Knock sensors.

[ChipBeck]

Gentlemen,

Last week DBK posted some most impressive dyno HP numbers for the new 2010 GT500. For the first time that car has knock sensors and it would appear that in addition to the new free-flowing intake system, a more aggressive tune has been safely incorporated taking advantage of the engine protection those knock sensors provide.

Knock sensors have been incorporated on many of the most pedestrian new car engines for several years now and I wondered why a high-performance car like the Ford GT would be built without them?

As there are many similarities between the GT500 engine and the Ford GT engine, would it be possible at a reasonable expense to incorporate the GT500 knock sensors into the Ford GT engine? Would it allow the Ford GT to run a more aggressive tune safely? Could this be a worthwhile modification? Perhaps Shadow Man, Peak, DBK, Rich, or someone else can clue me in here.

Chip

 

[BlackICE]

I few problems to overcome.

1. The block doesn't have knock sensor bosses.
2. The ECU doesn't have knock sensor code enable, the code may even be absent. Therefore not just a simply tune change.

Why it wasn't done? Ford hit the performance targets without them, designing them in takes time and money, both of which were not in abundant supply at the time.

 

[Shadowman]

Gentlemen,

Last week DBK posted some most impressive dyno HP numbers for the new 2010 GT500. For the first time that car has knock sensors and it would appear that in addition to the new free-flowing intake system, a more aggressive tune has been safely incorporated taking advantage of the engine protection those knock sensors provide.

Knock sensors have been incorporated on many of the most pedestrian new car engines for several years now and I wondered why a high-performance car like the Ford GT would be built without them?

As there are many similarities between the GT500 engine and the Ford GT engine, would it be possible at a reasonable expense to incorporate the GT500 knock sensors into the Ford GT engine? Would it allow the Ford GT to run a more aggressive tune safely? Could this be a worthwhile modification? Perhaps Shadow Man, Peak, DBK, Rich, or someone else can clue me in here.

Chip

Chip

BlackIce shared good thoughts and then I would add to this that mechanically with the forged internals the development time and associated cost would have been extreme as we all know that the initial budget for these gals was exhausted before they hit the market.

Now add to this the combination of forged pistons and aluminum block make the task of differentiating noses very difficult and at the end of the day even if incorporated may not have proven successful because the potential for false positives with this mechanical configuration is very high.

BTW I do believe that the GT 500 is an iron block and as for whether a set of forged pistons are being tossed around within is unknown to me. Some like to state that the GT 500 and the Ford GT use the same engine with only a different oil system; this far from true.

Here are the primary specifications for the GT 500 engine;

DOHC Supercharged 5.4-Liter Triton(TM), 90-Degree V8, 32-Valve, DOHC, SEFI Engine; Front Mounted With Horsepower Of 540@6200 and Torque Of 510@4500, Iron Block and Alloy Cylinder Heads

Regardless of the differences; IMO the lack of development funds and questionable results are the primary reasons that in the end the tune as OEM is as conservative as it is because mechanically the heart of the gals is very robust.

Just my thoughts

Shadowman

 

[MR2Race]

I remember talk of this during development. Curt Hill told me.

It was not a cost or time problem.

It was felt that kind of calibration strategy would impose un-wanted side effects.
That would have hurt performance more than help.

And is only needed when close to the edge of destruction.

Even with craze aftermarket power. (nearly 3 times Factory Power)
It is not common to hear of engine failure.

I am thinking Mr. Hill did the right things for the program!

 

[Shadowman]

I remember talk of this during development. Curt Hill told me.

It was not a cost or time problem.

It was felt that kind of calibration strategy would impose un-wanted side effects.
That would have hurt performance more than help.

And is only needed when close to the edge of destruction.

Even with craze aftermarket power. (nearly 3 times Factory Power)
It is not common to hear of engine failure.

I am thinking Mr. Hill did the right things for the program!

By Shadowman

Now add to this the combination of forged pistons and aluminum block make the task of differentiating noses very difficult and at the end of the day even if incorporated may not have proven successful because the potential for false positives with this mechanical configuration is very high.

Thank you MR2RACE for confirming my thoughts

Often times we disable the knock sensors on the more extreme applications.

Shadowman

 

[ChipBeck]

Collective knowledge.

Gentlemen,

I have never asked a question on this Forum without getting an excellent answer. Thanks!

Chip

 

[Shadowman]

We aim to please

BTW Chip thank you for all that you contribute to this forum

Shadowman

 

[freeflyer]

I use a knock box with the correct range knock sensor for the bore size of the engine with some nice noise cancellation headsets to listen to the engine while on the dyno. It's a wonderful setup that uses the best computer hearing device( your brain).
Michael

 

[RALPHIE]

Following the thread to the end from the link in post

http://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=190888#post190888

it looks like the newer engines for the Mustang GT500 will be using the GT's 5.4 liter block and other bottom end parts - with knock sensors included. Looks like that Mustang engine will be a wet sump version of ours.

If you read if differently, post a correction....