Twin turbo coyote - Diesel Forum - TheDieselStop.com
Ford Diesel Forum / Powerstroke Forum
Ford Diesel Forum / Powerstroke Forum
Go Back   Diesel Forum - TheDieselStop.com > Other Topics > Off-Topic Discussions

Off-Topic Discussions This is the area for general banter/chat. There are rules for this section, please read the sticky post in the section before participating. Enter at your own risk as some posts in here may be NSFW

TheDieselstop.com is the premier Diesel Truck Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-28-2010, 05:10 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 102
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Twin turbo coyote

So I heard from a very reliable source that Ford is working on a 5.0 coyote twin turbo. We know the coyote engine in naturally aspired form is going into the F150 with a little more than 400hp and little under 400 ft-lb, giving the torque advantage to the 6.2.

However, the twin turbo coyote that has been built and is being installed into tester Fseries picks right now is supposedly rated well into the 500 hp and almost 600 ft-lb region.

I'm think if they offer this as a option for super duty, and don't just restrict to some Lightening type of truck, this could be a very good option for the occasional tower or weekend road warrior who tows 10-12k. Properly geared and combined with the new 6 speed this should be a powerful engine that can move some serious loads and probably tie if not beat the 6.7 PSD in fuel economy, at least when not towing.

This optional engine, I think, would make great since for Ford. It would get good mpg, while costing more than the 6.2, it will certainly not be anywhere near the PSD, service costs should be well below the PSD as well, reliablity is unseen for all the engines, but Ford generally makes a pretty good gasser.

The most important thing though is that Chevy and Dodge have nothing like this, and it could give ford a SD that can do some towing close to the diesels for thousands of $$$ less than the competition making a perfect truck for those of us occasional towers and weekend road warriors.

So what's everyone opinion on such an engine?
Jrfish007 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-28-2010, 08:36 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 520
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Is that the EcoBoost system?
__________________
10 F-350 Lariat FX4
02 X 7.3l Ultimate Limited - SOLD
06 KR 250 4x4 - SOLD
a94cobra is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-28-2010, 09:27 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 792
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
GM does have a comparable engine. It's the LSA 6.2 Caddy CTS-V Supercharged engine. It has 556 HP & 551 TQ. Good to hear Ford is working on this though!
__________________
2011 F550 R/C V10 rollback. 2009 F550 Lariat Super cab 4x4 V10 tow truck. My diesels are gone!
My 09 pics: [U]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y25...ess/?start=all
More pics and specs on my Cardomain page at: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3385538
LSchicago2 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-28-2010, 10:01 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 102
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by a94cobra View Post
Is that the EcoBoost system?
I'm not sure if that is an ecoboost or not. But I don't think since most eco boosters are smaller versions of the normal engine just with some turbos on. But I'm sure Marketing will figure that one out if it gets produced. I'm sure it will get produced infact, since it is the shared across so many platforms (mustang - see the new SVT version, the F150 is were it is being tested, and if they toss it in the SD it would even further drive down production costs).
__________________
2009 F250 Crew Cab short bed 4x4; 6.8L V10 with 4.30 rear end
Jrfish007 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-28-2010, 10:07 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 102
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSchicago2 View Post
GM does have a comparable engine. It's the LSA 6.2 Caddy CTS-V Supercharged engine. It has 556 HP & 551 TQ. Good to hear Ford is working on this though!

Uhmm yeah. Actually the ZR-1 engine would smoke any engine in Ford's line up and probably still cost less than the 6.7. But I was referring to placement of this engine in a SD, GM and Dodge (and right now Ford) have no big gasser as an alternate for the diesel. This engine could be a good solution for those (like me) that tow on occasion and don't want to drop $8k for an engine upgrade that we really only need a few times a month during the summer. I would drop say $2k for that engine though because the 400 ft-lb torque I'm just not comfortable with and I'm not a big diesel guy.

Now if GM puts the ZR-1 engine in their truck, I will probably be on the waiting list for one.
__________________
2009 F250 Crew Cab short bed 4x4; 6.8L V10 with 4.30 rear end
Jrfish007 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-28-2010, 02:18 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 792
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
The ZR-1 is a 7 liter. The LSA or ZR-1 engine would be easy for Chevy to put in the trucks if it was needed. I can't see them doing it otherwise.
__________________
2011 F550 R/C V10 rollback. 2009 F550 Lariat Super cab 4x4 V10 tow truck. My diesels are gone!
My 09 pics: [U]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y25...ess/?start=all
More pics and specs on my Cardomain page at: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3385538
LSchicago2 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-29-2010, 03:22 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
drcampbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Motor City, Michigan
Posts: 3,502
My Photos: (18)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrfish007 View Post
... I'm think if they offer this as a option for super duty, and don't just restrict to some [Lightning] type of truck, this could be a very good option for the occasional tower or weekend road warrior who tows 10-12k. Properly geared and combined with the new 6 speed this should be a powerful engine that can move some serious loads ...
Except for the duty cycle. It may be capable of 400 Hp, but it isn't necessarily capable of 400 Hp indefinitely. It might not be possible, for example, for the coolant to carry away enough heat. In an automobile or a tinydick truck, this doesn't matter - you can't be pedal-to-the-metal for more than a few seconds at a time. But in a work truck, (or aircraft or boat) the engine is expected to be able to deliver its rated horsepower more or less continuously from one overhaul to the next.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell, P.E.

1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles.
- Hella headlights (highly recommended)
- DOT C-2 back end (also recommended)
- R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. Saved ozone and money
- 4.1:1 final drive converted to 3.4:1. Quieter, better mileage but it's a good thing I live in the flat Midwest.
- 9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation, due to body & frame rust.
drcampbell is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-29-2010, 03:42 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 102
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by drcampbell View Post
Except for the duty cycle. It may be capable of 400 Hp, but it isn't necessarily capable of 400 Hp indefinitely. It might not be possible, for example, for the coolant to carry away enough heat. In an automobile or a tinydick truck, this doesn't matter - you can't be pedal-to-the-metal for more than a few seconds at a time. But in a work truck, (or aircraft or boat) the engine is expected to be able to deliver its rated horsepower more or less continuously from one overhaul to the next.
I'm not sure what your trying to get at here...

First of all few people will need continuous horsepower, torque maybe, but not horsepower.

Second, you don't really need to look at the max torque, but rather the torque curve. If the torque curve is nice and flat can offer a good amount of torque over a wide RPM range, that is what you need for towing. The turbo's will help this out tremendously as they can achieve full boost before the N/A engine can reach a full amount of torque pushing the torque down in the RPM range, exactly what you want for towing. Overall a turbo engine will be superior to a comparable N/A engine because of the wider torque curves (assuming the manufacture tunes it as such).

Lastly, why would heating be a problem? The obvious thing to me is that the more power you produce, the more heat you produce right? This engine is still below the 6.7 liter diesel, and probably doesn't produce anymore heat than my 6.8L V10 gasses. Given that their are super cars that have much smaller radiators and produce nearly 1000 hp and torque, and run wide up on the autobahn for hours at a time, I'm pretty sure the island sized radiator that Ford uses in the SD can handle the job.
__________________
2009 F250 Crew Cab short bed 4x4; 6.8L V10 with 4.30 rear end
Jrfish007 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-29-2010, 03:46 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 102
My Photos: (0)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSchicago2 View Post
The ZR-1 is a 7 liter. The LSA or ZR-1 engine would be easy for Chevy to put in the trucks if it was needed. I can't see them doing it otherwise.
I think there is a market for such a truck, I simply can't justify plopping down extra 8k for the diesel. But without a decent size gasser, I may not have a choice in my next truck. I'm sure there are more people out there like me, just not sure if it is enough to support it. Perhaps enough people if one manufacture put a big gasser in, but probably not enough if all of them did it and split the limited market up.
__________________
2009 F250 Crew Cab short bed 4x4; 6.8L V10 with 4.30 rear end
Jrfish007 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-30-2010, 09:29 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
drcampbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Motor City, Michigan
Posts: 3,502
My Photos: (18)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrfish007 View Post
First of all few people will need continuous horsepower, torque maybe, but not horsepower.
Horsepower & torque are opposite sides of the same coin. It is not possible to have one without the other. If you're developing torque, you're developing power and vice-versa.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrfish007 View Post
... Lastly, why would heating be a problem? The obvious thing to me is that the more power you produce, the more heat you produce right? This engine is still below the 6.7 liter diesel, and probably doesn't produce anymore heat than my 6.8L V10 gasses. Given that their are super cars that have much smaller radiators and produce nearly 1000 hp and torque, and run wide up on the autobahn for hours at a time, I'm pretty sure the island sized radiator that Ford uses in the SD can handle the job.
I don't know if it is or it isn't, but it's one example of the many design details which distinguish truck engines from car engines, and it doesn't matter how big the radiator is if heat transfer in the block is the limiting factor.

A better example might be ordinary cars running "wide up" on the Autobahn for hours at a time, but even an ordinary engine won't be operating anywhere near 100% in a passenger car. You just can't keep the throttle wide open and maintain control of the car.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell, P.E.

1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles.
- Hella headlights (highly recommended)
- DOT C-2 back end (also recommended)
- R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. Saved ozone and money
- 4.1:1 final drive converted to 3.4:1. Quieter, better mileage but it's a good thing I live in the flat Midwest.
- 9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation, due to body & frame rust.
drcampbell is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-30-2010, 11:18 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cody, Wy
Posts: 9,953
My Photos: (27)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
It is not possible to have one without the other. If you're developing torque, you're developing power and vice-versa.
Oh, come on now. Not only possible, but it's happened in the real world for years. As any of the other guys here who've driven truck will agree, even an old Cummins 335 (HP) or 280 (HP) can pull an 80,000 lb. load of logs, etc, up grades and on the flat like a bat out of $%** but somehow hook a 550+ HP Corvette to the same load and it couldn't get out of it's own shadow assuming it could get traction and no matter how it was geared.
Quote:
Lastly, why would heating be a problem? The obvious thing to me is that the more power you produce, the more heat you produce right? This engine is still below the 6.7 liter diesel, and probably doesn't produce anymore heat than my 6.8L V10 gasses.
Seems like it would depend on how "heavy duty" Ford designs the engine. In the past before there were so many sized diesels available, FoMoCo, GM, IH all made various sized HD gas engines that held up all day, every day under max power demand. Of course they weren't available in pickups. They had governors just like any diesel, sodium valves, HD timing chains, etc. The biggest Ford, 534 or 543, forget which, was one tough engine and was even powering some full sized semis. Hadly Auto Transport hauled from the Ford factory with Ford 3 axle tractor/semis and they used nothing but the 543 gas engines. Of course they were doomed in the long run due to the 2MPG and way less torque than the Cummins and Detroits.
__________________
Heavy truck and diesel mechanic (thankfully retired after 30+ yrs)
'91 F-250 SC 4X4, 5spd. ATS Turbo, 3:55 diff.

Last edited by RDG; 05-31-2010 at 07:47 AM.
LMJD is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-31-2010, 01:09 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
drcampbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Motor City, Michigan
Posts: 3,502
My Photos: (18)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMJD View Post
Oh, come on now. Not only possible, but it's happened in the real world for years. As any of the other guys here who've driven truck will agree, even an old Cummins 335 (HP) or 280 (HP) can pull an 80,000 lb. load of logs, etc, up grades and on the flat like a bat out of $%** but somehow hook a 550+ HP Corvette to the same load and it couldn't get out of it's own shadow assuming it could get traction and no matter how it was geared.
Huh?

A Corvette engine isn't installed in trucks for a variety of reasons: First & foremost, marketing and brand identity. If you put the "Corvette engine" into other platforms, such as Camaros and trucks, you'd lose the ability to command a $20,000 premium for the Corvette. Second, fuel consumption, same problem as the Ford 534 engine. And maybe durability & longevity. But not performance.

- - -

First, let's review a few fundamentals:

A horsepower is arbitrarily defined as 33,000 foot•pounds(e) per minute.
(I have added the subscript "(e)" as a reminder that these are foot-pounds of energy, not foot-pounds of torque)


A foot•pound
(t) of torque, over one revolution, is 2π foot•pounds(e) of energy.


Power and torque are mutually defined by simple algebraic expressions:

Power = Torque x Speed
Torque = Power / Speed
(give or take a fudge factor if you're using an inconsistent set of measurement units)


The fudge factor, in the British system, is 33,000/2π horsepower per foot•pound(t) per minute. (5,252.113)

- - -

If you have a Corvette engine developing 550 horsepower at, say, 5400 rev/min, it is developing 535 foot•pounds(t) of torque. In fact, the only way we know it is developing 550 Hp is by measuring 5400 rev/min, measuring 535 foot•pounds(t) of torque, and calculating 550 Hp from the speed and torque measurements.

Were you to mount a 3:1 reduction gear on this engine, you'd have 1605 foot•pounds(t) of torque at 1800 rev/min.

Were you to mount this engine-gearbox combination in a semi tractor, it would pull exactly the same as any other 1605 foot•pound(t) @ 1800 rev/min engine. The only performance difference would be 12 torque peaks per revolution instead of 3. It might get only 2 miles per gallon and 10k miles between overhauls, but it would perform exactly the same.

__________________
-
Douglas Campbell, P.E.

1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles.
- Hella headlights (highly recommended)
- DOT C-2 back end (also recommended)
- R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. Saved ozone and money
- 4.1:1 final drive converted to 3.4:1. Quieter, better mileage but it's a good thing I live in the flat Midwest.
- 9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation, due to body & frame rust.

Last edited by RDG; 05-31-2010 at 07:48 AM.
drcampbell is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 05-31-2010, 07:49 AM   #13 (permalink)
RDG
Lifetime Supporting Member
 
RDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: St. Joseph, MI.
Posts: 2,974
My Photos: (16)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Closed
__________________
TheDieselStop.com Moderator
2001 Georgetown 346S Motorhome
TDS Member since 12.18.99 # 4366
NRA Member
Retired UAW 383
RDG is offline   Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

  Diesel Forum - TheDieselStop.com > Other Topics > Off-Topic Discussions

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Diesel Forum - TheDieselStop.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Wheel & Tire Center

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.