5.8 vs. 5.4 ? Need TVS owners input

[jsvtcobra]

( have been seriously considering buying the 2013 GT500. I have just been waiting on the price and the date the order bank opens. I have 5.0's March issue and I was waiting for the right time to read it. Well I finally sat down and started to read it, I will admit I did not finish the article. I read it waiting for a appointment. But what I read got me thinking

 

The 2013 GT500 is going to have a lot of amazing new options, track pack, electric adjustable billstein suspension, and so on and so forth. And of course capable of breaking the 200mph barrier.

 

The article in the 5.0 mag covered the specs on the new motor. Here is what got me thinking. They took the 11-12" 5.4L block and bored it to 5.8L a increase of 0.4L. The 5.4L has a compression ratio of 8.5 to 1, the new 5.8L was increased and has 9.0 to 1. They upgraded the supercharger from a Eaton M122 (1.857L) to a Newer designed TVS 2.3L supercharger. And last they increased the boost, 5.4L running at 9psi (550hp @ the flywheel) to the 5.8L running the TVS to 15psi (650hp @ the flywheel).

 

So my question is where is all the Hp at??? I do understand that the tunes are normally conservative from the factory but this seems like something is missing? They increased displacement, compression, upgraded the supercharger and its displacement, and the boost! It just seems like it should be making a whole lot more.

 

This is my comparison. I would like any input from any TVS owners. It is my understanding that a lot of 11-12' owner were able to make around 650rwhp on the 5.4L @ 16psi using the TVS 2.3 kit, which is something like a SC, intake inlet pipe, tune, and injectors I think.

 

That is my comparison. How is it that the 5.4L with the same SC technically make more Hp than the 5.8L. The 5.4L uses only one psi more that the 5.8L, but the 5.8L has more displacement, more compression.

 

What is are going to be the results when we mod the 5.8L and turn up the boost??? Please tell me what you think????

Now I am kinda on the fence about the 13', but don't get me wrong it is still going to be a awesome car. Right now I'm just thinking that my 11' just might not be that bad....

[wanted2b]

Is there any idea as to the cost of the 13s? Before I go to all the expensense of upgrades to the 12, maybe I should wait.

[mullens]

20 cubic inches isn't going to make a whole lot of difference when you're pushing 600+hp.

 

Slap a TVS on your '11 and save the 10k-15k hit for the '13. You'l have more HP and money left over to buy tires, which is really the weak spot on these cars. JMHO

[1 Alibi 2]

Don't have a TVS, but there is nothing holding back the 10, 11, & 12 5.4L motors that some mods won't fix.

My stock 2011 made 481.4rwhp

Added a FRPP 750hp blower kit & netted 656rwhp...( it with a very conservative Pro-Cal tune )

Add headers, 72 lb injectors, and an SCT / JDM custom tune.....741rwhp

.

Or you can buy a 2013 & mod it..............good luck.

[GT350conv]

I had read a article a few weeks back that stated the 5.8L is the 5.4L block with increased stroke. The bore size remained the same. The longer stroke provides more torque and the larger 2.3L supercharger provides more air volume for increased HP. For $1200, you can purchase a proven SCT tune, CAI, & S/C Pulley kit to achieve the 650HP. The kit is advertised to being safe and also improves throttle response. All of Ford's electronic throttles are a bit sluggish, but any SCT tune will have a noticable improvement. I had one for my 06' GT. The 2013 is going to be an awsome car and I wanted one myself, but the deals that are currently on the 12's are great. I picked mine up last month for $8400 under MSRP. Leaves a lot of room for mods.

[bigsnake]

Here's a good article from a previous post on what Ford did to the 5.8.

 

http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2011/11/28/a-look-inside-the-2013-shelby-gt500s-650-horsepower-5-8-liter-supercharged-v8/

[mullens]

I had read a article a few weeks back that stated the 5.8L is the 5.4L block with increased stroke. The bore size remained the same. The longer stroke provides more torque and the larger 2.3L supercharger provides more air volume for increased HP. For $1200, you can purchase a proven SCT tune, CAI, & S/C Pulley kit to achieve the 650HP. The kit is advertised to being safe and also improves throttle response. All of Ford's electronic throttles are a bit sluggish, but any SCT tune will have a noticable improvement. I had one for my 06' GT. The 2013 is going to be an awsome car and I wanted one myself, but the deals that are currently on the 12's are great. I picked mine up last month for $8400 under MSRP. Leaves a lot of room for mods.

 

Not so. They increased the bore to the max the block will allow. Stroke is the same. It's already 4.16"...plenty big enough.

[Amigo GT500]

I have a TVS 2.3L (Ford Racing) along with the 65mm throttle (Ford Racing) and the air intake from JLT and tuned by Justin I got 632rwhp ...........

[2010KonaBlueGT]

The article in the 5.0 mag covered the specs on the new motor. Here is what got me thinking. They took the 11-12" 5.4L block and bored it to 5.8L a increase of 0.4L. The 5.4L has a compression ratio of 8.5 to 1, the new 5.8L was increased and has 9.0 to 1. They upgraded the supercharger from a Eaton M122 (1.857L) to a Newer designed TVS 2.3L supercharger. And last they increased the boost, 5.4L running at 9psi (550hp @ the flywheel) to the 5.8L running the TVS to 15psi (650hp @ the flywheel).

 

So my question is where is all the Hp at???

 

 

 

The first problem is, you're using their advertised HP rating of 650HP @ 6,250RPM.

 

The redline on the new 5.8L engine is 7,000RPM, not 6,250RPM so you're not using PEAK Horsepower numbers for comparison.

 

Hot Rod Magazine reported seeing 670HP @ 7,000RPM and *not* 650HP. It's true that the 5.8L is making 650HP at 6,250RPM but that's not PEAK horsepower.

 

Since horsepower is a product of Torqe and RPM (over 5250), the higher the RPM you spin a engine, the more horsepower you will make as long as Torque isn't dropping like a rock at that RPM.

 

There's your "extra horsepower" you're wondering about.

 

 

Phill

[2010KonaBlueGT]

The longer stroke provides more torque ......

 

 

That's a common misconception, and it's wrong.

 

A longer stroke does NOT provide more torque than a equal increase in displacement from a larger bore.

 

Torque is achieved in two ways. Larger displacement and/or higher compression, PERIOD.

 

It doesn't matter if you increase the displacement with a longer stroke or a larger bore, 5.8 liters will give you the same amount of increase over 5.4 liters no matter how the larger displacement is achieved.

 

For most of my life I was under the impression that a longer stroke gave you more torque (vs. a lager bore) due to the "longer lever theroy" of a increased stroke until a guy named Keith Cameron e-mailed me and straightened me out on it. Google his name and you'll know why I say he is right (aside from the example he provided me).

 

 

Phill

[2010KonaBlueGT]

Not so. They increased the bore to the max the block will allow. Stroke is the same. It's already 4.16"...plenty big enough.

 

 

That is correct. The 5.8L engine has a lager bore than the 5.4L and the same stroke for both.

 

The increase in compression ratio would be achieved simply from the increase in swept volume, being compressed into the same size combustion chamber and both will increase Torque (which will increase HP at the same RPM).

 

 

Phill

[shel-b001]

That is correct. The 5.8L engine has a lager bore than the 5.4L and the same stroke for both.

 

The increase in compression ratio would be achieved simply from the increase in swept volume, being compressed into the same size combustion chamber and both will increase Torque (which will increase HP at the same RPM).

 

 

Phill

 

 

Are intake & exhaust valves the same size as the 5.4?

[SHELBYCS6]

Personally, I think the big picture is what you can get after the fact..

 

My 2010 with cast block (KR engine ) was 540 hp out of the box however with a pulley change and a Jon Lund tune we are now around 650 hp for $1k which is crazy.

 

This 2013 I would bet will be in the 750/ 800 hp range with some tweaks from the masters..tune...pulley...who knows but Ford is making this engine bullet proof so you know you can kick the shit out of it all day long without any problem...

 

I'd bet dollars to donuts they have at least a built in 20% overload factor in this configuration so mild tune and pulley change would be a given..they are probably counting on it...

[2010KonaBlueGT]

Are intake & exhaust valves the same size as the 5.4?

 

 

That's a good question. I THINK I remember something about the ports or valves being bigger.

 

Oh, and for what it's worth, *that* is the big advantage of a bigger bore vs. a longer stroke to gain displacement. With a bigger bore, you can run larger valves and/or unshroud the current valves you run for better performance over a longer stroke engine.

 

I won't get into the increased dwell time a longer stroke allows you. It's way over most folks heads. Same for rod length and/or rod ratio (the advantge goes to a longer rod due to a better rod angle).

 

 

Phill

[hawkbarr]

Phil, why wouldn't Ford advertise peak horsepower of 670HP instead of 650HP? I've gotta be missing something

....

[2010KonaBlueGT]

Phil, why wouldn't Ford advertise peak horsepower of 670HP instead of 650HP? I've gotta be missing something

....

 

 

Apparently, the 7,000 rpm redline has a limited time frame of something like 7 seconds.

 

I will ASSUME that is one reason they're giving you HP @6250RPM rather than @7,0000RPM.

 

EDIT: They are calling the 6,250rpm a "Steady Rate HP rating" vs a limited state (time).

 

That and very possibly, the gas guzzler tax. I don't know if HP or RPM plays a part in calculating the GG tax but if it does, "under-rate" a few numbers (and it's still a HONEST number, just not a MAX number) and you can manipulate pretty much anything (dyno numbers come immediately to mind).

 

People say that the early Muscle Cars were "under rated" as far as horsepower numbers. Take for instance, the '69 Z-28 with a DZ302 engine. It was rated at 290HP and was in fact closer to a 500HP engine (some say over 500HP). The problem was, the 290HP figure they gave you was at something like 4,800rpm, NOT at the engines redline of 7,000rpm....where it made MAX horsepower.

 

That wasn't "under-rating" it, that was just giving the Feds a number at a much lower RPM than Max HP was achieved at.

 

Ford is doing the same thing with the 2013 GT500. What their agenda is...I know not.

 

 

Phill

[mullens]

Phil I Googled Cameron and didn't find anything. I'm curious as to why you discount the longer lever theory. It makes perfect sense that the easier it is for the piston to turn the crank, I.e. with more leverage of a longer stroke, the.more low end torque the engine will have. Historically, engines tuned for torque (diesels, truck engines including our own beloved 5.4) have been undersquare or had long strokes. Yes there is advantages of bigger bores, i.e. larger valves and higher revving, but that's good for peak horsepower not low end torque.

[njarmstrong]

That and very possibly, the gas guzzler tax. I don't know if HP or RPM plays a part in calculating the GG tax

 

Has nothing to do with it.

 

The gas guzzler tax is imposed on any vehicle which fails to meet the minimum fuel economy rating of 22.5mpg. This number is obtained by calculating the adjusted fuel economy of the vehicle, which is determined by combining the city and highway fuel economy using a specific formula. The tax is then based on the mpg below this threshold combining with the number of vehicles to be produced. Basically anyway.

[2010KonaBlueGT]

Phil I Googled Cameron and didn't find anything. I'm curious as to why you discount the longer lever theory. It makes perfect sense that the easier it is for the piston to turn the crank, I.e. with more leverage of a longer stroke, the.more low end torque the engine will have. Historically, engines tuned for torque (diesels, truck engines including our own beloved 5.4) have been undersquare or had long strokes. Yes there is advantages of bigger bores, i.e. larger valves and higher revving, but that's good for peak horsepower not low end torque.

 

 

I'm probably misspelling his name. He's a highly regarded Professional Motorcycle (F1) Tuner/Guru and multi-published author. I'll repost a article I wrote on my HarleyTC88 list in reply to another "disbeliever" that made the same claims (as I said, it is a COMMON misconception):

 

QUOTE:

 

> "P.R. Pollard" wrote:

>>>

>>> Jim <name omitted> said:

>>>I think for the torque-monster/phone-pole climber you want, a stroker crank would be right up your alley.

>>

> And I baited him good with:

>> I'm curious, why do you say that? Cubic inches is cubic inches.

>> Three things make torque...

>> (1) Cylinder fill (volumetric efficiency)

>> (2) Cubic inches

>> (3) Compression

>>

>> Or are you gonna tell me that Stroke gives you more Torque than Bore?

>>

>

> well, er, um......yeah, i am, uh, kinda....there is that one other

> thing that makes torque.....leverage on the crank. or at least that's

> how i understand it. same idea as using a 8" ratchet as opposed to a

> 12" breaker bar. the crankpin is farther away from the centerline of

> the crank assembly. i believe this is accurate, however i have been

> wrong before, once i think----(okay, maybe more than once)

 

Ya know what? Literally all of my life I thought the same thing. That a longer stroke makes more torque than a larger bore, cubic inch per cubic inch. Just like you said...That is until about a year ago. I would have argued the point to my death too. And just like you, I used the same logic:

 

The farther the rod journal is from the centerline of the crankshaft, the more leverage you'll get. Right? I mean hell, it's common sense...right?

 

Just like a longer wrench or ratchet when yer crankin' on a bolt...right?

 

And I mean shoot, just look at a 454ci Chevy compared to a 350ci Chevy for example. The long stroke on the 454 makes a ton of torque. The short(er) stroke on the 350 makes a whole lot less torque...right? So it just *had* to be that the long stroke of the 454 was the reason for all that extra torque...right? RIGHT? Wrong.

 

The simple fact is that it is the extra cubic inch displacement and the flow capability of the BBC heads vs. the SBC heads. That's what makes all of that extra torque. Two out of the three things that make torque...cubic inches and cylinder fill (#3 being compression (Cylinder Pressure) which is totally dependent on Cylinder Fill).

 

Do you remember the old saying, "there is no replacement for displacement"?

 

It's true. Keep reading and see if you can be convinced like I was.

 

I got my education when I made a comment regarding this issue to a friend of mine, who by the way, thought the very same thing you and I did until *he* got a education in bore vs. stroke from a industry heavyweight. You need to also realize this. He's (my friend) just as pig-headed as I am and argued the point with his educator, just like I did, until he/I was shown a very simple comparison on paper. How were we convinced? Keep reading...All it took was a simple "apple to apple" comparison of two identically sized engines but one with a longer stroke and the other with a larger bore.

 

I'll give you a comparison of two equal sized engines with one having big(ger) bore and the other having a long(er) stroke. Let's see if it convinces you like it convinced me and him (it made a damn believer out of me, it did!).

 

Okay, let's say you have two motors. Each one is a single cylinder engine, 25 cubic inches each.

 

Motor A:

Bore = 4", Stroke = 2"

Piston area = 12.57 sq. in.

Crank radius = 1", or .0833 Ft.

 

Motor B:

Bore = 3.266", Stroke = 3"

Piston area = 8.38 sq. in.

Crank radius = 1.5" or .125 Ft.

 

The maximum leverage on the crankshaft is when the rod is at a 90 degree angle to the center radius of the crank. On real motors, this will be when the crank is somewhere between 60 and 80 deg ATDC. For this example, we'll assume that the rod is sufficiently long enough that this angle of maximum leverage is at the same place from TDC on both engines.

 

So, using 1000 psi cylinder pressure for both engines;

 

Motor A torque = 12.57 x 1000 x .0833 = 1,047 ft/lbs (instantaneous)

Motor B torque = 8.38 x 1000 x .125 = 1,047 ft/lbs (instantaneous)

 

Yes, this is very first order and does not take into account some very substantial second and third order effects. But it does demonstrate that if you have 25 cubes, no matter what the bore/stroke ratio, you can expect the same amount of output torque...

 

Now, keep in mind that instantaneous torque and shaft torque are two different things. The shaft torque is the integral of how much positive (from power stroke) and negative (from intake-compression-exhaust strokes) torque is being produced at each point over a complete 720 degree cycle.

 

You take that peak instantaneous value and integrate it with all the parasitic loads throughout the rest of the cycle, and the net torque (shaft torque) is much much less. A rule of thumb for this kind of stuff is, for gasoline engines that operate below 5250 RPM, you get about one ft/lb of torque for each cubic inch of displacement. Look at specs on car engines, and you can see this rule of thumb basically holds true. The bore/stroke ratios of the various engine designs have little to do with their torque.

 

But it can have a lot to do with where in the RPM range they make their torque.

 

Convinced yet? Work it out with any size engine you want. It calculates the same regardless.

 

So that old "a longer stroke makes more torque than a larger bore" is a myth, a wives tale.

 

END QUOTE:

 

In short, the stroke vs. bore will change WHERE (in the RPM band) peak Tq. is produced but it will NOT change the amount of Tq. produced.

 

EDIT: The "simple answer" is, people seem to forget that a larger piston creates more pressure on the "shorter lever" of a smaller stroke engine due to the increased surface area of the piston. The increase in power from a larger bore is directly proportional to the longer stroke of equal cubic inch displacement. A 5.4L engine will make the same power, regardless if it's with bigger bore or longer stroke.

 

 

Hope that helps,

Phill (P.R.) Pollard

[BlackShelby]

I'm probably misspelling his name. He's a highly regarded Professional Motorcycle (F1) Tuner/Guru and multi-published author. I'll repost a article I wrote on my HarleyTC88 list in reply to another "disbeliever" that made the same claims (as I said, it is a COMMON misconception):

 

QUOTE:

 

> "P.R. Pollard" wrote:

>>>

>>> Jim <name omitted> said:

>>>I think for the torque-monster/phone-pole climber you want, a stroker crank would be right up your alley.

>>

> And I baited him good with:

>> I'm curious, why do you say that? Cubic inches is cubic inches.

>> Three things make torque...

>> (1) Cylinder fill (volumetric efficiency)

>> (2) Cubic inches

>> (3) Compression

>>

>> Or are you gonna tell me that Stroke gives you more Torque than Bore?

>>

>

> well, er, um......yeah, i am, uh, kinda....there is that one other

> thing that makes torque.....leverage on the crank. or at least that's

> how i understand it. same idea as using a 8" ratchet as opposed to a

> 12" breaker bar. the crankpin is farther away from the centerline of

> the crank assembly. i believe this is accurate, however i have been

> wrong before, once i think----(okay, maybe more than once)

 

Ya know what? Literally all of my life I thought the same thing. That a longer stroke makes more torque than a larger bore, cubic inch per cubic inch. Just like you said...That is until about a year ago. I would have argued the point to my death too. And just like you, I used the same logic:

 

The farther the rod journal is from the centerline of the crankshaft, the more leverage you'll get. Right? I mean hell, it's common sense...right?

 

Just like a longer wrench or ratchet when yer crankin' on a bolt...right?

 

And I mean shoot, just look at a 454ci Chevy compared to a 350ci Chevy for example. The long stroke on the 454 makes a ton of torque. The short(er) stroke on the 350 makes a whole lot less torque...right? So it just *had* to be that the long stroke of the 454 was the reason for all that extra torque...right? RIGHT? Wrong.

 

The simple fact is that it is the extra cubic inch displacement and the flow capability of the BBC heads vs. the SBC heads. That's what makes all of that extra torque. Two out of the three things that make torque...cubic inches and cylinder fill (#3 being compression (Cylinder Pressure) which is totally dependent on Cylinder Fill).

 

Do you remember the old saying, "there is no replacement for displacement"?

 

It's true. Keep reading and see if you can be convinced like I was.

 

I got my education when I made a comment regarding this issue to a friend of mine, who by the way, thought the very same thing you and I did until *he* got a education in bore vs. stroke from a industry heavyweight. You need to also realize this. He's (my friend) just as pig-headed as I am and argued the point with his educator, just like I did, until he/I was shown a very simple comparison on paper. How were we convinced? Keep reading...All it took was a simple "apple to apple" comparison of two identically sized engines but one with a longer stroke and the other with a larger bore.

 

I'll give you a comparison of two equal sized engines with one having big(ger) bore and the other having a long(er) stroke. Let's see if it convinces you like it convinced me and him (it made a damn believer out of me, it did!).

 

Okay, let's say you have two motors. Each one is a single cylinder engine, 25 cubic inches each.

 

Motor A:

Bore = 4", Stroke = 2"

Piston area = 12.57 sq. in.

Crank radius = 1", or .0833 Ft.

 

Motor B:

Bore = 3.266", Stroke = 3"

Piston area = 8.38 sq. in.

Crank radius = 1.5" or .125 Ft.

 

The maximum leverage on the crankshaft is when the rod is at a 90 degree angle to the center radius of the crank. On real motors, this will be when the crank is somewhere between 60 and 80 deg ATDC. For this example, we'll assume that the rod is sufficiently long enough that this angle of maximum leverage is at the same place from TDC on both engines.

 

So, using 1000 psi cylinder pressure for both engines;

 

Motor A torque = 12.57 x 1000 x .0833 = 1,047 ft/lbs (instantaneous)

Motor B torque = 8.38 x 1000 x .125 = 1,047 ft/lbs (instantaneous)

 

Yes, this is very first order and does not take into account some very substantial second and third order effects. But it does demonstrate that if you have 25 cubes, no matter what the bore/stroke ratio, you can expect the same amount of output torque...

 

Now, keep in mind that instantaneous torque and shaft torque are two different things. The shaft torque is the integral of how much positive (from power stroke) and negative (from intake-compression-exhaust strokes) torque is being produced at each point over a complete 720 degree cycle.

 

You take that peak instantaneous value and integrate it with all the parasitic loads throughout the rest of the cycle, and the net torque (shaft torque) is much much less. A rule of thumb for this kind of stuff is, for gasoline engines that operate below 5250 RPM, you get about one ft/lb of torque for each cubic inch of displacement. Look at specs on car engines, and you can see this rule of thumb basically holds true. The bore/stroke ratios of the various engine designs have little to do with their torque.

 

But it can have a lot to do with where in the RPM range they make their torque.

 

Convinced yet? Work it out with any size engine you want. It calculates the same regardless.

 

So that old "a longer stroke makes more torque than a larger bore" is a myth, a wives tale.

 

END QUOTE:

 

In short, the stroke vs. bore will change WHERE (in the RPM band) peak Tq. is produced but it will NOT change the amount of Tq. produced.

 

EDIT: The "simple answer" is, people seem to forget that a larger piston creates more pressure on the "shorter lever" of a smaller stroke engine due to the increased surface area of the piston. The increase in power from a larger bore is directly proportional to the longer stroke of equal cubic inch displacement. A 5.4L engine will make the same power, regardless if it's with bigger bore or longer stroke.

 

 

Hope that helps,

Phill (P.R.) Pollard

 

 

 

 

Most of that is true with NA motors.

 

When you have a blower/supercharged motor you can basically forget about all of that, the airflow and power are more directly created from the blower itself.(airspeed and airflow and the amount of CFM the blower can move)

I raced and built plenty of blower motors.

Cubic inch does nothing for torque(with same stroke) It will lower boost some that's about it.

 

Now there are different compressor maps per blower design . Meaning you want to fit the blower to the motor its on(depending on the motor and its ability to move air will depend what blower will work best on its size(airflow capable)

 

 

 

Camshaft, compression and the blower itself is where the difference comes from.(mainly the blower)

 

If you put 14.7 pounds of boost to a 331(5.4) it basically thinks its a 662(move the same amount of air a NA 662 )

if you put 13.8 pounds of boost to a 351(5.8) it will think its a 662

 

 

If both motors are using the same blower and spinning the blower at the same speed the blower will be moving the same air(cfm) as long as the blower is in the same basic area of its compressor map on both motors)

The only difference you will see is higher boost on the smaller motor.

HP and torque is all dependent on airflow(cfm)

Its takes about 1.5cfm= 1 HP

[mullens]

Makes sense on both points.I didn't realize that 1 bar of boost essentially doubles the engine's output. Jim, I would assume that a tuned (well scavenging) exhaust would not be as important on a force-fed motor also? Is that why we don't get a whole bunch of power from a different cat-back? BTW good to hear from you...

[jsvtcobra]

5.0's article stated that they had ato max out the bore because they could not increase the stroke. In order to increase the stroke thwy would have had to increase the deck height and in that case the engine would not fit in the mustang engine compartment. This is also why they didn't use the 6.2L. But that also reminds me of some thing I way a few years back in a SN197, I think it was Grabbet yellow had a experimental 6.2 from ford and a 8 pack carb like setup, and some tuner/ drag racer was testing it. I remenber seeing in on SVTperfromance.

 

A few Points:

 

It is just hard to chew. That with all those upgrades, they are not making more. Or they had to de-tune a lot. That new motor has a lot more than the 5.4L, I guess I just want to see it on paper.

 

The other thing is (this is kinda like comparing apples to oranges, but still holds a small point) look at how well the RoadRunner 302 has performed. It seems in most cases that that motor is performing at the same level as BOOSTED Shelby Gt500's. I have read four articles of BOSS 203's making it into the 850rwhp range SC'd, and one Coyote turbo'd. And I do understand that these run 11 to 1 compression ratios and they were also on race fuel.

 

Here is something else to consider. SVT says that the 13' Gt500 was designed to be a large step ahead of the BOSS not the ZL1, they considered the BOSS to be to close in performance to the 11-12' Gt500's.

 

So my question is when we open up the 13' to the aftermarket will it continue to hold that large step above the BOSS 203 RoadRunner?

 

And last but not least, why did they do this??? And what are the Performance specs on this?

 

I am just wondering if this new motor is going to be able to keep this so called big step over the RoadRunner Motor? In this case the "Trinity motor" is going to need to be able to make it into 1000rwhp at stock "trim" (long block) using a bigger SC and bigger boost....

[jsvtcobra]

Is this possible????

[jsvtcobra]

This is what I was talking about:

 

Strange, cause I know when I read the article they stated that the deck height was to great for the mustang eng compartment.

Maybe that is what was in this???

[2010KonaBlueGT]

Phil I Googled Cameron and didn't find anything.

 

 

OOPS...Silly me! I said *KEITH* Cameron and it's KEVIN Cameron. I intermingled Keith Code with Kevin Cameron.

 

Keith Code was my racing instructor at Laguna Seca and is the founder/owner of The California Superbike School. He is also a published author regarding Motorcycle Tech (Twist Of The Wrist, for one) so I had my "Motorcycle Guru's" mixed in together.

 

Google Kevin Cameron if you want to see some impressive credentials.

 

 

Sorry about that,

Phill

[RazorbackMustang]

BOSS 203 RoadRunner?

 

And last but not least, why did they do this??? And what are the Performance specs on this?I am just wondering if this new motor is going to be able to keep this so called big step over the RoadRunner Motor? In this case the "Trinity motor" is going to need to be able to make it into 1000rwhp at stock "trim" (long block) using a bigger SC and bigger boost....

 

 

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky or maybe I missed the inside joke.....but you DO know that it's a Boss 302 and Coyote engine, not a RoadRunner?

 

TiVCT is what makes the 5.0 so impressive, that and stock cylinder head flow rates.

[2010KonaBlueGT]

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky or maybe I missed the inside joke.....but you DO know that it's a Boss 302 and Coyote engine, not a RoadRunner?

 

TiVCT is what makes the 5.0 so impressive, that and stock cylinder head flow rates.

 

 

And Direct Injection, and, and, and.....

 

Technically speaking, they're (the 5.0L) WAY ahead of the 5.4 & 5.8L engines.

 

I half-way expected TiVCT and DI to be incorporated into the 5.4L DOHC Mod motor for the '13 GT500, rather than a increase in engine and blower displacement.

 

Silly me!

 

 

Phill

[SVT NAJA]

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky or maybe I missed the inside joke.....but you DO know that it's a Boss 302 and Coyote engine, not a RoadRunner?

 

TiVCT is what makes the 5.0 so impressive, that and stock cylinder head flow rates.

 

 

The modified 5.0L Coyote engine installed in the Boss 302 is referred to as the Road Runner as noted here in Wikipedia...

 

Boss 302 (Road Runner) Variant

 

A higher performance variant of the Coyote, dubbed Road Runner internally by Ford, is produced under the Boss 302 moniker used for the resurrected Boss 302 Mustang for the 2012 model year.^[14] The Boss 302 receives CNC ported heads cast in 356 aluminum providing additional airflow and strength, and a higher lift exhaust camshaft profile is used. Valvetrain components were lightened as much as possible, including the use of sodium filled exhaust valves, while strengthened powdered metal rods and forged aluminum pistons were added. Piston-cooling jets were also deleted, which are standard in the 5.0 model.^[15] Exterior changes include a high-mount intake plenum (as opposed to the standard engine's low-mounted one) with shorter runners to improve high-rpm power. Power is increased from 412 hp (307 kW) to 444 hp (331 kW), and torque drops from 390 lb·ft (530 N·m) to 380 lb·ft (520 N·m) due to the upgrades. The Boss's redline is increased to 7500 rpm, but has been verified stable up to 8400.^[16]

[jsvtcobra]

Type-O I ment 302...

 

And correct they are both 302 engines, but as above there are quite a few updates and improvements on the Roadrunner over the Coyote. This is why the Roadrunner performs so well under boost.

[RazorbackMustang]

Doh! Learn something knew. Now that I think about that, I think I read that somewhere previously, I obviously didn't really make the connection. I also thought he was speaking in general about the 5.0. My bad!

 

 

And Direct Injection, and, and, and.....

 

Technically speaking, they're (the 5.0L) WAY ahead of the 5.4 & 5.8L engines.

 

I half-way expected TiVCT and DI to be incorporated into the 5.4L DOHC Mod motor for the '13 GT500, rather than a increase in engine and blower displacement.

 

Silly me!

 

 

Phill

 

 

Did I miss where the 2013 5.0L is direct injected?

 

Now just to speculate, I suspect that Ford is holding back a super-modified version of the 5.0L for upcoming models of the GT500. With how well they respond to forced induction, I can't possibly see where they won't do that.