Sponsored

MMR cooling head head mod

andrewtac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Threads
56
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
572
Location
TX
First Name
mark
Vehicle(s)
F250. 2020 GT 400A
You're describing a very obscure and rare event, compared to a certain and every day detractor of the vehicle not warming quickly. It's all in your risk assessment and if you'd rather the former, just yank the T-stat.

I'm sure that it could be engineered to default open and close under conditional input, but that would add cost and complexity to a system that they've determined to be low risk for what you're describing. It's been a very long time since I've had a Tstat hang up or even heard of guys having it foul up.
I haven't had one fail in a while, but I also primarily drive newer cars now. When I was kid and young adult it happened.

I am not asking for a thermostat that starts open. I think you fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying and the other poster as demonstrated by this reply. If failure is obscure and rare then how would a failure mode that resulted in the tstat failing open result in everyday slow warming of the vehicle. I am ONLY complaining about the failure mode not how it operates. I am not saying the thermostat should operate in reverse, only that in that rare and obscure time it fails that it fails open.
Sponsored

 

Platinum_5.0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Threads
12
Messages
415
Reaction score
190
Location
Edmonton, Canada
First Name
Daniel
Vehicle(s)
2021 10R Whipple
So what's the obvious reasons? All stock motors including mine. You don't think hitting a stock engine with 22* of timing at WOT from 3500rpm isn't harder on an engine then less timing and ramping it in?


The reason for the timing should be very obvious by just seeing the setups, surprising that you dont see it. And 21-22* is likely to have no real connection to the failure. Failure is more likely due to luck, lack of maintenance, bad E85, of excessive abuse.
 

SolarFlare

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Threads
76
Messages
4,019
Reaction score
2,199
Location
S. Fla
Vehicle(s)
2015 CO GT
No harder than you hitting it with 8-9psi on the hit at 3000 rpm vs a centrifugal ramping it in slowly over a couple thousand rpm and a turbo spooling a few hundred RPM before hitting its boost stride. Fact is you SHOULD see more timing if there isn’t high air load right away.
 

stasik-a4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Threads
6
Messages
361
Reaction score
215
Location
SE Melbourne/Australia
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT PP1
So after reading all of these pages and seeing that you all are still looking for data, im assuming that none of you guys have managed to install the mod with the engine still in the car and transmission still in the car? :giggle::question:
 

Racinjason65

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Threads
27
Messages
391
Reaction score
435
Location
Huntington Beach
First Name
Jason
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT Premium PP1M-82
I don't know I was asking what your asking. I know back in my Cobra Days supposedly there was an issue with coolant flow at the back of the head. But you would have to imagine Ford has addressed it at this point right?
back in the cobra days I bought brand new Camaro’s. A Z28 in 96 and an SS in 2001 because they came with T56’s and cobras came with weak 5 speeds. Then the terminator cars got t56’s and Shelby gt350’s got tr6060’s. So I assumed when I bought my 2029 6!speed I assumed it would come with a decent trans,yet here I am shopping for a Magnum XL.
 

Sponsored

Cobra Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Threads
705
Messages
16,230
Reaction score
17,943
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
2018 EB Prem. w/PP and 94 Mustang Cobra
:wink:
So after reading all of these pages and seeing that you all are still looking for data, im assuming that none of you guys have managed to install the mod with the engine still in the car and transmission still in the car? :giggle::question:

I read through all of this as well - and would like to shout out to @honeybadger because his name was mentioned quite a few times in this thread and I'd like to hear his thoughts/input as well.

--

Now this is totally S550 unrelated, but years ago Ford had issues with the F-Series/Broncos popping cylinder 8 (and sometimes both 4 & 8) on the 5.0/5.8 due to the as built factory PCV routing in the upper intake system. There was an actual Ford fix where the upper intake was redesigned in later years but for TSB/Warranty fix prior to the new design, the PCV routing had to be plumbed differently. What is being discussed here about the more modern engine also having a cyl 8 "pop". I'm wondering if the issue may be related to the PCV system (again) and it just isn't been linked/found yet via 3D "diagnosis" to see why (aside from an aftermarket tune) that the issue may not just be "coolant passage" related.

As far as the MMR piece and claims - I will agree that claims online for after market parts spread like wild fire... As soon as X-company comes out with some new fangled mod/device/part and 1 person buys it, next thing you know the entire forum is buying it with absolutely NO data to back up any actual improvements (as others have pointed out). I would also be weary of ANY Company that lays down XYZ "claims" but also has NO data to back up those claims, other than the fact they have produced a "new shiny part"....This isn't to say the part works (OR does not), but again where's the data to support the claim.

We all know the part is out there to purchase and use - does it divert coolant or somehow create another flow path to alleviate the supposed hot spot? No logged data to show such temp discrepancies before and after exists in this entire thread.

Does the part divert coolant? Sure it does. BUT by doing so is it really solving any "hot spot" issue? Me personally, I don't believe the part being discussed does diddly. I think it was a creative design where it is THOUGHT to have some sort of benefit, but without hard data to support the "hot spot" issue, was it completely without any doubt resolved after the installation of said part - it's anyone guess. For all we know people are buying these kits with the assumption it works based SOLEY on some typed up claim from a manufacturer ... and why? "Just because" they sell other shiny parts, so this shiny part must work too?

I'm not in any way saying a problem does not exist, what I am saying is folks NEED TO review what is inherently different between the L and R head, all cooling, oil and PCV passages between the Coyote Gens. Has any of that ever been fully "mapped"?

And BTW - where is the original source of linking the Coyote "hot spot" to coolant path issues - who first came out with the data of this exact hot spot, the theory behind it and any article to point to?

-

Here's an older post of mine - not sure if any participants of this thread have ever read all the way through it, but Greg Jones does an excellent job of laying out many differences (improvements) through the Coyote Gen years:
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/coyote-generations-tech-article.155301/

Then there is also this thread stickied in the other 5.0 sub forum, which Ford Performance outlines some variances too:
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/th...coyote-v8-engine-improvements-changes.138550/

Again, I don't believe the coolant bridge kit is the solution based on the fact that the Coyote has evolved over the years and that bridge kit came out BEFORE the S550.... Even based on what is discussed in the above links/docs, it leads me to believe the bridge kit won't have any "gains" in a newer (2015+) Coyote AND is an application intended for OLDER Coyotes which is being overlooked too.
 
Last edited:

honeybadger

Just don't care
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Threads
59
Messages
3,697
Reaction score
6,205
Location
COTA
First Name
Kevin
Vehicle(s)
'17 GT350
Agree with @Cobra Jet , I don't believe this mod does crap. The FP350S/GT4 cars don't run it and if you ask any of the companies that make it for data they will give you a "our experience has shown it helps" type answers--if they even answer you at all. That's all you need to know, IMHO. If it was actually needed, they'd have data - not anecdotal evidence.

Also - notice how the only "experts" who tell you that you need are also the ones that are selling it.

But I digress.

In regards to install - you can do it with the engine in the car, but you'll need to remove the intake and trans to get proper access.
 

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
2,392
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
So I ran across some interesting information the other day on this and I can't find it.

Essentially what it was saying is what we all suspected. The #8 cylinder runs hotter. Something to do with the lack of cooling jacket on the #8 intake port.

At the same time, the CHT resides on the passenger side adjacent to #4.

By "balancing" the coolant between the two, it not only reduces the delta between the two cylinders (slightly reducing the #8 temp and slightly raising the #4 temp) it also serves to give the computer better sensory information as to the worst case condition for CHT.

Who knows if Ford already accounted for this (i.e. they took whatever the safe #4 read temp is and reduced it slightly to account for a higher temp at #8), but it can't hurt to help balance #8 with another cylinder that's getting better flow/cooling and also to yield a more accurate picture of the worst case condition.

As with many modifications, once you're past the "it works" phase, the next question becomes "how much" or to what extent? Is it really making a noticeable difference?

I can only speculate that under very harsh conditions (i.e. full WOT on a boosted car) where the combustion is adding excess heat very quickly and CHT's are climbing, we could expect that the delta between 4 and 8 would be that much wider momentarily. If the tune relies heavily on CHT's for safety nets, then I could see scenarios where running boosted would exacerbate the issue.

As I've said before.....I wouldn't do this mod unless the motor was already out and once it's out, it's $150.00.

I'm not flexing or claiming to be a wealthy man, but lord knows I've spent more money on less important shit for my car. If the motor is out, it's $150 and an easy install. Can't hurt and even if it only helps a little, more is better in my mind.

Choose accordingly.
 

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Threads
89
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
12,096
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
'19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
Vehicle Showcase
2
Can't hurt and even if it only helps a little
it's probably worth more to re-plumb the motor to cool back to front. :)
Does the kit route properly from high to low pressure?

Yes I'm sure Ford would have thought to configure FI to richen up #4,8 vs baseline (does this show on injector signaling?) to help with cooling. Hell, the engineers at Hinkley Triumph spent the time to do this with the jetting on the middle-carb on the 1994+ triple while also being mindful that the same carb's intake flow was compromised by the airbox shape.

Surely Ford engine guys are at least as smart as some bike-shed muppets.
 

Unas2k5

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2022
Threads
61
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
422
Location
Detroit
First Name
Samer
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT, 2021 Explorer ,2019 Impala
I've also seen no real data to justify this cooling mod but I do believe that tuning plays a significant role. Where I'm from there has been 2 close friends of mine with boosted Gen 2's, one with twins and one with a Vortech. Both tuned by Lund, both stock motors running between 700-850whp and both popped #8. I'm tuned by PBD and ran my 17 Whipple car at 700-850WHP and 8000rpm for 3 years straight with no issue. Now this isn't a tuner comparison on who is better, I believe both are amazing tuners but there was one major difference between my tune and theirs and that's timing. When comparing logs, Lund had both their cars getting max timing right from the hit where PBD on my car would ramp it in. I can't help but assume that on a stock engine making 850whp and hitting it with all 21-22* of timing right from the hit, was the primary factor in them engines having #8 fail. It couldn't have been heat from lack of cooling. All our cars were built the exact same. 170 T-stat, performance pack cars so little bigger rad and I ran my car much harder, roll racing constantly from 3rd gear to the top of 5th and 8000rpm every shift. #8 plug always looked just the same as the rest. There were 2 other lund tuned cars who lost stock engines in my area as well but I didn't know them well enough to see the data.
My Lund tuned cylinder 8 went out too. Under 2k mile motor and under 1k running a procharger with online 6lbs of boost lol. I had a 160 degree thermostat and a stage 2 kit
 

Sponsored

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
102
Messages
10,360
Reaction score
8,495
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Threads
89
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
12,096
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
'19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
Vehicle Showcase
2
Get rid of that 160 and install the reische 170 degree
how's that going to help with lousy cooling on a hot cylinder? A mod that cools back to front or at least branches such that the back 2 cylinders get the cool water and pickup is in the middle would make sense.
 

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
102
Messages
10,360
Reaction score
8,495
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,
The 160 degree T stat runs hotter than the listed 170.

I agree on the cooling mod as you suggested but I don't know of anyone who makes a kit or a how to.
 

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Threads
89
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
12,096
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
'19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
Vehicle Showcase
2
I agree on the cooling mod as you suggested but I don't know of anyone who makes a kit or a how to.
best I can figure you'd have to drill thru and tap the water passage somewhere between the block inlet and base of Cyl #1, and drill into the same passage between 3-5, insert a plug or (variable) blocking mechanism and tap once more into the 5-7 juncture and attach the other end of the hose. Now it's a 2-zone setup with equal-temps at block inlet and then the water flows back to the front via the head.

If I had to guess there is too much pressure drop front to back and the water trying to exit out the top of the head at #1 interfears with the flow trying to flow across the heads at #7 and make it's way back, so the #7 flow 'eddy's and drives the temps up. What Ford SHOULD have done was put the head-return at the BACK of the engine. But then they'd have to deal with a pair of hoses needing to come back in the V and a "clean" V was apparently more important? But running a pair of long hoses from the front of the engine to the heater core was just ok...

What we need are flow gauges at the various points to see how the factory system is done poorly. Depending how the passages are done in the head, it may be sufficient to partially plug the #1 and #3 exits and thereby give the flows from #5/7 a chance to fully participate.
 

K4fxd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
102
Messages
10,360
Reaction score
8,495
Location
NKY
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2017 gt, 2002 FXDWG, 2008 C6,
@shogun32

Sounds like you have put some thought into this.

If you ever do the mod put a write up on the site.
Sponsored

 
 




Top