It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
trying to figure out the powerband of a 470 hp 5.0L just makes it seem out of reach in a low(ish) priced car. BMW's 4.0L V8 in the M3 makes 414 hp @ 8300 rpm. the 5.0L V8 makes 412 hp @ 6500 rpm. I hate talking in hp/L but the 103 hp/L engine peaks at 8300 and the 82 hp/L engine peaks at 6500. doing ricer math the 470 hp 5.0L would be about 94 hp/L, about smack dab in the middle. safe to say a power peak around 7400 rpm would be needed? I just don't see a production V8 in a $30,000 car revving out over 7500 rpm. its gonna have to have a stout bottom end. not to mention the piston speeds of a ~3.6" stroke at 7500 rpm is pretty high. that is right there with what an LS7 with its 4" stroke is hitting at 7000 rpm and look at the bottom end that needs. one that is NOT cheap to mass produce.
/ricer math
my opinion: this engine won't see over 450 hp. I doubt it'll be able to match the power of GM's upcoming genV V8s. Ford has engineers much more intelligent than I am. they aren't gonna sit still and watch GM steamroll them in power. I want to know what they have in the pipeline!
/ricer math
my opinion: this engine won't see over 450 hp. I doubt it'll be able to match the power of GM's upcoming genV V8s. Ford has engineers much more intelligent than I am. they aren't gonna sit still and watch GM steamroll them in power. I want to know what they have in the pipeline!
Ford have two V8 engine lines. If they can use the 6.2L in their car lines, why wouldn't they. Surely, it would be far cheaper than having to coax more power from Coyote? Then there's also the possibility of using the Ecoboost V6... so they aren't exactly short on options. Coyote is not the "be-all, end-all" for them.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 948
From: Stroudsburg, PA
Well, the Coyote does have 4-bolt mains (not 6 as per LSX)... so there would have to be some ceiling on even higher rpms.
Ford have two V8 engine lines. If they can use the 6.2L in their car lines, why wouldn't they. Surely, it would be far cheaper than having to coax more power from Coyote? Then there's also the possibility of using the Ecoboost V6... so they aren't exactly short on options. Coyote is not the "be-all, end-all" for them.
Ford have two V8 engine lines. If they can use the 6.2L in their car lines, why wouldn't they. Surely, it would be far cheaper than having to coax more power from Coyote? Then there's also the possibility of using the Ecoboost V6... so they aren't exactly short on options. Coyote is not the "be-all, end-all" for them.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Not to mention the 6.2L has it's own packaging concerns (length, width) from the rumors I hear - it's like a big-block version of Coyote. I don't know if all of these issues will apply to future generation Mustangs (and other possible vehicles) though?
Ifs, buts, maybes. We shall see.
Agree with all your other points, too.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Words from Coyote's core engine designer...
The aluminium 32-valve Coyote V8 is lighter than the cast-iron 5.4 and is expected to offer better fuel efficiency, refinement and mid-range response.
Ford's core engine designer for the Coyote, Gary Liimatta, told Drive at the 2010 Detroit motor show that the V8, a larger version of a 4.6-litre first seen in 1991, has reached its maximum capacity limit at 5.0 litres.
That means extracting more performance from the engine involves either tweaking the engine to produce its peak power at higher revs or, for the best performance enhancement, using a supercharger.
Liimater says he understands the Coyote engine is a tight fit in the Falcon's engine bay, which would rule out the addition of a turbocharging system. A supercharger would occupy less room because it would nestle comfortable in the middle of the V-shaped engine.
"Currently it really is a class-leading power - producing 400hp from 5.0 litres," he says. "If we wanted to boost [the power] again, we've protected it for direct injection and you could look at other methods for boosting.
"And, from an engine designer's point of view, supercharging offers a very nice package for the V8 if you are looking for the best way of lifting the engine's performance.
http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0115-mb3u.html
Ford's core engine designer for the Coyote, Gary Liimatta, told Drive at the 2010 Detroit motor show that the V8, a larger version of a 4.6-litre first seen in 1991, has reached its maximum capacity limit at 5.0 litres.
That means extracting more performance from the engine involves either tweaking the engine to produce its peak power at higher revs or, for the best performance enhancement, using a supercharger.
Liimater says he understands the Coyote engine is a tight fit in the Falcon's engine bay, which would rule out the addition of a turbocharging system. A supercharger would occupy less room because it would nestle comfortable in the middle of the V-shaped engine.
"Currently it really is a class-leading power - producing 400hp from 5.0 litres," he says. "If we wanted to boost [the power] again, we've protected it for direct injection and you could look at other methods for boosting.
"And, from an engine designer's point of view, supercharging offers a very nice package for the V8 if you are looking for the best way of lifting the engine's performance.
http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0115-mb3u.html
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Really? I distinctly remember reading 4-bolt mains on more than one occasion in this thread... like here...
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/18/i...mustangs-5-0/6
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/d...-v8/#continued
Would be good to see the proof with images. I thought I did see 4 bolt mains myself on one of the images.
EDIT: They certainly look like 4-bolt mains to me...
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/18/i...mustangs-5-0/6
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/d...-v8/#continued
Would be good to see the proof with images. I thought I did see 4 bolt mains myself on one of the images.
EDIT: They certainly look like 4-bolt mains to me...
Last edited by SSbaby; Jan 14, 2010 at 11:00 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Everyone still reading this thread knows that the big advantage of OHV over OHC is greater displacement in the same space.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Really? I distinctly remember reading 4-bolt mains on more than one occasion in this thread... like here...
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/18/i...mustangs-5-0/6
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/d...-v8/#continued
Would be good to see the proof with images. I thought I did see 4 bolt mains myself on one of the images.
EDIT: They certainly look like 4-bolt mains to me...
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/18/i...mustangs-5-0/6
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/d...-v8/#continued
Would be good to see the proof with images. I thought I did see 4 bolt mains myself on one of the images.
EDIT: They certainly look like 4-bolt mains to me...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Really? I distinctly remember reading 4-bolt mains on more than one occasion in this thread... like here...
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/18/i...mustangs-5-0/6
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/d...-v8/#continued
Would be good to see the proof with images. I thought I did see 4 bolt mains myself on one of the images.
EDIT: They certainly look like 4-bolt mains to me...
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/18/i...mustangs-5-0/6
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/d...-v8/#continued
Would be good to see the proof with images. I thought I did see 4 bolt mains myself on one of the images.
EDIT: They certainly look like 4-bolt mains to me...
Last edited by 96_Camaro_B4C; Jan 14, 2010 at 11:57 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I guess I had a brief look and accepted the comments in print. 
The following is the LS1 version... it's quite obvious to me from that pic they run the 6-bolt mains.
Anyway, Ford definitely chose a good bottom end for Coyote, it seems. Just as well as it will take to boosted applications in future. Here I was thinking Ford 'cheapened out'.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
http://www.thecarconnection.com/mart...rect-injection
Thought this was a pretty neat article on Ford's stance with not having D.I. on the new V8.
Thought this was a pretty neat article on Ford's stance with not having D.I. on the new V8.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
http://www.thecarconnection.com/mart...rect-injection
Thought this was a pretty neat article on Ford's stance with not having D.I. on the new V8.
Thought this was a pretty neat article on Ford's stance with not having D.I. on the new V8.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
I know that question wasn't directed at me. But assuming these horses are all healthy (I don't have a reason not to), the results sort of speak for themselves.
In a careful reading, I don't see Ford actually saying that PI gets better power than DI, but that in a real world of limited budgets, they get more bang from fully optimizing a PI engine than from spending the equivalent on DI. And look at it; the Ford gets better power and torque, while matching fuel economy of the GM DI. Where DI really helps, it seems to me, is with a turbo, where knock control is much more critical.
In a careful reading, I don't see Ford actually saying that PI gets better power than DI, but that in a real world of limited budgets, they get more bang from fully optimizing a PI engine than from spending the equivalent on DI. And look at it; the Ford gets better power and torque, while matching fuel economy of the GM DI. Where DI really helps, it seems to me, is with a turbo, where knock control is much more critical.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I know that question wasn't directed at me. But assuming these horses are all healthy (I don't have a reason not to), the results sort of speak for themselves.
In a careful reading, I don't see Ford actually saying that PI gets better power than DI, but that in a real world of limited budgets, they get more bang from fully optimizing a PI engine than from spending the equivalent on DI. And look at it; the Ford gets better power and torque, while matching fuel economy of the GM DI. Where DI really helps, it seems to me, is with a turbo, where knock control is much more critical.
In a careful reading, I don't see Ford actually saying that PI gets better power than DI, but that in a real world of limited budgets, they get more bang from fully optimizing a PI engine than from spending the equivalent on DI. And look at it; the Ford gets better power and torque, while matching fuel economy of the GM DI. Where DI really helps, it seems to me, is with a turbo, where knock control is much more critical.
All sorts of rumors being reported on the GenV gaining an extra 20-25% in power and 10% improvement in torque. Which has got me thinking (and the reason why I responded to bossco's post
)... is there any room left in the 4V head for the DI injectors? Would that be the main issue for the engineers? It sounds like the injected fuel might enter the cylinder from a less than ideal position. Comparatively speaking, DI seems to be less of an issue for a 2V OHV head like GM's LSX.
