All of the stuff I've read on the Coyote is that it is over 100% V/E and close to 110% V/E in some RPM ranges.

Gains in HP are going to be harder to achieve without boost. Gains will be smaller and maybe not worth the effort.

 

The M motors actually make very good torque numbers for their size -- the S54 is a mere 3.2 liters yet cranks out 262 lb/ft, IIRC -- and the VANOS/VVT gives a fairly broad spread of power too. That equates to nearly 82 lb/ft per liter while the big Stang GT is only generating about 70 lb/ft per liter. So those boys in Bavaria do seem to know how to get a lot of torque out of their motors.

And remember, its ultimately the torque number at the rear wheels rather than the crankshaft that accelerates a vehicle. Thus, given the higher gear ratios and thus, torque multiplication that a high revving motor can run, you end up with very stout numbers out back. That's why a torqueless (relatively speaking) little 3.2 liter M3 can run with and usually beat a big, torquey 4.6 liter Mustang GT -- its got nearly 2,000 more rpm with which to hold on to lower gears while the Stang has to go into higher gears and thus, less torque to the drive wheels.

Too often, big engine, big torque are looked at way too simply and in the end, the most salient number relating to speed and acceleration is the most direct measure of the amount of energy accelerating a given mass, the HP number. My guess is that, given similar weights and hp levels, the E90 M3 and the '11 Stang GT will have very similar acceleration times with 1/4 miles in the high 12's at a bit over 110mph. The M3s new 7-speed DCT may shave another tenth or two off that by offering even tighter gearing and reducing the dead time between shifts.

 

Put a variable vane turbo, or TWO, on the 5.0 Ford and you will destroy the bimmers torque/liter number so the above is a pointless comparison.

 

Well, that's pretty much true of any motor --lashing on turbos/superchargers -- including that Briggs and Stratton sitting in the yard shed. Actually, it seems like BMW is going the turbo route for its newer M cars, including the upcoming M5. But the past and present M cars (as opposed to their SUVs) are naturally aspirated like the Coyote 5.0, so the comparisons are apt.

I know there was some speculation about the GT500 going twin turbo 5.0 route, but apparently Ford said that packaging issues -- couldn't fit all d'em turbos 'n tubing 'n stuff in the engine bay -- precluded that, for now. Maybe they should reverse the cylinder head flow and stick the turbo in the engine V like some diesels and, yes, turbo V8 BMWs. The new Ford TT 3.5 V6 does show the advantages of forced feeding and I don't think they've come close to touching on the limits of how much juice that motor can squeeze out. A 400+hp hotted-up version of that might make for an interesting Boss 350 or something.

Another interesting comparison is the new supercharged 3.0 V6 Audi S4 compared to the past 4.2 liter V8 version. While the V8 makes a touch more power, if factory ratings are to be believed, but a good chunk more torque at a lower rpm and seems to be even faster than the big V8, even if it doesn't sound nearly as good. Icing on the cake is that it gets better mileage and stinks up the air less.

 

I thought he meant Variable valve timing.

 

Totally not interested in this aspect.. I love the stink. Especially after taking the cats out, the stink is amazing.

 

He's not talking about a variable turbo on the M motor. VANOS is the term BMW uses for it's variable cam technology, just as Porsche calls theirs VarioCam. If Ford wanted to push their motors to a stratospheric rpm ala M they will make similar hp numbers with the reduction in low end torque as well. BMW is getting 414hp out of 4.0L's normally aspirated but only 295lbs. of torque. Which means torque for a simlar 5.0L motor would be making 518hp and 365lbs of torque. pretty darn close to what the M5/M6's V10 makes. When you start tuning for real high hp numbers in the rpm ranges that the M motors make you sacrifice some low end torque.

Dave

 

Correct, the M3 S54s has variable cam timing like the 5.0 and various other cars now do. It is naturally aspirated, sucking in air only at the pressure of the local barometer for that day indicates.

I think that the idea that high output, high revving motors are by nature lacking in torque is somewhat of a canard. That the modestly sized M3 motors make the torque that they do itself belies that idea. The S54 pumps out around 82 lb/ft/liter while the short-stroke S65(?) motor pumps out around 74 lb/ft/liter. Compare that with the 5.0's 78 lb/ft/liter.

True the torque peaks occur at a somewhat higher rpm though if looked at what % of peak rpm the peak occurs, then the torque peaks aren't to far off. Also, with the high CRs, lightweight and quick acting valve trains and VVT, the power/torque curves are hardly the needle-like spikes of hi-po engines of yore.

A lot of the "peaky" perception of high revving and 4V motors isn't so much that they make so little low rpm torque but rather, that they make so much more high end power that their bottom ends seem weak only in comparison. If you superimpose the power curves of two like-sized motors, one a regularly tuned 2V engine and the other a more highly tuned 4V motor, a lot of what you'll see is not that the low end power is traded off for the high end but rather, that the power curve simply keeps climbing rather than tapering off. This is especially true of 4V motor with VVT that can maintain good low rpm intake velocities yet still breath sufficient volumes at high rpm to make big numbers.

With older non-VVT 2V motors, it was in fact much more of a trade off with either good low-rpm intake velocity or good high rpm breathing capacity, but not much of both. That's probably where a lot of the idea of trading low rpm oomph for high rpm power came around but modern motors have far much less of that either/or limited-envelope dilemma anymore.

A quick example would be the new 5.0 cranking out both 390 lb/ft of torque at a fairly modest 4,250 rpm -- far more than the low revving Windsor 5.0 of yore -- yet spinning out 412hp way up around 6.5K rpm and topping out at 7K.

 

The new Mustang when modded will make so much power that Chuck Norris will bow down.

 

Chuck Norris always bows before he kicks someone into next week.

Chevy needs to have Chuck Norris put the hurt on a Camaro to make it look better.