JetTech22

Good day guys. I was wondering has anyone thought about the how Ford was able to pull off their new flat plane crank engine in the upcoming 2016 Shelby GT350 and GM wasn't able to make this work for the C7 Z06? I believe the Z06 is an utterly amazing car amiss all the negativity - but that is an entirely different topic. Was a new LT smallblock that utilized a flat plane crank in the original development plans for the n/a Z06 engine before it was decided to supercharge it? I am corvette fan obviously (c5 owner) but I am an enthusiastiast also so I am excited. I have never owned a Mustang but this engine has me very interested.

robertf97

Basically it doesn't run as smooth and this is not a real high revving engine. Corvettes are about torque.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...Number=2457682

TheSmoker

Ford has solved the vibration issue and redline is at 8200 RPM. Not high revving at all.

mirage2991

I'd say 8200 rpm redline in a street car is high….higher than 7100 LS7, 6500 ZR1 and new Z, I think the only other manufacturer that is going into 8k is the new GT3 at 8200 or 8300 redline and that's a flat 6….so yes it's actually pretty darn high….not Nascar 9500 high but damn, this is a street car ! -omit your exotic f cars, and such

Kracka

At times I miss the 9300 RPM rev-limit of my AP1 S2000

JetTech22

Exactly. I am just curious as to how Ford was able to hit their emissions target with a high revving v8 and GM couldn't? Im not knocking GM for making an excellent engine just curious.

nitrojunky

i believe the GT3 > 9kRPM.

the ford engine def has my attention. should be a screamer and should sound incredible. too bad it's wrapped with a mustang :|

GrampZ

Some real engineer should set me straight, but, seems like: one advantage of a FPC engine on a road course is that it generates more horsepower (at a given C.I.D. and compression ratio) via rpm, at the expense of torque. That is, it relies on hp (via revs) for accel in and out of the corners, since inertia is less of a factor than at the drag strip, where inertia / the launch are all important to E.T.

But to get big hp in a high-reving mid-size engine requires better flow through the heads, which Ford addresses with overhead cam design (and in the case of the GT350, w/o FI) -- which is more weight up higher, which tends to raise the c.g. --- It's all a trade.

But the OP is right, the real question is what investigation did GM make into an FPC design as a possible way to get sufficient HP from a N.A. engine?

(FWIW, I too think the new Z is a huge step up for GM, and though I loved my DSOM C6Z, I know this new car, all around, is in a totally different league. I'm just not sure yet that I will choose a car with a supercharged engine, since I want a car that can regularly run multi-session HPDE's, as well as give fantastic street use.)

blipit_

Really?

The list of factory V8 cars revving over 8k is short.

ChucksZ06

Sounds like interesting engine...probably not z06 forum subject.

WA 2 FST

I took his comment as sarcasm. maybe not.

I agree 8200rpm for a street car is "high", especially considering what most American-made performance cars have had for decades.

Paulchristian

I understand your question OP. I would have preferred NA too. As for high revving engines...they sound amazing, but I'd be curious about the low end torque numbers. My old 997 GT3 was a high revving engine, but it had weak low end torque, which made the car not very exciting to drive below 6k rpm. Basically, you had to drive the car like a crazy person to feel any of the horsepower. The car only came alive at very high rpms.

I am not sure about the new GT350 mustangs numbers or how it will compare to the engine in my old GT3, but its naturally aspirated engine sure does sound nice. I am a Mustang fan for the first time in my life.

Stingray23

Hey Smoker, What are you smoking?

Z06Norway

pretty good explanation

JetTech22

thanks for the vid Norway.

Snorman

Exactly.
I am completely puzzled why people start thread about Hellcats, Porsches and GT350's in this section.
It is just stupid. There are forums for those cars too.
S.

OnPoint

Having fallen in love with the high torque cross plane LS9, I'm not sure I'd have as much fun in a flat plane mill that has to be whipped above 6k rpm to make any power. Every now and then that would be fun. Having to keep it constantly on boil to make any power would get old.

Glad to see Ford make a cool NA V8, tho. I fear the days are short for high performance NA V8s.

CPhelps

It's possible GM's emissions target was more strict than Ford's. The quote says target, but doesn't say how much more strict it may or may not be than regulation. With available automatic, convertible, and targa top options, we know Chevy is going for (relatively) high volume on the Z06. If Ford is expecting fewer GT350 examples, it's possible their emissions targets were less stringent.

The other issue is that the Ford engine is DOHC, having additional valves and being able to phase intake valves independent from exhaust valves (unlike GM's pushrod VVT on the small block) allows them to do things to reduce emissions.

Regarding the flat plane crank specifically, the 5.2L Ford is already pretty large, a 6.2L trying to utilize a FPC would be problematic I'm guessing, and while the 2VPC Gen V heads flow really well, 4VPC still flows better for high RPM operation, so Ford can still get the power they wanted while keeping displacement (relatively) low.

It seems like if GM wanted to they could have an LT1 based high output engine that removes AFM, revs closer to 7k, and has a slightly more aggressive cam and would match the Ford engine power wise, but they've obviously chosen the forced induction path. The supercharged LT4 and LS9 make a lot of sense for power levels in the 600+ range when you are trying to meet emissions and reliability goals in the package as small as they are.

JetTech22

I understand where you coming from but I just decided it would be easier to go to the source. We learn from the competition.

TheSmoker

Sarcasm is strong with you