LS vs. Coyote

[Dogecoins]

4 cams, how awful...

The LT5 inspired the design of the Northstar series of engines.

 

[foghorn67]

Why are we are arguing? This playmate is 5'10, this one is 5'9. Who cares?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Subyman]

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

Fwiw, what you experienced in the GM is in the tune. The initial throttle response of GM trucks is really lazy due to mpg programming. You can get cheap plug in tunes that eliminate that and bring back the rush down low.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Why are we are arguing? This playmate is 5'10, this one is 5'9. Who cares?

Ones blonde the other is brunette. It matters. :awe:

 

[jlee]

Ones blonde the other is brunette. It matters. :awe:

 

[herm0016]

The LT5 inspired the design of the Northstar series of engines.

And nobody wants one of those! Complete junk after about 50k miles, and I'm a gm guy.

 

[dawp]

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

Engines are just better now, period.

Aren't all modern auto engines ohv? just differs where the cam is. when was the last time they put a flathead in a car?

 

[master_shake_]

Aren't all modern auto engines ohv? just differs where the cam is. when was the last time they put a flathead in a car?

according to wiki late 50's?

 

[Wuzup101]

Both are great engines. I do think that the LS is more versatile in the vehicles it's used in... where I don't think the coyote is a great truck engine. With that being said, I'd love to own a GT350 and do own a C7... can't really go wrong with either platform in a sports car.

Edit: I do like the weight / package advantage of the LS (or now LT again) series of engines. Lots of power for the size/weight.

 

[LTC8K6]

And nobody wants one of those! Complete junk after about 50k miles, and I'm a gm guy.

But everyone wants an LT5. Somehow GM lost the LT5 reliability when the Northstar was designed.

GM couldn't stand the idea that the LT5 originated outside of GM with Lotus and Mercury Marine, and killed it.

 

[joutlaw]

Fwiw, what you experienced in the GM is in the tune. The initial throttle response of GM trucks is really lazy due to mpg programming. You can get cheap plug in tunes that eliminate that and bring back the rush down low.

My truck was Blackbear tuned. One of better known LS tuners out there. It helped, but the 5.3 just doesn't have the low end torque of the old 350s or my Ecoboost.

 

[ultimatebob]

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

That GT350 is an awesome car. I'd rather have that ride than a Camaro or a anything with a Hellcat in it.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

That GT350 is an awesome car. I'd rather have that ride than a Camaro or a anything with a Hellcat in it.

Only if it has the track pack. Otherwise taking a stock GT and adding some go-fast bits makes more sense to me. Yes, the flat plane motor sounds great. A supercharged coyooter sounds better.

 

[Subyman]

My truck was Blackbear tuned. One of better known LS tuners out there. It helped, but the 5.3 just doesn't have the low end torque of the old 350s or my Ecoboost.

Its gotta be a pseudo-feeling. The 5.3L makes more torque everywhere than the 2.7L. Having driven many turbo cars and trucks, there is a difference in feeling.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Only if it has the track pack. Otherwise taking a stock GT and adding some go-fast bits makes more sense to me. Yes, the flat plane motor sounds great. A supercharged coyooter sounds better.

If you could get a GT350 at or near MSRP it is a bargain. It's the markups dealers are adding on that make it totally not worth it.

 

[joutlaw]

Its gotta be a pseudo-feeling. The 5.3L makes more torque everywhere than the 2.7L. Having driven many turbo cars and trucks, there is a difference in feeling.

You sure about that? The 2.7L beats the new 5.3 DI motor which is more stout than the 5.3L LM7 in my last truck.

This link is to a Ford forum, but the dyno test was done by tuning shop:
http://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

The 2.7L is actually pretty darn close to the 3.5L Ecoboost until you get high in the RPM range:
http://www.fordf150blog.com/dyno-2-...t/2-7-ecoboost-vs-3-5-ecoboost-v6-stock-dyno/

 

[Pacfanweb]

You sure about that? The 2.7L beats the new 5.3 DI motor which is more stout than the 5.3L LM7 in my last truck.

This link is to a Ford forum, but the dyno test was done by tuning shop:
http://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

The 2.7L is actually pretty darn close to the 3.5L Ecoboost until you get high in the RPM range:
http://www.fordf150blog.com/dyno-2-...t/2-7-ecoboost-vs-3-5-ecoboost-v6-stock-dyno/

You can have those small motors working their arses off to keep up with bigger ones that are just leisurely rolling along with similar numbers.

Time will tell if they hold up. Let's see in about 5 years if those Eco motors are in shops all over the country with failures from working so hard.

 

[leper84]

This test was stupid.

From 2011, H/C/I 5.0 Coyote putting down 507 RWHP

http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...2011-Mustang-GT-makes-507rwhp-with-H-C-I-N-A!

Their parts selections on the 5.0 were horrible. Not too sure on the LS3 but I wouldn't doubt someone else could have done much better with both engines.

 

[Pacfanweb]

This test was stupid.

From 2011, H/C/I 5.0 Coyote putting down 507 RWHP

http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...2011-Mustang-GT-makes-507rwhp-with-H-C-I-N-A!

Their parts selections on the 5.0 were horrible. Not too sure on the LS3 but I wouldn't doubt someone else could have done much better with both engines.

That is from a wheel dyno. Power AT the wheels. Most factory ratings are at the crankshaft. You usually lose 15% from crank to the ground.
Means that motor in the graph there is putting out nearly 600hp at the crank. Not too shabby.

 

[joutlaw]

You can have those small motors working their arses off to keep up with bigger ones that are just leisurely rolling along with similar numbers.

Time will tell if they hold up. Let's see in about 5 years if those Eco motors are in shops all over the country with failures from working so hard.

Sure, that is a concern for any turbo vehicle. You don't hear about a lot of issues with 3.5 EB and it has been around since 2011 in F-150 and longer in the SHO.

I find myself rarely going over 2K RPMs in normal driving in 2.7EB. They don't spin as high as the LS - I believe redline is less than 6K RPMs. Ford has the EB tuned for low end torque and they bleed boost off in higher RPMs.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Sure, that is a concern for any turbo vehicle. You don't hear about a lot of issues with 3.5 EB and it has been around since 2011 in F-150 and longer in the SHO.

I find myself rarely going over 2K RPMs in normal driving in 2.7EB. They don't spin as high as the LS - I believe redline is less than 6K RPMs. Ford has the EB tuned for low end torque and they bleed boost off in higher RPMs.

Google "F-150 Ecoboost problems" and you'll find plenty. Including where Ford got sued over them.

Funny thing is, the Ecoboost engines aren't getting any better fuel mileage than the 5.0 V-8 is. Or the GM trucks with the 5.3.

I'll take a lazy V-8 all day long over a pumped-up V-6 in a truck.

 

[Subyman]

You sure about that? The 2.7L beats the new 5.3 DI motor which is more stout than the 5.3L LM7 in my last truck.

This link is to a Ford forum, but the dyno test was done by tuning shop:
http://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

The 2.7L is actually pretty darn close to the 3.5L Ecoboost until you get high in the RPM range:
http://www.fordf150blog.com/dyno-2-...t/2-7-ecoboost-vs-3-5-ecoboost-v6-stock-dyno/

I apologize. I looked at one with crank horsepower and another with wheel horsepower. I did see the comparison with 5-star tuning, but I think something is off on that one. They are looking at like a 30% or more drivetrain loss on the Chevy. No way it only puts down 250hp and 280ft-lb to the wheels.

I do like the turbo Fords, but I've had simple push-rod chevys go for 300k. Not that I'd actually own my truck that long, but it does give me some confidence when towing long distances and working daily with it. I know from owning turbo cars and having friends with turbo diesels that there are more issues that can arise. I'm not really looking for a race truck, as long as it can haul the rated load safely and reliably then that is fine. If I was to buy a Ford, I'd probably go with the 5.0.

 

[joutlaw]

Google "F-150 Ecoboost problems" and you'll find plenty. Including where Ford got sued over them.

Funny thing is, the Ecoboost engines aren't getting any better fuel mileage than the 5.0 V-8 is. Or the GM trucks with the 5.3.

I'll take a lazy V-8 all day long over a pumped-up V-6 in a truck.

Google any X model/manufacturer and you will find problems. How many of those trucks have they sold with these motors? I liked the old school 5.3L LM7 I had, but it seems like the stone age compared to my new truck.

I've heard many people say it - the Ecoboost is either Eco or Boost. It's not both. If you drive hard, it will get crappy gas mileage. If you go faster than 75MPH, it will get crappy mileage. Anytime you make boost, it will get crappy mileage. Considering the 3.5 essentially replaced the 6.2L V8 from Ford, it gets great mileage.

My 2.7 has a lifetime average of 22.4 MPG with a little over 10K miles. I don't drive it like I stole it, but like to get on the gas from time to time. I've seen 26 MPGs (rated highway MPG) many times on extended trips. That is terrific gas mileage for a full size 4 door truck.

I would not consider the new 5.3 or coyote old school V8s. The 5.3 is more so than coyote, but it still has DI and variable valve timing. The coyote is a huge motor with DOHC and a lot of complexity. It doesn't have two turbo's hanging off it, but not simple by any means.