Rob72
No Japanese Mustang Here
Sam, you are the man again. This forum is lucky to have you.
No more piston cooling jets
- Thread starter KungFuHamster
- Start date
At any given RPM, the pistons in the 5.8 are moving MUCH faster than in the Coyote, because of the ridiculously long stroke in that motor.
BAKnBLK2010
Harley Davidson FLHTCI
I'd love to see pics of the new timing cover.
I believe the windage losses caused by piston squirters increase as RPM increases, not as piston speed increases.
Rob72
No Japanese Mustang Here
I believe that you're right. Also the GT500 probably has heavier pistons traveling at a faster speed giving it more momentum. Windage loss may not be as much with this motor.
Last edited:
19COBRA93
Ford Racing
Not only that, the GT500 probably makes it's 650hp with ease. They likely had hp to spare, so the few hp lost through windage was an easy trade off for a cooler piston in a boosted motor.
And thanks guys. It's really no big deal, I deal with parts all day every day.
Rob72
No Japanese Mustang Here
All I know is that I want Darren to load a 93 race tune on his new car and stomp the shit out of it on a 100 degree day and let's see what happens.
Last edited:
UltraKla$$ic
PERENNIAL WAXXER
All I know is that I want Darren to load a 93 race tune on his new car and stomp the shit out of it on a 100 degree day and let's see what happens.
This has been an interesting read that I have not been a part of until now. It's been like watching a propeller on a plane spin in some respects. You know, if you watch a propeller spin for long enough, it starts looking like it's going the other direction. 8)
Discussions about the removal of the oil squiters in a speculative way maybe having to do with the now infamous #8 issue as it may relate to some of the changes made to the Coyote and the redesign of the timing cover, etc.
There is a picture reference noted. back several pages, that shows the Coyote being run through it's paces with headers glowing that when I first saw it during the reading of the entire article, several months ago, was very familiar as I have done this on many of the newer vehicles of the past decade or so. So, it didn't strike me as being impressive to any extent. It just reminded me of how lean engines can run now-a-days.
Did you know that while they were testing this engine, they ran it for several minutes at WOT, shut the engine down then poured -20 degree ice water through it, started it back up then ran it to 225 degrees?*
*We witnessed another torture session where the engine was run at WOT for several minutes, the headers glowing just a hint of red, then the engine shut off and after several seconds of sitting, -20 degree ice water was forced through the cooling system. Frost formed on the test rig as the engine was about frozen to death, then the ice water stopped, the engine started and after a handful of seconds idling was taken back to max rpm, max load for another heat cycle up to 225 degrees. Each complete cycle takes about 10 minutes, and the engine must survive days of these non-stop thermal shocks.*
Those pictures you say at almost the beginning of this thread are part of the article below, if you care to read the whole thing from front to back. It is a good read that talks about the development and testing of the Coyote with interviews of the folks who engineered this engine. If you haven't read it, it just may answer a few of the questions you may have about, say, head design and coolant flow for example, among the other design features of this engine.
It gave me a better understanding of what this engine is made of and the devotion brought forth in it's development by it's engineers. Hope you find it just as enlightening! 8)
Read more: http://www.mustang50magazine.com/te...t_50_coyote_engine/viewall.html#ixzz1pdIv3pjm
Discussions about the removal of the oil squiters in a speculative way maybe having to do with the now infamous #8 issue as it may relate to some of the changes made to the Coyote and the redesign of the timing cover, etc.
There is a picture reference noted. back several pages, that shows the Coyote being run through it's paces with headers glowing that when I first saw it during the reading of the entire article, several months ago, was very familiar as I have done this on many of the newer vehicles of the past decade or so. So, it didn't strike me as being impressive to any extent. It just reminded me of how lean engines can run now-a-days.
Did you know that while they were testing this engine, they ran it for several minutes at WOT, shut the engine down then poured -20 degree ice water through it, started it back up then ran it to 225 degrees?*
*We witnessed another torture session where the engine was run at WOT for several minutes, the headers glowing just a hint of red, then the engine shut off and after several seconds of sitting, -20 degree ice water was forced through the cooling system. Frost formed on the test rig as the engine was about frozen to death, then the ice water stopped, the engine started and after a handful of seconds idling was taken back to max rpm, max load for another heat cycle up to 225 degrees. Each complete cycle takes about 10 minutes, and the engine must survive days of these non-stop thermal shocks.*
Those pictures you say at almost the beginning of this thread are part of the article below, if you care to read the whole thing from front to back. It is a good read that talks about the development and testing of the Coyote with interviews of the folks who engineered this engine. If you haven't read it, it just may answer a few of the questions you may have about, say, head design and coolant flow for example, among the other design features of this engine.
It gave me a better understanding of what this engine is made of and the devotion brought forth in it's development by it's engineers. Hope you find it just as enlightening! 8)
Read more: http://www.mustang50magazine.com/te...t_50_coyote_engine/viewall.html#ixzz1pdIv3pjm
You were suggesting a durability issue in your previous post. It would seem that you are suggesting that a coyote with squirters is a less durable design and the trinity with squirters is a more durable design.
I take it as a given that the coyote isn't designed to rev like the roadrunner. I am not suggesting making power by increasing RPM, but with FI and limiting RPM to <7000rpm. The 5.0 squirters should provide the same functional advantage as they do in the trinity. Granted the 5.0 doesn't have the pressure checks like the trinity, so there is more oil flying around at lower RPM, but is that really an issue? (Trinity has an oil cooler too ... my next addition.)
Maybe Ford rethought the piston because people were tuning the coyote to wrap-up like a roadrunner. If #8 position is the weakest link (due to - header design, water jacket design, etc.), it fails first when engine is overtaxed. A new piston, new basis for design (higher RPM) ... no need for squirters. Doesn't mean squirters are a bad thing, just not needed.
Last edited:
Thanks. That is what I tried to accomplish in the beginning of this thread. I do know there is a small number of people that will actually read the whole article in depth. I took me a while, but that is one of the few things I am interested in reading.
DO IT!!
19COBRA93
Ford Racing
I never suggested the squirters made it less durable. The only issue I see with squirters is the possibility of oil consumption, and windage. What I think is less durable is the older piston itself, and possibly the older block. I think squirters are a good thing, and in a boosted car have clear advantages. I've melted down a lot of pistons in my own boosted cars over the years, and I think piston squirters, had they been available, would have saved me a few times.
It's possible the piston design, or block layout, or something unknown simply makes the squirters less advantageous in the coyote. However, on my buddy's car, twinscrewgt on here, we installed Boss pistons, and stock squirters. He's running an F1 Procharger making about 700rw without an issue.
If the new piston design is more durable, and allows the elimination of the squirters, reduced oil consumption, and 8 more hp, I see why Ford made the move, and we are none the wiser.
Here are some thread-relating sections of the 5.0 article for those who do not want to read it.
"You may also think "weak" when viewing the Coyote's racy-looking but hypereutectic pistons. But there's a twist: oil-cooling jets. A fine mist of oil is squirted continuously from jets in the block's main webs. This oil sprays directly on the underside of the piston, at the vulnerable piston boss and bottom of the crown. The engineers sold the expense of oil jets to management by telling them it speeds engine warm-up (which is true), but the real reason was for piston cooling, hence longevity. This means the lighter, quieter, tighter-fitting, less-expensive hypereutectic piston can be run in this demanding high-rpm, high-load application.
Benefits of the squirters are extensive. Testing shows the crankshaft runs 25 degrees cooler with them, and they help with octane sensitivity. Combined with the heads superior water-jacketing they are one reason the high-compression Coyote can feed on 87-octane gasoline. Interestingly, adding piston-cooling oil jets was one thing engineers on the original Four-Valve modular-the 280hp Lincoln Mark VIII's 4.6-told us they would do if asked to increase performance. That was 17 years ago, so it's been a long wait for this fundamental improvement."
"The oil pan shape and baffling was aided by computer modeling to check sloshing behavior while braking and cornering. Testing also showed oil drainback out of the valve covers while cornering (and drifting!) proved inadequate with the initial design, requiring slight but vital revisions to the drainback channel shape in the side of the block.
At 1g cornering, the oil was accumulating in the valve cover and flinging into the PCV system via the camshaft-timing wheels. These "pip wheels" make great oil paddles at 3,500 rpm, so Habib Affes Ph.D., CAE technical expert, modeled the situation, disclosing that down in the block's oil drain passage there was a curve or bump. At 1g cornering, this bump-physically angled at 45 degrees-was sensed as flat by the oil, so it would not drain past it. Straightening the curve lowered the oil puddle depth around the pip wheel from 11mm to 3mm, curing the PCV problem."
"Crankcase ventilation and oil drainback are major oiling improvements in the Coyote. Crankcase breathing has never been particularly good in high-rpm modulars, and early testing showed the Coyote's high volumes of drainback oil at high rpm were air-locking the crankcase from the top of the engine. In other words, the gush of oil trying to drain down at 7,000 rpm was blocking the pressurized crankcase air trying to find its way up, effectively choking the PCV system and inhibiting drainback.
The cure was to separate the drainback paths from the crankcase breathing chimneys. Thus, Coyotes have three large oil drainbacks on the exhaust or lower side of the cylinder head. They mate to corresponding passages on the outer side of the block that downspout the oil into the pan-similar to the dry-sumped Ford GT block.
For PCV gasses, passages are placed at the top of the crankcase, about where the camshaft would be in an OHV block. These passages connect to corresponding flues on the intake side of the cylinder heads. Thus, the oil drains and breather vents are completely separated and probably approach double the combined area of previous modulars."
"Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs. And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.
Read more if you want to know about future DI plans and aspects of the engine.
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/te...t_50_coyote_engine/viewall.html#ixzz1pdIv3pjm
"You may also think "weak" when viewing the Coyote's racy-looking but hypereutectic pistons. But there's a twist: oil-cooling jets. A fine mist of oil is squirted continuously from jets in the block's main webs. This oil sprays directly on the underside of the piston, at the vulnerable piston boss and bottom of the crown. The engineers sold the expense of oil jets to management by telling them it speeds engine warm-up (which is true), but the real reason was for piston cooling, hence longevity. This means the lighter, quieter, tighter-fitting, less-expensive hypereutectic piston can be run in this demanding high-rpm, high-load application.
Benefits of the squirters are extensive. Testing shows the crankshaft runs 25 degrees cooler with them, and they help with octane sensitivity. Combined with the heads superior water-jacketing they are one reason the high-compression Coyote can feed on 87-octane gasoline. Interestingly, adding piston-cooling oil jets was one thing engineers on the original Four-Valve modular-the 280hp Lincoln Mark VIII's 4.6-told us they would do if asked to increase performance. That was 17 years ago, so it's been a long wait for this fundamental improvement."
"The oil pan shape and baffling was aided by computer modeling to check sloshing behavior while braking and cornering. Testing also showed oil drainback out of the valve covers while cornering (and drifting!) proved inadequate with the initial design, requiring slight but vital revisions to the drainback channel shape in the side of the block.
At 1g cornering, the oil was accumulating in the valve cover and flinging into the PCV system via the camshaft-timing wheels. These "pip wheels" make great oil paddles at 3,500 rpm, so Habib Affes Ph.D., CAE technical expert, modeled the situation, disclosing that down in the block's oil drain passage there was a curve or bump. At 1g cornering, this bump-physically angled at 45 degrees-was sensed as flat by the oil, so it would not drain past it. Straightening the curve lowered the oil puddle depth around the pip wheel from 11mm to 3mm, curing the PCV problem."
"Crankcase ventilation and oil drainback are major oiling improvements in the Coyote. Crankcase breathing has never been particularly good in high-rpm modulars, and early testing showed the Coyote's high volumes of drainback oil at high rpm were air-locking the crankcase from the top of the engine. In other words, the gush of oil trying to drain down at 7,000 rpm was blocking the pressurized crankcase air trying to find its way up, effectively choking the PCV system and inhibiting drainback.
The cure was to separate the drainback paths from the crankcase breathing chimneys. Thus, Coyotes have three large oil drainbacks on the exhaust or lower side of the cylinder head. They mate to corresponding passages on the outer side of the block that downspout the oil into the pan-similar to the dry-sumped Ford GT block.
For PCV gasses, passages are placed at the top of the crankcase, about where the camshaft would be in an OHV block. These passages connect to corresponding flues on the intake side of the cylinder heads. Thus, the oil drains and breather vents are completely separated and probably approach double the combined area of previous modulars."
"Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs. And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.
Read more if you want to know about future DI plans and aspects of the engine.
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/te...t_50_coyote_engine/viewall.html#ixzz1pdIv3pjm
fake
2011 Black 5.0
So with the deleation of the piston coolers, will the 13's be required to run premium fuel only?
You know, as little as 20 years ago, a person in the market for a performance car would not have had a clue that some people have had a '#8 issue' or, at best, only heard 'rumors'. Only the 'miracle' of the inneerwebs has made it possible to hear about the troubles 'some' have had on this issue to the point of people being scared to purchase a vehicle with such a poetentialy devistating problem. How many potential customers have been lost to the 'otherside' because of their new found 'knowledge'?
Just like in this thread, there are people who have their own idea of what may cause such a problem and speculating as to the changes made to the 5.0 as it 'may' relate to said problem(s).
My understanding of said #8 problem is that it is caused by pushing the engine parameters beyond their tolerances. You could do this with any engine and have the same result. The fact that it happens to the #8 in the 5.0 just means that in this particular engine, that's were a problem like this will 'most likely' show up first.
Is it the 'weak link' in the engine? I don't think I'd go that far. Under the circumstances of doing a 'certain' modification, this is were it happens to show up. So, yes, under that circumstance, popping #8 is the result. #8 pops because the engine was run to lean due to too much timing and thus, burning the piston. Would this have also happened to the rest of the pistons? Yes, I think it would if run under the same conditions that caused the #8 but, no one has gone that far after having the initial issue.
I'm perfectly satisfied that I will never have this issue in mine. I'm also perfectly satisfied that the engineers did an excellent job developing this engine. But, like anything else, people will find a way to mess things up and on the innerwebs, you can tell your tale of 'horrible engineering' to the world thus spawning the 'blame game'. I, for one, take this issue with a grain of salt. Peace Out!
Just like in this thread, there are people who have their own idea of what may cause such a problem and speculating as to the changes made to the 5.0 as it 'may' relate to said problem(s).
My understanding of said #8 problem is that it is caused by pushing the engine parameters beyond their tolerances. You could do this with any engine and have the same result. The fact that it happens to the #8 in the 5.0 just means that in this particular engine, that's were a problem like this will 'most likely' show up first.
Is it the 'weak link' in the engine? I don't think I'd go that far. Under the circumstances of doing a 'certain' modification, this is were it happens to show up. So, yes, under that circumstance, popping #8 is the result. #8 pops because the engine was run to lean due to too much timing and thus, burning the piston. Would this have also happened to the rest of the pistons? Yes, I think it would if run under the same conditions that caused the #8 but, no one has gone that far after having the initial issue.
I'm perfectly satisfied that I will never have this issue in mine. I'm also perfectly satisfied that the engineers did an excellent job developing this engine. But, like anything else, people will find a way to mess things up and on the innerwebs, you can tell your tale of 'horrible engineering' to the world thus spawning the 'blame game'. I, for one, take this issue with a grain of salt. Peace Out!
ctt326
Brenspeed Hater
Everytime I read this thread title that badass voice from the commercial says in my head, "Piston Cooling Jets".
Doubtful.
Personaly, I like the idea of the oil squiters as it relates to controlling tempurature in the crankcase. I'm not worried about the HP that may be scavanged because of 'windage'. There are compromises made to reach the end reslult. In this case, the cooling of pistons is important because of their type and what is asked of them. The pistons used was a cost effective measure. It is so stated, indirectly, in the article. It would have been cool to use forged pistons in combination with the squiters though.
http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/...013-mustang-gts-extra-8-horsepower-come-from/
Speaks to a few differences
Speaks to a few differences
Similar threads
Support us!
Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!
Click Here For Details
Sponsor Links
