Why "only" 5.0?? (dumb question?)
5/16/13, 06:55 AM
#1
Shelby GT350 Member
Thread Starter
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.
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.
5/16/13, 07:21 AM
#2
Banned
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.
5/16/13, 09:34 AM
#3
V6 Member
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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; 5/16/13 at 09:35 AM.
5/16/13, 11:14 AM
#4
Banned
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.
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.
5/16/13, 12:30 PM
#7
Shelby GT350 Member
Thread Starter
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.
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 MRGTX; 5/16/13 at 12:31 PM.
5/16/13, 01:22 PM
#8
Banned
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.
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.
5/16/13, 07:32 PM
#9
Shelby GT350 Member
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!
9/10/13, 10:21 AM
#12
GT Member
Join Date: September 9, 2013
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
9/10/13, 01:28 PM
#14
2013 RR Boss 302 #2342
Join Date: March 6, 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,685
Likes: 0
Received 2,194 Likes
on
1,635 Posts
9/11/13, 03:27 PM
#16
Mach 1 Member
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
9/13/13, 10:07 AM
#17
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 5, 2011
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
