K4fxd
Well-Known Member
I have a friend from Haiti, she says it is not vibration, harmonics standing waves or anything else physical. Ford should not have named it "voodoo". The spirits are not happy.
Sponsored
I think the codename for the early development was "hummingbird".I have a friend from Haiti, she says it is not vibration, harmonics standing waves or anything else physical. Ford should not have named it "voodoo". The spirits are not happy.
Thanks, and likewise!Sorry to hear about your car, my 2020 dumped valve at 8 at 2000 miles, Had a new one installed in 12 days under warrenty and nursing it back to health now with 2000 on the replacement. The sticker claims its a 2021 build and hopefully they've made the necessary changes to eliminate the secret problem.
"Restrictions" to make it more "fair" is not uncommon. Before NASCAR went to identical chassis, wheelbase, etc., etc. when you could tell a T-Bird from a Monte Carlo from a long way off, they forced everyone to run restrictor plates because some of the Monte Carlos were going airborne over 200 mph whereas the T-Birds could exceed it without having control issues. Back then, I felt like they should've let the T-Birds "fly" since they had some advantage in design/aerodynamics but they wanted to slow everyone down. After the restrictor plates got mandated the T-Birds no longer dominated. Today when you look at the NASCAR Cup cars, you would have a hard time determining what manufacturer it was if you removed all the fake decals front and rear. Back in the day, they actually ran the actual production body/chassis so there was a clear difference in the length, width and shape of the cars.I guess you've never heard of the LS7. A few years ago I was shopping for a C6 Z06. After researching the LS7 I was not confident that it was a good idea to buy a vehicle with that engine, especially used. I have a lot more confidence in the Voodoo than I do in an LS7 based on my reading. I agree Coyotes (especially prior to the PTWA cylinder bores) have been pretty good.
I have seen people say that but is reliability really the reason? I remember the Voodoo made way too much power and would have won every race, so it needed a lot of restriction to keep the races more even. IMO they should have just let the GT350 cars win every race. The car is superior to the others, IMO it should win.
Anyway, they went to a Coyote, which still needed to be restricted, but not as much. And I'm sure the Coyote was cheaper to run. Without strong evidence that the Voodoos were breaking all the time, I believe the engine change was made merely to save money. I don't believe that change is evidence of a problem with the Voodoo.
It's normal in real racing to tear down and rebuild engines frequently. So they decided they'd prefer to do that with $7K engines rather than $20K engines. Who could fault them for that, especially when the $7K engines make more power than they needed?
I'd have to agree with you on that; there's a fairly good difference between 7500 and 8250 rpm. I guess it would be like comparing the Coyote reliability to the Camaro SS reliability such that if the Coyote was held to a 6000 rpm redline like the Camaro, it probably would run forever with barely any issues.I disagree that CPC engines are automatically more reliable, but I guess if you add "all other things being equal" it is possible. For example, Ford has never made an 8,250 RPM Coyote. My assumption is the Coyote would destroy itself in short order if you tried to run it regularly at 8,250. Or at least, it wouldn't hold up to Ford's internal requirements for durability.
If they did the best they could to make the Coyote run at 8,250 - even spending more money than they did on the Voodoo - would it be more reliable than the Voodoo? I'm going to say I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford's engineers know, however.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Voodoo with a 7,500 rpm redline and a few other minor changes would hold up a lot longer and be comparable to a Coyote in reliability.
Camaro V8 has had a 6500 rpm redline since 2010. The old LS1 in the late 90s had a 6000 rpm redline, though. IMO an engine like the Coyote with a 7500 rpm redline should have components that can easily handle that engine speed, and not break even if ran to that speed regularly. There is some ambiguity with the Gen 3 Coyote's 7500 rpm redline, though. The digital gauges show 7400 rpm, while the marketing material and analog gauges appear to show 7500 rpm ("redline" on the analog gauges appears halfway between 7 and 8k).I'd have to agree with you on that; there's a fairly good difference between 7500 and 8250 rpm. I guess it would be like comparing the Coyote reliability to the Camaro SS reliability such that if the Coyote was held to a 6000 rpm redline like the Camaro, it probably would run forever with barely any issues.
Hey local guy!Perhaps I missed it somewhere in the forum, but Ford is also having a valves dropping in the the Bronco 2.7 V6, destroying the engine. Perhaps the valve manufacturer is the same source?
From watching and reading the GT350 forum, the primary issue with failed engines feel in two categories, one was oil consumption and the other was dropped valves. The oil consumption was addressed in 2017-18 and I have not seen it reported since the 2019+ builds. The valve issue seems to have surfaced with post May 2019 built vehicles and into 2020 models. I have previously asked we track the motor build dates to see if there was a window where the dropped vales started to appear. I do not think it was motor builder related, but I doubt we could find out if a certain supply of valves were culprit. Early 2019 builds were typically 2 assemblers, but by spring 2019 resources were shifted to the Predator. Likely a timing coincidence.
From what I have read there seems to be a window of 2018 to Spring of 2019 where failures were not reported? I can be wrong, and someone may chime in. But I'd ask again if we could compile the failures from oil burn with motor build dates and the same for valve related failures.
Me too - but I don;t know how that's logged or the process/protocol for checking it. Never heard anyone say they were denied in all this time - and I'm sure at least someone money shifted it. The car doesn't technically know what gear you are in, so a failure at the moment of such a fast/catastrophic over-rev might look pretty crazy in the logs...maybe similar to just a failure? I really dont know - just thinking... Anyway, my point is that it's common to focus on a specific part that we know is broken - but it doesn't mean that is the part that failedI just assumed they'd pull over-rev data (and whatever else they track haha) from the ecu before approving a new engine.