In fact, we won’t be straying much from that plan at all in the actual build. In the article we linked above, where we used DynoSim 5 to model a 5.0-liter LS engine, we laid out a build plan. It’s almost like he’s a teacher or something. We’re partnering up with Ben Strader at EFI University for a lot of the science of the build, because besides being an incredibly smart guy who knows his way around an LS engine ( Spinal Tap, anyone?) he’s great at communicating that knowledge to others. Far more than a traditional engine build. In the coming articles, we’ll be bringing you a lot of information about this project. One of the early steps we plan to undertake is to put our actual cylinder heads on the flowbench to see if they match those numbers. We modeled the LY2 in DynoSim 5 software, using flow numbers for the 799 heads we found on the internet. This was the first step in this project becoming a reality. So to answer the inevitable “why” questions - because we’ve never seen it done this way before, and are curious. Simply put, it’s about the journey rather than the destination. Rather, this is about exploring the theories and reasoning behind why we get the results we do. If we take into account the power-per-cubic-inch numbers from the previous tests, we certainly have our work cut out for us to get the LS5.0 to match the Coyote’s results.īut, let’s be clear right out of the gate while yes, we’d love to make more power than the Coyote did in the first series, this project isn’t about one singular dyno result. Camp one says, “if displacement is the same, they will probably perform the same.” Camp two is of the mind that because one is a pushrod engine and the other is an overhead cam engine, the two engines will perform wildly differently. Initially, we’ve found people fall into two camps. How would a 5.0-liter LS engine, built in the spirit of the original rules, perform in real life? That article also lit the fuse to build the modeled engine in real life. In that article, you can see that pitting a virtual 5.0-liter Coyote engine against a virtual 5.0-liter LS provided numbers far closer than anyone we talked to would have guessed.
It was enough that we enlisted COMP Cams’ DynoSim 5 software to run some tests of our own. There was no arguing the disparity in engine sizes in both tests, but both times, the critics clamored “If the LS wasn’t so big, the Coyote would have won!” Now, there is some merit to that argument, since in both cases, Ford’s dual overhead cam engine made more power per-cubic-inch than its pushrod competitor. One of the largest gripes we heard on the internet was about how unfair it was that the LS3 was 1.2 liters larger than the Coyote. Coyote Budget Shootout that started this whole thing. These are the two engines of the original LS vs. Coyote Shootout, where the LS engine displaced a whopping 427 cubes to the Coyote’s 302. That displacement disparity was further exacerbated in the second, supercharged round of the LS vs. a 5.0L Coyote, immediately putting the Blue Oval powerplant at a displacement disadvantage. Right off the bat, the rules were implemented that it would be a 6.2L LS3 vs. The spark for this fire (whether it’s a controlled burn or raging dumpster fire is yet to be seen) came about with the original LS vs. So doing something different isn’t the easiest thing in the world.
It is probably the most popular engine platform in this country right now and enjoys a huge amount of aftermarket support. Let’s face it, the LS platform has been built into a million different combinations. In fact, this engine project has been brewing for over two years as the idea has gone from garnering scoffs to raised eyebrows. But, that’s not to say we are going into this haphazardly. Actually, “road” suggests that enough people have traveled a path enough to engineer a road. Since this is EngineLabs, and a laboratory suggests experiments, we’ve decided to take on a project via a road less traveled.
Whether it’s simply a proof-of-concept build, or aimed at answering a specific question, going outside of the box with an engine build has risks, but also an equal or greater chance at reward. But sometimes, you want to do something simply because it isn’t commonly done. For most people, planning out an engine build involves utilizing the most proven techniques and components, in order to achieve an expected outcome.