Ford 5.0L Coyote V8 spied in a Mustang

[battyr]

The only reason you would ruin a perfectly good V-8 by making it 60 degree is so you could get it to fit in a FWD car.

 

I just don't get the concept of wanting to drive a big V-8 without RWD. The only fun part of life is applying large amounts of torque through the rear wheels of a car.

[mercury]

Just some miscellaneous thoughts.

 

IIRC the bore spacing on the 6.2 is 4.54".I'm thinking this new 5.0 is the low deck version of the 5.0,5.8 & 6.2 family that was rumored.With the addition of the inexpensive Ford/BW cam phasing(just a guess)the 5.0's power/torque figures were so good(coupled with the high at the time fuel prices)they really didnt need the 5.8.

 

The 5.0 looks like its a DAMB valve train setup and the 6.2 looks to be like the old 1.9L CVH(1st generation Escort),still CORA but cam under the rockers.

There were pics in Hot Rod magazine in the summer of the bare head and block of the 6.2.

The head looked too wide to be a SOHC DAMB but still didnt look like a typical 2v/3v MOD head.

It could have been early develpoment pieces so I may be totally wrong.

 

Im pretty sure if Ford wanted to they could put DI on the 3.5/3.7L and with more compression and a wilder tune they could go chase Infiniti/Nissan but it seems their strategy is to try to get the maximum out of 87 octane,doesnt seem like a bad plan.

[RichardJensen]

Didn't the 3.4L SHO V8 have offset crank journals?

[Admiral]

Didn't the 3.4L SHO V8 have offset crank journals?

 

If you mean a split-pin crank for even firing then yes. It even had a balance shaft.

[jpd80]

Didn't the 3.4L SHO V8 have offset crank journals?

Wow, I know Ford would probably never do it but,

a 60 degree V8 built in the Duratec V6 plant would surely fit into Taurus.

Anyone who wanted a V8 sedan especially in the snow belt, would surely get on board with that.

Who in their right mind would pass up a 5.0 V8 AWD Taurus for an Impala?

 

Still, Ecoboost V6 is a powerfully compelling argument.................

[battyr]

Just some miscellaneous thoughts.

 

IIRC the bore spacing on the 6.2 is 4.54".I'm thinking this new 5.0 is the low deck version of the 5.0,5.8 & 6.2 family that was rumored.With the addition of the inexpensive Ford/BW cam phasing(just a guess)the 5.0's power/torque figures were so good(coupled with the high at the time fuel prices)they really didnt need the 5.8.

 

I don't understand why a company would develop more than one family of new V-8 gas engines if they don't have to. The 5.0L needs max power from high revs. The 6.2L is a truck engine, so it needs max torque at low revs. The low deck version theory fits this requirement.

 

Someone would have to explain why the 2 engines have different types of valve mechanism.

[battyr]

Didn't the 3.4L SHO V8 have offset crank journals?

 

This sound a little familar. Something to do with balancing a 60 degree v-8?

 

I could be completely comfused.

[theoldwizard]

I don't understand why a company would develop more than one family of new V-8 gas engines if they don't have to.

You must be part of the "Modular Mafia" !

 

Ford tried it withe 4.6L and 5.4L. There were compromises in each resulting in sub-optimal designs for both.

 

Simply raising the desk height (in order to get 2 engines one about 5.0L the other about 6.2L) would results in the smaller engine having a piston that is too large and the large engine having a stroke that is too long. Even using common bore spacing with 2 different sleeves means the smaller block will be carrying extra weight in the crank and sleeves for the smaller engine.

 

Remember Ford can say, "Been there, done that, didn't like the results !"

[92merc]

I think in the end, with the V8's anyway, same engine build results in basically the same class of engine. The 6.2 application is considerably different than the 5.0 application.

 

So I'm glad they aren't the same family anymore.

[theoldwizard]

Mean while an EcoBoost V-6 would be more powerful, more fuel efficient and Cheaper.

It is clear that the Coyote 5.0L that will go in the Mustang makes more power than the 3.5L EB. We will have to wait on the fuel economy numbers. Costs, we will never know, but I think they are closer than anyone would expect with the possibility that the Coyote may even be cheaper than the EB 3.5L. (Do you really think 2 pistons, 2 rods, 2 sleeves, 8 valves, a longer crank, block, heads and cams cost more than the rumored $700 EB delta ?)

 

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 powerful V-6.

What you should have said is "N.A. V8". Leave off the DI. Yes, there are many people who EXPECT that a muscle car or a "real" pickup would have a V8. Getting marketing to try and convince people to buy something they don't want NEVER WORKS !

 

Why else would Toyota tool up a V8 for the Tundra ?

[twintornados]

The only reason you would ruin a perfectly good V-8 by making it 60 degree is so you could get it to fit in a FWD car.

 

I just don't get the concept of wanting to drive a big V-8 without RWD. The only fun part of life is applying large amounts of torque through the rear wheels of a car.

The 4.6L Modular V8 fit in the last Lincoln Continental engine bay...sideways.....

[twintornados]

My question of this lineup is simple....if Ford is comparing fuel economy as being comparable to the Triton 5.4L, does this mean that Ford will have a 4.0L - 4.5L version of this motor to give better economy numbers when compared to the 4.6L modular?

[30 OTT 6]

You must be part of the "Modular Mafia" !

 

Ford tried it withe 4.6L and 5.4L. There were compromises in each resulting in sub-optimal designs for both.

 

Simply raising the desk height (in order to get 2 engines one about 5.0L the other about 6.2L) would results in the smaller engine having a piston that is too large and the large engine having a stroke that is too long. Even using common bore spacing with 2 different sleeves means the smaller block will be carrying extra weight in the crank and sleeves for the smaller engine.

 

Remember Ford can say, "Been there, done that, didn't like the results !"

 

Well, Ford had "been there, done that" with the 302 and 351 Windsors with pretty good results.

 

I believe Ford's biggest mistake with the Modular was the tight bore spacing, brought on by a compromise to fit the new V8 into FWD cars. Had the 4.6L bore been larger, like the old 302, the 5.4L wouldn't have been such an extremely under-square design.

[NickF1011]

My question of this lineup is simple....if Ford is comparing fuel economy as being comparable to the Triton 5.4L, does this mean that Ford will have a 4.0L - 4.5L version of this motor to give better economy numbers when compared to the 4.6L modular?

 

Depends how much better you're talking. It's not like there is a huge difference between the 4.6 and 5.4 when it comes to fuel economy as it is already.

[battyr]

You must be part of the "Modular Mafia" !

 

Ford tried it withe 4.6L and 5.4L. There were compromises in each resulting in sub-optimal designs for both.

 

Simply raising the desk height (in order to get 2 engines one about 5.0L the other about 6.2L) would results in the smaller engine having a piston that is too large and the large engine having a stroke that is too long. Even using common bore spacing with 2 different sleeves means the smaller block will be carrying extra weight in the crank and sleeves for the smaller engine.

 

Remember Ford can say, "Been there, done that, didn't like the results !"

 

I am glad you said it. I am going to call the Mod engines "sub-optimal" in my next post. You are right, you don't want to make major compromises. I would argue, do what you can to minimize required engineering by making small compromises. I would think 2 completely different engines would require greater effort.

 

The difference between the 6.2 andn 5.0 is 24%. 10% of the difference can be done by boring out the cylinder. I am assuming that the 5.0L could come with either higher compression or turbo so it would require a thicker cylinder wall than the 6.2L. That leaves a 15%

 

Now my question, is 15% longer stroke a lot for an engine that requires a lot of torque and low rpms and CAFE regulations will discourage high rpms?

 

I am assuming that Ford does not need a V-8 smaller than 5.0L and with EcoBoost, they will not need a turbo engine bigger than 5.0 L. If they need a V-8 out side of this range, need a high reving 6.2L or a low reving higher torque 5.0L then they would need an other engine design or 3 for the V-8s.

[theoldwizard]

The 4.6L Modular V8 fit in the last Lincoln Continental engine bay...sideways.....

This requirement limited the overall engine length on the Modular family, which limited the bore spacing, which limited the piston size, etc, etc, etc. Too many compromises.

[battyr]

The 4.6L Modular V8 fit in the last Lincoln Continental engine bay...sideways.....

 

Fits into the Continental, but not the old Taurus. I was a sub-optimal, resulting in a tall/wide engine with a long stroke.

 

Because they wanted to put it into the FWD Continental, they had to make a V-10 to get the largest displacement for trucks.

[battyr]

This requirement limited the overall engine length on the Modular family, which limited the bore spacing, which limited the piston size, etc, etc, etc. Too many compromises.

 

Agreed. They need to make is simple, for a limit application.

 

Small version for RWD cars and small trucks. Big version for big trucks. EcoBoost version for very big trucks.

 

Edit:

 

And very fast cars!

Edited January 30, 2009 by battyr

[theoldwizard]

Now my question, is 15% longer stroke a lot for an engine that requires a lot of torque and low rpms and CAFE regulations will discourage high rpms?

There is a trade off point (that I do not know where) a longer stroke (more under square) produces "diminishing returns". More "sliding friction" (rings on cylinder walls), combustion burn time not optimal at a lower RPM, etc.

 

It occurs to me that a lot of folks just want to "beat a dead horse" !

 

The decision is made. The 5.0L and the 6.2L are not the same engine family, bore, bore spacing or stroke. Get over it ! I hope the folks still working at Ford are smarter than the rest of us here !

[battyr]

This requirement limited the overall engine length on the Modular family, which limited the bore spacing, which limited the piston size, etc, etc, etc. Too many compromises.

 

This was a marketing mistake.

 

Ford thought that by putting a V-8 into the Continental, it would be a big success. But they didn't get it right.

 

I drove the redesigned version of the FWD continental. It tooked a lot better and I thought it was great car but they were too late. They should have got it right the first time. They should have used something like the Yamaha engine in the Continental. Made the Modular engine for RWD only.

[battyr]

There is a trade off point (that I do not know where) a longer stroke (more under square) produces "diminishing returns". More "sliding friction" (rings on cylinder walls), combustion burn time not optimal at a lower RPM, etc.

 

It occurs to me that a lot of folks just want to "beat a dead horse" !

 

The decision is made. The 5.0L and the 6.2L are not the same engine family, bore, bore spacing or stroke. Get over it ! I hope the folks still working at Ford are smarter than the rest of us here !

 

Just to "beat a dead horse", I think is depends on who made the decision. Engineers, accountants or marketers. For this decision, I hope the engineers made the decision.

 

I also think it is posible to share engineering between 2 engines without sharing a single dimension, or parts within the block. Making changes to bore, spacing and stroke is easy when designing by computer.

[Blue II]

Just to "beat a dead horse", I think is depends on who made the decision. Engineers, accountants or marketers. For this decision, I hope the engineers made the decision.

 

I also think it is posible to share engineering between 2 engines without sharing a single dimension, or parts within the block. Making changes to bore, spacing and stroke is easy when designing by computer.

 

Beating a dead horse is right. We have a Hurricane and a Coyote. The Mod will be history. Get over it and move on.

[battyr]

Beating a dead horse is right. We have a Hurricane and a Coyote. The Mod will be history. Get over it and move on.

 

I am sorry. I have failed to make myself clear.

 

I am in no way a "Modular Mafia"! And I do not endorse the Modular Engines in any way!

 

I am just speculating like everyone else.

[Blue II]

I am sorry. I have failed to make myself clear.

 

I am in no way a "Modular Mafia"! And I do not endorse the Modular Engines in any way!

 

I am just speculating like everyone else.

 

I don't speculate!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Old Wizard, I had three sources for the GDI estimates for engines. The first was from some statements that GM made a while back. The second was from a textbook/pamphlet that a friend of mine had who recently went through a few courses on internal combustion engines. I do not know the publishers name, the title of the documents, or a web site for them. The third was from looking at the gains that a few other manufacturers have gotten on various powerplants by using GDI. Audi in partiular, but, Toyota has a good example with their new 3.5L DOHC V6. Granted, they don't hold their tech exactly the same on surrounding items. The gist of everything put together was this...

 

If you go all out for torque, you can take an existing design and achieve approximately 10% more torque (there were many factors that affected this figure).

If you go all out for economy, you might manage 5% better fuel efficiency for an existing design (again, when you talk about efficiency improvements below 5%, they are difficult to really measure and are also affected by many factors).

There are ways of compromising between them.

If you do the math, and compromise properly, you can achieve your maximum fuel savings at a given power level by replacing a given engine with a smaller engine that has GDI. The end result is a net 10% efficiency improvement for THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. That includes gains from weight savings as well as efficient combustion.

 

The nuts and bolts of this is that in engines that started off life with sub-optimal charge dispersal characteristics in their combustion chamber, adding GDI can change those characteristics very favorably due to the smaller droplet size, cooled charge temperature, and better airflow through the intake port that now doesn't also have fuel spraying through it. In engines that already had a very well designed combustion chamber and excellent breathing characteristics, the gains would be less than optimal. On a clean sheet, if an engine (chamber, head, breathing, etc) are designed from the ground up with GDI in mind, the peak values available for that engine are going to be appreciably better than for an equivalently sized engine that was designed for PFI.

 

I'll re-emphasize the point right now, I'm a computer engineer, not a M.E. with an internal combustion specialization, so, I don't 100% understand all the ins and outs of reciprocating engine combustion chamber design. I'm actually more fluent with gas turbine design, but that has more to do with the fact that my dad worked for as a mechanic for a commercial airline for 33 years and I poured through maintenance and design manuals as a teen because I was very intensley intersted in going into aerospace engineering. I will say that I understand the point of GDI, and what it brings to the table for an engine, and, the 10% figure that I've seen doesn't seem outlandish on paper to me. That being said, the real world has a funny way of not being very cooperative ot what's on paper, both in my field, and in many others. If you'ver heard it first hand from powertrain engineers working on the project, I'll be more than happy to agree with them then what I've seen. They'll have seen what the translation from the textbook to the real world brings.