5.2 FPC - Devil's Advocate

[9secondko]

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.

Regardless of EXTERNAL engine dimensions, you do realize that such power out of such a small displacement is actually a far bigger achievement, no? especially with new federal CAFE targets and emissions hurdles.

Looking forward to seeing the actual power numbers.

Sponsored

 

[thePill]

7 liters, 500hp.... State of the art? Ummm hello there push rods...

Besides, the current 5.0 Coyote DOHC weighed 429lbs wet, the new LT1 Weighs almost 470lbs... Winning!!!

I willing to be, the Voodoo is pretty light especially with a lighter crank, no ball of snakes and PTWA. That weight loss there will be gobbled back up by the Tremec.

Yes, the LS7 uses Unobtainium Valves... But to me, that's like topping your sundae with the finest Cherries, then forced to eat poop instead of Chocolate Ice cream :(

On top of that, they put it into the Chevy Taurus z28!!! That's a glass slipper on Rosanne Barr!

 

[Potrillo]

Lets' just hope the Voodoo moves down market to other Mustang editions!

I understand where you are coming from OP. Yes, GM delivered the power earlier using displacement as a primary weapon. This argument reminds me of all the pissing matches on motorcycle boards over the displacement advantages twins have over I4 motors. Here it is OHC and RPM versus OHV and displacement. The fundamentals are the same, one motor spins up faster to produce power through RPM and the other relies on displacement as the basis of power.

Both are valid approaches and have there merits and disadvantages. Both also produce wonderful machines that sound glorious and bring smiles to drivers around the world.

I do hope the Voodoo becomes more affordable. I am worried that it will remain limited to the GT350 which is a limited production model. This has me thinking the price will be higher than I initially guessed ($55Kish for a base GT350) due to smaller economies of scale. Limited production and collectability give little incentive for Ford to expand the use of the motor. Unless it is an emissions marvel, I doubt my hope for a Voodoo powered and more mainstream model won't come to fruition.

Maybe Ford can make a FPC Coyote to keep the 5.0 heritage and add a bit of exotica as well.

 

[w3rkn]

Lets' just hope the Voodoo moves down market to other Mustang editions!

I understand where you are coming from OP. Yes, GM delivered the power earlier using displacement as a primary weapon. This argument reminds me of all the pissing matches on motorcycle boards over the displacement advantages twins have over I4 motors. Here it is OHC and RPM versus OHV and displacement. The fundamentals are the same, one motor spins up faster to produce power through RPM and the other relies on displacement as the basis of power.

Both are valid approaches and have there merits and disadvantages. Both also produce wonderful machines that sound glorious and bring smiles to drivers around the world.

I do hope the Voodoo becomes more affordable. I am worried that it will remain limited to the GT350 which is a limited production model. This has me thinking the price will be higher than I initially guessed ($55Kish for a base GT350) due to smaller economies of scale. Limited production and collectability give little incentive for Ford to expand the use of the motor. Unless it is an emissions marvel, I doubt my hope for a Voodoo powered and more mainstream model won't come to fruition.

Maybe Ford can make a FPC Coyote to keep the 5.0 heritage and add a bit of exotica as well.

:doh:
The voodoo won't be affordable... and is limited. That is why the car it is in, is limited.


Ford just made a FPC Coyote bro... it's called Voodoo.

 

[Grimace427]

:doh:
The voodoo won't be affordable... and is limited. That is why the car it is in, is limited.


Ford just made a FPC Coyote bro... it's called Voodoo.

Limited by demand, not an arbitrary number.

 

[CoolTech]

Regardless of EXTERNAL engine dimensions, you do realize that such power out of such a small displacement is actually a far bigger achievement, no?

Ah, no. Only if the smaller displacement is comparatively smaller/lighter. Sure, the engineer in me appreciates getting more from less displacement. Consider that you have two black boxes of same size and weight. Both have identical hp/TQ curves. Then someone tells you that one of those boxes achieves that with half the displacement but still requires the same box for packaging. Then do we really care about displacement?

 

[Jimdohc]

Ah, no. Only if the smaller displacement is comparatively smaller/lighter. Sure, the engineer in me appreciates getting more from less displacement. Consider that you have two black boxes of same size and weight. Both have identical hp/TQ curves. Then someone tells you that one of those boxes achieves that with half the displacement but still requires the same box for packaging. Then do we really care about displacement?

They might be happy if the box with half the displacement got better MPG. But then you tell them the other box can deactivate half it's displacement when not needed and it in fact gets same MPG (if in the same car). DOH!...

Ford was chasing MPG by downsizing engines. GM copied Honda's (i'm pretty sure the invented it, could be wrong) cylinder deactivation to chase MPG.

 

[Trackaholic]

The LS7 is (IMO) GM's best engine. Better than the LSA, LT4, or the TT-V6.
I feel the same way about the Voodoo.

Both use state of the art technology within the limits of their architectures to achieve excellent performance.

Both will probably be similarly fuel efficient.

Both will put similar torque to the wheels after drivetrain gearing is taken into account (due to making similar power). Although it is possible the Voodoo may make much more than the 500 initially disclosed, due to the RPM and peak torque numbers. Torque would have to drop drastically to make only slightly above 500 HP @ 8000 RPM.

Both will probably have similar weight.

The main difference will be in how they feel. The Voodoo will rev higher and more freely due to the lower inertia. The LS7 will have more low-end punch.

Hopefully the Voodoo ends up with less issues than the LS7 has had (thinking of the valve guide issues).

-T

 

[OppoLock]

I think that's a pretty popular opinion in regards to the LS7.^

 

[kesbar]

the LS7 would make a great engine for a tow vehicle. a tow vehicle for a voodoo-powered race car.

 

[erne75]

There is only one metric that truly matters when it comes to engine performance: Power generated for a given engine weight.

Usable power is definitively not Max HP and area under the torque curve might be a better indicator although not the only one. More power for less engine weight is always better. You also have to take in consideration other subtle properties like packaging or ability to rev quickly. As a simplification though, power over engine weight is a good way to determine performance. What technology gets you that power shouldnt be that important of a consideration. And please stop saying DOHC configuration is a newer or modern design. DOHC technology dates back to the beginning of the 20th Century.

I like the Coyote engine but I can also appreciate the simplicity of the LS family of engines.

 

[DHG1078]

There is only one metric that truly matters when it comes to engine performance: Power generated for a given engine weight.

Usable power is definitively not Max HP and area under the torque curve might be a better indicator although not the only one. More power for less engine weight is always better. You also have to take in consideration other subtle properties like packaging or ability to rev quickly. As a simplification though, power over engine weight is a good way to determine performance. What technology gets you that power shouldnt be that important of a consideration. And please stop saying DOHC configuration is a newer or modern design. DOHC technology dates back to the beginning of the 20th Century.

I like the Coyote engine but I can also appreciate the simplicity of the LS family of engines.

I have never in my life ever heard of anyone use that metric. That's ricer math at best. Sounds like fanboys grasping at straws. Why is engine weight so important, but the cars total weight isn't? Last I checked the mustang is lighter than the camaro with a heavier/bigger smaller displacement engine.

 

[Trackaholic]

I have never in my life ever heard of anyone use that metric. That's ricer math at best. Sounds like fanboys grasping at straws. Why is engine weight so important, but the cars total weight isn't? Last I checked the mustang is lighter than the camaro with a heavier/bigger smaller displacement engine.

Engine weight is important because it is a "black box" that can be compared (in general) between different vehicles.

Overall weight is much less useful because the cars in question can be designed using different architectures with different priorities. Trying to compare the weight between a Mustang and a Vette is difficult, because the cars are meant to accomplish different tasks. The Mustang and Camaro are similar in intent, but the Camaro uses a chassis leveraged from a larger car, and in that sense is under different design constraints. You can, however, compare the weight of the two engines (which, incidentally, was the original question posed by the OP).

Now, it is true that the engine architecture can ripple through to other components. For example, a smaller, higher revving engine with low torque can likely use a smaller, lighter weight transmission. A lower revving engine with more torque (but similar horsepower) might need a heavier transmission. So, in that way, there could be a bit of a ripple effect.

Still, when looking at engine capability, a good metric is power/weight (of the engine itself), power/external dimensions, and BSFC. When evaluating thermodynamic efficiency, torque/displacement is a very useful metric. Power/displacement is mostly a measure of how fast an engine can spin, and is definitely not a measurement of efficiency (neither fuel efficiency, nor packaging efficiency).

-T

 

[DHG1078]

I would agree that the weight of individual components can affect engine performance, i.e. connecting rods, pistons, cam shafts, and anything else that moves, but overall engine weight shouldn't be a factor in engine performance.

 

[lostwon]

Hat firmly in hand...

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.

I think we're going to have to wait for the GT-350's performance on the road to judge how the whole system works. The Z/28 looked too heavy on paper at first, but performed well in meeting it's goals. Hopefully the GT-350 will live up to the hype, too. Still the (estimated) torque on the FPC looks a little weak; compared the 470 certified on the 7 liter Chevy. Time will tell. It's all good.

Sponsored