I don't care how you define performance -- doing zero-to-60 in 3.5 seconds is damn quick! That's the number we just got out of the long-term Ford GT after putting on a smaller supercharger pully, reflashing the ECU and installing a short shifter (we also put in a transaxle cooler and upgraded axle bolts, but those wouldn't affect acceleration). For the record, our "before" numbers, with the GT in stock condition, were zero-to-60 in 3.7 seconds and the 1/4-mile in 11.8 @ 124 mph. The "after" numbers we got yesterday were zero-to-60 in 3.5 seconds and the 1/4-mile in 11.6 seconds @ 126.3 mph...
That's the good news. The bad news is that we had some clutch slippage. It's possible our initial launch techniques were causing the slippage, and after a cool-down period we got the above numbers without any slip. But on a second try (shown above) the slippage returned after the 1-2 upshift. Now that it's had a complete cool-down overnight I'm ready to re-try its performance under full-throttle launches. But after 10,000-plus miles, and with it now making over 600 rear-wheel horsepower, the GT might simply need a new (or even an upgraded/aftermarket) clutch. We'll be watching this closely and let you know.
Karl Brauer, Editor in Chief, Edmunds.com @ 10,840 miles
jriz says:
04:06 PM, 10/16/07
It would seem that ol' ENZOBTR may soon be beaten, or at least matched by a Nissan GT-R. Thoughts?
SubyTrojan says:
04:55 PM, 10/16/07
LOL! Time for an AWD Ford GT! Make it an Inside Line project car and write it off! I suppose you can try to source mid-engine AWD drivetrain parts from a Lambo as a start. And when all is said and done, you could write it all off as a company expense! Hehehe
johnnyturbo says:
07:34 PM, 10/16/07
I dunno, I think I'd be pretty happy with a 3.7 0-to-60 and an 11.8 quarter. Maybe I'm getting old, haha!
Granted, I'm sure the mods fattened up the power band, but I'd still be curious as to what it cost to pick up 1/5th of a second in those performance yardsticks.
banhugh says:
07:50 PM, 10/16/07
So the clutch is burned down after 10k miles. I guess someone had too much fan with the car, or someone was just learning to drive manual on a Ford GT!!!
BTW, How much HP did you gain with the upgrades?
actualsize says:
07:21 AM, 10/17/07
I wouldn't go around bagging on the launch technique.
The GT just had 60 or so horsepower added to it, but its clutch is part of a drivetrain designed and tested around the original factory output. And it's an experienced clutch at that.
When you add upgrades like this, to any car, the weakest link is bound to rear its ugly head. Sure it's easy to pop in a chip and change a pulley. But you can break stuff if you don't beef up the insides to match.
SubyTrojan says:
10:17 AM, 10/17/07
^ Listen to this man. He knows what's up!
estreka says:
01:55 PM, 10/17/07
My old stage IV clutch (4-puck) only lasted 10,000 miles. That thing was hard to drop, though. I felt like such an idiot launching at every single stoplight. The stage III (round plate) I've got now is much better. It's lasted me 30,000 miles so far, and still isn't showing signs of fatigue.
Just some thoughts for when you buy your next clutch.
editor_karl says:
03:19 PM, 10/17/07
"It would seem that ol' ENZOBTR may soon be beaten, or at least matched by a Nissan GT-R. Thoughts?"
We'll see. Chevrolet was claiming the Z06 was a 3.7-second car in all the pre-launch advertising -- and indeed at least one magazine, with a "creative" correction factor, got that out of one -- but the other dozen-plus tests I've seen put it around 3.9-4.1.
BTW, that same magazine that got a 3.7 out of a Z06 got a 3.3 out of a STOCK Ford GT...