By on December 21, 2016

2016 Ford Mustang GT

Prepare to kiss a famous displacement goodbye.

Ford’s 5.0-liter “Coyote” V8 has dutifully powered variants of the automaker’s Mustang and F-150 since 2011, instilling the brand’s pony car with the kind of heritage that can only be squeezed from 302 cubic inches.

Well, time (and technology) marches on, and Ford’s lower-shelf V8 is due for a replacement. According to a recent report, the Blue Oval folks aren’t choosing sides when it comes to the best way to squirt gas into the new mill.

News of the upcoming engine arose during recent union negotiations between Ford and its Canadian autoworkers. When labor contract talks wrapped up in early November, part of the company’s $700 million (CAD) commitment included breathing new life into the Essex engine plant in Windsor, Ontario.

At the time, Reuters reported on sources who claimed the updated Essex-built engine would be a 4.8-liter V8. Unifor, which represents Canadian Detroit Three autoworkers, simply claimed that the plant would see a major new engine program.

Now, Ford Authority, citing unnamed sources, claims the 4.8-liter V8 will appear under the hoods of the both the F-150 and Mustang in naturally aspirated form, boasting both port and direct injection. The setup, while complex to engineer, should boost the engine’s fuel efficiency. It also allows Ford to offer a higher-compression engine — certainly, Dearborn isn’t about to offer a lower-displacement Coyote replacement will less horsepower and torque.

While there’s scant information about the new mill, it’s likely that Ford will dish some details at the North American International Auto Show next month. Rumor has it that the 4.8-liter will appear in 2018 F-150s and Mustangs.

The same labor deal that saw a new engine program for Essex will also bring a new V8 engine for larger Ford trucks. Again, details are scarce, but the new engine will likely replace the 6.2-liter in the Super Duty lineup.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

78 Comments on “Rollin’ in My 4.8: Ford’s Coyote Engine Replacement Gains Dual Injection, Report Claims...”


  • avatar
    raph

    There will be much gnashing and wailing in the Ford camp when they will no longer be able to roll in their 5.0s!

    Interesting that Ford is going DI since they have been able to achieve 12:1 with the 5.2 in the GT350 on pump gas ( although one reviewer said it wasn’t happy on 87 octane at all )

    Hopefully the hybrid system allows a lot of the current accessibility when it come to modifying and tuning the car.

    IIRC an injector and pump swap on the RS and ST cars costs about 2k where a poet injected upgrade generally is about half that or maybe 500 dollars cheaper.

    In any event if it’s Voodoo based with the big bore block and uses a variation of the 5.2’s CNC heads the engine will be a runner.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Don’t really understand why this will be “complex to engineer”.

    Yes the system is complex, but both injection types are well understood these days. It’s more an economic decision to load all that hardware on one engine.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      How many engines have dual-injection setups? I’m aware of the Lexus versions of the 2GR (FSE?), and I think the TSFI does it, but it’s still kind of rare, no?

      • 0 avatar
        Adam Tonge

        The new Ford 3.5TT has it as well.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        The 4.6 1UR and 5.0 2UR Toyota V8s (but not the 5.7 3UR in the trucks) have it as well. Both the V6 and V8 engines with the system have accumulated an impressive reliability record, so at least in theory there’s nothing wrong with it.

      • 0 avatar
        yamahog

        The FR-S/BRZ have it. I think the LFA has it too.

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        Also Lexus’ 8AR-FTS and the Subaru FA20D/Toyota 4U that’s in the BRZ.

        The Toyota/Lexus roster is interesting in that they simultaneously offered closely related V6’s with port injection (3.5 in the Camry, e.g.), direct injection (2.5 in the IS), and dual injection (3.5 in the GS, e.g.). Internet chatter seems to indicate that the DI-only 4GR-FSE in the IS 250 suffers carbon build-up issues along the lines of BMW’s and VW/Audi’s poorer efforts.

        • 0 avatar
          yamahog

          The IS250 / 4GR-FSE definitely have carbon buildup problems. The 4GR-FSE has the issues as well but it’s such a rare engine and it was only put in a car that non-enthuiasts would drive so you don’t hear about it much (Lexus GS300 – V6 not the inline 6).

      • 0 avatar
        VajazzleMcDildertits

        Lexus’ 2UR-GSE 5.0L also does both direct and port injection. The H4 4U-GSE/FA20 also does it too, it’s all Toyota tech.

      • 0 avatar
        dukeisduke

        The 2016 Tacoma added it (the 3.5l 2GR-FKS engine with D4S injection). The direct injectors have a slit in the side, and run a self-cleaning cycle during hot idle, from 10 seconds to 10 minutes long, depending on engine usage profile:

        http://wardsauto.com/technology/toyota-advances-d4s-self-cleaning-feature-tacoma

        And yes, the boxer engine in the FR-S and BRZ use it.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      It is not the mechanical side of it that is complex to engineer it is the software calibration that is much more complex to engineer than a single point of fuel delivery per cyl. Depending on the operating conditions the percentage of fuel delivered by each system will vary and keeping those transitions seamless while maintaining emissions will take a lot of work.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “the new engine will likely replace the 6.2-liter in the Super Duty lineup.”

    Dislike.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    No worries. The original 5.0 was really a 4.9. I don’t even think you could round it up to 5.0. Plus, the Germans.

    Good that they are using both kinds of injection. Tuner bros can rely on the ports for swapping and tuning.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      She’s so fine, my 4.9…

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I seem to recall the reason “5.0” was used for the 302 Windsor was because the 300 I6 was still being referred to as a 4.9L motor at the time.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yes they used 5.0 in part because the 300-6 in trucks got the 4.9 designation and it was supposed to avoid confusion. Of course they also called the first 351 a 351 instead of the 352 it actually is to avoid confuse with the FE 352. Then of course they had to add yet another engine with that same 4.0 x 3.5 configuration and then replace that with another.

      • 0 avatar
        Spartan

        The 2nd Generation Explorer also used the Windsor V8 for its entire run. It was always referred to as a 4.9L.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaMaximaCulpa

        A New 300 with port and direct injection would be sooooo much sweeter than any v8 could ever be.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          no it wouldn’t. Its main legitimate claim to fame was its longevity. it was out-torqued and way out-horsepowered by the contemporary 302 V8.

          In general engines aren’t “good at torque” as much as they “suck at horsepower.”

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Jim, a modern Inline 6 would, not just adding new dual-port injection to a 40 year old engine.

            But a modern, highly developed Inline 6 is a smooth, torque-bellowing engine. I just wish we had a Ford Austrailian I-6 from one of their souped-up Falcons to prove it.

            I think it’d be awesome if Lincoln developed a new modular RWD platform to eventually replace the MKZ, Continental, and create a new range topper. Along with it, build a modern sophisticated line of Inline engines, four, five and six cylinders, in various states of tune/turbo/etc. Offer a V-8, but build most with the Inline engines. “Just a fancy Ford” won’t do.

            I wouldn’t want this to challenge BMW and Mercedes in (precieved) sportyness, but in precision engineering, smoothness, build quality and such. They can just last longer and be cheaper to repair, that certainly wouldn’t hurt LOL.

          • 0 avatar
            MeaMaximaCulpa

            Jim, obviously it would be a clean sheet design and not just an old lump of cast iron with new heads and DI/PI. A modern, large displacement straight six would be a sweet thing for a boat engine, luxury car engine, truck engine and whatnot, go the way of the Chevy small block and offer it in aluminium or cast iron and everybody wins.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “But a modern, highly developed Inline 6 is a smooth, torque-bellowing engine.”

            didn’t we just have a comment thread about this misconception that I6s are “inherently torquey?”

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          Seems to me that a 6 cyl with 300 cubes would be oversquare vs. a V8 with the same displacement; and isn’t torque related to a longer stroke?

          The 6 may be more robust due to more main bearings, though.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      correct. the 302 Windsor was 4942 cc, so it would round down to 4.9. the 302 Coyote, partly due to being a “metric” engine, is 4951 cc. Bingo, round up!

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Rollin’ in my four point eight
    Twelve more cubes would make it great

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Ford used those POS, boat anchor modular V8s for 20 years yet the 5.0L (really, the only good engine Ford makes) is done after 7?

    Are you kidding me?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Um, the current “5.0” is Mod motor.

      “The 5.0 L (4951 cc, 302 cid)[12] “Coyote” V8 is the latest evolution of the Modular engine.[13]”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Yeah, but it’s not a POS boat anchor like the (my) 5.4L.

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          You and EB can speak for yourselves my 5.4 MOD flat out hauled ass! That thing was a beast!

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Yes, and I’ve seen them with extremely high mileage. They had some issues with blowing out spark plugs and such (weaknesses improved upon with updates), but they are good engines overall with competitive power and MPG. I know of a fleet of 5.4L Econoline cargo vans each with over 300k, none rebuilt. Such is the story for well-maintained, hard working engines.

            They are good engines and a few bad apples only make sense to represent the whole to those predisposed to disliking it for no reason other than its a Ford. I’m not saying nobody ever got a bad one, not in the least, but they didn’t self-destruct with the regularity of, say, a Ford 3.8L or a Chrysler 2.7L. Those are horrible, fault-laden engines. True boat anchors. The Modular family wasn’t/isn’t.

            Ebflex hates anything related to a Ford oval in any way. Every engine/car/muffler bracket they’ve made is pure garbage, yada yada yada.

            Facts like the current 5.0L (“the only decent engine” lol) being highly related to the previous modular engines just don’t matter.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I like the 5.4 in my 2010 F150. I like the power characteristics of it over that of the Chevy 5.3 of that era.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Huh? The POS 4.6 and 5.4 were plagued with issues from day one. Ford and their brilliant engineers couldn’t even get the spark plugs right.

            They were dogs too.

            All in all they were amazingly awful engines.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I am not a declared Ford fanboy however I seem to remember the first few years having issues but they eventually straightened it out as Mod 4.6 goes half a million miles in fleet service. The 5.4 had different issues yet I see later examples routinely do 200K. I’m sure you’re still in therapy over seeing the megacriminal lose so badly, but try to cut down on the glue sniffing.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            >>Huh? The POS 4.6 and 5.4 were plagued with issues from day one. Ford and their brilliant engineers couldn’t even get the spark plugs right.
            They were dogs too.
            All in all they were amazingly awful engines.<<

            ::shrugs:: if you stayed with the 2v stuff. I went 4v and the engine was rock solid and didn't have a lick of problems over an 8 year period with almost 100k on the clock.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      And the 4.8 will just be a variation of the 5.0.

    • 0 avatar
      Loser

      Silvy Flex, do you even bother to read the articles or just post negative comments the second you see it’s Ford related?

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      There are bucket loads of 4.6 2V engines all over the place in the Panthers with well over 200K miles that are still running as new. With that said my friend’s dad did have a 2003 c op car with around 150K that just developed a rod knock a few weeks back out of the blue despite a fresh oil change so anything can happen.

  • avatar
    True_Blue

    *So* close to being a 289.

  • avatar
    seanx37

    “Well, time (and technology) marches on”

    Except at FCA, where only time marches on.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      #HELLCATEVERYTHING

      • 0 avatar
        seanx37

        An iron blocked push rod ohv V8. State of the art, 1949

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          you laugh, but the 5.7 “Hemi” beats the Toyota 32V DOHC 5.7 i-Force in both hp/torque and fuel economy. even back before the 8 speed in the Ram.

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          Yep, variable camshaft timing is so 1949. So is cylinder deactivation, active intake manifold…ect.

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          Yeah modern hemi port design sooooo 1949.

          People get hung up on the valve train configuration and block material and gloss over the important stuff. The devil as they say is in the details.

          Aluminum isn’t always the answer and even two valve cam in block pushrod engines feature cylinder head configurations that would have made top shops giddy a decade or so ago.

          That may not sound impressive but you can easily make 500 or more horsepower with the right set if factory heads and not spend a dime modifying them beyond a set of valvesprings matched to whatever cam you are using.

          • 0 avatar
            seanx37

            It is the issue. The iron block weighs 200 lbs more than an alloy block.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            that’s a load of sheer nonsense. the iron block does not weigh “200 lbs more” than the aluminum block. heck, with the 4.6 Modular, not only is the iron block NOT 200 lbs heavier than the aluminum, the iron block isn’t even 200 lbs period!!

            http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/4-6l-engine-dry-weight.675332/

            aluminum block: 85 lbs
            cast iron block: 154 lbs.

            besides, with anything resembling modern thin-wall casting techniques, iron blocks aren’t nearly as heavy as you think they are. heck, when I was 14 I could (barely) pick up and carry the iron block of a Buick 3.8 V6. and I’m not a big guy.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Here is an interesting tidbit on the current “hemi”.

            http: //www. automobilemag. com/news/hemi-engine/

            “Early in the research phase, they discovered a combustion chamber that Porsche used for 1965-97 air-cooled 911s offered the ideal starting point for their new design. Porsche’s head happened to be a hemi.”

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            It’s also a load of bollocks. The only similarity between the Porsche design and the 5.7 “Hemi” is the twin spark plugs. Otherwise the Porsche chamber looks just like the old ’50s-’70s Chrysler Hemi chambers, which themselves look like the hemispherical chambers from aircraft engines which pre-date them. Heck, Harleys have been hemis since the Knucklehead.

    • 0 avatar
      Eyeflyistheeye

      Marchionne marches on

  • avatar
    VoGo

    What’s nice is that Ford can continue to use 5.0 badges on the Mustang, regardless of engine size. Because significant digits are for suckers.

  • avatar
    nels0300

    How much of this has to do with preventing carbon build-up?

    Do the ecoboost Fords without this system suffer carbon build-up?

    I can’t stand the idea of my engine gradually losing performance because the engine is getting clogged up. It’s like an engine that smokes cigs and ends up with emphysema.

    This issue was a major reason why I ended up with a Camry V6 instead of pretty much anything else in the segment.

    • 0 avatar
      EAF

      I think using both port & direct injection, in combination, is strictly an emissions effort. Port -injection for open loop / cold start / partial load operation and direct injection (high static compression) for all other times. Cleaning off intake valves is likely just a welcomed side affect.

      I would want my V8 equipped with push-rods, no cylinder de-act., no vvt, and coil-on-plugs. THAT’S IT, NOTHING MORE!!

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “How much of this has to do with preventing carbon build-up?”

      personally my uneducated guess is it has something to do with lowering particulate emissions. straight GDI engines have higher particulate emissions and have been “coasting” because EPA doesn’t define limits for gas engines (yet.)

      “Do the ecoboost Fords without this system suffer carbon build-up?”

      AFAIK *all* engines without port injection will have some build-up on the intake valves. deposits were a problem back in the days of carburetors and have always been present in diesels. port injection and modern detergent gas “solved” that problem for gas engines. I’ve seen some borescope photos of Ecoboost engines, and there’s been some build-up of gunk on the valve stem just above the valve head. But nothing like the horror shows people have found in some VW/Audi TSI engines.

      the build up comes from a couple of sources- 1) the oil which lubricates the valve guides eventually seeps down and cokes up, and 2) oil mist sucked in through the PCV system.

      • 0 avatar
        nels0300

        Regarding the particulate emissions, it sure seems like they emit more just looking at sooty, black tailpipes on DI cars. Looks like they need to run a chimney cleaner log additive every other fuel fill up.

        The dual, DI/port setup seems like an imperfect solution. Twice the injectors. Do they have two different fuel pumps as well?

        I’m sure people complained during the TBI to multi port switch, I guess I’m that guy now.

        • 0 avatar
          EAF

          My experience with 2GR’s is limited strictly to oil changes & water pump replacements, I’ve never touched the fuel system, but from what I gather:

          Low pressure in-tank fuel pump provides fuel to the port injectors, similar to a return-less traditional multi-port injection system. This same pump is T’d off and fuel is directed to a cam driven high pressure pump for the DI’s. I believe there is an accumulator of some sort pre-HPFP.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          I believe your are correct. My LT1 engined car has black on the outer exhaust tips, and it comes back pretty quickly after I clean it. Then again, maybe it is from those near WOT runs….

        • 0 avatar
          JD-Shifty

          No, they do not have two fuel pumps. They have a DI pump that either feeds the PFI system also or they run the chassis feed through the PFI rails before feeding the DI pump.

  • avatar
    thunderjet

    And here I was hoping for a 5.0 Coyote/10 speed auto combo. That would be fun in a Mustang. Probably a bit quicker than the current 5.0/6 speed auto.

  • avatar
    whitworth

    It will have issues, be difficult to modify and replacement parts will cost an arm and a leg to the end consumer, but it will get 0.2 mpg more fuel efficient, and that’s all that matters.

    Mustang owners rejoice, you’re going to save 25 cents a week on gas!

    • 0 avatar
      JD-Shifty

      what twaddle. do you replace fuel injectors often?

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      The PI system should be pretty easy to mod since its still familiar technology. I doubt going forward you will see people messing with the DI system if they can accomplish what they need to using port injection.

      I’m not a fan of DI, especially in the Mustang which has a huge aftermarket so if the port injection system is mod friendly it wont be too bad except for the added complexity of using a hybrid system.

      Ford was able to achieve 12:1 with the Voodoo V8 on port injection and the Coyote is only half a point lower. I doubt (and Ford has said as much) we will be seeing higher compression ratios that what we have now (even GM runs an 11:1 with their DI engines) if anything I expect Ford will be taking advantage of the more aggressive timing curves a DI engine can run pumping up what the 5.0 and this 4.8 lack compared to their two valve counterparts and that is a fatter torque curve.

      The hybrid system will also probably allow them to ditch the manifold runner controls which are gates in the intake designed to increase velocity and turbulence in the air entering the engine at low to mid rpm.

      OHC 4v engines like Ford’s aren’t too different from a hemi chamber in that they have poor quench and in combination with a big port don’t keep fuel mixed particularly well when the air and piston is moving slow which is part of the reason those engines have a reputation for being soggy on the bottom end compared to say GM’s LS engine which features a higher port velocity and increased quench in the chamber both of which pack a bit more air in due to a sort of ram air effect and keep the mixture excited.

      The trade off being that the valve curtain (valve lift x diameter) is smaller which limits airflow and requires a more aggressive cam with a greater amount of lift per degree of duration to compensate which in effect fools the engine into thinking it has a larger port but ultimately effects emissions and when particularly aggressive drivability and reliability.

  • avatar
    nels0300

    Get your PORT INJECTED FIVE POINT-O while you can!!!!!

    Man, I wish I was in the market for something like that.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      There are so many of these out there that used ones will be cheap(ish) for a long time. And it will be pretty easy to find one that spent its entire life from new puttering around under the timid right foot of a 70-year-old man with failing vision.

  • avatar
    MrF

    Ouch

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • HotPotato: Pot, meet kettle. EBFlex, you don’t take an objective look at anything, you just fling poo at the...
  • dal20402: Most Washingtonians are inside. The ones who aren’t are either doctors, Amazon delivery drivers, or…...
  • JimC2: The horsepower numbers sound like the world-market B21E and B23E, which were high compression, longer duration...
  • FreedMike: Agreed, I’ve never been a big runner, but running on any kind of paved surface is hard on your lower...
  • dukeisduke: I remember when these (and the Civic 4-door sedan) came out. Our neighbors across the street had one of...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth