[crispy23c]

Check this out:

http://forums.bradba...ead.php?t=58790

This guy claims the 2009 Shelby GT350 will have a TT Cyclone 6 that will be in production for the Lincoln MKR:

"twin-turbo version of Ford's recently introduced 3.5-liter V6 with direct injection. Ford claims the MKR's motor makes 415 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque and runs on E85 ethanol. A version of this motor, called the TwinForce, will make it to production, but the double-throwdown chrome treatment it has received for auto show duty will not. It's a twin-turbo version of Ford's recently introduced 3.5-liter V6 with direct injection. Ford claims the MKR's motor makes 415 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque and runs on E85 ethanol. A version of this motor, called the TwinForce, will make it to production, but the double-throwdown chrome treatment it has received for auto show duty will not"

While I have my doubts about this, it should sure make for some sizzling discussions here. I thought...why not bring this up? So, what do you think?

For me, the jury is out until I learn more about this engine. The weight savings would be tremendous, and handling (all things equal) would probably be insane. Would I miss the V8? Sure would. But this opens new doors...

[emailcm]

crispy23c, on Jan 11 2007, 08:14 AM, said:

Check this out:

http://forums.bradba...ead.php?t=58790

This guy claims the 2009 Shelby GT350 will have a TT Cyclone 6 that will be in production for the Lincoln MKR:

"twin-turbo version of Ford's recently introduced 3.5-liter V6 with direct injection. Ford claims the MKR's motor makes 415 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque and runs on E85 ethanol. A version of this motor, called the TwinForce, will make it to production, but the double-throwdown chrome treatment it has received for auto show duty will not. It's a twin-turbo version of Ford's recently introduced 3.5-liter V6 with direct injection. Ford claims the MKR's motor makes 415 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque and runs on E85 ethanol. A version of this motor, called the TwinForce, will make it to production, but the double-throwdown chrome treatment it has received for auto show duty will not"

While I have my doubts about this, it should sure make for some sizzling discussions here. I thought...why not bring this up? So, what do you think?

For me, the jury is out until I learn more about this engine. The weight savings would be tremendous, and handling (all things equal) would probably be insane. Would I miss the V8? Sure would. But this opens new doors...

I be up for a V6 of this magnitude. Hey...remember the Buick Grand National GNX from 1986. That V6 Turbo was amazing. You can't buy one these days for less than $100,000.

[MustangFanatic]

While I personally love the torque, power and sound of a V8, this option is certainly worthy of consideration. The biggest caveats (and the only way a V6 would be accepted under the hood of a GT-350) is if (1) it makes V8 HP and torque which this motor is clearly capable of providing and (2) that there is a significant (i.e. 500 + lbs) weight savings over a V8 making comparable HP. The GT-350 (like the Boss) places a premium on balanced performance which means substantial HP in a nimble handling chassis with outstanding braking. In order to achieve that goal, curb weight has to be kept in check. If Ford can deliver big weight savings AND V8 hp and torque, we would have a winner. Provided of course that Ford also offers a 5.0L V8 in the new Boss...hey, my hypocrisy only goes so far....

This post has been edited by MustangFanatic: 11 January 2007 - 11:14 AM

[crispy23c]

Well put, guys. I agree. BTW, MustangFanatic, you should change your name to "Boss Man"!
But anyway, my take is pretty much the same. Keep it simple, keep the weight down. After all, if there is no significant weight savings, give me the AL Cobra 4.6 S/C'd. I don't care about fuel savings.
The Shelby GT is about 500 lbs lighter than the GT500. So, with an s/c, the Shelby GT is what-- 450 Lbs lighter? So what would the exact same car weigh with the TT-6 Cyclone-- I would love to know. I suppose that we will find out more about this mill after Detroit anyway, but it sounds pretty stout (unless the bean counters get to this, too).
I had a buddy who owned a Grand National. Unbelievably fast for it's time. The only thing I did not like was the high maintenance required on it. If you skipped something, you would have a problem. While I am sure that 20 years of engineering would surely help, it's something that sticks in my mind nonetheless. I guess we'll have to wait & see...

[MustangFanatic]

crispy23c, on Jan 12 2007, 09:02 AM, said:

Well put, guys. I agree. BTW, MustangFanatic, you should change your name to "Boss Man"!
But anyway, my take is pretty much the same. Keep it simple, keep the weight down. After all, if there is no significant weight savings, give me the AL Cobra 4.6 S/C'd. I don't care about fuel savings.
The Shelby GT is about 500 lbs lighter than the GT500. So, with an s/c, the Shelby GT is what-- 450 Lbs lighter? So what would the exact same car weigh with the TT-6 Cyclone-- I would love to know. I suppose that we will find out more about this mill after Detroit anyway, but it sounds pretty stout (unless the bean counters get to this, too).
I had a buddy who owned a Grand National. Unbelievably fast for it's time. The only thing I did not like was the high maintenance required on it. If you skipped something, you would have a problem. While I am sure that 20 years of engineering would surely help, it's something that sticks in my mind nonetheless. I guess we'll have to wait & see...

I think it should be "The Boss Man"!!

I agree, I'd love to know the fully dressed weight on the TT-6 Cyclone. I'm not interested in the least in the fuel savings it could offer over a V8 but if it is significantly lighter, that would be a HUGE benefit in a GT-350. A GT350 tipping the scales between 3,200 - 3,400 lbs with a TT-6 Cyclone, a tuned suspension and killer brakes would be one seriously fast road car/race car. The choice between a GT-350 equipped as described and 5.0L equipped Boss would be difficult...I'd definitely have to go with the Boss as my first choice but might have to sacrifice and get a GT350 as a daily driver!!

I also had a friend with a Buick GN, as you said unbeliveably fast car. I always wondered why GM didn't find a suitable sporty car to place that engine in. Could you imagine how a lightened Corvette (or similarly styled car) would have run with that engine? Definitely a missed opportunity at GM.

EDIT:

I totally blanked on the Turbo TransAm that was offered in '89 with the Buick GN engine. It's a rare bird though, less than 1,500 produced.

http://www.gmhightec..._turbo_feature/

This post has been edited by MustangFanatic: 12 January 2007 - 10:51 AM

[crispy23c]

Hate to tell you this....but the same guy also had one of those Turbo TransAm's. He was a tried & true GM gearhead--in fact, that's how we became friends in college, arguing about who was better FoMoCo or GM! Anyway, I did drive that thing (Turbo T/A).....It felt alot like you were sh*tting rocket fuel! Fast, fast, fast.... almost surreal. And yeah....he sold that one too...

[crispy23c]

More news on the GT 350 front.....could start life as a Bullitt (400 HP n/a 4v 4.6 AL block) and go to Shelby for Mods.
Now, about that 'vert...