Anyone drive a Flat Plane Mustang yet?

Is this a homologation engine? I get that they're chasing numbers, but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

mazdeuce wrote: Is this a homologation engine? I get that they're chasing numbers, but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

Why? Because it's cool, goes fast and makes good noises

rslifkin wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: Is this a homologation engine? I get that they're chasing numbers, but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

Why? Because it's cool, goes fast and makes good noises

Well, yes. I was just wondering because Ford is pretty seriously playing in sports car racing with the turbo V-6, and the development of that engine in the GT was certainly about rules. Maybe we'll see the Mustang dicing it up with Astons and 911's soon?

mazdeuce wrote: but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

I don't think we'd have as much to talk about if there was yet another blown V8 with 700hp.

mazdeuce wrote: Is this a homologation engine? I get that they're chasing numbers, but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

Just wait till they throw a blower on the FPF! Rumor is, that'll be the next GT500 motor.

IndyJoe wrote: Found this on the Car and Driver site. Torque curve is pretty steady above 3500 rpm.

At 2000rpm it makes more torque than a pushrod 5.0 did at peak. And IIRC those engines made peak torque around 3500-3800ish.

It's like VW 16v versus 8v, or rotaries with bridge ports vs stock ports. They make more power everywhere, but you think it "has no low end" because it just keeps climbing.

mazdeuce wrote: Is this a homologation engine? I get that they're chasing numbers, but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

Because they can.

Also, IIRC, they are going for the Euro market with the new chassis. They need to compete against M3s and possibly some alternate-horse vehicles.

Knurled wrote:

IndyJoe wrote: Found this on the Car and Driver site. Torque curve is pretty steady above 3500 rpm.

At 2000rpm it makes more torque than a pushrod 5.0 did at peak. And IIRC those engines made peak torque around 3500-3800ish. It's like VW 16v versus 8v, or rotaries with bridge ports vs stock ports. They make more power everywhere, but you think it "has no low end" because it just keeps climbing.

You have to compare like to like. What does a cross-plane version of the same engine do?

Keith Tanner wrote:

Knurled wrote:

IndyJoe wrote: Found this on the Car and Driver site. Torque curve is pretty steady above 3500 rpm.

At 2000rpm it makes more torque than a pushrod 5.0 did at peak. And IIRC those engines made peak torque around 3500-3800ish. It's like VW 16v versus 8v, or rotaries with bridge ports vs stock ports. They make more power everywhere, but you think it "has no low end" because it just keeps climbing.

You have to compare like to like. What does a cross-plane version of the same engine do?

I'm ignoring that, I'm looking at the total package. The intake manifold and exhaust manifolds are engineered specifically for THAT firing order. (Ford has the unusual up/down/up/down crank layout vs. up/down/down/up typical of flat cranks because of intake manifold issues... apparently nobody else has made a flat plane V8 with a single plenum manifold before)

Everything is working together in a harmony. I don't think you could put its cam lobes and its manifolds in a Coyote engine and see the same power, because the firing order's all wrong.

Something to chew on. Porsche's twin turbo V8s (crossplane) have cylinder specific exhaust timing. I forget which way it goes, but the cylinders that overlap on each bank have less duration than the other two, and I think they are different from each other as well, for three different exhaust lobe shapes on each side.

The beauty of a flat plane is that there are no compromises like that, either with or without cylinder-specific cam timing. If it had an independent runner intake manifold and zoomies, the firing order would not matter because each cylinder would be acting in isolation.

I was thinking more of Coyote vs Voodoo instead of Voodoo vs 1960's relic. The Voodoo makes more power than the production versions of the antique SBF...that's not a huge accomplishment.

I'm unaware of what a "Voodoo" is. Hell, I'm only recently aware of what a "Justin Bieber" is.

In reply to Knurled:

Voodoo is the name of the flat plane crank engine in the GT350 and GT350R. The coyote is the regular GT engine.

rslifkin wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: Is this a homologation engine? I get that they're chasing numbers, but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

Why? Because it's cool, goes fast and makes good noises

Why? This thread.

Other than the pretty noise commercial, it's not as if this car needs any advertising. There are Mustang threads on the freaking Miata board, for God's sake.

Something to consider- many of you think that this engine is so incredibly unique that it's massively expensive to make.

It may be, sure. But putting a flak crank into a non flat crank engine works, too. Manifolds are cheap. So it's quite likely that this engine premium is much less than the one in the BRZ (when it came out- I know it's used more now)- even with twice as many parts. The only super unique part is the crank- which isn't, since it's basically a big journal version of any I4 crank.

I understand that there are some high bill parts on it- it spins fast enough that the rods and pistons as well as the valvetrain are pretty special.

In reply to alfadriver:

There's also the engineering costs to consider, aren't there? I mean, you make a con rod, you make a crank, you make a manifold, it costs X cents in materials, but then it costs Y dollars in manufacturing equipment and floorspace and it cost Z dollars in engineering time that could have been spent on getting .1 more MPG out of the replacement for the four cylinder Duratec or whatever.

So in that sense I can see the "why?".

But I can also see the answer of "Because we CAN, and we want to show that we CAN, and we're not the same company that made the '81 Grand Marquis anymore."

Also, I'm looking at this the way GM looked at Fieros and Saturns for testing new manufacturing ideas. From what I have read, there is a LOT of composites and plastics in the GT350R. Better to learn how to do that in a manufacturing standpoint for a low production halo car than, say, 400,000 Fusions.

Keith Tanner wrote:

RealMiniParker wrote:

Appleseed wrote: I'd expect to hear that from a Harley guy.

As another Harley guy, the exhaust from my neighbor's Yamaha R1* gives me eargasms. *Also has a flat-plane crank.

all inline four cylinder engines have a flat plane crank. It's just how they work.

Doh! I misspoke! It's got a cross-plane crank, unlike typical inline 4 cylinders. I knew it was different. I just had a brain fart, as to which one.

I haz a shame.

mazdeuce wrote:

rslifkin wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: Is this a homologation engine? I get that they're chasing numbers, but why this instead of a blower like their pony car competition?

Why? Because it's cool, goes fast and makes good noises

Well, yes. I was just wondering because Ford is pretty seriously playing in sports car racing with the turbo V-6, and the development of that engine in the GT was certainly about rules. Maybe we'll see the Mustang dicing it up with Astons and 911's soon?

Already happening in IMSA. Mulitmatic and Compass are running GT350R-C.

When Leno interviewed the Ford project engineer about why no forced induction he seemed to indicate that the team realized this would be the last time a big inch all-motor solution would make sense.

In reply to Knurled:

There's not that much to a rod. Pretty easy to engineer for this, as are the pistons. With CAE tools these days, probably one set to try, and done. And the delta cost to be capable of this isn't like a lot of other tech.... Certainly less than the cost of a turbo.