Rumors about the 2014 Ecoboost GT500.

[samg]

I don't like that turbo-lag you get driving a turbocharged vehicle on the street. It's fine for racing I guess but annoying when you are not at high revs all the time. I would think it would be even more annoying in a high power V8 engine versus those small block European turbocharged engines. Haven't driven a new Taurus -- has Ford figured out a way to get rid or minimize the turbo-lag?

With properly sized turbo's there really wont be any lag. And lag would be less annoying with a turboed v8 due to the torque the v8 makes in the low rpm vs a 4 or 6 cylinder turbo car. Turbo is the way to go.

This is a really good exchange for many of us to understand:

Notwithstanding turbo and fuel injection improvements (we all love them) -- I'll ASSERT that it is theoretically impossible to get a smaller displacement turbo to provide the visceral accelaration feel from a start or lower speeds than a 5.4L on a supercharger, particularly a S/C bigger than that stock unit or the stock unit spun faster.

Lets take any gearing differences out of it as, I think, the turbo cannot take adequate advantage of that in the lower gears to make up for any engine HP/torque deficit at lower RPM. The turbo will pull more at higher RPM than the S/C.

This is not to say that the future turbo car will not be lighter and faster to 60MPH or in the 1/4 mile. I would also think such a car would be faster big time on a road course. I'm talking about the driving feel.

Does this assertion make sense or is it BS??????

 

[GT50008]

With properly sized turbo's there really wont be any lag. And lag would be less annoying with a turboed v8 due to the torque the v8 makes in the low rpm vs a 4 or 6 cylinder turbo car. Turbo is the way to go.

It is not so much the "size" of the turbo that defines the lag. It is the rotational mass of the turbo and pitch of the turbo blades. To combat these issues, turbo manufactures install variable inlet guide vanes and low mass turbines.

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

give me a turbo 5.0l over a supercharged 5.4l any day of the week!!! i bet you the 5.0l will be able to hang with, if not pass up, the s'charged 5.4l on pump gas too, considering the parasitic loss differences(turbos are nearly free HP because of the excess energy lost as heat in the exhaust). even if not, i'll take the lower weight and better weight distribution.
besides, you toss direct injection on it(something GM will probably wait a few decades to throw on their V8s), and you've made up a huge chunk of the displacement difference, not to mention the pump gas capability. turbo direct injection DOHC 7,000RPM 5.0l FTW!!!

+1! The coyote engine is supposed to be a new design, supposedly the only thing it shares with the DOHC modulars now is that it is a DOHC. With direct injection and turbo's that car will be a ****ing beast, not to mention it will weigh less. I think its a good idea and a step in the right direction.

where did you hear this??? the 5.0l is basically a 4.6l with a slightly larger bore and slightly larger stroke. the block is a brand new design simply so that it can reliably accomodate the larger bore and stroke, much in the same way that the GT got a brand new 5.4l block. the engine is 100% modular architecture.

This is a really good exchange for many of us to understand:

Notwithstanding turbo and fuel injection improvements (we all love them) -- I'll ASSERT that it is theoretically impossible to get a smaller displacement turbo to provide the visceral accelaration feel from a start or lower speeds than a 5.4L on a supercharger, particularly a S/C bigger than that stock unit or the stock unit spun faster.

Lets take any gearing differences out of it as, I think, the turbo cannot take adequate advantage of that in the lower gears to make up for any engine HP/torque deficit at lower RPM. The turbo will pull more at higher RPM than the S/C.

This is not to say that the future turbo car will not be lighter and faster to 60MPH or in the 1/4 mile. I would also think such a car would be faster big time on a road course. I'm talking about the driving feel.

Does this assertion make sense or is it BS??????

it all depends on the turbo really. if you can spool the turbo up at, say, 2,500RPM, i really don't think you would notice a lack of 'low end'. in fact, the shelby CSX-VHT had a chrysler 2.2l engine with a variable nozzle turbo and made full boost(15PSI) at 2,100RPM, making 205lb-ft of torque. keep in mind that this was way back in 1989(and people seriously made a big deal about porsche using a variable geometry turbo on a gas engined production car??? sorry, but shelby and chrysler beat them to the punch by a decade and a half)!
it will have a different feel simply because the 2 devices achieve the same goal(compressing air) in 2 completely different ways, but i don't think anyone would think that the low end would be lacking any.

It is not so much the "size" of the turbo that defines the lag. It is the rotational mass of the turbo and pitch of the turbo blades. To combat these issues, turbo manufactures install variable inlet guide vanes and low mass turbines.

whoa man, the sizing of the turbine and compressor wheels, as well as the housing size is possibly the most important factor! the combination of these 3 factors is what will determine a major part of the 'lag', the volume of air being moved, and the maximum compressing capabilities(boost) of the turbo. you are definitely right in that the bearing type, blade pitch, wheel/shaft materials, and whether or not the turbo incorporates some sort of variable geometry system makes a big difference on lag, but you also gotta keep in mind that we're talking about turbos for production cars. these won't be variable vane, ceramic wheel/shaft, ceramic ball bearing turbos, simply because they would be too expensive for something like a mustang derivative, short of an 'R' car.

as was said, if you size them right, lag will be all but eliminated, and if you incorporate a little technology into them(like the aforementioned variable geometry capability), there won't be any lag at all.

 

[CGoeschel]

It better not be an "EcoBoost".......they've got to get a better name for the GT500 guys!

 

[mustangc]

My little 04 4.6 turbo cobra made 700rwhp on 18#s of boost and pump gas. You have over 6 years of advancments of turbos, direct injection, and a extra .4 liters over that. I think you will be just fine without a 5.4 or 6.2. Also you wallet will appriciate it.

I think some of you need to get out of that muscle car mentality. You will still have 2.0 liters over them little supra's im sure you still fear when you run into one on the street.

I'm just saying that, all other things being equal, more displacement means more power potential on pump gas. It's a fact.

You can only apply a certain amount of heat and pressure to pump gas before it preignites and causes detonation. At that point, you have to increase displacement or octane before you can pump more air/fuel and make more power. You may be making 700 rwhp on 18 lbs of boost on pump gas, but you are right on the ragged edge. Putting out those numbers with a cool engine on a quick dyno run is one thing, but you would probably experience severe detonation if you encountered a bad batch of gas or a hot day and a heat-soaked engine. Making that kind of boost with pump gas is possible, but not safe and sustainable over the long haul.

Direct injection could theoretically cancel this problem if fuel was injected at the time of combustion, like it is in a diesel-cycle engine. That is why diesel trucks can run so much boost, and also run so lean when power is not needed. However, due to a problem with high NOx emissions (and other factors), gasoline fueled compression ignition engines are not feasible today.

Because they are based on Mazda's DISI (Direct Injection Spark Ignition) technology introduced in the 2006 Mazdaspeed6, today's Ecoboost engines also inject the fuel into the cylinder during the intake stroke, and use a spark to ignite the mixture just like a conventional engine. Because of this, Ecoboost is still subject to preignition and is little improved in that regard. I drive a 'speed6 on business trips, and trust me, this new technology will dump boost faster (when a hot engine begins to detonate) than a Democrat spends taxpayer money.

More boost or more displacement? I say both. Who in a Mustang forum could answer that question any other way?

 

[meaty mac]

give me a turbo 5.0l over a supercharged 5.4l any day of the week!!!

No kidding. If Ford ever does offer Twin Turbos on a DI 5.0 DOHC, people will forget all about the blown 5.4
Bigger bore with less stroke means piston speed will be reduced (without sacrificing power) making it easier to turn massive rpm's- the hallmark of a true performance engine. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to spin a Ford V8 to 7k with stock cams? I think they can match the low end that you get with a roots blown 5.4, but once you hit mid range..bye bye. I also think Ford has re thought and therefore, really stepped up their whole performance game. After all, we're talking muscle car V8's here, not grocery getting 4 cyl's. (Not that they don't have plans for those too, but you know what I mean)

When you think about it, they really did well with the ol 5.4 though. Been in a shitload of vehicles over the years.

 

[mustangc]

give me a turbo 5.0l over a supercharged 5.4l any day of the week!!! i bet you the 5.0l will be able to hang with, if not pass up, the s'charged 5.4l on pump gas too, considering the parasitic loss differences(turbos are nearly free HP because of the excess energy lost as heat in the exhaust).

You're absolutely correct, Ry. Based on the figures given in this particular thread, and those of my brother's car, a turbo 5.0 would have a higher rwhp number than a 5.4 S/C car. Here's my rudamentary, and greatly oversimplified, calculation:

* The '04 Cobra mentioned earlier produced 700 rwhp with 18 psi on turbos.
* My brother's '03 produced roughly 600 rwhp at similar boost levels with a KB.
* Therefore, the turbo allowed 17% more rwhp due to less parasitic loss.
* A 5.4 is only 8% larger than a 5.0, so it could not likely make up for parasitic loss of the of the S/C.

My initial concern was the brand X competition. Performing the same calculations using the Government Motors 6.2L LS, our 5.0 would be a staggaring 24% smaller. There is a real concern that the 17% efficiency improvement of turbocharging may not be enough to overcome the 24% smaller displacement.

I like Ecoboost. I just wish we could have our cake and eat it too. I don't want to match the competition, I want to blow their flippen' doors off. :thumbsup:

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

Because they are based on Mazda's DISI (Direct Injection Spark Ignition) technology introduced in the 2006 Mazdaspeed6, today's Ecoboost engines...

word on the street is that the ecoboost engines use a brand new ford design(well, probably designed by bosch or something, but you know) incorporating new developments that the mazda system doesn't have. evidentially it's much improved over the mazda system.

that's really too bad about the SPEED cars, they are such great cars stuck with a system that is unfortunately not that friendly to the enthusiast. i still want a SPEED6 though, such cool cars(though, i might have to go for a volvo S60R if it came down to it).


edit: yep, ford is using a completely different direct injection system, co-developed with bosch.

No kidding. If Ford ever does offer Twin Turbos on a DI 5.0 DOHC, people will forget all about the blown 5.4
Bigger bore with less stroke means piston speed will be reduced (without sacrificing power) making it easier to turn massive rpm's- the hallmark of a true performance engine. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to spin a Ford V8 to 7k with stock cams? I think they can match the low end that you get with a roots blown 5.4, but once you hit mid range..bye bye. I also think Ford has re thought and therefore, really stepped up their whole performance game. After all, we're talking muscle car V8's here, not grocery getting 4 cyl's. (Not that they don't have plans for those too, but you know what I mean)

When you think about it, they really did well with the ol 5.4 though. Been in a shitload of vehicles over the years.

man, my dream mustang is an 05+ GT with the GT500 nose, full griggs suspension, and a destroked(yea, that one would have to be custom) turbo dry sump 4.6l spinning to 8,500RPM:rockon:

You're absolutely correct, Ry. Based on the figures given in this particular thread, and those of my brother's car, a turbo 5.0 would have a higher rwhp number than a 5.4 S/C car. Here's my rudamentary, and greatly oversimplified, calculation:

* The '04 Cobra mentioned earlier produced 700 rwhp with 18 psi on turbos.
* My brother's '03 produced roughly 600 rwhp at similar boost levels with a KB.
* Therefore, the turbo allowed 17% more rwhp due to less parasitic loss.
* A 5.4 is only 8% larger than a 5.0, so it could not likely make up for parasitic loss of the of the S/C.

My initial concern was the brand X competition. Performing the same calculations using the Government Motors 6.2L LS, our 5.0 would be a staggaring 24% smaller. There is a real concern that the 17% efficiency improvement of turbocharging may not be enough to overcome the 24% smaller displacement.

I like Ecoboost. I just wish we could have our cake and eat it too. I don't want to match the competition, I want to blow their flippen' doors off. :thumbsup:

now think that the 5.0l will probably have better heads than the '03/'04 cobras, if not '00R/GT/GT500 heads. then think about if it had direct injection on top of that! what a pump gas engine that would be!!!


don't forget that a turbo 5.0l would be dropping weight out of the GT500, which weighs about the same as the current camaro SS. if GM does build the Z28, it's gonna be even heavier too. would be a great battle of high power vs low weight!

 

[Fourcam330]

You do NOT want to apply boost to ANY 5.0L Modular, new motors included. If there's any truth to these rumors the motors will fail durability/longevity testing no question. Not enough meat between bores for gasket sealing for any decent amount of boost. Same reason chevy dropped back to the LS9 from the LS7.

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

no chance of something like gaskets with fire rings or possibly even(and this is probably stretching it) an O-ringed block from the factory?

 

[meaty mac]

You do NOT want to apply boost to ANY 5.0L Modular, new motors included. If there's any truth to these rumors the motors will fail durability/longevity testing no question. Not enough meat between bores for gasket sealing for any decent amount of boost. Same reason chevy dropped back to the LS9 from the LS7.

Jesus, I know you know your stuff and even get a little inside info sometimes, but I pray that your dead wrong about this lol.

 

[Fourcam330]

no chance of something like gaskets with fire rings or possibly even(and this is probably stretching it) an O-ringed block from the factory?

Ford has been making a lot of good decisions lately (less the SHO brakes) so as much as meaty hopes I'm wrong, I hope you're wrong about them trying to make it work.

Tell you what though, if it does make it through it will keep the aftermarket busy. :beer:

 

[Fourcam330]

Jesus, I know you know your stuff and even get a little inside info sometimes, but I pray that your dead wrong about this lol.

IIRC the new 5.0L bores are 3.66" or 3.6X" at least, most 304 BB 5.0Ls are 3.70. We know already that you can't boost them to near stock displacement levels. So unless Ford wants the block to be the limiting factor (you have to admit a split block is a great way to tell if someone's voided their warranty;-)) or completely redesigns the motor with different bore spacing/more meat between bores, I really truly hope it does NOT happen for everyone's sake.
Again there's a reason chevy went from 7.0L to 6.2L with the ZR1. The guys in the gulf with TT LS7 dune buggy's blow them all the time even with lower compression bottom ends.
I'm sure there are pics of a BB bore vs a stock or .020"-.030" over bore somewhere on this site.
I'd rather have a TT Al block 5.4 or even a 4.6 over the current 5.0Ls.

 

[pwrhungry]

I'm just saying that, all other things being equal, more displacement means more power potential on pump gas. It's a fact.

You can only apply a certain amount of heat and pressure to pump gas before it preignites and causes detonation. At that point, you have to increase displacement or octane before you can pump more air/fuel and make more power. You may be making 700 rwhp on 18 lbs of boost on pump gas, but you are right on the ragged edge. Putting out those numbers with a cool engine on a quick dyno run is one thing, but you would probably experience severe detonation if you encountered a bad batch of gas or a hot day and a heat-soaked engine. Making that kind of boost with pump gas is possible, but not safe and sustainable over the long haul.

Direct injection could theoretically cancel this problem if fuel was injected at the time of combustion, like it is in a diesel-cycle engine. That is why diesel trucks can run so much boost, and also run so lean when power is not needed. However, due to a problem with high NOx emissions (and other factors), gasoline fueled compression ignition engines are not feasible today.

Because they are based on Mazda's DISI (Direct Injection Spark Ignition) technology introduced in the 2006 Mazdaspeed6, today's Ecoboost engines also inject the fuel into the cylinder during the intake stroke, and use a spark to ignite the mixture just like a conventional engine. Because of this, Ecoboost is still subject to preignition and is little improved in that regard. I drive a 'speed6 on business trips, and trust me, this new technology will dump boost faster (when a hot engine begins to detonate) than a Democrat spends taxpayer money.

More boost or more displacement? I say both. Who in a Mustang forum could answer that question any other way?

Actually my single turbo 04 was no where near the ragged edge or any edge. It was tuned by Horsepower by Herman on the street at a very safe tune as thats what I wanted. It was not tuned on a dyno looking at a screen trying to push out a few more horses. The only engine mods I had were a MAF, and sheetmetal intake. Turbo was a T76-GTS. Also on the dyno when I did not fill the box with ice. I drove it about 30 mins and did 3 runs all of which where the same with less the 5mins between each run

 

[samg]

Lots to think about. Not yet willing to exit the argument though. I should of added the term of "practical" in my above assertion of S/Cs vs turbos. Yes turbos are more efficient than S/Cs (along with the associated car weight reduction that enables) and this will force OEMs to turbos for fuel economy reasons. And yes I grant that with the latest technology turbos have low end power perhaps equal to S/Cs. But the latest turbo technology (variable geometry vanes, etc, etc) to do that carries some attributes that must be considered. I'm in the middle of the eternal decision to sink bucks into a long term S/C solution or go with aftermarket turbos now or wait for the OEM turbo solution.

Number one priority, at least for me, is visceral feel and soul for the car versus ultimate statistical performance numbers. The turbo attributes mentioned above of most concern is complexity and upgrade potential of an OEM turbo solution. Such a turbo solution has to be far harder and more expensive to upgrade and tune to higher than stock HP levels (not impossible of course). Just look at the complexity of the turbo on next year's Ford Superduty for an example of this point.

So back to my argument. Stock vs stock configuration turbos may be better. But from a practical perspective for most of us, we be able to upgrade an OEM S/C car to higher levels of "soul" and perhaps even statisical performance versus a turbo solution. Of course the turbos have the ultimate performance potential but I'm talking about the practical range of performance most of us live in.

Anyway, this is what I think many of us may be trying to reason through one way or the other with the turbo era on the horizon.

 

[blksn8k]

Man, it amazes me how much contradictory stuff is floating around on these websites. I read posts where some people are swearing up and down and threatening all with the rath of God if they refuse to believe the Coyote V8 is nothing more than a poked out 4.6. Then I read other posts where it is claimed that the Coyote is a clean sheet of paper design with significantly wider bore spacing than the current modular engines. About the only thing shared is the basic architecture of a deep skirt block with cross-bolted main bearing caps. The heads are, according to some, an all new design for a Ford V8 and very similar to the 4V heads on the 3.5L Duratec V6. Because of the wider bore spacing the heads will not bolt onto a 4.6 or 5.4 block. I tend to believe the latter.
And on the EcoBoost technology, some of you guys need to forget about what was true in the past with turbo motors. With direct injection, properly sized turbos and the right engine management systems it IS possible to minimize and maybe even eliminate turbo lag.
And on the subject of EcoBoost performance, have any of you seen what Beefcake is doing with his tuned overweight 2010 Taurus SHO and it's wimpy little 3.5L EB? How about 12.75s at 108? Personally, I can't wait to see this same technology used on a 700 lb lighter Mustang with 1.5L more displacement. My prediction is it would perform at least as well as the current 5.4L SC and get better fuel mileage in the process while maintaining the ability to run on 87 octane at slightly reduced power levels.

 

[97desertCobra]

where did you hear this??? the 5.0l is basically a 4.6l with a slightly larger bore and slightly larger stroke. the block is a brand new design simply so that it can reliably accomodate the larger bore and stroke, much in the same way that the GT got a brand new 5.4l block. the engine is 100% modular architecture.
l.

I was thinking about the engine in the new SVT Raptor. You are right the 5.0 is basically a 4.6 with a larger bore and larger stroke. Dont know why I confused the two.

 

[gt500vert]

Everyone is talking about the HP of the turbo....but where does it fall in terms or torque? A comparison graph would certainly be interesting.

 

[Fourcam330]

Man, it amazes me how much contradictory stuff is floating around on these websites. I read posts where some people are swearing up and down and threatening all with the rath of God if they refuse to believe the Coyote V8 is nothing more than a poked out 4.6. Then I read other posts where it is claimed that the Coyote is a clean sheet of paper design with significantly wider bore spacing than the current modular engines. About the only thing shared is the basic architecture of a deep skirt block with cross-bolted main bearing caps. The heads are, according to some, an all new design for a Ford V8 and very similar to the 4V heads on the 3.5L Duratec V6. Because of the wider bore spacing the heads will not bolt onto a 4.6 or 5.4 block. I tend to believe the latter.
And on the EcoBoost technology, some of you guys need to forget about what was true in the past with turbo motors. With direct injection, properly sized turbos and the right engine management systems it IS possible to minimize and maybe even eliminate turbo lag.
And on the subject of EcoBoost performance, have any of you seen what Beefcake is doing with his tuned overweight 2010 Taurus SHO and it's wimpy little 3.5L EB? How about 12.75s at 108? Personally, I can't wait to see this same technology used on a 700 lb lighter Mustang with 1.5L more displacement. My prediction is it would perform at least as well as the current 5.4L SC and get better fuel mileage in the process while maintaining the ability to run on 87 octane at slightly reduced power levels.

Well stated all around.

Current modular motor needs a complete redesign for boost if punched out to 5.0L. N/A the 5.0L GT upgrade motor will be fine.

 

[pwrhungry]

How does Porsche acheive sub 4.0 0-60 with a 3.6 or 3.8 engine and all the lag they must have from the turbos? Properly sized turbos will not have all this lag people assume they have.