Coyote/Koenigsegg Connection???

[RichardJensen]

in which the LS engines were/are promoted as the "best" choice for performance applications.

 

Mostly, I was saying I don't see that attitude about the LS/SBC, and I've never seen that--at least as far as small volume specialty car mfrs. go.

 

I mean, sure, if you're going to take an existing car and put a rebuilt engine in it, LS or SBC is the *cheaper* way to go; not better, for sure, but definitely less expensive.

 

Buddy of mine is fixing up a '65 Mustang, came with the 200 and an auto & he's been trying to get a Ford V8 put together in it, and it's been a nightmare for him--partially because he doesn't know the Fairlane block that well and partially because there's much less of everything on the secondary market because of how often Ford tweaked stuff.

 

Like, he was gonna get GT40 heads, and this guy sold him GT40Ps, and he called back and the guy says, "I thought that's what you wanted. GT40s will cost you another $200"--stuff like that keeps happening, and so now he either buys legit GT40s or new exhaust manifolds.

 

And ultimately, that's where Ford's always going to lag GM:

 

If you want to do it yourself, and on a shoestring, you're going to buy *something* second hand, and there's a lot less Ford stuff available second hand, and of that smaller supply of stuff, there's a lot of it that doesn't fit well with other bits.

 

If you're going to start with all new stuff, I don't know that Ford is that much more expensive than Chevy.

Edited March 26, 2017 by RichardJensen

[Stray Kat]

Can anyone with experience with those conversion issues comment on whether the rear sump pickup arrangement of the 5.0 SBFs alleviated some of the problems with the front mounted oil pump? Also, I believe Ford offered a "short" water pump to save some length.

 

Yes I can. Even with the rear sump truck or Bronco pan or the double sump 5.0 Mustang pan there is just enough interference with the oil pump area to front crossmember to cause havoc.

 

The length issue is nothing compared to the aforementioned problem. If a fella needed the shortest possible SBF he could simply use the 5.0 "Explorer" type front cover and water pump. The only concession there is there is no provision for a mechanical fuel pump. Not a big deal in most cases. This setup makes the SBF slightly shorter in length than even a sbc.

 

The oil pump issue is a problem because the front crossmember is also the holder of the front spring. You cannot cut a notch for oil pump clearance. The next best thing is to build a drop center front crossmember (like the '41 and up cars) and utilize a de-arched transverse front spring. Much like the fellow did in the picture below.

 

 

 

[White99GT]

Kind of...

They basically reverse engineeded what they needed from an existing Ford engine and came up with

basically what Ford developed with Coyote back in 2011.

 

and that Coyote development work was started nearly 10 years ago, so who knows where Ford is with

future developments....is Koenisegg at some future point going to claim development of DI-PFI as another first...

What is a Coyote? A bored/stroked 4.6 with TiVCT, rear mounted crank sensor, Flathead firing order and new cylinder head castings with raised intake ports and small exhaust ports. The Coyote has more fundamental differences to the 4.6 than the Koenigsegg engine does, and Ford still considers the Coyote part of the Modular architecture. Edited March 26, 2017 by White99GT

[RichardJensen]

Flathead firing order

 

So here's a question for the guys that know a lot more about engines than I do:

 

What's practical difference between engine firing orders?

[bifs66]

I believe the original firing order for the SBF was 15426378. With the 351W and later 302HO they changed it to 13726548. Either order will work on any SBF as long as the distributor wiring sequence matches the cam shaft arrangement. I remember reading that Ford changed the order to ease some stress points on the crank/bearings. I also believe that that the original SBF firing order was essentially the same as most vintage Chevy V8s. I think that GM set the LS engines firing order to that of Fords 351W/302HO.

[SoonerLS]

I believe the original firing order for the SBF was 15426378. With the 351W and later 302HO they changed it to 13726548. Either order will work on any SBF as long as the distributor wiring sequence matches the cam shaft arrangement. I remember reading that Ford changed the order to ease some stress points on the crank/bearings. I also believe that that the original SBF firing order was essentially the same as most vintage Chevy V8s. I think that GM set the LS engines firing order to that of Fords 351W/302HO.

When the 5.0HO hit the scene, Ford changed the 302's firing order to match the 351W's to keep the 302's original 1-5 firing sequence from snapping the crankshaft. I'm not sure if the engineers were concerned that the successive hits on the first journal could snap the crank or if it actually happened, but that was the reported reason for the change.

 

1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 was also the FE firing order. I'm not sure about the old (non-351) Windsors, but on the FEs you have to make sure that the plug wires for 7 and 8 cross each other at right angles to avoid a misfire in those cylinders.

[RichardJensen]

Also, are you guys using Ford cylinder numbering for that, or everybody else cylinder numbering?

[RichardJensen]

on the FEs you have to make sure that the plug wires for 7 and 8 cross each other at right angles to avoid a misfire in those cylinders.

 

?

 

BTW: Y-Block firing order was 1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2, which seems to be the same as the Flathead?

 

http://www.flatheadv8.org/rumblest/engine.pdf

 

And a Y-Block website has this to say about that firing order:

 

"They are a powerful and torquie engine with a pleasant exhaust tone because of their unusual firing order (1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2). "

http://yblockguy.com/about_the_y-block_ford.htm

Edited March 27, 2017 by RichardJensen

[SoonerLS]

Also, are you guys using Ford cylinder numbering for that, or everybody else cylinder numbering?

I'm using Ford's cylinder numbering (1 and 5 are the two front cylinders (passenger- and driver-side, respectively)), not whatever barbaric system the heathens use.

[SoonerLS]

?

 

BTW: Y-Block firing order: 1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2

I've only worked on Flatheads, FEs, 90-Degree V8s (Windsors), 335s (Clevelands), and AJs, so I can't comment on Y-Blocks. (I haven't had the need to do anything other than change the oil on my Coyote, so I haven't really worked on it, and I somehow missed the Mod Motors.)

 

On the FEs, if the plug wires for 7 and 8 ran parallel to each other, it would induce a sympathetic spark (I think that's what it was called; it has been a long time since I worked on an FE) in the other cylinder, so you had to make sure they crossed at some point.

Edited March 27, 2017 by SoonerLS

[RichardJensen]

I've only worked on Flatheads, FEs, 90-Degree V8s (Windsors), 335s (Clevelands), and AJs, so I can't comment on Y-Blocks. (I haven't had the need to do anything other than change the oil on my Coyote, so I haven't really worked on it, and I somehow missed the Mod Motors.)

 

I meant crossing the 7 & 8 wires at right angles to prevent a misfire. Aren't the plug wires shielded to prevent induction like that from happening?

[SoonerLS]

I meant crossing the 7 & 8 wires at right angles to prevent a misfire. Aren't the plug wires shielded to prevent induction like that from happening?

It's possible that's a left-over from the early days of the FEs, and advances in plug wires rendered it unnecessary. I don't recall ever reading it in relation to the Windsors that use the same firing order, but every FE rebuild manual I've ever seen referenced it.

[jpd80]

Also as mentioned, the Coyote uses that same boxed firing order as the early flat head and Y block engines.

 

It's also the same as Chevy with the 4-7 swap and while some think it's to do with 7-8 cross fire, it's more to do with

circle track engines. On a small Chevy(or big Ford, firing order is the same), cyls 5 and 7 or 7 and 8 in the big Ford

fire 90 degrees apart, they are also in the rear of the engine. Swapping the firing order puts the 90 degree apart

cylinders at 2 and 4 on the Chevy or 1 and 2 on the Ford.

This puts the two cylinders which tend to run hotter (they fire close together) in an area of the block that tends to run

cooler for better durability and hopefully more power because the engine can be tuned slightly more aggresssively.

Edited March 27, 2017 by jpd80

[jpd80]

What is a Coyote? A bored/stroked 4.6 with TiVCT, rear mounted crank sensor, Flathead firing order and new cylinder head castings with raised intake ports and small exhaust ports. The Coyote has more fundamental differences to the 4.6 than the Koenigsegg engine does, and Ford still considers the Coyote part of the Modular architecture.

 

Yes but how many changes do you do to an engine's basic design before it becomes a different one?

Sure both of them began at the 4.6 Mod but both developments were discretely different and the reason

Ford still considers it a Mod is because of project costs and budget approval, evolution is easier to justify

than calling it all new. This would be in stark contrast with Koenigsegg who were trying to distance their

nw engine from the previous Ford design...

 

Yes, Coyote is GEN II Mod motor with all the mistakes rectified and with that, apart for the bore span and

deck height - no other dimensions were retained. The former dimensions were only retained so that previous

machining and tooling could be reused.

 

Like the Coyote, the only dimension retained by Koenigsegg was the bore span, it sounds like even deck height was

changed too and if you looked at rods pistons bearings Heads, I bet everything is as different as an ATJ V8 is to the

Coyote.

Edited March 27, 2017 by jpd80

[Stray Kat]

Well if Koenisegg really wants to distance itself from the Modular Ford why don't they correct the only glaring deficiency in the given architecture. That is bore spacing.

 

Same goes for Ford. With that single change the Coyote could have soared even higher than it already flys. Bigger bores can give you shorter strokes hence lower decks hence smaller engine in terms of physical size.

[theoldwizard]

Same goes for Ford. With that single change the Coyote could have soared even higher than it already flys. Bigger bores can give you shorter strokes hence lower decks hence smaller engine in terms of physical size.

For Ford, the reasoning was simple. By not changing the bore spacing Ford avoided millions of dollars in new tooling costs and shortened the time to production by re-using existing tooling.

Edited March 27, 2017 by theoldwizard

[White99GT]

 

Yes but how many changes do you do to an engine's basic design before it becomes a different one?

Sure both of them began at the 4.6 Mod but both developments were discretely different and the reason

Ford still considers it a Mod is because of project costs and budget approval, evolution is easier to justify

than calling it all new. This would be in stark contrast with Koenigsegg who were trying to distance their

nw engine from the previous Ford design...

 

Yes, Coyote is GEN II Mod motor with all the mistakes rectified and with that, apart for the bore span and

deck height - no other dimensions were retained. The former dimensions were only retained so that previous

machining and tooling could be reused.

 

Like the Coyote, the only dimension retained by Koenigsegg was the bore span, it sounds like even deck height was

changed too and if you looked at rods pistons bearings Heads, I bet everything is as different as an ATJ V8 is to the

Coyote.

There's a lot more than bore spacing shared between the Koeniggsegg engine and the 4.6. Koenigsegg is still using the 4.6 cam/crank position sensors, 4G altenator, timing cover remains interchangable, rear main seal plate is the same, they were using actual Ford cylinder heads castings on at least as late as the Agera motor.

 

Crankshafts are interchangable between all 3 engines, the Coyote's rear mounted crank trigger posing he greatest obstacle to interchangeability, no such issue exists between the Koenigsegg/4.6.

 

The Coyote shares many dimensions with the 4.6 beyond bore spacing and deck height. Main bearing width/diameter, rod bearing diameter, connecting rod length (and small end diameter), cylinder head bolt pattern, bellhousing bolt pattern all identical.

 

And like I've already said, the Coyote is MUCH close to a new architecture than the Koenigsegg engine is. Koenigsegg have tried to distance themselves from the 4.6 from a marketing perspective, they have done exactly the opposite from an engineering perspective.

[White99GT]

Well if Koenisegg really wants to distance itself from the Modular Ford why don't they correct the only glaring deficiency in the given architecture. That is bore spacing.

 

Same goes for Ford. With that single change the Coyote could have soared even higher than it already flys. Bigger bores can give you shorter strokes hence lower decks hence smaller engine in terms of physical size.

Probably because 400 cfm is achievable with a properly ported Ford GT head casting on a 3.552-3.557" bore. Multivalve heads address small bore valve area concerns and allow world-class power to be made with a smaller bore.

 

That small bore, cam-less block, 4V per cylinder architecture is the reason the Modular has proven one of the best small block architectures ever devised for boost. No small block V8 architecure has made the power the 4V Modular has in drag racing while retaining the OEM block and cylinder head castings.

[Stray Kat]

Probably because 400 cfm is achievable with a properly ported Ford GT head casting on a 3.552-3.557" bore. Multivalve heads address small bore valve area concerns and allow world-class power to be made with a smaller bore.

That small bore, cam-less block, 4V per cylinder architecture is the reason the Modular has proven one of the best small block architectures ever devised for boost. No small block V8 architecure has made the power the 4V Modular has in drag racing while retaining the OEM block and cylinder head castings.

 

I would bet you a month of paychecks that there isn't one Ford engine engineer that wouldn't give his left nut for a 1/4" more bore. That being said yes Ford has been able to do awesome things with the Mids especially the Coyote.

[RichardJensen]

they were using actual Ford cylinder heads castings on at least as late as the Agera motor.

 

It is telling that they are at pains to say who's casting their blocks, but they merely say that they purchase the heads.

 

Pretty sure that's because they're still buying them straight from Ford.

[RichardJensen]

I would imagine that heads are one of the more complex parts of an engine to design.

[30 OTT 6]

Any Ford engine running down a line with the modular tooling is a modular motor. The 4.6, 5.0, 5.2, 5.4, 5.8 V8s, & 6.8 V10 are all modular motors. The name was always about the tooling.

[jpd80]

Well if Koenisegg really wants to distance itself from the Modular Ford why don't they correct the only glaring deficiency in the given architecture. That is bore spacing.

 

Same goes for Ford. With that single change the Coyote could have soared even higher than it already flys. Bigger bores can give you shorter strokes hence lower decks hence smaller engine in terms of physical size.

Maybe Koenigsegg decided to stick with a proprietary head from Ford to save on development costs,

that would make sense considering the low production run. Strengthening the block design was the

primary focus of efforts.

 

As I said above, keeping bore spacing and deck height of the 4.6 for Coyote was an economy measure

that meant the machinery and processes used with Mod could be reused with Coyote. That was probably

part of the justification of the engine as an evolution of MOD and winning funding.

 

When we ask, "why doesn't Ford do something...", we're asking them to spend money on change

without fully understanding the the cost of that change versus the benefits. Ford's go to engine is

now clearly the 3.5 Ecoboost so increasing the size of the Coyote s probably not on the cards.

Edited March 27, 2017 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Any Ford engine running down a line with the modular tooling is a modular motor. The 4.6, 5.0, 5.2, 5.4, 5.8 V8s, & 6.8 V10 are all modular motors. The name was always about the tooling.

Correct, the plants ability to switch from V8 to V10 production in a matter of hours.

However

,Ford now produces Coyote in a dedicated plant while the 6.8 is the last Gen 1 MOD and the

Voodoo is another outcrop of MOD in a different direction and hand built on its own production line.

Edited March 27, 2017 by jpd80

[White99GT]

 

It is telling that they are at pains to say who's casting their blocks, but they merely say that they purchase the heads.

 

Pretty sure that's because they're still buying them straight from Ford.

They Agera was running Ford GT/Shelby GT500 head castings.