[Mustang Fanboy]

Man, I take a day off an have an impossibly long list of responses. My post really must have struck a chord.

Some good stuff thrown in there!

I only have a couple responses to a few things that stood out.

1) There is no need to put an aftermarket exhaust on the GT350 when it is already loud enough to wake the dead.

2) If you had a mustang with drone, you had the wrong exhaust. I have yet to hear an LT1 with Corsas (I'll likely look it up after I type this), but on the coyote they sound effing amazing. They offer zero drone, are loud when you want it to be and have a perfect fit and finish.

[kwav8r]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The Voodoo has to rev because of its displacement. That's all there is to it. Horsepower needs torque, torque needs displacement.

I don't fault the Voodoo for needing higher RPMs. That's the fault of Ford deciding to go with the 5.0 for historical purposes but that doesn't keep the Mustang fanboys from faulting the LSx and LTx for revving to the moon.

I guess the key features to a great engine are eating oil pumps and vibrating like a rock crusher.

Now we're getting somewhere, but up till now we've essentially avoided the 800lbs gorilla in the voodoo argument, and by that I mean Newton and his pesky law of physics.

Large displacement (5.2L), single-plane engines....
You have to really wind that thing up above 4000 to get real power out of it and it redlines somewhere in the 8,200 range. That's a lot of mass and a lot of force on the crank, wrist pins, connecting rods, and pistons. Not to mention the counterweight Ford used to offset the mass because they used a different layout from traditional FP engines.

So, if I am to believe this correctly, Ford has beat Ferrari, Porsche, etc. at their own game in developing a large-displacement, FP engine using a different layout that is supposed to last????

I think we need to start a pool and placing bets as to what the average mileage will be before the Voodoos starting taking a doodoo (couldn't resist) and dropping parts all over the road when their "special" engines come apart.

[Mustang Fanboy]

Originally Posted by kwav8r

Now we're getting somewhere, but up till now we've essentially avoided the 800lbs gorilla in the voodoo argument, and by that I mean Newton and his pesky law of physics.

Large displacement (5.2L), single-plane engines....
You have to really wind that thing up above 4000 to get real power out of it and it redlines somewhere in the 8,200 range. That's a lot of mass and a lot of force on the crank, wrist pins, connecting rods, and pistons. Not to mention the counterweight Ford used to offset the mass because they used a different layout from traditional FP engines.

So, if I am to believe this correctly, Ford has beat Ferrari, Porsche, etc. at their own game in developing a large-displacement, FP engine using a different layout that is supposed to last????

I think we need to start a pool and placing bets as to what the average mileage will be before the Voodoos starting taking a doodoo (couldn't resist) and dropping parts all over the road when their "special" engines come apart.

Have you not seen what the maintenance schedule is like on a lot of high revving exotic engines?

Do you not realize that these engines are typical fatigue tested well past their typical intended lifespan?

Per an article on the Boss 302 engine...

http://www.mustangandfords.com/featu...return-of-5-0/

"Ford stated that the test was equivalent to running the Daytona 250 race flat-out more than 175 times—in a row"

This is the standard testing procedure for all of their engines.

That is of course unless you truly believe that Ford would compromise durability testing just to put out a flat plane crank.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

Have you not seen what the maintenance schedule is like on a lot of high revving exotic engines?

Do you not realize that these engines are typical fatigue tested well past their typical intended lifespan?

Per an article on the Boss 302 engine...

http://www.mustangandfords.com/featu...return-of-5-0/

"Ford stated that the test was equivalent to running the Daytona 250 race flat-out more than 175 times—in a row"

This is the standard testing procedure for all of their engines.

That is of course unless you truly believe that Ford would compromise durability testing just to put out a flat plane crank.

Remember when the GT350 manual was released stating there would be an overrev feature
I'll quote a very good post by whiteboyblues regarding the Voodoo that I feel ties into the overrev feature.

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Plus, we all know that flat plane cranks creates way too much secondary vibrations, and there is a limit to how high a displacement you can make them. 5.2 Liters is pushing that envelope. Not to mention that it's not the number of miles that an engine travels (in terms of wear and tear), it's how many revolutions they made during that time. I worry about the longevity of that engine, given the size of that particular design, and the fact that you will be revving the sh!t out of it all the time. That's a ton of wear and tear for a large FPC engine. But then again, if you are only weekend tracking it, you won't put a ton of miles on it. If it's your daily driver, you either rev the crap out of it, and wear it and yourself out, or be frustrated at the lack of low end.

[kwav8r]

Originally Posted by Mustang Fanboy

Have you not seen what the maintenance schedule is like on a lot of high revving exotic engines?

Do you not realize that these engines are typical fatigue tested well past their typical intended lifespan?

Per an article on the Boss 302 engine...

http://www.mustangandfords.com/featu...return-of-5-0/

"Ford stated that the test was equivalent to running the Daytona 250 race flat-out more than 175 times—in a row"

This is the standard testing procedure for all of their engines.

That is of course unless you truly believe that Ford would compromise durability testing just to put out a flat plane crank.

Pardon me if I'm very skeptical of an article in Mustang360, you are familiar with the word "hype"??

As for their testing protocol, there isn't a car manufacturer out there that doesn't stack the deck in their favor when setting these "tests" up. Unless it's a test being done by an outside lab I give no weight to anyone's claims - again "hype".

With that being said, here's what I know. Physics is real. Metal fatigue is real. Spinning mass at high RPMs is going to tear that engine up faster, period. Oil life is going to be compromised by the shear fact that going a mile in a high revving engine is the equivalent of going 2-3 in a low revving engine, including the fact that in the high revving version you greatly increase friction and heat. You cannot outrun reality with hype.

The VooDoo that went into that engine is the marketing behind it.

But, as with all things, time will tell.

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Remember when the GT350 manual was released stating there would be an overrev featureAttachment 877399
I'll quote a very good post by whiteboyblues regarding the Voodoo that I feel ties into the overrev feature.

I was not aware of this!

Can any owner/former owner chime in on how that translates to real world driving? On track or off?

I suppose it would be a pretty long straight to encounter a problem, but on say an autocross track or a tight infield it may cause a problem. I guess it depends on how it makes and delivers power, you may not want to keep the revs that high.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by kwav8r

With that being said, here's what I know. Physics is real. Metal fatigue is real. Spinning mass at high RPMs is going to tear that engine up faster, period. Oil life is going to be compromised by the shear fact that going a mile in a high revving engine is the equivalent of going 2-3 in a low revving engine, including the fact that in the high revving version you greatly increase friction and heat. You cannot outrun reality with hype.

The theoretical durability of an engine has nothing to do with how good a car is or isn't... but since we are now putting a premium on said durability, maybe Ford should have gone with a diesel GT350?

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by KenB925

I was not aware of this!

Can any owner/former owner chime in on how that translates to real world driving? On track or off?

I suppose it would be a pretty long straight to encounter a problem, but on say an autocross track or a tight infield it may cause a problem. I guess it depends on how it makes and delivers power, you may not want to keep the revs that high.

The overrev feature was dropped after a shit storm erupted. It does however illustrate there were concerns

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by hotlap

The overrev feature was dropped after a shit storm erupted. It does however illustrate there were concerns

ahh, ok, that seemed like something I would have heard of.

Thanks

[unavailablezl1]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

The theoretical durability of an engine has nothing to do with how good a car is or isn't... but since we are now putting a premium on said durability, maybe Ford should have gone with a diesel GT350?

All of this GT350 will be gone soon. When the GT500 comes out, nobody will give a shit.

[Mustang Fanboy]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Remember when the GT350 manual was released stating there would be an overrev featureAttachment 877399
I'll quote a very good post by whiteboyblues regarding the Voodoo that I feel ties into the overrev feature.

You do realize that every time the GT350 shifts at redline, the RPM's fall below the threshold. People seem to freak out when a manufacturer attempts to protect it's vehicles from unfounded warranty claims.

Here is a 0-170mph run....no overrev activated.



Also, moving redlines have been around for quite a while. BMW made them quite popular on many of their vehciles.

Originally Posted by kwav8r

Pardon me if I'm very skeptical of an article in Mustang360, you are familiar with the word "hype"??

As for their testing protocol, there isn't a car manufacturer out there that doesn't stack the deck in their favor when setting these "tests" up. Unless it's a test being done by an outside lab I give no weight to anyone's claims - again "hype".

With that being said, here's what I know. Physics is real. Metal fatigue is real. Spinning mass at high RPMs is going to tear that engine up faster, period. Oil life is going to be compromised by the shear fact that going a mile in a high revving engine is the equivalent of going 2-3 in a low revving engine, including the fact that in the high revving version you greatly increase friction and heat. You cannot outrun reality with hype.

The VooDoo that went into that engine is the marketing behind it.

But, as with all things, time will tell.

Manufacturers do not try to stack the deck during their fatigue and life-cycle testing. These aren't 1/4 mile times or stopping distances, these are corporate fatigue testing standards. Anyone trying to "stack the deck" on these would be promptly fired.

If you don't want to believe the article I posted, I don't care. A quick google search will show other articles corroborating.

Originally Posted by KenB925

I was not aware of this!

Can any owner/former owner chime in on how that translates to real world driving? On track or off?

I suppose it would be a pretty long straight to encounter a problem, but on say an autocross track or a tight infield it may cause a problem. I guess it depends on how it makes and delivers power, you may not want to keep the revs that high.

It doesn't make a hill of beans difference. See my previous post. If you happen to run into that limiter, you have done something terrible wrong with your car.

[unavailablezl1]

Originally Posted by KenB925

My V-10 M5 (revvy engine) also had a thirst for oil.

I just got my new oil filter from Ford and a filter changer cap and Ford got tired of replacing motors for high oil consumption. Now they changed their minds and says that 500 miles per quart of oil is ok.

BTW... I have a GT350 oil filter for sale, cheap.

[NW ZL1]

Originally Posted by unavailablezl1

I just got my new oil filter from Ford and a filter changer cap and Ford got tired of replacing motors for high oil consumption. Now they changed their minds and says that 500 miles per quart of oil is ok.

BTW... I have a GT350 oil filter for sale, cheap.

Good to see the official oil consumption statement. Interesting as I noticed the (filter cap-filter box) included in the vehicle of a couple 350's I looked at.

On a side note I sent you a pm. Thx.

[kwav8r]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

The theoretical durability of an engine has nothing to do with how good a car is or isn't... but since we are now putting a premium on said durability, maybe Ford should have gone with a diesel GT350?

Of course when that theory becomes reality when said owner is stranded on the side of the road its owner will come to respect the laws of physics in an internal combustion engine. Hence living up the acronym of said manufacturer.

A diesel would certainly run lower RPMs, in theory of course