Voodoo Theory

[Pablo GT350]

That's a big if. Unfortunately until they do certify it it's irrelevant to the discussion. A set of rules where all manufacturers play by is what we're talking about. Otherwise one can squeeze 150hp/litre out of small block and then tell the world he can build engines better than Porsche or Ferrari.

Oh. So you make the rules about what evidence is relevant to the discussion. I see now. Your correct Ford hasn't done it yet. I submit that is because they have chosen not to. And you might be the only one who thinks the new GT350 will have less than 500hp.

Sponsored

 

[PsyopGoat]

Thanks for doing the math. That was my point.

It's not really a valid point. You can't Extrapolate the theoretical horspower at 8000 rpms. His figure would assume torque to be numerically equal all the way out at 8000 RPM. At peak HP torque is on the decline.

 

[on d bit]

Do you guys know what Fords durability test/s consist of? Let's just say its not a one off build for a rich client.

 

[Pablo GT350]

It's not really a valid point. You can't Extrapolate the theoretical horspower at 8000 rpms. His figure would assume torque to be numerically equal all the way out at 8000 RPM. At peak HP torque is on the decline.

No but you can find a dyno chart for a 458 Italia and see what it is as it crosses 8k

 

[Pablo GT350]

Do you guys know what Fords durability test/s consist of? Let's just say its not a one off build for a rich client.

With the upgraded forged parts the aluminator comes with and you dont think it would last as long as a coyote.

 

[nametoshowothers]

Do you guys know what Fords durability test/s consist of? Let's just say its not a one off build for a rich client.

Usually not the mustang buyer anyways. And your point is what?

 

[on d bit]

With the upgraded forged parts the aluminator comes with and you dont think it would last as long as a coyote.

The Hyndia or however you spell it is basically what the mustang gt is now hp/l. The 458 engine probably costs more by itself than the mustang gt if not the base gt500.
Which is it that this forum wants? Regardless I have to laugh at all the what ifs.:clap2:

Copy and paste of durability testing articles and findings from 2 years ago. Sorry the some media links do not work anymore. But it is easier than a google search yourself. The comments and the search came about because someone asked why ford could not make the 5.8 trinity with more power than a 5.0 with a blower.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...erformance-potential-5-8l-2.html#post11383608

info on durability testing from the 5.0 & super fords coyote tech article...

"We observed some of this internal combustion water-boarding, and for anyone with a foot-pound of mechanical sympathy it isn't pretty. Engines run fatigue cycles equivalent to 62 Daytona 500 races. Others replicate customer drive cycles for 1,000 running hours to include 1,000 cold starts, plus hitting its peak torque and power for sustained periods. That test alone runs 100 hours a week for two and a half months.

We witnessed another torture session where the engine was run at WOT for several minutes, the headers glowing just a hint of red, then the engine shut off and after several seconds of sitting, -20 degree ice water was forced through the cooling system. Frost formed on the test rig as the engine was about frozen to death, then the ice water stopped, the engine started and after a handful of seconds idling was taken back to max rpm, max load for another heat cycle up to 225 degrees. Each complete cycle takes about 10 minutes, and the engine must survive days of these non-stop thermal shocks.

Most incredibly, "It can't be on its last legs at the end of the test," says Mike. "It can't be that it hasn't seized yet, we need to see crosshatching on the cylinders, no full-face ring wear, leak down needs to be below, oh, eight percent; it has to be very, very functional and could go do it again, quite frankly.""

2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Coyote Engine - 5.0 Mustang & Fast Fords

Originally Posted by Tob
360 hours straight means non-stop. Where did you hear that the 5.8 engine was run at redline for 15 days straight, all day and all night?

This one of Fords many standard durability and reliability test placed on all new production motors. Yes straight as in non stop. Their testing is insane. I thought I remembered 100 straight from the raptor dvd, and I did a quick search and found 360 hours. I can not find that link currently, though I did find couple articles on the new ecoboost v-6 and the 6.2 raptor motor. As you can see Fords durability are ridiculous. On the DVD about the creation of the raptor, it does state that this test was done straight indication no breaks at full rpms!

The reliability of the new Ford EcoBoost™ V-6 engine is a hot topic at Ford. That’s because EcoBoost’s twin turbos glowed orange-hot while enduring – and passing – extremely rigorous durability testing in Ford engine dynamometer lab. Ford engineers ran EcoBoost at maximum boost continuously for hundreds of hours under far more severe conditions than customers are expected to dish out.

The 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor launches with the proven three-valve Triton 5.4-liter V-8 engine delivering 320 horsepower and 390 ft.-lb. of torque; a new 6.2-liter engine with an estimated 400 horsepower and 400 ft.-lb. of torque becomes available shortly after launch
Both engines underwent extreme laboratory testing, including running the engines at over 6,000 rpm for more than 150 hours.

Originally Posted by Tob Yup, it gets dirty, I know. But I only see one that is close to your original claim -



And that is at a lower rpm ceiling as well as running for less than half the time that you originally quoted. If you can find it for this engine I'd love to see it.

I should have included the link in my first statement. The 6.2 motor running at 6000 rpms for 150 hours is at redline though. 6.2 was run at a lower rpm because the redline is lower on the raptor.

Edit: Found it.

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=29944

EcoBoost also endured Ford’s standard engine durability test signoff by running at maximum revs and turbo boost for the equivalent of 15 straight days or 360 hours.

The entire point of my original statement was that Ford could tune new 5.8 gt500 motor to have more horsepower than a twin screw 5.0 but it would not pass the durability/reliability tests as well as all the federal environmental regulations it needs to pass.

____________________________________

 

[on d bit]

Usually not the mustang buyer anyways. And your point is what?

My point building an engine that starts and building one the can run red line for 360 hours non stop is very different.

Yes one can put a blower on the 5.0 and make 700rwhp, but will it run for 15 straight days and nights at redline without breaking something?

 

[Pablo GT350]

My point building an engine that starts and building one the can run red line for 360 hours non stop is very different.

Yes one can put a blower on the 5.0 and make 700rwhp, but will it run for 15 straight days and nights at redline without breaking something?

What is your point exactly? Nobody mentioned a blower. The Ford Aluminator I referred to is NA. It doesnt rev over 8k. Its got the same or better internals as the Roadrunner. It makes more power because it breathes better. So I'm not seeing why it would blow up any sooner than a standard coyote or roadrunner.

 

[on d bit]

What is your point exactly? Nobody mentioned a blower. The Ford Aluminator I referred to is NA. It doesnt rev over 8k. Its got the same or better internals as the Roadrunner. It makes more power because it breathes better. So I'm not seeing why it would blow up any sooner than a standard coyote or roadrunner.

Point is 100hp/l is hard and expensive. Ford doesn't need to produce one the will run but one that will last. Name me one manufacturer/builder that has built one that will last through Fords testing and not cost 10k plus to produce.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

You guys remember the Audi RS4 from a couple years ago? 4.2L NA V8 motor revving to 8000 rpm. I'm fine with smaller displacement than 5.0L if it means a NA FPC hi-revving motor. If the car is lighter than the GT like they keep saying, having around 500HP would probably be enough.

 

[Pablo GT350]

Point is 100hp/l is hard and expensive. Ford doesn't need to produce one the will run but one that will last. Name me one manufacturer/builder that has built one that will last through Fords testing and not cost 10k plus to produce.

I did show you one. Its basically a coyote with better internals and better breathing. All EASY things to do. I specifically said it wasnt cheap. But its not hard to do if you got money to spend.

 

[williamwally]

You guys remember the Audi RS4 from a couple years ago? 4.2L NA V8 motor revving to 8000 rpm. I'm fine with smaller displacement than 5.0L if it means a NA FPC hi-revving motor. If the car is lighter than the GT like they keep saying, having around 500HP would probably be enough.

They're actually still using it in the RS5, r8, and overseas RS4. Sounds amazing, I've never driven one but its supposed to be silky smooth too. Seems like a winning combo if the new GT350 has a similar style engine.

 

[on d bit]

The RS4 is a 70k dollar car. Good one.

Who said it was going to be lighter?

 

[nametoshowothers]

My point building an engine that starts and building one the can run red line for 360 hours non stop is very different.

Yes one can put a blower on the 5.0 and make 700rwhp, but will it run for 15 straight days and nights at redline without breaking something?

Yes that is obvious, you appear to be upset that people are having a conversation and clearly speculating as too what is possible. What is wrong with that until we get real info?

I work in a different industry in which prototypes are considered proven after the equivalent of 30,000 hrs approximately equivalent to 2,000,000 miles, so I understand durability testing.

At the end of the day ford can produce an engine that will get 550hp and be reliable, but can they do it at the cost that is appropriate for a mustang. I do not know. It essentially comes down to cost

Sponsored