coupe3w Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 The turbos have to be packed close to the exhaust manifold to meet emission regulations. The arrangement in the Cobra Jet concept will never make production. Really, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I agree, reverse flow the son of a gun and take over the world. What a coup d'etat that would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) The turbos have to be packed close to the exhaust manifold to meet emission regulations. The arrangement in the Cobra Jet concept will never make production. Look where the exhaust pipe location and routing through the body, the position of the turbos up front. The exhaust pipe would have to run in the front wheel well between the strut and lower control arm. Edited June 22, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 The turbo (single) is on the top in the valley, I'm not exactly sure where though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 V8s are 90degrees between banks, V6s are 60 degrees between banks. thus V8s are wider than V6s that hurts because turbos sit on the outside of the engine which can make V8s even wider. Strangely, the DOHC V6 can actually cause more issues with fitment than the DOHC V8. While the V angle is wider in the V8 it places the heads lower and the exhaust manifolds under the heads where as the V6 narrower angle raises the heads and brings the exhausts closer to the inner aprons, as Ford Aust. discovered when contemplating fitting the V6 into Falcon. I have a hunch that a production TT V6 would have the turbos tucked under the engine more than possible with the EB 3.5 V6, purely because the heads are more laid over.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Look where the exhaust pipe location and routing through the body, the position of the turbos up front. The exhaust pipe would have to run in the front wheel well between the strut and lower control arm. There are lots of single and TT equipped Mustangs with Coyote running on the streets. I don't see a problem having Ford do it from the factory. It's not rocket science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 There are lots of single and TT equipped Mustangs with Coyote running on the streets. I don't see a problem having Ford do it from the factory. It's not rocket science. Slapping a turbo on aftermarket is a LOT different than assembling them that way from the factory. Packaging is much more important when installing in a factory since the engine has to go in all together. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I have a hunch that a production TT V6 would have the turbos tucked under the engine more than possible with the EB 3.5 V6, purely because the heads are more laid over.... Not sure how much closer they can get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Here's the thing though, there's allegedly been mules seen testing around town with turbocharged 5.0 engines in them. Turbocharged <> EcoBoost ! EcoBoost = DI + turbocharging. Unless of course the marketeers can convince the customers that it does ! (That's funny, because US Ford Engineers tried to convince management to do port injection + turbocharging instead of DI + turbocharging before the original EcoBoost Taurus SHO came out !) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Slapping a turbo on aftermarket is a LOT different than assembling them that way from the factory. Packaging is much more important when installing in a factory since the engine has to go in all together. That's why the Lincoln LS never got the 4.6L DOHC Mod - it fit in the engine bay but it could not be installed from the bottom on the assembly line due to a suspension component. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 DI was planned and incorporated into the 5.0L V8's design, as well as supercharging. Mention of both starts in paragraph 15 of this link. The new engine's point of departure was the existing 4.6 modular architecture. It would not use EcoBoost- Ford's combination of direct fuel injection and turbocharging-but it would be engineered to withstand forced induction and to package EcoBoost fuel injectors in the future. When you tell and engineer, especially on a very short deadline (like the Coyote project), we are not going to do "X" , but "cover" for it, that objectives drops to the bottom of the list of objectives and more likely, completely off the list ! I think turbocharging would be a packaging nightmare for the Mustang. A DI supercharged 5.0L could be made very powerful and fit right in. DI, by itself, adds very little, if ANY "power" ! DI's "big win" is in EU where they do not test for emission during extended higher speed operation allowing, what the EPA/CARB call "defeat devices" (lean cruise), for better fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 That's why the Lincoln LS never got the 4.6L DOHC Mod - it fit in the engine bay but it could not be installed from the bottom on the assembly line due to a suspension component. Wouldn't this be a niche market car and the exhaust could be assembled off line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I remember the engineer in charge of Coyote saying they saved about $50/car by not having to use DI Sounds low, but that is also likely FoMoCo COST ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 The turbos have to be packed close to the exhaust manifold to meet emission regulations. The arrangement in the Cobra Jet concept will never make production. Really, why? The front cats won't get enough heat to work properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Wouldn't this be a niche market car and the exhaust could be assembled off line? Possibly but it makes the business case that much harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Possibly but it makes the business case that much harder. So is SC more cost effective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 So is SC more cost effective? I think so, especially since there are numerous aftermarket conversions already available and it doesn't require DI. But I think it would be limited to 700 hp or so. 5.0EB would have more potential, although I'm not sure why you'd need more than 725. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 The turbos have to be packed close to the exhaust manifold to meet emission regulations. The arrangement in the Cobra Jet concept will never make production. Really, why? The front cats won't get enough heat to work properly. From what I've read, the regulations are very tough on start-up emissions from a cold engine. So the cats need to be as closed as possible to the exhaust manifold in order to heat up (and catalyze) quickly. Adding more metal, like a turbine, between the manifold and the cats slows this process down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Keep in mind that turbos don't necessarily have to be in the engine compartment. I've seen turbo cars with the turbos under the rear bumper. True that doubles exhaust tubing, but you get the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Keep in mind that turbos don't necessarily have to be in the engine compartment. I've seen turbo cars with the turbos under the rear bumper. True that doubles exhaust tubing, but you get the point. And if I ever eat Mexican food, they could put the turbo under the driver's seat where there would be plenty of exhaust fumes to propel the turbo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnLover Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 I just wish it would happen already and go in the 2018 Navigator, maybe debut in there..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vujo91@gmail.com Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I think turbocharging would be a packaging nightmare for the Mustang. A DI supercharged 5.0L could be made very powerful and fit right in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.