Yeah, I raised that question in here awhile back...whether the Coyote would replace the Cammer in Grand Am. Now we know for sure. Good to see the Coyote head right to the track. Despite not passing durability tests for production use the Cammer did really well on the track. Do you know what the Cammer failed in durability testing by the way?
New 5.0 DOHC GT to have 425hp?
- Thread starter A4BLK98SS
- Start date
Ive never heard of COP problem for 4.6 3valves and I watch ALOT of 05+ Mustang GT AND GT500 forums.....maybe ive never heard of the 5.4 COP problems, but even then it sounds like you are talking out of your arsehole.
yea, i was assuming that ford would be phasing out cammer production as soon as they officially announced the coyote, there simply isn't a logical reason for it any more.
from the sounds of it, they are spinning it to 8,500-9,000RPM too:banana:
epper::banana:epper:sorry, i don't have any info on what the durability problems were. like i said in another thread, i'm more of an info aggregate(like a rottentomates of the mustang world
) than an insisder(like a roger ebert).8,500-9,000 rpm!!!?? Sweet music to the ears! Damn, a Mustang that sounds like a...Ferrari. An N/A-lover's woodie for sure.
Ford's COP are the worst in the industry, followed closely by VW. The 2V coils have been junk for years, and that is well known FACT. Ford has released coil recalls for several different vehicle lines on the 4V engines. The 3V stuff is shaping up to be just as bad. The majority is in the truck lines. And the 5.4 3V coils go bad, just like the others.
Get off the forums and jump into real life. Swing by a dealer sometime and ask a tech there on their opinion of the coil quality. Maybe I could show you some ROs from my shop? Just finished up an Aviator that needed a #2 coil and a bank 2 cylinder head.
I didn't read anything except the last page. But, it seems you guys are debating about 87 octane?? I don't know about you guys but I ALWAYS put 93 octane in all of my high performance cars ALL the time. Granted most of them were "premium only" but even if it doesn't say it I will always put in 93.
Was it the durability/reliability of the cammer or all the environmental regulations(epa) that all production motors need to pass that killed it?
FYI: The Aussie "octane rating" is measured differently there.
They have "98 RON" which is the same as our 93 octane premium here.
The new motor has adaptive strategy which will control spark
depending on the octane of the fuel used.
Run 87 it will make "X" power, run 91 or 93 it will make more.
I like this new Coyote V8:banana:..does anyone know if there is a chance of Ford increasing the displacement, I would think it should be possible, or putting on a supercharger?:shrug: Here's to hoping.:rockon:
then your wasting your money. there is NO benefit to running higher octane unless you get a tune for it.
i highly highly doubt it. 95% of emissions is in the tune, hence why the 1000HP bugatti veyron legitimately passes emissions(I.E., doesn't need an EPA exemption).
nope, it's maxed out as far as displacement goes. the block is basically a 4.6l block with a slightly larger bore and slightly larger stroke and revised cooling passages.
Are you confusing the cammer with the coyote? The Coyote is said to be a completely different engine.
the top end is 100% clean sheet design, the block is a 100% modular architecture with revised coolant passages. this has already been confirmed by people who have actually seen the engine in person(HISSMAN i believe was one). the revised coolant passages are the reason the heads aren't compatible with any other modular.
i'm not sure where this "it's a brand new engine" thing came from, why in the **** would ford waste their time and money designing a brand new engine, but keep the same design faults of the previous engine in the design??? the faults obviously being the terribly small bore spacing and the very long stroke. c'mon, we all know that if this engine was 100% clean sheet, we would see larger bore spacing since there is no logical reason at all for them not to increase it.
Hmm, my mistake then. I heard that the 6.2 had a larger bore spacing, and assumed that the 5.0 did as well. Im glad for the new engine, but Im a bit disappointed that it isnt a clean sheet, as you said.
yea, the 5.0l is kinda bittersweet. awesome engine, but coulda' been more.
What he said. I am pretty sure I remember reading that the bore spacing is so small on the modular only for its application in FWD vehicles.
Is it even used in FWD vehicles anymore? I know I was kind of hoping for some increased bore spacing myself, but I guess that will be several years off.
I got to sit in a new 2011 model this past saturday at Barrett-Jackson. Ford showed up in force as usual. They actually had the 2011's all opened up so I took some shots of the new motor, sat in the interior and tried to take in as much detail as possible. The new interior is excellent and redline on the gauges was in fact very close to 7k, there is a touch of red on the south side of 7,000rpm, however the model I was sitting in was an automatic, as well as that could be a design thing. The new motor does look fantastic...
What durability testing? We ran 2 engines the entire season last year in Koni challenge. I personally think that is pretty good durability.
I don't know about 500-550 crank but I know with no restrictor the Cammer makes between 400-420 at the wheels.
The biggest problem with the Cammer is the cost to buy and rebuild since it wasn't a high production engine
yea, i was assuming that ford would be phasing out cammer production as soon as they officially announced the coyote, there simply isn't a logical reason for it any more.
from the sounds of it, they are spinning it to 8,500-9,000RPM too:banana:
Bullshit, at test days at the beginning of this month they were running 7800.
After more testing they backed the redline down to 7500 for the race. Rumor is the stock ECU can't handle the injector duty cycle beyond 7500.
FWIW, I'm also pretty sure the Coyote engines in Grand Am are NOT exactly what comes off the production line either.
everything i know is all hearsay, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's wrong(and i'm certainly not trying to sell it as fact either).
the cammer durability testing thing has been championed by fourcam330 for years now. i'm sure the engines they were testing for production use were a little different than the race engines, as i'm sure the coyote is as well.
the crank HP guesstimates i picked up from the griggs racing GT500 suspension install thread. the owner(i believe it was, it was a while ago) said that that's about what the FR500C's make.
as for the RPMs, i think it may have started with your C-C post('quite a bit more than 7,000'), people kept adding a few hundred RPM as it got passed along, then it ended up at 8,500+ by the time it got to me, LOL.
the cammer durability testing thing has been championed by fourcam330 for years now. i'm sure the engines they were testing for production use were a little different than the race engines, as i'm sure the coyote is as well.
the crank HP guesstimates i picked up from the griggs racing GT500 suspension install thread. the owner(i believe it was, it was a while ago) said that that's about what the FR500C's make.
as for the RPMs, i think it may have started with your C-C post('quite a bit more than 7,000'), people kept adding a few hundred RPM as it got passed along, then it ended up at 8,500+ by the time it got to me, LOL.
Users who are viewing this thread
