Is the 5.0 "better" than the 4.6? - Page 2 - Ford Mustang Forum

Like Tree21Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 2,742
 


Bullitt95 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 2,742
 
Ford's design requirements for the Coyote were simple; at least 400hp from a N/A 302ci of displacement. It was left to the engineers to decide how to get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
(though I still don't care for its 3.65" stroke combined with a 7000 rpm redline
That translates into a mean piston speed of 4258ft/min at 7000rpm. With some production engines capable of piston speeds as high as 5000ft/min (2.0L Honda S2000, '06-'08 Audi RS4, Shelby GT350), the Coyote still has room to spare. With a forged bottom end the Coyote could safely rev up to 8200rpm.

Bullitt95 is offline  
GT Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Delaware Twp
Posts: 1,442
 
Garage
5000 may be an OK number for exotic and low-volume applications, but is unreasonably high for an engine intended as the regular production fitment, where a conventional automatic of some sort will be the primary transmission fitment behind it. 4000 would have been a much better target - maybe that was what they were shooting for in the Coyote and missed because it would have provided almost no headroom over the 6500 peak power rpm?

Blame should really fall on the original modular engine design and engineering crew for not looking far enough into the future and building in a little more room for bore increases (without involving exotic bore treatments) than they did. Maybe then the 400 HP could have come in a couple hundred rpm or so lower? Did they not study history (221/260/289/302 and 265/283/327/350/400) with an eye to bore increases over the lifespans of those two engine series?


Norm

'08 GT coupe, 5M, wheels, tires, pads, fluid, a few suspension mods . . . still almost stock height
'10 Legacy 2.5GT, 6M (hers)
'01 Maxima 20AE, 5M (spare, winter driver)

Last edited by Norm Peterson; 10-23-2016 at 09:54 AM.
Norm Peterson is offline  
 
PONY Member
 
2012bigredstang's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2015
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 311
 
Garage
ive had both engines
I prefer the 5.0
nothing wrong with the 4,6
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG-20130614-00125 (1).jpg
Views:	200
Size:	840.2 KB
ID:	541649   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG-20130614-00126 (1).jpg
Views:	192
Size:	727.1 KB
ID:	541657   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG-20160811-00330.jpg
Views:	197
Size:	744.0 KB
ID:	541665   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG-20160703-00314.jpg
Views:	195
Size:	708.6 KB
ID:	541673  

GO BIG OR GO HOME
5.0 coyote
BBK cold air intake
SCT tuner with 91 tune
roush axle back
Go BILLS

91 tune
2012bigredstang is offline  
BOSS Member
 
JD08's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: WPB
Posts: 3,565
 
I ran a 13.84 in my 2011 V6 with 2.73 gears a few years ago. Does that mean it's faster than both the 5.0 and the 4.6? Not a chance.
JD08 is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 2,742
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
5000 may be an OK number for exotic and low-volume applications, but is unreasonably high for an engine intended as the regular production fitment
The 5.2L Voodoo engine in the GT500 shares the same 3.65" stroke as the 5.0L Coyote but since it has an all-forged bottom end, the redline is 8250rpm with a piston speed of 5019ft/min. That's the highest of any production engine.
Bullitt95 is offline  
GT Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Delaware Twp
Posts: 1,442
 
Garage
I realize that. But the Voodoo is exotic, low-volume, and not intended to work in front of an automatic transmission. Fails all three criteria for the Coyote's actual mission.


Norm

'08 GT coupe, 5M, wheels, tires, pads, fluid, a few suspension mods . . . still almost stock height
'10 Legacy 2.5GT, 6M (hers)
'01 Maxima 20AE, 5M (spare, winter driver)
Norm Peterson is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 2,742
 
Yeah, there aren't many torque converters that'll survive 8000rpm.
Bullitt95 is offline  
Rookie
 
Flash_xx's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Santo Domingo
Posts: 6
 
I've driven a Coyote and didn't like the feel of the power delivery, but then again it was stock and my 4.6 is tuned. One thing the 4.6 has proven is its utter reliability. Lots of us road race and never break down.

As far as the 1/4 mile times. Mine has only managed a best of 13.96 but this is at sea level on the Caribbean and a badly prepped track as well as a suspension set up for road racing. If I put skinnies and drag radials, tuned the suspension for drag racing and the track was well prepped the times would be much lower. My best 60' has been a 2.3, spinning through 1st and a bit in second. So track times don't mean much unless you race on the same track on the same day under the same conditions.
Flash_xx is offline  
GT Member
 
ghunt's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Clarksburg
Posts: 1,274
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
Blame should really fall on the original modular engine design and engineering crew for not looking far enough into the future and building in a little more room for bore increases (without involving exotic bore treatments) than they did. Maybe then the 400 HP could have come in a couple hundred rpm or so lower? Did they not study history (221/260/289/302 and 265/283/327/350/400) with an eye to bore increases over the lifespans of those two engine series?
That would be nice...Dodge and Chevy both upped displacement by large amounts, on engines that were already bigger than the modular. Would be nice to have a 351 cube modular.


Then again, if they did- they would probably have to rely on cylinder deactivation and other doodads to hit the required fuel economy marks like Dodge and Chevy have, as well.

'05 Mustang GT Premium
CMS Stage 1 cams, C&L Racer, Lito tune, Jeg's oil sep, CMDP, SR UDP's, JBA Ceramic LT's & o/r H, Magnaflow resonators, Ford Racing Touring axle back, BMR springs, Koni STR.T, BMR LCA's & backets, J&M upper & mount, J&M Al panhard, DIY panhard brace, Steeda Tri-Ax, smoked corners, smoked LED taillights
ghunt is offline  
MACH I Member
 
90lxwhite's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: college station
Posts: 2,848
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghunt View Post
That would be nice...Dodge and Chevy both upped displacement by large amounts, on engines that were already bigger than the modular. Would be nice to have a 351 cube modular.


Then again, if they did- they would probably have to rely on cylinder deactivation and other doodads to hit the required fuel economy marks like Dodge and Chevy have, as well.

And the base GT would start closer to $50k



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ConfederateJoe likes this.
90lxwhite is offline  
BOSS Member
 
JD08's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: WPB
Posts: 3,565
 
Fox body 5.0's had 300 ft lbs of torque, 4.6' had 302 ft lbs, and the new5.0 has 280. That's the reason your butt dyno doesn't register the 5.0 as faster.
JD08 is offline  
MACH I Member
 
Blazin72's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: Union
Posts: 3,285
           
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD08 View Post
Fox body 5.0's had 300 ft lbs of torque, 4.6' had 302 ft lbs, and the new5.0 has 280. That's the reason your butt dyno doesn't register the 5.0 as faster.
11-14 5.0 has 390. 15-17 has 400. Not 280...
Blazin72 is offline  
PONY Member
 
AlloyPony's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: The Bluegrass State
Posts: 582
 
I traded a 3-valve 4.6 car for a 2-valve 4.6 car and both felt similar to me. The guy who bought my old 3-valve is in our crew and when we race each other from a dig, we're fender to fender through 1st and 2nd and then in 3rd he start to pull a little. The 3-valve is slightly faster. With a few more mods I will be neck and neck with him again.

BOTH of these cars are completely and utterly destroyed by the new 5.0. Like, a Coyote car can start off behind either of us, pull out and pass us with ease at WOT. There is no comparison.

2001 GT auto in Zinc Yellow
Flowmaster mufflers - Pypes O/R H pipe
Eibach Sportline springs/Koni STR.T shocks
AMR wheels w/ 315/35 MT Street Comps
FR 3.73s
Blankenship Performance tuning
Steeda Under-drive pulleys
BBK CAI - AcuFab 70mm TB
AlloyPony is offline  
BOSS Member
 
JD08's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: WPB
Posts: 3,565
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazin72 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD08 View Post
Fox body 5.0's had 300 ft lbs of torque, 4.6' had 302 ft lbs, and the new5.0 has 280. That's the reason your butt dyno doesn't register the 5.0 as faster.
11-14 5.0 has 390. 15-17 has 400. Not 280...
You are correct. I was looking at the wrong figure on my phone. The philosophy is still the same though. The seat of your pants feel comes from torque. That's why a 1989 5.0 with 225/300 hp/tq feels faster than a 2011 V6 with 305/280. The 2011 V6 will post a better 1/4 time, but the torque curve of the 89 made it a lot more fun to drive.

JD08 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome