Jump to content

Coyote/Koenigsegg Connection???


Recommended Posts

Some time ago, I seem to recall reading that Koenigsegg intended to use the Ford Coyote engine as a basis for developing a version for themselves. I haven't heard nor read anything further about this project. Recently, there have been numerous stories that Koenigsegg has developed a powerful new 5.0 engine. RoadandTrack magazine has a new article about it now with a picture of the 600HP engine viewed from the rear. I compared the picture of the block casting around the bell housing area to the rear of the Coyote block; and they are, for the most part, identical. Can anyone add information to this subject? Perhaps Koenigsegg has modified the Coyote castings and internals to the point that they don't acknowledge its roots. However, if it started out as a Coyote, it shows the basic architecture of the Ford has the potential for a lot more HP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Koenigsegg originally used Ford mod motors, but my recollection is that they designed their own to replace it a few years ago.

If you look closely at the rear of the Koenigsegg engine's casting as pictured on the current RoadandTrack website, and compare it to a picture of the rear end of a Coyote block; they are the same (bolt holes, block webbing, casting indentations,etc.). This indicates to me that they are at least kissing cousins. I didn't think that the older MOD engine, although somewhat related, used the same block casting as a Coyote.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Koenigsegg 5.0 is a Modular 4.6 based engine. Koenigsegg have an English company casting blocks for them, and are now using Ford GT/GT500 head castings. As far as Koenigsegg "designing" their new 5.0, LOL. It is a major league play on words, marketing double talk. They are still absolutely using the same engine architecure they always have (Modular), they are simply sourcing more hard parts from vendors outside of Ford and assembling in-house.

Edited by White99GT
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LINK

 

History

 

We started with that we thought was a relatively simple approach – using an existing modular Ford V8 engine and supercharging it – but it quickly turned into something much more complicated. It turned out that most attempts to improve performance in this type of engine required race fuel in combination with an open exhaust, no catalytic converters and open crank case ventilation. And even with this setup we experienced limited reliability, etc. This would not work at all for an homologated, emission controlled road car that had to be reliable enough to be driven on a daily basis on regular fuel AND at the same time be the most powerful production car in the world. We therefore had no choice but to become experts in engine design, calibration, tuning and construction – and all within a very short time frame.

 

We had to figure out how to design and build many of the components and systems ourselves to make the engine work. We had to re-design camshafts, pistons, connecting rods, block reinforcements, fuel injection systems, fuel pump system, drysump lubrication, a new type crank case gas re-circulation system, exhaust, patented catalytic converter flow system, compressor system, flywheel, piston oil cooling, clutch, programming etc. And we got it done. The engine used in the CC8S was truly unique and we managed to snatch the Guinness World Record for the most powerful production engine in the world – beating the legendary McLaren F1, which had held the record for the previous 8 years.

The 90-degree V angle from our original engine and bore spacing remains today, but little else. In fact, our modern engines have been so extensively re-designed over the years that we are more than comfortable calling them our own. We have our own engine designer, Thomas, whose job involves optimising every component of the engine. It’s constantly evolving, piece by piece, to become more powerful, more robust and more efficient.

 

While the Bugatti Veyron made all the headlines for being the first car with four-figure horsepower, it didn’t take long for Koenigsegg to follow with the CCXR, which exceeded Bugatti’s output by 17 hp from a much smaller displacement engine. To this date, Koenigsegg and Bugatti are still the only automotive OEMs building their own engines that offer four-figure horsepower in production vehicles with warranties. That there are so few doing this is a testament to how hard it is to consistently deliver this level of top shelf performance. That we manage to do it as a small company in a little Swedish village is something that we’re extremely proud of.

 

This will be a slightly unusual overview of our engine in that we leave out some of the things you might expect (turbos, for example) and spend time on things you might not expect (crank case ventilation). Why? Well, sometimes the things that don’t make the headlines that are very important.

 

 

 

The block

Koenigsegg engines have to cope with more cylinder pressure than any other production engine in the world, which is why we need an extremely strong, but still extremely light, engine block.

Our engine block is a bespoke item that is cast for us in aluminium at a specialist foundry in the UK, Grainger and Worrall. The same foundry also casts engine blocks for other supercar manufacturers and the motorsport industry. The block is specially designed for maximum strength and stiffness and it features oversized cooling channels to circulate cooling fluids quickly and efficiently.

 

Our block is cast in the same foundry that does G&W’s Formula 1 engine castings and is made according to the same principles. The raw casting is then brought to Sweden, where we fine-machine the tolerances, do the cylinder bores, install cylinder linings, bore the crank journals and hone the block.

 

The Head

The cylinder heads are also cast externally and then brought back to Sweden where they are machined, CNC ported and fitted with valve guides and seats. The porting is based on hand-porting first designed and refined by our engine builder, Mats, which has since been automated and adapted to every Agera engine he’s built. The compression ratio has been raised over time from 8.1:1 to 9.3:1 and we now have a higher ignition angle, giving us increased responsiveness through a wider range.

 

Our valves are stainless steel. We install beryllium copper valve seats and valve guides, which are usually only used in extreme racing applications. The valve seat’s two primary purposes are to close against the valve itself (hundreds of times per minute) and to transfer heat from a valve that has just been present during a controlled explosion. Beryllium copper is very hard-wearing and it’s also a great heat conductor, making it the perfect choice.

 

Pistons

Our pistons are super-light at just 287 grams. Our engines have the highest cylinder pressure (BMEP) of any gasoline production engine in the world with 36 BMEP average cylinder pressure. Internal protection is critical. Our piston is designed with a ceramic coating on the face that helps to avoid hot spots and detonation when the engine runs at maximum power and efficiency. The curved top face of the piston acts together with the cylinder head to create a combustion chamber that reduces peak pressure but maintains high average pressure, which is necessary for high power output while minimizing risk for detonation (knock).

 

We rev to 8250rpm and we have a 92mm bore and a fairly long stroke at 95mm. The only way to achieve such high rpm with such a long stroke is to have a very light piston like ours. Anything heavier would be difficult to turn at those speeds.

 

The Crankshaft

Our crankshaft is a 90-degree design that has very small and light counterweights to suit Koenigsegg’s very light pistons and connecting rods. The lightness of the rotating assembly together with the small area intake plenum and refined software calibrations make for a very responsive engine.

 

We’ve been asked on several occasions why we don’t switch to a 180-degree crankshaft design, which theoretically would allow for more power due to even more optimal exhaust pulses. In many aspects this is a very simple thing to do as the connecting rods and pistons can stay the same. The crankshaft, camshaft and some of the parameters in the software would have to change due to a different firing order and some difference in exhaust gas re-circulation. But that is pretty much all that it would take.

 

We have experimented with 180 degree crankshafts over the years but have decided against using one for the time being. The reasons for this decision? Well, we’re not exactly short on power as things stand right now and the 90-degree design gives less vibration and smoother engine characteristics. This is very important in a car where the engine is bolted straight to the carbon monocoque, without any cushioning, as it is with the Agera. We also find the 90 degree V8 rumble in combination with the turbo whine and fast response make for an evocative, powerful and unique sound.

 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to get a 4.6L block to 5.0L (and maintain the bore spacing and deck height) is to go to an extremely thin liner (that is what Coyote does) or use a plasma/flame sprayed coating (Nikasil is similar) on the aluminum.

 

If you don't care about deck height, you could just raise that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The liner material is also critical part of the equation, the Coyote upgrade by Livenois gives us a clue,

 

Livernois uses custom, centrifugally cast ductile iron sleeves, which offer a tensile strength of 120 ksi compared to gray cast iron’s approximately 30 ksi. Ductile iron is also relatively plastic, meaning it flexes much more than conventional, brittle cast iron. Flexibility helps prevent cracking. For combinations up to about 1,100 hp, Livernois can install 3.700-diameter sleeves in the Coyote block, which are still stronger and more flexible than the stock sleeves but provide an extra 12 ci or so in displacement. Beyond that power threshold, thicker-walled sleeves increase strength for very high power, with bore sizes ranging from 3.630 to 3.680 inches.

 

And then we have this from the article I posted earler

 

The 90-degree V angle from our original engine and bore spacing remains today, but little else. In fact, our modern engines have been

so extensively re-designed over the years that we are more than comfortable calling them our own. We have our own engine designer,

Thomas, whose job involves optimising every component of the engine. It’s constantly evolving, piece by piece, to become more

powerful, more robust and more efficient.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to get a 4.6L block to 5.0L (and maintain the bore spacing and deck height) is to go to an extremely thin liner (that is what Coyote does) or use a plasma/flame sprayed coating (Nikasil is similar) on the aluminum.

 

If you don't care about deck height, you could just raise that.

 

Or use a cast iron block the way Ford Performance does with their 5.3L shortblock assembly. It uses a 3.701" (94 mm) bore and 3.750" (95.25 mm) stroke along with forged aftermarket internals (pistons, rods and crankshaft). If I decide to keep my Sport Trac this engine will probably end up in it. Relatively painless way to gain displacement and keep the original engine architecture which means the original cylinder heads, exhaust manifolds, intake manifold and all accessories from the 4.6L 3V should be re-usable.

 

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6009-B53

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many ways to get to a 5.0 from a 4.6. 3.700" bore with a Siamese bore block (aluminum or Boss), stroke it, or a combination of bore/stroke like Ford did with the Coyote.

 

Koenigsegg is really stretching marketing language with this "own design" talk. The Koenigsegg engine shares every architectural hard point with the 4.6, and they are even employing Ford cylinder head castings on the CCX and Agera engines.

 

What Koenigsegg did was hire Grainger and Warroll to produce a more robust 4.6 aluminum block castings (356 T6) with thick .140" iron cylinder liners and significant valley reinforcement/ribbing. But it still shares all 4.6 hard points.

 

They tweaked the 4.6, they didn't even come close to designing their own architecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, every time I build a 4.6/5.4 with a "custom" Bryant or Winberg billet crank, "custom" billet rods, "custom" pistons designed to my specs, "custom" camshafts designed to my specs, "custom" CNC cylinder head port job, some minor oiling system and timing chain modifications I'm designing an entirely new engine architecture per Koenigsegg. I find Koensigsegg's statements regarding their "own" engine design to be extremely disingenuous. They are building Mod motors, period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, every time I build a 4.6/5.4 with a "custom" Bryant or Winberg billet crank, "custom" billet rods, "custom" pistons designed to my specs, "custom" camshafts designed to my specs, "custom" CNC cylinder head port job, some minor oiling system and timing chain modifications I'm designing an entirely new engine architecture per Koenigsegg. I find Koensigsegg's statements regarding their "own" engine design to be extremely disingenuous. They are building Mod motors, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What interested me most in creating this thread was that after seeing the Koenigsegg's 5.0 engine pictured in RoadandTrack, was its similarity to the Coyote. You read almost everywhere that the GM LS engine series should be the basis for any high performance applications. Yet, here was a supercar manufacturer that selected the Coyote architecture, no matter how much modified, as the basis for developing extreme horsepower. I can remember years back when the MOD type engines were deemed not capable of producing much power. Interesting that neither Koenigsegg; nor mags like R/T acknowledge the engines roots.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazy how Ford doesn't explore a partnership with this company considering they started using Ford engines and have development expertise. If I was a head Ford engineer, I would be clamoruing for a partnership - imagine Freevalve Ecoboost engines, Coyotes and V6's! Instead some Chinese company will be first to market (Qoros).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question to ask is why there was never any collaboration between Ford and Koenisegg

and you'll find that the latter's engine objectives were so far beyond those of Ford that there were

little if any parallel objectives.

 

The other is opportunity cost, Ford has been working on similar camless systems as the Chinese and Koenisegg,

it's not like the technology is new, the real problem is productionization at affordable cost levels and what advantage

that technology would actually bring over Ford's existing strategies with Ecoboost downsizing and electrification.

 

I suspect that the cost of switching to camless valves is more expensive than continuing with ecoboost and

the emerging bybrid, PHEV and BEVs that are coming in the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, every time I build a 4.6/5.4 with a "custom" Bryant or Winberg billet crank, "custom" billet rods, "custom" pistons designed to my specs, "custom" camshafts designed to my specs, "custom" CNC cylinder head port job, some minor oiling system and timing chain modifications I'm designing an entirely new engine architecture per Koenigsegg. I find Koensigsegg's statements regarding their "own" engine design to be extremely disingenuous. They are building Mod motors, period.

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...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, every time I build a 4.6/5.4 with a "custom" Bryant or Winberg billet crank, "custom" billet rods, "custom" pistons designed to my specs, "custom" camshafts designed to my specs, "custom" CNC cylinder head port job, some minor oiling system and timing chain modifications I'm designing an entirely new engine architecture per Koenigsegg. I find Koensigsegg's statements regarding their "own" engine design to be extremely disingenuous. They are building Mod motors, period.

So is Ford being disingenuous when they call their 2.0L GDI engine a Ford Duratec when it clearly is derived from a Mazda L engine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is Ford being disingenuous when they call their 2.0L GDI engine a Ford Duratec when it clearly is derived from a Mazda L engine?

From an informed Ford engineering source, the two were developed simultaneously with Ford money.

So Ford actually owned the IP for those engines which is also why Mazda went on to develop SkyActiv based engnes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You read almost everywhere that the GM LS engine series should be the basis for any high performance applications.

 

And yet, if you look back, small sports car mfrs. have been using Ford motors for over 60 years:

 

Shelby

  • Cobra

DeTomaso/Maserati

  • Pantera
  • Mangusta (humorously: Italian for mongoose, the animal that hunts cobras)
  • Kyalami/Deauville

Panoz

  • Esperante
  • AIV

Koenigsegg

  • CCR

TVR/Trident

  • Almost every model from '61 to '88 used a Ford motor

Allard

  • Sold w/Ford motors in Europe and GM/Chrysler (mostly Chrysler) motors in the US

Sunbeam

Morgan

  • Roadster

 

I'm guessing that availability is a major factor. Many of these companies are, or were, European. Ford's EU operations have been more closely aligned to their US operations than GM's for decades (hence access to NA V8s), and Ford's EU ops dwarfed GM's for several decades after WWII. Plus you had Walt Hayes pushing competition and racing at FOE.

 

Another factor, I believe, is valvetrain. OHV is *not* exotic.

 

It may also be easier to work with Ford. GM may have much less interest in supplying engines in small volumes to small manufacturers.

 

BMW is the only other company, I would say, that has made its powertrains as widely available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been a gear-head since childhood (1950's) , I am well aware of the history of SBFs (initially termed the Fairlane V8) installed in "sports" cars. In some cases, the lighter, smaller SBF just fit better than the SBC. My reference to the GM LS engine series (IMO, more a derivative of the SBF than the traditional SBC) was to address more recent history in which the LS engines were/are promoted as the "best" choice for performance applications. I think Koenigsegg's (Coyote based) engine project is at least one example that defies that notion. It's just a shame that the connection to the Ford engine will not be generally known. On the other hand, I recall some discussion of a Coyote-based open wheel racing series (Formula 5000 type). It would be nice to have a spec series that uses something other than GM engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm going to tell you something. Back about '99-'00 I went to Ford with an idea and a prototype of a front cover mounted oil pump for the 221-351W engine line.

 

The idea was to remove the front mounted oil pump that often interfered with the front crossmember and steering on the Flathead era Ford cars.

 

Unfortunately this was in a limited budget time period for Ford Performance. The engineers that I spoke to loved the concept. It solved a few fundamental problems with swapping those engines into most cars.

 

That was then and this is now. There is still almost no effort to develop the early Ford powetrain business. Ford has conceded that to their rival General Motors. Can you imagine that? The most popular engine line for those beautiful old Fords is supplied by their arch enemy and has been for 60 years.

 

There was so much that could have been done and probably for about the cost of one weekend at a NASCAR race. Ford does not seem interested or bothered by what has happened. Their only concern is Mustangs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...