Ford Forums banner

The next generation engines??

8K views 36 replies 16 participants last post by  Steffo 
#1 ·
Hi guys,
I've got a couple of questions, and maybe some one working within FORD may be able to answer them for us..

We've all read that Holden will be advancing into the gen IV engines in the next couple of yrs, these engines being still old tech but having varing capacities of up to 6.7L. My question is, what is ford going to do to combat this? what i mean is, we've now got a bitsa engine and where does it leave us for development? O.K we can put ne cams, tune the headers etc, but it just seems that GM are pouring more investment into their engines and ford may get left behind.


Just a converstaion starter but what do you think........
 
#2 ·
The problem is Holden just use crate motors from the U.S and they have access to a billion bits and pieces for them, whereas Ford have basically had to string together their own motor. The Mustang Cobra R revved to 7000rpm with stronger internals so maybe Ford will eventually go down this path to get more power, but the biggest up side is the GT40's motor which is similar to ours but is more advanced with an alloy block etc. Superchargers are all the rage on Modular motors in the U.S so maybe that will happen here as well. Seems like the HO will use a supercharger. Future engine development will mean either mor revs for more power or waiting to see what the Americans do to boost power of the Modular. It has been around in its current 4V form for a while now so maybe an update can't be too far away.
 
#3 ·
I just feel that supercharging seems the eay way out? I'm sorry to maybe offend some people, but can you imagine having some beers with some Holden guys talking cars and knowing your engine had to be supercharged.. I wouldn't want that.We don't ever hear of any potential updates or technologies from Ford. I guess the General Motors (holden) marketing just keeps on rolling on........
 
#4 ·
Mate the gen lll has it's troubles don't worry. Talk to any auto machinist and he'll give you a run down as long as your arm, and most of them are G.M through and through.
We will possibly go the way of the lightning as far as extra power goes. Pluss Ford wants all engines to be alloy by I think 2005. I wouldn't care if they bought out a blower on an engine! It means there is enough strength and reliabilty in it to take it. Plus it will make more power at lower rpm..

Maybe use the t/bird, Jag engine 4ltr V8 thats s/c ?? Emissions and fuel consumpion will be issues ...WEIGHT also!!!
 
#5 ·
There are limited options really either superchargers, increasing engine capacity or stronger internals for increased revs.


Im not sure if there are still 351's or 429's in the SVO catalogue but if there arent there should be :p id love to see new ford engines with increased engine capacities cus they sound kewl :p
 
G
#6 ·
I am sorry if i am a little behind in this but i try...

What I have been wondering is why hasn't ford gone to variable valve technoolgy.
I know the gains arn't as much when it come to lower reving engines but if the engine RPM were increased to somewhere around 8000 rpm then this could be a better solution than putting a blower on it.

The internals would have to be made a stronger but this would also have to be the case with a blower.
Wear would become a bigger factor but not many guys sit at 5000 RPMs let alone 8000. I would beleive these would be rare spurts, hell how long can a guy control 500Hp on the street.
Being optimistic another 1000 bucks might get away with a strong enough engine. The alloys will handle it

It might be expensive to develop but then they can employee the tech on there lesser (smaller) engines that would really benefit.

Another solution could be a 3D cam shaft (i think ferrari use this so could be patented) I haven't read much on it but my logic tells me it is a 3D cam shaft that is moved sideways as revs increase changing the duration.

Food for though.
Choco
 
#7 · (Edited)
Choco all the new Falcon engines have variable valve timing, it's not used to it's full extent yet (intake & exhaust cams not varying independently), but there is potential.

From what I’ve heard the Gen IV has two cams in the valley of the V to enable separate variable timing of intake & exhaust similar to an dohc engine, but the pushrod configuration is retained for compactness.

I think the move to alloy blocks is necessary for Ford, the current 3 & 4 valve heads are current technology but surely could/will be developed further in terms of port & combustion chamber shape. The 5.4 is ridiculously undersquare currently which limits its rev capacity & therefore power in production form due to high piston speeds, this has been well documented.

It would be better to have a bigger bore but this is more work than deriving a longer stroke & taller version of an existing engine block. The 5.4 is the same scenario basically as the 351 Windsor. Perhaps when there is a wholesale move to an alloy block they might find a bit more than 90mm bore.

A better indication of engine efficiency is specific torque (ie torque output per litre). The GT has 520Nm from 5.4L, against HSV 510Nm from 5.7L. Not bad but compare Porsche 911 GT3 which has 400Nm from 3.6L, and most BMW engines (not just M’s) are around the 100Nm/L mark.
 
#8 ·
outback_ute said:
Choco all the new Falcon engines have variable valve timing, it's not used to it's full extent yet (intake & exhaust cams not varying independently), but there is potential.
Not 100% correct but almost. The BOSS engines have NO Variable valve timing. Only the Barra engine range (220,182,240T).

Stronger internals on the BOSS engine, resulting with higer RPM limits and VVT would do a world of wonders with that engine!
 
#9 ·
I stand corrected mattyc, bit of a strange situation though that the premium engine does not have variable valve timing when all the others do!

I agree with your second point, only need to look at what Boss330 is getting out of his 5.4 Mustang to see what is possible – 500rwhp at 7300rpm and revs to 7700.
 
G
#10 ·
outback_ute said:
Not bad but compare Porsche 911 GT3 which has 400Nm from 3.6L, and most BMW engines (not just M’s) are around the 100Nm/L mark.
Damm that is a lot of torque for a 6. The only downfall is that it is at a rather high RPM, 5000rpm.


I think though that the delay in the move to the alloy block wasn't a bad thing. GM had an awful lot of problems when they first came out and anymore bad publicity for ford could of potential been fatal.
From what i understand Ford Aust were really struggling until the BA series.
 
#11 ·
Though the 4.6 is Alloy and have done o/k..
Ford do alot of R & D, been in there at Detroit.The buildings etc are huge !!! Our engines seem to be similar to whats in Lincon's...
 
#12 ·
the only falcon engine with VCT is the Barra 182, the V8s (boss or barra) dont have it and it removed from the 240T in delvepment to help reduce the power, A destroked and bored out BOSS with stronger internals and a Honda V-TEC style system that revs to 8000-9000rpm. bloodily brillient idea but it might not work or will take a (long) while to produce
 
#13 ·
RossBOSS said:
the only falcon engine with VCT is the Barra 182, the V8s (boss or barra) dont have it and it removed from the 240T in delvepment to help reduce the power, A destroked and bored out BOSS with stronger internals and a Honda V-TEC style system that revs to 8000-9000rpm. bloodily brillient idea but it might not work or will take a (long) while to produce
The 220kw 5.4 SOHC has VCT, and so does the Turbo. The Turbo doesnt have the variable intake manifold.
 
#18 ·
Holden doesn't exactly use crate motors from the USA. Their LS1's are actually different from US ones, if they were direct transplants, Commodore's would probably be alot better. Take for example the 2000 Chevrolet Camaro SS and the 2003 VYII Holden Commodore SS. The Camaro's claimed output by Chevy is 320hp 345ftlbs (239kW 467Nm), while the SS is apparantly 245kW 465Nm. Then go and stick a new SS Commodore on a dyno, and a SS Camaro on the dyno, both running the T56 six-speed manual. The Commodore SS gives out around 185rwkW approx (248rwhp) while the Camaro SS's post 300 - 310rwhp (224 - 231rwkW) dyno numbers. Something must be seriously wrong with the Commodore if its essentially the same engine.. oh and don't forget that Holden succesfully managed to make the LS1 into an oil burner with the VTII and VX Commodores before ironing it out with the VXII. Ford did a great job with the Barra220 when you compare it to the base model 5.4litre V8 in America. Barra220 = 5.4litre VCT SOHC 24-valve V8 as we know, with 220kW 470Nm (295hp and 347ftlbs). The base 5.4 in the US = SOHC 16-valve with 230hp 260ftlbs (172kW 352Nm). The GT's not doing bad either, but I'd rather have seen the 2003 Mustang Cobra's supercharged 4.6 in the GT. SVT claims 390hp 390ftlbs (291kW 528Nm) yet people have done 380rwhp 380rwtq (284rwkW 515rwNm) dyno runs out of stock '03 Cobras, which means they're really producing more like 420hp 420ftlbs, which is why so many have done mid 12sec 1/4 times in stock '03 Cobras. If only FPV put that motor in the GT, we wouldn't be seeing the HSV GTS running faster times for long. I'm fully open to FPV making a Supercharged GT-HO. I don't see the big deal with supercharging its just another power adder. I'd tell any Holden fan who tried to make fun of a blown GT-HO the same thing, and add to that the fact that it whooped their car's butt to. I think it would be cool if they put the 6.0litre Powerstroke Turbo Diesel V8 from the F350 into a Falcon though. 300hp 600ftlbs (224kW 813Nm)
 
#19 ·
The LS1's in the Holden's are the same as the US engines. The Aussie LS1 is detuned from the exhaust and computer. With VT 2 being the most restricted and since then all holden have done to bring up power was by the exhaust. Our engines are built in Canada. The reason for the power differences on the dyno's is that their dyno's are calibrated differently as they have it as less drivetrain loss.
 
#20 ·
Yes, our engines are assembled in Canada. The thing is, the Camaro SS and Commodore SS share transmissions and differentials (I could be wrong about the diff's), so why would our car get more drivetrain loss then? If we are getting so much drivetrain loss, we must be doing something wrong then. I personally thing its a case of our engines being underrated. I was looking at the Aussie Muscle Car Shootout in Motor (July 2003 issue), and the FPV GT put down 225rwkW (302rwhp). This is apparantly a 290kW car, and they tested a manual, which should generally yeild 15-18% drivetrain loss. Assuming the loss was 20% even, thats 232rwkW. Not to say the GT is a bad car, I'd love to own one, but thats a disturbing figure, 22% drivetrain loss in a manual car, maybe something wasn't right on their test car.. or cars.. since all were putting down shockingly bad figures to the wheels. 300kW HSV GTS put down 222rwkW through a T56.. thats 26% loss, something's not right there. Of course, there are variable, such as the dyno's they used etc, but it also may be a good explination as to why the 405hp Corvette Z06 does 12.5's and the 402hp HSV GTS does 13.3's... Just strikes me as odd is all.
 
#22 ·
To date Holden hasn't really had a 'better' engine then Ford (ie: LS1 vs 5.0). 302Ws have never been crash hot from the factory, unlike the LS1, but they eclipse the LS1 for aftermarket. No one even makes aftermarket LS1 block assemblies, let alone all the other things available for the Windsor. The 5.4 on the other hand is different. So far the Windsor is regarded as 'better' purely because it has nearly 40 years of aftermarket development behind it, but as time goes by we will see the 5.4's true potential. Its not going bad, CAPA for example, already has a 500kW Vortech kit for the 5.4, and there are plenty of high horsepower turbo kits for them in the states. As for the GenIV, that engine's going to be interesting. I've been hearing claims that the base GenIV LS2 engine is going to produce 320kW in the base Commodore SS. That'd be scary lol.
 
#23 ·
Steffo said:
Yes, our engines are assembled in Canada. The thing is, the Camaro SS and Commodore SS share transmissions and differentials (I could be wrong about the diff's), so why would our car get more drivetrain loss then? If we are getting so much drivetrain loss, we must be doing something wrong then.
As i said in my above post. The americans calibrate their dyno's for lower drivetrain loss of around 12% i think.

I personally thing its a case of our engines being underrated. I was looking at the Aussie Muscle Car Shootout in Motor (July 2003 issue), and the FPV GT put down 225rwkW (302rwhp). This is apparantly a 290kW car, and they tested a manual, which should generally yeild 15-18% drivetrain loss. Assuming the loss was 20% even, thats 232rwkW. Not to say the GT is a bad car, I'd love to own one, but thats a disturbing figure, 22% drivetrain loss in a manual car, maybe something wasn't right on their test car.. or cars.. since all were putting down shockingly bad figures to the wheels. 300kW HSV GTS put down 222rwkW through a T56.. thats 26% loss, something's not right there.
The drivetrain loss is around 22% for manuals and around 27% for auto's (roughly). There's no way it's in the teens. And between cars figures will vary, it's not as if the GT is really making a spot on 290kw, it could be more of less. Same as the GTS.

Of course, there are variable, such as the dyno's they used etc, but it also may be a good explination as to why the 405hp Corvette Z06 does 12.5's and the 402hp HSV GTS does 13.3's... Just strikes me as odd is all.
Now that is tottaly rediculous. The reason the corvette does so well in the 1/4 is that it weighs around 300kg less. Of course it's gonna be faster.

To date Holden hasn't really had a 'better' engine then Ford (ie: LS1 vs 5.0). 302Ws have never been crash hot from the factory, unlike the LS1, but they eclipse the LS1 for aftermarket.
You obviously have not been following the LS1 development. Atm in Australia there are alot of aftermarket products available. And the US the aftermarket is huge and the windsor is an old engine of course there would be plenty of parts.
The LS1's potential is bigger than the winsdor.
 
#25 ·
CSV_LS1 said:
As i said in my above post. The americans calibrate their dyno's for lower drivetrain loss of around 12% i think.
This is not entirely true and I have done some research that could be most beneficial for you.

So is there any way of really measuring the true transmission loss of a car? Yes - only one - by measuring the flywheel power on an accurate engine dyno, the wheel power on an accurate chassis dyno and taking one away from the other. There is no way on God's green earth of finding out the true transmission loss just by measuring the power at the wheels.

So hopefully that's got you all thinking a bit more now instead of just taking for granted the "flywheel" figure you were given last time you took your car to the rollers. Even worse is the fact that some of these software systems allow the operator to just programme in the % transmission loss he wants the system to add to the wheel figures. So if that isn't a nice easy way to show some big fat flywheel bhp then I don't know of a better one. It's certainly a lot easier than actually doing some proper development work to make the engine perform better - just dial in a bigger transmission loss and bingo - the same wheel bhp now turns into a bigger flywheel bhp - happy customer, happy dyno man - just a shame it was all sleight of hand. See the end of this article if you doubt that this sort of thing really happens.

Yes, you can dial in the % of transmission loss you wish to be added into the software, but then, anyone anywhere can do this. You really think that no one does that here in Australia? There are shifty people everywhere.

So what should you do when you take your car to a rolling road? Firstly, make sure you get printouts that show the wheel bhp and not just the flywheel bhp. Then at least you can see if they look sensible in comparison. If you have a desperate need to know the flywheel bhp then you will have to estimate it - there's no other way short of using an engine dyno.

The average front wheel drive road car with between 100 and 200 bhp loses about 15% of the engine bhp as transmission losses.

The average rear wheel drive road car with between 100 and 200 bhp loses about 17% of the engine bhp as transmission losses.

The 2% increase in losses over front wheel drive is because the differential has to turn the drive through 90 degrees at the back axle which soaks up a bit more of the engine's power. Copyright David Baker and Puma Race Engines

4wd cars will have higher losses because of the extra differentials and other power transmission components. The tyre and main gearbox losses will be the same though. Correlating the performance of vehicles with the both 4wd and 2wd options (Audi's and the Sierra Cosworth are examples) shows 4wd transmission losses to be about 5% higher than rwd. 22% seems to be a good average.

What each individual car loses is an unknown - it will depend on tyre sizes and pressure, suspension angles and other things, but it shouldn't be far from the figures above. For sure though, no 2wd car in the world, unless it has flat tyres and a gearbox full of sand, loses anything like 30% of the engine's power in the transmission and tyres as many rolling road operators would try to have you believe. In general though it is fair to say that low powered cars have higher % losses than high powered cars. This is because some of the frictional losses are independent of engine power and so represent a bigger drain on a small engine. For example, a 60 bhp Fiesta will have around 14 to 15 bhp total transmission and tyre loss (25%) whereas a 90 bhp XR2 will only have about 17 to 18 bhp loss (20%) - a smaller % obviously. By the time you get to RWD cars with engines in the 300 to 500+ bhp range, losses can eventually drop to as little as 12% to 14% or so.

To reflect the fact that % losses are high for low powered cars and vice versa I use the following equations which have been found to correlate well with real world transmission losses.

FWD cars - add 10 bhp to the wheel figure and divide the result by 0.9

RWD cars - add 10 bhp to the wheel figure and divide the result by 0.88

4WD cars - add 10bhp to the wheel figure and divide the result by 0.84

To estimate the expected wheel bhp from a known flywheel bhp just reverse the equations

FWD - multiply flywheel power by 0.9 and then deduct a further 10 bhp

RWD - multiply flywheel power by 0.88 and then deduct a further 10 bhp

4WD - multiply flywheel power by 0.84 and then deduct a further 10 bhp

Remember, these percentages are not "gospel" - they are good realistic averages. The measured wheel bhp can change depending on tyre pressure, tyre size, suspension angles and other things which won't affect flywheel power - so the actual transmission loss % will also change. It pays to try and standardize as many of these things as possible if you intend to do a series of power runs over a period of time. Always use the same tyre pressure because this is a factor which can easily change from day to day and make sure the tracking is correct on a fwd car. Copyright David Baker and Puma Race Engines

Also please remember that the manufacturer's claimed power figures for a standard car are not gospel either. Even engines in perfect condition can vary by plus or minus 5% due to manufacturing tolerances. High mileage or poorly maintained engines can be well below the claimed output. It is no proof that a rolling road flywheel bhp estimate is correct just because it comes out as the same figure as the manufacturer's. Always compare with the measured wheel bhp to see if the transmission losses agree with the data above.

All this information comes from this article:

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htm

Now using this formula, with the wheel horsepower from Motor's dyno test of the FPV GT (302rwhp), it goes as follows:

302+10 = 312/0.88 = 354.545454.....

That would approximate to 355hp (265kW) at the flywheel, not FPV's claimed 389hp (290kW).

Now lets use the formula in reverse with the 389hp FPV GT claim, which goes as follows:

389*0.88 = 342.32 - 10 = 332.32.

So basically, 332rwhp (248rwkW) approx. if it really were producing 290kW and getting drivetrain losses based on this standardised formula.

So this could mean that when you buy a '290kW' FPV GT, you're really getting 265kW, or you're getting stupidly high drivetrain losses, which would mean FPVs doing something wrong. Ford USA got axed for underrating cars. The Mustang Cobra's were producing 25hp less then claimed and a class-action lawsuit was taken against The Ford Motor Company. Ford claimed that their prototype test car had a different muffler to the road version, and blamed the muffler company for not providing a muffler to their exact specs. In the end, Ford gave in to legal pressure and replaced all the mufflers on all the Cobras they sold that way. These days they tend to underrate their cars (like the 390hp Cobra thats really make more like 420 etc etc).

CSV_LS1 said:
The LS1's potential is bigger than the winsdor.
That's an assumption. Its not proven that the LS1 has greater potent as of yet. In the Windsor's defence, there's a whole drag class based on Windsor V8s that's in the 6's. Its called NMRA Pro 5.0.

CSV_LS1 said:
Now that is tottaly rediculous. The reason the corvette does so well in the 1/4 is that it weighs around 300kg less. Of course it's gonna be faster.
Ok then, lets bring the comparo to more 'equal' terms. Assuming we believe HSV and SVT's figures for the 2003 Cobra and VY GTS. HSV says 300kW 510Nm (402hp 376ftlbs) and weighs around 3670lbs. SVT says 291kW 528Nm (390hp 390ftlbs) and weighs around 3665lbs. That seems pretty fair right? Now look, American's have gotten mid-high 12s from the 2003 Cobra, while the HSV GTS is yet to beat a 13.2 second pass. If its 'equal' there, why it the Cobra so much faster?
 
#26 ·
Of course the only way of knowing the true power at the engine is an engine dyno but we are talking about dyno's that measure RWKW. Yes there are dodgey operators know matter which country you go to but the majority are professional. All that article shows and proves is how they calibrate their dyno's in the US and probably the UK (as it says Puma Racing and might be a UK based company) as i have previously said. But not here in Australia where the drivetrain loss is calibrated as higher. What we are comparing are the differences between the US and Australia in calibrating their dyno's. For a 290kw engine it should be putting down around 220+rwkw and they have been doing that and more.

If you read the article on this page which was written by the late Todd Wilkes explaining the differnces.

http://www.twinturbov8.com/dynostuff.htm

The VY GTS weighs over 1700kg not in the 1600's and the Cobra is low 1600's. Thats where your time difference is. I'm also guessing their better fuel is making a slight difference too.

As to the 6 second cars, any engine can be used to go as fast as you like if you have the money to do so. But i'm talking about afteramrket that you can spend on your car and drive on the road and take to the track and retains the original chassis at least not a tubular frame with an engine sticking out of it with huge slicks on the back.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top