01-14-2014, 04:56 AM #76
Yes, you need to read because you have no idea what you're talking about. Period. Don't even try to discuss S54's with me as you are insulting my intelligence with how behind on the topic you are.
V8's require more complicated balancing? Uh oh someone read on wikipedia again that the inline-6 is inherently balanced. You're really wowing me with your knowledge. What exactly does that have to do with vibration from the length of the crank and cams at high rpm? What does that have to do with piston speeds? What does it have to do with rev capability? What does it have to do with stroke? What does it have to do with the rod angle? Does it have more to do with how smooth the motor is under load in a certain rev range?
What part about the Ford modular engine having iron and aluminum blocks do you not understand? The 4.6 had aluminum and iron options. The Ford Racing catalog had 4 valve heads available before the Cobra R hit the streets. You could go racing with an aluminum 5.4 or 4.6 block if you wanted to. You can take the Cobra R and add an aluminum block if you want. It's called a modular V8 for a reason.
The Ford GT didn't get some special motor. As I already told you they took an engine design they already had sitting around (the modular V8) along with parts they already had sitting around and slapped them all together. It's basically a Navigator motor (check the bore and stroke) with Cobra R heads and one of their aluminum racing blocks which is dry-sumped for lubrication during higher cornering forces. You have no freaking clue what you're talking about. The GT is a perfect example of NA engine design paying dividends with boost which is why the Cobra R heads are used as they made more power with less boost. This is exactly why a Gallardo, S2000, or M3 can make big power without huge boost figures in part due to how well their heads flow.
I have every reason in the world to think it wouldn't last because it was never built with actual Motorsport racing in mind. More than doubling the output of a bargain built BMW motor designed to go into as many cars as possible for the lowest cost possible and thinking you can go tackle Le Mans is about the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board.
It isn't a matter of dislike it's a matter of how completely insane thinking a peak dyno with upgraded turbos equates somehow to being ready for a Motorsport environvent. I can't even fathom your line of thinking.
01-14-2014, 07:17 AM #77Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Brisbane, Australia
- Rep Points
- 62 Post(s)
- Rep Power
I believe financial/effort sense was one of your other points?
Youíre missing both your own point and mine... ok in .. 5-6 years after the S54 was released, what sort of things was it doing for how much effort and cost?
Iím insulting your intelligence? Itís all youíve been doing this whole time... figuratively AND literally.
Aaand no, why do you persist?
You know what helps with vibrations of long crank and cams? Each component being extremely balanced (light weight also helps).... and counterweights and such, having the whole setup balanced.. the V8 has to have that and more.
The balance has to do with rev-ability because the primary and secondary harmonics are the worst for engine longevity maybe? Piston speeds, stroke etc.. all come after configuration, simple...
The reason why inlines longer than 6 arenít a thing these days is because the 6 is the longest motor BEFORE crank and cam length become a REAL issue... $#@!, you keep saying yourself how the S54 revs so easily.. Pretty sure itís seen 10k+ even with ridiculous piston speeds.
if we can finally get OFF the unrelated topic of formula 1 cars, how many STREET/WORKSHOP BUILT motors (V8ís even) rev higher than the highest reving inline 6 motors. Given 14k is a number iíve seen at least, lets go 14k+ V8ís that arenít formula or strictly purpose built motorsports engines never to be seen in a real Ďcarí
What if the 4.6 had aluminium, itís not a 5.4. what about the ford engineers themselves saying custom made for the GT donít you get?
And... Ďitís called modular V8 for a reasoní LOL i was waiting for you to say that... ď the name was derived from a manufacturing plant protocol, "Modular", where the plant and its tooling could be changed out in a matter of hours to manufacture different versions of the engine family.Ē Specifically stated to not be a Ďmodular motorí -_-
You keep saying i know nothing and everything youíve said about the 5.4 was wrong so far.
Again, the 5.4 alu block didnít exist until they made it for the GT.
It has nothing to do with NA design being better, because the engineers at the factory FROM THE START built it for boost. Yes the heads came from an originally NA vehicle... aaaaaand were then modified to be more suitable for the ford GT... yes the 5.4 has a similar design to other 5.4ís.. aaand was custom made to be more suitable for the ford GT.
Sounds like weíre talking about a lot of other high performance motors, like many Ďdomesticí motors (LS motors sharing designs with L motors), S54 being based off M54.. S14 being based off.. i canít remember right now, another motor .. inline 6 with 2 chopped off?
Hell, the BMW M12 formula 1 motor was based off a low revving passenger M10. (and ran to 11,5 or 12 or something)
Nor do i ever think itíll be remotely competitive in the drag racing scene... brackets or something maybe lol.
Of course it wasnít built with motorsport in mind... does that mean itís 100% unsuitable with many modifications? Nope.
My line of thinking is nothing like that.. itís everything around it.. the motor isnít as unreliable as you think.. thereís plenty of information on this board alone about it lol.
Geting tired of going in circles... tl;dr: wanting to get the N54 to rev as high as it can without breaking is a completely acceptable goal for the platform for all the reasons YOU keep posting.boop
01-14-2014, 08:34 AM #78
What's the problem exactly again?
If you want to go further you need to build the motor. Just as you will with a factory turbocharged car. This makes financial sense if you want more power. Trying to redesign a motor to be something the engineering architecture doesn't support doesn't really make financial sense. You're reinventing the design at that point.
Want to make an N54 rev to 9k? Get an S54.
The S54 had blower options all over the place 5-6 years after release. Do I really need to provide you with a history lesson? If you don't know your stuff read up and come back to me as yep, it's insulting.
I don't know why you persist. Torsional vibration is a well known issue.
Although an inline six cylinder engine can also be timed for inherent primary and secondary balance, a straight-8 develops more power strokes per revolution and, as a result, will run more smoothly under load than an inline six. Also, due to the even number of power strokes per revolution, the straight-8 does not produce unpleasant odd-order harmonic vibration in the vehicle's driveline at low engine speeds.
It's kind of fun to use Wikipedia against you. The fact is the torsional vibrations in a straight-8 do become an issue when you start to rev it up high. But hey, where are you to say that doesn't mean it can't be done? The physics of a straight-8 you understand but of the i6 you don't? The same principles hold true. Actually in racing early on the straight-8 was a pretty strong motor.
You eventually saw V8's replace them though due to packaging constraints. You also see the V8 replace the I6 today for the same reason. Check out where the S65 sits in the engine bay versus the S54. It its further back. Interesting eh?
Yes, the once-maligned modular engine family has come a long way in its relatively short lifespan. The term modular was given to the engine family due to the manufacturing process used to produce them. Giving V-8 and V-10 engines the same basic design/architecture allows Ford to build several different engines on the same production line with very little change. Even a V-6 was considered part of this design at one time.
Read more: http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...#ixzz2qNHOh1ve
The whole point was to illustrate that Ford took parts from naturally aspirated cars because they were better. That is what they did. That is why it got the Cobra R heads. The point has been proven. You have no leg to stand on.
Look at this, look at how the blocks and heads are interchangeable: http://www.modularmotorsportsracing....e_blocks_4.htm
That is why it's called modular. You can take an iron block. You can take an aluminum block. Ford did exactly that and mixed and matched their V8 parts. THE FORD GT DOES NOT HAVE A GROUND UP DESIGN. IT'S A NAVIGATOR ENGINE WITH AN ALUMINUM BLOCK AND COBRA R HEADS:
"At the heart of the GT is an all-aluminum 32-valve dual-overhead-cam (DOHC) engine that's topped with a twin-screw supercharger. Because of the short deadline to production, Ford had to adopt a current engine from the existing Ford powerplant lineup known as the Modular Gasoline Engine Family. These modular V-8 engines were first introduced as the 4.6L and 5.4L that saw earliest duty in Crown Victorias, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Cars, and Mustangs, as well as light-duty F-150 series trucks, Expeditions, Explorers, and Lincoln Navigators.
Out of the entire modular engine family, the 5.4L GT mainly resembles the 5.4L Navigator engine with the same bore, stroke, forged crankshaft, and four-cam layout."
Here's more on mixing and matching modular V8 parts: http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...mmff_mixmatch/
You done yet?
Oh and by the way, that's BMW using a naturally aspirated block for turbocharged use. Boom in your face.
01-14-2014, 09:12 AM #79
01-14-2014, 09:48 AM #80
If I didn't have all this knowledge that needed to be posted for the benefit of the world I would.
01-15-2014, 05:14 PM #81Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
- Rep Points
- 11 Post(s)
- Rep Power
I am a little confused here. You have two motors (A & B), both OEM without any modifications whatsoever. Engine A is naturally aspirated, engine B is boosted. To start off, many manufacturers in the past simply have taken engine A, and thrown a turbo (Grand National) or a supercharger (GTP) on it. All engines are Series I or II 3800 - some are NA, some are not.
I think there is some misunderstanding that an NA motor is somehow not capable of the same levels of performance by adding boost as a "built for boost" motor. That, to me - is flawed logic. I understand from the factory, you are likely going to have a lower compression (maybe even more stout?) piston - and maybe some other things to allow for boost over long periods of time without issue. The point here is, on the extreme end of things - meaning previous M cars, or any other high revving NA engine (Italia/S2000/etc.) - they must BREATHE extremely well, meaning amount of engineering that goes into them is very high. The heads flow extremely well, they have exotic valve trains, etc. They had to do this because they DON'T have a blower - they need to pull air instead of having air pushed into it.
In other words, the good, high-revving NA motors HAVE to be VERY good at moving air - even at high speed. It was purposely built from the ground up to do this - that's it sole purpose. Because of this, the power one pound of boost will "add" to an efficient NA engine is not the same as an engine "built for boost" (talking in terms of non-exotic cars here). This is why the potential (note: potential) of these engines is EXTREMELY high. Yes, it took a LONG time to crack the ECU for the S54, because it wasn't built for boost. It also would take a TON of money and a TON of resources to rip an F1 engine out, and add turbos - however, the results would be OUTSTANDING.
Anything is doable with money - anything. I think the point here is, out of the box, given unlimited funds - an extremely efficient high revving engine (OEM) will have more potential than an OEM boosted engine. If you took the turbos off an N54/55 (not bashing here at all, seriously - I am not) - and put the needed ancillaries to make it NA, how much power would it make? Take an S54 which is already making the power with the N54/55 and boost it (stock), how much power would it make?
Now enter the realm of not stock, and things are the same. You start with something more efficient, it's going to have the edge all the way. IDK, I see both sides of the coin - and maybe I am missing something - but that's my take on it.
01-15-2014, 05:43 PM #82