No more piston cooling jets

[tjm73]

It's always best to wait until the machine shop tells you what will be needed.

This is the best thing to do IMO.

 

[BruceH]

This is the best thing to do IMO.

I'm guilty of not doing it on my first build. I had found a great deal on manley rods and +.002" cp pistons so I bought them. Then I started researching and talking to people who had built motors before and realized I might of screwed up. Everything turned out ok in the end but I wouldn't do it that way again.

 

[19COBRA93]

For what it's worth, there is only one size piston for the gt, but there are two pistons for the boss. It doesn't tell me what size but I'll bet one is .001 or .002 bigger for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[tlflow]

solution

I think that I have this sorted out:
(1) the oil squirters are gone - cost savings most likely
(2) pistons are not like M&M's they are heat treated
(3) #8 is still a puzzle (appears to run hotter than the rest - header design?)
(4) small improvements to an exisiting design <> a redesign
(5) oil consumption is an unknown

Since the GT500 will get oil squirters, they must provide some value at 650hp. Ford modified the timing cover on the 5.0 to facilitate the fordracing supercharger installation. No one is having #8 issue with FI, and the rods are not breaking at 650 hp. The stock fuel system is good to almost 700hp. It would seem that the 5.0 engine was designed to be modded, but apparently not half-heartedly (or half-ass-cidly).

Solution:
Install SC of your choice (limit boost to < 10 psig, RPM <7000), add some long tubes to protect #8 and reduce oil consumption at the same time. Maybe add a bigger radiator and an oil cooler.

ps - couple more points: (a) If you are not impressed by the fact that we can run 87 octane (from walmart) in a stock 5.0 without an issue, then you should resist the urge to participate in technical discussions (b) I love the fact that, post 5.0 an M3 is a girls car. The 5.0 is a fine piece of engineering ... for $35K(+/-)!

 

[BruceH]

I think that I have this sorted out:
(1) the oil squirters are gone - cost savings most likely
(2) pistons are not like M&M's they are heat treated
(3) #8 is still a puzzle (appears to run hotter than the rest - header design?)
(4) small improvements to an exisiting design <> a redesign
(5) oil consumption is an unknown

I wonder about that. There are costs associated with retooling for a different block casting, they also went to a smaller headbolt. Not just casting tooling and engineering but also other manufacturing related costs like machining, changing documentation, build instructions, new parts and stress testing of those parts, and the build process itself. There are bean counters who tally all the costs of a change in manufacturing process.

 

[19COBRA93]

IMO, cost savings is not what it was done for.

 

[UltraKla$$ic]

IMO, cost savings is not what it was done for.

+1 bazillion!

 

[Sky Render]

IMO, cost savings is not what it was done for.

Then what was it done for?

Oil squirters cool pistons, so removing them certainly wouldn't help the "#8 Issue."

 

[ford20]

Unless they found the way that they heat treated the pistons removed the need for the oil squirters

 

[Rob72]

Who's going to be the first to run a 93 race tune on the 2013?

 

[UltraKla$$ic]

Who's going to be the first to run a 93 race tune on the 2013?

 

[BruceH]

Then what was it done for?

Oil squirters cool pistons, so removing them certainly wouldn't help the "#8 Issue."

Maybe not as cut and dry. We can only speculate. The headbolt size going from 12mm to 11mm was probably done to remove material in the coolant passages. I haven't seen a blueprint of the block but my guess would be the oil squirters took up too much real estate in the block.

 

[19COBRA93]

Then what was it done for?

Oil squirters cool pistons, so removing them certainly wouldn't help the "#8 Issue."

We don't know. Only an official answer from someone at Ford will be able to answer that. Piston squirters aren't a huge expense. New pistons and a newly designed block are a huge expense. The new block alone is a few hundred dollars more than the old one. There has to be more to the change. More than cost, Ford is focused on durability. This IMO, is a durability change. And possibly, not even because of the Mustang. It's possible, there are durability issues in the F-150's where this engine is really put under a load for long periods of time. If there's a possible #8 issue in a mustang that weighs 3600lbs and runs wide open for 12 seconds, imagine what it's doing in a 7000lb truck run wide open when towing for minutes at a time.

 

[TheRookie65]

Solution:
Install SC of your choice (limit boost to < 10 psig, RPM <7000), add some long tubes to protect #8 and reduce oil consumption at the same time. Maybe add a bigger radiator and an oil cooler.

What do you guys think about the above advice? Yes, no, make no diff?

 

[Rob72]

What do you guys think about the above advice? Yes, no, make no diff?

I've seen one post of a #8 go with long tubes. The 3V exhaust manifolds look pretty bad at letting exhaust gas escape from #8 and they have no problems there. I do believe different headers could reduce the risk and I believe running a lower octane tune will also. Boss oil cooler too. Maybe a radiator but mine has done fine so far with just the oil cooler without the temperature gauge moving right of center.

 

[19COBRA93]

There seem to be plenty of boosted '11's out there holding up just fine, but there have also been a few failures. It's really impossible to say that boost is safer than an n/a tune. I think there are probably the same percentage of failures because of the quantity of each. I'd think boosted cars make up only 10% of the modded coyotes, So if there are 10 failures for every 1000 tuned n/a cars, there is likely 1 failure for every 100 boosted cars. Just an example.

 

[TheRookie65]

Rob and Cobra thank you for your input! I understand there may not be a statistical value between SC and NA but do you think there is an added value keeping an sc below 10 psi?

Thanks!

 

[NickSezz]

We don't know. Only an official answer from someone at Ford will be able to answer that. Piston squirters aren't a huge expense. New pistons and a newly designed block are a huge expense. The new block alone is a few hundred dollars more than the old one. There has to be more to the change. More than cost, Ford is focused on durability. This IMO, is a durability change. And possibly, not even because of the Mustang. It's possible, there are durability issues in the F-150's where this engine is really put under a load for long periods of time. If there's a possible #8 issue in a mustang that weighs 3600lbs and runs wide open for 12 seconds, imagine what it's doing in a 7000lb truck run wide open when towing for minutes at a time.

I agree with the above after reading this...

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/te...ord_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/photo_56.html

 

[BruceH]

I agree with the above after reading this...

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/te...ord_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/photo_56.html

That was a good read. Interesting how they changed oil and coolant flow for the coyote vs other mod motors.

 

[giddyup]

We don't know. Only an official answer from someone at Ford will be able to answer that. Piston squirters aren't a huge expense. New pistons and a newly designed block are a huge expense. The new block alone is a few hundred dollars more than the old one. There has to be more to the change. More than cost, Ford is focused on durability. This IMO, is a durability change. And possibly, not even because of the Mustang. It's possible, there are durability issues in the F-150's where this engine is really put under a load for long periods of time. If there's a possible #8 issue in a mustang that weighs 3600lbs and runs wide open for 12 seconds, imagine what it's doing in a 7000lb truck run wide open when towing for minutes at a time.

true..but the f150s use a cast iron block...so why would they mess with the mustang block?