Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

'07 - '10 SS Differences


JCSESI
 Share

Recommended Posts

Reading my most recent magazine from Shelby it appears to me that the '10 SS upgrade for the verts get the 725+ hp packaage.... Is this correct? For my vert I was limited to the 605+ package. My car is an '07. Were changes made to allow the greater hp in the verts and if so what were those changes? Nothing listed in the Shelby Pkg that I saw so I am guessing these changes (if any) were made by Ford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading my most recent magazine from Shelby it appears to me that the '10 SS upgrade for the verts get the 725+ hp packaage.... Is this correct? For my vert I was limited to the 605+ package. My car is an '07. Were changes made to allow the greater hp in the verts and if so what were those changes? Nothing listed in the Shelby Pkg that I saw so I am guessing these changes (if any) were made by Ford.

 

verts are @ 630HP

 

new. improved. TVS tune from Easton/FRPP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Reading my most recent magazine from Shelby it appears to me that the '10 SS upgrade for the verts get the 725+ hp packaage.... Is this correct? For my vert I was limited to the 605+ package. My car is an '07. Were changes made to allow the greater hp in the verts and if so what were those changes? Nothing listed in the Shelby Pkg that I saw so I am guessing these changes (if any) were made by Ford.

 

 

I think I can help with this.

 

Source: http://www.shelbyautos.com/PDF/2010SSsm.pdf

 

This is the Shelby Brochure for the Super Snake package. Note the first page in the "Options" list where it lists the 750HP version and the asterick next to it. At the bottom of both pages is the footnote:

 

*700+ HP not available on convertables.

 

Then if you go to the Ford Racing Parts site and note the Supercharger Performance Pack upgrades for the 2010 SVT models, they are now listed as:

 

P/N: M-6066-MSVTA

Desc: 2010 Mustang SVT 660 HP Supercharger Upgrade

 

P/N: M-6066-MSVT29C

Desc: 2010 Mustang SVT 750 HP Supercharger Upgrade

 

So right out of the box the 2010 Super Snake will get a HP increase over past years.

660HP (2.3L TVS) and 750HP (2.9L Twin Screw FRPP/Whipple).

 

Also note that they WILL NOT FIT 2007-2009 Mustang SVT.

 

 

Hope that helps,

Phill Pollard

2010 Kona Blue/White GT500

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can help with this.

 

Source: http://www.shelbyautos.com/PDF/2010SSsm.pdf

 

This is the Shelby Brochure for the Super Snake package. Note the first page in the "Options" list where it lists the 750HP version and the asterick next to it. At the bottom of both pages is the footnote:

 

*700+ HP not available on convertables.

 

Then if you go to the Ford Racing Parts site and note the Supercharger Performance Pack upgrades for the 2010 SVT models, they are now listed as:

 

P/N: M-6066-MSVTA

Desc: 2010 Mustang SVT 660 HP Supercharger Upgrade

 

P/N: M-6066-MSVT29C

Desc: 2010 Mustang SVT 750 HP Supercharger Upgrade

 

So right out of the box the 2010 Super Snake will get a HP increase over past years.

660HP (2.3L TVS) and 750HP (2.9L Twin Screw FRPP/Whipple).

 

Also note that they WILL NOT FIT 2007-2009 Mustang SVT.

 

 

Hope that helps,

Phill Pollard

2010 Kona Blue/White GT500

 

 

Another note on the 750 horse 2010 Super Snake.............

 

Picture-3.jpg

 

Where did the additional 25 h.p. disappear in this 2010 chassis dyno? 2007-2009 (actually 2007/2008) 725 horse Super Snakes were pulling this same dyno h.p. number (634-638) back when people were first receiving their 725's and dynoing them. Either the 2010 is overrated, or the 2007-09's are underrated, unless there is something in the 2010 build that is sucking up those 25 extra ponies?? From what we know to be fact from the past chassis dyno's posted on this forum (at least three of them), and comparing them to this Motor Trend 2010 chassis dyno, the cars are exactly the same at the rear wheels. How can this be??

 

And this Motor Trend 2010 Super Snake did not have a KB as shown below, so I can only assume that the S/C on this car is the 750 h.p. you have listed above..........so again, where are the extra 25 ponies disappearing on the chassis dyno?

 

Note that this 2010 also has the cooling upgrade package, something which was not on the 2007/2008 Super Snakes that have previously dyno'ed and showing the same RWHP numbers. This kit was not an option when they were dyno'ed.

 

Picture1648-1.jpg

 

I like the look of that cooling system, that will be my next upgrade purchase from SAI.

 

R

Edited by Robert M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Another note on the 750 horse 2010 Super Snake.............

 

SNIP!

 

And this Motor Trend 2010 Super Snake did not have a KB as shown below, so I can only assume that the S/C on this car is the 750 h.p.

Picture1648-1.jpg

 

 

Note: I assumed the SC on the SAI 2010 Super Snake concept car was the 2.9L FRP/Whipple version due to the large intake tube (vs. the 2.3L TVS w/FRP resonator elminator tube).

 

In another thread I was told by rosssvt (Roger?) at SAI: "The supercharger shown in our concept vehicle is the Shelby/Ford Racing/Whipple 3.4 L unit."

 

 

Just the facts, man,

Phill Pollard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: I assumed the SC on the SAI 2010 Super Snake concept car was the 2.9L FRP/Whipple version due to the large intake tube (vs. the 2.3L TVS w/FRP resonator elminator tube).

 

In another thread I was told by rosssvt (Roger?) at SAI: "The supercharger shown in our concept vehicle is the Shelby/Ford Racing/Whipple 3.4 L unit."

 

 

Just the facts, man,

Phill Pollard

 

 

I read that other thread also, and that is why I asked (in that thread) if this was infact a 3.4? and not a 2.9? It seems hard to believe that the KB 2.8 puts out the same rear wheel h.p. and it requires a Whipple 3.4 for equal numbers, 634-638. Like you said, just the facts, and that is why I asked that question on the other thread.......

 

R

Edited by Robert M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that other thread also, and that is why I asked (in that thread) if this was indeed a 3.4? and not a 2.9?

 

 

I don't know how to tell the difference between a 2.9L and a 3.4L.

 

Anyone?

 

Besides having to lower the engine....

 

 

Phill Pollard

2010 GT500

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how to tell the difference between a 2.9L and a 3.4L.

 

Anyone?

 

Besides having to lower the engine....

 

 

Phill Pollard

2010 GT500

 

 

I don't know the visual differences between the Whipples, but since the 3.4L is a "larger volume pump" than the 2.9L, I would guess that it is visually larger, larger rotors inside, larger housing outside, etc.

 

R

Edited by Robert M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the visual differences between the Whipples, but since the 3.4L is a "larger volume pump" than the 2.9L, I would guess that it is visually larger, larger rotors inside, larger housing outside, etc.

 

R

 

 

No, I mean can anyone tell by the photo if that's a 2.9L or a 3.4L?

 

I *know* it's not a 2.3L by the intake system used on it.

 

I'm wondering why they'd put a 3.4L on their 'concept vehicle'. Speculating, I'd say it may be a 'option' at some point.

 

It makes me want to wait before I make a decision on Snaking my 2010. I'll see what I can find out when I visit SAI on the 18th.

 

 

Closer to a decision,

Phill Pollard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean can anyone tell by the photo if that's a 2.9L or a 3.4L?

 

I *know* it's not a 2.3L by the intake system used on it.

 

I'm wondering why they'd put a 3.4L on their 'concept vehicle'. Speculating, I'd say it may be a 'option' at some point.

 

It makes me want to wait before I make a decision on Snaking my 2010. I'll see what I can find out when I visit SAI on the 18th.

 

 

Closer to a decision,

Phill Pollard

 

 

Yes Phill, that is what I meant also. Can someone tell, by looking at the picture if it is a 2.9 or 3.4. If they are different in size, which I assume they are, someone familiar with Whipples may i.d. which blower we are looking at in this Motor Trend photo.

 

R

Edited by Robert M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO...

 

The Whipple shown in the photos above looks like a 3.4. The 2.9's have the more efficient "Crusher-style" inlet... That picture shows the original-style inlet (non-Crusher) for the 3.4, and the overall size of the blower is more consistent with a 3.4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
...