LS3 vs 5.0 yote? motor only comparison.

[TexasChile]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

So you are saying DOCH engines don't weigh more per cubic inch when the Coyote is a 5.0 and weighs roughly the same as the 6.2 LS3?

Displacement is not limited in any engine but the physical size of the DOCH limits the displacement in certain situations.

If that wasn't the case, why doesn't Ford put the 6.2 in the Mustang, build it like the Coyote and blow GM out of the water?

The reason? It won't fit. Look at what they had to do to get the 5.4 in the Cobra R.

The GT500 is a 5.8 liter and it fits fine in the Mustang. The reason the base mustang has the 5.0 is because it is a historical size motor for the Mustang--not because of some "packaging problem". Ford could build a 6.2 coyote (with a redesign) and it would weigh about the same as the current coyote and fit just fine in the Mustang. The problem with the coyote is that Ford did not contemplate needing a larger motor. It just went with the 5.0 for marketing and history purposes. I actually hope Ford does build a larger coyote, which I know it can do, to prove me right. The packaging is a myth. Yes the overhead cam head is wider, but it does not need to be that much wider when going from a 5.0 to a 6.2. The bore between the two is not that much. Some of it is done with stroke.

[TexasChile]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

So you don't think CNCing the heads is radical?

I am not exaggerating the size. Have you seen a picture of an LS swapped in to a Mustang? There is plenty of room around the engine.

The 5.8 also uses deposited iron linings in the cylinder bores instead of pressed in liners because they couldn't use them. The bore diameter is the largest they could get in that block. The Ford Modular uses a bore spacing of 3.973" (if I remember right off the top of my head), while the LS uses a 4.40" bore spacing.

No I don't think CNC the heads is radical. I have never seen an LS in a Mustang.

So there is less than a half inch in the bore size (that is about what I thought). If the coyote used the same bore size (if it could), the head would not have to be more than half inch wider. You make it sound like it would add ten inches and 400 pound to the motor. That is why I said you are overplaying the "packaging" myth. Yes the OHC head is wider, but it fits and it can fit on a 400 cubic inch motor and fit in the Mustang if Ford would have designed it that way. Ford just went all in on a 5.0 without any thought to displacement flexibility, and it got boxed into that size. Ford needs to dump the 5.0 and build a coyote for more cubic inches.

[TexasChile]

Guys I have enjoyed the spirited debate. I am going to surf around some so I will let you guys have at it for a while. The LS is a great engine and I am thinking of buying one, so I am not some Ford troll. My ex-father-in-law used to work at an auto parts store and he told me he sold more Ford parts than any other make, which told me Ford must have a lot of problems. I did have a Ford truck one time and it was always having mechanical problems of some kind. LOL.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by TexasChile

The GT500 is a 5.8 liter and it fits fine in the Mustang. The reason the base mustang has the 5.0 is because it is a historical size motor for the Mustang--not because of some "packaging problem". Ford could build a 6.2 coyote (with a redesign) and it would weigh about the same as the current coyote and fit just fine in the Mustang. The problem with the coyote is that Ford did not contemplate needing a larger motor. It just went with the 5.0 for marketing and history purposes. I actually hope Ford does build a larger coyote, which I know it can do, to prove me right. The packaging is a myth. Yes the overhead cam head is wider, but it does not need to be that much wider when going from a 5.0 to a 6.2. The bore between the two is not that much. Some of it is done with stroke.

And I said the bore of the 5.8 was the MAX they could do. They could not do a 6.2 on the Coyote block.

A DOHC engine would make more power than OHV engine of the same displacement but me a MUCH larger engine overall.

OHV and DOHC are two different ways to produce similar results. It just takes OHV engines more displacement to produce equal power while DOHC engines are physically larger.

[Nessal]

Originally Posted by TexasChile

The Coyote is a much better engine from a technical perspective for performance, but it is limited by cubic inches. If there was an LS7 sized coyote, that would be one bad engine. The LS engine is a great engine for durability, but nobody on the planet Earth uses push rods in engines other than GM, and for good reason: Over head Cams are much more sophisticated and efficient for performance. An LS would not have a prayer against a coyote if the LS was limited to 5.0 cubes. The LS only competes because it uses more cubes to make up for its obsolete push rod design. Push rods are obsolete much like the flat head design was obsolete by over head valves. I don't understand why GM insists on using push rod engines. Of course, I also don't understand why GM insists on using fiberglass on Corvettes. No car company on Earth other than GM uses fiberglass--its used on cheap replica cars and bass boats. By the way, I am not a Ford guy. I have always been a GM guy but I do like the old Fords and Mopars too. Just keeping it real and honest. By the way, I am looking into buying a Camaro 1LE.

LOL.

The fact of the matter is that Chevy never had to stray from a pushrod because it works so well. Tell me WHY do they NEED to go to a overhead cam design? I would love to hear this one. The Corvette is one of the best performers out there and still uses the "outdated" design that you tout as being inferior while being one of the most efficient. How many other big displacement V8's out there can get the same MPG with the power output. And do you seriously not know why they use fiberglass for the body? No other car companies use fiberglass besides cheap replicas and boats? Ever heard of Lotus?

[Nessal]

Originally Posted by TexasChile

Displacement is not limited in an overhead cam motor. That is a myth. And overhead cam motors do not weigh more per cubic inch than a pushrod motor. Another myth. The reason overhead cam motors are smaller is because they can get the HP they need with less displacement--more HP per cubic inch. That is also why all cars (other than GM V8 and Dodge V8) use overhead cams. All cars. Do you not understand that fact. The pushrod motor is an obsolete design.

You do understand that just because an engine has bigger displacement does not mean the form factor has to be bigger right? You don't seem to be able to grasp that point.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by TexasChile

The GT500 is a 5.8 liter and it fits fine in the Mustang. The reason the base mustang has the 5.0 is because it is a historical size motor for the Mustang--not because of some "packaging problem". Ford could build a 6.2 coyote (with a redesign) and it would weigh about the same as the current coyote and fit just fine in the Mustang. The problem with the coyote is that Ford did not contemplate needing a larger motor. It just went with the 5.0 for marketing and history purposes. I actually hope Ford does build a larger coyote, which I know it can do, to prove me right. The packaging is a myth. Yes the overhead cam head is wider, but it does not need to be that much wider when going from a 5.0 to a 6.2. The bore between the two is not that much. Some of it is done with stroke.

The only "MYTH" here is that a pushrod motor is obsolete.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by TexasChile

Guys I have enjoyed the spirited debate. I am going to surf around some so I will let you guys have at it for a while. The LS is a great engine and I am thinking of buying one, so I am not some Ford troll. My ex-father-in-law used to work at an auto parts store and he told me he sold more Ford parts than any other make, which told me Ford must have a lot of problems. I did have a Ford truck one time and it was always having mechanical problems of some kind. LOL.

Why are you thinking of buying one? You obviously do not understand nor appreciate the engine and from my grasp on things you would be better suited in a japanese car. Why buy something you think is antiqued and obsolete and performs poorly? I can save you money right now and tell you that your chances of being happy in one is unlikely since you don't understand it.

[VADER SS L99]

This is funny and the whole HP per displacement sounds like a ricer excuse. What does it really matter since the LS3 makes more power.

A. The LS3 makes more power and torque than a Coyote. Period.
B. The LS3 gets the same mpg as the Coyote.
C. The LS3 weighs less than the Coyote.
D. The LS3 has less moving parts than the Coyote.
E. The LS3 cost less to mfg than the Coyote.
F. The LS3 exterior deminsions are smaller than a Coyote

The whole the Coyote makes more power per displacement is a excuse. If GM made a pushrod 8.0 that made 450HP, 450 tq, weighs 450lbs, got 26mpg,and cost 9k vs a Ford DOHC V8 4.0 that made 440HP, 440TQ, weighs 460lbs, 26mpg and cost 10k what does it really matter that the GM engine is twice the displacement. It makes more power, weighs less, exterior deminsions are smaller, gets the same mpg and cost less to produce. GM motor FTW

If the Ford marketing team hadn't got their claws into the Coyote all this would be a mute point and there would be no debate. The Ford engineering team wanted to take the aluminum 5.4 that they already desinged, put the Coyote DOHC heads, intake and VVT on it with 11.1 compression but the marketing team in their wisdom said no lets bring back the 5.0 so the car will sell better. If Ford had made a Coyote 5.4 the whole LS3 VS Coyote would be dead. The whole Camaro vs Mustang would have also been dead and well the Camaro would have probably died as well. A 5.4 Coyote would have had a minimum 450HP with much more torque than it has now all while costing the same or less to mfg and alot less to R and D.

[antimatr]

I find it pretty funny that TexasChile dismisses the LS and other pushrod motors as obsolete, yet the overhead cam engine has been around for over a hundred years...

There were quite a few reasons why I went with my 5.0 over the Camaro in the end, but the engine sure as hell wasn't one of them. I could give f***-all about whether an engine's pushrod or OHC, as long as it's reliable, affordable and makes the power/torque I want.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by antimatr

I find it pretty funny that TexasChile dismisses the LS and other pushrod motors as obsolete, yet the overhead cam engine has been around for over a hundred years...

There were quite a few reasons why I went with my 5.0 over the Camaro in the end, but the engine sure as hell wasn't one of them. I could give f***-all about whether an engine's pushrod or OHC, as long as it's reliable, affordable and makes the power/torque I want.

Actually since you seem to know more about history, do you know which is actually the older design? Pushrod or overhead cam? At some point I heard the pushrod motor came after the overhead cam, but have no way of verifying if that is true or not.

[302-412]

VVT on a pushrod engine (unless it's a Viper) is just for emissions, on a DOHC with dual phasers it allows you to change the overlap and increase the powerband of the engine. Right now why would Ford need more than 5.0 displacement? And do the pro pushrod boy's think a HD is in the same league as the typical DOHC motorcycle engine? I agree about the physical size but LS engines are limited to port size, and spark plug placement, the Chrysler HEMIS are much closer to being the "state of the art" push rod engine being held back by very limited aftermarket support.

[mikeyg36]

Originally Posted by 302-412

VVT on a pushrod engine (unless it's a Viper) is just for emissions, on a DOHC with dual phasers it allows you to change the overlap and increase the powerband of the engine. Right now why would Ford need more than 5.0 displacement? And do the pro pushrod boy's think a HD is in the same league as the typical DOHC motorcycle engine? I agree about the physical size but LS engines are limited to port size, and spark plug placement, the Chrysler HEMIS are much closer to being the "state of the art" push rod engine being held back by very limited aftermarket support.

[antimatr]

Originally Posted by cbass

Actually since you seem to know more about history, do you know which is actually the older design? Pushrod or overhead cam? At some point I heard the pushrod motor came after the overhead cam, but have no way of verifying if that is true or not.

I wasn't quite sure myself, so I looked around the web and automotive books scattered around the house and the earliest OHV engine I could find was developed in 1902 by Buick.

Then I was surprised to learn that an engineer named John Wilkinson had designed and built an overhead cam engine...in 1898. Which would mean that OHC engines had predated OHV engines by four years...