about the negative shit.
44405c No.2428
>>2422The best performing US brand couldn't give up the V8 unless the v6 turbos or diesels are up to the task.
5331d9 No.2436
>>2365http://www.carscoops.com/2015/01/ford-official-we-will-not-drop-v8-from.html
>CS: Why did you go with an EcoBoost V6 on the new GT and the Raptor?
>PS: The compact nature (along with its exceptional power density) of the EcoBoost V-6 in the all new Ford GT was a key factor that allowed the exceptionally narrow rear canopy, a key design and aerodynamic element of the car. The EcoBoost engine in the all-new Raptor will produce more power and torque than the 6.2-liter V-8 it replaces with improved efficiency. c0c8fc No.2437
>>2436PEAK POWER. Holy shit, I'm going to have an embolism from this shit. The torque curve of the 6.2 liter v8 is way flatter than that of the v6, by way of natural aspiration, and engine configuration. peak power is a nasty way to measure engines that go into mass market applications (how often is your engine between peak torque and redline?). Turbo charged engines are also a heck of a lot heavier
28ab67 No.2442
>>2436>The compact natureFucking ford, implying a Twin Turbo V6, that has a turbo sitting on each side, is somehow narrower than a V8. Peek under a 3.5 F-150 and you'll see you can just about get a finger in between the turbine housing and the frame on the passenger side, and not much more on the Josh's side. That 60 degree V with turbos isn't any narrower than a 90 degree V Coyote
c0c8fc No.2443
>>2442thank you for speaking truth
5331d9 No.2445
>>2437>>2442not trying to shill for Ford, just providing a counter-source
c0c8fc No.2447
>>2445i understand, you just posted what they said. makes sense.
f0d10c No.2448
>>2365Well, pressure from GM with the Z28 and Z06 might make them rethink that.
44405c No.2494
>>2437Except that until the last year or so not a single gas v8 on the market delivered the torque @rpm that the ecoboost could.
Regarding weight, the Ecoboost 3.5 in the 5.5ft syleside single cab weighs 57lbs more than the 5.0.
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/view-all/The 2011 delivers about the same amount of torque until 1500rpm where the turbo completely eclipses the v8.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html>>2442The turbos are probably below the valve covers, unless you've got pictures of the powerplant that I haven't seen you have no idea where they put them. Further, with only 6 cylinders the end of the engine is closer to the passenger bulkhead which means they can taper the rear more aggressively.
ITT: people hate turbos for some raisin
d7541a No.2503
>>23441.3l v12 single turbo
d7e990 No.7621
Should have a twin turbo engine
A "voodoo" with twin scroll turbines
10e202 No.7641
It's a v6tt, weights 2900lbs, has an amazing design, and it costs 400,000k.
They fucked up by going with a v6tt and the price is absurd.
100674 No.7644
>>2494
I don't hate turbos, I just hate it when people get retarded about them.
>Pic is a 3.5 ecoboost
See the width
5d77b4 No.7648
God damn Ford stop trying to be like a foreign auto company and go back to making obnoxiously loud cars and trucks that go fast in a straight line.
57d969 No.7655
File: 1450538963206.jpg (389.16 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1966-ford-gt40-cars-widesc….jpg)
>>7648
You're playing, right?
ff493c No.7662
I've seen it IRL.
You can't really see those huge aerodynamic streamholes on photos, but they're really awesome.
Looks is 10/10
8ab284 No.7836
>>2344
Consider for a moment the amount of machining required in manufacturing a 2.3L I8 compared to a 2.3L I4 and you might see why no one in their right mind would attempt it.
8dd6cc No.7988
>>2365
>horsepower kings
faggot