'11-'12 Coyote versus '13+ version...what's the verdict?
#1
'11-'12 Coyote versus '13+ version...what's the verdict?
So it has been almost a year since the no-squirter/coated version hit the streets....
I almost dont want to know but how are the motors shaking out when compared stock versus stock, tuned versus tuned?
Is one version measuably better than the other in any application?
I almost dont want to know but how are the motors shaking out when compared stock versus stock, tuned versus tuned?
Is one version measuably better than the other in any application?
#2
I'm encouraged by the silence...perhaps there's no clear winner and we can all sleep at night knowing that our particular version of the Coyote is basically as good as the other.
#3
Currently a Corvette Owner!
Joined: December 16, 2011
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 48
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
It's a good topic, I think. I remember how the piston-oil-squirters were touted as a high performance feature at the launch of the Coyote, helping overall cooling and lubrication at higher RPMs. To a layman like me, it sounded pretty cool. Then they removed it for 2013, and somehow gained 8 reported HP. So if anyone has any articles on the topic they can share, that would be great...
#4
Less hp robbing windage without squirters, different piston grove and oil control ring, coated pistons. Apparently better than squirters to prevent detonation failure. Haven't seen one posting about the new (13+) design failing whereas there were several 11/12 #8 failures.
Personally, I wouldn't tune an 11/12 nor would I buy a used 11/12. We've already had a failure with a guy that bought an 11 used that #8 failed soon after he bought it. Warranty was denied because an aftermarket tune was detected.
https://themustangsource.com/f800/co...4/#post6280404
Personally, I wouldn't tune an 11/12 nor would I buy a used 11/12. We've already had a failure with a guy that bought an 11 used that #8 failed soon after he bought it. Warranty was denied because an aftermarket tune was detected.
https://themustangsource.com/f800/co...4/#post6280404
Last edited by cdynaco; 1/1/13 at 01:36 AM.
#6
#8
And of course the coated pistons played a role also. Don't doubt Marz & Overboost on that thread so easily. They and Boomer provide more accurate info from Ford than most anybody I've seen post. They just can't speak freely until Ford lets them.
Again - I have not seen any 13 #8 failures - have you?
Last edited by cdynaco; 1/1/13 at 12:41 PM.
#10
Originally Posted by GrabberBlue5.0
Not buying it either. It was a handful of tuners (Bama cough cough) turning of the knock sensors and just a learning curve in general on tuning the 11+ cars.
#11
It's a good topic, I think. I remember how the piston-oil-squirters were touted as a high performance feature at the launch of the Coyote, helping overall cooling and lubrication at higher RPMs. To a layman like me, it sounded pretty cool. Then they removed it for 2013, and somehow gained 8 reported HP. So if anyone has any articles on the topic they can share, that would be great...
#12
Negative. Not according to Marz & Overboost. That much broadcast rumor was put to bed a long time ago. Read the link in my previous post.
I also wonder if deleting the oil squirters allowed some difference in oil pump pressure.
These two sections are sort of a contradiction. On one hand, they say they don't need as much pressure/capacity of the 4.6L3V's hydraulic VCT because the 5.0's TiVCT is cam torque actuated - oil pressure only holds the position of the phasers, it doesn't move them. Yet they also state the larger capacity in the 5.0 oil pump for the oil squirters...
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...coyote_engine/
There's no question the 5.0 was rushed. And regardless of the many hours in the lab, real world application always teaches lessons. I believe there was an oil starvation issue under high load in the hottest hole (#8), and any detonation took that piston over the edge - in after market tuned engines as well as some factory tuned engines. It took Ford a bit of time (and a bit of denial IMO), but they identified the weak areas and the 2013+ 5.0 is superior. Perhaps they learned these lessons as they developed the Boss 5.0 where they took a little more time to evaluate their engineering.
I also wonder if deleting the oil squirters allowed some difference in oil pump pressure.
These two sections are sort of a contradiction. On one hand, they say they don't need as much pressure/capacity of the 4.6L3V's hydraulic VCT because the 5.0's TiVCT is cam torque actuated - oil pressure only holds the position of the phasers, it doesn't move them. Yet they also state the larger capacity in the 5.0 oil pump for the oil squirters...
Looking much like the Three-Valve part, the Coyote gerotor-style oil pump was enlarged by lengthening it 6 mm to provide adequate oil flow and pressure at the Coyote's high rpm, and with the small loss posed by the piston squirters.
Coyote Oiling
Considerable work went into prepping the Coyote's oiling system for its 7,000-rpm redline and high-g Mustang home. It begins with thin 5W-20 mineral oil for reduced oil-pump-drive requirements, less internal drag, and quicker cold-start lubrication. Oil capacity was increased to 8 quarts, both to ensure adequate supply at high engine speeds and to increase oil change intervals to 10,000 miles.
The oil pan shape and baffling was aided by computer modeling to check sloshing behavior while braking and cornering. Testing also showed oil drainback out of the valve covers while cornering (and drifting!) proved inadequate with the initial design, requiring slight but vital revisions to the drainback channel shape in the side of the block.
At 1g cornering, the oil was accumulating in the valve cover and flinging into the PCV system via the camshaft-timing wheels. These "pip wheels" make great oil paddles at 3,500 rpm, so Habib Affes Ph.D., CAE technical expert, modeled the situation, disclosing that down in the block's oil drain passage there was a curve or bump. At 1g cornering, this bump-physically angled at 45 degrees-was sensed as flat by the oil, so it would not drain past it. Straightening the curve lowered the oil puddle depth around the pip wheel from 11mm to 3mm, curing the PCV problem.
Interestingly, one item needing less oiling are the VCT phasers on the camshafts. Thanks to the cam torque actuation strategy, the phasers do not require high-pressure oil from the pump, but are instead fed bleed oil from the front cam bearing. Had CTA not been used, the oil pump would have needed enlargement to keep a relatively large volume of pressurized oil ready to go next to the phasers in the cylinder heads. And that would have cost horsepower.
Crankcase ventilation and oil drainback are major oiling improvements in the Coyote. Crankcase breathing has never been particularly good in high-rpm modulars, and early testing showed the Coyote's high volumes of drainback oil at high rpm were air-locking the crankcase from the top of the engine. In other words, the gush of oil trying to drain down at 7,000 rpm was blocking the pressurized crankcase air trying to find its way up, effectively choking the PCV system and inhibiting drainback.
The cure was to separate the drainback paths from the crankcase breathing chimneys. Thus, Coyotes have three large oil drainbacks on the exhaust or lower side of the cylinder head. They mate to corresponding passages on the outer side of the block that downspout the oil into the pan-similar to the dry-sumped Ford GT block.
For PCV gasses, passages are placed at the top of the crankcase, about where the camshaft would be in an OHV block. These passages connect to corresponding flues on the intake side of the cylinder heads. Thus, the oil drains and breather vents are completely separated and probably approach double the combined area of previous modulars.
Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.
And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.
Considerable work went into prepping the Coyote's oiling system for its 7,000-rpm redline and high-g Mustang home. It begins with thin 5W-20 mineral oil for reduced oil-pump-drive requirements, less internal drag, and quicker cold-start lubrication. Oil capacity was increased to 8 quarts, both to ensure adequate supply at high engine speeds and to increase oil change intervals to 10,000 miles.
The oil pan shape and baffling was aided by computer modeling to check sloshing behavior while braking and cornering. Testing also showed oil drainback out of the valve covers while cornering (and drifting!) proved inadequate with the initial design, requiring slight but vital revisions to the drainback channel shape in the side of the block.
At 1g cornering, the oil was accumulating in the valve cover and flinging into the PCV system via the camshaft-timing wheels. These "pip wheels" make great oil paddles at 3,500 rpm, so Habib Affes Ph.D., CAE technical expert, modeled the situation, disclosing that down in the block's oil drain passage there was a curve or bump. At 1g cornering, this bump-physically angled at 45 degrees-was sensed as flat by the oil, so it would not drain past it. Straightening the curve lowered the oil puddle depth around the pip wheel from 11mm to 3mm, curing the PCV problem.
Interestingly, one item needing less oiling are the VCT phasers on the camshafts. Thanks to the cam torque actuation strategy, the phasers do not require high-pressure oil from the pump, but are instead fed bleed oil from the front cam bearing. Had CTA not been used, the oil pump would have needed enlargement to keep a relatively large volume of pressurized oil ready to go next to the phasers in the cylinder heads. And that would have cost horsepower.
Crankcase ventilation and oil drainback are major oiling improvements in the Coyote. Crankcase breathing has never been particularly good in high-rpm modulars, and early testing showed the Coyote's high volumes of drainback oil at high rpm were air-locking the crankcase from the top of the engine. In other words, the gush of oil trying to drain down at 7,000 rpm was blocking the pressurized crankcase air trying to find its way up, effectively choking the PCV system and inhibiting drainback.
The cure was to separate the drainback paths from the crankcase breathing chimneys. Thus, Coyotes have three large oil drainbacks on the exhaust or lower side of the cylinder head. They mate to corresponding passages on the outer side of the block that downspout the oil into the pan-similar to the dry-sumped Ford GT block.
For PCV gasses, passages are placed at the top of the crankcase, about where the camshaft would be in an OHV block. These passages connect to corresponding flues on the intake side of the cylinder heads. Thus, the oil drains and breather vents are completely separated and probably approach double the combined area of previous modulars.
Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.
And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.
Another flow change was to the oil. Until now modular's had oil feeding from the front of the left head and back of the right head, but the Coyote feeds both heads from the front. "That's one of the things where we're preparing ourselves for future technologies, oil pressure actuated things in the valvetrain. There are a lot of different ones, so we wanted to make sure we're setting ourselves up to run some of those devices," said Gary Liimatta.
There's no question the 5.0 was rushed. And regardless of the many hours in the lab, real world application always teaches lessons. I believe there was an oil starvation issue under high load in the hottest hole (#8), and any detonation took that piston over the edge - in after market tuned engines as well as some factory tuned engines. It took Ford a bit of time (and a bit of denial IMO), but they identified the weak areas and the 2013+ 5.0 is superior. Perhaps they learned these lessons as they developed the Boss 5.0 where they took a little more time to evaluate their engineering.
Last edited by cdynaco; 1/1/13 at 07:47 PM.
#13
I agree with this Cdyanco. Steeda actually runs their 93 tune a tad rich which also plays a role in cooling. I've been running it for 16,000 miles and not a hiccup. There's an inherent design flaw with the modular block anyway on cooling (I don't remember the details). This was explained to me by Rick at Amazon racing about a year ago.
#14
Would you actually move to a '13 if it could be statistically proven that there is a lower failure rate?
#15
I assume you dont mean to imply that I shouldnt ask, right?
I like knowing about cars...i like staying current on Mustang tech in particular...clearly I'm not the only one.
#16
But not knowing what a previous owner had done, I personally would not buy a used 11/12. Too many #8 failures on this and other forums. And Ford already declined a warranty on a used 11 as reported here on TMS.
Yet like I said, I have not seen one 13 report an issue. Apparently the fix solved the weakness in the 11/12 5.0.
#17
And yes, the original question is an interesting one to ask. I remember when the spark plugs on the '05-late '07s 4.6L engines were of the design that sometimes broke off in the heads. The running change that got made to address this was something I kept in the back of my mind while I had my '07 but I didn't want to upgrade to deal with it. I suppose it is the downside of an early adopter - improvements tend to come later.
#18
I personally would buy an un-tuned Boss 302 :-)
It would be interesting to see if the warranty data supports that.
#19
#20
I would think if one bought an 11 or 12 new - even if they now chose a reputable tuner with a warranty - would be fine. Though I would be inclined to leave mine stock.
But not knowing what a previous owner had done, I personally would not buy a used 11/12. Too many #8 failures on this and other forums. And Ford already declined a warranty on a used 11 as reported here on TMS.
Yet like I said, I have not seen one 13 report an issue. Apparently the fix solved the weakness in the 11/12 5.0.
However, when was the last time you have heard of an 11 or 12 popping the 8 with a new/recent tune? You haven't...
I have read of a few 13's being replaced due to oil starvation.
Last edited by fake; 1/1/13 at 08:42 PM.