5.0 Coyote vs LS3/LT1 GM engines - how do they compare?

[Hack]

Those numbers are so low for the stang. I wonder if they really test them on the same day. Both independent suspension and both have wheel hop on the launch. There has to be an explanation to these results.

IMO Ford puts cheap and small tires on the Mustang, and you can see the results. It is a great car and generally traction limited in stock form. Can you get better performance out of one, yes. However, on a cold day or on poor pavement you just won't get the traction.

There are two different philosophies at work here. Camaro has a lot of high end options available (mag ride and active exhaust come to mind), and the Mustang is a more basic car in several ways. Ford put their money into a great engine, but they did try to save in a number of other areas.

Sponsored

 

[Tm@c1965]

Clarification

So which is it? The 392, or the blown 6.2L?

IMO:

Best motor for the money = 392
Best American Motor = 6.2L Supercharged Hemi

Obviously I'm biased toward the Hemi. I will say that compared to the 5.0 and the crappy GM motors, the Hemi pulls hard, better Q curve, more HP, and doesn't "grenade" as often as GM engines.

I do like the High Rev characteristics of the 5.0L. It has many attributes that one could argue make it superior. My take is that simplicity is a good thing. The Hemi has less parts and takes less space per liter of displacement.

 

[Childs Play]

IMO:

Best motor for the money = 392
Best American Motor = 6.2L Supercharged Hemi

Obviously I'm biased toward the Hemi. I will say that compared to the 5.0 and the crappy GM motors, the Hemi pulls hard, better Q curve, more HP, and doesn't "grenade" as often as GM engines.

I do like the High Rev characteristics of the 5.0L. It has many attributes that one could argue make it superior. My take is that simplicity is a good thing. The Hemi has less parts and takes less space per liter of displacement.

So where are you getting your "grenade" statistics? I've seen plenty of motors grenade that were Chevy Ford and Dodge.

Any motor can fail. All companies have that issue.

There was an LS3 out there that was putting 900+ to the rear wheels on a stock bottom end and it lasted for over 2 years before the motor blew.

Is that common? Probably not. But it's possible.

Like it or not the LS motor is a great motor along with the 5.0 and Hemi's.

 

[1320']

The LT1 has been having a fair bit of problems during it's first few years, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's a very modern, very capable engine (below 6,000 RPM), but I'd honestly rate the LS series as higher. They're easier to tune, easier to work on, lighter, less expensive and don't require as many electronic bits to keep them behaving well.

The LS3, IMO, is the high water mark for GM N/A motors.

 

[Childs Play]

The LT1 has been having a fair bit of problems during it's first few years, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's a very modern, very capable engine (below 6,000 RPM), but I'd honestly rate the LS series as higher. They're easier to tune, easier to work on, lighter, less expensive and don't require as many electronic bits to keep them behaving well.

The LS3, IMO, is the high water mark for GM N/A motors.

Agreed. The LS3 is awesome for sure.

They'll iron out the LT bugs.

Either that or we'll have an LS7 valve issue all over again eventually (although that was eventually addressed as well). I kinda doubt it though.

 

[Spectre]

IMO:

Best motor for the money = 392
Best American Motor = 6.2L Supercharged Hemi

*cough* engine built in Mexico, car built in Canada *cough*

Obviously I'm biased toward the Hemi. I will say that compared to the 5.0 and the crappy GM motors, the Hemi pulls hard, better Q curve, more HP, and doesn't "grenade" as often as GM engines.

I do like the High Rev characteristics of the 5.0L. It has many attributes that one could argue make it superior. My take is that simplicity is a good thing. The Hemi has less parts and takes less space per liter of displacement.

I love the Hemi as well, make no mistake. I think it has gobs of torque and it is the most, er "cultured" sounding of the big Yankee style V8s.

I think to say the GM motors are crappy is disingenuous. The LS motors had proven to be pretty rock solid. The LT series are new, and the problems haven't been with the motors, but the automatic transmissions. The few motors that did grenade (like Car and Driver's) were traced to oil related issues, which GM has addressed with the newest recommendations.

In all fairness, look at Ford and the Ecoboost 2.3. If you're going to call out GM for its "crappy" engines, despite only a few (albeit high profile) problems, you should do the same for Ford.

 

[1320']

*cough* engine built in Mexico, car built in Canada *cough*

You reaaaaallly don't wanna start that argument on this forum..

 

[bluebeastsrt]

You reaaaaallly don't wanna start that argument on this forum..

Mic drop.

 

[Spectre]

You reaaaaallly don't wanna start that argument on this forum..

Not trying to start anything, and I'll happily not pursue the matter further, but is there a reason or some link to why that's such a contentious issue?

 

[Higgs Boson]

Not trying to start anything, and I'll happily not pursue the matter further, but is there a reason or some link to why that's such a contentious issue?

5.0 L Coyote[edit]
The 5.0 L (4951 cc, 302 cid)[10] "Coyote" V8 is the latest evolution of the Modular engine.[11] Ford engineers needed to design a V8, specifically for the Mustang GT, that would compete with the GM 6.2L LS3 used in the new Chevrolet Camaro, and the new Chrysler 6.4L Hemi ESF in the Charger, Challenger, and Grand Cherokee. This engine had to remain close to the same physical size of the outgoing 4.6, and share other specifications with it such as bore spacing, deck height, bell housing bolt pattern, etc. in order for the engine to utilize existing Modular production line tooling. The result was the 5.0 Coyote, which produced roughly the same amount of power as its competitors, but with a much smaller displacement. To strengthen the block enough to handle increased output, webbing was extensively used as reinforcement in the casting, rather than increasing the thickness of the walls. The intake plenum was also situated low between the two cylinder banks to meet the height constraint, thus the alternator traditionally placed low and center was moved to the side of the engine. It shares the 4.6 L's 100 mm (3.937 in) bore spacing and 227 mm (8.937 in) deck height,[12] while bore diameter and stroke have increased to 92.2mm (3.629 in) and 92.7mm (3.649 in), respectively. The engine also retains the 4.6 L's 150.7 mm (5.933 in) connecting rod length, which produces a 1.62:1 rod to stroke ratio.[13] The firing order has been changed from that shared by all previous Modular V8s (1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8) to that of the Ford Flathead V8 (1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2).[13] Compression ratio is 11.0:1, and despite having port fuel injection (as opposed to direct injection) the engine can still be run on 87 octane gasoline.

The Coyote features all new 4V DOHC cylinder heads that have shifted the camshafts outboard, which allowed for a compact roller finger follower setup with remote hydraulic valve lash adjusters and improved (raised) intake port geometry. The result is an intake port that outflows the Ford GT intake port by 4 percent and the Yates D3 (NASCAR) intake port up to 0.472" (12 mm) lift, which is the maximum lift of the Coyote's intake cams. Engine redline is 7000 rpm.[13]

The Coyote is Ford's first implementation of its cam-torque-actuated (CTA) Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing (Ti-VCT) in a V8 engine, which allows the power-train control module (PCM) to advance and retard intake and exhaust cam timing independently of each other, providing improved power, fuel economy and reduced emissions. The engine is assembled in Ford's Essex Engine Plant in Windsor, Ontario, using existing Modular tooling.[14]

 

[Tm@c1965]

Them Canadians

do a fine job.

 

[5ABI VT]

All ford has to do is Bore and stroke the 5.0. Get it up to 6.2L and lets see what the LT1 fan boys have to say about the hp difference. Im just sad there isn't that much to gain from the coyote. Its a much bigger engine dimensionally than the LT5 in my 94 ZR-1 and the LT5s can get to 7.4L + pushing 800+ hp NA.

 

[Childs Play]

All ford has to do is Bore and stroke the 5.0. Get it up to 6.2L and lets see what the LT1 fan boys have to say about the hp difference. Im just sad there isn't that much to gain from the coyote. Its a much bigger engine dimensionally than the LT5 in my 94 ZR-1 and the LT5s can get to 7.4L + pushing 800+ hp NA.

Then all Chevy would have to do would be to bore out their motor to a larger size...

Then we'd be right back bitching to each other about DOHC vs. OHV...

Sounds good talking about it but it won't happen. Ever. At least in a production car.

 

[Tm@c1965]

Lots of people assume that DOHC is new tech

a little research will show that overhead cams existed 100 years ago.

http://hotrodenginetech.com/worlds-first-dohc-4-valve-per-cylinder-racing-engine/

The DOHC motors have advantages and disadvantages. The only thing high tech about modern push rods or DOHC is the modern innovations to them. The internal combustion engine is old tech.

Push rod engines allow more cubic inches per size of the motor. The 5.0 Coyote probably takes up more space than my 392. It has more moving parts and chains. But.... it gets more power per cubic inch because of more valves and higher revs.

Neither one is better in every case. I believe V8's will be rare after 2019 (CAFE Regs). The Twin Turbo V6 is the future.

 

[Childs Play]

a little research will show that overhead cams existed 100 years ago.

http://hotrodenginetech.com/worlds-first-dohc-4-valve-per-cylinder-racing-engine/

The DOHC motors have advantages and disadvantages. The only thing high tech about modern push rods or DOHC is the modern innovations to them. The internal combustion engine is old tech.

Push rod engines allow more cubic inches per size of the motor. The 5.0 Coyote probably takes up more space than my 392. It has more moving parts and chains. But.... it gets more power per cubic inch because of more valves and higher revs.

Neither one is better in every case. I believe V8's will be rare after 2019 (CAFE Regs). The Twin Turbo V6 is the future.

Exactly. You'll see people from both sides arguing that one or the other technology is old and outdated when in reality they've both been around for a long time. It's the innovations and technological improvements over time that are what make them last.

Sponsored