Sponsored

jake_zx2

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Threads
11
Messages
2,305
Reaction score
1,418
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Kona Blue 2018 GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
This just isn’t right. As I stated earlier, the two intake valves in a gen 3 coyote have the skirt area of a single 3” valve that you can’t fit in any production v8.
Beat me to it

Talk about Dunning-Kruger effect, right? Lol
Sponsored

 

zackmd1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Threads
138
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
2,650
Location
Maryland
First Name
Zack
Vehicle(s)
1970 Mustang, 1965 AC Cobra, 2023 Ford Bronco 2Dr
This just isn’t right. As I stated earlier, the two intake valves in a gen 3 coyote have the skirt area of a single 3” valve that you can’t fit in any production v8.
It's not just about airflow but also mixing in the combustion chamber to produce a more complete burn.... There is a video out there somewhere with a Ford engineer explaining why the 7.3 is a pushrod and in their analysis, 2 larger valves were better at the bore size of the 7.3 then 4 smaller valves.
 
Last edited:

17Magnetic5.0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
659
Reaction score
330
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
2017 premium mustang gt black accent package
So is this like confirmed that it’s coming to the mustang because I find it hard to believe that. Unless it’s for a special edition mustang with limited numbers i just can’t see it happening because of emissions. I would definitely welcome it due to being a less complex motor (getting rid of tick/rattles hopefully) and more torque but even Chevy is going DOHC flat plane in the corvette though so I’m not sure why Ford would do it. Only thing I can think of is they actually see an issue with the 5.0/5.2 with things such as oil consumption, ticks, rattles and want to get away from that architecture. Then again if this 6.8 isn’t as stout as the 5.0 and able to handle the crazy things that have been done to them in the last decade it’s a no go for me.

Edit: I hate to think about this but with the pushrod they would probably have to bring cylinder deactivation to meet the mpg goals.
 

vxer1000

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
22
Reaction score
38
Location
Illinois
First Name
Vince
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT PP 6 Spd Manual
Vehicle Showcase
1
Little late to the party. The Coyote is near the limit of power production for a naturally aspirated, gasoline powered street engine. You can't run 15 to 1 compression no matter what kind of tech you have in the engine and if you want it to be streetable and get good mileage you can't rev it to 9000rpm like Ferrari which only gets 10mpg. It makes sense that Ford would go back to a pushrod engine to reduce costs and up the displacement. As far as emissions in a large bore engine a dual spark plug design and possibly coated headers to keep exhaust gas temps up prior to the catalytic converters would be viable options. The weight won't be an issue since they would likely go to an aluminum block. No replacement for displacement.
 

zackmd1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Threads
138
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
2,650
Location
Maryland
First Name
Zack
Vehicle(s)
1970 Mustang, 1965 AC Cobra, 2023 Ford Bronco 2Dr
So is this like confirmed that it’s coming to the mustang because I find it hard to believe that. Unless it’s for a special edition mustang with limited numbers i just can’t see it happening because of emissions. I would definitely welcome it due to being a less complex motor (getting rid of tick/rattles hopefully) and more torque but even Chevy is going DOHC flat plane in the corvette though so I’m not sure why Ford would do it. Only thing I can think of is they actually see an issue with the 5.0/5.2 with things such as oil consumption, ticks, rattles and want to get away from that architecture. Then again if this 6.8 isn’t as stout as the 5.0 and able to handle the crazy things that have been done to them in the last decade it’s a no go for me.

Nothing is confirmed yet...


But again, you are thinking about it like this would be an old school big block.... There are ways to make a large displacement motor efficient and pass current emissions. (Atkinson cycle combustion, cylinder deactivation, hybrid transmission). Going back to a pushrod to reduce production costs might allow them to combine these technologies that might be to costly combined with a coyote.
 

Sponsored

MustangorCamaro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
118
Reaction score
44
Location
DMV
Vehicle(s)
Honda Accord
Don't believe it. No time to play around with a 6.8 now. They'd better figure out how they're going to sell cars by 2035 now that California has put the hammer down on ICE vehicles. ALL states will follow California rest assured. Only a matter of time. Shit is changing fast. Hell Ford may not be around by 2035.

For the younger crowd, 15 years probably "sounds" like forever. It's not and will go by quickly.

The most likely scenario is the Mach E will take over as the Mustang after phasing out all ICE versions.
 
Last edited:

bluebeastsrt

Oh boy
Joined
May 10, 2015
Threads
79
Messages
7,552
Reaction score
7,026
Location
New Jersey
First Name
BigD
Vehicle(s)
Ruby red 2019 GT Premium.
Been reading this thread. And the only possible reason I could come up with for Ford going to a Windsor is size. That would make more room for electric motors at the front wheels. I’m a doubting Thomas. So I expect to see a 275hp 5.0 in the next gen car. The S650 will likely be my last new Mustang so I hope the 6.8 is real though.:like:
 

engineermike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Threads
16
Messages
4,119
Reaction score
3,483
Location
La
Vehicle(s)
2018 GTPP A10
It's not just about airflow but also mixing in the combustion chamber to produce a more complete burn.... There is a video out there somewhere with a Ford engineer explaining why the 7.3 is a pushrod and in their analysis, 2 larger valves were better at the bore size of the 7.3 then 4 smaller valves.
I think “turbulence” is the word you’re looking for. Keep in mind that when ford engineers talk about something being “better”, max wot power is a very small portion of the operating context.

Less valve area will always lead to more cylinder turbulence regardless of the engine size. Higher turbulence speeds up the burn rate and requires less spark advance, and is more efficient as a result. Higher burn rate is important when your spark plug can’t be located in the middle of the chamber. A 4v head allows for a centrally located spark plug so the burn rate doesn’t need as much help like it does in a wedge shaped chamber. Less valve area and smaller ports have been used to improve turbulence for decades. This is the concept that the BBC peanut port and horrible SBC TBI “high swirl” heads were born out of. It’s also why the coyote has CMCV. However, at WOT the CMCV opens and the 2v high turbulence head designs become overly restrictive.

One example that reinforces my point is that even though it’s a big bore engine, the LS7 gains 200 hp when converted from a single 2.2” intake valve to a pair of 1.7” valves. Perhaps not coincidentally, the 4v version has 55% more valve skirt area and makes 49% more power than the 2v version.
 

Elp_jc

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2020
Threads
48
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
795
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
None
What makes you think a pushrod engine is a downgrade? In many ways it's an upgrade in terms of complexity.
So a Civic is an upgrade over a Bentley because it's less complex? Come on man. A DOHC engine is always going to be the better engine when cost is not a constraint. Pushrod engines are cheaper to build than DOHCs, and that's a fact. They have advantages, of course, like smaller in size with equal displacements (for better packaging). And at least before they were saddled with crap like VVT, cylinder deactivation, etc., more reliable. But not sure that's the case anymore.
 

martinjlm

Retired from GM
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Threads
15
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
2,973
Location
Detroit
Vehicle(s)
2017 Camaro Fifty SS Convertible
Sounds the same as "my brother knows a guy who's cousin said". After looking into it more it seems likely that it's just a reporting mistake by this paper and not what's actually happening.
I went back and looked at the press conference feed again. It is what Dias said, but I think it may have been a mis-statement. Let’s start with, all who think that Ford would make a Mustang product reveal statement at a Unifor contract settlement press conference raise your hand

We’ve been dissecting this statement by Dias and have fallen into two camps.

One camp acknowledges that Ford could produce a 6.8L OHV off of the 7.3L and that such an engine could likely package in the S550/S650. But why would they? It would be cast iron, like the 7.3L, so likely heavier than the 5.0. Mustang is already front heavy. This won’t help.

The other camp (led by yours truly) is of the opinion that the Dias misspoke and that what will actually happen is the Windsor (or was it Essex?) plant will build engines for Mustang (5.2SC) and the 6.8L for F150 Super Duty. Somehow it came out as the plant will build 6.8L for Mustang and F150 Super Duty.

The Romeo handbuild line has to be relocated when the Romeo plant closes and this is where we think it is going.
 

Sponsored

martinjlm

Retired from GM
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Threads
15
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
2,973
Location
Detroit
Vehicle(s)
2017 Camaro Fifty SS Convertible
To confirm that this wasn't a typo made by the Windsor Star, a member of affiliate site Bronco6g.com downloaded the Unifor press conference in which the union president clearly says they've negotiated to have a 6.8L engine built in Windsor. Comes at 01:57 of this press conference recording:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3iex143duqwyi3/Ford TA News Conference-2020.09.22.mp4?dl=0
This true. That is part of the reason for the press conference. The other thing that is true is Ford is closing the Romeo plant. Where the Predator is hand-built. That engine has to go somewhere. Likely that it is going to Windsor along with the 6.8L. This would be the “Mustang variant” that Dias was speaking of. The GT500. So soon the hand built Predator would come from Windsor instead of Romeo.
 

SilverSurfer98

Active Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
27
Reaction score
36
Location
Apopka, FL
First Name
Hans
Vehicle(s)
2007 ShelbyGT CSM 07SGT0654, 2013 GT500, 2020 Shelby 350R
Vehicle Showcase
2
Buddy boy?! Those are some heavy words! Lol! Haha!
 

DougS550

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Threads
224
Messages
3,272
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Indiana
First Name
Doug
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT PP Whipple Stage 2
A "big block" Coyote would be epic.
I think the Windsor is a Short block and the Cleveland is between a Short block and big block, but most consider the C a Big Block. Won't have the same high reving, easily modified to increase HP by over 60% without going into the engine. Not for me.
 

Copperhead73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
363
Reaction score
443
Location
Knoxville, TN
First Name
Derrick
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang GT Premium Convertible PP1, A10, Mag, B&O, A/E, S&S
I think the Windsor is a Short block and the Cleveland is between a Short block and big block, but most consider the C a Big Block. Won't have the same high reving, easily modified to increase HP by over 60% without going into the engine. Not for me.
What I really mean is a "bigger" coyote.
Sponsored

 
 




Top