Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
Motor Failure Causes??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GTSpartan" data-source="post: 16079256" data-attributes="member: 21531"><p>I think we are violently agreeing on the theoretical merits of both configuration, but I'm probably not doing a very good job at articulating what concessions/trade-offs Ford was forced to give up during development, that eliminated most of the inherent pros of a FPC.</p><p></p><p>As the engine exists today in reality, it has no rotating mass advantage over a CPC version of itself, negating one of a FPC main advantages. Assuming the same valvetrain is used between CPC and FPC, it doesn't care what kind of crank is spinning it. If each rotating assembly has the same mass (which Ford says they do), RPM capability should be essentially the same between the two. Again, negating one of its main advantages. Given that it only made 4 more HP during Ford's development, should tell you that at the end of the day, there was basically very little measurable difference between the two.</p><p></p><p>Apples, oranges, or grapes, it's how the engine turned out. From me in the peanut gallery, taking all that R&D $$$$ and investing in a balls-out 9,000+ rpm CPC version would have been preferable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GTSpartan, post: 16079256, member: 21531"] I think we are violently agreeing on the theoretical merits of both configuration, but I'm probably not doing a very good job at articulating what concessions/trade-offs Ford was forced to give up during development, that eliminated most of the inherent pros of a FPC. As the engine exists today in reality, it has no rotating mass advantage over a CPC version of itself, negating one of a FPC main advantages. Assuming the same valvetrain is used between CPC and FPC, it doesn't care what kind of crank is spinning it. If each rotating assembly has the same mass (which Ford says they do), RPM capability should be essentially the same between the two. Again, negating one of its main advantages. Given that it only made 4 more HP during Ford's development, should tell you that at the end of the day, there was basically very little measurable difference between the two. Apples, oranges, or grapes, it's how the engine turned out. From me in the peanut gallery, taking all that R&D $$$$ and investing in a balls-out 9,000+ rpm CPC version would have been preferable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
Motor Failure Causes??
Top