User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 7:23:09 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
500HP 4.2L NA engine is how it is moving forward. the Mustang 5.0 is already turning 6500RPMs. The GT350 turning over 7000RPMs is no big deal. We should all be jumping for joy over this step forward in Ford engine technology. Over 500HP NA in an 5.2L engine which gets decent MPG and complies with emissions requirements is commendable. If RPMs scare you, stick to a GT. Imagine what this engine will do with a blower or turbo.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess I'm not understanding this move to a high revving NA engine. Flat plane crank engines being in race cars aside, how is a high revving engine moving forward on the street? It will need to be spun to the moon to put out power. The little Ecoboost in the Focus can put over 400ft/lbs of torque on an E85 tune. 500HP 4.2L NA engine is how it is moving forward. the Mustang 5.0 is already turning 6500RPMs. The GT350 turning over 7000RPMs is no big deal. We should all be jumping for joy over this step forward in Ford engine technology. Over 500HP NA in an 5.2L engine which gets decent MPG and complies with emissions requirements is commendable. If RPMs scare you, stick to a GT. Imagine what this engine will do with a blower or turbo. Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. That's old tech now, though it is still badass don't get me wrong. When I think of a street car these days, I have to include torque. Just looking at HP doesn't cut it anymore. Also, superchargers output(psi) is in relation to rpm. If it takes 8000rpms to get to max psi the blower isn't doing much at 4k so I'm not sure a blower is a good match for such high revving engine if someone is looking to take the engine to the next level. Anyone know the compression ratio in this new engine? One thing is for sure, this will be a FUN track day car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 8:26:27 PM EDT
[#2]
This thread needs more pics, effin' sweet car....       |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 8:54:26 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. That's old tech now, though it is still badass don't get me wrong. When I think of a street car these days, I have to include torque. Just looking at HP doesn't cut it anymore. Also, superchargers output(psi) is in relation to rpm. If it takes 8000rpms to get to max psi the blower isn't doing much at 4k so I'm not sure a blower is a good match for such high revving engine if someone is looking to take the engine to the next level. What does the "technology" of a 4.0L BMW have to do with the technology of a 5.2L Coyote based engine? Those 1.2 Liters are a big deal because of the longer stroke (15mm). You are making quite the stretch there..  Are you going to the corner market to get milk while towing a 10K lb trailer that you are focusing in on "torque" for your "street car"? There are varied types of blowers and turbos which Ford could utilize.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 9:19:00 PM EDT
[#4]
The Intention/Design/History/Tradition of the GT350 and Boss 302 began as track cars. They were track cars which were made available for the street or even neutered a bit for the street. The original GT350 and Boss 302 made Horrible "street" cars. Neither had any torque to speak of and both were high revving engines for their day. The fact that the 2015 Mustang GT can out handle and makes more power than the 2013 Boss 302 is a testament of evolving and improving technology. Making torque and horsepower at low RPMs with alot of cubic inches is old "technology". The 5.0L Coyote makes more torque than did the supercharged 4.6L 4V engine of the 2003 Cobra. The head and fuel/spark management technology keeps improving. You can not typically take an engine designed to make 420HP, swap cams and make 520HP just by raising the RPMs higher. If you can, you would not be retaining fuel efficiency and emissions. The 2016 GT350 is not a GT with stickers on it. It will be more impressive on the track than the GT is. If all you want is something to take the kids to soccer practice and want all torque with a lower level of peak performance, the GT350 is obviously not targeted at your demographic..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 11:24:11 PM EDT
[#5]
We got real pics now instead of artist renditions:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 11:30:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 11:35:54 PM EDT
[#7]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 10:19:03 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? No, it has a cross plane crank and revved to 8300. Why are you guys getting so caught up in the crank design? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 10:21:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? Quote HistoryQuoted: Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 10:29:36 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does the "technology" of a 4.0L BMW have to do with the technology of a 5.2L Coyote based engine? Those 1.2 Liters are a big deal because of the longer stroke (15mm). You are making quite the stretch there.. Are you going to the corner market to get milk while towing a 10K lb trailer that you are focusing in on "torque" for your "street car"? There are varied types of blowers and turbos which Ford could utilize.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. That's old tech now, though it is still badass don't get me wrong. When I think of a street car these days, I have to include torque. Just looking at HP doesn't cut it anymore. Also, superchargers output(psi) is in relation to rpm. If it takes 8000rpms to get to max psi the blower isn't doing much at 4k so I'm not sure a blower is a good match for such high revving engine if someone is looking to take the engine to the next level. What does the "technology" of a 4.0L BMW have to do with the technology of a 5.2L Coyote based engine? Those 1.2 Liters are a big deal because of the longer stroke (15mm). You are making quite the stretch there.. Are you going to the corner market to get milk while towing a 10K lb trailer that you are focusing in on "torque" for your "street car"? There are varied types of blowers and turbos which Ford could utilize.
Point is, other then flat plane crank (who cares really) this engine isn't anything other then a 500hp engine. If it had 400 or even 450hp this wouldn't even have been a discussion. Everyone would be saying "regular 5.0 puts out almost same hp without the complication/expense of a flat plain crank engine". Is this engine even DI? Who in their right minds makes a brand new port injection engine. My comment about the S65 is that ford is a day late and a dollar short. A high revving, port injection screamer V8 with high compression making it difficult to add boost to has already been done in this industry 7-8 years ago. 14 years ago if you count the s2k. Not sure what to say about your comment on torque. Having a shit ton of torque in a street car is an experience all its own, one that I guess you haven't had yet or you wouldn't be making "towing trailer" comments. I find it very strage ford went this route when they have a stable of direct injected, electronically controlled turbo engines. Then again if they were going for all out race car I could see them wanting to let their turbo tech mature a bit more |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 10:29:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thing better be at LEAST 8k, even the Roadrunner was 7,500 I should hope switching to the flat plate crank and redesigning the engine would get em more than 500. (yes I realize RPM is a bigger deal the higher you go) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? 500 HP from 400 ft/pnd = 6565 RPM |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 12:05:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does the "technology" of a 4.0L BMW have to do with the technology of a 5.2L Coyote based engine? Those 1.2 Liters are a big deal because of the longer stroke (15mm). You are making quite the stretch there.. Are you going to the corner market to get milk while towing a 10K lb trailer that you are focusing in on "torque" for your "street car"? There are varied types of blowers and turbos which Ford could utilize.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. That's old tech now, though it is still badass don't get me wrong. When I think of a street car these days, I have to include torque. Just looking at HP doesn't cut it anymore. Also, superchargers output(psi) is in relation to rpm. If it takes 8000rpms to get to max psi the blower isn't doing much at 4k so I'm not sure a blower is a good match for such high revving engine if someone is looking to take the engine to the next level. What does the "technology" of a 4.0L BMW have to do with the technology of a 5.2L Coyote based engine? Those 1.2 Liters are a big deal because of the longer stroke (15mm). You are making quite the stretch there.. Are you going to the corner market to get milk while towing a 10K lb trailer that you are focusing in on "torque" for your "street car"? There are varied types of blowers and turbos which Ford could utilize.
If you don't think torque is important than you can keep your high HP / low torque car. Your comments on torque not being important are asinine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 1:34:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? No, it has a cross plane crank and revved to 8300. Why are you guys getting so caught up in the crank design? The 2012 Boss 302 (which didn't even have the advancements of this car) still outperformed the 2012 M3 in nearly every respect. I don't think anyone is "so caught up in the crank design," but it is revolutionary for a production car. Until now, the flat-crank has only been seen in Ferraris, McLarens etc. It's one of the few ways you're going to get the balance needed to have such large displacement engines rev at very high RPMs. You kind of answer your own question in your next post: Then again if they were going for all out race car I could see them wanting to let their turbo tech mature a bit more Over the last several years, Ford has gotten (back) into devoting their people and resources to building track capable cars. It's obviously paying off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 1:53:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 2012 Boss 302 (which didn't even have the advancements of this car) still outperformed the 2012 M3 in nearly every respect. I don't think anyone is "so caught up in the crank design," but it is revolutionary for a production car. Until now, the flat-crank has only been seen in Ferraris, McLarens etc. It's one of the few ways you're going to get the balance needed to have such large displacement engines rev at very high RPMs. You kind of answer your own question in your next post: Over the last several years, Ford has gotten (back) into devoting their people and resources to building track capable cars. It's obviously paying off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kinda just sounds like the S65 that came out in 2007-2008 but 1.2 litre bigger. The S65 had a flat-plane crank and redlined at 8 grand? No, it has a cross plane crank and revved to 8300. Why are you guys getting so caught up in the crank design? The 2012 Boss 302 (which didn't even have the advancements of this car) still outperformed the 2012 M3 in nearly every respect. I don't think anyone is "so caught up in the crank design," but it is revolutionary for a production car. Until now, the flat-crank has only been seen in Ferraris, McLarens etc. It's one of the few ways you're going to get the balance needed to have such large displacement engines rev at very high RPMs. You kind of answer your own question in your next post: Then again if they were going for all out race car I could see them wanting to let their turbo tech mature a bit more Over the last several years, Ford has gotten (back) into devoting their people and resources to building track capable cars. It's obviously paying off. Ford is getting better for sure. But they still have stoneage turbo tech compared to others. If they could just do better on that front, they'd have some pretty upset competition. This is regarding their sports cars though. Trucks are another story, and Ford is highly overrated on that front |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 2:27:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what to say about your comment on torque. Having a shit ton of torque in a street car is an experience all its own, one that I guess you haven't had yet or you wouldn't be making "towing trailer" comments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what to say about your comment on torque. Having a shit ton of torque in a street car is an experience all its own, one that I guess you haven't had yet or you wouldn't be making "towing trailer" comments. Quoted:
If you don't think torque is important than you can keep your high HP / low torque car. Your comments on torque not being important are asinine. How about a little perspective here? By the standard 10 years ago, 380 lb feet WAS a "Shit Ton" of torque for the Mustang. I am willing to bet that the GT350 will have at least that amount of peak torque. . The 2013 Mustang GT made a respectable amount of torque at 4250 RPMS. The 2013 boss 302 only made 10 lb-ft of torque less and it make that peak at only 250RPM higher. What it did was make enough torque at 7400 RPMs to make ~25HP more while retaining EPA MPG ratings. If we overlapped the torque and horsepower curves the increased performance of the Boss 302 would be very evident. Ford did more than just bump the torque curve up and they did it without sacrificing "Street" performance. The 2016 GT350 increase in horsepower over the 2016 GT is rumored to be 100HP increase. That is impressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 2:42:23 PM EDT
[#16]
I never said that torque is not important. Horsepower is nothing more than a calculated number which uses torque and RPMs. It takes torque to make horsepower. Making 500HP at 8000RPMs takes less torque than it does making it at 6500RPMs. This is simple math. A 5.2L engine is never going to make 500HP NA without shifting the torque curve up a bit. You both are ignoring the fact that it is a significant accomplishment for a 4.2L engine to make 525HP. You are not going to make that number at 6500RPMs NA while retaining EPA MPG and emissions. It is not going to happen without technology which does not currently exist. .
If improved track performance is not your goal and those 10lb-ft of torque a little lower in the band are most important to you, stick with the Mustang GT. I am expecting the difference in peak torque, etc between the 2016 GT and the 2016 GT350 to be comparable. The fact that Ford is offering a more sedate "Street" version and a higher level of performance "Street/Track" version should cause us to celebrate instead of complaining that a little low end grunt is being sacrificed.
Quoted:
500 HP from 400 ft/pnd = 6565 RPM This is my point from above. That there is not going to happen with a 4.2L engine and today's technology and the GT350 is rumored to make more than 500HP (550 by some reports). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 4:15:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You both are ignoring the fact that it is a significant accomplishment for a 4.2L engine to make 525HP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You both are ignoring the fact that it is a significant accomplishment for a 4.2L engine to make 525HP. Where was I ignoring that feat? That is impressive, never said otherwise. I merely wanted to make sure you don't confuse people into thinking higher torque (which means better acceleration) isn't important. You're also dragging other complexities into this now. If you want to talk about all around "performance" then yeah they did a great job in creating decent gas mileage on a car with a good amount of power. But if you're claiming that a 4.2 with 500hp is a feat of new age technical engineering then you're way off. Let's go back a few years. How about the 1.6l nissan motor that puts out 200hp? Just a quick example. Or even simple 1.1 liter motors that make 197 hp? My point is that the power ratio isn't mind boggling.. That all being said the GT350 is still awesome, I'm definitely not arguing that fact. There's also this sweet piece of motor in production these days. Notice the 14k redline 
ENGINE SPECS: • Layout- 2.0L 90 degree V8, flat plane crankshaft • Bore & Stroke- 76mm x 55mm • Compression ratio- 13:1 • Power- 400hp at 13,000 rpm (14,000 redline) • Torque- 160 ftlbs at 11,000 rpm • Valving- 4 camshaft, 4 valves per cylinder, Titanium intake valves • Clutch- 4.5" dual disc • Special features- • Unique offset cylinders and cam drive USPatent 7,168,405 • Low profile with sump 88mm from crank centerline • One piece billet 7075 case with integral cylinders • Air/oil separator with manifold mounted multistaged oil pump |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 4:58:30 PM EDT
[#18]
I think it's a 5.2 litre in the new gt350, not a 4.2 but I could be wrong.
If the S65 was a 5.2 instead of a 4.0 it would be at 500hp instead of 414. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 5:10:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's a 5.2 litre in the new gt350, not a 4.2 but I could be wrong. If the S65 was a 5.2 instead of a 4.0 it would be at 500hp instead of 414. Precisely. It is a 5.2, not a 4.2. I need more coffee/sleep |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 8:29:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Just as I suspected.. With all of the whining you would think that the peak torque was going to be cut in half...
This combined with additional advancements in the engine, including new cylinder heads will yield what Ford says is more than 500 hp and at least 400 ft-lbs of torque. The torque curve of this engine is said to be broad and flat, allowing drivers to wring out the car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 8:31:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
I merely wanted to make sure you don't confuse people into thinking higher torque (which means better acceleration) isn't important. Higher torque alone at any specific RPM does not yield better acceleration any more than a single high peak HP number. Torque by itself is useless for acceleration. Horsepower is a measure of the actual work which the torque is able to do. Torque plus RPM = Horsepower. I think your objection is with engines which have a very sharp torque curve and relatively low overall torque numbers but a single relatively high Horsepower number. Some engines of the 90s were like this. We are obviously not talking about that kind of engine here, |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 8:57:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Higher torque alone at any specific RPM does not yield better acceleration any more than a single high peak HP number. Torque by itself is useless for acceleration. Horsepower is a measure of the actual work which the torque is able to do. Torque plus RPM = Horsepower. I think your objection is with engines which have a very sharp torque curve and relatively low overall torque numbers but a single relatively high Horsepower number. Some engines of the 90s were like this. We are obviously not talking about that kind of engine here, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I merely wanted to make sure you don't confuse people into thinking higher torque (which means better acceleration) isn't important. Higher torque alone at any specific RPM does not yield better acceleration any more than a single high peak HP number. Torque by itself is useless for acceleration. Horsepower is a measure of the actual work which the torque is able to do. Torque plus RPM = Horsepower. I think your objection is with engines which have a very sharp torque curve and relatively low overall torque numbers but a single relatively high Horsepower number. Some engines of the 90s were like this. We are obviously not talking about that kind of engine here, True true. When at the track where you always can be in your power band torque is almost useless. Anywhere else and it becomes an important factor in how fast the car can get out of its own way and how fast it feels. I read in the GD thread about this car that 80% of the torque is available at 3250 rpms up so that's actually great news for its street manners. Some concerning news is that it's not a dry sump engine and it doesnt have a carbon brake option. To me, it would seem this car has a bit of a identity crisis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 9:41:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some concerning news is that it's not a dry sump engine and it doesnt have a carbon brake option. To me, it would seem this car has a bit of a identity crisis. There are rumors of a "R" model which would get carbon/ceramic brakes but still a wet sump oil system. Baffled pan and windage tray can go pretty far but I have to assume that Ford decided to save the cost and leave it up to any serious race team to do their own conversion using Aviaid's or someone else's system as most cars will never actually see the track. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 10:14:52 PM EDT
[#24]
That vid and pics of the interior. Any body else severely annoyed by the ripples in the alcantara/leather on the left side of the steering wheel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:58:14 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Higher torque alone at any specific RPM does not yield better acceleration any more than a single high peak HP number. Torque by itself is useless for acceleration. Horsepower is a measure of the actual work which the torque is able to do. Torque plus RPM = Horsepower. I think your objection is with engines which have a very sharp torque curve and relatively low overall torque numbers but a single relatively high Horsepower number. Some engines of the 90s were like this. We are obviously not talking about that kind of engine here, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I merely wanted to make sure you don't confuse people into thinking higher torque (which means better acceleration) isn't important. Higher torque alone at any specific RPM does not yield better acceleration any more than a single high peak HP number. Torque by itself is useless for acceleration. Horsepower is a measure of the actual work which the torque is able to do. Torque plus RPM = Horsepower. I think your objection is with engines which have a very sharp torque curve and relatively low overall torque numbers but a single relatively high Horsepower number. Some engines of the 90s were like this. We are obviously not talking about that kind of engine here, You're undergeneralizing what I say Why do you keep changing the story to make yourself right? I never talked about a track. This is a street car we're talking about, as such torque is important. You don't have to explain to me what torque is and what it does. The fact is you are praising this motor, for whatever reason, because it make 500hp+ and 400ft/lbs. I fail to see why you think that's revolutionary out of a 5.2. The ideal track car will have a steep and then flat torque curve so that you have all the power fairly quickly throughout the RPM range, so yes you're correct about that. But if you want more horsepower you need more torque, so again, I will say that a good bit of torque is important. You can't have a 500hp car will 300ft/lbs of torque, it'll just be slow to start. Even a car with 400hp and 400ft/lbs would be a faster car. On a street location, you'll be stopping, slowing, and accelerating a lot. This makes torque, the force that gets you to your peak horsepower, pretty important. On a track, when you'll likely be maintaining a speed and mainly only accelerating then you can worry about more horsepower and not as much torque so long as it's a flat curve. TL:DR Torque is important, the GT350 is impressive but not innovative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:39:47 PM EDT
[#26]
On the days I get to take either of my stangs out for a drive it isnt the street light to street light driving I enjoy most.
It is the winding out 2nd gear and 3rd gear between corners on back roads that I enjoy most. Sadly I will likely never get to drive a gt350 to experience a different kind of engine power band than what I am accustomed to. It is still a cool freaking option to have. Nothing is removed or taken away with this option. Bubba can still get the 5.0 GT and add a turbo/blower and have retarded amounts of traction problems all without giving up much in redline rpms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 10:20:44 PM EDT
[#27]
Meh...
Ls7 makes 500/470 stock, spins past 7k has a dry sump standard and weighs 350lbs. Cross plane crank, port injection and fucking push rods on a 2 valve head. I think ford made a meh engine that is going to sound badass. Which is about par for Ford.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 10:37:50 PM EDT
[#28]
That LS7 engine is significantly larger displacement wise. I am glad Ford is making this engine even if I won't be in the market for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 10:43:47 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That LS7 engine is significantly larger displacement wise. I am glad Ford is making this engine even if I won't be in the market for it. GM has "old" pushrod shit down cold. I'm glad they made it too....competition makes everybody better. Ford people are almost as bad as iphone users....almost
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 10:53:27 PM EDT
[#30]
I am not a Ford person. I have to say the Corvette people make me ill though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 10:58:09 PM EDT
[#31]
You have thing against retired old guys? The z/28 is the only place to buy a new ls7.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 12:15:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have thing against retired old guys? Corvettes are on to the next generation of pushrod power LT-1. Direct injection lots of other goodies. The z/28 is the only place to buy a new ls7. No, I am only 7 years from retiring and my friend has a Corvette. I actually greatly respect what the Corvette has become but it sits too low for me to like riding in them much less owning one. I love that Camaro Z28 but at this time it is out of my price range. I can only hope that the Mustang GT350 can come close to it as that is quite the mark to reach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:25:50 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ls7 makes 500/470 stock, spins past 7k has a dry sump standard and weighs 350lbs. 13/19MPG $75K car... Just saying...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:18:39 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 13/19MPG $75K car... Just saying... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ls7 makes 500/470 stock, spins past 7k has a dry sump standard and weighs 350lbs. 13/19MPG $75K car... Just saying... It's a hard core track car dressed up like a camaro....it's the best vehicle in the world at that price for that purpose. It's at least 25k cheaper than its competition and I bet it gets about 9mpg when driven hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 1:07:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what you're saying... It's a hard core track car dressed up like a camaro....it's the best vehicle in the world at that price for that purpose. It's at least 25k cheaper than its competition and I bet it gets about 9mpg when driven hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what you're saying... It's a hard core track car dressed up like a camaro....it's the best vehicle in the world at that price for that purpose. It's at least 25k cheaper than its competition and I bet it gets about 9mpg when driven hard. I am saying that the Voodoo engine makes more power and gets significantly better fuel efficiency in a vehicle which is $25K less.. Quoted:
I'm not fighting a hp/liter argument, put a ls7 in a car...put the new ford in a car and run them. A Crate LS7 is $13K??. What is the Sealed Crate engine ET record for such an engine? The 5.0 Coyote Sealed Crate engine record ET is in the 9.xx seconds for a $6K factory crate engine. The Voodoo engine will be hotter. I agree.. Let's put them both in a car and run them...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 3:41:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am saying that the Voodoo engine makes more power and gets significantly better fuel efficiency in a vehicle which is $25K less.. A Crate LS7 is $13K??. What is the Sealed Crate engine ET record for such an engine? The 5.0 Coyote Sealed Crate engine record ET is in the 9.xx seconds for a $6K factory crate engine. The Voodoo engine will be hotter. I agree.. Let's put them both in a car and run them... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not sure what you're saying... It's a hard core track car dressed up like a camaro....it's the best vehicle in the world at that price for that purpose. It's at least 25k cheaper than its competition and I bet it gets about 9mpg when driven hard. I am saying that the Voodoo engine makes more power and gets significantly better fuel efficiency in a vehicle which is $25K less.. Quoted: I'm not fighting a hp/liter argument, put a ls7 in a car...put the new ford in a car and run them. A Crate LS7 is $13K??. What is the Sealed Crate engine ET record for such an engine? The 5.0 Coyote Sealed Crate engine record ET is in the 9.xx seconds for a $6K factory crate engine. The Voodoo engine will be hotter. I agree.. Let's put them both in a car and run them... I just worked on an intake and heads for an LS7 that is going in a fox body that is shooting for high 600 low 700s hp N/A. Granted that's with intake, head and Cam work done. That car is just a DD toy. If positive pressure is an option 1000 hp is where the LS based truck engines shine, the LS3 engines will make more than that on stock parts. The 7 doesn't get used with positive pressure as often because honestly it's overkill, why pay 13K if your just gonna put a turbo or blower on it. For $600 you can grab an iron block 6.0 and go nuts. My point in all of this is while the flat plane crank is neat and I'm sure will sound awesome, it's kinda gimmicky. Far simpler, cheaper, easier to work with engines can do what it does and then some. Once again Ford has made an engine that the faithful will eat up and the technical minded will stand back and scratch our heads. For all the "innovation" it should be winding faster and making more power....maybe there is more wick to be turned up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 3:46:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You might have me there....I honestly don't know but the yote is a badass as well. Cross plane crank and all. What type of induction/drugs was that 9 pass on a stock coyote? I just worked on an intake and heads for an LS7 that is going in a fox body that is shooting for high 600 low 700s hp N/A. Granted that's with intake, head and Cam work done. That car is just a DD toy. If positive pressure is an option 1000 hp is where the LS based truck engines shine, the LS3 engines will make more than that on stock parts. The 7 doesn't get used with positive pressure as often because honestly it's overkill, why pay 13K if your just gonna put a turbo or blower on it. For $600 you can grab an iron block 6.0 and go nuts. My point in all of this is while the flat plane crank is neat and I'm sure will sound awesome, it's kinda gimmicky. Far simpler, cheaper, easier to work with engines can do what it does and then some. Once again Ford has made an engine that the faithful will eat up and the technical minded will stand back and scratch our heads. For all the "innovation" it should be winding faster and making more power....maybe there is more wick to be turned up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not sure what you're saying... It's a hard core track car dressed up like a camaro....it's the best vehicle in the world at that price for that purpose. It's at least 25k cheaper than its competition and I bet it gets about 9mpg when driven hard. I am saying that the Voodoo engine makes more power and gets significantly better fuel efficiency in a vehicle which is $25K less.. Quoted: I'm not fighting a hp/liter argument, put a ls7 in a car...put the new ford in a car and run them. A Crate LS7 is $13K??. What is the Sealed Crate engine ET record for such an engine? The 5.0 Coyote Sealed Crate engine record ET is in the 9.xx seconds for a $6K factory crate engine. The Voodoo engine will be hotter. I agree.. Let's put them both in a car and run them... I just worked on an intake and heads for an LS7 that is going in a fox body that is shooting for high 600 low 700s hp N/A. Granted that's with intake, head and Cam work done. That car is just a DD toy. If positive pressure is an option 1000 hp is where the LS based truck engines shine, the LS3 engines will make more than that on stock parts. The 7 doesn't get used with positive pressure as often because honestly it's overkill, why pay 13K if your just gonna put a turbo or blower on it. For $600 you can grab an iron block 6.0 and go nuts. My point in all of this is while the flat plane crank is neat and I'm sure will sound awesome, it's kinda gimmicky. Far simpler, cheaper, easier to work with engines can do what it does and then some. Once again Ford has made an engine that the faithful will eat up and the technical minded will stand back and scratch our heads. For all the "innovation" it should be winding faster and making more power....maybe there is more wick to be turned up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 3:59:23 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You might have me there....I honestly don't know but the yote is a badass as well. Cross plane crank and all. What type of induction/drugs was that 9 pass on a stock coyote? The "stock" intake, valve body, sensors, etc. Nothing can be touched to be legal in the class. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 4:27:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't even know how much power it makes and you're saying it's not enough? Lol you chevy guys kill me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not sure what you're saying... It's a hard core track car dressed up like a camaro....it's the best vehicle in the world at that price for that purpose. It's at least 25k cheaper than its competition and I bet it gets about 9mpg when driven hard. I am saying that the Voodoo engine makes more power and gets significantly better fuel efficiency in a vehicle which is $25K less.. Quoted: I'm not fighting a hp/liter argument, put a ls7 in a car...put the new ford in a car and run them. A Crate LS7 is $13K??. What is the Sealed Crate engine ET record for such an engine? The 5.0 Coyote Sealed Crate engine record ET is in the 9.xx seconds for a $6K factory crate engine. The Voodoo engine will be hotter. I agree.. Let's put them both in a car and run them... I just worked on an intake and heads for an LS7 that is going in a fox body that is shooting for high 600 low 700s hp N/A. Granted that's with intake, head and Cam work done. That car is just a DD toy. If positive pressure is an option 1000 hp is where the LS based truck engines shine, the LS3 engines will make more than that on stock parts. The 7 doesn't get used with positive pressure as often because honestly it's overkill, why pay 13K if your just gonna put a turbo or blower on it. For $600 you can grab an iron block 6.0 and go nuts. My point in all of this is while the flat plane crank is neat and I'm sure will sound awesome, it's kinda gimmicky. Far simpler, cheaper, easier to work with engines can do what it does and then some. Once again Ford has made an engine that the faithful will eat up and the technical minded will stand back and scratch our heads. For all the "innovation" it should be winding faster and making more power....maybe there is more wick to be turned up. I'm not just a chevy guy, the GT500 motor is badass, the yote is badass and the Hemi's aren't slouches they are just in heavy ass cars for the most part. Basically unless they are complete shit you can add pressure to them and make a ton of power. There are guys that think N/A is "pure" and all that shit....I'm not one of them. I work with them and they are annoying. I think DI is a cool bit of tech, because it's very useful. Flat plane cranks are inherently unbalanced and just a PITA, that why the cross plane was developed and is the more popular choice. The sound of this engine will be chilling, you will get goosebumps and it will make magazine covers and youtube videos, if that's the goal, cool. The sound is also a characteristic of a flat plane design. It may make a decent track vehicle/race engine simply because you can drive it in its happy place all the time....decent but nothing spectacular at least in it's anticipated form. Once again innovation and competition is good, bring it on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 4:38:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The "stock" intake, valve body, sensors, etc. Nothing can be touched to be legal in the class. http://www.fordracingparts.com/images/part/full/M-6007-M50S.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You might have me there....I honestly don't know but the yote is a badass as well. Cross plane crank and all. What type of induction/drugs was that 9 pass on a stock coyote? The "stock" intake, valve body, sensors, etc. Nothing can be touched to be legal in the class. http://www.fordracingparts.com/images/part/full/M-6007-M50S.jpg Oh and BTW, no racer in a spec class leaves shit alone. They just spend more time hiding what they change. There is absolutely no such thing as a sealed engine....for anybody. If you can't open an engine to tech it you can't inspect some of things that you can cheat. You can check valve lift, throttle body size sure, but I have seen cast intakes cut in half, hand ported to perfection then welded back up and camo'ed so well you can't tell. Hell, I've done it. I've seen guys completely rebuild valve trains and everything looks stock, everything is better than stock but it looks good. In a way it's still fair because everybody cheats the same. Just saying, unless motors are pulled after a win and torn down, I don't buy it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 4:47:01 PM EDT
[#41]
If I had the money...
2014 Shelby "Super Snake". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 5:35:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh and BTW, no racer in a spec class leaves shit alone. They just spend more time hiding what they change. There is absolutely no such thing as a sealed engine....for anybody. This is not a "spec" engine. This is a Factory Sealed Engine. This was the first such class of its type. The NMCA is adding a LS Stock Class for 2015 using a sealed LS Motor. You obviously are not familiar with the NMRA and NMRA competitors. They are vicious when dealing with suspected cheaters. The engines are factory sealed at the intake, cam covers, and timing covers. They must all run a "spec" tune which is provided. At any time they can re-flash a competitor's PCM. They check the tune often. There is a power adder class called Coyote Modified which has a current class record of 8.30 seconds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 5:41:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is not a "spec" engine. This is a Factory Sealed Engine. This was the first such class of its type. The NMCA is adding a LS Stock Class for 2015 using a sealed LS Motor. You obviously are not familiar with the NMRA and NMRA competitors. They are vicious when dealing with suspected cheaters. The engines are factory sealed at the intake, cam covers, and timing covers. They must all run a "spec" tune which is provided. At any time they can re-flash a competitor's PCM. They check the tune often. There is a power adder class called Coyote Modified which has a current class record of 8.30 seconds. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oh and BTW, no racer in a spec class leaves shit alone. They just spend more time hiding what they change. There is absolutely no such thing as a sealed engine....for anybody. This is not a "spec" engine. This is a Factory Sealed Engine. This was the first such class of its type. The NMCA is adding a LS Stock Class for 2015 using a sealed LS Motor. You obviously are not familiar with the NMRA and NMRA competitors. They are vicious when dealing with suspected cheaters. The engines are factory sealed at the intake, cam covers, and timing covers. They must all run a "spec" tune which is provided. At any time they can re-flash a competitor's PCM. They check the tune often. There is a power adder class called Coyote Modified which has a current class record of 8.30 seconds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 5:57:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Apparently, the 9.96 second pass was in post season testing. The Official Class record is 10.29 seconds. You do not have to believe it, but it certainly is legit.
Come over to Joliet IL next July and see the action for yourself. It is the annual NMCA vs NMRA showdown. You see the NMRA classes and the NMCA classes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 6:19:02 PM EDT
[#45]
I believe you, I just work with builders on engine builds and we spend a lot of time reading rules, reading between the rules and I can weld and camo castings like a champ. I also do fun little projects like seeing just how much weight we can get out of engine components like hollow stem super ausentitic valves. Unless you are tearing things down and literally weighing them you cannot be sure. I make lighter stainless valves than you can buy anywhere....and if you think I am the only guy doing it...I've got news for you. If you ask any racer if they cheat the answer will be no....they literally suffer competitive cognitive dissonance. It's subtle but it's done. Valves, camo'ed intakes, the "good gas" higher rate springs that look stock...you name it.
Guys work very hard pushing the rules and hiding the effort. Maybe NMRA is the one place they don't do it.....  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 7:17:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guys work very hard pushing the rules and hiding the effort. Maybe NMRA is the one place they don't do it..... Guys may try but they always get caught. In the spec engine classes, a fellow competitor in the same class can put up a challenge fee and the person challenged has to do a tear down inspection of the challenged component. If everything checks out, the person challenged keeps 75% of the money and the NMRA keeps the rest. There have been guys who have gotten caught. One Coyote Stock guy this year got penalized for failing an inspection and got suspended from all events for 6 months with an additional 6 months probation. If someone is not competitive and cheats, they may not get caught but they gained nothing at an incredible risk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 9:20:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought it made 500 horse and 400 lb/ft and by the looks of the tach it redlines around 8K. Did I make that up? I'm not just a chevy guy, the GT500 motor is badass, the yote is badass and the Hemi's aren't slouches they are just in heavy ass cars for the most part. Basically unless they are complete shit you can add pressure to them and make a ton of power. There are guys that think N/A is "pure" and all that shit....I'm not one of them. I work with them and they are annoying. I think DI is a cool bit of tech, because it's very useful. Flat plane cranks are inherently unbalanced and just a PITA, that why the cross plane was developed and is the more popular choice. The sound of this engine will be chilling, you will get goosebumps and it will make magazine covers and youtube videos, if that's the goal, cool. The sound is also a characteristic of a flat plane design. It may make a decent track vehicle/race engine simply because you can drive it in its happy place all the time....decent but nothing spectacular at least in it's anticipated form. Once again innovation and competition is good, bring it on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By Interceptor_Knight I am saying that the Voodoo engine makes more power and gets significantly better fuel efficiency in a vehicle which is $25K less.. Quoted: I'm not fighting a hp/liter argument, put a ls7 in a car...put the new ford in a car and run them. A Crate LS7 is $13K??. What is the Sealed Crate engine ET record for such an engine? The 5.0 Coyote Sealed Crate engine record ET is in the 9.xx seconds for a $6K factory crate engine. The Voodoo engine will be hotter. I agree.. Let's put them both in a car and run them... I just worked on an intake and heads for an LS7 that is going in a fox body that is shooting for high 600 low 700s hp N/A. Granted that's with intake, head and Cam work done. That car is just a DD toy. If positive pressure is an option 1000 hp is where the LS based truck engines shine, the LS3 engines will make more than that on stock parts. The 7 doesn't get used with positive pressure as often because honestly it's overkill, why pay 13K if your just gonna put a turbo or blower on it. For $600 you can grab an iron block 6.0 and go nuts. My point in all of this is while the flat plane crank is neat and I'm sure will sound awesome, it's kinda gimmicky. Far simpler, cheaper, easier to work with engines can do what it does and then some. Once again Ford has made an engine that the faithful will eat up and the technical minded will stand back and scratch our heads. For all the "innovation" it should be winding faster and making more power....maybe there is more wick to be turned up. I'm not just a chevy guy, the GT500 motor is badass, the yote is badass and the Hemi's aren't slouches they are just in heavy ass cars for the most part. Basically unless they are complete shit you can add pressure to them and make a ton of power. There are guys that think N/A is "pure" and all that shit....I'm not one of them. I work with them and they are annoying. I think DI is a cool bit of tech, because it's very useful. Flat plane cranks are inherently unbalanced and just a PITA, that why the cross plane was developed and is the more popular choice. The sound of this engine will be chilling, you will get goosebumps and it will make magazine covers and youtube videos, if that's the goal, cool. The sound is also a characteristic of a flat plane design. It may make a decent track vehicle/race engine simply because you can drive it in its happy place all the time....decent but nothing spectacular at least in it's anticipated form. Once again innovation and competition is good, bring it on. They said it will make over 500 hp and over 400 ft lbs. Those numbers are minimums, the actual power hasn't been published yet. 100 hp per liter NA is badass, it should surpass that. DI has challenges like anything else (intake valve buildup, expensive injectors) but it is cool. Ford is developing a special harmonic balancer just for the flat plane crank, cross plane is cheaper of course it's more popular. Look how long it too for DOHC V8's to be so commonplace, its better its just not cheaper or easier. I originally had high hopes for the sound, but an engineer from Ford was also quoted as saying "this will be an american interpretation of a flat plane crank engine", which tells me it won't sound like a Ferrari and that makes me sad lol. I'm not a fanboy of a particular brand, but I do prefer technology advancements. I have a 900 hp coyote, but it just got listed for sale because I want a C7 lol. Edited for correctness regarding exhaust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:47:00 PM EDT
[#48]
I thought the bundle of snakes exhaust was used on twisted crank engines to balance exhaust pulses as on a flat crank engine.
Why would a flat crank engine need such an exhaust system? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:52:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought the bundle of snakes exhaust was used on twisted crank engines to balance exhaust pulses as on a flat crank engine. Why would a flat crank engine need such an exhaust system? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 2:08:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a 900 hp coyote, Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a 900 hp coyote, |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
