5.2 FPC - Devil's Advocate

[Tim Hilliard]

Ferrari's 4.5L flat plane crank V8 makes 398 lbft of torque, which is 88lbft per liter. The Mustang's 5.0L makes 400 lbft, which is 80 lbft per liter. I know there are a lot more differences between these two engines besides the crank design, but there is no reason why an engine would make less torque just because it switched to a FPC design. If anything it would be higher in a FPC engine all else being equal because the crank is lighter and the exhaust pulses do not overlap between cylinders.

398 ft-lbs. @ 6000 rpm
562 hp @ 9000 rpm

A conventional engine will make more torque at lower rpm.
1. Airflow is optimized and Compromised depending on design so an engine that has an operating range from 2000-6000 is going to have different airflow characteristics than an engine with an operating range of 4000-9000.
2. Higher rotational momentum typically helps torque at lower rpm just as it influences high rpm HP.
3. 90 vs. 180 firing also influences TQ/HP as in #2 above.

I make a living with engines that fire 20 degrees apart then 70 degrees then 20 degrees etc. Optimized for a purpose.

FPC's typically are less costly to manufacture, less steps in the forging process, less material etc.

The remaining components are typically more costly due to the intended operating range which requires stronger and lighter materials.

Sprayed liners for an OEM is a less costly method than adding a dry liner to the manufacturing process. With the discontinuation of the 5.8, Ford may have contractual responsibilities to continue using this process or continue to spread cost over more units.

The fact that the 5.0 produces power levels over the operating range that it does at such a low cost is why this engine has made Wards Best engine list more than once. It is simply a massive engineering feat when it can be done and even more impressive when it makes a case that the cost constraint allows it to be installed in a $30K car.

FPC does nothing for me, personally I applaud Ford for it but I only see it as a marketing tool. It's also the next logical step on the Coyote architecture.

Edit: Balanced exhaust pulses also really do not get me that excited. This is why V engines have typically utilized a balance tube in the exhaust system, H-Pipe, X-Pipe or even a Y-Pipe. These accomplish a similar effect of balancing bank to bank exhaust pulses, yes not ideal but in a production package if it was such a performance constraint we wouldn't have multiple 400-500+ engines with conventional crankshaft designs.

Sponsored

 

[Firepath]

FPC does nothing for me, personally I applaud Ford for it but I only see it as a marketing tool. It's also the next logical step on the Coyote architecture.

You don't think so? I would also feel the same, if Ford weren't so focused on lightweighting. Not just static weight but reducing inertia in the moving parts, like the EB twin-scroll turbo, and they mentioned the same benefits / link with the FPC.

All this lightweighting talk I've been seeing from Ford over the last few months and now the reveal of the FPC V8 increases my belief that the Gen 7 Mustang might be a little smaller, lighter, and the V8 will shrink alongside it.


EDIT: I just re-read what you said - I thought you said it is NOT the next logical step on the Coyote.

 

[05yellowgt]

398 ft-lbs. @ 6000 rpm
562 hp @ 9000 rpm

A conventional engine will make more torque at lower rpm.
1. Airflow is optimized and Compromised depending on design so an engine that has an operating range from 2000-6000 is going to have different airflow characteristics than an engine with an operating range of 4000-9000.
2. Higher rotational momentum typically helps torque at lower rpm just as it influences high rpm HP.
3. 90 vs. 180 firing also influences TQ/HP as in #2 above.

I make a living with engines that fire 20 degrees apart then 70 degrees then 20 degrees etc. Optimized for a purpose.

FPC's typically are less costly to manufacture, less steps in the forging process, less material etc.

The remaining components are typically more costly due to the intended operating range which requires stronger and lighter materials.

Sprayed liners for an OEM is a less costly method than adding a dry liner to the manufacturing process. With the discontinuation of the 5.8, Ford may have contractual responsibilities to continue using this process or continue to spread cost over more units.

The fact that the 5.0 produces power levels over the operating range that it does at such a low cost is why this engine has made Wards Best engine list more than once. It is simply a massive engineering feat when it can be done and even more impressive when it makes a case that the cost constraint allows it to be installed in a $30K car.

FPC does nothing for me, personally I applaud Ford for it but I only see it as a marketing tool. It's also the next logical step on the Coyote architecture.

Edit: Balanced exhaust pulses also really do not get me that excited. This is why V engines have typically utilized a balance tube in the exhaust system, H-Pipe, X-Pipe or even a Y-Pipe. These accomplish a similar effect of balancing bank to bank exhaust pulses, yes not ideal but in a production package if it was such a performance constraint we wouldn't have multiple 400-500+ engines with conventional crankshaft designs.

It really all comes down to dealing with the harmonics inherit to the FPC design. The Ford modular engine line has always been a zero balance engine and have always been an exceptionally smooth running engine, contributing very low NVH. Now the 6.8 v10 did feature a balance shaft due to being a 90 degree v10, which is a exception. The origins of the modular line was a dual purpose transverse and longitudinal engine platform meant to meet new emissions regs of the 90's. The fact that we are now moving away slowly but surely away from the mass market v8 which leaves ford to develop much more of a niche line for the high performance market.

 

[RocketGuy3]

The Z06 was also at LEAST 50% more expensive in modern dollars than the GT350 will be. Might end up being more like ~75%, depending on how Ford prices it (I'm guessing 45-50K).

Plus, 8K+ redline... Drool...

 

[RocketGuy3]

1. Tell me how much a 2015 Z06 weighs. Hint: it's a lot more than the 2006 you are choosing to use for comparison to a 2016 vehicle. You can't just ignore a decade's worth of changes to crash safety standards, etc.

2. How can you dismiss the displacement of the engine in this comparison? Ford has created a motor that not even exotics like Ferrari have pulled off (largest displacement production FPC V8 ever). It's easy to throw displacement at a problem like Chevy traditionally has. Coaxing more HP out of less displacement is a much more impressive feat.

3. Mark my words, this 5.2L motor will make WELL above 500HP... not "500-ish"

While I don't necessarily agree with the OP's post here (see above), I don't think I follow point #2 of yours. Who cares what's "more impressive" to build? All that matters is results. In this case, "results" means power, weight, size, and efficiency. How much displacement or what type of crankshaft you use to get there is irrelevant (although the high-revving fun of an FPC is nice).

Reminds me of when hipsters try to convince me that I should like rock more than rap because it takes more talent to make. I don't give a *%!$ how talented the artist is. All that matters is how his music sounds to my ears.

 

[w3rkn]

While I don't necessarily agree with the OP's post here (see above), I don't think I follow point #2 of yours. Who cares what's "more impressive" to build? All that matters is results. In this case, "results" means power, weight, size, and efficiency. How much displacement or what type of crankshaft you use to get there is irrelevant (although the high-revving fun of an FPC is nice).

Reminds me of when hipsters try to convince me that I should like rock more than rap because it takes more talent to make. I don't give a *%!$ how talented the artist is. All that matters is how his music sounds to my ears.

When you build something that is impressive... it is typically so, because it results in a package that has efficiency, weight, size, etc.. to speak about.

The end results do matter, but also how you get there. The end results here in both cases, are different because of the FPC.


You are missing the whole point of the conversation.

 

[Brent302]

While I don't necessarily agree with the OP's post here (see above), I don't think I follow point #2 of yours. Who cares what's "more impressive" to build? All that matters is results. In this case, "results" means power, weight, size, and efficiency. How much displacement or what type of crankshaft you use to get there is irrelevant (although the high-revving fun of an FPC is nice).

Reminds me of when hipsters try to convince me that I should like rock more than rap because it takes more talent to make. I don't give a *%!$ how talented the artist is. All that matters is how his music sounds to my ears.

Your point is invalid......Hipsters don't listen to Rock....they listen to pop..lmao sorry I couldn't resist

 

[RocketGuy3]

When you build something that is impressive... it is typically so, because it results in a package that has efficiency, weight, size, etc.. to speak about.

The end results do matter, but also how you get there. The end results here in both cases, are different because of the FPC.


You are missing the whole point of the conversation.

I didn't read the whole thread, but that is not what Scott's post was implying to me. As far as I could tell, he was just talking about the fact that Ford and Chevy were taking two different approaches to solving the same problem, and Ford's approach was harder, which somehow made it better. Never mentioned anything about the actual HP:weight or HP:volume ratios and whatnot... And I don't see how he could, anyways, since we don't know any final specs on the 5.2 yet.

Anyways, that was kind of a side point. Which technology is "superior" is kind of irrelevant to me for the reason I was getting at in my earlier post. If the Z06 is better, so what? It costs (for its time) 1.5-2X as much. If the GT350's is better, it's a major win.

Your point is invalid......Hipsters don't listen to Rock....they listen to pop..lmao sorry I couldn't resist

Really? When I think of pop, I think of Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, etc. Hipsters hate those guys. Too mainstream, maaan.

 

[Brent302]

I didn't read the whole thread, but that is not what Scott's post was implying to me. As far as I could tell, he was just talking about the fact that Ford and Chevy were taking two different approaches to solving the same problem, and Ford's approach was harder, which somehow made it better. Never mentioned anything about the actual HP:weight or HP:volume ratios and whatnot... And I don't see how he could, anyways, since we don't know any final specs on the 5.2 yet.

Anyways, that was kind of a side point. Which technology is "superior" is kind of irrelevant to me for the reason I was getting at in my earlier post. If the Z06 is better, so what? It costs (for its time) 1.5-2X as much. If the GT350's is better, it's a major win.




Really? When I think of pop, I think of Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, etc. Hipsters hate those guys. Too mainstream, maaan.

Wouldn't they be steampunk? Gah I don't know give me Aerosmith, Boston and Journey screw this new crap lol

 

[nametoshowothers]

Your point is invalid......Hipsters don't listen to Rock....they listen to pop..lmao sorry I couldn't resist

LMAO as well - you are so correct. I believe the analogy police need to be called in

 

[Josh Painter]

Then do we really care about displacement?

Buick's engineers really cared about displacement back in the 1980s with their Grand National and GNX. The 3.8 Liter Turbo V6 was blowing all sorts of bigger engines into the ditches.



Their innovative development of turbocharging blazed a trail that led us to today's best turbo engines, including Ford's Twin Turbo 3.5 V6. Not only did they beat the competition, but they did it with fewer cylinders and considerably less cubic inches. Icing on the cake.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

Buick's engineers really cared about displacement back in the 1980s with their Grand National and GNX. The 3.8 Liter Turbo V6 was blowing all sorts of bigger engines into the ditches.



Their innovative development of turbocharging blazed a trail that led us to today's best turbo engines, including Ford's Twin Turbo 3.5 V6. Not only did they beat the competition, but they did it with fewer cylinders and considerably less cubic inches. Icing on the cake.

Ummm Ford won that war too. Again higher specific outputs.

1979 3.8 150-160 HP 42HP/L vs 1979 2.3 132HP 57HP/L
1984 3.8 200HP 52HP/L vs 1984 2.3 145-175HP 76HP/L
1986-7 3.8 245HP 65HP/L vs 1985-88 2.3 190-205HP 89HP/L

Ford has always built high specific output engines. Ususally smaller, in bigger numbers and for lower MSRP. The EcoBoost did not develop due to a Grand National. Just wanted to make that clear.

 

[Josh Painter]

Ummm Ford won that war too. Again higher specific outputs.

1979 3.8 150-160 HP 42HP/L vs 1979 2.3 132HP 57HP/L
1984 3.8 200HP 52HP/L vs 1984 2.3 145-175HP 76HP/L
1986-7 3.8 245HP 65HP/L vs 1985-88 2.3 190-205HP 89HP/L

Ford has always built high specific output engines. Ususally smaller, in bigger numbers and for lower MSRP. The EcoBoost did not develop due to a Grand National. Just wanted to make that clear.

To the Super Coupe, Fred!

Test drove a new one with the 5-speed manual back in the day. Almost bought it. Decided to wait, and then the Taurus SHO was introduced. Bought one, loved it.

 

[pappy83]

I think the OP was right, I want to buy a ford again but I pretty much hate the OHC motors in everything except the 13-14 GT500 cars. My daily driver is Crown Vic and it slow compared to even a 94 Impala SS where is forward thinking there. When GM introduced the Ls7 in 2006 did anyone think it would still be strong by todays standards which it is. I will hopefully buy a GT350 but if it feels heavy and does not run like my 9 year old car a 2006 Z06 I wont buy it. I actually think all manufacture's have gone backwards over the years, mileage is down, weight is up, and they aren't really performing any better. Take my 2008 300SRT8 it will run consistent 11.80s at track on street tires with just a CAI and Cat back with a trap in the high 112's this is just as good or better then the new Mustang GT. I don't think pushrods are bad I actually like them for your everyday vehicles they just feel better my SRT8 feels a lot better then a same year mustang and is faster. My Z06 gets 27-30 mpg on the highway has run 11.42 at 127.8 for a best 1/4 mile et and a 11.68 at 126.1 for a worst. On a road course it is great, light weight, big tires, and lots of motor that revs to 7000rpm right now. Did Ford (GT350), or GM (C7Z06) really raise the bar that high over the older Z06/GT500 we will have to wait and see. When you can buy a lightly used under 20,000 mile Z06 for 36,000 or a used Boss 302 for around the same are these new cars really worth the money. Just my thoughts or rant or something, hope the Gt350 can run close to my Z06 which has 18000 miles and was $36,500 or I guess I keep what I got. I agree the Camaro Z28 is big pig that costs way to much, I really like the Hellcat Idea even if its not practical I give dodge credit for building the both of them. My last thought will really get me flamed but I love my Crown Vic just wish it had a Lq9 6.0l in it that would be one nice car.

 

[Hack]

OK, hold on to your hats....

In late 2005, GM brought us a 505HP, 470 lb-ft, 3200lb Z06 which debuted as a 2006 model.

Now, a DECADE F'G later, Ford brings us a 500-ish HP; 400-ish TQ 3600LB (est) Mustang and everyone is excited. Really?

OK, you say the LS7 is 7.0L and the FPC Ford is only 5.2L. Yep, who cares? I would think that the LS7 is physically smaller and lighter than the 5.2????

So, convince me. Is Ford really moving the needle forward with a bigger, heavier motor in a porky, heavier car - a DECADE after GM? Is this progress?

I'll give in on one point (so far). I think the FPC will sound better..... that's what 10-years has brought us.

In theory I agree with you. I think Ford had the small block right in the 70s and now that GM is making what are essentially larger displacement derivatives of the small block Ford - yes, GM is doing a good job with their engines, especially in really expensive cars I don't care to buy.

-Changing the number of head bolts to match SBF
-Getting rid of the Siamese ports to match SBF
-Changing the firing order to match SBF
-Changing the location of the thrust bearing to match SBF
-Moving the ignition trigger to the front like a SBF

I drove a Camaro and compared it to the Mustang. I was seriously considering buying a 1LE 1SS. Actually the best thing about the car is the dual mode exhaust. AMAZING! But the engine/car is dull after driving a Mustang with the Coyote in it. You want a "black box" comparison using just peak rated HP and TQ vs. size and weight, but that is just a numbers game. The difference is when you drive the cars. The Mustang is just more enjoyable to drive, and the Coyote is a big part of why. I'm not sure whether it's just weight or whether Ford under-rates the Coyote that much. It just seems to me it has way more seat of the pants power than the LS3 GM puts in the Camaro. Maybe it's the different delivery of the power - the high RPM rush that you feel.

I'm excited about the Voodoo because it sounds like Ford is making another engine that will make the Mustang even more fun to drive. It also sounds like they are trying to keep cost down where I might feel compelled to buy one. Essentially the Voodoo sounds like it will have more of what I love about the Coyote. The performance you get from the twin camshafts that actually can independently change timing? Huh, maybe GM will copy that someday.

I understand you are a GM guy. That's fine. It makes me smile when you worship a derivative of the small block Ford. They really are great, aren't they? :ford:

Sponsored