Up, down, down, up FPC

[KJNVUDU]

While I totally agree with less problems with such a short stroke, I think it is almost entirely an issue of piston speed and travel distance rather than weight.
I work on paper machines that use a cast iron cylinder to dry the paper. 18' diameter and 65 tons, and you can turn it by hand. You can achieve a perfect balance no matter the weight.

Edit to add:

No doubt the weight slows everything down and reduces power. I'm just make the argument from a vibration standpoint.

Sponsored

 

[CANTWN4LSN]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall this had something to do with exhaust flow characteristics from the design of the engine and while it made a unique sound, that was secondary and not the reason for the up down configuration they chose.

 

[Nate22]

While I totally agree with less problems with such a short stroke, I think it is almost entirely an issue of piston speed and travel distance rather than weight.
I work on paper machines that use a cast iron cylinder to dry the paper. 18' diameter and 65 tons, and you can turn it by hand. You can achieve a perfect balance no matter the weight.

Edit to add:

No doubt the weight slows everything down and reduces power. I'm just make the argument from a vibration standpoint.

Right but the point of a fpc is to rev higher easier. A up down down up needs no counter weight.

 

[KJNVUDU]

Right, and that's pretty much my argument too.

And look, I'm not bashing those guys that designed it. They are way sharper than I. And I'm sure they were also held back by others. They probably would have started with a fresh block. One that wasn't lopsided for a fpc.

I just like thinking too much, and wonder what could be done with a few custom parts.

It sucks that everyone is "oh flat plane crank flat plane crank" and say it's one of the things that make this car what it is. AND IT DOES. But it's a shame that this car was "built for the track" and the engine is the main thing that can't handle the track.

 

[Hack]

What I remember reading from the initial release material was that the "traditional" Ferrari style FPC engine needs twin intakes for power optimization, which would have caused the engine to be too tall.

It's a packaging issue that works fine in a mid-engine configuration, but not so well in a front engine setup.

 

[NPTR]

Based on my research, sound was a major consideration - and as much as I originally thought that was a little superficial for engine design, I now completely understand. It’s a massive part of my love affair for this thing and many others as well, so I get it. Just like the LFA, sound will be one big piece of the puzzle in what will make this car a timeless icon. It’s actually always been a big part of what made me love Mustangs over Camaros or any other muscle car since I was a kid - the sound of that 4.6 in my 03 Mach 1 was blissful and put my buddy’s Z28 to shame.

You also see the opposite for my F87 M2 - incredible engine from an engineering perspective but the sound in stock form is lackluster at best and it detracts from the experience, no matter how incredible the car is.

Im pretty Ford admitted this directly on the Jay Lenos Garage episode on YouTube with the chief engineer on the 350 project…it’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I do remember something along those lines.

 

[MAGS1]

Here’s the Leno’s Garage episode with Jamal.

 

[NPTR]

Just watched again on 2x speed and didn’t see it there - must have been an article I read but pretty confident it was confirmed by a ford engineer that sound was a huge consideration…they didn’t want it to sound like the new Z06 or Ferrari, they wanted it to maintain its signature Mustang rumble…and they achieved that goal!!

 

[melown]

I think they used the up, down, up, down for the sound for one like what has been discussed, but primarily because there is only one intake plenum/manifold for the car instead of one for each bank of cylinders like the Ferrari or Z06.

 

[NPTR]

I think they used the up, down, up, down for the sound for one like what has been discussed, but primarily because there is only one intake plenum/manifold for the car instead of one for each bank of cylinders like the Ferrari or Z06.

Yes I recall hearing that as well, but also recall that decision also being associated with the typical Mustang induction snarl they wanted to achieve. Who knows, could have just been a cost reduction decision…but it seems to me like they tried to distinguish the engine from a typical FPC and maintain much of its Mustang identity / DNA in the process. Has that led to some unreasonable engineering compromises that could impact longevity/durability? I’m not smart enough to know…but that unknown is also a big reason why I’m not modifying much on this car. I usual make my way to all the bolt ons…but not with this one, I’m leaving her largely how Ford Performance intended her to be.

Sponsored