## Ford Using Ti-VCT in New 5.0L V8 for Mustang GT

##### 28 December 2009
 The 400hp naturally-aspirated 5.0L is the current high-end application of Ti-VCT in the Ford lineup. Click to enlarge.

Ford has officially announced the 2011 Ford Mustang with an all-new advanced naturally-aspirated 5.0-liter V-8 engine. The 5.0-liter four-valve Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) V-8 engine in the new Mustang GT will deliver 412 hp (307 kW) and 390 lb-ft (529 N·m) of torque.

The Ti-VCT technology (earlier post) is a key element in helping the new 5.0-liter V-8 Mustang GT deliver projected fuel economy of up to 25 mpg US on the highway cycle—better than the pervious model—despite its performance. The gasoline (91 octane recommended, 87 octane minimum) engine offers a specific output of 82.4 hp/L. An additional benefit of Ti-VCT is a reduction of emissions, especially in situations when the throttle is partially open.

Ti-VCT provides extremely precise variable—yet independent—control of timing for intake and exhaust valves. Independent adjustment of intake and exhaust valve timing allows maximum fuel economy at part-throttle, while delivering optimized power in full-throttle situations. An added benefit is improved drivability and responsiveness across the torque curve.

Ford intends to make Ti-VCT—which now ranges in announced applications from the 1.6L on the Ford Fiesta up to this 5.0L in the Mustang—available on 90% of its nameplates by 2013, according to Barb Samardzich, vice president, Powertrain Development. (Earlier post.)

 The 2011 Mustang GT. Click to enlarge.

The new 5.0-liter V-8 in the 2011 Mustang GT is a double-overhead-camshaft configuration that employs two camshafts per cylinder bank—one camshaft to operate the intake valves and one camshaft to operate the exhaust valves. Ti-VCT rotates the camshafts to advance or retard the cam timing, based on several measures including throttle opening.

Working like a ratchet, the one-way valves allow precise timing of camshaft events, continually optimizing timing to provide maximum thrust or fuel economy, based on driver input.

An element unique to the Mustang GT 5.0-liter V-8 application is that Ti-VCT is actuated by camshaft torque, with assistance from pressurized oil. This meant that minimal upgrades to the oil pump were required, resulting in less parasitic drag. Increased volumetric and thermal efficiency gives faster Ti-VCT response at all engine speeds. Camshaft torque energy Ti-VCT actuation is a Ford innovation, introduced first on the 3.0-liter V-6.

During the development phase, camshaft lift profile and port optimization started with higher-lift Ford Racing aftermarket units, modified for compatibility with various four-valve-per-cylinder heads. Extensive CAE and dynamometer testing was performed to fine-tune camshaft events and port flow for performance and fuel efficiency in conjunction with the variable camshaft timing.

The resulting all-new aluminum four-valve-per-cylinder heads feature a compact roller finger follower valvetrain layout leaving more room for high-flow ports for free-breathing performance. Head structure was designed to support higher cylinder head pressures and cross-flow cooling for sustained high-rpm use. Head bolt size was increased from 11 to 12 millimeters to contain the higher combustion pressures.

The aluminum block was developed for optimized windage and oil drainback under lateral conditions and high rpm, such as a track-day outing for an enthusiastic owner and driver. Increased main bearing bulkhead widths and nodular iron cross-bolted main bearing caps with upsized bolts were also employed to accommodate the significant performance increase.

An additional element is the increased capacity and baffling of the deep-sump stamped steel oil pan to enable sustained high-rpm use and offer the convenience of 10,000-mile oil change intervals. Piston-cooling jets also were incorporated for performance-minded customers and for faster oil warm-up on cold start.

Specially designed tubular exhaust headers were developed to maximize exhaust pulse separation and improve flow.

The six-speed automatic transmission on the 2011 Mustang GT will deliver up to an estimated 25 mpg US highway and 17 in the city. This is up from 23 mpg US highway and 17 city for the 2010 model. Six-speed manual transmission Mustang GT models for 2011 are projected to deliver 24 mpg highway and 16 city, matching the 2010 model but delivering significantly more horsepower and performance feel.

Other contributors to the 2011 Mustang GT fuel economy are, EPAS (electric power assist steering) and an additional rear decklid seal to enhance aerodynamics.

Fuel economy also is aided by engineering a lightweight powertrain. The engine, as shipped, weighs 430 pounds (105 kg). This represents a weight savings of more than 20% versus the previous 5.0-liter offering. Lower mass can be attributed to the aluminum block and heads, the lightweight composite intake manifold, composite cam covers and hollow camshafts.

More wasted time spent by Ford on vroom toys instead of applying themselves more fully to creating the cars that will be in demand in the future.

Ford has now introduced an entire line of I-4, V6, and V8 all alloy, DOHC, dual VVT engines. These are nice engines, fully state-of-the-art, but still do not offer VVL, throttle-free operation.

IOW, they still need further updates before they possess the pre-requisites to operate with the mileage benefits equivalent to diesel, of HCCI operation.

Why is Ford squandering all this time and resources into making a car that averages 21 mpg when the real challenge is to meet the 35 mpg fleet average by 2016? I guess they are just banking on the republicans to win back the White House on 2012 and reverse all these fuel economy mandates...I really expected a lot more from Ford.

Why? because they have hundreds of gray haired ME's that don't have a clue about EV's.
They are still a ICE vehicle company. Can't really blame them, since Henry Sr. blazed that trail.

Mustang and Camero are selling well. both Ford and GM are responding to the market. I wish people would not buy muscle cars nor large SUVs but as long as it is legal, people will buy them.

People buy them because they are heavily advertised. Just watch the sales techniques used during any football game to draw out the bubba-wannabe...

With 300hp on tap in the V-6 - I find it hard to imagine a strong interest in the V-8 other than for nostalgia.

I was hoping that they would have used the 3.5L twin turbo DI motor - but I guess the people who want the higher horsepower, "sport" model also demand a V-8. So much for the resurrection of the turbo Mustang.

Are they also bringing the weight of their inline 4 engines down by 20%?

Now that the fleet fuel economy targets have been raised, it might be time to revise the "gas hog" penalties upwards soon.

400 pounds from the engine, 300 pounds from the transmission leaves a lot of room for motors, controllers and batteries with a better weight distribution.

There is a company in southern California that takes new Mustangs and converts them to EV with better performance. They are not big sellers and cost $100,000 each, but some people have money to buy one. As I said several times before this is one of the markets that is very profitable. High energy cars. What a wonderful but such non efficient engine. Double VVT is really the only technology which is supposed to impove the engine and save fuel ? It will still be throttling most of the time ! When will they understand that this cheap way of making engines is not viable anymore. We need downsizing, turbocharged/supercharged + direct injection -> clean scavenging possibilities...fully variable camshaft. For instance a VW 1.4 tsi 180 HP is 128.5 HP/l, and has a amasing torque curve. This is a bunch of technologies that I would pay for. V6s &8s inherently weigh more and have larger heat losses. Why not maximize I4s, I5s even I6s??? The beauty is only ONE set of expensive, heavy chains, cams, cats, O2s...shrink displacement, add a turbo and even more good. How much/little power is needed to drive a 3000lb, 1400kg POS??? This is good. Ford needs to capitalize on these affordable, high profit vroom toys while there is still time, instead leaving this market to high dollar German and Asian sports cars. If it were not for nostalgia, Ford might be dead now. 25/17 mpg (US) in a 400hp (SAE net) car is quite good. 400 hp to transport up to 4 or 5 people (but typically ONE) is way more than a little outrageous but they sell – and for the same reason that 2000 square feet per person homes sell – and for the same reason that private jets sell - so send some of your righteous rage toward those high oil consumers who try to force US made muscle cars off the market. I hope this technology includes some early or late intake valve closing to reduce throttling losses; if not I wonder why. I don’t know where HCCI stands – is it in any production engines yet? If/when the CAFÉ standards force us to smaller cars, Ford will probably still have to rely heavily on their foreign divisions - built with foreign labor. Ford is still a ICE vehicle company, as they should be. EVs are not going to take over the market in the near future. EV sales are stagnant at about 3% and those sales are not based on economics and would be lower if they were not heavily hyped and promoted by their makers and our rightful concern for oil imports. Ford understands that this relatively economical way of making efficient engines is the best way to improve the bottom line – and the bottom line is, umm well, the bottom line. Downsizing with forced induction is probably more costly, complex and expensive than their Ti-VVT and not as attractive in a muscle car - and it has always been the “promise of the future”. If you want costly elegance, keep it simple, buy a Volt. If you want a good, affordable, reliable, small car, buy Asian and send your dollars overseas, but don’t pretend Ford can compete easily in that market. By one estimate, the earlier-model Ford Focus lost as much as$1 billion a year (WSJ).

Does anyone believe they can just heavily advertise the Fiesta at halftime and rake in the dough? The world is not that simple.

Toppa Tom wrote;

"25/17 mpg (US) in a 400hp (SAE net) car is quite good. "

"If it were not for nostalgia, Ford might be dead now."

"Ford is still a ICE vehicle company, as they should be."

"400 hp to transport up to 4 or 5 people (but typically ONE) is way more than a little outrageous but they sell"

This kind of thinking reminds of what George Bush said;

"America is addicted to oil".

And he was right.

Empty busses next to large vehicles with one person inside.

Private jets with few people inside.

Huge houses and suburban sprawl.

But the perpetrators are the people - not the evil capitalists in business.

Now that we have gone off topic, it is the capitalists that have the jets and build the air conditioned stadiums. They call it freedom to be as wasteful as they want. No government interference with their freedoms.

Please, Your rage and contempt for anyone who does not share your desires to ride a bicycle or drive a pregnant roller skate is showing.

There is a reasonable desire to replace petroleum as a fuel source, but it is no longer for any other reason than the artificial Oil 'Price' Crisis.

The excesses of the AGW theses was collapsing of its own weight, as new 21st Science results were coming in, even before the scandal of Climategate revealed the degrees of political hoaxing involved.

Exploitation of non-conventional oils sources, made feasible under the exorbitant price umbrella, reveals that these enormous reserves will supply the industrialized world for many centuries if needed. So petroleum supply is not a genuine issue, if it ever was.

The cartel of unsavory types, used Marxist philosophy to justify nationalizing their oil companies. These sovereigns then imposed truly monopolistic prices bearing absolutely no relation to the cost of production or profit.

When it comes to true avarice, only politicians are capable of acting with such malice and contempt for everyone, including their own citizens.

The response of petroleum consumers was to find acceptable substitutes. The process of finding adequate substitutes is well along for all other petroleum requirements, except Transport, even as it has taken 40 years to accomplish.

All other petroleum markets are stabilized, and actually declining, now. But even the last growing market, the Transport Sector now has the glimmers of valid substitutes in electrified vehicles of various types. We should welcome the coming of electric-assisted, and then more advanced gasoline-assisted electric vehicles, and even pure electric powered vehicles, as they will break the Cartel, finally and absolutely.

To the degree that efficiency improvements in any and all related technologies, reduce the use of petroleum, they all serve to bring that wanted day forward. So the Ford advances, don't merit the hatred manifest by the truly intolerant here. Many of you sound like the worst of a KKK racist bigot from the 1940s.

Ford's new line of all-alloy, DOHC, four valve, dual VVT, SPFI, I-4, V6, and small V8 ICE engines are a welcome technical advance. They are introduced, without the technologies that they will soon add, such as turbo charging and GDI and eventually HCCI operation.

But even the clean-sheet foundations make it clear that Ford has invested in developing truly advanced ICE families across the entire range of power that it is likely to ever need. Both Chrysler and too a large degree GM have done likewise, over the previous half decade. The domestic manufacturers now possess the most advanced, fuel efficient, toxic emissions free, ICE engines of any companies in the World.

They have all avoided the cul-de-sac of heavy and dirty diesel, and all seem bent on adopting HCCI technology that is much cleaner, and just as fuel efficient.

They need to come out with an affordable / economy Mustang BEV to compete with the Volt.

Unbeliveable but true.

With a bit more fine tuning Ford will get 500+ hp on every Mustang.

The neighbour youngter will want 600+ hp and may be 700 hp.....

I do not share the desire that everybody should ride a bicycle, but I would like to fight for a more efficient way of transportation.

Non convention sources as bitumen petroleum has to be avoided. It is a consequence of high prices and shows us how desperate we are to produce oil and how far can we go for it. 1 barrel is consumed to produce 2 of them that way. Consuming less petrol will prevent that, and will slow down the speculation.

Diesel engines are not anymore dirty, we can now get more than 100HP/L and still meet Euro 6 regulation even before gasoline engines. Yes, to do that we need DPF, SCR or Denox, we it is clean then and much more efficient than any Gasoline even downsized engine. By the way, particulate matter will also be a problem for direct injection gasoline engine, and DPF could also be needed to meet regulations.
Also, more and more petroleum will come from heavy oil in the future, how the huge gasoline market will cope with that ? Refiners are thinking hard to solve that.

Gasoline engines are not so clean as it looks, fuel enrichment at high load is used (fuel is so abundant that we use it to cool exhaust gases) and it creates a lot of HC and CO.

HCCI a solution? it does work at partial load (and creates a lot of HC by the way, I also did smell it). But it becomes harder at high load, and very difficult to control. I you ready to have the same engine with half of the power that you had before running HCCI ?

About the use of double VVT on this engine : you can use a late intake valve closing of course to partially throttle the engine, but since years we know the importance of a good tuning on a normally aspirated engine. To get the maximum power you need to get the maximum of fresh air in the cylinder. So you try to increase the volumetric efficiency by using propagation waves at the intake and exhaust. As your pipes are fixed in length (except for some old cases in formula one), you will adapt your cam timing to always get the maximal amount of air inside at different engine speed. On the exhaust side, you ll try to also get the best compromise between volumetric efficiency and pumping losses. So having a double VVT is also a way to increase the specific power of the engine and improve his efficiency.

I am just very unhappy that they just started to do that in 2010, just because a dollar spent on that wasn’t a dollar earned. It s now a small step to a more efficient engine, but too small to me.

“it is the capitalists that have the jets and build the air conditioned stadiums.”
I assume you mean those of us who invest in business and believe in an economic system based on private ownership.

The private jets are used by the politicians, rich entertainers and anyone that has enough \$ to graduate from a Hummer to a jet - not "capitalists".

Air conditioned stadiums are built by various entertainment entrepreneurs supported by those who will pay heavily to sit and watch sports or concerts and support some of the strongest and most talented, or not, as well as those who buy jets – and those who buy drugs.

We call it freedom to do with our money as we want.

Fuel enrichment at high load, incidentally, is used for maximum power not to cool exhaust gases, that went out with air cooled P47 engines.

TT,

Whatever...don't get into one of your right wing rants. Yes, the wealthy are free to be as wasteful as they want and that is what you worship, we all understand that by now.

A strange response.

What I value are a firm grasp of reality and common sense.

Lack of both of these can result in irrational reactions to real problems.

412 hp out of a NA 5.0 liter Ford V8? Wow!!! This is a far cry from the 150-hp 5.0-liter Mustang GT that I've seen in my younger days. The strawberry-red Mustang 5.0 styling further whet the appetite...in a layout far more practical than Ferraris or Corvette. So, instead of buying the next red Ferrari, I'll settle for a Ford Mustang GT instead...and laughing all the way to the bank! Just kidding...not old enough for midlife crisis yet.

Environmentally-speaking, owners of high-powered sport cars do not put much mileage on their playthings...My brother's Porche 911 turbo got driven only about 12,000 miles in the past 6 years.

Ten years ago, Honda made for the S2000 a 240 HP normally aspirated 2.0 liter, 4 cylinders: 120 HP / l. This is impressive.

Speaking of fuel enrichment:

Theoretically maximum power is obtained at stoichiometric ratio : equivalence ratio 1. However due to dissociation phenomena you can still increase the power by injecting more fuel. Then a big part of HC does not burn completely and cannot turn fully into CO2 due to the lack of O2 available (rich mixture). CO is thus created (exponentially) and combustion efficiency gets lower. The optimum for maximum power is around equivalence ratio 1.1.

Now it happens sometimes, that you need to really cool the exhaust gases as you are working at high load and that you are getting too close to you limited exhaust manifold temperature (around 930°C for gasoline, 830°C for diesel). So you inject even more gasoline and goes up to equivalence ratio 1.15, 1.2, even 1.25 just to use the latent heat of the fuel. The fuel does not burn in the cylinder, and do not increase the power anymore (it actually slightly decreases it).

Another example of this is used for cold start, when also you ll inject up to E.R 1.2 to improve combustion stability (like the choke button on carburetors). Diesel engine is far more stable in cold condition once started.

Some people are also looking at using other ways (like EGR) on gasoline to reduce exhaust gases temperature instead of using this strategy, which is a wonderful waste.

Toppa Tom said;

"What I value are a firm grasp of reality and common sense.

Lack of both of these can result in irrational reactions to real problems. "

First, a "firm grasp of reality" is in the eyes of the perceiver. We are the six blind men describing the elephant.

Second, Albert Einstein was quoted as saying "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

The "real problems" I see are 1) a near term decline in conventional oil production, which has economic and security impacts, and 2) global warming, also with economic and security impacts.

The attitude the "if I can afford it, I should be able to burn it" flies in the face of both problems above. Shouldn't we be able to buy any and every kind of drug known if we can afford it? The answer from many is "no, that causes more problems that it solves". So, therefore, does the unbridled combustion of petroleum, for the reasons listed above. Many people see loss of economic soundness and impacts from AGW as loss of freedoms.

One person's reality is a misunderstanding of events and causality to another person.

The comments to this entry are closed.