2011 Mustang 5.0L

Hello all, long time, no see.

I joined this forum back when I was in college. Some of you may remember my techno-babble engine posts. Well, once I started working in Detroit I decided to stay off of these boards.

Well I just wanted to share what I have been working on for 3 years now. Like many other engineers I work with, every waking moment of my life has be consumed by the development of this engine. It is my proudest achievement. I hope you all enjoy!

P.S. Dimensionally it is very similar to the 4.6L-4V of yore. So you kit guys can start measuring and cutting!

Adam

YouTube - 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0L V8
YouTube - fordvideo1's Channel
THE NEW 2011 MUSTANG | Ford Motor Company Newsroom
ADAM CHRISTIAN: HANDS-ON ENGINEER LIVING HIS LONG-TERM DREAM | Ford Motor Company Newsroom
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Awesome Adam! I remember you but I'm not sure how many are around from that time that will remember the interesting things you were posting on the forum. Very very cool with your position at Ford and congratulations on making your dream become a reality!
 
Adam,
Great to see you back. I for one have missed your presence as you could always cut to the chase and engineer the hell out of it. You always made me feel like I was back in grad school(in a good way). I will look at your videos when at home. Congratulations on your position.

Bill
 
Adam, good to see you back for a bit, I was fortunate to join here not long before the earlier posts became hard to find & enjoy reading your posts, If you dont mind my asking what is the status of the MKII project you were involved with, is it up & running yet ? I wont look at your attachments just yet, Xmas smoked my Broadband quota for the month so they will have to wait til the 4th Jan..
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Very cool! That motor (and the output) looks very promising.

Plus, like Ron said to me a few days ago when he heard about the thing, Ford has a lot of goodwill tied up in the "5.0" name -- good to get back to that even if in a symbolic way.
 
Hi Adam

don´t know you personally ,but good to have you back. I enjoyed your post on exhaust header length very much.
I had the pleasure to see the MK2 you are working on. Great project and even bigger is the job you are all doing on this car.

TOM
 

Keith

Moderator
Hey Adam, welcome back mate. Let me see now, er, rear deck periscopes and some of the best 427 side oiler headers (and welding) I've ever seen.

Did the sets you made all find homes? Do you have any images of the cars? :thumbsup:
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Hey Adam,

I think the project is really awesome. I have to say that I've never been a fan of the mod motors from Ford as the output didn't jive well with the size and complexity. For example, the old 4.6L DOHC mill was rated at a top output of 315 hp in the final naturally aspirated iteration and the SOHC 5.4L motors didn't seem to put out the power they should. It seemed that only blowers would make the motors perform well and to some extent Ford agreed.

But now you've got 83 hp/L NA, definitely respectable, a 5L motor, and slightly over 400 hp. Essentially bettering the old BMW M5 benchmark (which was a great motor) of 400hp from their 5L DOHC VANIOS engine. However, yours is coming from a volume manufacturer who will produce 100,000s+, not just 1000s, I'd assume you guys are confident of reliability.

I'd be real interested to hear your comments on engines you evaluated for comparison, some unique features of the motor, and how you think it'll fare against similar engines from other makers. Also would like to hear about what might be left on the able with the engine.

Still think you guys should build a good pushrod engine to compete with the GM LS motors, but, they've got a long lead on Ford for those and the engines are good.

Thanks for the post, nice to hear you're doing well.

Ron
 
Hello all, long time, no see.

I joined this forum back when I was in college. Some of you may remember my techno-babble engine posts. Well, once I started working in Detroit I decided to stay off of these boards.

Well I just wanted to share what I have been working on for 3 years now. Like many other engineers I work with, every waking moment of my life has be consumed by the development of this engine. It is my proudest achievement. I hope you all enjoy!

P.S. Dimensionally it is very similar to the 4.6L-4V of yore. So you kit guys can start measuring and cutting!

Adam

YouTube - 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0L V8
YouTube - fordvideo1's Channel
THE NEW 2011 MUSTANG | Ford Motor Company Newsroom
ADAM CHRISTIAN: HANDS-ON ENGINEER LIVING HIS LONG-TERM DREAM | Ford Motor Company Newsroom
Nice to see you back on the forum. I did not always understand your posts but they were fun to read. ;)
 
Thanks guys,

The MKII is moving along. The engine fired for the first time about a month ago. It is still on a run stand. The car sat on all four wheels for the first time about a month ago as well. We are still a long way off, but over the hump. We'll put pictures on here when it is all done.

I have just one set of headers left in the basement. I haven't heard of anyone actually getting them on a car. Ted Baird is probably the closest. We did put them on 1032. They fit fine. I'm glad to say that my welding and header fabrication has come a long way since those MKII pipes. I was lucky enough to learn from Wayne Church, RYRE's header fabricator.

Ron,

Please understand that I can't talk about work much. But we can play bench racer just for fun. The 4V mod was respectable for its time, circa 1996. It basically suffered from lack of development, as did most U.S. products during that decade.

The Mach I variant was a nice engine I thought. It had the power of the earlier cobras, but also had great torque.

About this time the company was occupied with launching the 3V. I feel this was also a decent engine for the time. It had a power curve very similar to the Mach I, but with two less cams and 8 less valves. Of course the mustang variants were all aluminum with mag cam covers and a plastic intake. The engine was pretty light given it's dimensions. It was also the first modular with cam phasers.

Please, let me make this clear... VCT, particularly TiVCT, is the single greatest advancement in IC engines since electronic fuel injection. I could write a book about the benefits. It is good for NVH, emissionis, fuel economy, torque, AND power. Very few technologies can say that. We owe a debt of gratitude to the 3V for the path that it blazed.

Ron, I am a pushrod man as well. Well I am a split personality. Pushrod at home, DOHC at work. Hobby and work are two very different things. When you are racing it is all about weight, power, and simplicity. Production engines are all about fuel consumption at part load, NVH, and emissions.

I'll just talk about some of the tradeoffs between 2V pushrod and 4V DOHC. There really isn't a right answer. It just depends on what your objectives are, and what you currently have available.

4V heads have more valve area for a given bore diameter

2V heads have higher discharge coefficients, meaning they flow more for a given valve area

4V heads have smaller valves that weigh less, and therefore you can lift them higher (in therms of lift/diameter) than 2V for a given RPM. Basically, 4V heads can have a more aggressive lift profile than 2V heads with equivalent valve area.

2V only needs one cam and one timing chain without a tensioner, reducing friction.

OHC enables a stiffer valvetrain with less moving mass. This enables the engine to spin higher for a given lift profile.

Pushrod valvetrains are not stiff at all. Stability at high speed is a serious issue. Pushrod engines can deactivate cylinders very cheaply however.

4V enables TiVCT, while 2V is generally limited to DeVCT, save for the Viper. The biggest advantage of TiVCT over DeVCT is broadness of the torque curve. You can set the DeVCT up for peak torque or peak power, but not both. This is because the valve overlap is fixed.

A big bore helps power because you can fit a larger valve in it. A long stroke does NOTHING for torque. If an engine is under square, that does not mean it is torquey. It simply means it cannot fit enough valve in there to rev as high as an oversquare engine. The over square engine CAN be set up to produce the same torque as the under square engine however, this is rarely done.

A small bore helps emissions because there is less crevis volume. A small bore also helps fuel economy because there is a lower surface/volume ratio. Larger displacement per cylinder is also good for fuel as well though. A 4-cylinder 2.5L will typically do better with fuel than a 2.5L V6 because there is less surface area to transfer heat.

Shorter stroke is good for friction because friction scales with mean piston speed. So you could say that short stroke is good for fuel economy.

That's basically it. So lets compare a hypothetical 5.0L-4V to a 6.2L-2V.

5.0-4V:
Small bore = fuel +, power -, emissions +
OHC = fuel - (friction), power +, emissions neutral
4V = fuel nuetral, power +, emissions neutral
displacement = fuel +, power -, emissions +
TiVCT = fuel +, power +, emissions +

6.2L-2V:
Big bore = fuel -, power +, emissions -
Pushrod = fuel + (friction), power - (RPM), emissions neutral
2V = fuel +, power -, emissions neutral
displacement = fuel -, power +, emissions -
DeVCT = fuel +, power neutral, emissions neutral
Cylinder deactivation = fuel +, power neutral, emissions -

So in the end which is better? Both engines make about the same power and have about the same fuel economy. They both weigh about the same. The 6.2L makes a little more torque, but the 5.0L can rev higher. If geared properly they will both deliver the same torque to the wheels.

What you are seeing is two different ways to skin the same cat. What is more interesting to me is the method of attack. Some general observations.

4V engines will generally have smaller bores because they can get equivalent power out of them. 4V engines will spin higher because their valvetrains can take it, and will therefore have higher specific outputs. For fuel economy, 4V engines need to have smaller displacement to make up for their increased friction.

That's really it.

As far as 5.0L competitors... It really has two competitive sets. One set makes similar power, while the other has similar specific output.

Similar power engines:
GM 6.0 and 6.2's
Mopar 6.1's

Similar specific output:
Lexus 5.0L
Jag 5.0L

You guys decide how they stack up given their content, pricing, and availability.
 

Rick Muck- Mark IV

GT40s Sponsor
Supporter
So do you know why the new FoMoCo 6.2L truck engine is a 2V? After the gains on the 3V truck mods I thought that would be the future?
 

Brian Hamilton

I'm on the verge of touching myself inappropriatel
And when the hell are you guys going to make a 6.2L DOHC and stuff it in a special version of the Mustang is the question on my mind as well as most of my Mustang friends. You can PM me if you want to keep it hush hush. I'm pretty good with secrets. LOL

Laters,

Brian
 
I read "newsroom" wow pretty neat stuff, I have a Ferarri engine sitting in the garage, it has the single cam variable but actually being able to change the overlap on the fly has got to add possibilities! I love the looks of the 4valve but as mentioned always thought it was a bit of a boat anchor, all looks little go. When it first came out I was thinking we could rev it to the moon with the 4cams in there....then reality struck. So I have to ask, why can the LS7 rev so well with pushrods and why can't the 4valve blow it away rev wise? You're talking to a (previously) life long Ford fanatic that now has an LS7 in his car (some of my childhood friends no longer speak to me because of this :).
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Supporter
You're talking to a (previously) life long Ford fanatic that now has an LS7 in his car (some of my childhood friends no longer speak to me because of this :).
Ditto (except using an LS2). My first and only GM motor now resides behind my seat because of more than just a few reasons. On paper the Ford modular motors look good, but it's huge width and heavy weight (and on and on) caused me to go with an LS2 (and so far I've not regretted it).

BTW, what was Ford thinking when they chamfered the rear corners on the Mustang. I know of two friends that purposefully looked for a new previous-design body style just to avoid the new rounded tail. The front though looks great!
 

Cliff Beer

Supporter
Hello all, long time, no see.

I joined this forum back when I was in college. Some of you may remember my techno-babble engine posts. Well, once I started working in Detroit I decided to stay off of these boards.

Well I just wanted to share what I have been working on for 3 years now. Like many other engineers I work with, every waking moment of my life has be consumed by the development of this engine. It is my proudest achievement. I hope you all enjoy!

P.S. Dimensionally it is very similar to the 4.6L-4V of yore. So you kit guys can start measuring and cutting!

Adam

YouTube - 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0L V8
YouTube - fordvideo1's Channel
THE NEW 2011 MUSTANG | Ford Motor Company Newsroom
ADAM CHRISTIAN: HANDS-ON ENGINEER LIVING HIS LONG-TERM DREAM | Ford Motor Company Newsroom
Hi Adam, very cool!

That must be Mustang Sally driving the 2011 Ford 5.0 in the first video...

One quick question - do you think the way forward for Ford is all alloy engines, or iron blocks and alloy heads? Is it simply a matter of all alloy for weight and fuel economy, and iron for cost savings and rigidity? What are the major pros/cons?

Thanks!
 
Top