GM Engineer about the 350 fpc.

[Angrey]

"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.

That's missing the point. If you took a GT350 and kept everything the same (12:1 compression, GT350 cylinder heads, GT350 intake, cams, etc) and simply changed it to a CPC would there be an appreciable difference in performance between the two?

The GT350 walks coyotes for a number of proximate reasons, but the motor itself in apples/apples, is the basterdized FPC any better than a CPC? (all other things being equivalent).

I think the empirical real world data is basically........no. A 5.2 Coyote with comparable supporting chops will perform JUST AS WELL as the voodoo, without the pesky secondary vibe issues.

I'm also curious what the redline would have been if Ford actually maintained the UDUD firing order (negating the need for heavy crank counterweights) and rev'd to the moon like GM is doing. THEN, maybe the motor would stand a head taller than the CPC.

Sponsored

 

[AvalancheSVT]

I think the empirical real world data is basically........no. A 5.2 Coyote with comparable supporting chops will perform JUST AS WELL as the voodoo, without the pesky secondary vibe issues.

I'm also curious what the redline would have been if Ford actually maintained the UDUD firing order (negating the need for heavy crank counterweights) and rev'd to the moon like GM is doing. THEN, maybe the motor would stand a head taller than the CPC.

this. all of this. ford tried something new and you can't win em all.

the reason revving high is dangerous is valvetrain, oiling, and vibrations.
sounds like ford worked out 2 of those 3 on the voodoo
swapping the crank solves the last one but i know that's sacrilege in this forum.

i guess the question is... is the GT350 more than its crankshaft? personally, I think it is.

 

[Angrey]

this. all of this. ford tried something new and you can't win em all.

the reason revving high is dangerous is valvetrain, oiling, and vibrations.
sounds like ford worked out 2 of those 3 on the voodoo
swapping the crank solves the last one but i know that's sacrilege in this forum.

i guess the question is... is the GT350 more than its crankshaft? personally, I think it is.

I think at the time, there was a TON of MAJOR improvements over the current coyote offerings and in total, everyone just assigned the jump in performance all or mostly to the FPC feature of the voodoo.

In hindsight, now that we've seen many of those same advances applied to the CPC coyote variants, I think we're all realizing that the FPC in the voodoo was more gimmick and marketing than any appreciable performance benefit.

So the question still remains, would that be the case if they'd done a true UDUD FPC? Who knows. It's academic.

 

[AvalancheSVT]

So the question still remains, would that be the case if they'd done a true UDUD FPC? Who knows. It's academic.

one day some crazy bastard is going to answer that question and I think it could generate a whole new segment in the market.

all you need is a new crank, cams, and tune.

the aftermarket has been building those things for decades. surely someone could machine a crank and cams in the normal FPC configuration...oh and now we have the twin TB in the gen 4 coyote... so that's another thing to consider.

in a few years you could parts bin a pretty dope franken-voodoo that might sound a lot like our italian pals. but hey, i'm a glass half full kind of guy.

 

[Inthehighdesert]

Apples to apples is how they were released and put in to production. In that the voodoo is superior on a track, and the coyote is more forgiving on the street. Couple the differences in the cars themselves and that’s what make the 350 so good on a track. It is what is. I’ve never understood the pissing contests between brands, motors, etc. For me it’s all about me liking a particular vehicle that gets my interest. I like cars, period. I’m glad all the manufacturers step out of the box at times and try and produce these cars. I could give a rats arse about the this and that and should of done that. That’s what the aftermarket and modding is for. Tweaking the cars is what most of us really like any way. I’m just happy Ford in the case of the 350 and 500 gave us such a remarkable platform to work with if we so desire.

That's missing the point. If you took a GT350 and kept everything the same (12:1 compression, GT350 cylinder heads, GT350 intake, cams, etc) and simply changed it to a CPC would there be an appreciable difference in performance between the two?

The GT350 walks coyotes for a number of proximate reasons, but the motor itself in apples/apples, is the basterdized FPC any better than a CPC? (all other things being equivalent



I think the empirical real world data is basically........no. A 5.2 Coyote with comparable supporting chops will perform JUST AS WELL as the voodoo, without the pesky secondary vibe issues.

I'm also curious what the redline would have been if Ford actually maintained the UDUD firing order (negating the need for heavy crank counterweights) and rev'd to the moon like GM is doing. THEN, maybe the motor would stand a head taller than the CPC.

 

[Hack]

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.

It's possible that octane is the issue. I think it's other things. I think there were some issues with the very thin low tension piston rings (and assembly techniques for them). I know there was a batch of bad valves later in production. I think the Voodoo was the first PTWA cylinder bore engine and that also caused some issues.

I also think the Voodoo pistons are sensitive to lugging the engine. I think the engine is really strong at revs pulling hard on the track, but not as strong when cold or revving with no load.

And I do also think the reliability issues are over exaggerated after owning a GT350 and driving it trouble free for over 30,000 miles.

That's missing the point. If you took a GT350 and kept everything the same (12:1 compression, GT350 cylinder heads, GT350 intake, cams, etc) and simply changed it to a CPC would there be an appreciable difference in performance between the two?

The GT350 walks coyotes for a number of proximate reasons, but the motor itself in apples/apples, is the basterdized FPC any better than a CPC? (all other things being equivalent).

I think the empirical real world data is basically........no. A 5.2 Coyote with comparable supporting chops will perform JUST AS WELL as the voodoo, without the pesky secondary vibe issues.

I'm also curious what the redline would have been if Ford actually maintained the UDUD firing order (negating the need for heavy crank counterweights) and rev'd to the moon like GM is doing. THEN, maybe the motor would stand a head taller than the CPC.

I agree with this. I think you could build a CPC with similar setup and get similar power.
I don't think it would necessarily be more reliable, but I think the FPC was somewhat more of a sales/marketing thing than a necessary change to get to 8,250 rpm.

this. all of this. ford tried something new and you can't win em all.

the reason revving high is dangerous is valvetrain, oiling, and vibrations.
sounds like ford worked out 2 of those 3 on the voodoo
swapping the crank solves the last one but i know that's sacrilege in this forum.

i guess the question is... is the GT350 more than its crankshaft? personally, I think it is.

The Voodoo always seemed to me like a hotrodded Coyote. The Coyote is set up a little more for low rpm than I prefer. I really preferred the high rpm rush that the Voodoo gives you.

 

[ice445]

It's possible that octane is the issue. I think it's other things. I think there were some issues with the very thin low tension piston rings (and assembly techniques for them). I know there was a batch of bad valves later in production. I think the Voodoo was the first PTWA cylinder bore engine and that also caused some issues.

I also think the Voodoo pistons are sensitive to lugging the engine. I think the engine is really strong at revs pulling hard on the track, but not as strong when cold or revving with no load.

And I do also think the reliability issues are over exaggerated after owning a GT350 and driving it trouble free for over 30,000 miles.



I agree with this. I think you could build a CPC with similar setup and get similar power.
I don't think it would necessarily be more reliable, but I think the FPC was somewhat more of a sales/marketing thing than a necessary change to get to 8,250 rpm.



The Voodoo always seemed to me like a hotrodded Coyote. The Coyote is set up a little more for low rpm than I prefer. I really preferred the high rpm rush that the Voodoo gives you.

The older GT500 was the first to get PWTA liners. I believe starting in 12 or 13

 

[Hack]

The older GT500 was the first to get PWTA liners. I believe starting in 12 or 13

You are right. 2013.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/1601-shelby-block-tech-fords-plasma-transfer-wire-arc/

 

[stanglife]

I'm glad GM is going the way they are - with the higher pitched exhaust note - exotic sounding.

The 350 - Personally, I was hoping for this same sound from the moment I heard FPC but I realized the second I heard one at the track tour, why Ford did what they did... and it DOES sound very exotic but it's 100% it's own thing. I think this will set this car apart from the rest as time goes on..nothing sounds like this.

Speaking of exotic - I always drive mine like it is. I keep a slight load on the engine as it warms up to help warm it up (and expand the pistons) faster..I don't lug the engine. For people who tell me that there's no power below 3500 - I don't really understand because I never really floor it at that low of an RPM. If you're on the gas WOT at 2000, waiting for the rush of power to come, you're lugging the engine. You just drive this differently, IMO - and also IMO, this will extend engine life.

 

[CANTWN4LSN]

I love these threads with their learned opinions and friendly banter even though they've been rehashing the same issues for 7 years now. Okay maybe not so friendly at times. Lots of what if Ford did this or should have done that and some notable bad experiences. Yeah the voodoo may be more prone to failure than the coyote. No it's not a true FPC. There are faster cars and quicker from a red light, even other mustangs. I can almost keep up with a corvette or a zl1 on the road but I wouldn't want one of them. It's not a daily driver although it can be used for that, moreso if you don't mind scraping the splitter even leaving a gas station. It probably will fail prematurely if you track it all the time and although that's what it was built and marketed for, I think its true niche is as a grand tourer. I'm thinking/hoping this car has 150-200,000 miles in that capacity.
Owning and driving this car is just so damn emotional. After 5.5 years of ownership I still get that same feeling every time I sit in it, start it up, and take it on the road. 45k miles almost all highway and it hibernates over the winter. Longest stretch 1200 straight in 22 hours and loved every mile of it, in Recaros. Been passed by VW bugs and Toyota Corollas going 90 knowing they're stretched out and I can buzz around them at 120 and feel like I'm only doing 70. Dropping it into 3rd or 4th gear in Sport to go up a mountain pass especially on the interstate at 90mph is a thrill and always will be. Can take a 45 mph corner at 85 and never move the accelerometer beyond 0.7 Gs. 'And I love it won't get me in trouble from a stop and I sure as hell don't need anything that is faster for touring. Getting 23 mpg and 1500 mpq. It's a top 10 manual transmission NA driver's car and always will be.
Only car I've always garaged so it's still in great shape. Still have a year and a half on extended warranty and if the engine goes after that I'll replace it for 30K or get it rebuilt so long as I can still take road trips, and for a lot less money than a replacement car that may not have the same soul. Might have considered a Boss if they came out with one in the s650 and the right engine but not with that g**awful dash.
I'm done.

 

[MNGT350]

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.

Agree for the most part. But you may be downplaying some of the other benefits. No coyote is going to 8250, and no coyote has the power numbers of the voodoo. Whether that is intentional by Ford so Voodoo remains king of the hill in their NA portfolio, I don't know.

Your point about how it could have been even better still stands though.

 

[AvalancheSVT]

Agree for the most part. But you may be downplaying some of the other benefits. No coyote is going to 8250, and no coyote has the power numbers of the voodoo. Whether that is intentional by Ford so Voodoo remains king of the hill in their NA portfolio, I don't know.

Your point about how it could have been even better still stands though.

riddle me this, if you don't mind...

if vibrations are the enemy of revving that high
if the voodoo has a significantly greater amount of that than the coyote due to its design
if the gen 3 coyote can already rev to 7500 rpm

...how do you figure a coyote can't do what a less balanced design can do?

I suspect most if not all the power from the voodoo comes from its heads, cams, displacement and tune.

 

[MNGT350]

riddle me this, if you don't mind...

if vibrations are the enemy of revving that high
if the voodoo has a significantly greater amount of that than the coyote due to its design
if the gen 3 coyote can already rev to 7500 rpm

...how do you figure a coyote can't do what a less balanced design can do?

I suspect most if not all the power from the voodoo comes from its heads, cams, displacement and tune.

I don't know why ford hasn't made a coyote with an 8250 redline and 500+ HP. seems it's leaving money on the table to not do that if they felt they could have.

Either the Voodoo has advantages that allow for those specs, or they don't want to upstage the GT350. Maybe the coyote in the DarkHorse will give us more insight?

 

[AvalancheSVT]

I don't know why ford hasn't made a coyote with an 8250 redline and 500+ HP. seems it's leaving money on the table to not do that if they felt they could have.

Either the Voodoo has advantages that allow for those specs, or they don't want to upstage the GT350. Maybe the coyote in the DarkHorse will give us more insight?

they haven't for the same reason they didn't make 400hp NA 4.6's, once you go up you can't go back. (that's how we got on that discussion in this thread).

there's a reason subaru is VERY slow when it comes to increasing the power level of their cars, they don't really have to and only do it when its absolutely necessary.

ford is pretty good at knowing the market and stepping on the toes of recent special cars in service to the owners of said special cars. they do this so they can sell more special cars later without fear of people holding out for that to trickle down to the GT level.

we probably won't see a 500hp 8K revving GT for 5 more years but its probably coming.

 

[svttim]

Ford made the statement that the FPC was the only reason they could get the HP that they did. And at this point the coyote still does not equal the power of the FPC even with the 5.2 variant. The Voodoo smooth's out at high RPM. I have a couple of friends who run the 5.2 CPC. One is in competition, one is a TT car. The first car lost 2 engines so far the second 1 this year. Both are great engines and yes, the Voodoo has a cloud over it because of early failures. If they had used the more conventional FPC firing order would it have been better? Dont know. Up until now no one had made a FPC at this displacement. The Vette will be telling

Sponsored