Why not a 5.9L Coyote?

[MAGS1]

There are some bread crumbs in a few threads here hinting at an engine size that rhymes with jive bot door that is not too far in the future. NA to boot. Maybe look at a few of the GTD threads and you’ll find said crumbs…

Sponsored

 

[OldbutNew]

The "jive bot door" is coming to an S650 chassis near you. In the not-too-distant future. There will be a LOT of refined tech in there.

 

[Bob Lob Law]

Heck in the old days we could hit 30mpg with the T56/LS1 combo (the GM T56 had a 0.50 6th gear compared to the Terminator T56's 0.63)

Engines weren't as good but the cars were a couple hundred lbs lighter back then

My '01 SS with the T56 and 4.10 gears, LTH and full off road exhaust would still get 29 mpg on road trips regularly.

 

[Rick#7]

Pushrod engines are not inherently inefficient, like everything else, they are a series of compromises to focus the fuel consumption vs work performed to best fit the intended purpose the engine is built for. So I'm not surprised that there's plenty of examples of pushrod engines getting great mpg on the highway. Pushrod engines absolutely have some advantages to go along with their shortcomings, like everything else. I knew a guy back in the 80's that had a T-Bird sport coupe, 5.0L pushrod engine, AOD trans, some ridiculous tall gear in the rear like a 2.83, and he got 30mpg on the highway, cruising at 70 mph at something like 1400 rpm. It's all about managing those compromises to get to your intended goal. Think about that, 30 mpg from a V8, 40 years ago!

 

[wingnutt]

Think about that, 30 mpg from a V8, 40 years ago!

well sure…but my grandma could have beat him off the line in her wheelchair

 

[GregO]

Pre-emission filthy tailpipe MPG vs. modern ultra low emission tailpipe MPG are two totally different things.
Back in early emission infancy days things like air pumps, EGR systems, vacuum advance/retard, lean burn carburetors all destroyed MPG.
Historically high MPG was obtained with high compression high octane leaded positive crankcase vented only motors with toxic tailpipe emission and big city smog where the air was yellow and hazy most everyday. I lived it and remember it well.

 

[Slow Yote]

Just sayin, with just OPG/CS, you can get 900whp+ without really opening the coyote. Thats why.

 

[wingnutt]

Historically high MPG was obtained with high compression high octane leaded positive crankcase vented only motors with toxic tailpipe emission and big city smog where the air was yellow and hazy most everyday. I lived it and remember it well.

not to drag this thing too off topic…but let’s not blame just cars for the old yellow air! Hell, Kaiser Permanente got its start in the steel mills causing all the pollution in the San Fernando valley, and is now one of (if not the) biggest managed care networks in the country...talk about irony

 

[TxGT350-52]

Just sayin, with just OPG/CS, you can get 900whp+ without really opening the coyote. Thats why.

Sorry, but OPG/CS means… ??

 

[wingnutt]

Sorry, but OPG/CS means… ??

oil pump gears
crank sprocket

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/cracked-crank-sprocket.229655/

 

[Balr14]

The coyote engine has a large footprint already. Increasing displacement would mean taller deck and/or larger heads. The coyote is about the same size as a 427 Chevy and the heads take take up a lot more space.

 

[Hack]

The C8 was epa certified at 27mpg highway and owners have reported 30

The LS/LT engines are quite good on the highway

The C8 uses AFM - cylinder deactivation - to get better fuel economy. Direct injection as well. I'd rather burn more fuel and have an engine without those "features". It's not beneficial to save on gas but then have shorter engine life due to built-in defects.

 

[Hack]

The coyote engine has a large footprint already. Increasing displacement would mean taller deck and/or larger heads. The coyote is about the same size as a 427 Chevy and the heads take take up a lot more space.

Counter argument is that you can gain a lot of displacement with a small increase in engine size.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I think the discussion can be divided into at least two scenarios. One where Ford starts largely from scratch in terms of casting molds, machining parts and the multitude of other things needed to make a coyote type V8 of some other displacement. Making all new molds and other tools necessary to tool up for a different displacement.
As noted earlier the current coyote block cannot be bored out to increase displacement. That leaves increasing the stroke using an existing block. Bound to be limits on how much stroke can be taken advantage of. I do not have an estimate.

The second scenario is to restrict Ford to use of already existing castings, molds and other Coyote factory equipment. I do not know how flexible the existing tooling is.

Let me throw in another elephant in the room which likely has an impact on new engines. Ford, GM and all had to get on the EV bandwagon a few years back. Some jumped on voluntarily while others were forced on board. Regardless the motor companies have lost billions in the EV effort. I think a year or two ago posts on here mentioned a $50,000 loss on each EV manufactured by Ford. Saw a report recently that GM will be eating a near ten-billion-dollar loss. I do not know what Fords loss may be. Point being the money wasted/lost becomes an opportunity cost loss in the present time. I fear we have not seen the financial end of that debacle yet.

 

[zackmd1]

Hello; I think the discussion can be divided into at least two scenarios. One where Ford starts largely from scratch in terms of casting molds, machining parts and the multitude of other things needed to make a coyote type V8 of some other displacement. Making all new molds and other tools necessary to tool up for a different displacement.
As noted earlier the current coyote block cannot be bored out to increase displacement. That leaves increasing the stroke using an existing block. Bound to be limits on how much stroke can be taken advantage of. I do not have an estimate.

The second scenario is to restrict Ford to use of already existing castings, molds and other Coyote factory equipment. I do not know how flexible the existing tooling is.

Let me throw in another elephant in the room which likely has an impact on new engines. Ford, GM and all had to get on the EV bandwagon a few years back. Some jumped on voluntarily while others were forced on board. Regardless the motor companies have lost billions in the EV effort. I think a year or two ago posts on here mentioned a $50,000 loss on each EV manufactured by Ford. Saw a report recently that GM will be eating a near ten-billion-dollar loss. I do not know what Fords loss may be. Point being the money wasted/lost becomes an opportunity cost loss in the present time. I fear we have not seen the financial end of that debacle yet.

So at the risk of starting another debate.... EVs are the future no matter which way you look at it. There is no future scenario where ICE is still the main form of power for vehicles. Now when this transition occurs can be debated... A few years ago the government was heavily pushing for this changeover to occur before 2030. That's obviously not going to occur and legacy automakers were not equipped to make that occur so quickly. Plus infrastructure/battery tech wasn't quite there to meet everyone's needs (although 90%+ can convert right now without issue).

With all that said, it would be incredibly short sighted for automakers to abandon EV R&D and transition back to big spending on ICE... This is where I relate my post back to the OPs topic...

IMHO I don't see Ford spending millions/billions on an essentially ground up rebuild of a coyote type V8 for larger displacement when they can add power in other ways. I see them squeezing every ounce of performance they can out of the same block and then transitioning to a power adder/hybrid for more performance. I don't see the ICE mustang going away any time soon but I also don't see it remaining purely ICE for much longer.

PS: I want my AWD hybrid V8....

Sponsored