View Poll Results: 5.0 horsepower
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll
2015 5.0 horsepower vote
I hope it kicks *** and takes names!!! 
6/1/14 | 06:42 PM
#28
Bullitt Member
Joined: March 13, 2013
Posts: 335
Likes: 4
From: Kirkland
I'm betting on the upper range of what you guys have been discussing.
I am sure that Ford has built in some more improvement than what we will see. They built in "more" from the get-go. They would have been stupid not to.
The thing is, and why we have not gotten the final numbers, Ford is playing a waiting game with the other Mfg's, to see where they are headed, before they put the final tune to it.
Remember the Shelby came out in the mag's at what, 650?, then they tuned it up, and got 662 out of it...There is more in the 5.0 than we think, I'm sure of it.
I am sure that Ford has built in some more improvement than what we will see. They built in "more" from the get-go. They would have been stupid not to.
The thing is, and why we have not gotten the final numbers, Ford is playing a waiting game with the other Mfg's, to see where they are headed, before they put the final tune to it.
Remember the Shelby came out in the mag's at what, 650?, then they tuned it up, and got 662 out of it...There is more in the 5.0 than we think, I'm sure of it.
6/1/14 | 07:19 PM
#29
Currently a Corvette Owner!
Joined: December 16, 2011
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 48
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
I believe that the 2011-2014 Coyote 5.0 motor already has forged rods and a forged crankshaft. If the rods and crank are new for 2015, it will be for increased reliability, it does not add to power. Also, keep in mind that DI (direct injection) is a possible addition (50+hp) in the future - perhaps the MCR (mid-cycle-refresh) after 5 years. I voted for 430-440.
6/2/14 | 09:23 AM
#30
Cobra Member
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
You don't think it can gain 6 HP?? 
Different pistons, cams, larger valves with more tweaking (breathing) to the intake manifold to match, better control of the TiVCT at both the low end & high end (for both power and EPA crud)... As far as the 4.6, why was it from the stone age? Because the 3V SOHC concept came out of the 427 Cammer from the 60's? The 5.0 uses pistons and cams, fuel injection and exhaust, its an internal combustion engine where there isn't much new under the sun.... Your comment shows you are just spewing now. The 5.0 is still based on many Ford manufacturing/engineering criteria as the 4.6 - incl OHC (vs the old pushrod 5.0), the CMCV's, Variable Cam Timing, same Modular bore centers & deck height, hydraulic adjusted extended reach finger followers allowing flexibility in port configuation, etc. The 5.4L, 6.8L V10, even the record setting Trinity 5.8L monster (with a little help from PTWA), are all based off the basics of the 4.6L block (with added deck height/stroke). What happened above the cylinders made all the difference. If Ford had put the same engineering into breathing for the 4.6, you would have seen a significant increase in stats for the 3V - to where the 5.0 number wouldn't stand out as much. But it was time for something new and to resurrect the 5.0/302 moniker. What really helped the 5.0 was drastically better breathing (read up Bud) - incl & esp at the max redline 7k vs 6.5k, and the improved separate in/ex cam control that hydraulic and cam torque actuated variable timing of a DOHC vs what you can do with an SOHC. It's still "60's based" cam action for maximum flow at maximum RPM. 
But I've got news for you (and a few other's on TMS that thought the 5.0 was an alien gift from outer space), 302 cubes over 281 isn't nothin. That improved 100HP came from what happened above the cylinders - like Colin Chapman of Lotus often said. I don't think its much of a stretch to get 450HP out of the new 5.0 with 4yrs under Ford's belt at 420/444. Hell, from 91 - 2008 Ford took the 4.6 from 190HP - 315HP remember? Surely they can get 6 more out of the Road Runner.
Different pistons, cams, larger valves with more tweaking (breathing) to the intake manifold to match, better control of the TiVCT at both the low end & high end (for both power and EPA crud)... As far as the 4.6, why was it from the stone age? Because the 3V SOHC concept came out of the 427 Cammer from the 60's? The 5.0 uses pistons and cams, fuel injection and exhaust, its an internal combustion engine where there isn't much new under the sun.... Your comment shows you are just spewing now. The 5.0 is still based on many Ford manufacturing/engineering criteria as the 4.6 - incl OHC (vs the old pushrod 5.0), the CMCV's, Variable Cam Timing, same Modular bore centers & deck height, hydraulic adjusted extended reach finger followers allowing flexibility in port configuation, etc. The 5.4L, 6.8L V10, even the record setting Trinity 5.8L monster (with a little help from PTWA), are all based off the basics of the 4.6L block (with added deck height/stroke). What happened above the cylinders made all the difference. If Ford had put the same engineering into breathing for the 4.6, you would have seen a significant increase in stats for the 3V - to where the 5.0 number wouldn't stand out as much. But it was time for something new and to resurrect the 5.0/302 moniker. What really helped the 5.0 was drastically better breathing (read up Bud) - incl & esp at the max redline 7k vs 6.5k, and the improved separate in/ex cam control that hydraulic and cam torque actuated variable timing of a DOHC vs what you can do with an SOHC. It's still "60's based" cam action for maximum flow at maximum RPM. But I've got news for you (and a few other's on TMS that thought the 5.0 was an alien gift from outer space), 302 cubes over 281 isn't nothin. That improved 100HP came from what happened above the cylinders - like Colin Chapman of Lotus often said. I don't think its much of a stretch to get 450HP out of the new 5.0 with 4yrs under Ford's belt at 420/444. Hell, from 91 - 2008 Ford took the 4.6 from 190HP - 315HP remember? Surely they can get 6 more out of the Road Runner.
6/2/14 | 09:25 AM
#31
Cobra Member
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
How? It's not a mystery. We know the specs of the new cams etc. You think it will gain more than the boss did when they will have almost the same cams and heads?
It will gain hp from these things but with the lack of the short runner manifold and 500 rpms less, it will fall short of 444. However it will gain tq where the road runner lost it.
It will gain hp from these things but with the lack of the short runner manifold and 500 rpms less, it will fall short of 444. However it will gain tq where the road runner lost it.
Last edited by typesredline; 6/2/14 at 09:32 AM.
6/2/14 | 09:29 AM
#33
Cobra Member
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Another reason it won't beat it. Ford isn't going to trump a 2yr old icon with a REGULAR GT. Let's face it folks. We are all excited. But it's just a GT. I also laugh when people ogle over the c7 vette. Sure it's gorgeous and fast. But it's a base vette. They will be all over the road in a couple of yrs just like the c6 is now.
6/2/14 | 09:38 AM
#34
Post *****
Joined: December 14, 2007
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 4
From: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
6/2/14 | 10:19 AM
#35
Cobra Member
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
I get the bigger point. You think they have had plenty of time to find ways to increase power.
What I think you are missing it the tq. Just because it may have 430 or 440 hp. Less than the boss. It also may have 400-410 tq. That would be awesome.
Let's also not forget that regardless of tech and ford engineers ability, they still have a class to maintain. The regular mustang gt isn't going to blow the camaro ss, new m3/4, and even rival the c7 vette in hp. Sure they might be ABLE to get 480 out of it. But they won't. It's just a gt.
What I think you are missing it the tq. Just because it may have 430 or 440 hp. Less than the boss. It also may have 400-410 tq. That would be awesome.
Let's also not forget that regardless of tech and ford engineers ability, they still have a class to maintain. The regular mustang gt isn't going to blow the camaro ss, new m3/4, and even rival the c7 vette in hp. Sure they might be ABLE to get 480 out of it. But they won't. It's just a gt.
6/2/14 | 11:01 AM
#36
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: January 6, 2006
Posts: 14,047
Likes: 166
From: Bay Area, CA
I get the bigger point. You think they have had plenty of time to find ways to increase power. What I think you are missing it the tq. Just because it may have 430 or 440 hp. Less than the boss. It also may have 400-410 tq. That would be awesome. Let's also not forget that regardless of tech and ford engineers ability, they still have a class to maintain. The regular mustang gt isn't going to blow the camaro ss, new m3/4, and even rival the c7 vette in hp. Sure they might be ABLE to get 480 out of it. But they won't. It's just a gt.
6/2/14 | 12:27 PM
#37
Cobra Member
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
Yep yep. And I'd bet that with the suspected weight gain, 0-60 and 1-4 mile times stay almost the same.
Track times however should greatly increase due to A) IRS and B) the powerband, which all of the other added "non hp adding" elements improve.
Track times however should greatly increase due to A) IRS and B) the powerband, which all of the other added "non hp adding" elements improve.
6/3/14 | 04:36 PM
#39
Bullitt Member
Joined: March 13, 2013
Posts: 335
Likes: 4
From: Kirkland
Another reason it won't beat it. Ford isn't going to trump a 2yr old icon with a REGULAR GT. Let's face it folks. We are all excited. But it's just a GT. I also laugh when people ogle over the c7 vette. Sure it's gorgeous and fast. But it's a base vette. They will be all over the road in a couple of yrs just like the c6 is now.
I have read a couple articles stating(from Ford exec's), that they wanted the GT to outperform the Boss off the showroom floor.
Again, my bet is for more than Boss numbers!
6/3/14 | 06:36 PM
#40
Cobra Member
Joined: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 21
From: Florida
There are two main designs of intake manifolds that have direct impact on peak numbers. Short or long runner length. Of course there are other variables, plenum size, tb position, equal or unequal length runners, etc. But overall length being short or long is the main thing. Example: on my RSX type-s it comes stock with a manifold that has short runners. A popular mod is to add the "RBC" manifold which is OEM on the civic si. This manifold has one difference, longer runners. So much longer in fact that the plenum touches the radiator support. This mod adds ~13whp and loses ~3wtq.
When people add the boss manifold to their GT, the power isn't gained bc it flows better, or bc it's bigger. It's bc the shorter runners move the powerband to the right (note that people comment about low end loss). Now imagine putting the GT manifold on the boss....would it gain hp???? That is what you guys are saying will happen on the 2015 GT, bc the other changes are virtually the same as the boss. For the record, it would gain 10-15 flywheel tq and lose ~10 flywheel hp.
Last edited by typesredline; 6/3/14 at 06:45 PM.