[RM7]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Exactly. Power peaks at 6k and just fades off after that. Methinks you've never had what this thread is talking about. Corvettes, Miatas, Challengers and an MS6 are not rev happy cars. [IMG]http://www.knacktoys.com/CARB/2005BaseMap.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://www.belltuning.com/media/wys...EDLINE.png.jpg[/IMG]

Yep.

If his power peaked around 8K...haha, well then he might have something.

Lemme just quote wikipedia for a second:

The F12berlinetta uses a 6,262 cc (6.3 L; 382.1 cu in), naturally aspirated 65° V12 engine of the Ferrari F140 engine family. Displacement is shared with the FF, but the F140 FC version installed on the F12 generates a power output of 740 PS (544 kW; 730 hp) at 8,250 rpm[2] and 690 N⋅m (509 lb⋅ft) of torque at 6,000 rpm, making it the fourth most powerful Ferrari road car produced to date, only surpassed by the LaFerrari, F12tdf and its successor, the 812 Superfast.[1][2][7][8]

[9krpmrx8]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

My dad's ND was dead reliable. He might have had the only one. For the street, the sequential turbo thing was pretty ideal. Provided it wasn't hot out. Or raining. Or too humid. Or too dry.

I assume you meant FD and No FD is dead reliable, The only FD owner who hasn't replaced an engine is one who didn't drive much or own it long.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

I assume you meant FD and No FD is dead reliable, The only FD owner who hasn't replaced an engine is one who didn't drive much or own it long.

Oops, yeah, FD. His was driven hard for 105k miles over 25 years. It sucked the inlet pipes off on a regular basis and the Bose setup finally shit the bed, but it was otherwise problem free.

His local dealer bought it from him last year and restored it and displays it on their showroom floor.

[ntg44]

Originally Posted by jimbobiggens

You know that engineer was pulling your leg about that computer not being able to keep up, right?

The 1987 5.0 Mustang GT was advertised as having an ECU that was more powerful than the computer used to go to the moon in 1969. The EEC-IV, as it was called, is capable of performing a million calculations a second while running at a measly (by today's standards) 15mhz. This 22 year old EEC-IV was used in Formula 1 at the time. High rpm's were not a problem.

And that ECU is an antique by today's standards.

Actually, nobody pulled my leg. I'm not the one who asked the question, nor the one who answered it. Nor am I defending the explanation.

The reason I asked is because the owner of the Boss 302 I was referencing is also a mechanical engineer, and he seemed convinced by the explanation the Ford engineer he spoke with. And he's skeptical by nature, more so than me.

As for myself, being in the software space, naturally I was skeptical about this explanation, but I'm not going to question a Ford engineer about their own engine or related hardware when I know next to nothing about the car. Which is why I asked see5 if the car has 100% stock ECU hardware with a tune or if there's more to the story. Wouldn't be unheard of for the car to be running a standalone ECU.

[Emilime75]

Originally Posted by ntg44

Actually, nobody pulled my leg. I'm not the one who asked the question, nor the one who answered it. Nor am I defending the explanation.

The reason I asked is because the owner of the Boss 302 I was referencing is also a mechanical engineer, and he seemed convinced by the explanation the Ford engineer he spoke with. And he's skeptical by nature, more so than me.

As for myself, being in the software space, naturally I was skeptical about this explanation, but I'm not going to question a Ford engineer about their own engine or related hardware when I know next to nothing about the car. Which is why I asked see5 if the car has 100% stock ECU hardware with a tune or if there's more to the story. Wouldn't be unheard of for the car to be running a standalone ECU.

I can potentially believe the story. Most likely due to cost savings and engineers/bean counters deeming it's good enough. If you look at all of the stand alone ECUs on the market, they vary in capability as to the number of injectors and spark plugs/coils they can handle, especially if sequential control is wanted as opposed to things like wasted spark...so there are limitations even with today's tech dependent on budget. This also allows them to reuse the hardware for higher output versions in the future by redesigning the ECU.

[jimbobiggens]

All car manufacturers test the fool out of their computers so they
1: don't break anything and last past the warranty period
2: make the non-car guys happy with the idle and smoothness
3: make the gubbermint happy with emissions.

This leaves quite a bit on the table as far as performance goes. The Formula 1 ECU I mentioned was tuned with a completely different set of lookup tables from the production 5.0 GT. The actual hardware was the same as production, though.

The aftermarket doesn't have those restraints, all they have to do is declare them "off road use only".

Sometime in the '90's they went from 15 mhz to 45 mhz for the processor and upped the memory from 64kb to 1000kb. As far as I know, that hasn't changed although Ford is kinda tight-lipped about the Coyote engine's ECU.

All I'm trying to say is the rev limit is not because the computer can't handle the speed. The hardware is not the limiting factor, the software is. Maybe the guy misspoke, or the other guy heard him wrong.

[Gamb1t]

Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8

I assume you meant FD and No FD is dead reliable, The only FD owner who hasn't replaced an engine is one who didn't drive much or own it long.

There was a local rotary tuner that often joked how FD owners helped paid for his shop expansion and children's college fees.
He drives an FC Turbo II.

If the low bar of 7500rpm is considered a high-revving machine, might as well throw in the VQ-equipped Nisfinitis.
Puzzled no one mentioned the Integra Type-R and mkI NSX.

[See5]

Originally Posted by ntg44

Actually, nobody pulled my leg. I'm not the one who asked the question, nor the one who answered it. Nor am I defending the explanation.

The reason I asked is because the owner of the Boss 302 I was referencing is also a mechanical engineer, and he seemed convinced by the explanation the Ford engineer he spoke with. And he's skeptical by nature, more so than me.

As for myself, being in the software space, naturally I was skeptical about this explanation, but I'm not going to question a Ford engineer about their own engine or related hardware when I know next to nothing about the car. Which is why I asked see5 if the car has 100% stock ECU hardware with a tune or if there's more to the story. Wouldn't be unheard of for the car to be running a standalone ECU.

Stock ECU with a tune.

I remember a few of drag racing guys turning 8000+ rpm...

That being said, what’s acceptable to the aftermarket isn’t necessarily acceptable to the OEM and I remember reading something similar in an in-depth article on the development of the Road Runner ie Boss Coyote.

[See5]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

He's at least talking the new ND motor, which I gave partial credit to. The NA-NC still don't rev though and benefit from shifting under redline.

No, I’m talking about the later NC models. If you’re not shifting a 7200rpm you’re not getting everything out of it. Power peak is at 7000rpm, redline at 7200, fuel cut at 7500.

[ntg44]

Originally Posted by See5

Stock ECU with a tune.

I remember a few of drag racing guys turning 8000+ rpm...

That being said, what’s acceptable to the aftermarket isn’t necessarily acceptable to the OEM and I remember reading something similar in an in-depth article on the development of the Road Runner ie Boss Coyote.

Yeah, luckily my friend was in town again for Thanksgiving so we talked about it. My premise was correct, but the RPM wasn't.

Turns out what I said was indeed what the engineer told my friend, but it was 8000 rpm, not 7500. The valve train is capable of even higher, but Ford lowered the redline to 7500rpm to allow a safe amount of over rev. Explains why you could get to 7900 with no issues and power to spare!

[marcvtec]

My old Type R that I maxed at 9,000 RPM.
Boy the good old days.

However, best ever is the V12 Lambo, what a fun drive.

[The__J__Factor]

Loved my z4m coupe, but for cheap high revving fun the mr2 spyder with a 2zz swap from a 7th gen celica is hard to beat. 8500rpm 950kgs mid engine and close ratio 6spd manual. Will build another one I think.

[dgoldenz]

What I wouldn’t give for a GT3 engine in a Cayenne. Sweet baby Jesus

[RM7]

Originally Posted by dgoldenz

What I wouldn’t give for a GT3 engine in a Cayenne. Sweet baby Jesus

But why? So you can enjoy that high center of gravity?

[dgoldenz]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

But why? So you can enjoy that high center of gravity?

Because a 911 doesn’t do a great job hauling stuff around. A man can dream but it will never happen

[RM7]

Originally Posted by dgoldenz

Because a 911 doesn’t do a great job hauling stuff around. A man can dream but it will never happen

So get a Panamera and retain some decent handling?

[dgoldenz]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

So get a Panamera and retain some decent handling?

A Panamera feels like driving a massive boat, and they don’t have GT3 engines in those either. You’d be surprised how well a Cayenne with PDCC can handle.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by dgoldenz

A Panamera feels like driving a massive boat, and they don’t have GT3 engines in those either. You’d be surprised how well a Cayenne with PDCC can handle.

So you want the cayenne, which will handle even more like a boat?

[dgoldenz]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

So you want the cayenne, which will handle even more like a boat?

I’ve owned a CTT and my dad owned a panamera. Would take the CTT no question. The handling is incredible for a car it’s size. The only thing I didn’t like was the slow shifting transmission. Give me a PDK and GT3 engine please. I’m sure the engine wouldn’t quite translate due to the weight but I can dream.

I have a GT3. Never driven anything better. But give me an SUV to go with it. Or a trackhawk/hellcat engine with a Porsche/Mercedes interior.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by The__J__Factor

Loved my z4m coupe, but for cheap high revving fun the mr2 spyder with a 2zz swap from a 7th gen celica is hard to beat. 8500rpm 950kgs mid engine and close ratio 6spd manual. Will build another one I think.

We're getting away from cheap when all this work is involved

[ntg44]

GT3 engine in a Cayenne...that's a good one haha.

I used to think that way too, until I drove a truck/SUV with no low end torque. Drove me crazy. They're just not driven the same way sports cars are.

V8 or a supercharged engine with redline no higher than 6000 RPM and torque all over. That's what works.

[Darth One]

This thread is classic BPost

The topic is high revving NA cars, but there is mention of stuff that is not high revving, not NA, and not cars