14.2 -Why so slow?

[93rev2sev]

Lot's of people seem to think that it SHOULD be much faster than that. Below is a list of possible reasons for it's seemingly slow ET predictions.

What are your thoughts?

Problem:
It's Heavy - At 4100+ pounds, you should not have a problem with straight line traction or torque steer. Even with twin turbos, from idle until the boost kicks in, it's a 3.5L engine. There's no replacement for displacement.

Solution - Obviously, lighten it up. I'm sure there's all kinds of weight to be found on this portly bull.

It's Automatic - With an automatic, comes a torque converter, with a torque converter, comes slippage. Like it or not, the torque converter will be slipping until it reaches some minimum RPM (does anyone know what kind of stall RPM we should expect?).

Solution - I imagine that the aftermarket will have a "High Stall" Torque converter that will bring 60' times down...and allow for more boost to build up before letting go of "the fat pedal on the left". And I would figure on the AWD system being able to keep the wheels on the ground even with higher low-end power numbers.

Problem: The "ECO" in ECOBoost.

Solution: Bigger turbos


Anyway, I just wanted to take a stab at solving problems that we don't even know exist.

 

[Devin]

Is this one they are estimating the base model or the one with the different gear ratios?

 

[nothingtoseehere]

It's the Haldex. Teh Volvo S60-R has the same issue.

 

[93rev2sev]

It's the Haldex. Teh Volvo S60-R has the same issue.

Please explain.

 

[nothingtoseehere]

A heavy FWD bias AWD system is not exactly ideal for 1/4 miles times. Then again, the SHO has NEVER been a 1/4 mile car. Shouldn't be hard to get the new one into the high 13's ... but on a large heavy car with a heavy FWD bias AWD system, 14.2 is not too shabby at all.

My concern so far with the new one is the failures the S60-Rs have experienced with the angle gear in the Haldex AWD system.

 

[hawkeye18]

Is that one of those failures that doesn't exist as far as ford is concerned, or have they acknowledged the problem?

 

[Vnuk1]

Mmmm I think most of the problem is with the weight. Also to reiterate what RCADDELL was saying it was not meant for the 1/4. If it were lightned a little more the 1/4 time would improve a bit more. 4100 lbs is quite heavy for a "Sport Sedan" even if it has Twin Turbos.

 

[ManySHOs]

It could be a combination of weight, gearing, transmission, the type of AWD system, tuning and more. I suspect that the turbos are somewhat small. They probably spin up quickly from idle but run out of steam up top.

There's something to be said about owning a single turbo car. Upgrading the turbo is much cheaper than buying two of everything!

Ian

 

[RonPorter]

Lot's of people seem to think that it SHOULD be much faster than that. Below is a list of possible reasons for it's seemingly slow ET predictions.

What are your thoughts?

Problem:
It's Heavy - At 4100+ pounds, you should not have a problem with straight line traction or torque steer. Even with twin turbos, from idle until the boost kicks in, it's a 3.5L engine. There's no replacement for displacement.

Solution - Obviously, lighten it up. I'm sure there's all kinds of weight to be found on this portly bull.

It's Automatic - With an automatic, comes a torque converter, with a torque converter, comes slippage. Like it or not, the torque converter will be slipping until it reaches some minimum RPM (does anyone know what kind of stall RPM we should expect?).

Solution - I imagine that the aftermarket will have a "High Stall" Torque converter that will bring 60' times down...and allow for more boost to build up before letting go of "the fat pedal on the left". And I would figure on the AWD system being able to keep the wheels on the ground even with higher low-end power numbers.

Problem: The "ECO" in ECOBoost.

Solution: Bigger turbos


Anyway, I just wanted to take a stab at solving problems that we don't even know exist.

First off, where do you get "lots of people"?? How about ONE unnamed guy at C&D made the comment.

Rather than retyping it, here's my response in another thread:

http://www.shoforum.com/showpost.php?p=1010809&postcount=14

I guess you aren't a SHO ATX guy. the Gen 3 ATX had a rather loose converter, and it sonds like this one does, too. With the fat part of the torque curve coming in at 1,500 rpm. good 0-60 times, sub 2.0 60' times, and 13-second ETs BONE STOCK will not be an issue.

Don't worry, it will kick the living crap out of 99% of the other SHOs out there in the quarter. And it will do a better 60' time than every SHO out there.

 

[Shoman594]

Ill go with 13.8

 

[SeanMc]

Go to the track, the fastest cars out there are autos. But like it's been said, even at 4100lbs, it's faster than most, dare I say it, boosted SHOs out there.

 

[RonPorter]

Go to the track, the fastest cars out there are autos. But like it's been said, even at 4100lbs, it's faster than most, dare I say it, boosted SHOs out there.

Not really.

In the Legacy GT world, 5MTs are quicker, as with SHOs and other small-engine, relatively-heavy cars.

When you get into the sub-12-second range, ATs are mainly used.

The whole trick is in the 60' time, which is where the new SHO will shine.

 

[yamahaSHO]

Go to the track, the fastest cars out there are autos. But like it's been said, even at 4100lbs, it's faster than most, dare I say it, boosted SHOs out there.

Although they'll be much more consistant, I don't think that a new stock SHO will be faster than any properly driven boosted SHO with over 6 PSI.

Only time will tell, but I'm sure we'll know this summer.

 

[38SHO]

I've questioned this number days ago...... someone posted it on here and I thought wtf?

I don't care if its 4100lbs, if it really has 365 or whatever HP, it should do better then a 14....

and lol @ the awd system, I guess it really wouldn't be a SHO without some kind of fear of spontaneous drivetrain combustion!

 

[93rev2sev]

First off, where do you get "lots of people"?? How about ONE unnamed guy at C&D made the comment.

Rather than retyping it, here's my response in another thread:

http://www.shoforum.com/showpost.php?p=1010809&postcount=14

I guess you aren't a SHO ATX guy. the Gen 3 ATX had a rather loose converter, and it sonds like this one does, too. With the fat part of the torque curve coming in at 1,500 rpm. good 0-60 times, sub 2.0 60' times, and 13-second ETs BONE STOCK will not be an issue.

Don't worry, it will kick the living crap out of 99% of the other SHOs out there in the quarter. And it will do a better 60' time than every SHO out there.

I said lots of people think it should be faster than 14.2. I never said lots of people think it WILL be 14.2 (although I'm in that pool). And no...I'm NOT an ATX guy in any way shape or form. Not in a SHO, Not in a SLO, Not in a vette, Not in a chevette, I do not like them, Sam I am.

 

[nothingtoseehere]

Not really.

In the Legacy GT world, 5MTs are quicker, as with SHOs and other small-engine, relatively-heavy cars.

When you get into the sub-12-second range, ATs are mainly used.

The whole trick is in the 60' time, which is where the new SHO will shine.

Agreed, with the R, the best times were achieved with the 6 speed MTs. Auto's somewhat caught up after 05, but MTs were still top dog, and still are I believe.

 

[AREA 91]

I wouldn't consider a 14.2 slow in ANY SHO. How many member's out there have actually ran a 14.2 or better at the drags? Not as many as you think.

 

[yamahaSHO]

For nearly $40k wrapped up in a twin turbo "Super High Output" car, I would consider a 14.x slow.

 

[mustangracer91]

I'll say it because nobody else has, do you honestly think they're going to build a sedan that's faster outta the box than their "head liner" car the mustang gt/cobras? Look at the quantity of factory cars produced that stock run 14 sec quarters...it's pretty slim, and usually it has shelby's name or a snake on it. Not saying it can't do better, but they aren't going to release a car that is a race prepped vehicle without a race prepped vehicle logo and price tag @ 60k+. This is a SPORTS SEDAN they're building this to sell, not be a museum piece. If they put out some porsche killer, guess what, it's gonna cost porsche prices and have high porsche insurance...don't forget guys, it's still a Taurus...it's just to edge into the AWD sport sedan market that scooby and audi's are doing, for less. I'm not saying it can't be tuned/built to do more, but they'd be idiots to make it any hotter out of the box.

 

[NEp8ntballer]

It could be a combination of weight, gearing, transmission, the type of AWD system, tuning and more. I suspect that the turbos are somewhat small. They probably spin up quickly from idle but run out of steam up top.

There's something to be said about owning a single turbo car. Upgrading the turbo is much cheaper than buying two of everything!

Ian

turbos do just fine up top. with the motor revving fast there's plenty of high speed exhaust gas to keep things moving along.