Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
meyeste

5.0 undesirable?

Recommended Posts

I read somewhere - I believe it was torque news that because the Coyote 5.0 Engine shares architecture with the Jag engine (does it? I don't know) it is complicated and therefore expensive to make and Dearborn would like to replace it for something simpler - which according to what I read was the voodoo engine. It's my understanding the 5.0L has earned a reputation among truck owners as being bullet-proof, rock solid (no knock on the 3.5L) "5.0's don't come back" - a quote from a dealer service rep. So was wondering if there is anything too that, I for one say "keep the 5.0".

Edited by meyeste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5.0L is an evolution of the 4.6L and 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 "Triton" or Modular motors....the motors have been in production since the early 90's and is produced in the Romeo and Windsor engine plants....early versions had spark plug issues, but later editions have addressed those concerns. The BOSS 6.2L is a variant of the Modular design, but it has different bore spacing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5.0L is an evolution of the 4.6L and 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 "Triton" or Modular motors....the motors have been in production since the early 90's and is produced in the Romeo and Windsor engine plants....

True !

 

The 6.2L BOSS was supposed to have a "little brother", but early development testing showed fuel economy was not as good as expected. A group of Modular Engine engineers, with experience in "hot rodding" the Modular engine (outside of the company), connived management that there was still a lot of potential in that engine. Many of the updated were "old school" racer tricks (piston cooling oil jets). The real key was thousands of hours of computational fluid dynamics modeling of cylinder head air flow.

 

The final "cherry on top" was engineering fulfilling a marketing request. Make it another "5.0L" ! Nostalgia sells !! (Which is why there will be a 2.3L turbo in the 2015 Mustang.)

 

The 5.0L may not be the world's best truck engine, but careful intake and exhaust tuning has improved the low end torque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5.0L may not be the world's best truck engine, but careful intake and exhaust tuning has improved the low end torque.

 

Everybody I talk to that has an F150 with the 5.0L Coyote motor absolutely loves it...biggest complaint from the guys that have the Ecoboost 3.5L mill in their F150 is that the mileage is disappointing...but then admit that they have their foot in the turbos every chance they get....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

! Nostalgia sells !! (Which is why there will be a 2.3L turbo in the 2015 Mustang.)

 

 

I don't think too many people are nostalgic about the 2.3T in the 80's Mustangs. There's a reason they were only offered for a few years. The 2.3 was going to exist whether the Mustang used it or not, as there is a need for it in other vehicles. More than likely, it just happened to check all the boxes that were needed in the Mustang also, so there it is.

Edited by NickF1011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think too many people are nostalgic about the 2.3T in the 80's Mustangs. There's a reason they were only offered for a few years. The 2.3 was going to exist whether the Mustang used it or not, as there is a need for it in other vehicles. More than likely, it just happened to check all the boxes that were needed in the Mustang also, so there it is.

I thought today's 2.3 is a totally different animal from the old 2.3 of Mustang II days?? And I'm talking about non-turbo vs non-turbo.

True?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought today's 2.3 is a totally different animal from the old 2.3 of Mustang II days?? And I'm talking about non-turbo vs non-turbo.

True?

It's as different as the current 5.0 is to the old Windsor motor. Is there still a naturally-aspirated 2.3 in the lineup though? Thought that was replaced by the 2.5 and/or 1.6/1.9EB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No NA 2.3L - just the 2.3L EB. The nostalgia comment was aimed at the 2.3L turbo in the mustang II but as Nick pointed out I don't think that had anything to do with it. Although I'm sure the 5.0/302 had lots of nostalgia behind that decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No NA 2.3L - just the 2.3L EB. The nostalgia comment was aimed at the 2.3L turbo in the mustang II but as Nick pointed out I don't think that had anything to do with it. Although I'm sure the 5.0/302 had lots of nostalgia behind that decision.

Uh, there was no 2.3L turbo in the Mustang II. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, there was no 2.3L turbo in the Mustang II. :)

 

Oops - SVO mustang. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still interested in seeing the differences between the base engine between the new 2.0L and the new 2.3L. The 2.3L has a "cast in" exhaust manifold. 50 years ago, that was a "kiss of death".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that the same design as the 1.0L and 1.5L?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding the question of the 5.o liter V8 being identical to the Jaguar 5.0 V8,

 

I recall that the Jaguar design started out 3.9/4.4 liter V8 and had about 96mm bore spacing.

 

The design was drastically upgraded with the introduction of their 5.0 liter V8. They increased the bore spacing to 100mm just like the Ford Modular family.

 

However the Jaguar 5.0 has a slightly larger bore and a slightly shorter stroke and the design always had gas direct injection, I think from the top of the cylinder combustion chamber, not the side.

 

I think that they are not identical and I do not know if for an engineering mule, the Jag cylinder heads and direct injection would fit on a ford 5.0 liter block.

 

Regarding the 6.2 liter, there was a development 5.8 liter version that included cylinder deactivation for increased fuel economy, targeted for the Mustang. 102mm bore and 89mm stroke. Unfortunately, I actually heard that the cylinder deactivation system failed durability testing and this is why the development was stopped.

 

From what people at Ford said, the 6.2 family was designed for displacements from 5.5 liters to over 7 liters.

 

As you can see, ford jumped on the Ecoboost band wagon, making smaller size engines perform like larger engines with some degree of fuel economy savings, if driven conservatively. So they save gas in part throttle and are slightly more thursty at wide open throttle than a comprable V6 or V8. I guess, like someone already said, the Ecoboost is fords cylinder deactivation. Also, smaller engines weigh less.

 

7.8mm or .307" is getting down there as the distance between cylinder walls,(cylinder liners and water) but it seems to work, even for a truck. Daimler is down to 7mm or .27559" but utilizes an arch metal spray process that is propretary.

 

Once a major investment is made in an engine plant, there are always sacred cows that can't be changed. Thats why the creative guys at Ford Engine came up with the 5.0 liter, they maintained the use of the existing investment.

 

Edselford

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Jag was a modified AJ V8 and the 5.0L Coyote was a modified modular design?

 

Even on the AJ V8 that was shared by Ford and Jag the heads and top end were all different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still interested in seeing the differences between the base engine between the new 2.0L and the new 2.3L. The 2.3L has a "cast in" exhaust manifold. 50 years ago, that was a "kiss of death".

50 years ago, it was common for hot rodders to strip the cast iron exhaust manifolds from the engine and toss on some heavy breathing exit pipes.....I remember the 3.3L I-6 in my Fairmont had a "cast in place" intake manifold....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still interested in seeing the differences between the base engine between the new 2.0L and the new 2.3L. The 2.3L has a "cast in" exhaust manifold. 50 years ago, that was a "kiss of death".

 

 

That was HALF A CENTURY ago! SMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7.8mm or .307" is getting down there as the distance between cylinder walls,(cylinder liners and water) but it seems to work, even for a truck. Daimler is down to 7mm or .27559" but utilizes an arch metal spray process that is propretary.

 

 

 

Doesn't Ford use a similar process for the 5.8L on the GT500 engine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 5.8 liter utilizes a similar process to Mercedes Benz, an arc spray of iron onto the sides of the cylinder wall.

 

I think this process will stay on very low volume, specialty applications like the Mustang 500.

 

It seems more probable that future ford engine designs will go the route of the 2.7 L V6 ecoboost, with a GCI / graphite compacted iron block/ aluminum lower crankcase and aluminium cylinder heads.

 

I just wonder if the 6.2 is forever gone at least in light truck?

 

eddselford

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are thinking of a 5.0L Coyote , dont think twice- It is the best engine ever put in an F150 IMO and gets no marketing whatsoever.

 

Ive had old 5.0s, 5.8s, 5.4s, 5.4 3valves and this engine is better, is good on fuel, revs like a chevy, and has a sound that an ecoboost just cant beat !

 

Twin turbo 6cyl in my truck ? Never. Let me know how that works out after your warranty is up.

 

Trucks are supposed to have a v8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twin turbo 6cyl in my truck ? Never. Let me know how that works out after your warranty is up.

 

How does that work out in turbo Diesel engines?

 

What do the ecoboost engines have in common with turbo diesel engines? They were both designed for turbos from day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true, but the original post asks about the 5.0L, not ecoboost or diesels.

 

Thats a whole nother debate !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true, but the original post asks about the 5.0L, not ecoboost or diesels.

 

Thats a whole nother debate !

 

You're the one that brought it up - I was just replying to your post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the new 5.2 liter V8 with the flat crankshaft, in the mustang is a cross between the 5.0 and the 5.8 liter. The pictures seem to indicate that Ford is utilizing the 5.8l bore without liners and a stroke around 95mm, ie 93.5mm bore and 95mm stroke. Must be utilizing the iron spray process directly on the aluminum bore. i can't figure out the deck height though.

 

Any thoughts???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that the bore is the same. But the 5.2 has the spray in liner for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bore on Voodoo was increased to 94mm mainly due to the Plasma Transfer Wire Arc liners.

 

Ford will need to lift the deck to get more displacement out of the Coyote/Voodoo block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×