Parity Review Has Been Called

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

In your opinion, how would a different builder change both the power and torque curve of the Ford as every four valve motor has these characteristics are part of the reason four valves/OHC are used. As far as I know it is impossible to change but maybe you can show the engine designers of this world how it can be done but I won't hold my breath waiting.

If you wanted to make a four-valve engine perform worse like a two-valve engine, you could make the valve area smaller and ports smaller?

So they could cast a special "non-performance" cylinder head with smaller valves and smaller ports than normal, for reduced air flow?

That should give you all the two-valve problems like needing a lot more cam lift to get the same amount of airflow and all those things, presumably?

However you would still have better cam & valve spring stability as your intake lift would be spread over two valves instead of one, as well as less inertia due to not having pushrods, which would be a shame. Darn 4-valve & 5-valve DOHC layouts and their superiority over 2-valve pushrods.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Darn 4-valve & 5-valve DOHC layouts and their superiority over 2-valve pushrods.

Except that they aren't superior in the circumstances of the Supercar ruleset. A ruleset that was known well in advance and that includes the 7,500 rpm rev limit that has been part of the category for decades.

Therein lies the problem really - the characteristics of the two engine types are quite different and the natural benefits of the 4-valve, DOHC layout tend to come into play at higher rpm than the long-standing Supercar rev limit.

There's a post above suggesting that GM should have been mandated to also use a DOHC engine but Ford could have equally been required to stick with a proven pushrod engine. I suspect that the change of engine-builder for Ford brought about by unfortunate circumstances hasn't helped - Herrod is well-credentialed on road car engines but limited on race engine capability, certainly in an environment as intense as Supercars.

Hopefully between Ford's new engine program team, Supercars' engine people, transient dyno work, torque sensors etc, parity between the different engine types can be put in place or confirmed.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

There's a post above suggesting that GM should have been mandated to also use a DOHC engine but Ford could have equally been required to stick with a proven pushrod engine.

I'm not even sure that Ford have an alloy pushrod engine available and the coyote based powerplant was the obvious choice as it is the basis for all the mustang engines.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I'm not even sure that Ford have an alloy pushrod engine available and the coyote based powerplant was the obvious choice as it is the basis for all the mustang engines.

Agree on Mustang use - but then GM uses pushrod in the Camaro. Hopefully the performance of the two engine types can be paritized, as the CoG already has been.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Casper

You seem to have a problem accepting that the two motors are totally & fundamentally different and that means there can be no parity in the true sense of the word..

Volvo seemed to not have a problem.

The issue here is Ford's chosen engine builder couldn't finish the project and those that took it over were completely out of their depth with race engines.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Except that they aren't superior in the circumstances of the Supercar ruleset. A ruleset that was known well in advance and that includes the 7,500 rpm rev limit that has been part of the category for decades.

It would make sense to get rid of that rule. If a Ferrari 458 GT3 with a bog standard engine & 9000rpm rev limit can do 25,000km between rebuilds (citation, it does seem optimistic but it's what it says) then change the rev limit to 9000rpm (and maximum capacity to 4.5L) -- the fans' ears will be best pleased!

You could do 4.6L like the original Ford Modular and Cadillac Northstar engines which would make things nice and easy. The 4.6L Modular is 3.552" × 3.543" (bore x stroke) and the 4.6L Northstar is 3.66 x 3.30", so they match pretty well.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Volvo seemed to not have a problem.

The issue here is Ford's chosen engine builder couldn't finish the project and those that took it over were completely out of their depth with race engines.

That's nonsense, it's nothing to do with the engine builder at all.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

It would make sense to get rid of that rule. If a Ferrari 458 GT3 with a bog standard engine & 9000rpm rev limit can do 25,000km between rebuilds (citation, it does seem optimistic but it's what it says) then change the rev limit to 9000rpm (and maximum capacity to 4.5L) -- the fans' ears will be best pleased!

You could do 4.6L like the original Ford Modular and Cadillac Northstar engines which would make things nice and easy. The 4.6L Modular is 3.552" × 3.543" (bore x stroke) and the 4.6L Northstar is 3.66 x 3.30", so they match pretty well.

Doubt that they'll even be considering a change to that rule at this stage, as it has been part of the DNA of these cars and this series for so long.

The time may come of course but remains to be seen how close the two engines can get with further assessment and work.

[Captain]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Doubt that they'll even be considering a change to that rule at this stage, as it has been part of the DNA of these cars and this series for so long.

Agree, but I think they missed an opportunity when introducing the new more durable engines not increasing the max revs. It would have helped make up for the performance loss from less downforce and added something new for the teams to come to terms with.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Doubt that they'll even be considering a change to that rule at this stage, as it has been part of the DNA of these cars and this series for so long.

It made them sound much worse compared to the screaming 8500rpm Group A Commodores though. Such a retrograde step that didn't really save any money at all.

Reverting this unwise change would be most advisable.

After all, turning 9000-10000rpm is partly why NASCARs sound so much better than Australian V8 touring cars.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Reverting this unwise change would be most advisable.

After all, turning 9000-10000rpm is partly why NASCARs sound so much better than Australian V8 touring cars.

Reverting? Maybe but I suspect it would take a lot of convincing for those running the sport.

Those thundering pushrod engines in NASCAR sound pretty damn fine - of course the lack of the sound reduction for NASCAR that Australian authorities insist on for all motor sport here plays a significant part in that too.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Except that they aren't superior in the circumstances of the Supercar ruleset. A ruleset that was known well in advance and that includes the 7,500 rpm rev limit that has been part of the category for decades.

So either SC are totally dumb and thought they could get a four valve of different displacement to be paritised to achieve the same torque & power curves using the current regulations or they are totally stupid knowing it could not be done and just hoping everything would work out which it hasn't.

[GTRMagic]

Did anyone stop Ford from running a conventional ohv engine in one with what Chevrolet brought to the table?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Did anyone stop Ford from running a conventional ohv engine in one with what Chevrolet brought to the table?

Did anyone stop T8 from using the LT6 quad cam V8?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Did anyone stop T8 from using the LT6 quad cam V8?

I expect that T8 would have needed a LOT of persuasion to even consider an inferior quad cam engine (within the rules framework in place). Heavier overall, much higher centre of gravity, much lower air speed through the cylinders at the rev range in use etc.

Plus of course the Camaro uses pushrod engines to start with.

We spent decades with the two main protagonists using similar pushrod architecture and it has to be said that parity was effective on the engine front. Now with the opportunity for change with the new rules, Ford has elected to go the quad cam route to align the race car better with the road car it is based on - understandable.

The downside to that is that the quad cam architecture is inferior within the rule set so there is a lot of work involved in getting to true parity between the engines - clearly it is very close between the two cars, with aero now even closer and we should see engines even closer soon as torque sensors come into play and the two engines get work on the transient dyno. Interesting that it seems there is still not a suitable transient dyno in Australia and that the engines need to go to the US to be run on a dyno there.

Clearly not a simple process, getting to true engine parity and it hasn't been helped by the unfortunate situation with Ford's second choice provider not having the level of race engine experience / knowledge / capability needed. It appears that has now been resolved and hopefully means we are in "onwards and upwards" mode from here on in.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I expect that T8 would have needed a LOT of persuasion to even consider an inferior quad cam engine (within the rules framework in place). Heavier overall, much higher centre of gravity, much lower air speed through the cylinders at the rev range in use etc.

Plus of course the Camaro uses pushrod engines to start with.

We spent decades with the two main protagonists using similar pushrod architecture and it has to be said that parity was effective on the engine front. Now with the opportunity for change with the new rules, Ford has elected to go the quad cam route to align the race car better with the road car it is based on - understandable.

The downside to that is that the quad cam architecture is inferior within the rule set so there is a lot of work involved in getting to true parity between the engines - clearly it is very close between the two cars, with aero now even closer and we should see engines even closer soon as torque sensors come into play and the two engines get work on the transient dyno. Interesting that it seems there is still not a suitable transient dyno in Australia and that the engines need to go to the US to be run on a dyno there.

Clearly not a simple process, getting to true engine parity and it hasn't been helped by the unfortunate situation with Ford's second choice provider not having the level of race engine experience / knowledge / capability needed. It appears that has now been resolved and hopefully means we are in "onwards and upwards" mode from here on in.

The whole world went to 4 valve o/head cam engines, it's time for supercars to catch up with the times, allowing pushrod engines is a deterrent for other manufacturers.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bluesport

The whole world went to 4 valve o/head cam engines, it's time for supercars to catch up with the times, allowing pushrod engines is a deterrent for other manufacturers.

I know what you mean but if Supercars can get the parity done right with the tools now available, then the deterrent goes away. In any case, still having pushrod engines gives Ford the option to use its "Godzilla" crate engine if it chooses, so under the current regs, doors aren't closed.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I know what you mean but if Supercars can get the parity done right with the tools now available, then the deterrent goes away. In any case, still having pushrod engines gives Ford the option to use its "Godzilla" crate engine if it chooses, so under the current regs, doors aren't closed.

Supercars rejected the 6 litre chev unit so I can't them blessing the 7.3 litre godzilla.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I know what you mean but if Supercars can get the parity done right with the tools now available, then the deterrent goes away.

They have never admitted that the situation is of their own making and never admitted they don't know how to address it. The basic architecture of the two motors says that what SC want can't be done within the current regulations. The mucking about with aero is something the fan can see, the hidden details in the motors can't be seen and likely won't be easily understood. There are contributors to this thread who can't or won't understand the motor problems so what hope has the wider fan base got? It also puzzles me why the media has not grasped the problem but maybe not now I come to think about it.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Did anyone stop Ford from running a conventional ohv engine in one with what Chevrolet brought to the table?

I assume you can get an alloy block for a Windsor, but I don't see why GM having a failure with their Northstar DOHC V8 and not rolling it out across their range to replace their pushrod V8s should be Ford's problem.

As it is as a 5.4L, the Coyote engine is already more powerful than the 5.7L Chevrolet LT engine anyway. It's detuned by at least 30hp peak & probably upper-mid-range too (if not lower mid-range as that's always the domain of 2-valves), so that's the not the concern.

There's nothing "conventional" about a pushrod two-valve engine either, double overhead cams, four to five valves, and gear driven cams is conventional for a racing car or touring car as typified by the Ford Cosworth DFV and Ford Sierra Cosworth after all.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

There are contributors to this thread who can't or won't understand the motor problems so what hope has the wider fan base got? It also puzzles me why the media has not grasped the problem but maybe not now I come to think about it.

They don't perform that unequally.

It's not clear why the revs drop so slowly on the 5.4 Coyote stroker, whether that's the stroker crank and it's counterweights or tuning (somehow not an issue on the M-Sport 5.4L Mustang GT3 car as there is more wide ranging balance-of-performance there that negates any minute things like that), but putting a weighted flywheel on the LT engine should do the trick to get that engine to have the same problem.

I must admit that not matching the throttle size 80mm to the inlet restrictor size was unwise by Herrod's Performance.

I would be in favour of setting a simple 5.0L rule to get rid of that unequal capacity problem!

Heck, get rid of all the other rules and let them have at it! 5000cc, E75 fuel -- knock yourself out with everything else! 10,000+ rpm screamers. Will Mr. McNamara soon be looking into a four-valve DOHC head like the one on the LT6?

[Mixer]

Who is "they"?

Supercars is made up of Ford and Holden teams.

Ford nor it's team were forced into something they didnt want to do.

And they know better than you, even if they made mistakes and put them on the back foot this year.

It also isn't like Ford teams did not have engine issues with the pushrod V8, remember Tickford UK engines?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mixer

It also isn't like Ford teams did not have engine issues with the pushrod V8, remember Tickford UK engines?

You like adding confusion and off topic arguments to try and confuse people or muddy the argument and you continue to do so. The problems you refer to were on a motor that has nothing to do with the current debate as you well know but any port in a storm when agenda of the debate does not work for you. The topic is the architecture and design differences between the two motors and the inequality those differences make on track.

[V8 Fireworks]

Would you look at that, Multimatic had no problem putting the "oversized" quad-cam Coyote 5.4L V8 extremely low and far back...




Room for days in the Mustang GT3 engine bay!

I wonder how come Triple Eight could barely find enough space for it in the Gen 3? Conflict of interest in not prioritising the DOHC engine?

If Tickford Racing had been tasked with chassis design, surely they would not have made such an oversight?

The idea the GT3 is "more a Sports Sedan" is obviously absurd as the Gen 3 V8 Supercar is a silhouette Sports Sedan just the same, if not more so, with just as many design freedoms during Gen 3 conceptual design if not more.

[V8 Fireworks]

Aero Update:

Looking at the latest images, this is what I gather they have done:

Camaro
- Abandoned bootlid spoiler, moved rear wing 50mm rearwards and possibly 50mm upwards instead (using a new design of the wing mounts that has now been manufactured for all the Camaros). Increase of wing span by 100mm, identical to Mustang.
- Reprofiled front splitter.

Mustang
- After the second round of wind tunnel tests, the additional drag needed to match the Camaro has been moved to the front of the car by removing the outboard fill panel on the front bumper ahead of the front wheel arches. Therefore the gurney flaps to add drag on the rear wing endplates have been discarded.
- The bootlid spoiler uses the more cambered Newcastle section on the central bootlid, but the original less cambered sections on the rear quarter panels, the outer sections are also not as wide (this was the case in the original package after the first part of wind tunnel testing, I didn't realise this was just a mix-and-match of the different parts).

Hopefully this is still correct and matching, and moving away from what they originally got to match perfectly in the wind tunnel (e.g., Camaro with wing in original position but with bootlid spoiler & Mustang with aluminium gurney flaps on rear wing) doesn't cause any problems!