Rumors about the 2014 Ecoboost GT500.

[c_in_oz]

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.

Hi Fourcam

Are we talking Coyote?

What if it is using FRM cylinders? Forged crank etc..

Considering Ford AUS (FPV/Prodrive) are launching their version of Coyote with F.I, it is possible and would be passing durability testing?

 

[CobraRed01]

Just curious. Would the new iron SOHC 6.2 Boss motor be a possible (maybe not likely) candidate for EcoBoost TT in the Shelby? Being a SOHC is it that much heavier than the current iron 5.4 DOHC? Would you really need DOHC with a TT? What kind of power would it put down?

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

Hi Fourcam

Are we talking Coyote?

What if it is using FRM cylinders? Forged crank etc..

Considering Ford AUS (FPV/Prodrive) are launching their version of Coyote with F.I, it is possible and would be passing durability testing?

maybe ford of australia isn't as stringent with their durability testing or something. maybe they are using firering head gaskets, like the phuzion gaskets produced by cometic(i really don't have a clue if something like that would be a viable OEM solution though).

i would think ford would use their new PTWA spray bore technology rather than FRM cylinders. they introduced it this year on the cyclone V6 engines(3.5l/3.7l).

Just curious. Would the new iron SOHC 6.2 Boss motor be a possible (maybe not likely) candidate for EcoBoost TT in the Shelby? Being a SOHC is it that much heavier than the current iron 5.4 DOHC? Would you really need DOHC with a TT? What kind of power would it put down?

the overall engine is a bit larger than the 5.4l to accommodate a bore spacing and stroke length that's capable of ~8.0l or so. taking 2 cams out of the heads and bolting on smaller covers aren't gonna be reducing much weight in the big picture, this engine will definitely still be heavier which would be a horrible idea. even an aluminum block would still weigh a good amount, and would still be heavier than the upcoming aluminum 5.4l.
besides, they could potentially continue producing 5.4ls for the GT500, even if it's being phased out in other products, being that FRPP is building up a pretty good catalog of parts for them, including crate engines.

 

[pwrhungry]

Just curious. Would the new iron SOHC 6.2 Boss motor be a possible (maybe not likely) candidate for EcoBoost TT in the Shelby? Being a SOHC is it that much heavier than the current iron 5.4 DOHC? Would you really need DOHC with a TT? What kind of power would it put down?

The whole point of ecoboost is to have a smaller motor and still produce good HP with decent MPG. How is throwing in a 6.2 with turbos come anywhere close to acheiving this?

 

[CobraRed01]

The whole point of ecoboost is to have a smaller motor and still produce good HP with decent MPG. How is throwing in a 6.2 with turbos come anywhere close to acheiving this?

Just responding to Fourcams comment about not boosting the 5.0 motors and the reality that the LS motors will still be bigger at the end of the day. I understand that the SOHC heads are lighter than the DOHC heads and wondered if they made much of difference between a 5.4 and 6.2 motor. When you are talking about 600 and 700 hp in high end performance cars I don't think a few mpg is going to make a big difference. At this end of the spectrum it's going to be more about "boost" and less about "eco". Do you want power or what? Of course...lighter is always better...a big, stout aluminum motor with room to grow is long overdue at Ford.

 

[chuckstang]

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:

Gota remember though, the Chevy guys with their larger 6.2 motors do no run forged internals and power adder friendly low compression pistons.

Boost is where its at.

 

[chuckstang]

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.

coudnt agree more on your points and this is post is full of win

 

[c_in_oz]

maybe ford of australia isn't as stringent with their durability testing or something. maybe they are using firering head gaskets, like the phuzion gaskets produced by cometic(i really don't have a clue if something like that would be a viable OEM solution though).

i would think ford would use their new PTWA spray bore technology rather than FRM cylinders. they introduced it this year on the cyclone V6 engines(3.5l/3.7l).

Ry_trapp0

I'm pretty sure the testing and durability procedures are consistant, it's Ford policy.

Yeah on the FRM, i'm not completely 100%, it's something I heard from US Supplier, but dont consider it to be that credible. I would be think spray bore also.

 

[Falc'man]

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.

Hi Maestro. Regarding the concern of thin cylinder walls and boost, the below is off Australian Ford Forums. It sought of explains why it won't be that bad with boost. (And word is it's pumping out same as current forced 5.4.)

Sounds like it will be a truly great NA engine (was never in doubt since just before this thread began) however I have concerns with a 2.5mm (100 thou) cylinder wall in a FI application........... may be ok for 5 or 6 psi but above 10 psi the relative thinness of a 0.100" wall becomes very concerning and will fail unless some crazy liner material (ala Nissan GTR) is used.

Daniel.

Daniel

How would you feel if Coyote perhaps used FRM (fibre reinforced metal) cylinder walls?

However, in relation to topic of Ecoboost, this (Coyote) isn't it. Ford have "skipped" Ecoboost with the V8 and are taking it to the next level using a V8 CGI block and ethanol injection & TT, aka "Bobcat" (I think there are mules already about in F series trucks). FYI, Bobcat will have enough twist to turn a small island, and tear the LS9 a new one... Lets hope they have it in mind for the Stang.

Anyhow, as Ry_Trappo has indicated, autoblog & jalopnik (and many other media outlets) are far off the mark.

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

Ry_trapp0

I'm pretty sure the testing and durability procedures are consistant, it's Ford policy.

Yeah on the FRM, i'm not completely 100%, it's something I heard from US Supplier, but dont consider it to be that credible. I would be think spray bore also.

ooo, i see.

Hi Maestro. Regarding the concern of thin cylinder walls and boost, the below is off Australian Ford Forums. It sought of explains why it won't be that bad with boost. (And word is it's pumping out same as current forced 5.4.)


However, in relation to topic of Ecoboost, this (Coyote) isn't it. Ford have "skipped" Ecoboost with the V8 and are taking it to the next level using a V8 CGI block and ethanol injection & TT, aka "Bobcat" (I think there are mules already about in F series trucks). FYI, Bobcat will have enough twist to turn a small island, and tear the LS9 a new one... Lets hope they have it in mind for the Stang.

Anyhow, as Ry_Trappo has indicated, autoblog & jalopnik (and many other media outlets) are far off the mark.

i was under the impression that the thin head gaskets were more of an issue than the block it self, though i could very well be wrong.

as for the bobcat, are you saying that it will actually see a production application? i thought it was more of an engineering study as opposed to actual product development considering the relative scarcity of E85(here in the states anyways. as far as i know, it's uncommon out side of major cities in most states). i could see it being used in limited commercial applications, though would think that consumer applications would have to wait until ethanol had become a little more widespread. is the ethanol picture a little different in australia?

 

[Falc'man]

ooo, i see.

i was under the impression that the thin head gaskets were more of an issue than the block it self, though i could very well be wrong.

as for the bobcat, are you saying that it will actually see a production application? i thought it was more of an engineering study as opposed to actual product development considering the relative scarcity of E85(here in the states anyways. as far as i know, it's uncommon out side of major cities in most states). i could see it being used in limited commercial applications, though would think that consumer applications would have to wait until ethanol had become a little more widespread. is the ethanol picture a little different in australia?

Re strength for boost, I'm sure they have their bases covered. Our 5 litre is actually unique in that it incorporates many changes to suit the application it's meant for.