Originally Posted by YSUsteven

When I said "replace the heads" I was refering to the piston heads.

Originally Posted by EagleStroker

More people are interested in lower than higher compression. The majority of cars sold will always be a motor and I would say the s/c to all motor ratio would be an easy 5:1, I can see an option on a "limited production" car maybe but I seriously doubt 11:1 to many problems, mainly cost of having to run 91 or 93 octane, and no way it will go to 7k rpm.

Originally Posted by EagleStroker

Your using special additions as comparisons thoughs, cobras and machs aren't main stream my friend. The crank isn't your enemy as the 3v has a nice one capable of that RPM, rods and pistons not to mention valve train can't handle it. Every extra dollar spent corelates into the overall cost of the car that a lot won't pay considering what a fully loaded GT goes for these days. Sure they CAN run on 87, but it can cause issues that I don't think Ford would be willing to risk.

Originally Posted by EagleStroker

Actually, I'm going to leave this argument alone now. Can you see Ford making a car that they can't factory supercharge without major modification or insane octane? When have they ever done that?

-Robert

Originally Posted by I

think this 'revised' modular may surprise many. First it's TiVCT -- Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing, a proven Ford tech on Ford-Europe DOHC I-4s but never before built into a Ford DOHC V8 to my knowledge. TiVCT provides much broader and flatter torque curves, more effective anti-detonation management, and better efficiency than a typical NA engine would otherwise be capable of.

I think the StangNet comment on compression is valid for a conventional engine but might not be as much of a problem on a TiVCT engine since independently variable intake and exhaust cams should permit programming for high static compression ratios with better detonation control. So additional boost, done right, should not be a problem, imo. This is new stuff! Too bad it's not also Direct Injection (DI) -- or at least there's no mention of it -- since DI would greatly improve the ability to manage detonation for two reasons: 1) there's no fuel in the cylinder during compression (it's injected at the last instant) and 2) DI directly cools the combustion chamber just when detonation would otherwise be likely to occur (at max compression). I'm sure DI is coming but maybe not just yet. Still 400HP in a volume-build 5.0 TiVCT DOHC V8 in the GT will be one smokin' value!!!

There are so many 5.0 variations recently (and over the years) that you need a playbill to keep 'em straight:

-There's the old (and Boss redux version) of the 5.0 pushrod SBFs that were highly oversquare (4.0"bore 3.0"stroke).
-There's the FR500C modular DOHC 5.0 "cammer" which uses Ford spray-bore metalurgy liner technology to get from the effectively square 4.6 (3.552 bore x 3.543 stroke) to 5.0 via bore alone yielding a slightly oversquare engine that likes to rev a bit freer.
-Then there's the PJ Saleen which, although Saleen hones the cylinders for truness, actually gets to 5.0 with all stroke, i.e. it winds up a little under-square.
-My understanding is that the Coyote is different than all the predecessors: a revised and strengthened roughly 'square' design like the 4.6 but using thinner conventional cylinder liners (2.5mm vs the 4.6's 4.0mm) to increase bore about .10" and also slightly longer sleeve to accommodate about .10" stroke increase yielding approx a 3.65" x 3.63" B/S.

These were very likely the 2.5mm-liner alloy blocks I spied on the Romeo volume floor -- though they're to be produced at Windsor according to StangNet and that's consistent with what I've heard too.

How cool is this? A volume-build 5.0L TiVCT DOHC V8 with 400HP flatter torque curve, better mileage (11:1 comp. and TiVCT should be good for a couple mpg), and carrying a modest GT price tag is huge, imo!!! And at 3500 lbs it will kick Camaro's 6.2/430HP and Challenger's 6.2/475HP fat butts from NY to LA! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif) (...and there's always the GT500 for serious fun which likely get's a tweak for '10MY as well).

The 5.0 Coyote in the GT could be the best performance value in a very long time -- I bet Ford will have to limit the build-mix because these puppies are going to sell!!! I strongly suspect it will also be a multi-octane engine happily running on a default of 87 octane since Ford is committed to all enignes getting the new ECU programming asap ...and with TiVCT it just makes that much more sense, imo.

Will be interesting to see exactly what internals Ford stuffs in the Coyote. I suspect the GT will cracked-powder rods, aluminum hypereutectics and beefier cast crank. However, a Romeo special production-blueprinted version with forged internals might make for a sweet BOSS SE, don't you think? ...if Ford ever actually does one! Still, the '10MY Coyote GT sure sounds like the poor-man's BOSS many have been hoping for!

Originally Posted by TTS197

Not an agument, This is the news and rumors section so things can change very quickly.

In response to you pre-edited post, have you seen the compression ratio on E92 M3 (12.0.) no direct injection 4.2 v8?

Here's some more info on the engine.

Originally Posted by EagleStroker

Your using special additions as comparisons thoughs, cobras and machs aren't main stream my friend. The crank isn't your enemy as the 3v has a nice one capable of that RPM, rods and pistons not to mention valve train can't handle it. Every extra dollar spent corelates into the overall cost of the car that a lot won't pay considering what a fully loaded GT goes for these days. Sure they CAN run on 87, but it can cause issues that I don't think Ford would be willing to risk.

Originally Posted by 1trickpony

I see your point and hopefully we'll see some good numbers by the end of the year. I remember reading somewhere the valve train is good for 6800 rpm on the GT. If the crank isn't holding you back, the rest of the engine should hang in there to 6800 rpm. The rods and pistons are the same as those used in those Cobras and the Mach 1, they just had forged cranks.

Originally Posted by 97svtgoin05gt

Its an interesting topic. A lot of people have long critisized Ford for not offering competitive power naturally aspirated vs the competition. This is and has been for years now that we're sporting a fairly significantly smaller engine than they are. Sub 5 liter vs 5.8+ liter competition. While raising the bar to 5.0 will close that gap, it sure isn't going to eclipse it. I think Ford is betting the farm on achieving that 400 number naturally aspirated, and to do so with a small engine is going to require a fairly high CR I believe. I wouldn't be surprised to see them come in around 10.5/1 or so. This gives the blower boys a little room, but lets the naturally aspirated people still achieve pretty good numbers without tearing it down to replace pistons etc.

Originally Posted by EagleStroker

Have you seen the price tag on an E92 M3? Have you seen someone ever trying to run anything but premium fuel in an E92 M3? That's an apples and oranges argument my friend. No one looking at a Mustang GT is going to say "hey, I'm going to spend another $30k and get a beemer."

I would LOVE to see what we are talking about, but I personally think it's a bad move for Ford. Ford has always been good at drawing the conservative line and keeping not just one but every group fairly content. There is an aftermarket for a reason, and the way FRPP has been improving who knows what they'll come up with next.

Originally Posted by TTS197

I brought up the engine as reference to your responds of a high compression factory engine and also for a perspective as of what direction ford may take,
The 30k difference in price is not just for an engine and I don’t recall ever mentioning (Mustang customer base) cross shopping to a BMW, however I do think that once the new power train hits other bases may cross shop to the Mustang.

I’m no fan of High CR but it’s clear that ford is moving forward in this route. Now, I can tell you that the 11.8 CR was with DI so this could have changed.