The Drive32%

Hear Ford’s Coyote V8 Hypercar Fire Up for the First Time 77%

By Caleb Jacobs56%

7/16/2026, 4:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Emotion, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 23% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 960 faulty-reasoning hits from 460 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.5% and a BS Rank of 77% (4,990 of 21,169 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.40% of the article peer group.

Ford is about to do something sick in the World Endurance Championship : Race a naturally aspirated, 5.4-liter, Coyote-based V8 in the top-level Hypercar class. 
Whereas the Blue Oval manufacturer has most recently raced ( and won ) at Le Mans with a twin-turbo, 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, it’s taking a more traditional route for 2027. 
And if that’s not enough to get you excited, maybe hearing the engine’s first fire will do the trick. 
Seen here without any bodywork, Ford’s WEC hypercar is built around an Oreca chassis. 
The V8 is paired with a hybrid system that’s standardized across the class, and importantly, it was in place during the monumental first start. 
It’s a major milestone for the team, as Ford Racing WEC Hypercar Program Manager Dan Sayers explained, while adding that the engine was “designed, developed, and built in-house at our base in Michigan.” 
“The firing of the engine at ORECA is more than a symbolic moment—it’s a critical validation step,” Sayers said in a press release. 
“We are doing everything from an engine perspective in-house, and we’re doing that because we can react faster, we can learn faster, and we can bring that back to the production side of the business. 
Hearing the Coyote V8 come alive within its intended home for the first time confirmed that months of integration work between the powertrain and chassis teams had paid off.” 
I won’t delay your joy any longer. 
Here’s the clip : 
Sounds nice and raspy, doesn’t it? 
A stationary sound byte isn’t enough to make a full judgment, but this dual overhead cam thumper could give the Cadillac hypercar a run for its money. 
Just listening to that thing transition from electric to engine power is enough to make a fan out of most folks. 
That’s WEC Hypercar Program Manager Dan Sayers on the left. 
Ford Racing 
The Drive ‘s Deputy Editor Jerry Perez actually spoke with Sayers a while back, and he asked why Ford opted for a new, scratch-built V8 this time instead of another boosted V6. 
Sayers’ response was candid: 
“We looked at turbocharged or normally aspirated—and again, with the normally aspirated, if you can achieve the performance parameters, the mass or the power, and the torque control, then the simplicity of not having turbos, not having intercoolers, makes the installation simpler. 
There are fewer things to go wrong with endurance racing, and we like to just keep things simple. 
Simple is good for endurance racing.” 
Clearly, it’s good for the fans, too. 
Got a tip or question for the author? 
Contact them directly: caleb@thedrive.com 
The post Hear Ford’s Coyote V8 Hypercar Fire Up for the First Time appeared first on The Drive . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Caleb Jacobs: 3.0%The Drive: 3.0%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 6.5%Caleb Jacobs: 1.4%The Drive: 1.1%Anchoring Bias6.5%This article: 8.7%Caleb Jacobs: 6.5%The Drive: 4.0%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.3%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.9%Hindsight Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 3.5%The Drive: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Caleb Jacobs: 3.5%The Drive: 4.5%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.1%Caleb Jacobs: 1.0%The Drive: 0.7%Status Quo Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.8%Caleb Jacobs: 4.6%The Drive: 3.4%Optimism Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.9%The Drive: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 7.5%The Drive: 6.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.6%The Drive: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.6%The Drive: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Caleb Jacobs: 4.6%The Drive: 2.6%Halo Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.9%The Drive: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.4%Primacy Effect12.2%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.4%The Drive: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.4%The Drive: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.5%The Drive: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.0%Caleb Jacobs: 4.7%The Drive: 3.5%Appeal to Authority8.0%This article: 5.9%Caleb Jacobs: 1.8%The Drive: 1.8%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Caleb Jacobs: 10.2%The Drive: 6.6%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.1%The Drive: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.5%The Drive: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.0%Caleb Jacobs: 4.8%The Drive: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion17.0%This article: 6.5%Caleb Jacobs: 1.3%The Drive: 0.7%Begging the Question6.5%This article: 19.1%Caleb Jacobs: 2.0%The Drive: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.1%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.9%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.6%The Drive: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.6%Caleb Jacobs: 4.8%The Drive: 3.5%Anecdotal4.6%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.2%The Drive: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.3%Caleb Jacobs: 0.9%The Drive: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.3%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.2%The Drive: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.1%The Drive: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.2%Caleb Jacobs: 1.7%The Drive: 2.1%Unattributed Quote7.2%This article: 6.3%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.3%This article: 23.0%Caleb Jacobs: 23.9%The Drive: 11.1%Biased Writer Voice23.0%This article: 1.5%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.4%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Caleb Jacobs: 5.2%The Drive: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.9%

460 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers42%attributed speech269writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageDan Sayers • 33 words • 100.0% coverageDan Sayers • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDan Sayers • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageFord Racing • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJerry Perez • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageDan Sayers • 42 words • 0.0% coverageDan Sayers • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDan Sayers • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dan Sayers

96%flagged-word coverage
157 attributed words82% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.4 ptsWriter: 39.4%Dan Sayers: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+21.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dan Sayers: 21.0%21.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%Dan Sayers: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Dan Sayers: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Dan Sayers: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.