White99GT

I would GLADLY trade 11 peak horsepower for a couple hundred pounds off the nose and better empty mileage. Not to mention the 400 HP EcoBoost would probably annihilate the 6.2 in the real world. EcoBoost 5.0 would only need 4-5 lbs of boost to see 500 crank HP.

Think so? This is a conservative reading dyno, the 5.0s are putting down over 310 rwhp on a Dynojet. Still, there's a 6.2 and a 5.0 run on the same dyno. I have yet to be impressed with the 6.2 versus the 5.0 & EcoBoost.

It looks like the 6.2 is little to no quicker than the 5.0, given that reality I'd take a 5.0 or an EcoBoost over that gas hog anyday. Ford needs to make the EcoBoost available in the Raptor, preferably a ~400 HP version.

Why? The 5.0 and 5.4 share the exact same bore spacing and the 5.4 can accommodate up to a 3.705" bore while the 4.165" stroke is reliable to ~7000 rpm with stock parts. The 5.0's 3.63" bore is a good compromise for OE durability, which is why the Coyote got that bore to begin with. An aluminum block, 4-valve, Ti-VCT Boss would be untouchable but I'm willing to bet the new 620 horse Shelby gets either a 5.4 or a 3.63" bore 5.4-based 5.8.

Torque is a function of displacement and H/C/I tuning. Some of the best high revvers around are small bore, long stroke/undersquare engines and vice versa.

I've seen a few Coyote flow bench results now, and this isn't true. I now realize Ford's statements were that the Coyote heads out flowed the GT500 heads up to .472", beyond that the GT500s run away. The Coyote also has weak (by 4V standards) exhaust ports. These were my thoughts as well, but will say none of this is even remotely necessary to achieve the HP goals set. A cam swap (current GT500 is using 184/196 degree .397" lift 03/04 Mach 1 cams) and TVS blower would match LS9 output.

They recorded a 3.97 0-60! 12.3 @ essentially 116 mph from Motor Trend? This car is going to be fast in the hands of a real driver. It also beat the Audi R8, GT500 and M3 around Leguna Seca.

I wish they offered Grabber Blue, as that is THE '70 Boss 302 color IMO. Maybe they plan on going to the '70 stripe pattern and adding grabber blue next year?

I figured as much. On my engine simulator program the Coyote makes 419 HP not accounting for TiVCT, which lines up nicely with the dyno numbers which indicate ~430 HP is the more "real world" number. When I run the Boss on the engine program, assuming a 10% improvement in intake/exhaust port flow (estimated from results seen with mildly ported 5.0 heads utilizing stock valves), an intake manifold with 8" runners and improved intake manifold runner flow coefficient ("runners" in a box" design provides a much straighter shot at the intake ports) and I came up with 465 HP not accounting for TiVCT. The engine simulator also says the Boss should make ~5 lb-ft more than the Coyote (@ 4500 vs 5500) which mirrors those dyno results. I'm guessing Ford has a pretty conservative tune on the Boss (A/F and timing) based on that. Both the Boss and Coyote break 500 HP (flywheel) with headers, exhaust, inlet uprades, electric w/p, aggressive timing curves, leaner A/F and so forth. The Boss hits 550 with those mods according to the program. Near 500 rwhp with bolt-ons here we come.

Biggest complaint, "too fast for the street" and "too fast for the brakes". LOL Ford is so sandbagging that 444 HP.

A stock blower/stock trans basic bolt-on/pulley/tune GT500 with the level of suspension work, tire, and weight reduction that the 10 second n/a 5.0L benefited from would be high 9s. In fact, there a bone stock (other than rear tire) '11 GT500s with decent drivers trapping within ~2 mph of that 5.0L. IMO, the GT500 is sorely underestimated, mainly because they are so under-tired from the factory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II6BWoKni-s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC2bRiZpCjY

Not really... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KMxv-lu_Wk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpdLDTyp_sg&feature=related

Better yet, buy a GT500 now, put larger, stickier tires on the rear and take advantage of one of the most bolt-on happy platforms currently offered under any nameplate then go destroy Z06s and GTRs at will.

Very impressive, faster than a similarly equipped 5.7 Tundra and it ran the 1/4 mile within a hundredth of a similarly equipped 6.2 Chevy. One guy over on another site traded his Tundra in on a '11 5.0 F150 and remarked at how much better the 5.0 holds overdrive while towing...gotta love that mid-range torque.

You know, I would hate the Equus had they apologetically ripped off any other company like this. But since Toyota made their career doing exactly that, albeit with a touch more originality, I can't blame them. I have no respect for Hyundai as a company, but they are producing some decent copies.

Also, that design flaw with the 6.0/6.4 valve-train is shared with the Duramax. I don't know any GM diesel techs to know if this problem shows up with DMaxes, although I image it would.

The 6.4's reputation is just as bad if not worse than the 6.0s with the techs I know. Valve-train problems in the F-450s, a design issue Ford addressed with the Scorpion via 32-pushrods. Fuel injector problems, EGR/EGR cooler problems, go to any semi-busy Ford dealer and witness the cabs off of 08+ SDs. The 6.4 and Navistar as a whole are jokes. If you know any Ford tech familiar with the 6.0/6.4, and see all the design details of the 6.7 after knowing the 6.0/6.4 issues, only then can you begin to realize just how awesome the 6.7 really is.

This is the entire reason there are usually intake valve deposits with GDI engines, b/c there is no fuel washing down the intake port to keep everything clean from PCV and EGR deposits. It looks like Ford could be the first manufacturer to successfully address the problem. :shades: This problem has certainly kicked VW/Audi and GM's rears recently. Here's VW's GDI engine at 100K:

Show me an engine that doesn't have carbon build up on the top of the pistons after 163K. Being a GDI engine, I'm more interested in the backside of the intake valves.

Toyota doesn't understand "sporty" anymore. Even the LF-A is completely unimpressive considering the price.

It's really strange that the Duramax outpulls the 6.7 at high altitudes when you look at the dyno sheets (same day, same dyno). I guess there is something to the turbo setup on the GM being better suited to high altitude, because the 6.7 makes the D-Max look like a complete chump on average power. Maybe Ford should consider a TT setup for the 6.7 update, as it's clearly the superior powerplant in every other regard.

I hate the idea. I thought it was idiotic when Chrysler/Dodge spun Ram off as its own brand and would think the same about Ford spinning off Mustang as its own brand. The Mustang is a Ford and should always be a Ford, IMHO.

Did you get pics of the intake ports and/or intake valves? If so, will you please post them? :shades:

Why are you so against it? I would have expected anyone with enough of a gear-head streak to have a supercharged Cobra in their garage to be all about this idea. Why does this supercar have to be an either/or proposition? Why do you think it will impact or delay GRWD or other products? As a Ford guy, I hope they build this halo car. If this car isn't feasible then it won't be built, but it sounds like Ford is interested in the idea and finds it at least feasible enough to consider it. Ford didn't lose money on the GT, and it didn't delay the current crop of vehicles they have out. Why would this be any different?