automationgame.com

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:12 am**

I will be posting my engines on here, and will do my best to make them fit what would be practical in the real world.

The way I designate my engines: (In order of increasing performance)
E, ES, S, RS, RSR, R, RR
Eco- Focus on fuel efficiency
HD- Focus on reliability, high torque at lower rpm
Stars around an engine's name- Not suitable for standard street use. Perhaps it could be used as a crate motor or a in a manufacture sponsored race car
T- Turbo
TT- Twin Turbo

Engine Size - Cylinder Orientation - Performance Designation - Valve Train - Special Stats

Please remember, critical comments are welcome - I am always looking to improve!

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:25 am**

Here is the first one.
HP - 339 @ 5500 RPM
TQ - 400 lb/ft @ 1700 - 4000 RPM
Redline - 5500
MTBF - About 50,000 mi
Materials Cost - $1363
Man Hours - 79
Economy - Just under 27%
Fuel - Regular unleaded
My bad, it is actually 32v, not 16v as it says in the name.
Is this a good engine?
Edit: This is a pickup truck engine, i.e. the Ford 5.4 Triton or the new 5.0 Coyote in the F150

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:54 am**

Also, as people have done before, I would like to try my hand at tuning some engines that other people have built. I do know my stuff

Posted: **Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:55 pm**

gt1cooper wrote:Here is the first one.
HP - 339 @ 5500 RPM
TQ - 400 lb/ft @ 1700 - 4000 RPM
Redline - 5500
MTBF - About 50,000 mi
Materials Cost - $1363
Man Hours - 79
Economy - Just under 27%
Fuel - Regular unleaded
My bad, it is actually 32v, not 16v as it says in the name.
Is this a good engine?
Edit: This is a pickup truck engine, i.e. the Ford 5.4 Triton or the new 5.0 Coyote in the F150

It's an awesome engine. I will say that GM hasn't switched to SOHC or DOHC, and they've built three new powerhouse truck engines. The 5.3 litre (close to your 5.4 litre) has 350 or so horsepower and 383 ft-lbs. You've got them beat on the torque, as well as every other truck with around that displacement. Maybe about 5 ft-lbs can be sacrificed for 10-15 extra horsepower? Other than that, you did a great job bro.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:54 pm**

Thanks

Do you think it is worth the drop in torque? I could raise both by 5 or 6 of their respective power units, but it will drop the efficiency about .3%. I know that is not all that matters, but I figured that getting about 23 city and over 30 highway in a regular 4 door f150 would be more valued than a small power gain; also, the power would come in a bit later.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:28 pm**

Next up, a sportier model.
HP - 444 @ 7200 RPM
TQ - 386 lb/ft @ 3700 - 5000 RPM
Redline - 7200
MTBF - About 41,000 mi
Materials Cost - $1050
Man Hours - 85
Economy - Just under 24%
Fuel - Premium Unleaded

Also, I did some research on GM's motors and their supplier's prices. It costs them about $1500 (American) and $1600 for Ford's 5.0 Coyote Truck model. All I could dig up is that both are a little under 100 man hours (from my contacts still working at Ford and GMC). I feel pretty good about my motor; I believe that by the mtbf it will last longer, and be much better at towing with that torque.

This engine is pretty much a lower revving version of Ford's Roadrunner V8. It makes more torque for longer, and the same power; however, it is much cheaper to produce, its service costs are pretty low, and it is far more fuel efficient.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:12 pm**

gt1cooper wrote:Thanks Do you think it is worth the drop in torque? I could raise both by 5 or 6 of their respective power units, but it will drop the efficiency about .3%. I know that is not all that matters, but I figured that getting about 23 city and over 30 highway in a regular 4 door f150 would be more valued than a small power gain; also, the power would come in a bit later.

Well absolutely. Think about altitude power loss when towing, you'll need a bit more power to maintain speed. Torque isn't all that matters when it comes to a truck engine. Hope this helps. Also, every 1,000 ft of gained altitude causes about 3% horsepower loss, and only 1% on turbocharged engines.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:36 am**

Alright, here is an updated version of my 5.4 ESHD.
HP - 356 @ 5500 RPM
TQ - 398 lb/ft @ ~ 1700 - 4100 RPM
Redline - 5500
MTBF - About 50,000 mi
Materials Cost - $1366
Man Hours - 80
Economy - Just under 27%
Fuel - Regular unleaded

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:04 am**

gt1cooper wrote:Alright, here is an updated version of my 5.4 ESHD.
HP - 356 @ 5500 RPM
TQ - 398 lb/ft @ ~ 1700 - 4100 RPM
Redline - 5500
MTBF - About 50,000 mi
Materials Cost - $1366
Man Hours - 80
Economy - Just under 27%
Fuel - Regular unleaded

That's way better!

Mind if I get the engine file to take a look at it?

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:11 am**

Here is the file.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:59 am**

Here is another engine. This time, a 2.4 Turbo which Is made for a lighter weight, small luxury sedan, coupe, or hatch.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:34 pm**

gt1cooper wrote:Here is the file.

I gave it a bit of a tune, and here's the result. A bit of a loss in horsepower and torque, but a whole 2% more efficient. All this came with a size cost. Let me know what you think.

: Preview.jpg (74.06 KiB) Viewed 6100 times

5.4 V8 ES 32V HDRev0.lua: (38.98 KiB) Downloaded 241 times

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:00 pm**

A couple things on your engine.

It works, and well. However, it is more light duty than mid duty now, but it would be top of the line in that marketplace.

You lowered the stroke and raised the bore, which makes sense for going to light duty. You also went to low friction pistons. This all works, and well

the thing is, while your engine is more efficient, it is 100 Lbs heaver and $400 more expensive due to the need to go higher bore and lower stroke. Also, while the torque reading says it comes earlier (which it does), it falls off fairly quickly after that.

Look at the torque curve on mine. You are in the torque band from 1700 rpm all the way past 4000, the whole time making above 390 lb/ft of torque. This is amazing for towing, as with the flat torque, you get a linear increase in the power available to use to tow. Since yours falls off sooner, it has to rev higher to tow more. While at 2300 rpm, you CAN tow more than me, past that, all the way to redline, mine can tow more; and if you have town a big load, you know that when you are starting from a light or merging onto a highway, if you want to keep up with traffic, you are wringing out that engine. Cruising is easy for the engines, it is starting (and hills) that are hard.

Here is a little mod I threw together for yours. While it says 3800 rpm for torque, look how flat the curve is, and how linear the hp is. That is what you need for towing.

Yours, on the other hand, would make a great engine for something like an f150 lightning with a little more power

. Hope I helped.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:08 pm**

gt1cooper wrote:A couple things on your engine.

It works, and well. However, it is more light duty than mid duty now, but it would be top of the line in that marketplace.

You lowered the stroke and raised the bore, which makes sense for going to light duty. You also went to low friction pistons. This all works, and well the thing is, while your engine is more efficient, it is 100 Lbs heaver and $400 more expensive due to the need to go higher bore and lower stroke. Also, while the torque reading says it comes earlier (which it does), it falls off fairly quickly after that.

Look at the torque curve on mine. You are in the torque band from 1700 rpm all the way past 4000, the whole time making above 390 lb/ft of torque. This is amazing for towing, as with the flat torque, you get a linear increase in the power available to use to tow. Since yours falls off sooner, it has to rev higher to tow more. While at 2300 rpm, you CAN tow more than me, past that, all the way to redline, mine can tow more; and if you have town a big load, you know that when you are starting from a light or merging onto a highway, if you want to keep up with traffic, you are wringing out that engine. Cruising is easy for the engines, it is starting (and hills) that are hard.

Here is a little mod I threw together for yours. While it says 3800 rpm for torque, look how flat the curve is, and how linear the hp is. That is what you need for towing.

Yours, on the other hand, would make a great engine for something like an f150 lightning with a little more power . Hope I helped.

Yeah, I know all of that about the torque curve and what not. I tried to keep your engine in your specifications, but if you'd like I'd love to show you my 5.2 litre V8 and get your opinion on my build?

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:09 pm**

Fine with me

Edit: right now I do not have access to my computer, I am just on my tablet, so I will only be able to go off of the pics you send me for a while.

automationgame.com

Cooper's Engines

Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines

Re: Cooper's Engines