Sponsored

Rumormill: Next gen coyote will be twin turbo 4.0L.

Texatl

Insensitive jerk
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Threads
7
Messages
200
Reaction score
73
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2016 V6 Prem, 6spdMT, Shadow Black
I certainly don't want to offend anyone or question what anyone on here heard from some source... but no way Ford throws away 50+ years of heritage and history to make the GT anything other than a NA V8.

They will do cool stuff like, the cross plane, and other racing tech before they abandon the NA V8. It has too much backing it up, too much history, too much icon.

IMHO- turbo is too easy. They need to try harder and evolve the engineering, not put 112 year old tech into it.

But this whole thread is speculation anyway, so it all remains to be seen. What do I know?
Sponsored

 
Last edited:

BmacIL

Enginerd
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Threads
69
Messages
15,010
Reaction score
8,920
Location
Naperville, IL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Guard GT Base, M/T
Vehicle Showcase
1
WUT??

Maybe you want to talk to some people from Ferrari who made MANY V12s that were smaller than 4.5L. There's no problem with friction, especially with modern low tension rings.
It's not a problem for Ferrari in terms of the engine running well, or being able to rev. They aren't great for BSFC, though. A 4.0L 6 cylinder has quite a bit less friction than a 4.0L V8, but it won't be able to rev that high because of how big the pistons would be and the resulting accelerative forces. What you quoted, taken without the context of the next sentences does sound crazy, but context is key.

It all depends on the application. When downsizing and turbocharging, you're going to take the cylinder count down for fuel consumption reasons.
 

BmacIL

Enginerd
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Threads
69
Messages
15,010
Reaction score
8,920
Location
Naperville, IL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Guard GT Base, M/T
Vehicle Showcase
1

EricSMG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Threads
3
Messages
361
Reaction score
106
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT w/PP, 2004 BMW M3 Coupe
It's not a problem for Ferrari in terms of the engine running well, or being able to rev. They aren't great for BSFC, though. A 4.0L 6 cylinder has quite a bit less friction than a 4.0L V8, but it won't be able to rev that high because of how big the pistons would be and the resulting accelerative forces. What you quoted, taken without the context of the next sentences does sound crazy, but context is key.

It all depends on the application. When downsizing and turbocharging, you're going to take the cylinder count down for fuel consumption reasons.
No, not exactly, but more of a trendline.
So, the high cyl. count/small displacement architecture is best for high rpm use since smaller stroke (less piston speed) and smaller/lighter hardware?

Porsche seems to be the oddball with their high rpm, high specific output, large cube 6 cylinders.
 

BmacIL

Enginerd
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Threads
69
Messages
15,010
Reaction score
8,920
Location
Naperville, IL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Guard GT Base, M/T
Vehicle Showcase
1
So, the high cyl. count/small displacement architecture is best for high rpm use since smaller stroke (less piston speed) and smaller/lighter hardware?

Porsche seems to be the oddball with their high rpm, high specific output, large cube 6 cylinders.
Yes :thumbsup:

Porsche can get away with that primarily because of the horizontally opposed engine. The bsfc isn't all that great, but light weight, good aero and extremely efficient transmissions allow the GT3/GT3 RS, for instance, to get decent fuel economy for what they are (15/20 city/highway).
 

Sponsored

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,445
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
It's not a problem for Ferrari in terms of the engine running well, or being able to rev. They aren't great for BSFC, though. A 4.0L 6 cylinder has quite a bit less friction than a 4.0L V8, but it won't be able to rev that high because of how big the pistons would be and the resulting accelerative forces. What you quoted, taken without the context of the next sentences does sound crazy, but context is key.

It all depends on the application. When downsizing and turbocharging, you're going to take the cylinder count down for fuel consumption reasons.
I would think smaller chamber sizes would improve BSFC. The flame front can only move so fast, so a smaller chamber would mean that you don't need to start the spark as far before TDC. I'm no expert, but I would think friction is a relatively small factor.

If you assume that there is no other reason to build a V8, reducing cylinder count would make sense. However, if you consider that having fewer cylinders than 8 will cause the engine to lose something that matters very much to enthusiasts, you might decide to keep the 8 anyway - at least you would if you are trying to sell the product to automotive enthusiasts.
 
OP
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Threads
12
Messages
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
So, the high cyl. count/small displacement architecture is best for high rpm use since smaller stroke (less piston speed) and smaller/lighter hardware?

Porsche seems to be the oddball with their high rpm, high specific output, large cube 6 cylinders.
It comes down to packaging as a result of the (V) angle. V8s have an ideal angle of 90 degrees, with an equal amount of space for intake and exhaust hardware within a volume. An ideal V6 has way too much separation between banks at 120 degrees, which generally requires 2 intake manifolds and leaves very little room for exhaust. A 60 degree V6 has the opposite issue with very little space for intake packaging. A 120 degree V6 is far wider than a V8 of the same stroke. A 60 degree V6 is taller than a V8 of the same stroke. Guess which configuration fits the most intake and exhaust hardware in the smallest space per a given output? You guessed correct. V8s aren't a preference. They are the best option.
 

Orgalorg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Threads
1
Messages
105
Reaction score
40
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT
All I can say is that I specifically bought my Mustang because it has an N/A V8.
Are there great turbo cars? Yes.
I however did not want a great turbo car. I wanted the response, feel, and SOUND that an N/A V8 can provide.
I absolutely love my car as is.
 
OP
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Threads
12
Messages
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
All I can say is that I specifically bought my Mustang because it has an N/A V8.
Are there great turbo cars? Yes.
I however did not want a great turbo car. I wanted the response, feel, and SOUND that an N/A V8 can provide.
I absolutely love my car as is.
So keep your car or pray for big changes in EPA regulations. CAFE is over 50 mpg for 2025. The coyote can't even achieve half of that.
 

xmodem240

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Threads
1
Messages
18
Reaction score
4
Location
Minneapolis MN
Vehicle(s)
2015 DIB GT premium auto
So keep your car or pray for big changes in EPA regulations. CAFE is over 50 mpg for 2025. The coyote can't even achieve half of that.
Remember, this is FLEET average. Not all models have to meet this standard. So if they pump out a shit load of ecoboosts with high MPG they can keep a V8 in some form.
 

Sponsored

BmacIL

Enginerd
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Threads
69
Messages
15,010
Reaction score
8,920
Location
Naperville, IL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Guard GT Base, M/T
Vehicle Showcase
1
Fuck no, hope Trump repeals this bullshit cafe crap, its unnecessary and was imposed by libtards who wanna ruin everything

NA or bust
Thank you for identifying yourself as an idiot.

Disagreeing with the methods by which to reduce our dependence on oil is one thing, but you've now identified yourself as a non-critically thinking, MUH FREEDUMBS, NIMBY-type. Do I agree with CAFE regulation and its execution? No. There are better ways to accomplish the same goal that no one in Washington has the balls to do. Holding back general progress and things that are good for all of humanity (less burning of oil, and as much as I love V8s, it needs to happen) because some group of folks who'd rather we go back in time 40-50 years don't like it is asanine.
 

BmacIL

Enginerd
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Threads
69
Messages
15,010
Reaction score
8,920
Location
Naperville, IL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Guard GT Base, M/T
Vehicle Showcase
1
I can get a 25 average so far. Some have seen 28. :shrug:

50 though is ridiculous.
Which is why they're walking back on that...

Good thing there are lots and lots of Fiestas and Focuses and Fusions to prop up the Corporate Fleet average for Ford.
 
OP
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Threads
12
Messages
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
Which is why they're walking back on that...

Good thing there are lots and lots of Fiestas and Focuses and Fusions to prop up the Corporate Fleet average for Ford.
There aren't any gas powered Fusions or Fiestas that meet CAFE standards... or Focii for that matter.

Fusion
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Ford_Fusion.shtml
Focus
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Ford_Focus.shtml
Fiesta
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Ford_Fiesta.shtml
 

Kahboom

Kahboom
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Threads
26
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
184
Location
Cathedral City, CA
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GTPP, Recaros/2014 Explorer Sport 4X4
They have for awhile had critical state fuel injectors that turn fuel too vapor and increase fuel consumption by a large number. Will not be released for sometime until it is needed. Why not? Its simple economics to bring in as much money as possible, ie the more fuel consumed the more money is made on sales of fuel and tax per gallon.
Sponsored

 
 




Top