First pics of the 5.0

[Sizzler]

Your are missing my point. If I am correct, this engine is built with an aluminum block and cast in iron liners. This is a totally different design than a traditional engine block. You can't just start boring as you will weaken the liners and they will fail.

 

Now, could Ford cast up some blocks with large bore liners ? Absolutely. Only time will tell.

 

 

This engine is basically an updated 4.6 mod. They're claiming all kinds of "improvements", but basically it is a 4.6 block, improved with what they designed for the 6.2l, including the windage improvements, block casting, oil squirters for the pistons, etc...

 

Because they want to use the same production lines for this engine as for the 4.6, the bore spacing dimension is the same, meaning that exactly like the 4.6l modular, this update is pretty much maxed out at 5.0 liters.

 

The issue I have with this "new" engine is that they went with camshafts that are sprawled out even more than they are on the mods, meaning that not only is this thing the same size height-wise as the modular, but it is even WIDER than the modulars, which means this engine is just plain HUGE...for not much displacement, and little potential for increasing displacement other than the modular's taller deck route.

 

This thing's a pig. I'd rather have an ecoboost 3.7 with the turbos turned up. Better power, lighter weight, better mileage and a better platform...that or an ecoboost 6.2l.

 

Remember, all this "info" is coming from Ford Marketing. It's their job to tout "new and improved". As a consumer, it's your job to wade through the B.S.

 

And that intake cover is the purest B.S. away from the back end of a bull. Total fake. Like the fake Hilborn injector cover you can buy for your carb. It's supposed to look like the racing FR500 intake with its tuned runners but underneath it's just a ripoff of Chrysler's "sausages rolling out of a ham" hemi intake. Plastic and fake, not something I'd want to show off.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Sizzler

[White99GT]

The issue I have with this "new" engine is that they went with camshafts that are sprawled out even more than they are on the mods, meaning that not only is this thing the same size height-wise as the modular, but it is even WIDER than the modulars, which means this engine is just plain HUGE...for not much displacement, and little potential for increasing displacement other than the modular's taller deck route.

 

It doesn't look wider in the pics.

[Moosetang]

This engine is basically an updated 4.6 mod.

By your logic, the Mustang and the Mazda 6 are the same car because they're built on the same line. Or maybe the Ford Fusion and the Citroen Berlingo are the same car because they have the same wheelbase. That the Coyote uses the same bore spacing and deck height does not make it "basically an updated 4.6 mod." It's a new V8 that was designed to get into production rapidly and affordably by using some existing Mod tooling.

[RichardJensen]

this engine is just plain HUGE...for not much displacement, and little potential for increasing displacement

Yeah. Totally agree with you there.

 

You've got this here engine that will take forced induction like there's no tomorrow, which has a N/A torque output that's in the general neighborhood of the Ferrari V8 (Ferrari=400lb-ft out of 4.5L) and such, but that's nonsense.

 

What's really important is that you can't bore it out for a few more cubes.

 

Face it. Ford was never going back to the short skirt, and they were never going to compromise the deck height to stroke ratio, because those are the things that make forced induction work on the Mod. Therefore, you've got what you've got. A big engine that makes a lot of power NA, and which makes a TON more with forced induction.

 

If you want an engine that you can bore out to no end, which is fragile and breaks easily under forced induction, go buy an LS for cryin' out loud. You can bore and stroke them out to 7L and end up with a bit less power than you can get with a super charger on a 5.4.

Edited December 30, 2009 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Here's my prediction: Put a flatplane crank in this engine, beef up its internals and put DAMB heads on it, and it will run with the Ferrari 458. Right up to 9,000 RPM. That's how good I think this engine is.

 

Put a blower on it, and it will leave the Ferrari in the dust.

Edited December 30, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Sizzler]

By your logic, the Mustang and the Mazda 6 are the same car because they're built on the same line. Or maybe the Ford Fusion and the Citroen Berlingo are the same car because they have the same wheelbase. That the Coyote uses the same bore spacing and deck height does not make it "basically an updated 4.6 mod." It's a new V8 that was designed to get into production rapidly and affordably by using some existing Mod tooling.

 

 

well, yeah.

 

I'm from a different era, but to me a Mustang was the same as a Cougar (I know I know, but...) just a different trim level.

 

And a Taurus was the same as a Sable, and on and on and on...

 

Your logic is flawed because it isn't the line they're built on or the wheelbase they may share, it's more. And unless you have fallen totally under the thrall of Ford Marketing to the point of insensibility, the "5.0" is basically an updated 4.6. All you really have to do is look at the engineering in the 6.2l, designed AFTER the modulars, which was just transferred over as engineering updates to this "new" 5.0.

 

The problem with the mods has always been its overall outer dimensions, its severely limited displacement capability (even the old "5.0" Windsor could easily go out to 347 and the tall deck Windsor could hit 427 - 7 liters for the French out there), and its narrow rods. This "new" 5.0 doesn't really address any of those issues except maybe keeping those bandy rod ends oiled better.

 

Whatever. Dring the Kool Aid Ford is pouring, or be a man and demand the good stuff. Hint: the 5.0 isn't the good stuff.

[RichardJensen]

Snort.

 

Yes. The 5.0 is Mod v. 2.0; it's the same approximate dimensions as the mod, but with better breathing, better block design, bigger displacement, etc.

 

No, it doesn't have oodles of possibilities for extra displacement, but you know what? That's a fool's errand.

 

You want a 5.0L that you can bore out to 7L? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's ridiculous. Ford should waste so much material in the block that you can hook it up to a machine and excavate out a hundred and twenty cubic inches of it? A hundred and twenty cubic inches of engine that doesn't need to be there at all?

 

Ridiculous. I'll say it again. Ridiculous.

 

Yes. Ford could've shortened the deck height and the skirt, and you know what you would've had?

 

An engine that couldn't be supercharged, that couldn't take any forced induction at all, that was, basically constrained to its displacement for all of its power.

 

Maybe you'd like that. But I can certainly see Ford's side of it.

[theoldwizard]

The issue I have with this "new" engine is that they went with camshafts that are sprawled out even more than they are on the mods, meaning that not only is this thing the same size height-wise as the modular, but it is even WIDER than the modulars, which means this engine is just plain HUGE...for not much displacement, and little potential for increasing displacement other than the modular's taller deck route.

We need to see what the final external dimensions are. I would rather have seen DAMB used in an effort to minimize width. Could the extra height have caused a hood interference problem on the Mustang ?

 

This thing's a pig.

At over 83 hp/liter, I like pork more and more each day !

[Mark B. Morrow]

well, yeah.

 

I'm from a different era, but to me a Mustang was the same as a Cougar (I know I know, but...) just a different trim level.

 

The Mustang and Cougar did not share any sheetmetal from '67-'70 (these cars also had a different wheelbase IIRC) and the '71-'73s only shared the roof. The '74 and up Cougars shared more with the Gran Torino/LTD II.

 

And a Taurus was the same as a Sable, and on and on and on...

 

The First/Second and early Third Gen Taurus and Sable sedans also hed different sheetmetal including the roof treatment, except for the wagons. The later models migrated to the same metal with grille/tail changes.

[theoldwizard]

Yes. Ford could've shortened the deck height and the skirt, and you know what you would've had?

Any significant change to the block (bore spacing/deck height/skirt/etc) would mean that they could not re-use the existing machining. New tooling would have raised the cost and delayed introduction !

 

Blame management for putting the "hard lines" down on the blueprint and telling engineering to work within those boundaries. I think it was a good decision, especially in these economic times.

 

Praise the engineers for being able to come up with a naturally aspirated engine, that does not use expensive direct injection, that can get over 83 HP/liter, in such a short period of time ! I'm still amazed !!!! (I'm old enough to remember when the 1.6L CVH hit 61 HP/liter and everyone was amazed !)

[Sizzler]

Sheet metal changes never fooled me. It's always been the underpinings. All mobile homes fit on the same foundations, either double wide or single. A Cougar not sharing sheet metal with a Mustang doesn't mean they didn't share much of what was underneath.

 

I bet you're fascinated by that plastic intake cover. Even though you know it's pure fake.

 

As for "Yes. The 5.0 is Mod v. 2.0; it's the same approximate dimensions as the mod"???? the bore spacing and deck height is EXACTLY the same between the two.

[RichardJensen]

Yes, and of course there are only two dimensions to any engine. Deck height and bore spacing, and if those are the same, then the engines have exactly the same dimensions.

[RichardJensen]

Any significant change to the block (bore spacing/deck height/skirt/etc) would mean that they could not re-use the existing machining. New tooling would have raised the cost and delayed introduction !

I'm sure that engineers would've stuck to a fairly similar shape all the same. Pretty sure the 6.2L has a high stroke:deck height ratio as well.

 

I don't think anyone seriously believed that the 5.0L would be a radical departure from the Mod architecture, given how well suited the Mod architecture was to the variety of OEM uses to which it was put.

Edited December 30, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Deanh]

well, yeah.

 

I'm from a different era, but to me a Mustang was the same as a Cougar (I know I know, but...) just a different trim level.

 

And a Taurus was the same as a Sable, and on and on and on...

 

Your logic is flawed because it isn't the line they're built on or the wheelbase they may share, it's more. And unless you have fallen totally under the thrall of Ford Marketing to the point of insensibility, the "5.0" is basically an updated 4.6. All you really have to do is look at the engineering in the 6.2l, designed AFTER the modulars, which was just transferred over as engineering updates to this "new" 5.0.

 

The problem with the mods has always been its overall outer dimensions, its severely limited displacement capability (even the old "5.0" Windsor could easily go out to 347 and the tall deck Windsor could hit 427 - 7 liters for the French out there), and its narrow rods. This "new" 5.0 doesn't really address any of those issues except maybe keeping those bandy rod ends oiled better.

 

Whatever. Dring the Kool Aid Ford is pouring, or be a man and demand the good stuff. Hint: the 5.0 isn't the good stuff.

course we could also deny progress and live in the past....BRING BACK CARBURETORS

[Sixt9coug]

Sheet metal changes never fooled me. It's always been the underpinings. All mobile homes fit on the same foundations, either double wide or single. A Cougar not sharing sheet metal with a Mustang doesn't mean they didn't share much of what was underneath.

 

They shared the front unibody box with the 351 and larger engined Mustangs (69/73) the front floor pans, the windshield glass and the door glass. (67 Cougars used unique front strut rods but otherwise the front suspension was the same as a 67 Mustang)

 

All sheetmetal was different, trunk pan and rear floor was different, rear suspension is different with the exception of the axle itself, rear frame rails were different, exhaust is different after the manifolds, quarter glass and backlight are both different and of course most of the interior and electrical components are different. Some wiring can be made to work from a Mustang to a Cougar, but underdash is totally different and SOME engine wiring can work as well.

 

 

in 74 it went full frame on the Torino chassis before going unibody again during the downsize era and joining the Thunderbird untill its cancellation and revival in the New Age era.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Sixt9coug

[Sizzler]

Yes, and of course there are only two dimensions to any engine. Deck height and bore spacing, and if those are the same, then the engines have exactly the same dimensions.

 

Those dimensions define the limitations of the engine better than any other dimensions. Tell me the other dimensions that actually DO vary between the two, outside of standard tolerances (ie, +.07" bore is just a rebuild resizing...). What actual dimensions changed?

 

By the way, you can't take a 302 Windsor to 427, you take a 351 (the tall-deck Windsor) out to 427.

 

Now answer me this, since you're all about rpm's: if you put a thicker bore lining in the 6.2l, dropping its displacement down to 5.? something, you'd wind up with a stiffer block, more rigid cylinders, better ring sealing at high rpm's wouldn't you? What would be your objection to that if those thicker cylinder linings were in an ALUMINUM 6.2 block? Why spend the research and development time and dollars on a limited application engine family like a modular 2.0-deadend when for the same, and probably less, resources, you could have an engine that could easily range in size from 5.? to 7.0 liters, weigh the same and perform better? You'd have a better engine choice available for a wider range of installations without the increased equipment costs, supply costs, engineering costs and carrying costs of the modular.

[Hemiman]

Here's my prediction: Put a flatplane crank, destroked to 4L in this engine, beef up its internals and put DAMB heads on it, and it will run with the Ferrari 458. Right up to 9,000 RPM. That's how good I think this engine is.

 

Put a blower on it, and it will leave the Ferrari in the dust.

 

 

Fixed it ; )

[Moosetang]

Those dimensions define the limitations of the engine better than any other dimensions. Tell me the other dimensions that actually DO vary between the two, outside of standard tolerances (ie, +.07" bore is just a rebuild resizing...). What actual dimensions changed?

 

By the way, you can't take a 302 Windsor to 427, you take a 351 (the tall-deck Windsor) out to 427.

 

Now answer me this, since you're all about rpm's: if you put a thicker bore lining in the 6.2l, dropping its displacement down to 5.? something, you'd wind up with a stiffer block, more rigid cylinders, better ring sealing at high rpm's wouldn't you? What would be your objection to that if those thicker cylinder linings were in an ALUMINUM 6.2 block? Why spend the research and development time and dollars on a limited application engine family like a modular 2.0-deadend when for the same, and probably less, resources, you could have an engine that could easily range in size from 5.? to 7.0 liters, weigh the same and perform better? You'd have a better engine choice available for a wider range of installations without the increased equipment costs, supply costs, engineering costs and carrying costs of the modular.

An Aluminum Boss 5L with thick walls would weigh substantially more than the 5L Coyote. The longer block wouldn't fit in the Mustang without substantial redesign. What wider range of installations? Boss has the Heavy Duty trucks covered. Coyote has the light-duty trucks and Mustang (+Falcon) covered. There are no more platforms out there to take a 90 degree V8. Your approach would save no money; since the cost of rebuilding the Mustang and getting the 5L AL BOSS to Coyote's level would cost at least as much as just doing Coyote, saddle the Mustang and F-150 with a larger and heavier engine, and not accomplish anything that the Coyote-BOSS combo are not already able to do.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Moosetang

[joihan777]

One more BEAUTIFUL reason this engine rocks... the mileage. At 25 mpg it gets about the same as my 06' 4.0L V6... so when I trade in for a new Mustang the V8 will be MUCH more attractive!

[bifs66]

What this whole deal boils down to is how will the new 5.0 (and variants) stack up against the GM LS engine series. As far as I can tell, the GM boys will contend that the LS engines go up to 7L (and associated high HP numbers), weigh less, take up less space, are less complicated, and get around the same milage. They may also say "so what" if Ford is squeezing more HP per liter as the end result is still more overall power than the 5.0s. To be honest, I was hoping for a 5.0 block that was designed to compete head to head in displacement with the LS series and settle the arguments once and for all (in our favor). If you read the GMI forums, we already get the same crap regarding the 5.0 that we got with the MODs. I was willing to sacrifice overall size, complexity, and weight for an engine that produced more overall HP than the LS engines. I'm open for fact-based reasons why the 5.0 (as wonderful as it is) will prove to be a better way to horsepower/performance than GM engines now and in the future. We need something from Ford to stuff in those old Fox Mustangs before they all get desecrated with LSes (as so many 30's Fords did with SBCs).

[Sizzler]

An Aluminum Boss 5L with thick walls would weigh substantially more than the 5L Coyote. The longer block wouldn't fit in the Mustang without substantial redesign. What wider range of installations? Boss has the Heavy Duty trucks covered. Coyote has the light-duty trucks and Mustang (+Falcon) covered. There are no more platforms out there to take a 90 degree V8. Your approach would save no money; since the cost of rebuilding the Mustang and getting the 5L AL BOSS to Coyote's level would cost at least as much as just doing Coyote, saddle the Mustang and F-150 with a larger and heavier engine, and not accomplish anything that the Coyote-BOSS combo are not already able to do.

 

 

parsing your post, it appears that the only reason for the continuation of the modular engine family is to fit a V8 into the Mustang? Is that right? Because the Boss will fit in any truck bay, whether it be light-duty or heavy-duty trucks.

 

It is only the Mustang engine bay that is so short under its fake long hood that requires the narrow bearings and squeezed bore-spacing of the modular? Saleen managed to shorten up the Windsor block installation by relocating things like the alternator to the side of the block, gaining space in front, allowing it to be installed in a shorter engine bay than Ford thought possible.

 

A Shelby aluminum block can be had with sleeves of various thicknesses. To slim down a bore to 4.05 instead of the normal 4.25" for example. The thicker sleeves do not add "substantially" more weight to the engine. And if the Boss block is cast in aluminum, the weight change would be minimal with the thicker sleeves, even though it is a longer block, it has less skirting, fewer cams and associated valvetrain components.

 

Basically, all I'm hearing is Ford needs a little short V8 for the Mustang and the modular is it. Brag up the modular so that people don't realize what a compromise it is.

 

Anyone know what the current, real-world valve lift limitation is for a DAMB head? For street use by people who don't want radical ramping?

[Deanh]

What this whole deal boils down to is how will the new 5.0 (and variants) stack up against the GM LS engine series. As far as I can tell, the GM boys will contend that the LS engines go up to 7L (and associated high HP numbers), weigh less, take up less space, are less complicated, and get around the same milage. They may also say "so what" if Ford is squeezing more HP per liter as the end result is still more overall power than the 5.0s. To be honest, I was hoping for a 5.0 block that was designed to compete head to head in displacement with the LS series and settle the arguments once and for all (in our favor). If you read the GMI forums, we already get the same crap regarding the 5.0 that we got with the MODs. I was willing to sacrifice overall size, complexity, and weight for an engine that produced more overall HP than the LS engines. I'm open for fact-based reasons why the 5.0 (as wonderful as it is) will prove to be a better way to horsepower/performance than GM engines now and in the future. We need something from Ford to stuff in those old Fox Mustangs before they all get desecrated with LSes (as so many 30's Fords did with SBCs).

?...so, youre all wrapped up in bragging rights?....I say waoit till the heads to heads...THEN the GM fanboys can read em and weep....the 5.0 IS a superior powerplant...tests will just underline the fact....course there will always be some loyalist naysayers regardless....truth is , they probably wish this was a bowtie engine....

[Deanh]

parsing your post, it appears that the only reason for the continuation of the modular engine family is to fit a V8 into the Mustang? Is that right? Because the Boss will fit in any truck bay, whether it be light-duty or heavy-duty trucks.

 

It is only the Mustang engine bay that is so short under its fake long hood that requires the narrow bearings and squeezed bore-spacing of the modular? Saleen managed to shorten up the Windsor block installation by relocating things like the alternator to the side of the block, gaining space in front, allowing it to be installed in a shorter engine bay than Ford thought possible.

 

A Shelby aluminum block can be had with sleeves of various thicknesses. To slim down a bore to 4.05 instead of the normal 4.25" for example. The thicker sleeves do not add "substantially" more weight to the engine. And if the Boss block is cast in aluminum, the weight change would be minimal with the thicker sleeves, even though it is a longer block, it has less skirting, fewer cams and associated valvetrain components.

 

Basically, all I'm hearing is Ford needs a little short V8 for the Mustang and the modular is it. Brag up the modular so that people don't realize what a compromise it is.

 

Anyone know what the current, real-world valve lift limitation is for a DAMB head? For street use by people who don't want radical ramping?

Basically, all I'm hearing is Ford needs a little short V8 for the Mustang and the modular is it. Brag up the modular so that people don't realize what a compromise it is.

........yep being DIALED DOWN to 412hp sure is a compromise......

[White99GT]

It is only the Mustang engine bay that is so short under its fake long hood that requires the narrow bearings and squeezed bore-spacing of the modular?

 

Main bearing width hasn't been a problem for the Modulars, barring some issues with early production runs. About the only bearing issues you see are with high rpm, high HP (taking 1000+ rwhp) automatic cars and thrust bearings, and that's not usually the engine's fault.

 

I know Hemiman says he saw problems with 5.4 L bucket trucks, but the issue is virtually non-existant in my experience. If the Mod motors have any minor lower end issues, it's with Ford's wrist pin supplier. But that's still not a Modular design issue

[Deanh]

Main bearing width hasn't been a problem for the Modulars, barring some issues with early production runs. About the only bearing issues you see are with high rpm, high HP (taking 1000+ rwhp) automatic cars and thrust bearings, and that's not usually the engine's fault.

 

I know Hemiman says he saw problems with 5.4 L bucket trucks, but the issue is virtually non-existant in my experience. If the Mod motors have any minor lower end issues, it's with Ford's wrist pin supplier. But that's still not a Modular design issue

more you engine lads quote, more jazzed i get about this engine....and one thing that caught my eye BIG time.....special interests in windage and sumps along with 8 quart capacity....I smell durability BIG time...