How would the SRT fair against the GT from 0-150?

[91ZR1#661]

I noticed in the MT test that the Viper edged out the GT in the quarter mile,
but they did not show the 0-150 figures.Which car would be quicker to 150?
Just curious!

 

[Paul Hawker]

Hard to tell. The GT will not be released for another 6 long months. MT only tested a pre production model. No way on knowing how high they had the boost turned.

I would expect the results to be close, with the Viper's superior torque being balanced by the GT's better aerodynamics.

Both are really fast cars in the 0-150 dash!

 

[SylvanSRT]

i'd bet it would be darn close

 

[DBK1]

If anyone knows the SRT time, the Ford GT time from 0-150 was tested to be 16.9 seconds. I wouldn't think the SRT would be able to match that, but I could be wrong. That's a pretty ridiculous time. C&D went on to say the GT hit 170 in a bit over 20 seconds. Yowza.

 

[Fast Freddy]

the new ford gt-44 has better tranny ratios and rear gearing as well as better aerodynamics for this type of endeavor. where do i sign

 

[DBK1]

Addendum...
Yeah, according to Car and Driver the GT hit 170mph in exactly 23.0 seconds, which is downright staggering. And I looked up the motor Trend speeding issue which produced a great 11.7 for the SRT quarter(which I think is a pretty sweet time regardless of driver) and still only got to 167 mph in 30.5 seconds. So that's a lifetime sized gap, not even close. I can't believe that the GT would haul that fast up to 170......unreal.

 

[Paul Hawker]

Gentlemen.
Please realize that the car used for these tests is not a production model. We will need to wait until the real car is produced. It is very very tempting for the engineers to turn up the boost to enhance the test results.
Nothing will be known for sure until the real cars come out next Summer.
I would be suprised to even see the CompCoupe match those enhanced numbers.

 

[DBK1]

Indeed. However, I would hope they wouldn't be dumb enough to back themselves into the corner by playing up strengths in a mag test they can't back up on the street. I think Colletti already backed himself into the corner with the whole "earthworm" thing, and as the GT got fatter and fatter, they probably had to load up on the boost to make good...

 

[SnakeEye]

Addendum...
Yeah, according to Car and Driver the GT hit 170mph in exactly 23.0 seconds, which is downright staggering. And I looked up the motor Trend speeding issue which produced a great 11.7 for the SRT quarter(which I think is a pretty sweet time regardless of driver) and still only got to 167 mph in 30.5 seconds. So that's a lifetime sized gap, not even close. I can't believe that the GT would haul that fast up to 170......unreal.

Not quite so fast ... Car and Driver has the GT listed at 500hp/500lb-ft with a curb weight of 3429lbs ... keeping those stats in mind it's almost certain the mule tested was a boosted-up ringer to accomplish a purported 128mph quarter and 16.9sec 0-150mph dash. Performance numbers between the SRT-10 and an actual production model GT may well be very close unless Ford is selling their darling sans warranty or has some other magic card to play. If in the end a perfomance gap exists, presumably DC will answer soon enough - no worries.

 

[doctorbob]

The GT is truly an interesting car. Tonight, I went to one of the local bar/restaurants here in Havasu...the Ford Proving Grounds are in Yucca and got to see two of the mules and one almost a production model of the GT. I just do not think I want one and talking to one of the Ford dealerships the cars will be at a premium to aquire. I would like to see the SRT coupe with the 625 h.p. engine shown on the carbon fiber SRT at the SEMA show in Vegas and see what an "earthworm" can do.

 

[Viperfreak2]

A ringer should be easy to spot by the car rags? Shouldn't it? All those fancy computers they use nowadays for accel runs....hell, even my little Gtech calculates HP and torque. If a 3400lb car can get to 150 in 23 seconds it takes X amount of HP. Simple. If Ford says 500 and the test puter says 650, you got a ringer.

 

[Supra]

I won't be surprised to see the production GT running as strong as the C&D test car. Ford underrated the power of both the Lightning and the Supercharged Mustang Cobra. They both dyno well above what they "should". I doubt the GT40 would be any different.

I do think that if the GT is this fast there will be a significantly more powerfull and faster Viper in the near future.

Gentlemen.
Please realize that the car used for these tests is not a production model. We will need to wait until the real car is produced. It is very very tempting for the engineers to turn up the boost to enhance the test results.
Nothing will be known for sure until the real cars come out next Summer.
I would be suprised to even see the CompCoupe match those enhanced numbers.

 

[Supra]

"Technically" it's only a "ringer" if the car supplied to the magazine is faster and more powerfull than what you can buy. If it makes more power than "advertised" it's just underrated. The Viper seems to be one such car! Who would have ever thought a car rated at 450 (GEN II) or 500 HP (SRT10) would be underrated?!?!?

A ringer should be easy to spot by the car rags? Shouldn't it? All those fancy computers they use nowadays for accel runs....hell, even my little Gtech calculates HP and torque. If a 3400lb car can get to 150 in 23 seconds it takes X amount of HP. Simple. If Ford says 500 and the test puter says 650, you got a ringer.

 

[Cobra4B]

SRT-10 would get killed because they ****... I kid, I kid!

Anyone know why the new GT is up to over 3400 pounds? That seems very high for what they were trying to do w/ the car. I thought it was supposed to be around 3000 lbs.

As for the tester being a ringer... I don't think for would be dumb enough to do this. They know that people are watching the performance numbers of this car VERY closely. Also, after the patheticness (down on horsepower)of the '99 Cobra and now the new Mazda RX-8, why the hell would they do that?

They might rate it at 500/500 b/c of insurance stuff like they rated the '03 cobra at 390 when they make almost that at the rear wheels. I hope the car makes some sick horepower. It's the same desgn as the '03 cobra powerplant so the easy performance gains of pullying down should be there and even more pronounced w/ the 5.4 liter engine. Seeing as an '03 4.6 can make 600 rwhp w/ a KB blower and bolt-ons, I could see 700 rwhp or more w/ the GT. That'd be pretty dang cool.

 

[VIPER D]

hello the svt cobra does not make 390hp to the tires it make 360 est to the rear wheels. my friend has one.

 

[SRT10]

See this months Motor Trend..

You must be registered for see images

See the Ford GT vs the Viper SRT

See the Viper SRT beat the Ford GT

See Ford GT Chief Engr,John Colletti, with foot in mouth!!

 

[Paul Hawker]

While the Ford GT is setting itself up to "beat" the Ferrari Modena, Ferrari just announced they will be upping the displacement in their Modena. Should be 450 Hp. Tough to fight against a moving target.

 

[SnakeEye]

See this months Motor Trend..

You must be registered for see images

See the Ford GT vs the Viper SRT

See the Viper SRT beat the Ford GT

See Ford GT Chief Engr,John Colletti, with foot in mouth!!

Bravo!!!

There is no replacement for displacement! Got cubes?

 

[Guibo]

Judging by the test with that preproduction GT, the Viper doesn't really stand a chance in the 0-150 contest against the Ford. C&D's 0-150 time was 22.4 for the SRT-10. Here's roughly how the two (and others) compare, using MT's numbers for the SRT-10:

You must be registered for see images

The data points are from various sources, from singular tests for each car. The trend lines are just "best guesses".

 

[Supra]

I have seen a 100% stock Cobra dyno 377 RWHP and heard of others over 380 RWHP. But even 360 RWHP is roughly 423 HP at the crank with a 15% loss.

Only time will tell with the GT of course.

hello the svt cobra does not make 390hp to the tires it make 360 est to the rear wheels. my friend has one.

 

[slaughterj]

hello the svt cobra does not make 390hp to the tires it make 360 est to the rear wheels. my friend has one.

Hello, that's the second dumb post I've seen from you in the same # of days. He said it was 390hp and that it made close to that at the rear wheels - 360 is close to that, and clearly shows the engine hp to be underrated.

 

[Makara]

hello the svt cobra does not make 390hp to the tires it make 360 est to the rear wheels. my friend has one.

Hello, that's the second dumb post I've seen from you in the same # of days. He said it was 390hp and that it made close to that at the rear wheels - 360 is close to that, and clearly shows the engine hp to be underrated.

It should be noted that all mustangs dyno the exact same power to the rear wheels. There is no difference between cars or dynos.

 

[Saleen-Explorer]

I have seen a 100% stock Cobra dyno 377 RWHP and heard of others over 380 RWHP. But even 360 RWHP is roughly 423 HP at the crank with a 15% loss.

Only time will tell with the GT of course.

Yup, one of my best friends had his at about 381 rwhp when stock.

As for the GT, I wouldn't be suprised if the GT was highly underrated. I think even the new Hot Rod mag, which is pretty much Chevy biased, thinks the real power is closer to 600. Roush supposedly dynoed one at around 540 rwhp but I'm sure we won't really now untill the final production hits, and I've seen people mention that Shebly alluded it to being closer to 600. If thats true, then Car and Drivers awsome numbers seem about right, while maybe the other test were done with a less finalized version, who knows.

But hell, for the money the Viper, and even the GT cannot be beat. Look at everything each has to offer and then compare it too cars costing way, way more money.

Exotic's just don't really do it for me, even though my neighbor has had a good experience with his 360 Modena untill the past couple of months when the car has been a pain in the ****, he's looking into maybe an SRT (his other Ferrari's were complete POS's and this is the last one he'll own, even cancelled his order for a Gallardo). I'd rather drive something with wicked performance, aka Viper or GT, and not worry about breaking down in the middle of nowhere, and know that daily use wouldn't even bother them.

 

[Snakester]

Thanks for the cool chart Guibo.

But if you look at the test results from the Road & Track testing (admittedly slower as always) the SRT-10 Viper is VERY close in performance to the Ford GT tested by them.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/3272003165231.pdf

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/11132003105848.pdf

And in this month's Car and Driver they actually tested the SRT-10 Viper and the Ford GT side-by-side, on the same track, on the same day.

And even though the $150,000+ Ford GT was a couple tenths of a second quicker than the $85K Viper from 0-60, and 0-100MPH, the Viper caught up, and was actually a hair quicker through the 1/4 mile!

It makes more sense to me that with the Viper and Ford GT both weighing about the same, and the SRT-10 Viper actually dynoing around 525HP/560TQ (crank) that the two cars would offer comparable performance even with the Ford GT being underrated as well.

But with the C&D test, it showed the 3400lb Ford GT to have similar acceleration as the $400K, 550HP/2750lb Saleen S7, the $350K, 550HP/2950lb Zonda, and the $450K, 612HP/3020lb Porsche Carrera GT.
Certainly, the Ford GT could get those numbers with it's heavier weight, but only if it was actually putting out around 600HP+ crank HP!

The ability of both the supercharged SVT Cobra and Lightning to be easily tweaked for much more power is well known.
But the real question is if the production Ford GTs will have the same 600HP+ as the later test cars, being massively underrated. With Ford tweaking the prototype Ford GTs to get great performance numbers for the Motor Trend and Car & Driver tests.
Or if Ford will produce the real factory Ford GTs with an actual 500HP (as rated) for reliability reasons.

Only time will tell for sure.

For me, I'd be happy if Ford does crank the Ford GT's actual power up to 600HP+, because (along with the upcoming 500HP+/sub-3000lb C6 Corvette Z06 due out) they will push DC to raise the HP, and drop the weight of the Viper as they did with the 3250lb/625HP+ SRT-10 Viper Carbon shown at SEMA recently.

-Dean.

 

[Frank 03SRT]

Something that I cannot understand about the C&D results:
--- the GT is quicker to 60, therefore leading the SRT,
--- but at the 1/4, the SRT is leading BUT at a SLOWER speed.

This means that somewhere along the way, the SRT took the lead, but at the 1/4, it is in the process of losing the lead because of lesser speed. That may mean that at 150, the SRT will trail. Could it mean that the SRT took a fairly large lead past 1/8, then drag started to take hold allowing the GT to catch up? Does this make sense?

 

[Guibo]

No problem, Snakester. Here's another one, with C&D test results for the Venom 600, LPE twin turbocharged Z06, LPE Viper GTS, plus the MT results for the stock SRT-10 and Z06 (done on the same day).

You must be registered for see images

Apparently, it takes a relatively mildly modded SRT-10 to beat this particular GT to 150 mph, by about .8 second. Knocking 6.3 seconds off the standard SRT-10's time in the process. Curiously, curb weight on that Venom 600 was listed at 2990 lbs...

Are you quite sure the head to head test between the SRT-10 and Ford GT is in the newest issue of C&D? I thought it was the one in Motor Trend, in which case they used the stats for the SRT-10 from their "Speeding!" article (6/03). If it's C&D, this would make it the same issue as the GT/360CS/GT3 comparo, right?

Interestingly, the Ford GT tested by C&D appears to be the same one used by R&T: red with white stripes, Michigan factory plates "112M20".
A note about the R&T stats for both of these cars:
The SRT-10 was tested at an elevation of 150 feet, under calm conditions. The GT was tested at 970 feet, with moderate winds. R&T doesn't make corrections for atmospheric conditions/elevation like C&D and MT do. The GT has benefit of forced induction, but that's still quite a discrepancy in elevation. And yes, the C&D stats indicate this particular GT is on par with the S7.

 

[Snakester]

You are right that the SRT-10 vs Ford GT face-off was in Motor Trend.

Does an 800ft altitude difference account for a 6 tenths and 5MPH difference in the 1/4 mile? Because otherwise that would be roughly an extra 80HP.

And it is interesting that the C&D test of the Venom 600 (with 610HP/600TQ) put it at the same acceleration as the quickest Ford GT and S7 tests (which would imply that the Ford GT was cranked up to 600HP).

Also the Motor Trend test of the 650 Venom put it quicker than the McLaren F1 and Ferrari Enzo with 0-60 in 2.99 seconds, and a 1/4 mile of 10.76@132MPH on street tires.

 

[V10 ICBM]

Hi all:
What is or expected to be the 0-150-0 time for an SRT-10 and Ford GT.

Since i get up there once a lap, how fast I get to 150 and then get down again is pretty important - in fact key to any dynamic driving on a track.

Just a track guy question -has it been published anywhere?

2000 GTS - steel grey V10 ICBM
smooth chrome tubes, corsa cat back, ballanger headers, 4-wheel stoptech.b

 

[Fast Freddy]

0-150-0 mph........ my money is on the gt. i bet the gt could do it in less than 30 seconds

 

[Bwright]

Final certification testing of the 2005 Ford GT's powertrain shows that the car's 5.4-litre DOHC supercharged V8 is producing an average of 550 horsepower and 500 lb.-ft. of torque - 50 more horsepower than preliminary estimates.