DaSFGiants4Life

Yup I have this issue ALWAYS when getting the link for this website

2012GT

Yes, the heads are completely new and one of the best designs ever in my opinion for a stock head.---- The block however has taken many charcacteristics from the 4.6/ 5.4 (hence the term modular so the same machines can build different c.i engines with the same machinery for cost effectiveness) . Lower block width dimensions are identical with the 4.6/ 5.0. (Ford saved alot of money here). Bore spacing (not cylinder bore) is identical (100mm or 3.937) with the 4.6, 5.0 and 5.4. Deck height is identical between the 4.6 and 5.0 (227mm). The connecting rod length is also the same with the 4.6 and 5.0 (nothing to do with the block). Crankshaft journal sizes are identical as the 4.6. The aluminum bearing shells are identical to the 4.6. Engine mounts and bellhousing bolt patterns are also identical to the 4.6 (great news for 96-2010 owners). There are many new awesome traits for the 5.0 but to say it is a completely new blue print is incorrect.

11SHELBYGT500

There's a no tune #8 failure or is that b.s.?

fdjizm

Sorry see if you can get to this one...
http://www.trinituner.com/v3/forums/...p?f=2&t=359998

SvT-Rich

He said he clicked it on accident.

slidejob

I don't believe the claim of gunking the cooling system, as others on that thread agree. Myself & many fellow racers that I compete against have used this product for years with no issues. Believe want you want, but for a quick cooling system mod that could possibly save a motor I don't see a down side.

cdynaco

OK, but what does that have to do with cooling? Nothing you listed shows anything common about coolant flow with the 4.6 engine. How can it be an "inherent issue of this block" dating back to the old 4.6 DOHC?

That Ford was paying attention to cooling the higher compression 5.0 is evident by the oil squirters and the larger oil capacity.

The jury is still out as to the cause or causes.

Double-EDad

Sorry if this has already been asked, but as a 6AT owner I'd like to know how many of the tuned #8 failures were in Automatic-equipped cars. I can say 1st hand that my current engine (connected to a 6AT) doesn't get wound nearly as much as I did with my 2011 6MT GT.

In normal driving the auto just upshifts more quickly than I ever would when I was shifting my own gears on the '11, so my hypothesis is that there are very few (if not zero) #8 failures on tuned 6AT cars.

Can someone out there prove me wrong? Maybe this is wishful thinking because i'd REALLY like to quicken the shifts on my 6AT and a proper tune would accomplish that and more.

Rather B.Blown

Was just perusing youtube, and came across this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohgSb...eature=related

But the next vid that came up of the same car is the one that caught my attention...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RejeR_KMmJI&NR=1

Wonder if it was a N/A or a S/Ced version? I assume S/Ced with that speed, but that would have also been an FRPP S/C and calibration unless it was worked on after it left SAI. Just thought it was interesting and would be curious to know if it was #8 that let go.

orgchem

I'm wondering the same thing.

99mstng

very interesting videos . . . that guy was not having any luck that day

going for broke

I'm sure they could give you a tune that alters only the trans.

RedCandy5.0

I think every tuner is adjusting their tunes. Im sure in the end all tunes will be equal in most aspects. Lund re did my street tune to make is safer. Air Fuel its commanded Widebands it targets and corrects to +-1% of target which is .84 lambda. Spark is Safe. KS is stock.