First 2011 5.0 pics leaked on Mustang Heaven
Team Mustang Source
Joined: October 13, 2004
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
Cobra R Member
Joined: September 11, 2009
Posts: 1,776
Likes: 0
Some of you need a refresh over at the mustang build site... or just try 
These rims are an 18'' option on the 2010 GT for $495
And part of the 2010 v6 pony package (which is at $995)
They've been around for a long time now...
These rims are an 18'' option on the 2010 GT for $495
And part of the 2010 v6 pony package (which is at $995)
They've been around for a long time now...
Cobra Member
Joined: September 9, 2009
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
From: Tulsa OK
meh...i think ill be the only one in this thread and say i like the way it looks in the spy pics better. but those intake runners are nice 
. is it me or does it look like the valve covers have plastic over them?
. is it me or does it look like the valve covers have plastic over them?
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Direct Acting Mechanical Bucket - IIRC instead of having followers like the MOD motor uses, the coyote's cams are postioned directly atop the valves and transfer the cam's motion to a bucket lifter over the valve. It allows a more compact valvetrain and reduced complextiy, the latter of which allows the engine to safely rev higher (possibly due to less mass as well, but that all depends on how the MOD's valvetrain was setup. the followers may have presented less mass at the valvestem???).
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Direct Acting Mechanical Bucket - IIRC instead of having followers like the MOD motor uses, the coyote's cams are postioned directly atop the valves and transfer the cam's motion to a bucket lifter over the valve. It allows a more compact valvetrain and reduced complextiy, the latter of which allows the engine to safely rev higher (possibly due to less mass as well, but that all depends on how the MOD's valvetrain was setup. the followers may have presented less mass at the valvestem???).
Merry Christmas.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: October 12, 2009
Posts: 963
Likes: 2
From: New Orleans, LA
http://www.mustangheaven.com/2009/20...-profile-view/
Sorry Branman!
For those that haven't seen in the 412hp thread. Thoughts? Engine looks great. I don't care for the font on the badge.
Sorry Branman!
For those that haven't seen in the 412hp thread. Thoughts? Engine looks great. I don't care for the font on the badge.
Now the wait really stinks...lol
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 2,298
Likes: 4
From: Tampa FL
Direct Acting Mechanical Bucket - IIRC instead of having followers like the MOD motor uses, the coyote's cams are postioned directly atop the valves and transfer the cam's motion to a bucket lifter over the valve. It allows a more compact valvetrain and reduced complextiy, the latter of which allows the engine to safely rev higher (possibly due to less mass as well, but that all depends on how the MOD's valvetrain was setup. the followers may have presented less mass at the valvestem???).
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
does anybody have a shot of the 4.6 3v at the same angle? It would be nice to make a size comparison. Also any idea on the weight?
I've heard unsubstantiated rumors of 500+ pounds, but being that the 4.6 3v was 420-440 lbs dressed, I'm filing it under B/S.
I've heard unsubstantiated rumors of 500+ pounds, but being that the 4.6 3v was 420-440 lbs dressed, I'm filing it under B/S.
Cobra R Member
Joined: September 11, 2009
Posts: 1,776
Likes: 0
this is the best one I found.
And then 20 years ago
1991 5.0
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 3,738
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
We get it.
I agree with you that a positive displacement supercharger nestled in the valley between the rows of cylinders looks badass, but the Mustang GT doesn't offer a factory-supercharged V8. Therefore, I'm glad Ford designed something tasteful yet aggressive to clean up the clutter that plagued the Mustang GT V8's of yesterday.
I agree with you that a positive displacement supercharger nestled in the valley between the rows of cylinders looks badass, but the Mustang GT doesn't offer a factory-supercharged V8. Therefore, I'm glad Ford designed something tasteful yet aggressive to clean up the clutter that plagued the Mustang GT V8's of yesterday.
Post *****
Joined: December 14, 2007
Posts: 19,953
Likes: 4
From: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Originally Posted by PTRocks
WOW! You can see the lower frame rails on both side of the engine. There's actually room to reach around the heads. Long time since that's been possible.
It's the DAMB lifters. Eh take up less space than roller finger followers and don't afraid of anything.
Direct Acting Mechanical Bucket - IIRC instead of having followers like the MOD motor uses, the coyote's cams are postioned directly atop the valves and transfer the cam's motion to a bucket lifter over the valve. It allows a more compact valvetrain and reduced complextiy, the latter of which allows the engine to safely rev higher (possibly due to less mass as well, but that all depends on how the MOD's valvetrain was setup. the followers may have presented less mass at the valvestem???).
Direct Acting Mechanical Bucket - IIRC instead of having followers like the MOD motor uses, the coyote's cams are postioned directly atop the valves and transfer the cam's motion to a bucket lifter over the valve. It allows a more compact valvetrain and reduced complextiy, the latter of which allows the engine to safely rev higher (possibly due to less mass as well, but that all depends on how the MOD's valvetrain was setup. the followers may have presented less mass at the valvestem???).
While eliminating roller followers might - but not necessarily - reduce the height of the cam tower, the 4V would now have a cam directly on top of both the intake & exhaust valve bank - which widens the cam tower - and if it was the same block as the 4.6 you would now be closer to the body.
Notice the difference in width of the head between the 4.6 3V and the 4.6 4V:
That's why the 3V SOHC was so ingenious (although you lose the ability for the new iVCT).
Last edited by cdynaco; Dec 25, 2009 at 01:32 PM.
Love it!! Looks like a winner to me!!!
FR500 Member
Joined: July 1, 2008
Posts: 3,352
Likes: 0
From: Oxford, UK
I don't know about that... if there actually is more room in the engine bay it may be due to the design of the 5.0 block (shorter stroke?). And rev limits on the 3V have more to do with composite rods - not lever roller followers vs direct cup followers on the 4V. I have not yet heard of a failure of the roller followers. As far as less mass, the 4V has more moving mass with twice the cams.
While eliminating roller followers might - but not necessarily - reduce the height of the cam tower, the 4V would now have a cam directly on top of both the intake & exhaust valve bank - which widens the cam tower - and if it was the same block as the 4.6 you would now be closer to the body.
While eliminating roller followers might - but not necessarily - reduce the height of the cam tower, the 4V would now have a cam directly on top of both the intake & exhaust valve bank - which widens the cam tower - and if it was the same block as the 4.6 you would now be closer to the body.
Post *****
Joined: December 14, 2007
Posts: 19,953
Likes: 4
From: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
The less mass being referred to is the reciprocating mass the moves with the valve stem, and not the rotating mass of the cams. With a lower reciprocating mass, the valves can close more quickly without the need for a stiffer valve spring. This can allow the engine to spin faster before the valves 'float'.
So I'm curious of the different load factors attained by elminating roller followers but adding 1/3 more valve train and twice the cams.
Last edited by cdynaco; Dec 25, 2009 at 01:52 PM.
GT Member
Joined: August 30, 2006
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
