Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

    http://www.bangshift.com/blog/Detail...e-Big-Fun.html

  • #2
    Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

    A wide bore center SOHC is good (although 15-20 years too late), but to decisively beat the 3G Hemi and the GM LS, the new Boss at least needs four-valve heads.

    Ford's missing another opportunity here. Too conservative once again.

    It's sad that Ford isn't dramatically ramping up the technology (i.e. EcoBoost DOHC "Boss" with direct injection (gasoline together with ethanol-on-demand (http://www.ethanolboost.com/)), variable geometry intake, variable valve timing and cam phasing, and cylinder deactivation) before CAFE closes the window on big-cube V8s in anything but 10,000+ GVWR trucks and luxury exotics.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

      I want one of those trucks -- but if I had one could I afford to buy the gas for it? I wonder what the fuel consumption the Raptor will be. Its bad enough on my 2002 F150 4x4. We can question Ford's lack of innovation, but I will say that although my truck may not be the fastest or the one with the best fuel economy it is the best vehicle I have ever owned. I bought it new in December of 2001 and have driven it hard for almost 8 years. It has 140,000 miles on the clock and I have had only two problems -- a sticky tailgate latch and a recall on the cruise control wiring harness. The first was fixed instantly when I took it back the the dealer. The latter was fixed in less than ten minutes in the parking lot of the dealer.

      I have both highway miles and lots of city miles on the thing. Also have taken it on several mission trips into the mountains of West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee where it was loaded with lots of weight and driven on some really bad roads (One instruction to the house we were working on was go down the creek and take the second creek to the left, and I do mean driving IN the creek!) Never a problem. The engine is the 5.4 and has enough grunt in four wheel drive to go almost anywhere, yet cruised comfortable at (or sometimes above) interstate speeds.

      I'll take a little lack of innovation for that kind of reliability. I hope this new set up is as reliable. It sounds like fun!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

        The 5.4 3V SOHC Modular is a good engine. Ford's "Rough Riders" off-road race teams have built them to impressive levels of naturally aspirated power and reliablity.

        But in showroom stock form, it just leaves a lot on the table compared to other truck V8s. And it hasn't set the repower markets on fire like the comparatively low-tech GM LS (and to a lesser extent, the 3G Hemi).

        I'm not saying that every FoMoCo V8 ought to be outfitted with all the cutting-edge tech features I identified. But the the top-of-the-line one certainly should!

        The real problems for aftermarket adoption of the 6.2 Boss are:

        1. Late to market (LS and 3G Hemi have a lead here and it's "five minutes before midnight" from an emissions/fuel economy/regulatory standpoint).

        2. Lack of aftermarket development (thus far).

        3. Probably not enough inherent superiority to overcome the bias toward 2V pushrod engines (the status quo choice for most repower and grassroots motorsports projects).

        4. Skepticism/Conservatism of hot rodders and aftermarket companies (Notwithstanding that OHC engines have dominated every unrestricted form of competition, the rules bias of NASCAR and NHRA against "cammers" and nearly six decades of collective OHV experience in the "blue collar" forms of motorsports, have established the OHV 2V form of V8 as the standard by which all challengers are judged. Thus, FoMoCo needed to hit it "out of the park" to cause a "sea change" to "cammers" similar to the 1950s abandonment of the flathead for Kettering-style OHVs. The 6.2 Boss doesn't seem superior enough in its current SOHC 2V form to trigger such a shift. A lost opportunity.

        5. Lack of "installed base" (the 6.2 could be the greatest mill of all time, but if it's not produced in sufficient numbers to drive aftermarket development, it won't catch on as a hot rod/grassroots racing powerplant).

        6. Failure to beat Tundra. Tundra has a DOHC 4V engine that's nearly as big. Ford's "cheaping out" on cams and valves sends another message that Ford is behind on tech compared to the imports. Ford needs to be doing it smarter and better than the Evil Empire. If you want to catch more mice, you'd better build a clearly better mouse trap.

        Arguably, Ford has NEVER understood the importance of the aftermarket (and the homologation effects of OEM offerings) and has repeatedly blown leads (T, A, Flathead, 5.0) when it should have shored up the opinion-leading enthusiast niches with OEM and aftermarket support.

        (Of course, given the number of F-Series trucks you'll see towing Chevy-powered race cars and street rods around the nation, Ford's decades of failure to understand and exploit opportunities in enthusiast markets probably hasn't cost them as many sales as it should have)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

          Why the hang up on 4v heads? the LS is not. The Tundra is a dead player in the FS truck market.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

            Originally posted by purplecobra
            Why the hang up on 4v heads? the LS is not. The Tundra is a dead player in the FS truck market.
            I agree - four valve heads can be more of a liability when you're designing a truck motor. You don't need the sort of breathing that works for a rev it to the moon race motor when you're designing a cylinder head for good low end torque. Toyota and Nissan both tried retooling luxury car motors for their pickups, and, well, there's a reason for those pictures going around where Toyota's racing team was using a Chevy to pull the trailer.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

              I agree they should have 4-valve heads if only for the fact that it's their top shelf technology engine. It SHOULD be a showcase for that sort of thing. just because there are 4 valves doesn't mean they can't be set up for torque (Cummins, Detroit Diesels, etc.).

              Plus, ALL OF US should be clamoring for 4-valve heads because we're all the kind of people who, 5-7 years from now,will be pulling these engines from junkyards putting turbos or blowers on them - I think you'd prefer the 4-valve heads at that point. It would be nice if the domestics could come up with engines that can do as much HP per cube as all the imports without having to resort to a $4000 set of aftermarket heads....
              www.realtuners.com - catch the RealTuners Radio Podcast on Youtube, Facebook, iTunes, and anywhere else podcasts are distributed!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

                Well said, Dieselgeek!

                If four-valve heads are such a disadvantage for low-RPM applications, why does EVERY LIGHT PICKUP DIESEL sold by GM (Isuzu), Ford (International) and Dodge (Cummins) have four valve heads?

                It's true that you can engineer a four-valve engine to shift the torque curve up so high as to "dog" the low end. It's also true that with some of the modern technologies I proposed to be added to the "4V Boss," you can produce multiple torque peaks, and broad, diesel-like torque over a wide RPM range.

                Nobody is suggesting that Ford shouldn't sell a cheap 2V 'plant for those who believe the 1950s myths about "torque motors." But the current 6.2 Boss really doesn't advance the art much past the 1965 427FE S.O.H.C. (electronic controls notwithstanding). For Ford to really gain the advantage and boost its standing among hot rodders, it's got to do more than incrementally besting GM, Chrysler and Toyota. It needs to BURY THEM! And the "Boss" I suggested does exactly that.

                Cheaping out with two valves and one cam per bank is an accountant's decision, not a hot rodders' decision. And so is neglecting variable cam phasing, variable geometry intake manifolds, direct "on-demand" alcohol injection, cylinder deactivation, turbocharging and other efficiency/torque-curve-enhancing technologies.

                It's amazing that the second supercar era will end in less than a decade an NO AMERICAN MANUFACTURER will have built a "state-of-the-art" large V8. NONE!

                Instead, we Americans seem to be trapped in an endless Bill France Sr./Luddite feedback loop that eschews anything more than the "traditional" two valves per cylinder. (Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't heard yet from the "pushrod mob" criticizing Ford's "radical" decision to put the single cams overhead!)

                Now we have CNC, and modern design tools which make DOHC engines, turbocharging, direct injection and other formerly exotic technologies actually affordable for mass production. We can fit production engines that would have been only a dream in the 1960s. But too many of the stakeholders are stuck in the 1940s and 1950s.

                While the SOHC 6.2 Boss is a little better than the antediluvian 2V pushrod engine some were campaigning for, I just can't get too excited. The opportunity to do so much more and seize the intiative should have been taken.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

                  Originally posted by Speedzzter.blogspot
                  Well said, Dieselgeek!

                  If four-valve heads are such a disadvantage for low-RPM applications, why does EVERY LIGHT PICKUP DIESEL sold by GM (Isuzu), Ford (International) and Dodge (Cummins) have four valve heads?
                  Because every diesel made today has a turbo. And boost always improves torque.
                  Escaped on a technicality.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Details of the New Ford 6.2L V8 Emerge; F150 Raptor Sounds Like Big Fun

                    Originally posted by Matt Cramer
                    Originally posted by purplecobra
                    Why the hang up on 4v heads? the LS is not. The Tundra is a dead player in the FS truck market.
                    I agree - four valve heads can be more of a liability when you're designing a truck motor. You don't need the sort of breathing that works for a rev it to the moon race motor when you're designing a cylinder head for good low end torque. Toyota and Nissan both tried retooling luxury car motors for their pickups, and, well, there's a reason for those pictures going around where Toyota's racing team was using a Chevy to pull the trailer.
                    Saying Tundra is a "dead player" because it offers an optional high-horsepower DOHC engine is hardly accurate:

                    "Year-over-year sales of the Tundra are off more than 50 percent, as Toyota's big pickup has struggled with [a four-star safety rating,] several other glitches since its launch and has been hurt by a tremendous drop in interest from casual truck shoppers hurt by the recession and stung by last year's spike in fuel prices."

                    http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/08...ty-rating.html

                    Of course everybody in "FS" segment took a hit in sales. Before the crash, sales of the optional DOHC engine were exceeding estimates and Toyota had already passed GMC in sales.

                    Thankfully, Tundra's market penetration has also been limited by the fact that Toyota does not produce them for the above 7200 GVWR/10,000 lb towing capacity classes (which are now almost exclusively diesel territory because of fuel efficiency concerns).

                    Assuming its the "fault" of "retooling luxury car motors for their pickups" is behind the recent sales slump is absolutely the wrong conclusion to jump to.

                    I hate the Tundra. HATE IT! But I can pull my head out of the sand and see the threat that ceding the technological high ground to the Japanese will cause in the long run. Apparently Ford and many of its armchair boosters cannot.

                    Given the fact that big-cube V8s are being legislated, taxed and priced out of performance cars, about the only homologation and "trickle down" we're going to get in the near future is from trucks. Thus we better hope that at least some truck V8s don't keep falling behind the technological curve. Or V8 hot rodders are going to be stuck reliving an EFI version of 1955 for decades.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X