I'd like a mixture of both, specifically 5.0 heads on the 5.8 block.
2013 SVT Mustang Shelby GT500 650HP 5.8L Engine Cut-Away Pics
- Thread starter SID297
- Start date
I'd like a mixture of both, specifically 5.0 heads on the 5.8 block.
There's no guarantee that there will be a GT500 for the 2015 model year.
If there is something above the GT (a GT500 or an SVT Cobra) in 2015, you can pretty much forget about the 6.2l. A twin turbo ecoboost 5.0 is equally unlikely, as is a >5.0 Coyote. It would almost certainly be a 5.0 Coyote with a positive displacement blower and possibly direct injection. Or they might just carry over the 5.8 for the first year or two of the new chassis.
Ditto, but as long as the 6.2 block is already out there why not put the 5.0 heads on that block?
It's not from the same engine family.
Interesting discussion here, I'm just read through this thread this morning. I just wanted to make a couple of observatiions on the pics you have posted of the bent and broken rods and piston.
It's one thing to say the engine failed becaues the rod failed but the real question is why did the rod fail?
When attempting to answer that question one must take into consideration all the facts and forces at work to cause this failure.
In the first two pics you show a bent stock rod in a car with a 3.4 Whipple
"The first two shots (IIRC) are from Lethal's car and while I don't think they were more than 6,750 rpm I think they were running some fairly high boost numbers (somewhere between 21-23 pounds) and were supposedly just under 800 rwhp. I believe they were running a 3.4 liter Whipple when it happened."
One important thing to consider is the Whipple 3.4 takes well over 100hp to run it probably closer to 200hp at that high boost level. That means the engine was making closer to 1000hp which would put it past the 800-900hp limit of the stock rod. We also don't know what kind of timing the tuner had in the tune or anything else that tuner may have done which may have caused detonation to occur.
In the last pic you show a completly destroyed piston and rod assembly on a car running a KB 2.8.
Again we know nothing about what was done in the tune but I can clearly see evidence of excessive heat even some melting on that piston leading me to believe it was excessivly lean. This probably lead to detonation and catastrophic failure of the rod and piston assembly.
We also don't know if there was a head gasket blown from resulting from the detonation causing the cyl to hydraulic. There are many factors that would cause a rod to fail. One cannot assume the rod was the cause of the failure when, in most cases it is pointing to a bad tune or a poor engine / fuel combo,(too much timing or lack of fuel or both).
I have personally seen what some of these tuners are doing in their tunes...all kinds of improper things especially too much timing, wrong MAF meter curves, bad A/F curves especially on the lean side. I have to laugh every time I see the "bad gas" card played after an engine fails with their tune in it...
Ford has supplied a rod capable of handling way more power than the (550bhp) factory rated engine. With a properly tuned engine the forged PM rod has shown itself to be quite capable up to the 850hp level. Even with the new 2013 650hp rated engine this rod is easily up to the task.
It wasn't too long ago when the old 5.0's couldn't handle 400 hp without not only new internals but a new and better block....I think we should be real pleased in what Ford has given us. Could it be better sure but unless you are building a race car it simply isn't necessary IMO and obviously Ford's too.
Anyway very good discussion I enjoyed reading through this thread! :beer:
It's one thing to say the engine failed becaues the rod failed but the real question is why did the rod fail?
When attempting to answer that question one must take into consideration all the facts and forces at work to cause this failure.
In the first two pics you show a bent stock rod in a car with a 3.4 Whipple
"The first two shots (IIRC) are from Lethal's car and while I don't think they were more than 6,750 rpm I think they were running some fairly high boost numbers (somewhere between 21-23 pounds) and were supposedly just under 800 rwhp. I believe they were running a 3.4 liter Whipple when it happened."
One important thing to consider is the Whipple 3.4 takes well over 100hp to run it probably closer to 200hp at that high boost level. That means the engine was making closer to 1000hp which would put it past the 800-900hp limit of the stock rod. We also don't know what kind of timing the tuner had in the tune or anything else that tuner may have done which may have caused detonation to occur.
In the last pic you show a completly destroyed piston and rod assembly on a car running a KB 2.8.
Again we know nothing about what was done in the tune but I can clearly see evidence of excessive heat even some melting on that piston leading me to believe it was excessivly lean. This probably lead to detonation and catastrophic failure of the rod and piston assembly.
We also don't know if there was a head gasket blown from resulting from the detonation causing the cyl to hydraulic. There are many factors that would cause a rod to fail. One cannot assume the rod was the cause of the failure when, in most cases it is pointing to a bad tune or a poor engine / fuel combo,(too much timing or lack of fuel or both).
I have personally seen what some of these tuners are doing in their tunes...all kinds of improper things especially too much timing, wrong MAF meter curves, bad A/F curves especially on the lean side. I have to laugh every time I see the "bad gas" card played after an engine fails with their tune in it...
Ford has supplied a rod capable of handling way more power than the (550bhp) factory rated engine. With a properly tuned engine the forged PM rod has shown itself to be quite capable up to the 850hp level. Even with the new 2013 650hp rated engine this rod is easily up to the task.
It wasn't too long ago when the old 5.0's couldn't handle 400 hp without not only new internals but a new and better block....I think we should be real pleased in what Ford has given us. Could it be better sure but unless you are building a race car it simply isn't necessary IMO and obviously Ford's too.
Anyway very good discussion I enjoyed reading through this thread! :beer:
Funny you mention the 7.3 'Stroke. As much as Ford had switched to the use of PM rods in that engine, I scrambled to snag one of the last F250's Ford used them in before the mid-year switch to the absolutely horrible 6.0 engine.
I don't push the thing anywhere near what your cousin does - but that doesn't mean I don't peruse ads that have the older wrought forged rods for sale.
ON EDIT...
Perusing Manley's online catalog and studying their 5.4 H-beam page, I had no idea that Manley rates them at 750hp (with the disclaimer that "Horsepower range is affected by rpm, stroke and piston weight"). From here.
It seems as though Manley uses that same number for any number of their H-beam offerings, just as they bump the number to 800 for the heavier I-beam. When you go back and see why Ford chose to use this rod in the GT there are some interesting disclosures regarding why. Note that titanium wasn't necessarily better either.
From here.
Fascinating to see (for example) what loads are imparted on the rod when in pure tension where the rod is essentially being pulled apart during finite element stress analysis, at 7,000 rpm.
Unable to comment at which point in the four stroke cycle the following photos of GT500 stock connecting rod failures occurred, it is interesting to note where they failed, especially in comparison to the Manley FEA modeling. The first two shots (IIRC) are from Lethal's car and while I don't think they were more than 6,750 rpm I think they were running some fairly high boost numbers (somewhere between 21-23 pounds) and were supposedly just under 800 rwhp. I believe they were running a 3.4 liter Whipple when it happened.
The third shot was from a 2.8 KB that made 768 rwhp. I don't know the boost numbers but the tuner said the rev limit had not been bumped up.
What would be neat at this point would be the ability to compare analysis between the Manley rod, the '07-'12 rod, and this new '13 rod. With the bumped up rpm limit of the '13, I would assume that this version is the strongest stock 5.4 powdered modular rod to date. Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll get reported just how much stronger.
On Edit...
Considering the aforementioned statement...
While he isn't nearly as specific as I'd like to have heard, note Hameedi's statement in an interview given to my old friend Dave
From here. Half!
Last edited:
Interesting discussion here, I'm just read through this thread this morning. I just wanted to make a couple of observatiions on the pics you have posted of the bent and broken rods and piston.
It's one thing to say the engine failed becaues the rod failed but the real question is why did the rod fail?
When attempting to answer that question one must take into consideration all the facts and forces at work to cause this failure.
In the first two pics you show a bent stock rod in a car with a 4.0 Whipple
No George, I stated that I believed that Lethal was running a 3.4 liter Whipple. You even quoted what I said in the next paragraph
"The first two shots (IIRC) are from Lethal's car and while I don't think they were more than 6,750 rpm I think they were running some fairly high boost numbers (somewhere between 21-23 pounds) and were supposedly just under 800 rwhp. I believe they were running a 3.4 liter Whipple when it happened."
One important thing to consider is the Whipple 4.0 takes well over 100hp to run it probably closer to 200hp at that high boost level. That means the engine was making closer to 1000hp which would put it past the 800-900hp limit of the stock rod. We also don't know what kind of timing the tuner had in the tune or anything else that tuner may have done which may have caused detonation to occur.
I was going to suggest that it may have been Lund that tuned the car because I know that Lethal has had an ongoing business relationship with him but then I saw this...
Lethal GT500 engine bites the dust... - Page 3Carbd86GT said:
According to Justin, who did tune the car, it was not caused by detonation and admits to raising the rev limiter. High revs and PM rods are not a recipe for longevity...
Lethal GT500 engine bites the dust... - Page 5Justin at VMP said:
In the last pic you show a completly destroyed piston and rod assembly on a car running a KB 2.8.
Again we know nothing about what was done in the tune but I can clearly see evidence of excessive heat even some melting on that piston leading me to believe it was excessivly lean. This probably lead to detonation and catastrophic failure of the rod and piston assembly.
I can't speak of the tune and I don't see 'clear' evidence of the piston melting. Here's a link to the original thread that included that photo.
Don's '08 Shelby GT500- 1000 HP block!
Ford has supplied a rod capable of handling way more power than the (550bhp) factory rated engine. With a properly tuned engine the forged PM rod has shown itself to be quite capable up to the 850hp level. Even with the new 2013 650hp rated engine this rod is easily up to the task.
I've spoken my mind on the subject many a time now. The Wilson article even states that the 5.8 rod is the same as the 5.4 rod (save for the pin oiling hole) but was weakened at the 'tapered' end. I'll stand my ground here. If the Ford GT needed a Manley H-beam at 550 hp, the world's most powerful production car engine needs one with an additional 100 hp and a heck of a lot more stress on it. Cylinder pressures were mentioned in another thread. This is fantastic engine. At ~$60,000 to get one, buyers would have paid an additional few hundred dollars for a real forged rotating assembly. Especially considering that with some simple mods, the 5.8 will be pushing some very serious power.
On edit...here's the post within that thread (Lethal's) that says it all.
http://www.modularfords.com/forums/...ne-bites-dust-127892/index10.html#post1375336Jared said:
Tob
Last edited:
My mistake/typo on the 4.0Whipple vs the 3.4 but virtually no difference in the amount of power they use to turn them.
Like I said at 770rwhp the engine is actually making close to 1000bhp and with that amount of boost (30+lbs) it is well beyond the 850 -900hp limits of those rods. That was my point. When limits are surpassed or detonation occurs or the A/FR goes too lean parts will begin to break and failure will occur.
As far as that piston from the 2.8kb car showing signs of melting ...look closely at it and you will see 3 round indents in the top of the piston (not cuts) that's where it began to melt.
When talking about what engine componants should be put into a production engine you can't compare a $150,000 car to a $60,000 car. The FGT also has a dry sump external oiling system in it too. Where does a manufacturer draw the line to keep cost's in check. With a 850 -900hp rod I think that line has been raised pretty high.
From my perspective Ford's goal with all the new 2013 engine upgrades was to bring the engine to a point where it will run at an elevated (650) but sustained power level on track keeping heat better in check where HP loss as a result of heat soak is kept at a minimum. IMO they spent that "rod money" in much more important areas as indicated in your list of upgrades.
- The 351 (or 5.8) block has an additional water passage drilled through the deck face beneath each cylinder bore as well as a pair of enlarged holes between each cylinder that are also cross-drilled.
- The 5.8 main bearing caps have an additional chamfer machined on them
- The 5.8 block utilizes drilled passages for piston oil squirters within the main bearing bulkheads beneath the main bearing inserts. They eject oil via another passage drilled diagonally into the main bearing bulkhead.
- new 8qt oil pan
-larger capacity intercooler
Contrary to the wishes of the weekend drag racer their goal was not to make the engine capable of supporting 1000+bhp.
Last edited:
George said:
As far as we know, you can cross off detonation and not enough fuel. That leaves surpassed limits - the crux of my argument. And when I argue for strength, others argue in favor of cost analysis. That's why I brought up Coletti a page ago.
This is THE most powerful production engine in the world, or will be when it is finally made available.
The constraints which necessitated it to be were broken down in the SAE paper I linked. Look at it again. Both the GT engine and the 5.8 engine utilize piston cooling jets. But the GT performance parameters included low center of gravity. They wanted the engine lower than a conventional wet sump would allow.George said:
You absolutely can compare them in this case. The 5.8 engine knows not into what vehicle it will be placed. The GT engine, with 100 hp less, necessitated a premium forged rod. The '13 GT500 engine, with increased loads throughout and a (technically) inferior oil pump and recovery system, will be working much harder at maximum limits.George said:
George said:
The '03-'04 Cobra had the Manley H-beams. It produced some 390 hp and ran about 8 lbs of boost IIRC. This engine is near double that in both cases. It can be argued that PM rods have come a long way since then and I'd entertain that argument as relevant. But this is beyond that. Beyond pure, unadulterated power and durability. This was an SVT edict, a mandate if you will. Someone near the top has decided that they absolutely prefer the $5 rod over the $55 rod (and yes, the numbers Coletti quoted are dated).
Oil cooler. Rear axle pump and cooler. Transmission pump and cooler. GT cams. Spray bore technology. The beefiest modular piston Ford (Mahle) has utilized to date. Upgraded TVS with 15 lbs of boost. Kellogg forged crankshaft. Aluminum alloy block cast in Germany using a spray bore coating. A set of connecting rods that cost less than a tankful of gas. Which one doesn't belong with the others?
This isn't simply a drag racer's wish. If you are going to boast about the ability of 200+ mph top speeds and having the highest hp producing production gas engine, you step over the line and you go all the way - the entire car is about over kill (er, 285 rear tire argument notwithstanding). So you can't start screaming economics when it comes to an important part of the entire foundation that this car was built upon.
The 390 hp Cobra needed them. The 550 hp GT needed them. I strongly disagree with Ford's decision on this 650 hp iteration. Does that take anything away from the fact that this is one hell of a serious effort on Ford/SVT's part? For me, it does. That is all.
I understand you wanting a better rod (I would welcome it myself) but it just isn't needed in this production car because regardless of our desire for something more it doesn't change the fact that there is still a wide safety margin and plenty of room for more power with the forged PM rods.
So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the point of the necessity of a better rod in this car. Good discussion as always Tob..:beer:
So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the point of the necessity of a better rod in this car. Good discussion as always Tob..:beer:
Sorry to hijack, anyone have a drawing like the one above showing the 96-04 (or any of those) cooling system layout/flow?
good question... 4.6L 4V. 96 or 01.
Last edited:
“Power adder foundation package” Good idea or just not necessary?
Reflecting a little on this “Power adder foundation package”, I asked myself what are the needs of the typical person who will mod their GT500?
I know form experience, near 600RWHP on an 03 Cobra is all that is needed for street duty and provides plenty of enjoyment.
Based on that, maybe 750RWHP tops on a GT500 is the upper limit of what makes any sense for street and recreational ¼ mile use. After all, that is a 10 second +130 mph street car. To go faster you have to make compromises on the suspension and drivetrain as well as the engine that take away from the GT500 overall purpose as a GT.
It would be better and cheaper to build a purpose built track car and leave the GT500 alone.
So the question: Is the 5.8L Trinity truly motor reliable at 700 750 RWHP as is. Bolt on a 2.9 Whipple, supporting mods, Long tubes and exhaust with a safe street gas tune and you are essentially there if the bottom end is stout enough.
If the engine internals are good to go, then I suppose there is no need for a “Power adder foundation package”
Personally I am in no financial position to think about buying a 2013GT.
The Focus ST has my interest, but because Ford elected to forgo the Revo-Knuckle strut in favor of an electronic brake torque distribution arrangement, I am a bit turned off. I like the mechanical and elegant solution, even at the expense of additional unsprung weight and supposedly cost. I think I’ll wait for the European wagon version.
I guess there is no way to please guys like us using the cost effective rather than the best solution.
Reflecting a little on this “Power adder foundation package”, I asked myself what are the needs of the typical person who will mod their GT500?
I know form experience, near 600RWHP on an 03 Cobra is all that is needed for street duty and provides plenty of enjoyment.
Based on that, maybe 750RWHP tops on a GT500 is the upper limit of what makes any sense for street and recreational ¼ mile use. After all, that is a 10 second +130 mph street car. To go faster you have to make compromises on the suspension and drivetrain as well as the engine that take away from the GT500 overall purpose as a GT.
It would be better and cheaper to build a purpose built track car and leave the GT500 alone.
So the question: Is the 5.8L Trinity truly motor reliable at 700 750 RWHP as is. Bolt on a 2.9 Whipple, supporting mods, Long tubes and exhaust with a safe street gas tune and you are essentially there if the bottom end is stout enough.
If the engine internals are good to go, then I suppose there is no need for a “Power adder foundation package”
Personally I am in no financial position to think about buying a 2013GT.
The Focus ST has my interest, but because Ford elected to forgo the Revo-Knuckle strut in favor of an electronic brake torque distribution arrangement, I am a bit turned off. I like the mechanical and elegant solution, even at the expense of additional unsprung weight and supposedly cost. I think I’ll wait for the European wagon version.
I guess there is no way to please guys like us using the cost effective rather than the best solution.
Very nice....
Those rods look mighty thin
Those rods look mighty thin
He got jipped doing all that work for a Masters degree, should have gotten a PhD out of it.
I cant believe people are still discussing the decision to use the rods they have been pretty much unchanged since 07. There are hundreds and in some case thousands of 600rwhp, 700rwhp, 800rwhp, 900rwhp...GT500s out there with no issues at all on stock internals. Everyone on here knows which one of those numbers I listed are play at your own risk and its a pretty damn big number! Move on. The rods in the Terms may have been better but everything else was shit compared to what they are using now.
Users who are viewing this thread
