Begging Ford for the 5.0

[BroncocnorB]

Barra Swap w/a Tremec here, please

Read the article, not sure how that OHC motor has its roots somewhere in a 144ci OHV six from 1959. My parents ‘60 falcon wagon had that motor and it blew - dad replaced it with a 170 ci version to speed it up to 25 seconds 0-60. And I think he did the replacement in the driveway using a cheap Sears swingset to pull and dangle the motors.

Sponsored

 

[tonytexchappy]

The inline 6 says excuse me. Perfect balance by inherent design.

My old Jag would have agreed.

Had a guy I knew in high school that would argue with me that it was impossible to have more horsepower than cubic inches like it was a law of physics. Drove an 80’s Bronco too.

 

[CarmeloS]

ill stick to a Coyote on second thought considering he mentions its heavy

 

[CMillBronco]

The 200 inline 6 in my '66 Mustang T code was super smooth but not much power.

 

[EasternSierra]

Had a guy I knew in high school that would argue with me that it was impossible to have more horsepower than cubic inches like it was a law of physics. Drove an 80’s Bronco too.

Yeah, because each horse is no more than one cubic inch in size.

 

[BroncocnorB]

Yeah, because each horse is no more than one cubic inch in size.

There are many naturally aspirated engines that deliver more than one HP/CI. Unless I misread your post

 

[EasternSierra]

There are many naturally aspirated engines that deliver more than one HP/CI. Unless I misread your post

I was being facetious!

 

[MsPickles]

The 200 inline 6 in my '66 Mustang T code was super smooth but not much power.

The old 200-6 (later model). That thing would run even if you threw dirt and water in the carb.
It also runs on 4 cylinders. One of the engines with cylinder deactivation, lol
Driving on highway one day, engine slowed down, and then a pop, but it never died, but it was a shaking. Pulled over, turned it off and restarted it, still shaking. Started blowing smoke as I drove. Took it home, seen a new hold in the side of the oil pan. Beat it back flat with a hammer, you know, when oil pans were metal, and drive it for two more days, snaking all the way. Then it actually punched a hole in the side of the block, so massive smoke then on the exhaust, but it was still running. Had to retire it then. Took it apart and cylinder 1 & 2, if I remember, rods had broken, pistons in top of bore. Junkyard 200-6 replacement and I was back on the road.
Now days with all the crap, wheel speed sensor gets some dirt on it, and the entire vehicle acts like it's dead. I miss the old pushrod engines.

Also if you wanted more fuel/power, had to use one of these, since the intake was cast with the head. Poor ladies performance package. lol Single barrel to dual barrel adapter.

 

[tonytexchappy]

The 200 inline 6 in my '66 Mustang T code was super smooth but not much power.

My first car was a ‘66 mustang with 3 speed manual, straight six, and factory air — slowest Mustang ever.

 

[CMillBronco]

My first car was a ‘66 mustang with 3 speed manual, straight six, and factory air — slowest Mustang ever.

No AC but ya SLOOOWWWW and that 1 barrel carb didn't help either, I did a 289 swap in mine.

 

[tonytexchappy]

No AC but ya SLOOOWWWW and that 1 barrel carb didn't help either, I did a 289 swap in mine.

Football took out my left knee so I couldn’t drive a clutch for a while so I had to let mine go.

 

[GoHawks63]

My northerly neighbor from the sovereign nation of Canada has this right. I have a 5.0 in my truck and the Bronco 2.7L spanks it. A 5.0 would need a blower to compete but who wants a 2-door that has to fill up everyday and requires premium? Boy, it does sound good doing all that revving, though

I had an early build (May 2010) 2011 Mustang GT/CS with the Coyote. It had close to 90K miles on it when I traded it in and that engine was smooth. I currently own a Stage 3 Phase 2 Roush Mustang convertible with the second gen Coyote. You are correct that the blower makes that thing pull like a freight train.

As for Ford's pricing making the 5.0 more expensive, my guess is, and it's just a guess, that they are trying to drive more sales to the lower displacement boosted engines for CAFE reasons.

You kinda saw the same thing when the 2.0L EB came out when the 2016 Mustang was introduced. IIRC the 3.7 V6 was more expensive, but more importantly, you couldn't get many of the performance upgrades on the V6 that you could get on the EB 2.0. After a couple of years they just sopped offering it.

 

[do.it.on.all.4s]

I have a f150 with the 5.0 tuned. I have a 1966 mustang with the 289 cammed and tuned. I have a 2023 bronco with the 2.7 tuned. I was all about the v8 in the bronco and honestly I would love a 5.0 in my bronco for the sound and nostalgia. In truth, my bronco 2.7 motor is so much better than my 5.0 f150 in every way except exhaust sound. I just don't see Ford ever doing this.

This comes from a guy who loves Ford v8s.

Long term idk. I have had great luck out of NA v8s in all my trucks. But I don't plan on keeping my bronco 200k miles.

 

[CMillBronco]

Football took out my left knee so I couldn’t drive a clutch for a while so I had to let mine go.

Skiing took out my right knee so I had to park mine as well too funny. I ended up getting rid of mine for a CJ5 as the snow was killing me with the rear wheel drive. But I loved that Mustang!

Sponsored