Jump to content

Ford 5.0L Coyote V8 spied in a Mustang


Recommended Posts

This engine was designed as an entirely new engine family, built on past experience with the MOD. It is not based on the Modular in any way.

RIGHT ! The concepts that work (TiVCT, bottom end girdle, DAMB, etc) get carried forward. Those that did not work out well (bore spacing) were not.

 

It's also far lighter than the 4.6L MOD.

That's GREAT news !

 

Look for DI in 2014, maybe 2013.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Versa-Tech has said it and I'm going to say it again.

 

DI is not all that it is cracked up to be ! It is very expensive on an 8 cylinder engine and it really does not give you much more power or much better fuel economy (using EPA or CARB testing methods).

 

Turbo and/or super chargers work just fine with port injection !

 

Not to mention the added emissions + NOx that come along with DI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention the added emissions + NOx that come along with DI.

 

The only reason you would get more NOx is if you used DI to lean out the fuel. You can still get a benefit in Fuel efficiency and power without leaning out the air/fuel ratio. I have not read anything about other emissions. If it is more fuel efficient, emissions should be less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing this out there for some thought...but if "said" engine will exist on the Mustang and F-series, would we possibly see this in a Lincoln ? I mean, provided that the media and consumers might not warm up to the Boosted V6 for a luxury sedan, would it be a possibility they might phase this in possibly in the next generation of the MKS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason you would get more NOx is if you used DI to lean out the fuel. You can still get a benefit in Fuel efficiency and power without leaning out the air/fuel ratio. I have not read anything about other emissions. If it is more fuel efficient, emissions should be less.

Lean burn = better mileage, more NOx

 

Rich burn = worse mileage, more VOCs (unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons)

 

VOCs can be addressed by three way cats, NOx cannot.

 

I believe if you look at the decidedly unstellar mileage of the Mazda DI engines you'll see examples of engines tuned to run rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Producing more or less power has less to do with richer or leaner and more to do with droplet size,

the smaller the better for combustion as it increases available surface area.

 

We learned that one years ago when everyone switched fro Carbs to EFI and now DI takes it a step

further by varying whether the charge is timed on intake or compression cycles and whether the

charge is homogeneous or stratified.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you like factory hair blowers?

 

The 5.0 will be about 400 HP in the Mustang and about 365 HP in the F-150.

 

 

As usual, thanks for the info. More importantly along those lines (especially considering this engine's applications): Torque numbers for said two vehicles?

 

Also, so WHITE99GT's question doesn't get lost up in the mix: Bore spacing?

Edited by OHV 16V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, thanks for the info. More importantly along those lines (especially considering this engine's applications): Torque numbers for said two vehicles?

 

Also, so WHITE99GT's question doesn't get lost up in the mix: Bore spacing?

 

No torque numbers right now.

 

The Coyote BS was increased over the 5.0 Mod Bobcat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing this out there for some thought...but if "said" engine will exist on the Mustang and F-series, would we possibly see this in a Lincoln ? I mean, provided that the media and consumers might not warm up to the Boosted V6 for a luxury sedan, would it be a possibility they might phase this in possibly in the next generation of the MKS?

 

Hot rod Town Car?

 

Hot rod MKS would require an all new RWD platform. Not until the economy pick up. As time passes, I think the odds for RWD will be shrinkingy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot rod Town Car?

 

Hot rod MKS would require an all new RWD platform. Not until the economy pick up. As time passes, I think the odds for RWD will be shrinkingy.

 

It wouldn't necessarily require a RWD platform. It would require a bit of reworking of the current platform to get a V8 of that size to fit and there would be issues of fitting a transaxle to it, but it wouldn't be impossible. If Ford could fit the 4.6 DOHC into the Continental, I'd imagine they could find a way to get the Coyote to fit in an MKS eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you can just make it so it's FWD capable. I'm not sure if the size would allow for the 5.0L to fit under there...I figure it couldnt be too hard if the Yamaha 4.4L fits in the Volvo version, but as I remember they had ot go with Yamaha because it was a tight space to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No torque numbers right now.

 

The Coyote BS was increased over the 5.0 Mod Bobcat.

 

 

So increased over the Mod motor, which means greater than 100 mm. I have to ask does it share a bore spacing with the Boss motor? IIRC, the Boss motor will have a 115 mm bore spacing. Or will it be somewhere in between, meaning two completely separate engine lines? To me, at least, it would make sense to have the motors share a bore spacing.

 

400 HP in the Mustang and 360 in the F150 both sound like really good numbers.

Edited by jj2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see GDI going on the Coyote anytime soon. TheOldWizard said that Ford had pretty much abandoned the concept of going GDI on any naturally aspirated engine. In a naturally aspirated application that was basically heavily redesigned for it, a GDI application could be expected to reasonably deliver a 10% combustion efficiency advantage over an equivalently sized and dimensioned engine with all other tech being equal. That combustion efficiency advantage can be turned into either 10% more torque or 5% better fuel economy or some happy medium between. GM stated several years ago that their testing had shown that two engines of equivalent size, one with and one without GDI, both tuned to the same power levels, showed not enough difference in fuel burn to justify using GDI simply as a fuel efficiency adder.

 

Where the advantage of GDI comes in is when you can choose a smaller engine that can be fitted with GDI in the design stages to replace a larger non-GDI engine. This can net you a 10% fuel economy gain with no appreciable loss of power. So, personally, I don't expect the Coyote to get GDI anytime soon, unless the fuel economy regs become draconian in a hurry. Then, they'll all have to pull out the stops to get any efficiency wherever they can. Can you say destroked 4.6L coyote with GDI? I know you don't want to, but, that may be where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... In a naturally aspirated application that was basically heavily redesigned for it, a GDI application could be expected to reasonably deliver a 10% combustion efficiency advantage over an equivalently sized and dimensioned engine with all other tech being equal.

Can you site a reference that proves that statement is true ?

 

My sources (recent retirees from Ford engineering) say GDI (without turbo) is less than a 5% improvement on fuel economy or power (maybe as low as 1 or 2% which is within the margin of error, test to test). 8 DI injectors and a high pressure fuel pump cost quite a bit.

Where the advantage of GDI comes in is when you can choose a smaller engine that can be fitted with GDI in the design stages to replace a larger non-GDI engine.

You will only be able to do that if you add turbo/super charging.

Edited by theoldwizard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think perhaps it is plausable that the new 5.0 is based on the Cyclone engine family. Certainly the archecture is much more compact in terms of cylinder heads, and who knows for sure if the Coyote is 90 degreee? The 3.4 SHO was a 60 degree (counterrotating balance shafts) V8 based on the 2.5 Contour V6.

 

edit...have looked at the pictures (missed them the first time around) clearly the Coyote is a 90 degree V8

Edited by Project-Fairmont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think perhaps it is plausable that the new 5.0 is based on the Cyclone engine family. Certainly the archecture is much more compact in terms of cylinder heads, and who knows for sure if the Coyote is 90 degreee? The 3.4 SHO was a 60 degree (counterrotating balance shafts) V8 based on the 2.5 Contour V6.

 

You can tell it's 90 degree just looking at the pictures of it. And frankly, the 3.4 V8 is not exactly a model I would want to emulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can tell it's 90 degree just looking at the pictures of it. And frankly, the 3.4 V8 is not exactly a model I would want to emulate.

 

Exactly. And here's a picture of the 3.5L Duratec V6 when it was first unveiled...

 

ford-duratec-35-v6-engine-stand.jpg

 

(upscaled from this picture)

 

ford-duratec-35-v6.jpg

 

...you can clearly see how tight the angle is between the cylinder banks. No way the new 5.0 shares a common design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DI V-8?

 

Sure you get a little bit better Fuel efficiency. Say 5%. 10% if you can go really lean burn. I don't thinks the EPA would let you.

 

You can get better torque so if you downsize 10%, you could get another 1% or 2% better fuel efficiency.

 

Mean while an EcoBoost V-6 would be more powerful, more fuel efficient and Cheaper. You could add balance shafts and enhance the exhaust sound and it would still be cheaper. GM does not have an EcoBoost V-6 nor Large I-4 equivalent. CAFE is forcing them to do what they can to improve Fuel efficiency, so they use DI.

 

The only reason Ford would need a N.A. V-8 DI is if customers refuse to give up their V-8 for a more powerfull V-6. To make sure people see the value of an EB V-6 over an V-8 is the job of marketing. That is why Ford is bringing out the V-6 first. To prove that EB can beat a V-8. Europe will have EB a little later because they put more value in diesel technology first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...