LS vs. Coyote

[MBrown]

Do you agree with this conclusion?

https://youtu.be/KFkOy0F5hGg

 

[Ferzerp]

Stopped 30 seconds in.

"we're also going to be looking at horsepower per cubic inch"

Sorry, the video is silly and promoting an ignorant metric.

Yes, I forwarded to the end to see which they picked, but still. Anyone who still thinks that metric has value is just daft.

 

[jlee]

Stopped 30 seconds in.

"we're also going to be looking at horsepower per cubic inch"

Sorry, the video is silly and promoting an ignorant metric.

Yes, I forwarded to the end to see which they picked, but still. Anyone who still thinks that metric has value is just daft.

Heh.

Can I play? :awe:

 

[master_shake_]

i'd trust any push rod engine from gm over anything ford puts out with variable valve timing.

 

[NutBucket]

Don't be ignorant. You're free to dislike GM but to claim the LS isn't a great family of engines is pure ignorance.

 

[Ferzerp]

Heh.

Can I play? :awe:

Sure, if I can play with my 0.0 L motor(s): infinite power per volume.

It'd make a lot more sense to do weight and external dimensions of each power plant though instead of how much not metal there is in the block

 

[NutBucket]

Edit: Dp

 

[AdamK47]

The LS3 engine dry weight without accessories is around 50 pounds lighter than a Coyote engine dry weight without accessories. The whole HP per CI argument is pointless.

 

[master_shake_]

Don't be ignorant. You're free to dislike GM but to claim the LS isn't a great family of engines is pure ignorance.

??

who are you talking to?

 

[JulesMaximus]

So, the Ford is shit and the Chevy rocks?

 

[master_shake_]

So, the Ford is shit and the Chevy rocks?

yeah...

but don't let the ford guys hear it.

might make them sad.

 

[JulesMaximus]

yeah...

but don't let the ford guys hear it.

might make them sad.

I'd still rather have a GT350 than a Camaro.

 

[NutBucket]

??

who are you talking to?

LOL. Apparently myself. *insert foot into mouth*

 

[rancherlee]

There is a reason the Coyote is on the short list of engines to go into my 70' Chevelle. I just want to see the look of peoples faces when I pop the hood and they see "Power By Ford" valve covers. Way to many hokey 350's crammed into everything classics around here.

 

[NutBucket]

There's a guy on another forum that has an RB26 in a '66 (?) Mustang....if you really want to talk about blasphemy LOL

 

[Pacfanweb]

There is a reason the Coyote is on the short list of engines to go into my 70' Chevelle. I just want to see the look of peoples faces when I pop the hood and they see "Power By Ford" valve covers. Way to many hokey 350's crammed into everything classics around here.

There's a reason for that. The Small Block Chevy is the best and most successful performance engine of all time.

The LS has kept that going. There's a reason people put LS motors in Mustangs. It's pretty common, actually. Not so much the other way around.

I don't have a problem with Fords...worked at a Ford dealer for over 16 years, but to say their engines were, or are on par with Chevy over the years is just foolish. Their old small blocks were crap, for the most part.
Only when the 5.0 Mustangs started getting popular, and the aftermarket for them started copying features from Chevy Small Blocks and adapting them to the Ford motors did they really take off.

Until that point, Ford engines were mostly crap across the board. All their big blocks are crap. You can't make them live without massive modifications and....Yep, using Chevy parts in them.

For whatever reason, Chevy just hit it right with both their Big and Small Block engines, and you can go to any dragstrip across the country and see proof of it.

Ford's newer engines are a lot better than the older ones, but in stock form they still have lots of issues with oiling, so my personal preference is to not own one, but to each, his own.

 

[Ferzerp]

I'd still rather have a GT350 than a Camaro.

Who wouldn't?

 

[NutBucket]

Would be tough since I'm a GM guy. Hard to argue with that flat-plane crank tho.

 

[Squeetard]

DOHC engines were developed in the sixties to solve valve train issues with pushrod engines spinning over 8500 rpm. Now they are spinning them to 14,000 rpm. DOHC engines add weight and complexity to solve a non existent problem. I would not want to own a coyote engine out of warranty. Also, they cost a fortune to upgrade. 4 cams, geez.

 

[NutBucket]

So it's just dumb luck that most modern DOHC engines run hundreds of thousands of miles with no issues?

 

[LTC8K6]

DOHC engines were developed in the sixties to solve valve train issues with pushrod engines spinning over 8500 rpm. Now they are spinning them to 14,000 rpm. DOHC engines add weight and complexity to solve a non existent problem. I would not want to own a coyote engine out of warranty. Also, they cost a fortune to upgrade. 4 cams, geez.

4 cams, how awful...

 

[LTC8K6]

From Wiki:

Although the ZR-1 was extremely quick for its time (0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, and onto 180+ mph), the huge performance of the LT5 engine was matched by its robustness. As evidence of this, a stock ZR-1 set seven international and world records at a test track in Fort Stockton, Texas on March 1, 1990, verified by the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) for the group II, class 11 category:[8] [9]

100 miles (160 km) at 175.600 mph (282.601 km/h)
500 miles (800 km) at 175.503 mph (282.445 km/h)
1,000 miles (1,600 km) at 174.428 mph (280.715 km/h)
5,000 km (3,100 mi) at 175.710 mph (282.778 km/h) (World Record)
5,000 miles (8,000 km) at 173.791 mph (279.690 km/h) (World Record)
12 Hours Endurance at 175.523 mph (282.477 km/h)
24 Hours Endurance at 175.885 mph (283.059 km/h) for 4,221.256 miles (6,793.453 km) (World Record)

 

[Pacfanweb]

So it's just dumb luck that most modern DOHC engines run hundreds of thousands of miles with no issues?

LS motors run hundreds of thousands of miles and they are OHV.

Engines are just better now, period.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

There is a reason the Coyote is on the short list of engines to go into my 70' Chevelle. I just want to see the look of peoples faces when I pop the hood and they see "Power By Ford" valve covers. Way to many hokey 350's crammed into everything classics around here.

Please do it. Link your crowdfund I'll send you a fiver. Must post pics of shock and awe.

 

[joutlaw]

I'll chime in since I owned a 2004 Silverado with the 5.3 LS family of motors. I bought the truck in 2009 and it lived a tough life before me. It was a RCSB Z71 with a 3.73 G80 rear end and spent a good amount of time off road and had goose neck in the bed - yep in a RCSB. The motor was strong even with 119K miles. I got it Blackbear tuned shortly after buying. It really cleaned up the crappy torque management GM puts in their tunes.

I grew out of that truck and needed 4 doors. I heard good things about the new 5.3 DI motors in 2014+ Silverados, but Ford had a better tech in their trucks. I test drove 2 2015 F-150s. One was a Lariat 501A - mid tier - with the 2.7L Ecoboost. The truck was so spunky even with 3.31s in the rear end. Gobs of torque down low that I never experienced in my Silverado with the 5.3. The Silverado liked to rev. This 2.7L felt like an old school 350 down low, but with much more power in the top end. I then drove a 2015 Lariat 502A with more bells and whistles and the 5.0L V8. It's the Coyote, but in a truck form. Now the 502A had more weight with the twin panel moon roof and few other tidbits, but it was no comparison to 2.7L down low. Ultimately, I don't think the 5.0L is a good truck motor especially when the 2.7L and 3.5L Ecoboosts are so torquey in the rev range where a truck needs it. I ended up buying 2.7L F-150 and giving up some fancy features for it since Ford won't spec a 502A Lariat with it.

Ultimately, I miss the V8 sound of my 5.3, but love the torque of my little 2.7L. At least, they pipe V8 sound through the speakers