5.0 vs 5.0
#1
5.0 vs 5.0
I just saw a commercial on a charity give away of a new Mustang GT with a 5.0 l which was S/C and put out 875 HP. Now I assume there are various modifications but there are other 5.0L ford engines putting out 500 - 600 HP. So the jag 4.2 was somewhat of a ford design but the 5.0 is supposed to be a Jag design but what is the difference. Can you get more HP from a ford or is it just because there are more aftermarket performance parts available. Just curious.
#2
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Newport Beach, California
Posts: 5,650
Received 2,646 Likes
on
1,822 Posts
The following 2 users liked this post by NBCat:
Queen and Country (01-12-2018),
silvertonesx24 (06-09-2023)
#3
My wheezing little 4.2 with a huffer ate a newer 5.0 stang that sounded built up.
Ford did a lot of open sourcing with the aftermarket companies several years ago so they would know what did what in the code. Ford wanted the aftermarket to survive. Made a huge difference in creating safe performance tunes versus other manufacturers.
Ford did a lot of open sourcing with the aftermarket companies several years ago so they would know what did what in the code. Ford wanted the aftermarket to survive. Made a huge difference in creating safe performance tunes versus other manufacturers.
#4
All things being equal the Ford Coyote engine puts out about the same HP as a AJ133Gen3.
Beyond that there are lots of tweaks, thanks to the hundreds of vendors who specialize in virtually every aspect of the engine, from fuel delivery to headers.
But none of it is balanced power. i.e. its not tempered with fuel economy, comfort, character, composure nor emissions.
The Coyote does license a tweak from Jaguar, the torque actuated cam.
Beyond that there are lots of tweaks, thanks to the hundreds of vendors who specialize in virtually every aspect of the engine, from fuel delivery to headers.
But none of it is balanced power. i.e. its not tempered with fuel economy, comfort, character, composure nor emissions.
The Coyote does license a tweak from Jaguar, the torque actuated cam.
#5
Even at the same displacement, engines can have markedly different characters.
Bore vs stroke, head design, valve design, port design, inlet, exhaust, cam profiles, etc.
There are some hang ups for the Jaguar design when it comes to maximum performance.
On top of this, the XKR has cam profiles and maximum RPM restrictions designed around a very broad torque band instead of chasing maximum power.
When it comes to building more horsepower, there just isn't a market for people to make things for the Jaguar.
A Mustang owner might not think twice about spending $75,000 on forged and dynamically balanced engine componets, Jaguar owners are complaining about the price of a coolant hose being $100....
The money just isn't there.
Bore vs stroke, head design, valve design, port design, inlet, exhaust, cam profiles, etc.
There are some hang ups for the Jaguar design when it comes to maximum performance.
On top of this, the XKR has cam profiles and maximum RPM restrictions designed around a very broad torque band instead of chasing maximum power.
When it comes to building more horsepower, there just isn't a market for people to make things for the Jaguar.
A Mustang owner might not think twice about spending $75,000 on forged and dynamically balanced engine componets, Jaguar owners are complaining about the price of a coolant hose being $100....
The money just isn't there.
The following users liked this post:
Panthro (10-11-2023)
#6
However, such is the power of marketing and "halo" versions, it has guys talking about it like it is every Mustang.
Last edited by Tervuren; 01-12-2018 at 12:20 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by Tervuren:
NBCat (01-14-2018),
ttiverson98 (05-18-2018)
#7
Trending Topics
#8
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Newport Beach, California
Posts: 5,650
Received 2,646 Likes
on
1,822 Posts
I was supposed to be typing 5.2 litre, which is a very large displacement for such an arrangement as a 'flat-plane' crankshaft.
#9
I've compiled a list of n/ a 5.0 engines produce around the same time as the aj133.
Even though we have the highest compression ratio we put out the least amount of hp.
With maximum torque produced at 3500 and a torque level only bettered by the coyote it seems these engines were designed for comfort/low down grunt over outright power.
2009 AJ133 (11.5 comp) - Jaguar
380hp @6500
380ft @3500
2011 Coyote (11.0 comp) - Ford
412hp @6500
390ft @4250
2008 2UR-GSE (11.4 comp) - Lexus
417hp @6600
373ft @5200
2009 VK50VE (10.9 comp) - Infiniti
390hp @6500
370ft @4400
Even though we have the highest compression ratio we put out the least amount of hp.
With maximum torque produced at 3500 and a torque level only bettered by the coyote it seems these engines were designed for comfort/low down grunt over outright power.
2009 AJ133 (11.5 comp) - Jaguar
380hp @6500
380ft @3500
2011 Coyote (11.0 comp) - Ford
412hp @6500
390ft @4250
2008 2UR-GSE (11.4 comp) - Lexus
417hp @6600
373ft @5200
2009 VK50VE (10.9 comp) - Infiniti
390hp @6500
370ft @4400
Last edited by steve_k_xk; 01-15-2018 at 02:35 AM.
#10
https://www.vmpperformance.com/Bullet-proof-your-6r80-p/bullet6r80.htm
Mike from Eurotoys has told me several times that there's no issue with the 6HP28, even at the 630hp range with his upper and lower pulleys + heat exchanger and tune. Considering that's about as far as you can take the power with what's currently available, I'd say that as of now, the transmission isn't the limiting factor... yet.
As these cars become more accessible to middle income folks that enjoy modifying, you're going to see more and more technical threads that explore the boundaries of what lies within.
The following 2 users liked this post by Mandrake:
dcmackintosh (01-17-2018),
Panthro (01-25-2018)
#11
The regular 5.0 coyote doesn't have a flat plane crank,
only the GT350+.
the 5.0 coyote has striking similarities to the AJ133.
Despite some similarities to the 435-hp 5.0-liter Coyote V-8 in the current 2015 Mustang GT, the 5.2 is virtually an all-new engine from top to bottom; bore spacing and deck height are the same as the Coyote’s for production reasons, but little else is.
only the GT350+.
the 5.0 coyote has striking similarities to the AJ133.
Despite some similarities to the 435-hp 5.0-liter Coyote V-8 in the current 2015 Mustang GT, the 5.2 is virtually an all-new engine from top to bottom; bore spacing and deck height are the same as the Coyote’s for production reasons, but little else is.
#12
#13
Cheers,
Dave
#14
I had a older GT500 and became obsessed with adding more power. The 2013 GT500 uses a TVS 2300 and our 5L XKR’s use a smaller version (TVS1900). The CTS-V uses a similar varient of the TVS1900. There are places that can port this blower.. I’m not sure if we have any idea how it would do on the Jag.
#15
I had a older GT500 and became obsessed with adding more power. The 2013 GT500 uses a TVS 2300 and our 5L XKR’s use a smaller version (TVS1900). The CTS-V uses a similar varient of the TVS1900. There are places that can port this blower.. I’m not sure if we have any idea how it would do on the Jag.
A few examples https://www.turbochargerpros.com/buynow/40-10054_R https://www.buyautoparts.com/buynow/40-10054_R
Even Ebay says they are the same, LOL https://www.ebay.com/itm/Remanufactu...-/323112323283
Here are the OEM interchange part numbers:
OEM #: 9W83 6F066 FA, 9W83-6F066-FA, 9W836F066FA, AJ812255, C2Z20835, DR3Z 6F066 A, DR3Z-6F066-A, DR3Z6F066A, DW93 6F066 BA, DW93-6F066-BA, DW936F066BA, LR0 48089, LR0 96455, LR011341, LR032056, LR048089, LR096455, 40-10054R
Cheers,
Dave
The following users liked this post:
Queen and Country (05-18-2018)
#16
Every place I look them up the interchange lists the 2013 GT500 also.
A few examples https://www.turbochargerpros.com/buynow/40-10054_R https://www.buyautoparts.com/buynow/40-10054_R
Even Ebay says they are the same, LOL https://www.ebay.com/itm/Remanufactu...-/323112323283
Here are the OEM interchange part numbers:
OEM #: 9W83 6F066 FA, 9W83-6F066-FA, 9W836F066FA, AJ812255, C2Z20835, DR3Z 6F066 A, DR3Z-6F066-A, DR3Z6F066A, DW93 6F066 BA, DW93-6F066-BA, DW936F066BA, LR0 48089, LR0 96455, LR011341, LR032056, LR048089, LR096455, 40-10054R
Cheers,
Dave
A few examples https://www.turbochargerpros.com/buynow/40-10054_R https://www.buyautoparts.com/buynow/40-10054_R
Even Ebay says they are the same, LOL https://www.ebay.com/itm/Remanufactu...-/323112323283
Here are the OEM interchange part numbers:
OEM #: 9W83 6F066 FA, 9W83-6F066-FA, 9W836F066FA, AJ812255, C2Z20835, DR3Z 6F066 A, DR3Z-6F066-A, DR3Z6F066A, DW93 6F066 BA, DW93-6F066-BA, DW936F066BA, LR0 48089, LR0 96455, LR011341, LR032056, LR048089, LR096455, 40-10054R
Cheers,
Dave
https://www.magnusonsuperchargers.co...vs1900-6th.htm
#17
Aj 133 vs coyote
#18
I don't believe that 45 mpg. I just don't. Jaguar says a maximum combined of 18 with highway of 23. Even those Jaguar numbers are exaggerated.
#19
#20
the fuel economy I can prove 35 around town 45 on a run, it shouldnt do those numbers but the realtime mpg does sit stable at that with cruise control on the motorway but remember the numbers they use aren't real-time they work on average over a distance around a track the car its self only weights in at just over 1800kg with that engine the car isn't using any power its sitting in 8th at 1400rpm