I believe Eaton has started including either a single brick or dual brick intercooler in the V.
The Z06/ZL1/CTS-V's SC's had intercooler bricks at the unit, this is potentially another concern.
Spy Shots—2019 GT500 With Supercharged 5.2 FPC Engine?
- Thread starter SID297
- Start date
The Z06/ZL1/CTS-V's SC's had intercooler bricks at the unit, this is potentially another concern.
Excited for the 2018 twin turbo option. I'm getting that everything posted here is football spike.
(I'm completely mocking the person that said something similar. Hate me because I really am an ass.)
This idea that a pd blower will not work stems from the na cars crank having issues in a pd application. This car will likely have engineering to address the stress, be it crank improvements or balancing tweaks.
The pd blower makes the most sense. The Germans are adopting to Soros backed fuel requirements. They'd probably much prefer to build simple sc engines. The turbo motor will inherently be more worrisome from a durability standpoint.
If you take the time to thoroughly engineer and protect the long term efficiency of a turbo engine, you will have been able to build a comparably safe and dependable sc mill for far less cost. It's physics. There is more air and exhaust being manipulated in a turbo system, especially a twin system. That requires thoughtful engineering in many areas.
A blown application is simply easier to produce, and today's twin screws are very efficient in optimal ranges.
Older m112's didn't have enough capacity, but hotrodders beat the hell out of them anyways for extra power. The honest truth is heat sink isn't near as bad on a stock pulley car as it is on a modified car, especially with under driven pulleys etc.
Ford may well go turbo in the next generation as competition drives the needle there, but at this time, it's obvious why Ford would go PD voodoo. They have the know how on both. It would be dumb to dump the voodoo as a single 3 year engine. The boss 302 mill was dropped because it was a short term escapade. The voodoo has 5-7+ year potential, and we are only at year 3.
(I'm completely mocking the person that said something similar. Hate me because I really am an ass.)
This idea that a pd blower will not work stems from the na cars crank having issues in a pd application. This car will likely have engineering to address the stress, be it crank improvements or balancing tweaks.
The pd blower makes the most sense. The Germans are adopting to Soros backed fuel requirements. They'd probably much prefer to build simple sc engines. The turbo motor will inherently be more worrisome from a durability standpoint.
If you take the time to thoroughly engineer and protect the long term efficiency of a turbo engine, you will have been able to build a comparably safe and dependable sc mill for far less cost. It's physics. There is more air and exhaust being manipulated in a turbo system, especially a twin system. That requires thoughtful engineering in many areas.
A blown application is simply easier to produce, and today's twin screws are very efficient in optimal ranges.
Older m112's didn't have enough capacity, but hotrodders beat the hell out of them anyways for extra power. The honest truth is heat sink isn't near as bad on a stock pulley car as it is on a modified car, especially with under driven pulleys etc.
Ford may well go turbo in the next generation as competition drives the needle there, but at this time, it's obvious why Ford would go PD voodoo. They have the know how on both. It would be dumb to dump the voodoo as a single 3 year engine. The boss 302 mill was dropped because it was a short term escapade. The voodoo has 5-7+ year potential, and we are only at year 3.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 216
He claimed to build engines in another thread on this forum, which is what first made me curious about the pill. Later redacted Fred it was obvious he doesn't know anything about engines.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 216
Laminova ICs? They have a name and have been around for decades.
I saw it, hence my reply.
Yeah, OHV engines sometimes opt for a larger, single brick while OHC's use the dual brick design.
When that became popular on OEM cars, Port Direct Injection wasn't even in R&D yet. In fact, the space saved removing port injectors made room for the direct design.
That could be the issue today. Both P and D injectors rest where a traditional intake would be. TVS designs use their own housings that sit low while the dual brick intercooler goes where PDI sits.
A high rise intake can mount PDI under it. A low rise leaves no room in the V so it would come in conflict w/ the brick. I don't know anyone with experience with the new PDI system and the TVS.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 216
Number of ICs wasn't and isn't dictated by valve train configuration.
Cutting to the chase. You're saying Ford is going to have issues using a 2650R on the 5.2 with direct and port injection due to lack of room between cylinder heads?
Seriously? They are an OEM. You don't think they understand packaging?
Hot v
I am inquiring if anyone with experience with Port Direct Injection knows if the is conflict with the port injectors and a TVS system.
Probably... since Fords new PDI system is designed around the new Coyote intake/Coyote Heads.
If an Eaton is used, the factory PDI Coyote Intake will be deleted and replaced w/ a TVS compatible housing.
That brings us to Turbo charging... and since they would need over 808 now, only a few viable options.
A Parallel Twin Turbo could use a similar intake design as the Coyote 5.0. Very little would need to change.
A Hot V design would swing BOTH direct and port injectors (see Ford Indy V8) to the outside, together. Of course, making room for the two turbos inside the V.
As of right now, I don't think any TVS, especially with a dual brick intercooler, can host the Mustang GT's PDI system since its factory intake is required...
Making some of the $150m investment a waste.
Maybe we see a single turbo, Ecoboost V8. Maybe it breaks 700hp... you want 800+, you better add a liter OR add a turbo.
Two Twin Scroll Turbos would be preferred, in a Hot V setup.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 216
I don't think anyone believes that's going to present any issue for Ford or any oem. The injectors aren't placed directly above and below each other. And if you think 16 fuel injectors take up considerable space in the vee take a look what if looks like with two turbos and the requisite exhaust manifolds in there.
Good god, shut the **** up, please. Your spewing gets so old.
I would look into the bulk of a PDI system and how it works in conjunction with the factory intake.
Direct Injection works in conjunction with the head. Both P and D injectors work together and yes, the system is rather large.
The LT1's Direct Injection system added 20lbs to the weight of the engine. Look at how much space Port Direct Injection takes up on modern engines.
Supercharging may very well present major issues with factory PDI from what is discussed on technical forums. As for Ecoboost, direct injection is a requirement. Turbo charging and Direct Injection makes up the Ecoboost tech.
Well, I'm stoked. I prefer the instantaneous blower boost compared to the build up of turbos. I'd bet the "controlled" chaos will be easier to pitch it sideways heading up the freeway on-ramps!! I highly prefer the looks of the Shelby and I'm officially not ordering a ZL-1 any more.
It's all my fault. You can shoot me.
I was the one that claimed that Team SVT now called Ford Performance chose to build the 16 GT350/R instead of the 16 GT500.
He's back because he said I was wrong.
Scott built his car in my garage and it's very impressive; awesome to follow him to track and watch first pass hit 9.01 and second in the 8s!
It is a non-R Gen 2 TVS and an amazing sleeper for the Performance. His car has changed my fox LX revival to Coyote based and is also why, although I would prefer twin turbos, the TVS 2650 would be killer with a 5.2 and auto (or DCT I guess).
At least we're finally getting some news!
-J
I normally agree with and appreciate your input (and share a soft spot for AMGs starting with my E55), but Scotts car is a nearly 12:1 pump E85 built sportsman block Coyote with head work and mild cams. It's a Gen 2 non-R TVS and stock converter 6R80. What I can tell you from dyno data on my cammed 5.8 and his 5.0, the 2.3 TVS can carry boost curve til 8000rpm on his car while my car the R blower starts to fall off.
So, with a 2650 TVS, full boost will carry through 8k.
Very cool to have OEM TVS 2650s, means cheap availability for us!
-J
Edit---yes a centric or turbo would be faster than the TVS, but we're pretty happy TVS users
Last, not much mention of DCT.
Off to google some options but is their a common DCT trans we assume this could be?
-J
Off to google some options but is their a common DCT trans we assume this could be?
-J
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 216
Likewise I enjoy reading your input and appreciate the info on a very nice ride. If you have the octane static CR works very well with boost. Mihovitz played around with this a good bit and had some great documented results using "identical" top ends on two built 5.4l motors for Reggie B. Iirc they gained 200lbft or more going from 9:1 to 11:1. Being able to carry the curve through 8k with that relatively small blower at those HP levels is impressive as hell.
2650= lost aftermarket blower sales and as has been stated instant serious performance with minimal modding.
I agree it's enough ass to get the job done at 8k on the 5.2, however I question if Ford let's that happen from a durability standpoint. The motor can make all the power in the world only spinning to 7000-7500rpm which is enough rpm to audibly notice the FPC. That's my thinking anyway.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 216
Nothing that will handle the torque less a ricardo. Commonly used getrag 750 (F458, SLS, AMG GTs, F488, etc) is limited to 750 nm or not enough.
This furthers my questioning of the DCT info. Keep rpm down to 7500 or 7k to extend hardware life and the 10a is a no brainer.
Would Scotts car pass Fords 300 hr durability tests, and would it pass CA EPA testing?
Users who are viewing this thread
