Ford Confims the Return of the 5.0...400 HP "Coyote" V8 Slated for 2011 Mustang

1st

Thank you for your wonderful contribution to TR.

I wonder if this is solely a response to the Camaro, considering the people who make the Camaro might be out of a job soon.

Go Ford!

Oh great, here come a bunch of new rap songs about their five-point-oh.

Awesome news! Makes me glad that I decided to keep my 2006 Mustang GT for a little while longer instead of trading it in for an 2010 model.

Sounds like a strong motor but for my money I'd rather have that 355Hp 3.6 Liter Twin Turbo Ecoboost V-6 that they're putting in the MKS in that Mustang.

-It would get similar gas mileage to that of a 4.0 liter engine - 20% better than the 5.0 liter motor is my guess.

-Turbochargers allow much greater range of bolt-on performance options for the aftermarket and due to the lower T/Hp are generally safer for amateur road driving.

-It would be lighter and smaller and would allow for a better weight ratio IMO

@Zippy: When the gangsters sing about the "five-oh" they're not talking about the engine in their mustangs. The "five-oh" is a slang term for the cops. (1960's TV show 'Hawaii 5-0') This may help you understand why these gangsters seem to dislike their cars so very very much in those songs. Nobody wants to shoot their Mustang silly.

Um, Carter, the 3.5L Ecoboost doesn't get better/much better mileage then the small block series and the Hemi's. In the MKS it gets 17/25 mpg. The 5.7L Hemi gets 16/25 in the Charger/Challenger. The L76 in the G8 gets 15/24, the L99 in the Camaro 16/25, and the LS3 in the Camaro 16/24. All 4 of those engines make more power and torque then the 3.5L Ecoboost as well.

I fall to see how a turbo makes for better bolt-on performance. Bigger engines generally respond more with bolt-on's then smaller one's. Again, I also fail to see what makes them 'safer'.

Smaller and lighter? How do you figure? The 4.6L Modular in the Mustang weighs in at 420 lbs. Now I can't find the base weight of Ford's 3.5L, but the base weight of an LLT is 380 lbs for the auto and 428 lbs for the manual. Adding DI alone added 20 lbs to the engine weight of the LLT over the LY7. So that v6 will weigh in about 350-400 pounds before turbos, intercooler, and the piping. Likewise, all that stuff takes up space.

Plus, Gen V small blocks should be coming right around then.

400 hp from a 5 litter. next thing they will drop the Live Rear Axel.

That wasn't what vanilla ice was rappin about!!!!!!1
LOL!

"I wonder if this is solely a response to the Camaro"

I doubt it SEAL.
The correct response to the Camaro these days would include abandoning the Mustang for a bunch of years, then announce that a new Mustang is in the works, post teaser pics for 4 years, release the vehicle, then have to discontinue the platform several years later due to massive quarterly losses and bankruptcy plus dealership closings due to the inability to produce a quality array of passenger cars that make up the majority of an auto manufacturers line. (appologies for the world's longest sentence and partial truths.)

While i agree that the twin turbo Ecoboost will be a lighter engine with a lot of capacity for performance in the Mustang (and other platforms), there will be a whole lotta plumbing for Ford techs to deal with as opposed to a relatively simpler air screw or natural aspiration.
Until now, they've only had to deal with the occasional turbo diesel. And even more recently had to deal with the utterly amazing conglomeration of stuff under the hood of the new Super-Duty turbo diesels. It's actually easier to remove the cab to do major surgery on this engine than it is to simply dig in. If you have never actually popped the hood on one, i highly recommend it. Impressive to say the least.

That's my latest concern for Ford right now. How well techs will be able to address and correct any concerns with the Ecoboost system in all these cars without the customer and vehicle becoming what i like to call the "boomerang". Ford worked hard to get out from under their old shadow, hopefully this won't be a step back for them.

Better get the good stuff while you can. Under those stupid CAFE standards that idiot in chief, Mr Bobble Head Obama himself, will raise the mpg so high the only thing available to drive in 5 years will be those stupid shit eco turds (aka hot hatches) the europeans are stuck with.

The auto industries future looks so bleak. Nothing but fancy plastic styling, 13'' steel rims with chrome inserts, and a whiny little motor struggling to make descent power.

They'll be boot legging small block v8's soon enough. Hell, maybe even v6's before long.

@Trooper Bri
"the OCCASIONAL turbo diesel????????"

are you an idiot?? I work at a Ford dealer and probably 60% of the vehicles serviced are turbo diesels, and the techs know ALOT about turbos! so don't think they cant handle an eco-boost.

Excuse me while I expose my ignorance.

I thought people who like the American V8 also like them to use pushrods, rather than overhead cams. This rumored Coyote 5.0 is said to be a dual overhead cam engine. Is this going to cause riots? Festivals? Or did I miss the revolution?

(Partly kidding, partly hoping to become informed.)

This is a great engine, would love to have one. But my guess is that it will be short lived, abandoned in favor of the fantacy of saving the planet if our current president has anything to say about it...

This is a great engine, would love to have one. But my guess is that it will be short lived, abandoned in favor of the fantasy of saving the planet if our current president has anything to say about it...

This 5.0 is not a response to the Camero. This 5.0 is based on the new family of "Boss/Hurricane" engines that Ford has been developing for a while now (not to be confused with the Boss crate OHV engines available from Ford Racing)

Roush Racing has also been working with this engine as part of their project 777 (7 liters, 700hp, 7000rpm).

The newly minted Ford F-150 "Raptor" SVT will also use a derivative of this new mill (6.2L).

I think the numbers are somewhat conservative, or that Ford is de-tuning the engine on purpose. A modern DOHC engine with 5 liters of displacement should be capable of more. Then again, they might be doing this for emissions reasons as well (damn CAFE).

most turbo'd engine actually weight more than their NA counterparts once you add in all of the plumbing and such to the weight of the engine. Also once you factor in the higher build cost on a pressurized block (stronger parts), most turbo'd engines weigh more, and are significantly more money to build.

That being said, most factory turbo'd engines run rich, and with a very healthy safety margin of a tune. The BMW 335i comes stock with a 300hp 300 ft/lb tune. 15 minutes, and a reflash later, you are coser to 350hp, 365 ft/lbs. If you have 2 hours to do a custom tune, I have seen 385whp, with 405 ft/lbs on a stock engine.

Avatar is right, that larger engines tend to perform better to aftermarket bolt on mods than smaller ones. For the most part it can be grossly simplified into a larger engine is a larger air pump. If you improve the flow in a larger pump by 10%, you get a larger improvement of air flow over doing the same thing to a smaller engine. More air = more power potential.

most turbo'd engine actually weight more than their NA counterparts once you add in all of the plumbing and such to the weight of the engine. Also once you factor in the higher build cost on a pressurized block (stronger parts), most turbo'd engines weigh more, and are significantly more money to build.

That being said, most factory turbo'd engines run rich, and with a very healthy safety margin of a tune. The BMW 335i comes stock with a 300hp 300 ft/lb tune. 15 minutes, and a reflash later, you are closer to 350hp, 365 ft/lbs. If you have 2 hours to do a custom tune, I have seen 385whp, with 405 ft/lbs on a stock engine.

Avatar is right, that larger engines tend to perform better to aftermarket bolt on mods than smaller ones. For the most part it can be grossly simplified into a larger engine is a larger air pump. If you improve the flow in a larger pump by 10%, you get a larger improvement of air flow over doing the same thing to a smaller engine. More air = more power potential.

What is with all the 'what the fox' trolls posting their hate filled garbage on this site lately? Please go back to fox news or post something related to topic...

The Camaro has the advantage of the IRS, and styling hinting of the 69 Camaro which IMO was a killer model year for GM. The Mustang has the advantage of a huge aftermarket and fan base, good performance, and styling that IMO highlights the best of the 60's Mustang years (I own a 2006 GT convertible and love it obviously). It's disadvantage is the solid rear end for those who push the car's limits on the track (I don't), and now it will become somewhat underpowered compared to GM. Makes sense to update the Mustang for bragging rights.

Given the two, I have better faith in the Mustang 5.0 with DOC than the first model year of the GM Camaro. Time will see, if GM sticks around that is.

kw, the engine is actually a SOHC 3v per cylinder engine. The 3.5L in the Ecoboost is DOHC. This adds more weight then OHV, but not as much as a DOHC engine.

Everybody better get these while they last before Obama raises the MPG standards. This is a repeat when all the muscle cars came out in the late 60's and then by the late 70's early 80's we had 4 cylinder mustangs, mustang II's and camaros.

sorry sparky, just because you follow the heard to your eco-box egg mobile with a fart pipe hanging out the back doesn't mean everyone wants the same.

@morgande:

I doubt that Ford is detuning the 5.0l engine. While you are correct that there are higher hp/l engines out there, HP and torque have to trade off each other. HP and torque have to cross at 5252 RPM based on how they are calculated. If HP goes up after 5252, torque has to go down (at least below the hp curve) and vice versa. I have used this fact to great effect any time some kid shows me a fake dyno curve of their car's mods.

Ford may have sacrificed some top end horsepower in favor of more low end torque. This would be a design choice, and not a limitation of the car. BMW and Ferrari tend to go the other way, and have higher peak hp numbers, but make relatively lower torque because of their stratospheric redlines. Conversely, a rally car is usually tuned to make max torque at 3000-4000 RPM, and make relatively low hp numbers at that range. It's all about manipulating the area under the curve, which in turn dictates driving style.

It comes down to target audience, and heritage. You should be able to stomp on the gas pedal in a mustang and roast the tires. While an 8000RPM redline would be cool, chances are the loss in low end torque would completely change the character of the car, and perhaps hurt repeat sales.

@Sandman
WTF are you talking about? Fart pipe on a Mustang? eco-box egg mobile? WTH?

@Peter
Did Fox News Forum kick you out? Please go be paranoid somethere else.

@sealboy
This is in response to the camaro the v8 is considerably better than fords v8's. This is what im talking about tho the pony cars will be back. I remember the 5.0 mustangs(90-94) they were pretty sweet even tho im a chevy man all the way. This could also be a way to cut costs. A single v8 and maybe some eco-boost engines further down the road. Kinda like what chevy did with there 3.6L V6 DI

Having been involved with Ford for 7 years Phil, i'm quite aware that while many dealerships only sell trucks, or have robust truck sales, there's plenty that do not. Especially the Lincoln/Mercury only dealers.
Considering my association with Ford involved solving problems some dealers couldn't (mostly water leaks, electrical, and audio/vis/nav), that places me well outside of the idiot zone.

Phil, im not putting down any techs, dealerships, or Ford. Just pointing out what could be a bump in the road for anyone. Especially for dealerships with low (or zero) truck sales.
But let's be real. For every dealership (regardless of the badge) that is on top of their game, there is another down the road that simply doesn't compete on the same level.

Example: When FoMoCo did something as simple as phasing in the Gap style Delphi radios in 2004, you wouldn't believe how many "customer states radio backlighting inop at night" calls i got in the first year. Or requests for another radio exchange.
Despite what was posted as an exchange procedure, many assumed you simply swapped them or they didn't suck and blow the ACM data properly. Even after explaining the procedure, i'd sometimes have to walk a tech through pulling the as built data from OASIS and plugging it into the IDS. Failing that, i've even gone to a few dealers and showed them the procedure.

But i can also sit here and spin similar tales for Chevy, Honda, or any other automakers i've worked with or for. There's the good, the bad, and then the just plain ugly. Doesn't matter what's on the building, just under the roof.

@Trooper Bri:

Unbiased educated posts aren't alowed here.

Sorry Gary. Did i put everyone to sleep?

I've been told i'm as dull as Civic painted with rattlecan primer. Still trying to fix that. Time to start smoking weed again.

sparky did MSNBC kick you out of the zombie zone? Have you been entranced by Mr BobbleHead?

Seems so, as you can't even recall a direct quote. Typical liberal bullshit. Take someones quote, rearrange it as you see fit, and misrepresent shit as usual.

Crawl off into a dark hole and die already.

Fine, now how about that IRS, Ford?

@Paul

I'm not implying anything about design choices. I just think the 5.0 pushing 400 is conservative given what is possible with a DOHC engine, variable valve timing, variable intake runners, etc on an engine with 5 liters of displacement.

Roush got 100 HP per liter out of the same family of engines (granted I havent seen the torque curve of the 777), but I just feel like that number is down at 400 and I think Ford did it on purpose.

If you look at what is possible with the current MOD engines (or the Windsor before it) that Ford doesn't really do a good job of exploring the boundaries of what is possible with their engines. They just give up and build a new one from scratch (after years of delays).

Engine where block is made of Iron Cust weights more. having turbo or not plays small role in the weight.

Turbos don't add that much weight? A twin turbo kit for the current 4.6L Modular weighs about 40 lbs, without intercooler and extra piping for the intercooler. An engine that weighs 420 lbs now weighs 460+ lbs, let's just call it 470 lbs. That is a 12% increase in weight. Then you also would most likely want to build the engine up, adding a few pounds here, few there. It adds up quick. The LS3 weighs in at 415 lbs, which is most likely less then the Ecoboost 3.5L based off of the weight for the LLT, and makes more power while being larger displacement wise.

Cast iron blocks do weigh a lot more. The 4.6L iron block Modular engine weighs something like 500 lbs vs 420 for the aluminum one.

About time! no wait... it's pass time!

@miki727: if turbo's and plumbing don't way much, why is the most popular engine swap for a 3rd gen RX-7, the NA block out of the vette? The 1.3L rotary in the RX-7 and all of the plumbing etc and the 6.2L in the vette weigh within 40 lbs of each other...

Hmm 400 + hp and a crapload of torque, or 250 hp about the same in torque, and an engine rebuild every 20,000 miles???

Tough choice I know...

Oh, and the vette engine gets better gas mileage :)

Wow great another crap, gas hungry american V8... gezz these stupid americans don't understand anything... oh well, it just shows how ignorant they are and they people who actually buy these piece of shit cars...
And they you wonder why they are going bankrupt... lol

should change your name to bob is a bitch. Its suits you better.

Keep dreaming you had V8's in the spec of a country you live in. Thats right, you couldn't afford it anyway, because your commie government would tax you to death.

@Bob (is a) Bitchin

And your Euro. 550bhp 14mpg V12s are better how?

Don't forget the Japan 426Hemi, with their 2.2L with 237 hp that get's the gas mileage of a 400 hp 6.2L.

Wow, you go too far Avatar. If you want to smack talk then lets do it...

That motor you speak of won the international engine award a few years back. The car that the engine belonged to is a far more capable track car than many, many Ford and Chevy cars out there period and you know it. Hell, before the arrival of the Elise, that car was the most pure sports car in america. The s2000's main rival at the time was the Porshe Boxter which it handily beat in terms of straight line acceleration. Jeremy Clarkson also prefered it over the Boxter too. It also was never meant to be a gas sipper btw.

You wax on about how American engines have more power and lower weight than comparable foreign engines but you keep forgetting that American cars are just flat heavier overall. Many domestic cars have 300+ hp yet they struggle to trap more than 102 in the quarter stock. This also includes your car btw - in either the 350 or 400hp trims. That is friggin' sad. The GTO can barely keep up with a 350z let alone a 370z and both are down almost 100hp compared to the GTO. True Story.

Anyhow, how long did it even take Ford or Chevy to create a car that even compared to the 91' Honda NSX anyhow? 5 years? C5 Vette? It sure as hell wasn't your GTO that can stand toe to toe with the NSX.

I like domestic cars too but realize this: It took years for Domestic autos to catch up to the fit and quality of their import rivals and they only caught up because now the Japanese are getting lazy and the Euros save their best cars for themselves. That's the truth.

vtfo0lio

you import fan bois are hilarious.
What are the 2 top dogs of the Nurburgring?
Oh yeah they are American Cars
Viper SRT10 ACR
Corvette ZR1

American cars dont compete in the sports car world, please.

@muscleoverrice

I never said American cars don't compete in the sports car world. I love the ACR Viper and have defended the ZR-1 multiple times AGAINST the GT-R. I like the SS Cobalt and I'm a huge fan of the DOHC V8 in the KR Mustang/GT40. So don't put words in my mouth. I said facts. You showed me 2 modern cars that can compete with the worlds best. Now show me a car made in the US before 2000 that can do that. Btw, the C5 corvette was a 13 sec car before the z06 showed up and that was a good bit after 2000...doesn't count. I'm not a fanboy, YOU'RE a Fanboy.

LMAO. Wow, my GTO can barely keep up with a 350z, let alone a 370z? LS2 GTOs run low 13s, trapping 106-110 mph. A 350z, try high 13s between 100-105 mph. 370z, try mid 13s. And GTOs are KNOWN to have issues with wheel hop. If I want to drag, I take out the Firehawk. That does the quarter in the high 12s. A 2009 Nissan can't keep up with a 7 year old car with a 17 year old design. LMAO.

Oh, and if its from a roll, there is no contest at all. I was playing with a 370z the other day on the highway, and it wasn't hard at all to pull on it. I could pull on it from 4th gear. 3rd was no problem at all, and I can't imagine what the driver would have done if I went down to 2nd, talk about embarrassment.

As for awards, the LS series has taken more then its fair share.

Ahh yes, NSX. How much did that cost again? 90k. How much did a C5 cost? 40k. Heck, the C5 Z06 cost 52k. Oh, what's that, I can get two Corvettes for one NSX, or let's get a Vette and a daily driver, what a novel idea. I am sorry, but today I can nearly get a ZR1 for the cost of an NSX. I think we know which destroys which. And as for my GTO, that cost 33k. Brilliant comparison. And at the end of the NSX's life, they sold what, a few hundred a year, if that. When the NSX first came out, it was a bad a$$ track car. But in 2005, it was still basically the same car while all its competition had evolved.

The C5 Z06 showed up in 2001 genesis. That isn't very fair behind 2000. We can also talk about the C5-R. 3.5s 0-60 and 10.3s 1/4 mile in 2001, you know, the car that owned endurance racing from pretty much 2001-2004. Likewise, ever heard of the ZR1 and I am not talking about the C6 version. Those ran 0-60 in 4.6s and 1/4 mile high 12s, low 13s stock, in 1993. The C4 ZR1 still holds a bunch of endurance world records. But, it did cost too much. GM got it right with the replacement though, which was the C5 Z06. Likewise, there was also the original 1991 Firehawks with 0-60 of 4.6s and 1/4 mile in 13.2s. Then you have the GNX but that was the 80s. The GMC Syclone was a crazy truck in 1991. A shame they only really made it for a year, 0-60 in 4.6s and 1/4 mile in 13.4s. For comparison, the NSX was 0-60 in 5.2s and 1/4 mile of 13.5s in 1991. A truck was faster then it to the 1/4 mile, lol.

Nice try though, hahaha.

@Avatar

You are so GM biased. You are comparing apples to oranges. A low volume tarted up Grand National? A race version of the Corvette? You couldn't buy a C5R even if you wanted to. That car is only for privateers and race teams. A truck vs an exotic? What happens after the 1/4 mile vs the truck? The NSX walks it hard. That's what. Wheelhop? That's GM's problem not anyone elses. A 400hp GTO cannot keep up with a ~300hp/330hp 350z/370z plain and simple. The WS6 cars are not bad though - at the dragstip, not anywhere else. Pontiac is done. They made crap cars. The brand had only 1 car and that was the G8. I was one of the FEW that liked the GTO too btw. The american people have spoken and they say they don't want Pontiacs. May it rest in peace.

And about the NSX, I'm a bit ashamed to say it but Honda does not even have a car above 350hp. But Honda never made drag cars, they made sports cars. Sure, the ZR1 would tear on a NSX at the drag strip but at the circuit, the 1993 ZR-1 could not keep up with the NSX around a track at all and it had 100hp more than that car. Wow. Also look at the owners/designers of the NSX: Aryton Senna, Alex Zanardi, Bobby Rahal, Gordon Murray, and Jenson Button to name a few. The former 2 are celebrated F1 champions by the way. Gordon Murray designed cars for F1 as well as the McLaren supercar. GM doesn't even play there. However both Ford and Honda builds winning motors for F1 cars. I rest my case.

Before you talk about Honda's racing program: yes, it seems they pulled out of every racing series on Earth. They have almost no presence in racing at allbesides supplying engines to F1 these days. But hey, at least they're not filing for Chapter 11. That must mean something.

Btw, the C4 ZR1 probably has all those records because the motor was built by Lotus - NOT GM. Also the manufacturing of the motor was outsourced which is probably so reliable. Interestingly, the DOHC motor would have made much MORE HP had GM not stubbornly wanted to keep the bore center traditional for that 350cu that you so love. That is why such a modern engine at the time had only a 5800 rpm rev limit. Imagine what it could've made with a 6500 or maybe a 7000 rpm rev limit. Great move GM.

@ vtfo0lio:

I'd bet that GM had Lotus keep the bore the same as a conscious choice to limit piston speed so they could maintain their line wide power train warranty and not have to make an exception for the ZR-1. Not to mention that the Lotus Esprit of that era only had a 6500 RPM redline. As best I can find out, it looks like Ferrari had the highest redline of that year with a 7700RPM redline in the 348.

As you pointed out, they could have easily changed the bore and stroke to something more high RPM friendly and raised the redline but I'll bet the main reason they didn't do that is reliability. High RPM's require way more engineering know how than low RPM's do, not to mention the increased cost for everything to be built to support the increased engine speeds. Lotus may not have had the know how or materials to design an engine for 7-8000 RPM use back then. In addition the costs might have made the project infeasible. Back in the 90’s titanium parts was pretty much still an F1 only material, and steel science wasn’t near what it was today. Case in point, while you could make an engine with an 7700 RPM redline back then, the Ferrari needed repairs on a very regular basis.

Sorry vtfo0lio, but you are wrong on a few points. First, the LT5 wasn't developed solely by Lotus. Secondly, GM bought Lotus during the program. So, the engine was an in-house, intercontinental effort. Last, the engine was hand built by Mercury Marine. Reason is Mercury Marine was setup for small production numbers, unlike GM, and the LT5 had many precision-machined aluminum die-castings and used anaerobic sealing in many places. Mercury Marine was a world-leader in those technologies at the time because of their experience with aluminum, anerobicly-sealed outboard motors and outdrives. Simply put, GM did a smart thing by not assembling it in house.

As for the C5-R, I can go out right now and buy a C5, buy a C5-R engine, and drop the engine in it. Then strip it out, added some aero dynamic bits, and then low and behold, I have a C5-R. Can I buy it start from GM, no. But then again, the teams that raced them didn't exactly by them straight from GM ready to race either. Or I can go get the bits for a Tiger Shark, which there are a few around the country. That Vette is even more bad a$$ then the current ZR1. 742 hp. Also, since you seem rev happy now, the White Shark. Red line was 7000 rpm. It was a stroked LS1, which I can pretty much do with the LS1 I have sitting in my garage fairly easily.

"A 400hp GTO cannot keep up with a ~300hp/330hp 350z/370z plain and simple."

LS2 GTO
0-60 4.6-4.8s, 1/4 mile Low 13s
9.25 lbs/hp

350z
0-60 4.9-5.2s, 1/4 mile Mid-High 13s
11.11 lbs/hp

370z
0-60 4.7s, 1/4 mile Mid 13s
10.17 lbs/hp

Numbers don't lie. Likewise, a 200 lbs more Camaro with the same power runs about the 0-60 and same quarter mile time as the LS2 GTOs. Wheel hop for GTOs was an ISSUE.

As for your NSX to anything GM, you bring up a great point that I didn't touch on since I thought we were comparing vehicles and you did say name a car, not a not of a certain type. NSX = Exotic. GM has no exotics. So saying it took a C5 to keep up with an NSX isn't apples to apples is it? Funny, because you bought up the apples to oranges. So which is it, apples to apples argument or compare vehicles since GM has no exotics to compare with?

@Avatar
@Paul

Ok, ok...point taken. You two have many good points. You're right about the NSX being an exotic. I DID mention A CAR not a certain type. So you got me. You can look up dragtimes.com and browse and compare vehicle times and trap speeds for 350z Vs GTO. Those are real times by regular and seasoned drivers.

Um... any way, back to topic.

The only true downside I see to this is that Ford's wating to put it in the 2011 Mustang and not the 2010. So many of the people who were going to buy the 2010 modle are going to wate to got the 2011 modle insted.