edselford Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Ford needs to simplify and also enhance the powertrains for the future F150. The trend on your ecoboost 4 cylinder engines have been, longer stroke and smaller bores, I assume to make the engines absolutely bullet proof with longer service life added! Why not do the same for the naturally asperated 5.0 V8? Take the bore back to 90.2 mm like the 4.6 V8 and increase the stroke to something like 98.7 mm. Deck height could go back to a round 256 mm like the old 5.4 V8 to give a rod to stroke ratio of about 1.77 to 1. This would make a better truck engine than the current Mustang based 5.0 V8 and at a 90.2 mm bore , the cylinders could be surrounded by water for improved high load cooling and durability! If more torque is required, do a 108 mm stroke version of this engine for something like 5.5 or 5.6 liters . Try giving the customer Ecoboost torque without the turbos! Your comments are welcome edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Why? I'm sure Ford went down that route during development and decided its not worth it. Not to mention you'd have to develop completely new heads for it and it wouldn't be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 To Shermonator98 If you go back and look at the original modular 4.6 / 5.4 V8 , there have been many iterations of the 4 valve double over head cam cylinder heads for both the 4.6, the 5.4 and the 5.8 engines most with a 90.2 mm bores. In every case, the focus has been on improving horsepower with less concern for low end torque and long term durability. My suggestion is to refocus the future engine on F150 pickups where buyers want best low end torque, long term durability even when towing. Make the powertrain less sensitive to duty cycle and bulletproof its ability to make it to 200,000 miles without any major engine repairs. Think of what an F150 did years ago with a 300 I 6 or a 360/390 FE V8. The customer of today are asking for what their dad’s had without all the twin turbos, stop/start, displacement on demand and 0W- oils that leave no room for error in terms of maintenance schedules. If Ford has already looked at these things and decided not to take the trip, it might be to protect the Ecoboost solutions already in place. edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 12 hours ago, edselford said: The customer of today are asking for what their dad’s had without all the twin turbos, stop/start, displacement on demand and 0W- oils that leave no room for error in terms of maintenance schedules. If Ford has already looked at these things and decided not to take the trip, it might be to protect the Ecoboost solutions already in place. What people are bitching about online and what people are actually buying are completely different things. The other things your talking about are being driven by Government requirements for emissions and fuel economy. Your other suggestions would make the engine physically larger and heavier with out much improvement over the performance that is already coming out of the coyote. But then again your a self proclaimed expert that knows more then all the Ford engineers that work on their V8 program and all the associated costs and risk analyses they did to do what they did. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 I am not a self proclaimed expert by any stretch of the imagination! I have over forty years of experience with gas engines, transmissions and four wheel drive systems . I watched and participated in the introduction of new technologies that sometime succeed and at other times fail in all these three areas. edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 On 2/5/2026 at 12:24 PM, edselford said: I am not a self proclaimed expert by any stretch of the imagination! I have over forty years of experience with gas engines, transmissions and four wheel drive systems . I watched and participated in the introduction of new technologies that sometime succeed and at other times fail in all these three areas. edselford But your making assumptions about choices Ford made with their engine program and are suggesting they could have done better without actually know what the goals and constraints of that program was. You could possibly do something better with unlimited time and money, but that doesn't exist in a real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 I give the engine people at Ford tremendous credit for creating the Coyote V8, given the original constraint that Jim Clark was working with. He was required to built an engine that would power both future F150’s and fit into transverse front wheel luxury Lincolns. This limited the bore centers to about 100 mm and compromised how large the engine family could become on the other end. Nevertheless, ford created a great engine with the current 5 liter utilizing the transfer lines designed for 100 mm bore centers and probably saved the Mustang platform along the way. Yes, you may be right that taking the trip to smaller bores and longer strokes may not be worth it but I am sure there is someone at Ford that has studied exactly that if for no other reason than understanding what other OEM’s might just do! rdselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) On 2/6/2026 at 4:42 PM, edselford said: I give the engine people at Ford tremendous credit for creating the Coyote V8, given the original constraint that Jim Clark was working with. He was required to built an engine that would power both future F150’s and fit into transverse front wheel luxury Lincolns. This limited the bore centers to about 100 mm and compromised how large the engine family could become on the other end. Except that the 5.0L Coyote never was installed transversely in any Ford product.....closest was the 4.6L In Tech modular V8 that was under the hood of the 9th Generation Lincoln Continental and it was detuned so as not to destroy the transaxle. ADD ON: If I remember correctly, it also had a "small flange" bellhousing to bolt to the transaxle since there was not enough room...really "orphaned" the motor to just one style application. Edited Saturday at 11:08 PM by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 22 hours ago, edselford said: I give the engine people at Ford tremendous credit for creating the Coyote V8, given the original constraint that Jim Clark was working with. He was required to built an engine that would power both future F150’s and fit into transverse front wheel luxury Lincolns. This limited the bore centers to about 100 mm and compromised how large the engine family could become on the other end. Nevertheless, ford created a great engine with the current 5 liter utilizing the transfer lines designed for 100 mm bore centers and probably saved the Mustang platform along the way. Yes, you may be right that taking the trip to smaller bores and longer strokes may not be worth it but I am sure there is someone at Ford that has studied exactly that if for no other reason than understanding what other OEM’s might just do! rdselford HP has far more advertising oomph than torque and more low end torque usually lowers peak hp. There is probably an emissions advantage as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted Sunday at 08:55 PM Author Share Posted Sunday at 08:55 PM To twintirnados If you do the research, there were many very good people at GM and Ford that did not want to take the front wheel drive trip. I think Roger Smith at GM thought everything should be front wheel drive even luxury cars and full size sedans. This is how we got the front wheel drive Buick Electra and the corresponding Cadillacs like the Deville and Sevilles. Ford had to follow but wisely stopped at the Taurus size on front wheel drive and derived the Lincoln FWD from the Taurus. To be competitive with Cadillac,ford had to do a front wheel drive Continental V8, Intec 4.6 liter which did not sell very well and never got even close to the anticipated volume. Again, hind sight is 20/20 and that why the replacement of the 302 and 351W V8 engines was done with 100mm bore centers with the 4.6 and 5.4 V 8’s. The group that redesigned the 4.6 into the current 5.0, that replaced both the 4.6. & 5.4, were able to use the 4.6 block transfer lines with no change to bore center or deck height, a major accomplishment! Expect a refined 5.0 V8 to be in F150 for a long time probably with a more efficient hybrid drivetrain than the current Powerboost as an option. edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted Monday at 11:37 PM Share Posted Monday at 11:37 PM On 2/8/2026 at 3:55 PM, edselford said: To twintirnados If you do the research, there were many very good people at GM and Ford that did not want to take the front wheel drive trip. I think Roger Smith at GM thought everything should be front wheel drive even luxury cars and full size sedans. This is how we got the front wheel drive Buick Electra and the corresponding Cadillacs like the Deville and Sevilles. Ford had to follow but wisely stopped at the Taurus size on front wheel drive and derived the Lincoln FWD from the Taurus. To be competitive with Cadillac,ford had to do a front wheel drive Continental V8, Intec 4.6 liter which did not sell very well and never got even close to the anticipated volume. Again, hind sight is 20/20 and that why the replacement of the 302 and 351W V8 engines was done with 100mm bore centers with the 4.6 and 5.4 V 8’s. The group that redesigned the 4.6 into the current 5.0, that replaced both the 4.6. & 5.4, were able to use the 4.6 block transfer lines with no change to bore center or deck height, a major accomplishment! Expect a refined 5.0 V8 to be in F150 for a long time probably with a more efficient hybrid drivetrain than the current Powerboost as an option. edselford Translation: The Coyote 5.0L V8 was never designed for a Front Wheel Drive based vehicle hence it was never installed in one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted Tuesday at 05:26 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 05:26 PM 17 hours ago, twintornados said: Translation: The Coyote 5.0L V8 was never designed for a Front Wheel Drive based vehicle hence it was never installed in one. The modular V8 hasn't been in a FWD configuration since 2002 either 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted 8 hours ago Author Share Posted 8 hours ago Yes, the 5.0 liter was not designed for a front wheel drive Lincoln Contenental. Its predecessor, the 4.6 32 valve was but along the way both Ford and GM realized putting too much power through the front wheels was not such a good idea. This is especially true if the vehicle is just front wheel drive and not all wheel drive! The best example I had was a 2000 model year Seville. Northstar 4.6 V8, 4 speed automatic, 300 hp automatic. An almost perfect car except for torque steer at wide open throttle! GM and Ford took the trip down the fwd path where Mercedes and BMW did not on luxury high horsepower sedans! Bottom line is the 5.0 has 100mm bore centers because of the need to apply its predecessor the 4.6 V8 modular V8 to front wheel drive. It’s somewhat like the EV mess we have now. GM, Ford and Stalantus jumped on the opportunity to switch over to EV vehicles and invested billions to do it as fast as they could. Well, the market, the customers and the support network were not ready so now all three are taking their turns writing down billions of new assets they are probably never going to use! Just remember, the people making the decisions really try to make the right decisions based upon the information they have. Unfortunately, sometimes the info is someone’s best estimate and it might be wrong. edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted 8 hours ago Share Posted 8 hours ago On 2/6/2026 at 4:42 PM, edselford said: I give the engine people at Ford tremendous credit for creating the Coyote V8, given the original constraint that Jim Clark was working with. He was required to built an engine that would power both future F150’s and fit into transverse front wheel luxury Lincolns. This limited the bore centers to about 100 mm and compromised how large the engine family could become on the other end. 4 minutes ago, edselford said: Yes, the 5.0 liter was not designed for a front wheel drive Lincoln Contenental. . 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.