Reliable 470 RWHP for road racing Coyote? What are some formulas to achieve it?

[Coz]

459 rear wheel hp and 419 torque

That's impressive without headers and with cats . What brand of dyno?

 

[S550AZ]

I am not really sure the dyno brand. They say they are in the top 20 dyno shops in the US. I know they are a serious shop for the racers and charge the $ for sure. The owner said my motor was one of the strongest stock coyotes he has seen. Here is their link. https://dynocomp.com/dyno-tuning/ maybe it says what kind they use.

 

[Grant 302]

So question is how do I get 470RWHP from a coyote (not the 5.2 just so its more fun) dead reliable for open track and have it last.

50 hour life cycle?

Although this thread is a lot less entertaining after the cleanup, it does show how Rob’s wisdom is often ignored. Lots of answers about the easy part...how to get to a specific power level. But almost nothing about getting to an undefined ‘reliable for road racing’ from the OP.

Just. Sayin’.

 

[Coz]

But almost nothing about getting to an undefined ‘reliable for road racing’ from the OP.

While perhaps not a complete answer, the OPs issue was addressed in this other thread by @Fair at post #17

Vorshlag 2011 Mustang GT + S197 Development Thread

Project introduction for TrackMustangsOnline: Some of you guys that read multiple forums already know our infamous S197 Build Thread. I started writing this in Nov 2010. We have written hundreds of entries in the original build thread here on the Vorshlag forum and in April 2018 we will continue...

trackmustangsonline.com

Forged rods and pistons would also help as well as the typical billet OPG and crank gear, oil coolers, and bigger radiator. A proper tune that ensures proper A/F ratio, especially for #8, advance, etc.

I'm sure that many "reliability" issues can also be traced back to some improper shifting...

 

[Grant 302]

Yes, but I’m not thinking anyone who builds for 460ish RWHP also intends to use a practical rev limit of 6,800. Terry is not wrong from a conservative approach perspective. But I don’t think that matches the OP’s intent, or frankly anybody watching this thread.

 

[TMSBOSS]

Yes, but I’m not thinking anyone who builds for 460ish RWHP also intends to use a practical rev limit of 6,800. Terry is not wrong from a conservative approach perspective. But I don’t think that matches the OP’s intent, or frankly anybody watching this thread.

Agree. But it does provide some additional context. The mention of the 50 hour useful life span was also eye opening.

 

[Fabman]

Agree. But it does provide some additional context. The mention of the 50 hour useful life span was also eye opening.

50 hours is quite a bit of track time considering most track day sessions and SCCA regional races are 20-30 minutes long.

 

[Grant 302]

Agree. But it does provide some additional context. The mention of the 50 hour useful life span was also eye opening.

It’s a useful metric as found in many manuals for engine related maintenenance.

‘Reliable’ is also relative...before needing to refresh or replace parts like pistons, rings and bearings as if they’re consumables?

 

[TMSBOSS]

Agree.

 

[JDee]

This is an excerpt maintenance page from the FP350S owners manual. Not going to be a cheap car to run. I thought it would be an Ox, but not so much I guess.


Personally, I'd rather spend money on brakes and rubber than motors. Since I'm just doing track days not racing anymore (for the financially unrewarding token trophy, though I did win 600 bucks once!! WooHoo!), I'm using a hard 6500 rpm rev limit except on the one long straight we run were I get slightly over 7100, still below the FP tune red line and not much over the stock 6750 redline. Motor is stock and plan to leave it that way. Thinking I'd be happier with 3.55s instead of the 3.73s. But that's another thread. I have the luxury of doing this because I'm only racing the clock and no one else. And that works for me.

 

[Dave_W]

ensures proper A/F ratio, especially for #8

Just thinking out loud, but has anyone thought of using manufacturing tolerances to put a "fatter" injector on #8? I believe a few companies can supply "matched sets" of injectors; they should be able to supply 7 "matched" injectors and 1 that outputs slightly more, right?

 

[blacksheep-1]

The 50 hour life cycle was based on the IMSA Boss 302 program, and it is a fair amount of track time. As I recall, all that could be done to those engines were valve springs, rod bolts and a slight overbore, that was it, and they were pretty reliable, I don't remember a single failure except to a cam/timing issue at Miller in PWC.
However, that also doesn't mean those engines ran to 50 hours and just fell off, they would start losing power earlier than that. I think that those engines were dyon'd after every race to check their HP output. Right now an IMSA weekend is about 4 hours, so figure it's going to be engine change time around 40 hours or 10 races. That won't get you through a whole season. SCCA, a bit different, you can get more, but the point is, as the HP goes up, reliability goes down, it's just the way it is, and it hasmore to do with duty cycles than anything else, you're only going to get "X" compressions out of a valve spring, running a bigger cam, more stress, less cycles.
Like they say.
Fast
Reliable
Cheap
pick any 2

 

[Grant 302]

And FWIW, my understanding is that those engines didn’t have squirters...which go a long way towards longevity of the pistons and rings.

Rob- how many spare engines did most teams have?

 

[blacksheep-1]

You know, I'm not sure, when we ran 2 cars, there was always a backup car, and at least 1 engine under the bench. In the Astin, we didnt have a spare in house, but there was always one available to us.

 

[Grant 302]

You know, I'm not sure, when we ran 2 cars, there was always a backup car, and at least 1 engine under the bench. In the Astin, we didnt have a spare in house, but there was always one available to us.

All reasonable precautions when the risk at those levels are also considered. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Dave_W]

those engines didn’t have squirters

But the Roadrunner got forged pistons. And with the design spec being for the sustained higher rpms of racing, the reduced oil windage from deleting the piston squirters makes sense. At least to me, but I'm not an engine builder or powertrain engineer.

 

[BillyJRacing]

Running straight ethanol like Ignite Fuel will make it a lot easier to get there.

 

[Fabman]

Running straight ethanol like Ignite Fuel will make it a lot easier to get there.

Long time e85 user here. I was under the impression that the small % of gasoline added to e85 was to aid in start up. I also have read that it’s to make it poison so that people don’t drink it. Any issues with cold starts on straight ethanol? Is it really 100% or is it 99%.

 

[BillyJRacing]

Long time e85 user here. I was under the impression that the small % of gasoline added to e85 was to aid in start up. I also have read that it’s to make it poison so that people don’t drink it. Any issues with cold starts on straight ethanol? Is it really 100% or is it 99%.

Different ethanol producers do different things for lubrication and to make it a legal fuel (you can't sell straight ethanol because then it's actually under alcohol laws for taxes and regulations). Some of the additives used by some ethanol companies to meet these standards are bad for your injectors and eat up fuel lines. Ignite doesn't eat up fuel lines and has lubrication additives to make it ideal as a fuel and not be governed by alcohol laws. There's a reason their fuel makes more power than any other ethanol fuel or race gas like C16. Apparently "E85" is the wild west in terms of quality, additives, lubricants, etc.. and because of that, "E85" and all ethanol has a bad rep for problems in stock fuel systems and tuning because of all of the inconsistencies not just in the % but the stuff you can't measure. If you pick a quality fuel like Ignite and run 100%; you wont have problems and will make a ton of power.

 

[Dave_W]

E85 at your local gas station is not 85% ethanol. Depending on multiple factors, it may not even be close to 85%.
"E85 (or flex fuel) is a term that refers to high-level ethanol-gasoline blends containing 51% to 83% ethanol, depending on geography and season."

Alternative Fuels Data Center: E85 (Flex Fuel)

If you want consistency, you need to look for "race" E85, like from Sunoco - "Sunoco E85-R is blended to consistently contain 85% ethanol." Sunoco E85-R They also make E98 that is 98% ethanol and 2% gasoline.