Talk:Ford GT90

Can anyone confirm this car's "alleged" performance figures??

I find it absolutely ridiculous that Ford claims a car designed & built in 6 months, basically as an amalgamation of different sports cars in the world, produced a top speed of 409km/h (253Mph) and 702 brake horsepower.

That would put it a stone's throw away from the SSC Ultimate Aero TT, the fastest current production car in the world with a top speed of 413km/h (outputting 787Hp); which is nothing short of extraordinary for a car made its debut in 1995. Not to mention, also outdoing the Bugatti Veyron, which developes 300 more horsepower than the GT90. It would also mean the McLaren F1 was not the fastest car in the world from 1998-2006.

Funny how no one can seem to corroborate this but Ford. I saw a recent episode on Top Gear where Jeremy Clark said he test drove this car and it couldn't even break the 40Mph mark and handled like a go-cart.

123.200.239.165 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My Link

Why does my link keep being removed if it is a really great source for GT90 information. This is really annoying and I want to know why it is being removed. Get it back as the Wikipedia page only tells half the story.

http://www.geocities.com/frdgt90/fordgt90

P.S., it is going ad-free in a few months so please stop this nonsense by removing my links.

Engine

The engine, which now sees duty in Aston Martins, was not from two V-8s, but rather from two V-6s welded together. Though I'm not 100% sure, I think I saw that in another article. Also makes more sense. Also, I remember that the power output was 720 bhp, not 900 bhp. If it's ok with everyone, I'll change it and someone can correct it if I was wrong, but please do cite your sources first. Here are mine: http://www.ucy.ac.cy/ucy/cc/vassilis/cars/gt90.html http://www.supercars.net/VC?id=695 http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/gt90.html http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z408/default.aspx --Cirilobeto 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Two straight 6s cut & welded together...or it would have been a W12 engine!

No, if you put two V6 engines next to each other you can have both possibilities a V12 or W12, depending on how you place them together. --Cirilobeto 23:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They didnt "put two V6 engines next to each other"...they combined two rows of six cylinders.Arwengoenitz 08:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned below, the engine is not the same as the Indigo/Aston engine. It *is* a 90-degree, sourced from two V-8's.--Eljamoquio 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt make sense...if you split a V8...you have two banks of four...putting them together makes a V8 again...not a 12 like the GT90 has!Arwengoenitz 09:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No one said that you split them exactly in half. You take two cylinders out of each V8 and voila: you have two V6 engines that you then put together to form a V12. --Cirilobeto 21:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So they lobbed off two from each then connected them end-to-end? So why doesnt it say that in the article? Its confusing as "Two V8s" equates to 16 cylinders!Arwengoenitz 22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The block was welded together out of one block that had 3.5 cylinders and one block that had 2.5 cylinders. The two were welded, machined, and had a new sleeve installed. Saying that two cylinders were cut off of each is not correct.

--Eljamoquio 15:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why not leave the whole mention of the engines unique construction out till someone who was there steps forward and says for sure...as it appears everyone is just guessing! The fact that theres this much discussion on such a relatively simple thing speaks volumes.Arwengoenitz 11:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have stepped forward, given a reference (actually three if you read this whole article), and have said 'for sure'. The engine block was welded from two engines, one with 3.5 cylinders and the other with 2.5 cylinders. --Eljamoquio 02:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Engine

I don't know where those sources get their information, but it's wrong. I don't know if I can find a source that is correct. I'll look.--Eljamoquio 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Read below --Cirilobeto 05:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Official Documenation

I'm no good at writing articles but here is valid information to use and a good site to reference (if it is unreachable, try copying and pasting it to a browser): http://www.svt.ford.com/flash/concept_pdf/SVEGT90.pdf

Personally, I think the other two referenced sites should be removed--they are unprofessional and not cited.

The 911 bhp upgrade could be all rumor but supposedly, if the vehicle were to be made market ready, an upgrade to 911 bhp would be offered from the standard 720 bhp.

I'll have to dig for a book that has more detailed information about concepts...the very last being the 1995 Ford GT90 Concept...

About how the engine was created, the UCY site above is the one I've always seen (two Mark VIII V8 blocks with two cylinders chopped off and vacuum welded together to create V12) but, it doesn't add up:

4.60L (capacity of the Romero V8) x 0.75 (chopping off 2 cylinders) = 3.45L

3.45L x 2.00 (because two were used) = 6.90L

I know boring out an engine block is quite common but shrinking a block and by almost a whole liter? It makes me wonder.

Ford V8's went from 221 cubic inches to 302 in the same external dimensions; Chevy from 283 to 400; AMC from 290 to 400. There's about 60 cubic inches in a liter.--Eljamoquio 03:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"The sole car is now a museum piece." -- What evidence is there of this?

Not sure where you saw that but, I personally believe that how many still exist and where they are is data not in the public domain. It would be best not to mention them unless the owner(s) come forward in some statement claiming they own them. 74.33.156.89 11:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This was a show car, not a production car. Ford did not make 'many'. I had deleted the 'museum piece' part because it was not documented.--Eljamoquio 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, here is all the information that book I mentioned before contains: 1995 Ford GT90

The Ford GT90, powered by a 6.0-liter, 720-horsepower, V12 engine, is not likely to see a suburban driveway anytime soon. Too bad. The supercar was developed however, to showcase Ford's product development capabilities and to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the famed GT40 race car, which won four straight at LeMans in the late 1960s. Like its GT40 predecessor, the GT90 featured a monocoque body. Honeycomb aluminum and fibreglass served as reinforcing materials, and the body was skinned in composite material. A "bird cage" greenhouse structure--with carbon-fiber trim and an all-glass surface that enclosed the cockpit--was the standout feature. The GT90 featured a deployable rear anti-lift spoiler that could be set at the appropriate optimum angle for wind deflection and an underbody aerodynamics shield that provided superior high-speed stability at speeds in excess of 150 mph. The interior included exposed shifter linkages, floating instrument pods, machined pedals, and matrix floor panels. So as not to be too uncivilized, the vehicle also featured a ten-speaker stereo with minidisk changer. Other GT90 features included an infrared blind-spot detection system, racing-style seats with four-point belts, multi-beam, high-intensity-discharge headlamps, and ion-charged taillights. And, oh . . . the 720 horsepower translated to about 235 mph.

Source: "Cars Detroit Never Built" by Edward Janicki. Published by Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. in 1995 at New York. 74.33.156.89 11:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Duratec vs. Modular

After further investigation from various source including Car and Driver, Road & Track, other wikipedia articles and google results, I'm pretty sure the engine is a derivative of the Duratec family. This engine has the same specs as the V12 from the Aston Martin Vanquish. And it has also seen duty in the DB7 Vantage. The engine was also used for the Ford Indigo concept without the turbos. You can also find some information on the List of Ford engines article of wikepedia. While it is not exactly two V6 engines welded together, it does share many components with the Duratec V6 from the Ford Taurus, and the total displacement is 5.9L (5935cc).--Cirilobeto 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I guarantee that your sources are wrong. The GT90 engine was a 90-degree V12 based on a destroked 4.6L. It *was* exactly two engines welded together; after both had some of the engine cut off. The Aston Martin has nothing in common with the GT90 engine. The Aston Martin does share many components and dimensions with the Duratec. --Eljamoquio 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That destroked 4.6L would be a V8, probably from the "modular" family of engines. This brochure from the SVT Ford site http://www.svt.ford.com/flash/concept_pdf/SVEGT90.pdf mentions this, however it is wrong. They also mention that the Indigo had a 5.4L V12 (http://www.svt.ford.com/flash/concept_pdf/SVEIndigo.pdf), which is wrong and you can see that in engine pictures of the Indigo. The Indigo also had the 5.9L from the GT90. All the sources indicate that the GT90 engine was from two V6 engines. There is no point of chopping 2 cylinders off from two V8 engines to make it a V12.

Yes, the only 4.6L's Ford has made have all been modular. The 5.4L appears to be a typo; if you do the math the engine does work out to be (within marketing rounding error) 6.0L. They probably made a cut-and-paste error because 5409 cc's is the Ford 5.4L V8.

---

Please read this http://www.caranddriver.com/cars/3938/aston-martin-db7-vantage.html and this http://www.pistonheads.com/roadtests/index.asp?storyId=4471 . This indicates that the engine, while it is not two V6 bolted together, it does share components with the Duratec family. And while the GT90 engine may not be the same engine in the DB7, it is at least somewhat related. Please do show sources if you intend to continue this trend of the de-stroked 4.6L engine. --Cirilobeto 05:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The two engines really don't have anything to do with one another. The GT90 was a 90 degree V12, based off of the 4.6L. The Aston was a 60 degree V12, based off of the 3.0L. Your articles on the Vantage may or may not be correct but they aren't relevant. Please show me a verifiable, reputable site that shows an interview with a Ford employee, etcetera, that says it is based on the Duratec. I could agree to not mention what engine it's based upon, but you don't have verifiable information that it's the same engine in the Aston.

--Eljamoquio 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Believe me, I'm not trying to contradict you. But based on other sources, all I have found is that the engine does come from the Duratec family. I'll be on the lookout for information on this engine since you do have raised doubts on what I have always seen before. Sorry to be a prick on this, but do try to understand that I have seen many sources indicating what I know is true (or at least what I think it is). If I find sources indicating otherwise, be sure I'll change it myself and make the needed corrections on any other article. --Cirilobeto 08:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking, I'm 95% certain that the Car and Driver article from ~December of 1994 mentions that this is a Modular-based engine.

I was able to find copies of Autocar, Road and Track, and Top Gear which all verify the V-8 sourcing of the engine.--Eljamoquio 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was very convinient how I have November 1994 and January 1995 issues but December is missing. Well, anyway, I have been looking at a picture of the GT90's engine and I think I've seen the key element which you mentioned and I was unaware of. It is a 90º angle, as opposed to the Duratec's 60º. So yes, you're right. I also just saw the showcase of the GT90 in the game Need for Speed II, and it does mention it is from the Modular technology. I think I had been confused because the Indigo's engine is the one I read that it was Duratec derived and for some reason and basing it on the other sites that mentioned it, I had related the two as being the same engine, but they're not. Well, you always learn new things. So, I think it would be correct to say this is a Modular based engine. --Cirilobeto 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Should it have been two V8s with two cylinders chopped off each and vacuum welded together, as many sources suggest, it would have to be a 4.0L V8 or slightly smaller (bored out) in order to fit the bill. I'm bad with remembering various types of engines so I haven't a clue but maybe someone else does. 74.33.156.89 11:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The block did not have two cylinders chopped off of each, it had 3.5 cylinders on one and 2.5 cylinders on the other. The heads were chopped off with 3 cylinders on each. They were laser welded together if I recall correctly. The engine wasn't "bored out" of a smaller engine, it had the common Modular 90.2 mm bore. It did have a crankshaft with a smaller stroke, this would give it ~4.0L if it had been produced in V8 form, and gives it ~6.0L in V12 form.--Eljamoquio 15:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Carbon Fiber Panels

Carbon fiber panels were not used because of heat; most carbon fibers char, oxidize, whatever, at temperatures far lower than steels. I am going to delete the comment.--Eljamoquio 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi all,

Just noticed that the captions of the pictures are in past tense. I'm going to change these to present tense (e.g. "The GT90 uses blue halogen headlights" instead of "The GT90 used blue halogen headlights"). This seems like the overwhelingly common way to label pictures. Everyone cool with this? Jodamn 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)