Voodoo architecture.

From the Q&A with Jamal:

Q: How much were you able to share with the 5.0L?
A: There are little common parts (i.e. things in the valve train), but it’s pretty much an all-new engine: new heads, new casting, new intake, new crank, new pistons, new rods, new halfshafts.

.............

How new is new? Is this not based off Coyote? I'm quite intrigued - can anyone shed light on this?

I'm sure we'll get to know............in time. There was a great article in one of the late model Mustang magazines about the differences between the 5.4 and 5.8 GT500 engines. I was stunned at just how different they were, especially as the 5.8 only lived for 2 years. I'm sure we'll get a similar in-depth review of Voodoo nearer the launch date


Link added........I know it's off topic, but that's the level of detail I'm sure we all want for Voodoo

http://www.mustangandfords.com/news/m5lp-1203-2013-ford-shelby-gt500-trinity-5-8l-v8/

Thanks Paul.

To my understanding it's based on Coyote architecture. Has the same bore spacing, bearing sizes, dohc valve train design, etc...

-FPC requires, of course, new crank. but also new camshafts to match the new piston locations/timing.
-FPC's different timing events probably changed the airflow characteristics so much it required new intake manifold & heads. Playing with CFD modeling probably resulted in cleaner airflow.
-larger bore to get 5.2 requires new pistons & new block with "Plasma transferred wire arc thermal spraying" cylinder liner.
-8,200rpm requires stronger rods

I think it's fair to say it's based on Coyote/Modular architecture but is a unique Voodoo engine.

But like Twin Turbo said we'll surely find out specific details over the next six months.

Condor/Trinity level of commonality maybe?

Dimensions and not much else. Bolts, copper wire, sensors, tensioners, alternators and starters don't count, shit you can find the same misc. parts on different brand vehicles.

Not sure if this has been posted in another thread yet, but it's a great read on this subject:

http://articles.sae.org/13709/

I thought this was pretty interesting:

"Flat-plane-crank engines have limitations. First, the lack of counterweight balancing typically limits cylinder displacement to about 4.5-4.6-L due to greater second-order vibration. Ford has solved that in the 5.2-L application with a new crankshaft-mounted damper system and extraordinary attention to NVH abatement during the design and prototype phases. According to Nair, the engine program (which was concurrent with GT350 vehicle development) nearly wasn’t approved for production.

“This [vibration] was our biggest engineering challenge even after we had the first prototype,” Nair noted. “Things were breaking and the technical guys were worried. Whether or not we continued down the flat-plane-crank path for GT350 came down to a critical prototype drive we had scheduled. After that drive, we all went into a meeting room for the debriefing. And we unanimously concluded that we simply had to have this motor! We were determined to solve the issues.”

What followed was, in Nair’s words, “a lot of stiffening of the cylinder block, exhaust system, and various brackets” achieved through an intense FEA analysis, plus “a lot of tuning.” Nair said the result yielded unique torsional-damping technology among other patent-pending actions aimed at taming the beast.

The 5.2-L is naturally aspirated by design; boosting was not part of the plan. “We really wanted to stay with naturally-aspirated technologies for instantaneous throttle response” along with a feeling of minimal flywheel effect, Nair explained. He’s familiar with both qualities as a longtime motorcyclist who rides a Yamaha R1 sportbike on the street and at track days.

Other challenges with flat-plane-crank engines include their tendency to deliver underwhelming torque. Nair admitted that the GT350 “doesn’t have that electric-motor feel off idle that the GT500 has” but the latter also uses a blown 5.8-L rated at 631 lb·ft/855 N·m. Increasing cylinder displacement (via larger bore) to 5.2-L, which is 700-cc larger than Ferrari's V8 used in the 458, helped overcome some of the torque deficit. Nair also noted that optimizing the intake and exhaust systems for power, efficiency, and meeting cold-start emissions was tricky.

“Even the unequal-length headers we selected, to some extent, to help with catalyst light-off,” he said."

^ Fair points, I suppose, but I have to believe that the 400+ft-lbs of torque that the GT350 is claimed by Ford to have will still ferociously pin you back in the seat when you stomp on the "go" pedal.

Swamp Yankee said:

^ Fair points, I suppose, but I have to believe that the 400+ft-lbs of torque that the GT350 is claimed by Ford to have will still ferociously pin you back in the seat when you stomp on the "go" pedal.

Click to expand...

The Coyote already produces 400 lb/ft of torque...

Yes. The torque curve will be different, but the biggest difference in feel will only happen when you wind it out to that full 8200rpm redline. Adding over a thousand RPM of available power is a big deal, but since it'll have the same rear ratio it probably won't feel much different.

Some nice tidbits in that article. They had the bore and stroke details, the max cylinder pressure, and a note that according to suppliers, Ford has planned a production run of 5000 units.

Thanks for posting it!

-T

Yep, thanks for posting, Doc. Very good info.

12.5:1 is quite high without d.i. When/if the next iteration gets direct injection they'd be able to lean on it some more I would imagine. If the ten percent rule applies then it'd be nudging the high 500s.

Great effort by Ford - their persistence paid off.

Having problems understanding why torque takes a beating with FPC when the 458 has an astronomical specific torque output... can anyone shed light on why that is the case?

Falc'man said:

Having problems understanding why torque takes a beating with FPC when the 458 has an astronomical specific torque output... can anyone shed light on why that is the case?

Click to expand...

I imagine that part of it has to do with the camshaft profile, intake manifold, and cylinder head port design. Traditionally, to make power at high RPM's, the tradeoff would be that you would give up lower RPM torque, due to the design of the components listed above to move enough air at high RPM. One would think that some of that effect will be negated by Ti-VCT. Remember how the Boss 302 roadrunner had a lower torque rating than the standard 5.0, but had more HP and turned more RPM? It could partly be that FPC engines have the reputation of being down on torque due to the fact that they are designed to turn high rpm. FPC is used in these applications because it lends itself more easily to high rpm due the lower rotational mass.

Doc Holliday said:

I imagine that part of it has to do with the camshaft profile, intake manifold, and cylinder head port design. Traditionally, to make power at high RPM's, the tradeoff would be that you would give up lower RPM torque, due to the design of the components listed above to move enough air at high RPM. One would think that some of that effect will be negated by Ti-VCT. Remember how the Boss 302 roadrunner had a lower torque rating than the standard 5.0, but had more HP and turned more RPM? It could partly be that FPC engines have the reputation of being down on torque due to the fact that they are designed to turn high rpm. FPC is used in these applications because it lends itself more easily to high rpm due the lower rotational mass.

Click to expand...

Looking at the only engine photo the intake manifold looks like it was made for a broad torque curve as opposed to the high-rpm specific powerband of the Boss and CJ intake manifolds.

View attachment 17421

I think the "FPC has no torque" statement is basically false. People may think that because they are typically comparing a Ferrari engine that is displacing around 4 liters to an American engine that is displacing 5 or 6 liters (that also happen to be XPC). So they then say the FPC makes no torque when in reality it is purely due to the smaller displacement not due to the FPC.

Voodoo may make less torque than a mythical 5.2 Coyote would, but that would be similar to how the Roadrunner makes less than the 5.0 Coyote, mostly a factor of what RPMs the engine was optimized for and a pretty minor difference overall.

-T