Close

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 82 of 82
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Even more woosh, why the hell did you build your S65/M3 if this is your opinion? That’s just Hypocritical.
    What? I just told you a high revving high specific output NA motor makes a great boost platform. How many more times does this need to be repeated before it sinks in? What is hypocritical? I'm saying the same thing over and over and over and over.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    That makes sense. And the Gallardo can approach 1000whp on stock internals because it’s a 5/5.2L V10 more than anything.. and obviously not built cast.. would be a pretty disgusting exotic supercar if you got cast internals lol?
    Because it's a 5.2 liter V10? Or because it puts out almost 600 horsepower naturally aspirated and revs to almost 9k? Maybe because it's high compression and has strong internals? Maybe that's why?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    People don’t necessarily build high compression boosted motors as a starting point (talking building, not just starting with one), most of the long term serious builds i’ve seen is they’ve gotten the power (or whatever) they want then raise the compression as far as they can. But yes, to a point raising compression is a good thing for boosted motors as long as other goals and safety is met.
    As for the Weistec – that’s ridiculously impressive stuff 11.3:1 and 12psi+? nuts.
    I’m not saying it’s not possible, clearly it is, i’m just saying it’s not NORMAL.
    High compression and high horsepower is very normal in performance tuning. Considering how many many links I have had to post of information already included on this network you keep missing I think you are missing a whole lot of reading material and that is why I have to rehash so many topics already covered.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    No, i do realize that, i’m just hoping you did... you’re saying basically take the easier option, and suggesting something that took TWELVE YEARS to achieve. You’re contradicting yourself with half the things you’re saying ffs.
    More reading necessary for me? No... Reading and comprehension for you? Likely.
    It never took the S54 12 years to hit 700 whp on stock internals. Tuning a modern BMW ECU that never had any tables in it for boost is freaking incredible tuning. That's something to be respected. HPF had setups doing quadruple HP YEARS AGO. Pro EFI has how many setups doing it? Have you even browsed the S54 forum?

    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Some classes do allow/use inline 6’s? $#@!, i know of some RB’s hitting 14k in race trim. Billet eccentric shaft 13b’s (or xxb’s) hitting 14k++.. purely because someone wanted to at some stage and worked out how, even though the stock one would $#@! itself.
    You know that V8’s require more complex balance bars and stuff, which just means even MORE precision.. as you still have to have everything else perfectly balanced, just like with the inline 6. How convenient that F1 teams have the near limitless budget and need to do this?
    Yep there are some high revving RB's out there. How many of them are direct injected? Oh exactly none. How many of them are revving higher than 20k? Oh none. Is it a V8 that has the highest recorded RPM in professional automotive motorsport? Yep.

    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?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    How don’t you realize that the switch to V8 was more than likely both packaging and ease of increasing power N/A..? Use your logic.

    As for higher revving I6?.. hm lets go google.. 5cyl race 125 bikes hitting 21k...
    Briefly found something on a 22k RPm 6cyl, but i think it’s also small
    And another mention for something old and raced at 20k+.
    Oh ok let's bring up bikes. Good point as smaller displacement and lighter engine internals definitely somehow apply to heavier and larger parts in cars. Let's ignore physics for this one. I wonder why a smaller motor designed for less load can rev higher than a larger and heavier one used in a car. This definitely applies to the N54 somehow.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Again my mistake, couldn’t find that article when searching anything to do with teh viper being forged and a reason for it. We’re also talking about a $120k race built car here.
    It's the Viper street car, not a dedicated race car. Yep your mistake, again.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    And? What of it being from the same family, it used a custom block and all sorts of other features that weren’t on any other modular V8 at the time, it was specially improved end of story.

    I hope you realize that it’s now almost a decade later, and you can now order MANY more parts developed since 2004, and the development of the GT. The aluminium block wasn't available pre 2004 according to every source i can find.. oh what's that? not until it was produced for the GT? must be a coincidence.

    bugger it. have a quote

    >The mid-mounted 5.4 L ModularV8 engine is all-aluminum with a Lysholm twin screw-type supercharger. It features a forged rotating assembly housed in an aluminum block designed specifically for the GT program.

    'designed specifically for the GT program' must mean already available parts bin stuff right?

    Also, they took heads from a naturally aspirated car and $#@!ing modified them to suit the new purpose. Fancy that.
    Yep they took better flowing heads designed from an NA motor to use on a forced induction car. I wonder why?

    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Not to mention FRM sleeves rather than iron. Fancy stuff.
    The sleeves they picked are for low friction due to revving to 9k. An appropriate example of how you have to strengthen parts for revs and yet again why a high revving NA motor makes a great boost platform as so many parts are already beefed up and tested to higher stress levels.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Why do you think it wouldn’t if built properly? You have zero basis to think otherwise other than your dislike of the motor and propensity to argue.

    I don’t believe anyone has had the thought that 9000rpm would be easy on the N54.. unless you’ve been having this discussion with other people?
    Now you have turbo upgraded N54's winning 24 hour endurance races. Beautiful. 9k rpm no problem, 24 Hours of Le Mans Victories no problem, why not just enter the damn thing in the NHRA and mop up the competition there too?

    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    You realize i’m not saying ‘DO IT ON STOCK PARTS’... at this point, again, you’re arguing for the sake of it and ignoring at least half of what i’m saying here.
    Anyway, no reason the aluminium block can’t hit those speeds and live easily.. heck lets get back to the S2k... it hit even higher speeds with a way (theoretically) weaker block, being fully floating open deck and all... huh.
    It revs to 9k. That is why it is making the power. It doesn't need the same torque the N54 does to hit the same hp figure. It can make more power WITH LESS TORQUE. That is what revs buy you and why the S2K can do it, becuase it's a high revving and well built NA motor. Hope that clicks. It's a simple freaking equation between rpm, torque, and horsepower. Please learn it.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,270
    Rep Points
    1,418.4
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What? I just told you a high revving high specific output NA motor makes a great boost platform. How many more times does this need to be repeated before it sinks in? What is hypocritical? I'm saying the same thing over and over and over and over.
    When you sink 5 figures plus into a build, itís no longer a great platform of any sort. To strap on a blower and get 600-700 like they can (thatís about right.. right?) thatís smart, itís a great platform for that i 100% agree.
    I believe financial/effort sense was one of your other points?


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Because it's a 5.2 liter V10? Or because it puts out almost 600 horsepower naturally aspirated and revs to almost 9k? Maybe because it's high compression and has strong internals? Maybe that's why?
    Well yeah, itís also pretty off topic


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    High compression and high horsepower is very normal in performance tuning. Considering how many many links I have had to post of information already included on this network you keep missing I think you are missing a whole lot of reading material and that is why I have to rehash so many topics already covered.
    only very recently moreso though. It wasnít until mid-late 2000ís that even the godly Japanese motors started getting easy to make crazy numbers.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It never took the S54 12 years to hit 700 whp on stock internals. Tuning a modern BMW ECU that never had any tables in it for boost is freaking incredible tuning. That's something to be respected. HPF had setups doing quadruple HP YEARS AGO. Pro EFI has how many setups doing it? Have you even browsed the S54 forum?

    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.
    Yeah, am aware of the HPF setups.. they also started at $50k and required a hell of a lot of modifications to the amazing factory high revving platform.

    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.



    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Yep there are some high revving RB's out there. How many of them are direct injected? Oh exactly none. How many of them are revving higher than 20k? Oh none. Is it a V8 that has the highest recorded RPM in professional automotive motorsport? Yep.

    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?
    Higher than 20k? Idk, someone could have done it somewhere and not put it on the internet *shrug*.. yeah totally unlikely, but why not think about it?.. and direct injected has to do with what? The N54 isnít permanently locked to direct injection forever, heck, if injectors are almost already limited, hopefully not for much longer lol.

    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

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Oh ok let's bring up bikes. Good point as smaller displacement and lighter engine internals definitely somehow apply to heavier and larger parts in cars. Let's ignore physics for this one. I wonder why a smaller motor designed for less load can rev higher than a larger and heavier one used in a car. This definitely applies to the N54 somehow.
    Hey i found examples taking a leaf from your irrelevant book. How does a precision engineered million dollar F1 motor apply to a larger heavier car? Also doesnít apply to N54.


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It's the Viper street car, not a dedicated race car. Yep your mistake, again.
    No.. not a mistake.. it may be street legal but itís probably somewhat more track friendly lol... the whole Ďgets uncomfortable to drive due to heat from the side exit exhaustí thing for one. And Ďtries to kill you in the wetí for another.


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Yep they took better flowing heads designed from an NA motor to use on a forced induction car. I wonder why?

    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.
    Uhh.. except they had to flow them EVEN FURTHER?
    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)

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The sleeves they picked are for low friction due to revving to 9k. An appropriate example of how you have to strengthen parts for revs and yet again why a high revving NA motor makes a great boost platform as so many parts are already beefed up and tested to higher stress levels.
    Indeed, itís an extremely impressive item from Honda. Love their motors... except the H22. It can burn in hell. I also think the NSX with straight pipes in a track car sounds like poo *braces for hate*

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Now you have turbo upgraded N54's winning 24 hour endurance races. Beautiful. 9k rpm no problem, 24 Hours of Le Mans Victories no problem, why not just enter the damn thing in the NHRA and mop up the competition there too?

    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.
    No, you brought it up not me... nor did i ever mention winning, just surviving, stop putting ... words in my.. fingers? I donít appreciate it lol.
    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It revs to 9k. That is why it is making the power. It doesn't need the same torque the N54 does to hit the same hp figure. It can make more power WITH LESS TORQUE. That is what revs buy you and why the S2K can do it, becuase it's a high revving and well built NA motor. Hope that clicks. It's a simple freaking equation between rpm, torque, and horsepower. Please learn it.
    Yeah and? Pretty sure i know the equation and shove it in peoples faces a few times a week at least lol... hence getting the N54 (fuelling aside) to rev a little better is a good idea? But nah, itís a bad idea because itís the N54.

    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

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    When you sink 5 figures plus into a build, it’s no longer a great platform of any sort. To strap on a blower and get 600-700 like they can (that’s about right.. right?) that’s smart, it’s a great platform for that i 100% agree.
    I believe financial/effort sense was one of your other points?
    You strap a blower to an M3 you get 600 wheel (wait until you see the turbo numbers). You turbo an S54 you get close to 700 whp. You turbo an S2k you can hit absurd numbers.

    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Well yeah, it’s also pretty off topic
    On the contrary it proves my point about how strong a high revving naturally aspirated motor can be when boosted which you were discounting.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    only very recently moreso though. It wasn’t until mid-late 2000’s that even the godly Japanese motors started getting easy to make crazy numbers.
    Higher compression and race fuel have been around for a long time. It's not until recently that tuning has evolved to the level it has. Four cylinders making insane HP? Yep the bar has been raised.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Yeah, am aware of the HPF setups.. they also started at $50k and required a hell of a lot of modifications to the amazing factory high revving platform.
    They did not start at 50k and you did not have to do a hell of a lot of modifications to the engine. They had several stock internal setups so you are simply incorrect.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    You’re 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?
    I’m insulting your intelligence? It’s all you’ve been doing this whole time... figuratively AND literally.
    Right by educating you.

    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    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...
    Oh you're going to balance it. Ok. Go balance long cams to your hearts content and figure a way around mass rotational inertia while you're at it too. It's not like actual engineers have ever run into these problems.

    I don't know why you persist. Torsional vibration is a well known issue.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    The reason why inlines longer than 6 aren’t 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 it’s seen 10k+ even with ridiculous piston speeds.
    You shouldn't have said this before you read the wikipedia entry on the straight-8:

    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?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Hey i found examples taking a leaf from your irrelevant book. How does a precision engineered million dollar F1 motor apply to a larger heavier car? Also doesn’t apply to N54.
    Because physics does not change based on cylinder count or application.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    how many STREET/WORKSHOP BUILT motors (V8’s even) rev higher than the highest reving inline 6 motors. Given 14k is a number i’ve seen at least, lets go 14k+ V8’s that aren’t formula or strictly purpose built motorsports engines never to be seen in a real ‘car’
    What the hell kind of ridiculous condition is this? Who is building 20k rpm V8's to go get groceries? You have to look at Motorsport.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    No.. not a mistake.. it may be street legal but it’s probably somewhat more track friendly lol... the whole ‘gets uncomfortable to drive due to heat from the side exit exhaust’ thing for one. And ‘tries to kill you in the wet’ for another.
    It's a Viper. It's a mans car. That doesn't change the fact it's a street car and they built the engine with forced induction modification in mind. Once again, I was right, you were wrong.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Uhh.. except they had to flow them EVEN FURTHER?
    What if the 4.6 had aluminium, it’s not a 5.4. what about the ford engineers themselves saying custom made for the GT don’t you get?
    Yeah they made some changed for their $150k car. I hope they did. And?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    And... ‘it’s called modular V8 for a reason’ LOL i was waiting for you to say that... “ 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.” Specifically stated to not be a ‘modular motor’ -_-
    L O L, wow, you got me: 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

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Again, the 5.4 alu block didn’t 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 5.4’s.. aaand was custom made to be more suitable for the ford GT.
    Holy crap man. They had blocks, heads, in aluminum, iron, whatever else, in the Modular engine family. These motors were raced and Ford Racing had all kinds of flavors of blocks and heads.

    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."

    Get it?

    Here's more on mixing and matching modular V8 parts: http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...mmff_mixmatch/

    You done yet?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    S54 being based off M54
    You should not be allowed to even speak after this comment.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Hell, the BMW M12 formula 1 motor was based off a low revving passenger M10. (and ran to 11,5 or 12 or something)
    They used the M10 block because it was so stout. The F1 motor was not based off low revving anything it had no other similarities. Here, you need to read more: http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthrea...500-horsepower

    Oh and by the way, that's BMW using a naturally aspirated block for turbocharged use. Boom in your face.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    No, you brought it up not me... nor did i ever mention winning, just surviving, stop putting ... words in my.. fingers? I don’t appreciate it lol.
    It was sarcasm. The only way a 700 whp N54 survives a 24 Hour endurance race is if it is parked the whole time.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    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.
    Go ahead and get it to rev. All I'm telling you is there are better BMW motors for the job and you don't run into nearly as many design hurdles.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,937
    Rep Points
    2,858.9
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    29


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Any chance you guys could take this to PM? Click here to enlarge
    2011 E90 M3 \ Melbourne Rot Metallic

    Click here to enlarge

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    If I didn't have all this knowledge that needed to be posted for the benefit of the world I would.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    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. Click here to enlarge

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    That, to me - is flawed logic.
    It is flawed logic.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    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.
    I don't understand why this even needs to be repeated a million times. It's obvious.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •