White99GT

As do I, especially considering the almost consistently incorrect source.

5.0 uses standard iron liners, the 2011+ 5.4/5.8 block use PWTA liners. 5.0 doesn't even have the thinnest liners at Ford, much less the industry. Also, the thinner liners had more to do with weight reduction than bore spacing.

If you want to increase mileage delete the DPF and the regen cycle.

Typical dynos shows 240-250 rwhp, 290-300 rwtq for the 5.4 3V and 300-315 rwhp and 320-330 rwtq for the 5.0. The 5.0 matches the 5.4 3V up to about 3000 then it just runs away. The 6R80 5.4 does feel "torquier" in low rpm-part throttle conditions, but this is due to the twin bore TB/DBW tuning. I've seen 5.0's pick up 40+ lb-ft below 3500 rpm with VCT tuning. The 5.0 is a drastically superior powerplant.

C&D test data of crew cab 4x4 half-ton trucks. Observed fuel economy: Ecotec3 5.3 - 13 MPG EcoBoost 3.5 - 13 MPG 5.0 4V - 14 MPG Hemi 5.7 - 13 MPG 1/4 mile: Ecotec3 5.3 - 15.3 @ 92 mph EcoBoost 3.5 - 14.8 @ 94 mph 5.0 4V - 15.1 @ 93 mph Hemi 5.7 - 15.6 @ 88 mph C&D comparison of 2013/2014 crew cab 4x4s half ton pickups: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-chevrolet-silverado-1500-ltz-z71-vs-2013-ford-f-150-lariat-2013-ram-1500-laramie-longhorn-comparison-test C&D test of 2011 F150 SuperCrew 4x4 5.0. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-ford-f-150-xlt-supercrew-4x4-50-v8-review The "excellent" direct injected EcoTec3 5.3 is merely competitive in 2014, the 5.0 remains the unsung over performer.

Run it until warranty is up then swap to a Tremec TR6060.

It looks great so far

Feel free to explain that statement.

HiPo 6.2?

I think the 5.0L 4V may have gained some early press due to the heritage of the 5.0 Windsor, but I think the 5.0 4V is really successful because it's a performer and widely available.

Flat plane crank V8? That's a little hard to swallow. It would be cool to have an 9000 rpm n/a V8 from the factory, if a flat-plane crank is a serious consideration they are going WAY over the 7000 rpm the article suggests which also means most of the accessories will likely be unique to that motor. Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

I think the real question is, what was your point? If it fits, it fits. The 4.6 4V measures 26-5/8" cover to cover (the ~30" measurements are exhaust manifold flange width, which can be reduced with a set of headers), I would be interested to see what a EB 35 measures turbo to turbo including cold side plumbing.

EcoBoost 3.5 dry - 449 lbs 5.0 Coyote dry - 430 lbs

I just hope they keep the 5.0.

I would like to see Ford do a DOHC Ti-VCT 4V version of the 6.2, along with a aluminum block in some versions. That combo should have the capability to embarrass the LS7 N/A or 5.8/LS9/etc. boosted. I can barely imagine the potential of such a combo in the aftermarket, with "big bore" and stroker versions of a 4V 6.2. Talk about an outstanding replacement for 2V 6.2 in the Raptor or the Boss 302-successor/Z28 killer in N/A form. In EcoBoost form, this could be replacement for the 5.8 and/or a Ford GT successor.

6.2 valves are 2.10/1.65 on a 4.015" bore. GM manages to get a 2.16" intake valve with inline valve alignment on the 4.06" bore L92/LS3.

Current 6.2 heads. 4V heads would be drastically "better" in every meaningful respect, but the 6.2 heads are already really good as far 2V heads go.

Why did the Camry see such an increase from 2011 to 2012 MYs? The Camry's popularity is very confusing to me.

I think they've been drinking their own Kool-Aid regarding the LS family for so long they just got caught flat-footed.

I was speaking with a GM PEA the other day. GM is apparently still playing with the idea of going 3V with a cam-in-cam VCT in the next several years. The simple fact of the matter, with GM using larger 2.16" intake valves, even in the large bore 6.2s, they are still suffering losses from valve shrouding. More valve area for a given bore size, if utilized correctly, will result in improved performance even in lower RPM ranges relevant to trucks. When the Coyote 4V head is flowing more on a 3.63" bore than the canted valve Boss 6.2 head is on a 4.02" bore (confirmed by Mike Harrison), ya gotta realize the 4V/pent-roof layout is flat out superior. The LS, especially given its current wedge/inline valve layout, would benefit from a 3V setup...and GM knows it.

Part of a new base engine is its longevity. With engine production life-spans often measured in decades it was important the Coyote had long-term breeding. Mike explained it: "We knew that someday there would be a DI version of this engine. We knew someday there would be a supercharged version of the engine. We knew that someday someone would want to do something on it," he explained. "So we wanted to make sure when we did the initial design work that it would be robust enough to not have to re-engineer the whole thing down the road and any subsequent programs would be very investment efficient and time efficient and so we did package DI injectors, we did really improve the bulkhead strength to take supercharging, we upgraded the cylinder head bolts and the main bearing bolts, all of that stuff ... We just wanted to make sure it was a good base going forward, that the architecture would last us the next 10 or 15 years." ... Perhaps the final major head-design challenge was packaging everything into the downsized Coyote head. This was only slightly complicated by leaving room for an EcoBoost fuel injector. Its path low on the intake side was protected during Coyote development in case Ford decides to fit the somewhat bulky direct injection injector to the 5.0-liter in the future. http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/viewall.html

That's what the correction factor is for. Inlet temps and CHT/ECT are going to be the big difference makers. MT should have filled the intercooler reservoir with ice, I can't imagine the air-to-liquid setup keeping inlet temps low enough after miles of WOT to keep full timing in it.

The 3V V10 is suitable HD work but the 6.7 PSD isn't? Think about that for a second, seriously.

No, actually you didn't. Anything that requires actual expertise doesn't go to the Quick Lane (or shouldn't). Dealerships do a LOT of non-warranty work.