First pics of the 5.0

[Extreme4x4]

LOL.............. I have one drink. Two max. I haven't been drunk since I was 18 (I am 45), and have never had a hangover. (nah nah nah nah nah). :D

[Stray Kat]

The diehards need thicker skin. When has any GM fan boy shut up about anything?

 

Ford could come up with an atomic motor that would fit in your pocket and power a cruise ship at a hundred and fifty knots, and the LS fan boys would carp about complexity. Or they'd chirp about how it wasn't an Otto Cycle engine.

 

The mod is a better motor than the LS by certain metrics. No holds barred, you will be able to get more power out of a mod than from a similar LS. And not by a small amount.

 

If forced displacement is on the table, a stock block 5.4L Mod can produce two to three times the power of a 5.7L LS. You can get 1200+ hp out of a stock block Mod (not the stock rods/pistons/crank). You can get more power than you can conceivably use out of a Mod. You can make the LS look like a lump of pig iron with a blown Mod motor.

 

But that's the rub.

 

It has to be a blown motor.

 

Now if some Ford fans can't accept that, well, that's their problem because it's quite obviously the direction that Ford has decided to go with their V8 strategy. Small displacement, gigantic block and forced induction.

 

If you don't like it either buy the OHV crate engines, learn to deal with it, or jump ship. Because Ford ain't going any other way with it.

 

 

 

The ridiculous part about the OHC/ pushrod argument comes from the viewpoint of "heads up" drag racing that is so popular today. The days of 12 and 11 sec smallblocks are gone, they are blase'. I say ridiculous because virtually every heads up class uses power adders. No one bitches about nitrous belching small or big block Chevys being artificially aspirated. The fact is those engines can't pump enough air by themselves to get the performance levels we see today. No it's just because Ford builds stout high tech and efficient base that loves supercharging or turbos somehow that's not worthy. If you put a carb on a funny car engine and run it on gasoline you have reduced the power by 8 or 9 times. Are they lame because they need power adders? Ford has made the supercharged V8 a common sight and people are bitching. A friend of mine has a blown Cobra 'Stang that puts 575hp to the rear wheels and man I tell you that car is fun! The Mod lends itself to ultra high performance why fight it? Play the game and enjoy.

[F250]

well, yeah.

 

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.

 

Let's not get carried away, the old 5.0L Windsor was maxed at 347 and it wasn't "easy" to get it you had to run a piston so short the oil rings were pushed into the pin bores (high oil consumption) and very little skirt so they rock and slap in the bores (noise, short ring life cylinder wall wear etc...) .030 is max overbore. Contrary to what people claim these engines are not good for daily use vehicles.

Some 347 pistons...

Edited January 1, 2010 by F250

[Blue II]

Let's not get carried away, the old 5.0L Windsor was maxed at 347 and it wasn't "easy" to get it you had to run a piston so short the oil rings were pushed into the pin bores (high oil consumption) and very little skirt so they rock and slap in the bores (noise, short ring life cylinder wall wear etc...) .030 is max overbore. Contrary to what people claim these engines are not good for daily use vehicles.

Some 347 pistons...

 

Just use the 8.7 block and your ring problem is fixed.

[F250]

Just use the 8.7 block and your ring problem is fixed.

 

That wouldn't be "easy" or cheap.

We're talking stock 302 Ford.

Edited January 1, 2010 by F250

[White99GT]

The ridiculous part about the OHC/ pushrod argument comes from the viewpoint of "heads up" drag racing that is so popular today. The days of 12 and 11 sec smallblocks are gone, they are blase'. I say ridiculous because virtually every heads up class uses power adders. No one bitches about nitrous belching small or big block Chevys being artificially aspirated. The fact is those engines can't pump enough air by themselves to get the performance levels we see today. No it's just because Ford builds stout high tech and efficient base that loves supercharging or turbos somehow that's not worthy. If you put a carb on a funny car engine and run it on gasoline you have reduced the power by 8 or 9 times. Are they lame because they need power adders? Ford has made the supercharged V8 a common sight and people are bitching. A friend of mine has a blown Cobra 'Stang that puts 575hp to the rear wheels and man I tell you that car is fun! The Mod lends itself to ultra high performance why fight it? Play the game and enjoy.

 

This is why NMRA Pure Street is one of my favorite race classes. No high dollar super exotic stuff, just basic build stock displacement N/A setups. N/A 4.6 (.040" over) 4V Mods are going low, low 10s at mid-low 130s in this class, without super light weight either.

[Blue II]

That wouldn't be "easy" or cheap.

We're talking stock 302 Ford.

 

Then you shouldn't be using a 347 package in a stock 302. Work on the heads, manifold and camshaft.

[jpd80]

Anyways, this new 5.0 is pretty stout block designed for forced induction work.

Once people realize these blocks are reliable with enormous boost pressure, the TT hunt will be on.

[xr7g428]

Blue II, Any ideas about the future of the 6.2? I am very interested in an F150 XLT Lariat S'crew with the 6.2. I like to tow my cars in enclosed trailers and I need more than the 5.4 to get the job done.

 

Will there be a 4V version of the 6.2?

[F250]

Then you shouldn't be using a 347 package in a stock 302. Work on the heads, manifold and camshaft.

 

No. the claim was made that the old 5.0L Windsor would easily go to 347...and it will not for the reasons I listed. FRPPs 347 engines use the 8.2 M6010boss302 block.

[theoldwizard]

I am very interested in an F150 XLT Lariat S'crew with the 6.2. I like to tow my cars in enclosed trailers and I need more than the 5.4 to get the job done.

Availability of the 6.2L in an F150 will be "limited". Only certain models (Raptor) and limited volume (in order to meet CAFE). IMHO, if you hauling an enclosed car trailer, an F250 would be a better choice.

 

Will there be a 4V version of the 6.2?

Not likely. Certainly not soon.

[ausrutherford]

Availability of the 6.2L in an F150 will be "limited". Only certain models (Raptor) and limited volume (in order to meet CAFE). IMHO, if you hauling an enclosed car trailer, an F250 would be a better choice.

 

 

Not likely. Certainly not soon.

 

I had heard from that guy on GMI :shades: that it will be offered from the XLT up. Not to say they wont be hard to find (though i hope they arent) but thats what he said.

[jpd80]

Keeping the 6.2 as a premium engine on the F150 guarantees a premium price

as well as encouraging people who really want one to buy the Super Duty.

 

Ford will try to steer people into the Ecoboost V6 ahead of any 6.2 option, CAFE is important.

[ausrutherford]

Keeping the 6.2 as a premium engine on the F150 guarantees a premium price

as well as encouraging people who really want one to buy the Super Duty.

 

Ford will try to steer people into the Ecoboost V6 ahead of any 6.2 option, CAFE is important.

 

I just think offering the 6.2 readily at most levels and many on lots could steal sales from GM's 6.2 which is very hard to find on lots in half ton form.

[jpd80]

Maybe Ford feels the 5.0 F150 can match the GM 1500 trucks everywhere in the mid-upper driving range.

A 6.2 option on the F150 would be nice but may not be as necessary as seems the case.

Edited January 1, 2010 by jpd80

[atvman]

Availability of the 6.2L in an F150 will be "limited". Only certain models (Raptor) and limited volume (in order to meet CAFE). IMHO, if you hauling an enclosed car trailer, an F250 would be a better choice.

See, the thing is though that a lot of casual towers don't want to drive an enormous Superduty every day. If you tow an enclosed car hauler or a large boat on the weekends and you drive your truck unloaded every day during the week, a really capable half ton starts to look pretty good. Driving an F150 around unloaded isn't so bad, but unloaded HD pick-ups really aren't all that pleasant.

 

While I think Ford should push the 5.0L as the volume engine in the F150, having the 6.2L available to those who really want it makes some sense. Remember, Ford already has the capability to install the 6.2L in the F150, any additional volume they can gain by doing so is a positive thing.

Edited January 1, 2010 by atvman

[bossed]

I don't think some are wishing Ford to copy GM engine design. It's just that several of us had hoped that the new 5.0 block would have had the capability to show the benefits (absolute horsepower) of a modern (DOHC) engine over a push rod in-line valve setup when their displacements were somewhat more equal than in the past years. As it is (and as it was with the Mod), the 5L will have to compete with engines over 1L larger in displacement on the street, at the track, and in the pony-car comparisons. It is my sincere hope that the 5.0 has the beans to put LS powered Camaros on the trailor. I kinda went through this back in the old days when the 289 competed with the 327, and the 302 competed with the 350. It is so easy to make a 347 out of a SBF 289/302 that it's a shame Ford didn't offer such an engine in the 65-69 era. You would see a lot more Fords at the classic car cruises during the summer.

 

Now on that I can agree!! :reading:

[bossed]

Now on that I can agree!! :reading:

 

Just to be clear. . . . I LOVE THE COYOTE :happy feet: :happy feet:

[Sizzler]

Just to be clear. . . . I LOVE THE COYOTE :happy feet: :happy feet:

 

because if you don't, you'll be piled on by the flame-bearers....or is that the flaming bears? Whatever, just stay on your feet and don't let them get you on the ground.

[RichardJensen]

just stay on your feet and don't let them get you on the ground.

 

Got any more tired sports cliches? How about "nobody believed in us" or "on any given ______, any team can beat any other team" or "that's why they play the game."

 

Your opinions have been ridiculed by the majority here because they deserve to be ridiculed. Because they amount to, "I don't like the mods and therefore they are bad." None of the arguments you summoned in behalf of your central position hold up to scrutiny from either an economic standpoint or a practical standpoint. A few of them don't even make sense.

[200MPHCOBRA]

Yikes.

 

Look. If the future of Ford V8s was the Boss, the 4.6 would've soldiered on until the Mustang was redesigned to accommodate the Boss.

 

But the Boss, according to multiple sources, is not as fuel efficient as Ford requires, and although Super Duty trucks are CAFE exempt, half tons are not.

 

You will NOT see the Coyote engine replaced by a short deck BOSS or a narrow bore BOSS, because if that was a workable configuration, Ford would've never invested in Coyote to begin with.

 

And I'll say this one more time for emphasis:

 

Ford would not have invested this much in the Coyote as a stop-gap.

 

Period. Exclamation point, even. End. Of. Story.

 

I'm not a mod hater, have a couple myself, but I'm sure you'll agree that Ford obviously spent far more money developing and producing the "clean sheet"6.2, and the machinery to manufacture it. The 5.0 was a compromise in the fact that keeping the bore spacing the same as the 4.6 saved money on production equipment, and the valve train layout also. Obviously finding the extra airflow in the port layout made the compromise acceptable to the powers that be. Spray bore will be the last bit of bore diameter left to get from this design. Bulkhead width was also supposedly increased, which means something had to decrease if the bore centers stayed the same. My guess is the cheeks of the crank got thinner, as the bearing widths were already pushed to the edge of what was by many considered "comfortable". Everyone is aware of what these motors can do under boost, and that the sturdy block architecture allows it to be utilized, but we can all agree that more bore area would lend itself to even more power potential of a already capable design. I guess what I am trying to say is I can see truth in both sides of this discussion. I'm happy, but I wish for what could have been.

[Extreme4x4]

See, the thing is though that a lot of casual towers don't want to drive an enormous Superduty every day. If you tow an enclosed car hauler or a large boat on the weekends and you drive your truck unloaded every day during the week, a really capable half ton starts to look pretty good. Driving an F150 around unloaded isn't so bad, but unloaded HD pick-ups really aren't all that pleasant.

 

While I think Ford should push the 5.0L as the volume engine in the F150, having the 6.2L available to those who really want it makes some sense. Remember, Ford already has the capability to install the 6.2L in the F150, any additional volume they can gain by doing so is a positive thing.

 

A couple of points to address in this one.

 

First, I am a stay-at-home Mom, and my 2008 F250 4x4 CrewCab V10 Lariat is my daily driver. Before you talk about how bad a modern 3/4 ton truck drives, and rides............. drive one on a daily basis. You will be very surprised. I know I was. The truck is extremely composed, and is actually very comfortable. While you do get a bit of bounce on rough roads, it is not nearly as bad as you would expect.

 

I very much enjoy using my SD on a daily basis. Due to its size, I just park on the outskirts of the parking lots. Heck, the extra walking will do anyone good.

 

That said, to all who are not happy that there will not be 6.2 F150's in every driveway.............. you can blame your government for that. F150 mileage is part of Fords CAFE, thus, they WILL limit its availability. While the 6.2 may get similar mileage to the 5.4L, CAFE standards are doing nothing but going up. Thus, any incremental improvement in mileage, is needed. Thus the new 5.0 and the Ecoboost 3.5L going in the F150.

 

Atv, if you aren't planning on towing real heavy (10K), you might wait to see what the Ecoboost will be capable of, in the F150. The low end torque line (there is no "curve"), great hp, plus much better fuel economy, might just be the ticket.

 

Frankly, the Ecoboost F150 is probably the variation that interests me the most. It will be exciting to see what that engine is capable of, in a truck application.

[RichardJensen]

I'm not a mod hater, have a couple myself, but I'm sure you'll agree that Ford obviously spent far more money developing and producing the "clean sheet"6.2, and the machinery to manufacture it. The 5.0 was a compromise in the fact that keeping the bore spacing the same as the 4.6 saved money on production equipment, and the valve train layout also. Obviously finding the extra airflow in the port layout made the compromise acceptable to the powers that be. Spray bore will be the last bit of bore diameter left to get from this design. Bulkhead width was also supposedly increased, which means something had to decrease if the bore centers stayed the same. My guess is the cheeks of the crank got thinner, as the bearing widths were already pushed to the edge of what was by many considered "comfortable". Everyone is aware of what these motors can do under boost, and that the sturdy block architecture allows it to be utilized, but we can all agree that more bore area would lend itself to even more power potential of a already capable design. I guess what I am trying to say is I can see truth in both sides of this discussion. I'm happy, but I wish for what could have been.

Here's the rub:

 

To assume that the Mod was kept to save costs, is to assume that there would be no cost savings in having one block architecture with short and tall deck variants, or even more so, a single deck height and greater or smaller bores/strokes.

 

It would be undoubtedly cheaper for Ford to scrap the mod and use the Boss block for every V8 application.

 

But Ford did not do this. This begs the question.

 

One can assume that Ford engineered the 5.0L as a stopgap until the front subframe of the Mustang can be revised to accept the Boss.

 

But such an argument ignores the reality that there are perhaps 40-50k V8 Mustangs sold in any given year, vs. the sizable number of V8 F150s.

 

It would be decidedly cheaper to adapt the Mustang subframe to the Boss's length, as opposed to engineering a totally new block/head assembly that was based on the Mod.

 

Why?

 

Because the volume savings on a single V8 block would easily pay for the cost of adapting the Mustang subframe. One V8 block used in several hundred thousand units per year vs. two blocks being used in perhaps 200k vs. 150k proportions (although we don't know how the volume mix will shake out on the F-Series.)

 

So there was some reason besides cost savings that drove the 5.0L.

 

My belief is that the reason was what the old wizard suggested: the Boss is not a fuel efficient engine. That would explain why its development was shelved once, and why the Coyote project was brought online -after- the Boss project was shelved.

 

-------

 

Again, any argument regarding cost savings can be made much more effectively if Ford used a single engine architecture. Cost savings did not motivate the choice of the mod's dimensions over the Boss block, some unrevealed shortcoming of the Boss also motivated this choice.

[theoldwizard]

...Driving an F150 around unloaded isn't so bad, but unloaded HD pick-ups really aren't all that pleasant. ... Remember, Ford already has the capability to install the 6.2L in the F150, any additional volume they can gain by doing so is a positive thing.

If you have the money, I'm sure you'll be able to buy one. Might come with some options (decals) that you would not normally order.

[theoldwizard]

My belief is that the reason was what the old wizard suggested: the Boss is not a fuel efficient engine.

Now before folks go nuts on the "poor fuel economy" of the BOSS, it is much better than the 6.8L V10 ! This was its primary goal, and it succeeded.

 

That would explain why its development was shelved once, and why the Coyote project was brought online -after- the Boss project was shelved.

I believe that the Coyote was started after the BOSS came back to life the second time !