News on the new Shelby / 5.2 Flat Plane Ford V8

[Jac Mac]

The thing is Jac, these new engines come with a two year warranty and as time progresses you will see more machine shops familiar with the new engines as compared to the old. The old 302 just cannot make as much power, do it as reliably, as efficiently or as cleanly as the modern 5.0 be it Coyote, Aluminator or Voodoo.

Maybe, but those shops are going to have to get clever.
If we take the info Ron posted above as gospel then there are some issues in store. 'HE' said the 5.2L capacity is all bore, therefore for an increase from 5.0 to 5.2 so that means bore is increased from 3.629" to 3.720" [0.090" increase]
Bore centers on the Coyote are 3.937 which leaves 0.307 between cyls on the std Coyote reduced to 0.217" on this new 5.2 flat plane example which doesn't leave much room for further bore increases in the future unless they go like Honda with oval bore... also consider these are coated alloy bores so no more back yard hone jobs and any 'sleeve' replacements will be technical by nature.
Someone is bound to say increase the stroke, fine, but remember we are now flat plane and longer strokes come with a degree of difficulty. Another thing that 'HE' said in the interview in relation to the crankshaft- SOME parts are forged? does that mean the crank has moving pendulous bobweights? or Mallory metal added.

EDIT, I was just reading that the 'stroker' kit for the Coyote [ cross plane] that has yet to make production was going to be ~351 cu in with a 3.740" bore [max of 3.760"] I don't know why it has not made production, but since it used replacement sleeves maybe it weakened the core block strength in the process.

 

[Cliff Beer]

Incidentally, if anyone wants a cad file for a flat plane crank designed for SBF (SBF bore spacing, etc.) then let me know. I actually have three such cad files - one for standard stroke, and two for longer stroke. The design incorporates counter-balance design assumptions consistent with the the f-car 308 crank so it's fairly proven tech (at least in that application). The engineer used Autodesk I believe, but I imagine the file will work just fine with most any well known CAD software.

 

[Ron Earp]

The 5.2 Voodoo has the same attachment points, so if priced reasonably, will join a market for this engine family that now includes many choices for adapters, intakes, exhausts, etc.

One thing that will detract from the Voodoo in a GT40 is the exhaust. The Voodoo being a flat plane crank won't need the cross-over exhaust for optimal exhaust scavenging.

 

[Mark R]

One thing that will detract from the Voodoo in a GT40 is the exhaust. The Voodoo being a flat plane crank won't need the cross-over exhaust for optimal exhaust scavenging.

This will be nice in a GT-R

 

[Jason Lycett]

Nice engine but not for a GT40. I want a replica to look and sound like the original. Who needs more than 450 + bhp in a light weight car anyway ?. The beauty of a GT40 extends to opening the lovely engine bay and showing off the simple Polished rocker covers and bundle of snakes exhaust, a pleasure sadly lacking when you look at a coyote installation. Each to there own though!

 

[Darrin]

Nice engine but not for a GT40. I want a replica to look and sound like the original. Who needs more than 450 + bhp in a light weight car anyway ?. The beauty of a GT40 extends to opening the lovely engine bay and showing off the simple Polished rocker covers and bundle of snakes exhaust, a pleasure sadly lacking when you look at a coyote installation. Each to there own though!

It really depends on if you are building a true replica or not now doesn't it? I mean, are you positioning every bolt like the original? Do you run those old tires? Old brakes? If you want an exact copy, then spend the money and do that.

For those that look at it as more of a performance car then this engine has a great appeal. I know others tend to look down on Americans and our desire for horsepower sometimes, but one who thinks 450 is enough could have the question asked why that number is enough. Or, even why they think 400, 350, or even 300 wouldn't be enough for them. It's all personal preference here and how quick/fast you want to go.

Like you said, to each there own, but my guess is that if Carol and crew were building this car today they wouldn't be using a OHV engine, and we are building these today, not back then. If you want a true replica, then by all means do it, but know that it could have been better with respect to performance, reliability, efficiency, etc. with a modern engine.

 

[Jac Mac]

Darrin, are you suggesting the sidevalve is about to make a comeback?....

 

[Darrin]

Darrin, are you suggesting the sidevalve is about to make a comeback?....

Don't know about that, but if they could add one cylinder to this I'd sure consider it. :Nissan

My point being, whatever is functional given that I'm not building an exact replica, but rather a car that looks like a GT40 (albeit one with a modern air dam, wheels, and tires).

 

[roaldin]

Don't know about that, but if they could add one cylinder to this I'd sure consider it. :Nissan

It really depends on if you are building a true replica or not now doesn't it? I mean, are you positioning every bolt like the original? Do you run those old tires? Old brakes? If you want an exact copy, then spend the money and do that. For those that look at it as more of a performance car then this engine has a great appeal. I know Americans tend to look down on the world, but one who thinks only 4 cylinders or more, or especially 8, is enough could have the question asked why that number is enough. Or, even why they think 2, 1, or even electric motors wouldn't be enough for them. It's all personal preference here and how quick/fast you want to go. Like you said, to each their own, but my guess is that if John and crew were building this car today they wouldn't be using a V8 petroleum burning engine, and we are building these today, not back then. If you want a true replica, then by all means do it, but know that it could have been better with respect to performance, reliability, efficiency, etc. with a modern engine.

;p


Tim.

 

[geoff]

Jac Mac The side valve has made a come back 365 ally block Ardun ally heads
check out H&H flat heads /www. ardun .com

 

[Darrin]

It really depends on if you are building a true replica or not now doesn't it? I mean, are you positioning every bolt like the original? Do you run those old tires? Old brakes? If you want an exact copy, then spend the money and do that. For those that look at it as more of a performance car then this engine has a great appeal. I know Americans tend to look down on the world, but one who thinks only 4 cylinders or more, or especially 8, is enough could have the question asked why that number is enough. Or, even why they think 2, 1, or even electric motors wouldn't be enough for them. It's all personal preference here and how quick/fast you want to go. Like you said, to each their own, but my guess is that if John and crew were building this car today they wouldn't be using a V8 petroleum burning engine, and we are building these today, not back then. If you want a true replica, then by all means do it, but know that it could have been better with respect to performance, reliability, efficiency, etc. with a modern engine.

;p


Tim.

The thing only makes 400HP with three cylinders. That, and only that, is the reason I suggested wanting a fourth cylinder.

Maybe you should ask before responding like this next time.

 

[Jac Mac]

Before the snapping turtle brigade gets totally out of hand, Who are/were Carol & Crew , John & crew mentioned in the above posts?

 

[Darrin]

I was talking about Carol Shelby. Not sure who he was referring to. Oh, and I know CS didn't do it all. Wasn't meaning to suggest that. Just that he had a little to do with the engine selection if I recall correctly. Could be wrong on that though.

Oh, and one more thing, I was really just meaning to say a lot of folks disagree with the horsepower fixation we seem to have but I worded rather poorly. Might be that's what at Tim off a bit.

 

[Jac Mac]

It was the 'Carol' that threw me..Carroll is better and yes, 'they' at CSA who fitted the wet sump Cobra engine got the GT40 on the right track & I will assume that Tim referred to John Wyer & crew who kept it on track after the FE guys had moved on. Now as for all this aluminator, coyote, voodoo, stuff it will be interesting to 'see' if Ford actually get to the startline at Le Mans again like the rumour mill suggests, but for me the magic is sort of gone, the personalities of the people involved are unknown to us and until some races are entered/won and the background stories get told that is the way it will stay.

 

[roaldin]

The thing only makes 400HP with three cylinders. That, and only that, is the reason I suggested wanting a fourth cylinder.

Maybe you should ask before responding like this next time.

;p = winky tongue poke... If there's an actual emote for it on this forum I can't find it. I probably should have used the pokey stick. oke:

Sheesh...

And yes, John meant John Wyer.

My irrelevant opinion on the subject of the 5.2 in a GT40 is that it's all in the eye of the owner.
My preference is for a cross-plane V8 with bundle of snakes. The little Windsors do a pretty good job, especially while being so compact. These new engines are huge!
I have nothing bad to say about anyone's choice of engine for a GT40, although a Ford will make me smile more than something else. Something seems plain wrong to me if its a Chevy, but whatever floats the owner's boats.

I will be using a flat-plane V8 in another project of mine. But it is a (non exact) replica of a car with a flat-plane V8.

Tim

 

[Keith]

Agree with all of that Tim. More than 500 hp in a GT40 doesn't necessarily make it faster, but you might get to the scene of your crash a little more quickly..

I think the 289 & GT40 was always a match made in heaven. In fact the 289 was a perfect engine for many hybrid sportscars from the '60's and '70's.

 

[roaldin]

I'll learn one day to keep my attempts at rib poking and humour for you Poms Keith, and of course we AusZealanders.



Tim.

 

[Keith]

Eggshells

 

[Dylan]

Just a note on the variable valve timing- Because of the complexity of dealing with making this work, most Coyote engines seeing a large amount of upgrades, including cams, simply get phaser locks so you're back to static cams and you don't have to deal with this for tuning purposes. This makes the engine instantly easier to deal with, DIY-wise. The power they lose is usually inconsequential compared to the gains made with the parts being thrown on.

No beautiful crossover exhaust sucks, but if you're peaking at 8200RPM before grabbing the next gear, maybe you don't care.....:drunk:

 

[Ron Earp]

Bad move to ditch the variable valve timing. I would love to have such technology in my race car, and it works wonders in the street car.

I suspect people ditch it because they don't want to take the time to figure it out, but it is clear some tuners use it and have figured out the value. There is no doubt they can enjoy the same tq/hp gains as they would with old fashion fixed cam timing, but on top of that they can have more area under the curve with the variable valve timing.

Someone needs to design a simple aftermarket variable valve timing setup for the Ford small block. A simple cam phaser that can advance and retard the cam based on RPM would be a nice feature. I thought GM uses one for their small block, maybe a similar mechanical design could be used for the Ford.