• Welcome to SVTPerformance!

No Replacement for Displacement | Is it Time for a 5.7L Tall-Deck Coyote???

Discussion in 'Front Page Articles' started by SID297, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. _Lariat

    _Lariat Member Established Member

    Messages:
    91
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2018
    Location:
    Iowa
    It doesnt matter per say, but in the grand scheme of things. I'm not planning on revving my pickup that will be towing things to 7k rpm all the time to use the most power potential that 4v heads offer. I could argue that same logic with the old school 4v Cleveland heads myself, as they were, and still are lackluster under 3500 rpm.

    Another thing to look at is cost, lifetime, and simplicity. 4v heads are nothing to sneer at, but in a fleet situation, less things to fail, the better off. Longevity, while I havent heard of any issues with the coyote platform, it makes power at a higher rpm. Back to the fleet, I dont want my drivers revving my trucks all the time to tow a load from A to B. Cost. You ever rebuilt a set of 4v heads from top to bottom? It ain't cheap. 32 valves to grind and lap, as opposed to 16. This is in a v8 application.

    Someone with a little more knowledge on port designs, and the likes may be able to put a little more insite on the situation too.

    I know the duramax, 24v Cummins, 6.0, 6.4, & 6.7 powerstrokes will be brought up, but they're turbocharged diesels that run like crap without any boost. (I work on em, I've experienced it, it's an interesting drive back to the shop when CAC tubing fails, or blows off. Lol)


    Dont get me wrong my inner power chasing freak would love to see the 4v 5.7 coyote, but really, it's not in fords interest. If they were going to do it, the 6.2, or 3.5 ecoboost would never have existed.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
  2. Avispa

    Avispa Member Established Member

    Messages:
    477
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, TX
    Dude, you're giving away your too-young age. The correct expression for us old guys is, "There is no substitute for cubic inches."

    Having said that, with 15 years of Ford showroom-available boosted cars, yes, there IS a substitute for cubic inches. It's called a blower. The only reason GM is boosting 6.2s instead of 5.0s is that they're not going to replace their LS motors with an OHC version any time soon. I'm with Lariat. All the work on smaller displacement boosted motors gives Ford a leg up on keeping cars driveable and economical while still packing a good punch.
     
  3. SID297

    SID297 OWNER/ADMIN Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    46,900
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Funny you mention the diesel thing. I've blown the CAC tube off a 6.4 Powerstroke towing trailer. It was a struggle to make it a few miles on flat ground and keep the EGTs from going through the roof.

    Every engine Ford uses in the F-150 is a 4V. Variable cam timing and intake design has basically removed low-rpm cylinder filling issues.

    The 6.2 is dead. Sadly, it looks like that architecture is going away. Though some of the basic dimensions may live on in the 7.3L Godzilla engine.

    As for cost, a tall-deck Coyote would be relatively inexpensive. Most of the engineering has either been done, or done in a similar fashion before. The real costs would be lost production efficiencies parts not hared between the 5.0 and 5.7.

    I don't think any manufacturer considers cost to rebuild in a fleet situation. They would all rather you buy a new truck.
     
  4. _Lariat

    _Lariat Member Established Member

    Messages:
    91
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2018
    Location:
    Iowa
    Blowing CAC boots is the bane of my existence on test drives. Lol, I carry an 11mm socket and wrench with me at all times now.

    While I cant argue the ever present use of the 4v across all engine platforms in the f series, (less the 6.2) and its success for the most part, the power they generate is mostly in the higher range of RPM. Now that's also a given being they have a smaller displacement to boot. Now being a smaller displacement, is a 4v per cylinder head needed? Look at what GM has done with the LS platform. No, I highly doubt ford will up and do away with the OHC/DOHC designs they have came up with

    I'm saddened the 6.2 was a short lived powerplant, I honestly think it could have been a stout platform for generations to come, but time stands still for no man, and emissions are crunching down. I think a 7+ liter engine is a bold move, however, I doubt it will be a bad one.

    No, manufacturers dont look at what fleets will be spending, but they look at what theyll be buying. I have seen a good bit of local fleets steering away from the newer fords, and going to Dodge vehicles. Why? I couldnt say, I'm not versed well enough, and not going to spew out false/incorrect statements.

    I honestly think the lost production efficiency alone would be enough to steer ford away from the tall deck coyote. To have castings made for the other parts would also be enough of a deterrent in my opinion as well. It may not be hard or expensive, but looking at what it may do to the sales of the 5.0, or 3.5 Eco is enough to deter them.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
  5. Big Blue Ford

    Big Blue Ford New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2018
    Location:
    Newcastle & Gillette WY
    Not so sure.... A tall deck would likely mess with volumetric efficiency and parasitic power loss, which would take away from two of the Coyote's greatest strengths.
     
  6. nickf2005

    nickf2005 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    IN
    hqdefault.jpg
     
    jvandy50, _Lariat and jeffh81 like this.
  7. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    4,802
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    Would impact my buying decision. I’d like a stronger truck motor than the current 5.0, it works well and over performs, but I think the 5.7L option would do much better. The additional torque and earlier hp would be very noticeable while towing, and carrying a payload through mountain passes.

    Could likely step down to a taller final drive ratio to conserve fuel, and really leverage the 10a’s spread. I imagine it could be set up with variable valve timing and direct/port split injection to deliver roughly 25mpg highway on a smaller cab configuration.
     
  8. jeffh81

    jeffh81 Built Not Bought Established Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Location:
    Stan’s Attic
    Yall do realize that GM has moved on from LS to LT engines now and has moved even further passed them on a few applications. So all this LS hate is for a dead engine.
     
  9. _Lariat

    _Lariat Member Established Member

    Messages:
    91
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2018
    Location:
    Iowa
    My comment referring to the LS had nothing to do with distaste. Just pointing out a fact.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
  10. jeffh81

    jeffh81 Built Not Bought Established Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Location:
    Stan’s Attic
    Its a Ford forum you better have a little distaste for LS engines lol. @Avispa GM doesn’t make a 5.0 engine and the LS platform was laid to rest (RIP) years ago
     
  11. mizlplix

    mizlplix Member Established Member

    Messages:
    57
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2015
    Location:
    S/W USA
    I am close to needing a new motor for my Gen 2 Lightning. Was thinking about a twin turbo 5.0, but I really want a BIG V-8.
    Please, don't make me beg......(I was even thinking LS....in desperation)
     
  12. 2nazty

    2nazty New Member Established Member

    Messages:
    11
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Location:
    London, Ontario CANADA
    I for one would like to see this happen, although make it an even 5.8L displacement coyote based V8 just for historical sake. What I cant wrap my head around, despite being a former maintenance department supervisor with Ford, is why on earth does Ford cede market share to its competitors in V8 powered vehicles.

    I get that for many people, they are perfectly happy with Ecoboost engines, they serve a purpose in the market however they are not representative of what the entire spectrum of potential consumers want. I have a 3.5L ecoboost in my Taurus SHO and while I think it performs decently enough I would have preferred a V8 with turbochargers or even a N/A V8 over this powertrain.

    What I would like to see from a potential gasoline V8 line up from Ford for the F series trucks and Mustang would be this:

    1) 5.0L N/A coyote V8 - F150 and Mustang GT making around 500 Hp

    2) 5.8L N/A coyote V8 - F150 and specialty Mustang model (Mach 1/Bullitt) making 550 Hp

    3) 5.2L N/A FPC V8 - Shelby GT350 Mustang making 580 Hp

    4) 5.2L or 5.8L supercharged or twin turbo V8 - Shelby GT500 making 850 Hp, base GT500 may opt for 800 Hp on lower boost or CR, and 850 Hp for a GT500KR model

    5) 7.0L NA V8 - F series truck (Raptor or other model) and specialty Mustang (Boss 429) making 625 Hp

    This would complement the current engine line up offering consumers a wider choice of powertrain options thus stemming potential loss of consumers to competing brands who offer several gasoline V8 options.

    I am extremely disappointed that FCA and GM are launching more and more V8 vehicles and Ford management doesnt seem to want to give us the engines and options we want, I cant stand listening to Dodge fan boys brag about the Hellcat and Demon when just a few years ago they had nothing to even remotely compete with Ford cars and trucks
     
  13. 88bluepony

    88bluepony Member Established Member

    Messages:
    31
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Location:
    findlay, ohio
    The super duty engines need a bigger engine than a 5.7. it also should be a 5.8 displacement if they do one.

    Totally agree with this!

    This is exactly what they need to do.

    I would go on to say that the Raptor needs a twin turbo 5.0 option, it really ruins their sales of the raptor when you can only buy it with a V6

    While id love to see ford make a tall deck coyote what they really need to do is make a spread bore coyote variant. The tall deck is cheap and great for something like a halfton truck but the limiting factor that has always put ford behind the others is cubic inches. if they made a 7.0L version of the coyote that could later be stroked to 7.5L it would be game over for every other manufacture for a decade.
     
    biminiLX likes this.
  14. scottydsntknow

    scottydsntknow Active Member Established Member

    Messages:
    879
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Location:
    Rota
    There actually is a performance market for the 6.2, it makes holy shit power NA, I don't think it got enough love from any segment...
     
    me32 likes this.
  15. Rusty67

    Rusty67 Member Established Member

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Location:
    LA, CA
    Ok, so why is everyone debating the cost of the 5.0 and keeping it in the Mustang only? The clear course of action would be to first make it a 5.8L because 5.7 is not a Ford displacement number. Ford made 351s not 350s remember? Second drop the 5.0 all together and make the Mustang and the F150 engine offering simply be the new 5.8 Coyote motor. Problem solved. Now Ford can share the cost of the motor across multiple platforms easily again.

    Also, please for the love of God make this motor!
     
    me32 likes this.
  16. scottydsntknow

    scottydsntknow Active Member Established Member

    Messages:
    879
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Location:
    Rota
    They have to be EPA compliant and the current Gen3 coyote already makes ridiculous power plus the 3.5L V6 will pull a house. Just because ageing boomers "can't see themselves in a V6 truck" doesn't mean its a good idea for Ford to add an unecessary engine. That 3.5L TT will assrape any other engine in the lineup including a 5.8L NA Coyote.
     
  17. 200MPHCOBRA

    200MPHCOBRA Liberty Tree Needs Water Established Member

    Messages:
    304
    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    a direct injected 5.8 coyote in truck tune would match or beat the current max torque of an eco and probably have 40 more hp. port velocity would increase significantly, and the 10 speed would play to its rpm range.............and it would sound a shit ton better
     
    me32 likes this.
  18. Phil Campbell

    Phil Campbell New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2018
    Location:
    Washington
    Skip the 5.7 nomenclature altogether, too much like gm or mopar...punch it out to a 5.8, aka 351, a number that would play well to the Ford base. The new Boss 351 anyone?
     
    me32 likes this.
  19. 4sdvenom

    4sdvenom Never Enough! Established Member

    Messages:
    1,776
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Location:
    Ft. Wayne, IN
    I swear I thought I was reading a post of mine. You took the words right out of my head.
    Aluminum 4-valve 6.2 should have been. Since it won’t then a Coyote based 5.7/5.8 would definitely be my next go to. It just seems to me it is a natural progression to follow imho.

    -Ken
     
    me32 likes this.
  20. Voltwings

    Voltwings Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    2,540
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    Location:
    Houston
    Compare the dyno graph of a stock 2.7 and stock 5.0 F-150 and get back to us on that. As much as I prefer the power delivery and simplicity of a V8, you're going to have a very difficult time matching the down low torque of a proper TT v6 motor.

    Hell, just look at the 6.2 in the Silverado vs the 3.5 Ecoboost.
    Silverado:
    Peak Torque: 460
    Peak torque RPM: 4100

    3.5 Ecoboost:
    Peak Torque: 470
    Peak Torque RPM: 2250-3500

    I would love to see it, but no way is a 5.8L DOHC motor making 470 tq at even 3500 rpms. Not if it also wants to be making 400+ HP.
     

Share This Page