Voodoo Theory

[thePill]

The Coyote is getting to the point where a Trinity or a Voodoo is no longer required.

You could break the 5.0 down into 4 unique engine possibilities.

5.0
Ecoboost 5.0
PTWA'd 5.x
Supercharged 5.x

I would love to see a 5.5 Coyote myself

Sponsored

 

[ford20]

I just want a 5.X block available from Ford.

 

[Red]

Falc'man: 5.15L would be the 94 mm bore with the original 92.7 mm bore. Specific torque is a very effective measuring stick. It's the same as BMEP, actually, just different units. It's an effective way to level the playing field, so to speak.

We are fortunate indeed to have Pill around. A greatly enjoy his informative posts.

 

[Trackaholic]

All good TTH
The very crude measuring stick I use - which may seem useless - is specific torque. Many people would be surprised to learn that Coyote is right up there behind Ferrari's 4.5 and 6.3. There's nothing else that has a higher reading, direct injected or not.

I like specific torque too, but I'm a little biased because my 350Z with it's whopping 274 lb-ft from it's 3.5 V6 ranks just a bit higher than the 390 lb-ft out of the Coyote 5.0. (78.29 vs. 78.0 - booyah!)

Would be nice if the ol' Z could maintain that torque up high in the RPM range like the Coyote though!

Really enjoyed this thread so far.

Thanks all.

-T

 

[Falc'man]

I like specific torque too, but I'm a little biased because my 350Z with it's whopping 274 lb-ft from it's 3.5 V6 ranks just a bit higher than the 390 lb-ft out of the Coyote 5.0. (78.29 vs. 78.0 - booyah!)

Would be nice if the ol' Z could maintain that torque up high in the RPM range like the Coyote though!

Really enjoyed this thread so far.

Thanks all.

-T

That is impressive - I'd love to fang one of those.

When I went looking at all other motors to compare to Coyote [when it was first released] I only looked at motors that had similar capacity. I didn't want to compare motors that had much less rotating mass as that wouldn't have been fair. I know Porsche's motors also have a higher reading but they "can't play" this game for that reason.

In saying that the Z is one of my favourite non Ford cars. I would have bought one had it had more than 2 seats. The latest shape has really grown on me.

 

[Red]

Trackaholic -- here are some numbers for the VQ35HR. In my internet searches for various spec's, I found the peak torque to be 268 ft-lbf @ 4800 rpm and peak power to be 306 hp @ 6800 rpm, with a 7500 rpm redline.

bore: 95.5 mm
stroke: 81.4 mm
rod: 151.74 mm
displacement: 3,498.4 cc (213.5 cid)
rod/stroke: 1.864

mean piston speed @ 7500: 20.35 m/s
peak piston speed @ 7500: 33.10 m/s
peak accel: 3,249 g's
location of max piston speed: 75.90 deg BTDC & ATDC

BMEP @ peak torque: 204.15 psi
BMEP @ peak power: 166.95 psi

Very low-stressed engine considering its performance (assuming proper component designs -- likely a safe assumption ). Very good BMEP, obviously.

 

[Red]

BMEP's for the Ferrari 458 Italia engine (evidently named the F163FB). According to my searches, peak torque = 398 ft-lbf @ 6000 rpm and peak power = 562 HP @ 9000 rpm.

BMEP @ peak torque: 218.71 psi
BMEP @ peak power: 180.22 psi

Remember that mean piston speed is 24.30 m/s -- a much more highly stressed engine than the VQ35HR.

 

[thePill]

BMEP's for the Ferrari 458 Italia engine (evidently named the F163FB). According to my searched, peak torque = 398 ft-lbf @ 6000 rpm and peak power - 562 HP @ 9000 rpm.

BMEP @ peak torque: 218.71 psi
BMEP @ peak power: 180.22 psi

Remember that mean piston speed is 24.30 m/s -- a much more highly stressed engine than the VQ35HR.

Can you work on something optimal for a 289 cubic inch V8?

In your opinion, could Ford get 500-525hp (375-390tq) from a 4.7 liter, flat plane crank V8?



Edit: (SPECULATION) Here is a clever way to work a 289 into a GT350 in both Coyote and Voodoo. I say, increase the thickness of the PTWA cylinder liners and reduce the stoke slightly. The first DI Coyote can be in the SVT versions first. A Coyote 4.7 in the GT350 and then a Voodoo 4.7 in the GT350.R...

...Bring back the 5.4 but now with TiVCT, Direct Injection, 60lbs lighter (Coyote vs. Condor/Trinity, another 50lbs in the transmission) and is cheaper base wise so... lots of R&D $$$ can be spent on the "Other" stuff.

Ford Racing would benefit HUGE having both Coyote 4.7, Voodoo 4.7, Coyote 5.0 and Coyote 5.4.

 

[Trackaholic]

Trackaholic -- here are some numbers for the VQ35HR. In my internet searches for various spec's, I found the peak torque to be 268 ft-lbf @ 4800 rpm and peak power to be 306 hp @ 6800 rpm, with a 7500 rpm redline.

bore: 95.5 mm
stroke: 81.4 mm
rod: 151.74 mm
displacement: 3,498.4 cc (213.5 cid)
rod/stroke: 1.864

mean piston speed @ 7500: 20.35 m/s
peak piston speed @ 7500: 33.10 m/s
peak accel: 3,249 g's
location of max piston speed: 75.90 deg BTDC & ATDC

BMEP @ peak torque: 204.15 psi
BMEP @ peak power: 166.95 psi

Very low-stressed engine considering its performance (assuming proper component designs -- likely a safe assumption ). Very good BMEP, obviously.

Sweet calcs. I actually have the VQ35DE which makes more peak torque, but drops like a stone at the high end and redlines at 6600 RPM. It's great on the street, but at the track it's a little "soft" because of the torque drop at high RPM. Still, it's been bulletproof, with 177,000 miles and many, many track days.

I am very excited to check out an engine like the Coyote or especially RoadRunner that pulls strong all the way to redline.

BTW, is the Voodoo what people are calling the expected replacement for RoadRunner, or do you think they'll do both an updated RR, plus something even more extreme (that is Voodoo)? I'm talking all N/A, as I'm sure there will be some S/C options that will be crazy, but I don't like that extra weight hanging over the front of the car.

-T

 

[Red]

T: I have no idea about what Voodoo even is! lol I've read the term here, and I take it to be the next step beyond the Road Runner. But I am likely wrong.

Reliability is something folks seem to take for granted, and is a most under-rated aspect of an engine. Sounds like yours is bullet-proof.

Pill: With so many unknowns, it's hard/impossible for me to come up with an optimum 289. But, I'm working on a couple sets of numbers. More in a bit.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Sweet calcs. I actually have the VQ35DE which makes more peak torque, but drops like a stone at the high end and redlines at 6600 RPM. It's great on the street, but at the track it's a little "soft" because of the torque drop at high RPM. Still, it's been bulletproof, with 177,000 miles and many, many track days.

I am very excited to check out an engine like the Coyote or especially RoadRunner that pulls strong all the way to redline.

BTW, is the Voodoo what people are calling the expected replacement for RoadRunner, or do you think they'll do both an updated RR, plus something even more extreme (that is Voodoo)? I'm talking all N/A, as I'm sure there will be some S/C options that will be crazy, but I don't like that extra weight hanging over the front of the car.

-T

What about the 3.5 Rev-Up and the 3.7?

 

[Red]

Ok, this is in regards to Pill's request for an optimum 289 -- which I'm taking to be a max effort, yet streetable, warrantied, 289.

I'm going to use the Ferrari 458 masterpiece of an engine as the bogey. It is listed as making 562 HP @ 9000 rpm and 398 ft-lbf @ 6000 rpm. I am going to use its numbers, to follow, as the current state-of-the-art. Whether Ford can match or exceed these numbers, and still have the thing be affordable to its usual customer base is another question. But this engine would be a benchmark for a max effort 289:

Ferrari F163FB

562 HP @ 9000 rpm

bore: 94.0 mm
stroke: 81.0 mm
rod: unknown -- I picked 151.0 mm
rod/stroke: 1.864
displacement: 4,496.98 cc (274.4 cid)

mean piston speed @ 9000 rpm: 24.30 m/s
max piston speed @ 9000 rpm: 39.53 m/s (con rod length dependent)
peak accel: 4,655 g's (con rod length dependent)

torque @ peak power: 327.97 ft-lbf
BMEP @ peak torque: 218.71 psi
BMEP @ peak power: 180.2 psi

VE/BFSC @ peak power = 2.1416

I have not found any VE nor BFSC data for this engine, so I'm presenting their ratio above. The higher that ratio, the more 'advanced' the engine.

So.... 289 Version 1 is an engine matching the BMEP and VE/BFSC of the Ferrari. I also tried for a reliable 'design' in three areas:

1. Increased the bore to 93.0 mm (not 94.0) because I just worry about the small amount of head gasket between 94 mm bores on 100 mm bore centers

2. Matched the mean piston speed of this 'design' to that of the Road Runner @ 7500 rpm.

3. Continued to use stock compression height. It's right around 30 mm, and that's quite short to fit three rings and the wrist pin radius. Any shorter and think there'd be reliability problems.

So, given these decisions:

289 Version 1

525 HP @ 8,000 rpm:

bore: 93.0 mm
stroke: 87.0 mm
rod: 153.55 mm
rod/stroke: 1.765
displacement: 4,727.9 cc (288.5 cid)

mean piston speed @ 8000: 23.20 m/s
max piston speed @ 8000: 37.88 m/s
peak accel @ 8000: 3,998 g's

torque @ peak power: 344.67 ft-lbf
BMEP @ peak power: 180.2 psi

VE/BFSC @ peak power: 2.1406

The above would be a max effort 289 with the general reliability of the current Road Runner -- assuming a 90 deg crank. If the above BMEP and VE/BFSC numbers require a flat crank to be achieved, then I'd have to think reliability would be lower due to the secondary imbalance.

Ok, now let's look at another concept that is somewhat more stressed, and especially so for the head gasket: the bore is increased to 94.0 mm.

289 Version 2

525 HP @ 8,250 rpm

bore: 94.0 mm
stroke: 85.25 mm
rod: 154.425 mm
rod/stroke: 1.811
displacement: 4,732.9 cc (288.8 cid)

mean piston speed @ 8250: 23.44 m/s
max piston speed @ 8250: 38.21 m/s
peak accel: 4,142 g's

torque @ peak power: 334.23 ft-lbf
BMEP @ peak power: 174.5

VE/BFSC @ peak power: 2.0735

So, if the head gasket can survive, this appears to be a more easily attainable 'design' in that BMEP at max power is essentially equal to that of the current 500 hp Aluminator (@ 7500 rpm). A BFSC of 0.50 would require a VE of ~103.7% (at max power).

Finally, here's a third set-up, inspired by Falc'man but seeking a little bit less stressed design w/ the exception of the head gasket:

The 314 Oz Engine

540 HP @ 7750 rpm

bore: 94.0 mm
stroke: 92.7 mm
rod: 150.7 mm
rod/stroke: 1.626
displacement: 5,146.5 cc (314.1 cid)

mean piston speed @ 7750: 23.93 m/s
max piston speed @ 7750: 39.37 m/s
peak accel @ 7750: 4,073 g's

torque @ peak power: 365.95 ft-lbf
BMEP @ peak power: 175.7 psi

VE/BFSC @ peak power: 2.0879

Again, essentially the same BMEP of the 500 horse Aluminator. A BFSC of 0.5 requires a VE of ~104.4%. Appears doable...

Ought to have good torque, given the relatively high value (~366) at peak power. If we can assume a BMEP of 195 psi at peak torque (this is the value of the 420/390 Coyote), the peak torque value would be ~406 ft-lbf. Given the changes to the 5.0 that RTD posted, I wouldn't be surprised if the BMEP @ peak torque is > 195 psi. But, who knows -- the devil is in the details...

 

[thePill]

THANK YOU!!!!

 

[Pitch]

I can honestly say I've never known so little about something someone has posted in a forum

Now or ever

Dafuq did I just read?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[thePill]

Ok, this is in regards to Pill's request for an optimum 289 -- which I'm taking to be a max effort, yet streetable, warrantied, 289.

I'm going to use the Ferrari 458 masterpiece of an engine as the bogey. It is listed as making 562 HP @ 9000 rpm and 398 ft-lbf @ 6000 rpm. I am going to use its numbers, to follow, as the current state-of-the-art. Whether Ford can match or exceed these numbers, and still have the thing be affordable to its usual customer base is another question. But this engine would be a benchmark for a max effort 289:

Ferrari F163FB

562 HP @ 9000 rpm

bore: 94.0 mm
stroke: 81.0 mm
rod: unknown -- I picked 151.0 mm
rod/stroke: 1.864
displacement: 4,496.98 cc (274.4 cid)

mean piston speed @ 9000 rpm: 24.30 m/s
max piston speed @ 9000 rpm: 39.53 m/s (con rod length dependent)
peak accel: 4,655 g's (con rod length dependent)

torque @ peak power: 327.97 ft-lbf
BMEP @ peak torque: 218.71 psi
BMEP @ peak power: 180.2 psi

VE/BFSC @ peak power = 2.1416

I have not found any VE nor BFSC data for this engine, so I'm presenting their ratio above. The higher that ratio, the more 'advanced' the engine.

So.... 289 Version 1 is an engine matching the BMEP and VE/BFSC of the Ferrari. I also tried for a reliable 'design' in two areas:

1. Increased the bore to 93.0 mm because I just worry about the small amount of head gasket between 94 mm bores on 100 mm bore centers

2. Matched the mean piston speed of this 'design' to that of the Road Runner @ 7500 rpm.

3. Continued to use stock compression height. It's right around 30 mm, and that's quite short to fit three rings and the wrist pin radius. Any shorter and think there'd be reliability problems.

So, given these decisions:

289 Version 1

525 HP @ 8,000 rpm:

bore: 93.0 mm
stroke: 87.0 mm
rod: 153.55 mm
rod/stroke: 1.765
displacement: 4,727.9 cc (288.5 cid)

mean piston speed @ 8000: 23.20 m/s
max piston speed @ 8000: 37.88 m/s
peak accel @ 8000: 3,998 g's

torque @ peak power: 344.67 ft-lbf
BMEP @ peak power: 180.2 psi

VE/BFSC @ peak power: 2.1406

The above would be a max effort 289 with the general reliability of the current Road Runner -- assuming a 90 deg crank. If the above BMEP and VE/BFSC numbers require a flat crank to be achieved, then I'd have to think reliability would be lower due to the secondary imbalance.

Ok, now let's look at another concept that is somewhat more stressed, and especially so for the head gasket: the bore is increased to 94.0 mm.

289 Version 2

525 HP @ 8,250 rpm

bore: 94.0 mm
stroke: 85.25 mm
rod: 154.425 mm
rod/stroke: 1.811
displacement: 4,732.9 cc (288.8 cid)

mean piston speed @ 8250: 23.44 m/s
max piston speed @ 8250: 38.21 m/s
peak accel: 4,142 g's

torque @ peak power: 334.23 ft-lbf
BMEP @ peak power: 174.5

VE/BFSC @ peak power: 2.0735

So, if the head gasket can survive, this appears to be a more easily attainable 'design' in that BMEP at max power is essentially equal to that of the current 500 hp Aluminator (@ 7500 rpm). A BFSC of 0.50 would require a VE of ~103.7% (at max power).

In your opinion, based on the v1/v2's results, does a Voodoo seem worth the money?

If the Coyote has so many tricks up it's sleeve and the engine has been paid for about 10 times over, are those power figures worth it? The 2nd Gen Coyote could be pushing 440hp/410tq. Once PTWA is applied, the engine could weigh as little as the old LS3 418lbs (429lbs now). That makes the Coyote lighter than the LT1 by about 30lbs. Direct Injection could push it over 470hp... Is a 525hp Voodoo needed?

I know you would have to feel the car in order to say yes or no. The rod/stroke ratio's are great, a bit better on v2.

I wouldn't mind seeing a PTWA'd Coyote down to a 298. A 4.7 liter with both shorter stroke and smaller bore.

Sponsored