Voodoo architecture.

[chopsui]

5000 total production run? Ugh.

Sponsored

 

[oldlugs]

I think the "FPC has no torque" statement is basically false...

Agreed.
As I see it... Crank configuration isn't what contributes to, or limits an engine's torque. Flat planes just allow for quicker and higher revving by lessening rotating mass... Mass that would also make the crank flex more at high rpm and decrease durability. The main trade off of a flat plane, as we all know, is increased vibration.

What makes an engine have or not have torque, is what its intended purpose is. Short stroke and big bore (to a point) is generally used on a high rev engine intended to make HP up top, and low rpm torque is sacrificed. Those engines typically had been cammed and ported to make that high rpm power, so (in older engines) couldn't give torque down low. Things have been improved there with variable valve lift and timing of modern engines.

Torque engines, in the past, were generally more square or undersquare, with longer strokes compared to their bore sizes... And, cammed/ported to suit lower rpm power because long strokes don't live as well at high rpm. Anyway, crank style isn't really a contributing factor to where in the rev range an engine can make HP or torque. The flat plane crank just revs quicker without massive counterweights, much like having a lighter flywheel.

 

[Doc Holliday]

5000 total production run? Ugh.

The article says this:

"Ford broadcast an initial volume plan for production of 5000 units."

I'm hoping there's some emphasis on initial, because if there are only 5,000 of these built, they're going to very challenging to get ahold of. Jamal Hameedi said in the Q&A that production would be similar to the GT500. Hopefully they're just planning for 5,000 units in the first year. However, the selfish part of me says "I don't care how many they make, as long as I can get mine."

Like others have said, being FPC isn't the sole factor that effects the torque. It's a combination of other factors like a typically smaller displacement and being designed for higher rpm use that has the greatest effect on the torque output of the engine.

 

[ilkhan]

How many Boss302s were made per year?

 

[Doc Holliday]

The best I could find was this from one of the boss forums, supposedly sourced from an April 2013 Mustang Monthly article.

2012 - Total: 4,016 (3,249 standard, 767 Laguna Seca)

2013 - Total: 4,273 (3,526 standard, 747 Leguna Seca)

Everything else seems to say around 8,000 total, so I'd say the above figures are either right or pretty close.

 

[Falc'man]

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

The torque value of the 458 is extremely high for 4.5 litres. It makes more torque than an LS3 but it's made to peak much later in the rev range for the obvious reasons.

From that we can deduce FPC doesn't have an adverse effect on volumetric efficiency. Having less mass I would have thought that's a start up bonus, then you have the little advantages that leave us with a very high VE value as seen in F458.

If I could rephrase my question - why has Voodoo gone backwards with it's specific torque value? In other words why has the volumetric efficiency dropped relative to the 5.0?

If FPC represents better volumetric efficiency what has gone wrong with Voodoo?

 

[oldlugs]

...If I could rephrase my question - why has Voodoo gone backwards with it's specific torque value? In other words why has the volumetric efficiency dropped relative to the 5.0?

Maybe so that Ford can bump up the #s with each newer model year. Maybe so as to lessen warranty claims. Maybe for ease of getting EPA approval. ...Maybe for all of the above. :shrug:

 

[91z28350]

Umm if I am reading the stats on the 458 right, it makes 398 lb/ft of torque and 562 horse, on a direct injection engine. Also, Ford has only said 400+ lb. ft of torque, unless I missed an official statement on hp/torque.

 

[Doc Holliday]

If I could rephrase my question - why has Voodoo gone backwards with it's specific torque value? In other words why has the volumetric efficiency dropped relative to the 5.0?

We don't know the final numbers yet, so we are basing this on some "ballpark" figures. If you're using the peak torque figure to calculate VE, then yes it does sound like might have taken a step back from the 5.0, depending on what the final numbers are. Keep in mind though to match the current 5.0 that makes 400 lb-ft, it only has to make 416 lb-ft. However, if you calculate VE based on peak horsepower, it has definitely taken a step forward.

This is also comparing apples to oranges. A little more similar comparison would be to compare the voodoo to the roadrunner, which only made 380 lb-ft. All we've heard for the voodoo is "over 400". It only has to hit 395.2 to match the VE of the roadrunner based on torque, so we know it already beats the roadrunner in that measure.

 

[Falc'man]

We don't know the final numbers yet, so we are basing this on some "ballpark" figures. If you're using the peak torque figure to calculate VE, then yes it does sound like it has taken a step back from the 5.0. However, if you calculate VE based on peak horsepower, it has taken a step forward.

This is also comparing apples to oranges. A little more similar comparison would be to compare the voodoo to the roadrunner, which only made 390 lb-ft. All we've heard for the voodoo is "over 400". It only has to hit 405.6 to match the VE of the roadrunner based on torque.

I don't think it is apples/oranges. It's XPC showing better VE than FPC. It doesn't make sense to me.

The peak VE is measured off the peak torque. Ford have stated the torque as being 400 and not over like they have with the power.

Oldlugs, that is another theory. In reality I would have expected an increase by virtue of reasons given. At the very least not gone backwards.

 

[Falc'man]

Umm if I am reading the stats on the 458 right, it makes 398 lb/ft of torque and 562 horse, on a direct injection engine. Also, Ford has only said 400+ lb. ft of torque, unless I missed an official statement on hp/torque.

Yes my memory failed me. It has a bit less than LS3, but more than the 6.0 chevs. The point was it's punching out a lot of torque for the amount of cubes it has; 11.5 lb.ft more torque per litre than Voodoo.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I don't think it is apples/oranges. It's XPC showing better VE than FPC. It doesn't make sense to me.

I feel that that the roadrunner is a better comparison because it also is an engine that was designed for higher RPM usage vs the standard 5.0.

The peak VE is measured off the peak torque.

I stand corrected.

Ford have stated the torque as being 400 and not over like they have with the power.

It seems like I thought the reports on this were conflicting, some saying 400, others saying over 400? However, the current Ford website does say "Over 500 hp with 400 lb.-ft. of torque"

In reality I would have expected an increase by virtue of reasons given. At the very least not gone backwards.

I went back and edited by original post because I had the torque figure incorrect for the roadrunner. With the correct figure, the voodoo does have improved VE over the roadrunner, even at "only 400 lb-ft."

This also brings to question how relevant VE really is anyway. If you compare the roadrunner to the coyote of the same year, it had a lower VE (same displacement, but 10 lb-ft less torque). Few would argue against the roadrunner being the better engine in that application.

 

[Jimdohc]

...This also brings to question how relevant VE really is anyway...

good question. seems like hp per liter contains more variables and therefore more information.

VE is only the ratio of air entering the engine vs size of cylinders.

torque is force.

hp is force in relation to time.

hp/liter is force in relation to time in relation to size of cylinders.

or

maybe hp/lb would be better? but we don't always have the engine weights for comparison. So that takes us back to hp/liter but knowing there are extreme situations. Like when a 3.5l twin turbo has better hp/liter than 5.2l or 7.0l NA but worse hp/lb.

just random thoughts...

Sponsored