5.0L GT Modifications Placeholder for future motor based GT's modifications.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Why "only" 5.0?? (dumb question?)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 16, 2013 | 06:55 AM
  #1  
MRGTX's Avatar
Thread Starter
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: May 18, 2010
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 15
From: CT
Why "only" 5.0?? (dumb question?)

5 liters is a common displacement for V8 engines, much in the same way that 2 liters is common for 4-pot engines.

But...looking at the absolute mountan of engine under the hood of the GTs and Bosses, (due to the modular layout, I know) it seems very unlikely that they couldnt have added more displacement if they wanted to.

The Coyote is easily as extnally voluminous as the 440 Super Commando in my father's Plymouth. This little 302 is truly an amazing waste of space!



So...was this engine size chosen for a particular reason? Or...in fact, is there a physical limitation on the Coyote's block in terms of bore diameter.

Your expert opinions and advice are welcome.
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 07:21 AM
  #2  
muscledom's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: October 16, 2011
Posts: 1,508
Likes: 1
From: Seville, FL
Sex appeal. The 5.0/302 is not only familiar but attractive. Additionally it's congruent with what ford has been doing with their engines. The new 5.0 can make way more power out of a stock long block than just about any pushrod motor.
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 09:34 AM
  #3  
y5e06's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: May 6, 2012
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
packaging and tooling requirements and constraints, and of course the historical importance of a 5.oh mustang.
read here:
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...e/viewall.html
excerpts:

Because a major mandate of the Coyote program was utilizing Ford's existing V-8 mass-production capabilities, and because 5.0 liters was considered the appropriate displacement...

There was no requirement to save anything of the 4.6 in the Coyote other than it must be suitable for production on the same machinery. As primary goals were the Coyote be stronger, more compact and powerful than the 4.6, it was a given that almost nothing from the 4.6 would carry over to the Four-Valve 5.0 TiVCT. Essentially nothing did, except the 4.6 bore spacing and its inherent limit on bore diameter.

Bore spacing is critical in the modular engine family-all modulars use 100mm (3.937-inch) bore spacing-because bore spacing and right bank leading are the major non-adjustable features of Ford's block machining line at the engine plant. In fact, bore spacing is likely the defining characteristic of the modular engines



Because a fully populated Coyote crankcase is packaged tightly as coach airline seating-the already abbreviated piston skirts come close to the crankshaft counterweights-there is no room left for stroke increases.

Last edited by y5e06; May 16, 2013 at 09:35 AM.
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 11:14 AM
  #4  
muscledom's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: October 16, 2011
Posts: 1,508
Likes: 1
From: Seville, FL
Originally Posted by y5e06
packaging and tooling requirements and constraints, and of course the historical importance of a 5.oh mustang.
read here:
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...e/viewall.html
excerpts:

Because a major mandate of the Coyote program was utilizing Ford's existing V-8 mass-production capabilities, and because 5.0 liters was considered the appropriate displacement...

There was no requirement to save anything of the 4.6 in the Coyote other than it must be suitable for production on the same machinery. As primary goals were the Coyote be stronger, more compact and powerful than the 4.6, it was a given that almost nothing from the 4.6 would carry over to the Four-Valve 5.0 TiVCT. Essentially nothing did, except the 4.6 bore spacing and its inherent limit on bore diameter.

Bore spacing is critical in the modular engine family-all modulars use 100mm (3.937-inch) bore spacing-because bore spacing and right bank leading are the major non-adjustable features of Ford's block machining line at the engine plant. In fact, bore spacing is likely the defining characteristic of the modular engines

Because a fully populated Coyote crankcase is packaged tightly as coach airline seating-the already abbreviated piston skirts come close to the crankshaft counterweights-there is no room left for stroke increases.
Wow. That was impressive lol
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 11:53 AM
  #5  
cdynaco's Avatar
Post *****
 
Joined: December 14, 2007
Posts: 19,953
Likes: 4
From: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Originally Posted by MRGTX
The Coyote is easily as extnally voluminous as the 440 Super Commando in my father's Plymouth. This little 302 is truly an amazing waste of space!
DOHC vs OHV.
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 12:13 PM
  #6  
steven46746's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: September 16, 2012
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
Originally Posted by cdynaco

DOHC vs OHV.
This
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 12:30 PM
  #7  
MRGTX's Avatar
Thread Starter
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: May 18, 2010
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 15
From: CT
Originally Posted by y5e06
packaging and tooling requirements and constraints, and of course the historical importance of a 5.oh mustang.
read here:
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...e/viewall.html
excerpts:

Because a major mandate of the Coyote program was utilizing Ford's existing V-8 mass-production capabilities, and because 5.0 liters was considered the appropriate displacement...

There was no requirement to save anything of the 4.6 in the Coyote other than it must be suitable for production on the same machinery. As primary goals were the Coyote be stronger, more compact and powerful than the 4.6, it was a given that almost nothing from the 4.6 would carry over to the Four-Valve 5.0 TiVCT. Essentially nothing did, except the 4.6 bore spacing and its inherent limit on bore diameter.

Bore spacing is critical in the modular engine family-all modulars use 100mm (3.937-inch) bore spacing-because bore spacing and right bank leading are the major non-adjustable features of Ford's block machining line at the engine plant. In fact, bore spacing is likely the defining characteristic of the modular engines

Because a fully populated Coyote crankcase is packaged tightly as coach airline seating-the already abbreviated piston skirts come close to the crankshaft counterweights-there is no room left for stroke increases.
So the answer is that the tooling for the 4.6L was retained and this dictated a bore limit...and there is a physical limitation on stroke. Perfect... That settles it, I guess. Honestly, its a bit sad. Imagine the potential of a 5.8L naturally aspirated Coyote.

Last edited by MRGTX; May 16, 2013 at 12:31 PM.
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 01:22 PM
  #8  
muscledom's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: October 16, 2011
Posts: 1,508
Likes: 1
From: Seville, FL
Originally Posted by y5e06
packaging and tooling requirements and constraints, and of course the historical importance of a 5.oh mustang.
read here:
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...e/viewall.html
excerpts:

Because a major mandate of the Coyote program was utilizing Ford's existing V-8 mass-production capabilities, and because 5.0 liters was considered the appropriate displacement...

There was no requirement to save anything of the 4.6 in the Coyote other than it must be suitable for production on the same machinery. As primary goals were the Coyote be stronger, more compact and powerful than the 4.6, it was a given that almost nothing from the 4.6 would carry over to the Four-Valve 5.0 TiVCT. Essentially nothing did, except the 4.6 bore spacing and its inherent limit on bore diameter.

Bore spacing is critical in the modular engine family-all modulars use 100mm (3.937-inch) bore spacing-because bore spacing and right bank leading are the major non-adjustable features of Ford's block machining line at the engine plant. In fact, bore spacing is likely the defining characteristic of the modular engines

Because a fully populated Coyote crankcase is packaged tightly as coach airline seating-the already abbreviated piston skirts come close to the crankshaft counterweights-there is no room left for stroke increases.
Wow. That was impressive lol
Reply
Old May 16, 2013 | 07:32 PM
  #9  
dmichaels's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: April 14, 2013
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 111
From: CT
Originally Posted by MRGTX
So the answer is that the tooling for the 4.6L was retained and this dictated a bore limit...and there is a physical limitation on stroke. Perfect... That settles it, I guess. Honestly, its a bit sad. Imagine the potential of a 5.8L naturally aspirated Coyote.
487hp if the same hp/litre as 5.0... yeah, would be more powerful, but maybe I'm crazy, but 420 stock hp is a big number and it's hard to use that power daily for more than a few seconds at a time. I'd greatly prefer to drop 400 pounds and keep the same power or even have a bit less... but that's supposedly the 2015 Mustang I guess

I'll probably target about 480-500 crank hp eventually with my Mustang. Can't imagine needing much more than that. Wanting more perhaps... not needing tho!
Reply
Old May 17, 2013 | 02:52 PM
  #10  
Ronin38's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: December 27, 2010
Posts: 754
Likes: 1
Well, that, and they had a warehouse-full of badges that said "5.0" they wanted to use up...
Reply
Old May 17, 2013 | 03:01 PM
  #11  
bones302's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: February 24, 2011
Posts: 916
Likes: 1
From: Metro Charlotte, NC
just because..
Reply
Old Sep 10, 2013 | 10:21 AM
  #12  
MKMotorsport's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: September 9, 2013
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Couple main reasons:

1) They had to use the same tooling to manufacture the 5.0 Coyote as the earlier modular engines. They also share 100mm bore spacing, ect. Any overhead cam engine especially a DOHC engine is going to look huge compared to a OHV engine

2) Marketing pure and simple. Ford has spent decades building the 5.0 moniker's reputation. Only made sense to re-use that on the new engine even though there is nothing in common with the Windsor based 5.0's.
Reply
Old Sep 10, 2013 | 11:01 AM
  #13  
steven46746's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: September 16, 2012
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
Because 5.0 drops the panties!
Attached Images  
Reply
Old Sep 10, 2013 | 01:28 PM
  #14  
Mustang Freak's Avatar
2013 RR Boss 302 #2342
 
Joined: March 6, 2012
Posts: 11,801
Likes: 2,412
From: Lancaster, PA
Originally Posted by steven46746
Because 5.0 drops the panties!
Reply
Old Sep 11, 2013 | 11:48 AM
  #15  
JPMotorSport's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: July 13, 2011
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
From: NYC
Originally Posted by steven46746
Because 5.0 drops the panties!
This makes more sense to me than any of the other engineering reasons to this displacement.

Reply
Old Sep 11, 2013 | 03:27 PM
  #16  
Krohn's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: April 11, 2012
Posts: 981
Likes: 4
From: Houston, TX
Originally Posted by steven46746
Because 5.0 drops the panties!
Originally Posted by JPMotorSport
This makes more sense to me than any of the other engineering reasons to this displacement.


As an engineer...

They'll do whatever they can do, without the muscles or good hair, to make them drop!
... They'll spend late nights in a small room with a white board, while consuming lots of pizza and Red Bulls, deriving equations over and over again until they reach the product of 5.0 again. Knowing then that women will finally see what their manly pencil & TIXX gripping hands and 3D modeling programs can do. That's how Engineers make them panties drop.
That and put Vanilla Ice in an ad. lol
Reply
Old Sep 13, 2013 | 10:07 AM
  #17  
shaunrc's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: January 5, 2011
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento
I would like to say its to spite Chevy. Haha. Ford is just proving that you don't need a 5.7 or 6.2 to make power but if you actually think a bout it and use technology you can be a competitor as the smaller engine in the v8 world and win
Reply
Old Sep 14, 2013 | 11:45 PM
  #18  
bob's Avatar
bob
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Originally Posted by bones302
just because... MUSTANG!
There fix'd
Reply
Old Sep 23, 2013 | 01:47 PM
  #19  
Automatic 5.0's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: August 15, 2013
Posts: 801
Likes: 6
I think it's all about the marketing but also maybe 5.0 litres requires less fuel usage at the same rpm as the big 6.0 litre GM and 6.2 litre Mopar.
Reply
Old Sep 23, 2013 | 03:40 PM
  #20  
Thomas S's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: April 29, 2005
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 5
I believe the fuel economy considerations played a part in the engine size. They were able to hit their power goals fuel economy goals with the smaller engine.
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 PM.