GM Engineer about the 350 fpc.

[AvalancheSVT]

Why so sensitive about the 4.6. I wasn’t a fan of them either, but we can all have our preference’s. It’s a pretty uphill battle trying to justify how the 4.6 compares to the coyote. But by all means carry on. It’s entertaining. All this from me looking for the GM Engineer quote.

None of what you said here is correct. Context. i'll help.

the guy was saying all that 4.6 mod motors were so crappy his V6 mustang was better than all the cobras. a claim that is just positively insane to make unless someone is steeped in ignorance on the subject.

so my question about coyotes served to expose his ignorance regarding the early mod motors which share so much with coyotes you can put boss 302 rods, from a coyote, in them. the architecture and design principles are the same, just more evolved.

in short, to hate on the 4.6 is to hate on the coyote's father.

the coyote SHOULD be better and it is but this clown was saying the V6's mustangs were better and that's just stupid... but he made it pretty clear that his opinion was based on vapor.

Sponsored

 

[Strokerswild]

The 4.6 2V stroker (302 CI, Kellogg crank) with Trick Flow heads and intake I had in my '96 was a good example of what the 4.6 could be....

 

[Hack]

None of what you said here is correct. Context. i'll help.

the guy was saying all that 4.6 mod motors were so crappy his V6 mustang was better than all the cobras. a claim that is just positively insane to make unless someone is steeped in ignorance on the subject.

so my question about coyotes served to expose his ignorance regarding the early mod motors which share so much with coyotes you can put boss 302 rods, from a coyote, in them. the architecture and design principles are the same, just more evolved.

in short, to hate on the 4.6 is to hate on the coyote's father.

the coyote SHOULD be better and it is but this clown was saying the V6's mustangs were better and that's just stupid... but he made it pretty clear that his opinion was based on vapor.

I think I said that the 4.6 was COMPARABLE to the V6 in my 2011 Mustang. If I said it was worse, I was wrong and I apologize if that hurt your feelings.

I still think the 302 was a better base than the 4.6 if you wanted to make inexpensive power in the late 90s. I agree with what you are saying that the 302 can only take so much before the block breaks. However, you can EASILY match a NA Cobra 4.6 with a hotrodded 302 for a lot less money and the block will hold a lot more power than the Cobra motor made before there's any danger of it cracking.

And comparing a 302 to the typical 4.6 that made 215 HP.... Ford added a million parts to the Mustang GT engine adding a ton of cost and then it made less HP than the 302! Come on, you have to admit that was a slap in the face to Mustang fans.

 

[AvalancheSVT]

I think I said that the 4.6 was COMPARABLE to the V6 in my 2011 Mustang. If I said it was worse, I was wrong and I apologize if that hurt your feelings.

feelings have nothing to do with it, you're posting things in a public forum that are not true based on your own ignorance and bias despite correction from people that know better.

I still think the 302 was a better base than the 4.6 if you wanted to make inexpensive power in the late 90s. I agree with what you are saying that the 302 can only take so much before the block breaks. However, you can EASILY match a NA Cobra 4.6 with a hotrodded 302 for a lot less money and the block will hold a lot more power than the Cobra motor made before there's any danger of it cracking.

And comparing a 302 to the typical 4.6 that made 215 HP.... Ford added a million parts to the Mustang GT engine adding a ton of cost and then it made less HP than the 302! Come on, you have to admit that was a slap in the face to Mustang fans.

this is why i asked why you like the coyote but not the 4.6... almost everything in your post is incorrect.

your only argument so far is "ford made an engine 30 years later with only 80% of the 4.6's displacement which similar peak power so mod V8's sucked".

So you're really arguing that because ford, in 3 decades, managed to improve power oputput by 20% an entire engine platform used in go fast machines for decades is crap.

that's just dumb. don't do dumb things. you can learn stuff. do that.

p.s. the hilarity of a guy arguing that V6's are better than modular V8's in a GT350 thread is not lost on me

 

[martinjlm]

A snippet from the first link that made me laugh a bit:

"i fully expect the corvette Z06 motor to be trouble free. GM has the most advanced engineering team in the indistry and that includes ferrari and porsche

I think those that decide to modify the new z06 motor with forced induction will be disappointed as the engineers at GM did not plan for that specific powerplant to be forced induction.

there is a reason GM durability is world class and its because they have a 300k mile durability process that is best in the industry.

one of the reasons I love GM prodicts is their research and development process.

GM management sets the goals and parameters and the engineers make it happen. "

We should revisit the bold text in about a year. Zora.

 

[KB_210]

We should revisit the bold text in about a year. Zora.

This guy talks like he is a GM engineer giving himself a pat on the back. It seems he’s been in their design reviews

 

[Hack]

feelings have nothing to do with it, you're posting things in a public forum that are not true based on your own ignorance and bias despite correction from people that know better.



this is why i asked why you like the coyote but not the 4.6... almost everything in your post is incorrect.

your only argument so far is "ford made an engine 30 years later with only 80% of the 4.6's displacement which similar peak power so mod V8's sucked".

So you're really arguing that because ford, in 3 decades, managed to improve power oputput by 20% an entire engine platform used in go fast machines for decades is crap.

that's just dumb. don't do dumb things. you can learn stuff. do that.

p.s. the hilarity of a guy arguing that V6's are better than modular V8's in a GT350 thread is not lost on me

If you disagree that's fine, but I would appreciate if you wouldn't mischaracterize everything I said.

I think modular V8s are good. The Coyote engine is the whole reason I started buying Mustangs again. To me when Ford made the Coyote they finally utilized some of the performance potential of the DOHC V8 configuration. And I really like the Voodoo. It's just the 4.6 that Ford did a poor job with. They made a few that were barely ok, but the majority were just not very good.

If you want to say 215 HP is great from 4.6 liters, fine. To me that is boat anchor territory.

 

[martinjlm]

We should revisit the bold text in about a year. Zora.

This guy talks like he is a GM engineer giving himself a pat on the back. It seems he’s been in their design reviews

He probably is. I am a retired GM engineer / Product Planner. These days I’m an automotive consultant. Corvette cadence is typically base (Stingray), followed by wide-body high performance (Z06), followed by wide-body with base engine (Grand Sport. Might be a hybrid this go ‘round) followed by wide body super performance (ZR1 / Zora).

If we reflect back to the stories from development testing before Stingray was introduced, there was the well-publicized story about the rear window glass having to be re-engineered because the engine output twisted the body enough to crack the glass. The setup that did that is said to have been testing at about 1,000 hp. Guess how it got to be 1,000 hp?

Here’s a link to an old Carscoops article discussing the glass break.

C8 breaks rear window in testing

 

[AvalancheSVT]

If you disagree that's fine, but I would appreciate if you wouldn't mischaracterize everything I said.

well i don't have much choice i guess when i ask you point blank questions you won't answer because it'll expose how little you know about the modular platform.

 

[KB_210]

He probably is. I am a retired GM engineer / Product Planner. These days I’m an automotive consultant. Corvette cadence is typically base (Stingray), followed by wide-body high performance (Z06), followed by wide-body with base engine (Grand Sport. Might be a hybrid this go ‘round) followed by wide body super performance (ZR1 / Zora).

If we reflect back to the stories from development testing before Stingray was introduced, there was the well-publicized story about the rear window glass having to be re-engineered because the engine output twisted the body enough to crack the glass. The setup that did that is said to have been testing at about 1,000 hp. Guess how it got to be 1,000 hp?

Here’s a link to an old Carscoops article discussing the glass break.

C8 breaks rear window in testing

I highly doubt he is and if he was he would say he is lol 1000 horsepower would be nice but the back glass probably has more to do The engine right by the back glass. The twisting of the rear combined with the heat back there. Plenty of 1000 hp C7’s out there

 

[martinjlm]

I highly doubt he is and if he was he would say he is lol 1000 horsepower would be nice but the back glass probably has more to do The engine right by the back glass. The twisting of the rear combined with the heat back there. Plenty of 1000 hp C7’s out there

More than likely he would not. I was “present” on this site as well as Camaro, Corvette and Mopar sites while I was still at GM but in a way that if I did comment on anything, I did not disclose that I was in GM Product Planning. I registered after I retired. GM employees, particularly in Engineering, Planning and Product Development have to take coursework that prescribes what you can and cannot do and say on social media. I’m sure some people sidestep the guidelines but most don’t from what I can tell.

And yes, there are plenty of aftermarket boosted 1,000 hp C7s out there. They don’t have to worry about twisting the rear glass. There’s also more than a handful of 1,000 hp TT C8s out there that are not breaking the rear glass. Because the rear glass was re-engineered after the dyno incident. That was one of the program delays.

 

[Angrey]

Not sure how this turned into a debate about the modulars, but the entire conversation is nonsensical.

The Modulars were down on power from a number of standpoints, none of which has to do with the block, crank, rods, etc.

Throw the same airflow on a modular 4.6 motor as featured on a coyote and you'll get comparable numbers (if you increase the modular to the same compression ratio) and give it variable valve timing.

The point is, the anemic modulars were smaller displacement, the heads didn't flow as well at peak, the intakes were restrictive, the throttle bodies were smaller and more restrictive, etc, etc.

The entire discussion was supposed to be about the "motor" and so if you put a 5.2 modular motor (with the old firing order) and comparable heads/cams/intake/TB/etc you'll get comparable output. The limitations with the modular had nothing to do with the shortblock or bottom end.

The same story is true of gen1 vs gen2 vs gen3 coyotes, aside from a compression bump and small displacement bump from Gen2 to Gen3, the entire story is about the top end improvements.

What's also not been discussed is the concept of "market feedback." You have to ask yourself why there hasn't been a FPC mass produced motor in 100 years of automotive competition and production. Because aside from being "bespoke" the reliability issues with secondary vibes aren't just myth or trivial.

I accept that Ford created a motor that favored high performance over other considerations (including reliability and longevity), racecar life......but what's frustrating is that they neutered the biggest reason to accept those drawbacks. THAT is the issue.

It's like someone saying hey, if we toss the backseat, we can save 50 lbs. Then in the middle of the effort, an engineer says "well, we don't want the seat delete to be flimsy so let's make it out of steel." "Hey Bob, if we do that, it'll just add back all the weight we just eliminated." Voila, you end up with a car that only seats 2 with no weight savings. So you end up with the downside and virtually no upside.

If the end of the day the only "upside" for the voodoo is the legendary sound signature, IS THAT ENOUGH? That's the question. Cause it comes with real liabilities as we've all seen and debated in countless other threads, from added weights and dampers on things, oil filters vibrating loose, etc.

I think a lot of the motor reliability issues stems from Ford fielding a 12:1 compression motor. 93 octane just isn't consistent enough to expect a motor to live forever without internal abuse. The gen3 CPC coyote address some of this with DI and it's effect on knock. Give the voodoo the same DI and I think a lot of the nuked motor issues decline.

At the end of the day, if you make a choice to sacrifice something, it helps if you don't negate the positives that prompted you to make the sacrifice in the first effing place.

 

[AvalancheSVT]

Not sure how this turned into a debate about the modulars, but the entire conversation is nonsensical.

The Modulars were down on power from a number of standpoints, none of which has to do with the block, crank, rods, etc.

Throw the same airflow on a modular 4.6 motor as featured on a coyote and you'll get comparable numbers (if you increase the modular to the same compression ratio) and give it variable valve timing.

The point is, the anemic modulars were smaller displacement, the heads didn't flow as well at peak, the intakes were restrictive, the throttle bodies were smaller and more restrictive, etc, etc.

The entire discussion was supposed to be about the "motor" and so if you put a 5.2 modular motor (with the old firing order) and comparable heads/cams/intake/TB/etc you'll get comparable output. The limitations with the modular had nothing to do with the shortblock or bottom end.

The same story is true of gen1 vs gen2 vs gen3 coyotes, aside from a compression bump and small displacement bump from Gen2 to Gen3, the entire story is about the top end improvements.

What's also not been discussed is the concept of "market feedback." You have to ask yourself why there hasn't been a FPC mass produced motor in 100 years of automotive competition and production. Because aside from being "bespoke" the reliability issues with secondary vibes aren't just myth or trivial.

I accept that Ford created a motor that favored high performance over other considerations (including reliability and longevity), racecar life......but what's frustrating is that they neutered the biggest reason to accept those drawbacks. THAT is the issue.

It's like someone saying hey, if we toss the backseat, we can save 50 lbs. Then in the middle of the effort, an engineer says "well, we don't want the seat delete to be flimsy so let's make it out of steel." "Hey Bob, if we do that, it'll just add back all the weight we just eliminated." Voila, you end up with a car that only seats 2 with no weight savings. So you end up with the downside and virtually no upside.

If the end of the day the only "upside" for the voodoo is the legendary sound signature, IS THAT ENOUGH? That's the question. Cause it comes with real liabilities as we've all seen and debated in countless other threads, from added weights and dampers on things, oil filters vibrating loose, etc.

I think a lot of the motor reliability issues stems from Ford fielding a 12:1 compression motor. 93 octane just isn't consistent enough to expect a motor to live forever without internal abuse. The gen3 CPC coyote address some of this with DI and it's effect on knock. Give the voodoo the same DI and I think a lot of the nuked motor issues decline.

At the end of the day, if you make a choice to sacrifice something, it helps if you don't negate the positives that prompted you to make the sacrifice in the first effing place.

all of this. 100%. flawless victory.

 

[svttim]

"If the end of the day the only "upside" for the voodoo is the legendary sound signature, IS THAT ENOUGH? That's the question. Cause it comes with real liabilities as we've all seen and debated in countless other threads, from added weights and dampers on things, oil filters vibrating loose, etc."

Ah, that and walking a Coyote on track.

 

[Demonic]

Supposedly it wasn't for sound alone but also an increase by about 10% in volumetric efficiency by the scavenging effect according to Ford.

Sponsored