Jump to content

2021 Mustang on CD6


Recommended Posts

Yeah I forgot about that. It was what, 2011 I think? I don't remember which engine was billed as the top option though.

2011 for the EB35, Coyote, and 3.7; the 6.2 debuted in the 2010 Raptor, then became available in other trims in 2011. The EB35 and 6.2 pretty much split top billing, although the 6.2 was the heart of the Raptor. As I recall, the 6.2 had the advantage on area under the torque curve, but the EB35 took it on production volume (~45% for the EB to <10% for the 6.2).

 

FWIW, 6.2-powered 12th Gen F-150s are highly desirable, and tend to sell very quickly.

Edited by SoonerLS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But yet if it was that important to have a V8-they should be handley outselling Ford with their two Turbo V6s they offer in the F-150 and the "boat ankors" V8 they have in the Super Duty-but they aren't

Ok but still there's literally millions of buyers that don't want a turbo 6 in their truck otherwise the 5.0 would be gone in the F150 also, if GM ohv V8s stay competitive with others turbos and ohc engines in power/economy and maintenance it's not too much of an issue of how's the configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to question Ford's decision to make the 6.2L an overhead cam design. I'll agree that having the cams up top opens up some significant possibilities but Ford didn't take advantage of them. As it is, they did only what was necessary to barely eclipse the much older GM 6.0L pushrod motor. So I have to ask myself, what is the point in paying for all the extra overhead cam parts on each engine? Especially since it's only used in superduty where it plays second fiddle to the powerstroke. Most gasser buyers are probably more interested in the ease of maintenance that comes with the more compact pushrod engine than they are in the technical advantages of ohc (which Ford isn't even taking advantage with the 6.2).

 

Now if Ford was using the 6.2 in a special edition of the mustang or even supporting it via Ford Racing Performance Parts, I would completely understand the case for OHV. But other than a short stint in F150 (where it was only a placeholder for the ecoboost), it's been relegated work truck duty.

 

 

The 6.2L was an on again-off again affair for some reason or another-obviously

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The popularity of the EB 3.5 and rising CAFE limits consigned the 6.2 to heavier vehicles.

the lack of cylinder deactivation was problematic and the key reason why the 6.2 could not be made

more economical but under loaded conditions in F250, it's just fine with strong sales of the gas engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The popularity of the EB 3.5 and rising CAFE limits consigned the 6.2 to heavier vehicles.

I'd say it's a whole lot more of the latter and not so much of the former. I think the numbers are so skewed that Ford must've intentionally tilted the product mix in favor of the EB35, as it was intended to give performance similar to the 6.2 with much better CAFE numbers. My SWAG is that if Ford had built more 6.2s and fewer EB35s, they'd've sold more 6.2s. Hearing from people looking for 6.2s supports that, as they universally say if you find one that's close to what you want, buy it before someone else does--they don't stick around long.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6.2L was an on again-off again affair for some reason or another-obviously

If you're talking about development, yeah, but not once it hit production. Once Ford determined that the EB35 could take its slot in the F150, they dropped it from the F150, but it has been in production for the Super Duties since 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that, for it's application in the superduty, Ford gained nothing by making it an ohc design. All they did was increase the unit cost of the engine due to all the extra moving parts. I'm actually thinking the reason had to be that Ford doesn't have any engine guys left that know how to design pushrods so they just went with what they know.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that, for it's application in the superduty, Ford gained nothing by making it an ohc design.

That's true if their intention was only to use it in the Super Duties, which it clearly wasn't. My guess is that it was intended to be used in a far higher volume in the F-150, but they discovered that the EB35 could fill that role with better CAFE numbers, so it got relegated to Super Duty use, where CAFE isn't a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it's a whole lot more of the latter and not so much of the former. I think the numbers are so skewed that Ford must've intentionally tilted the product mix in favor of the EB35, as it was intended to give performance similar to the 6.2 with much better CAFE numbers. My SWAG is that if Ford had built more 6.2s and fewer EB35s, they'd've sold more 6.2s. Hearing from people looking for 6.2s supports that, as they universally say if you find one that's close to what you want, buy it before someone else does--they don't stick around long.

There are other examples of Ford basically setting up a situation where the customer goes in the intended direction

and the result is self fulfilling prophecy - our customers prefer Ecoboost over (insert V6/V8 engine)......

 

The 6.2 was available across most of the range in the early days but i doubt that they actually built many to stock

and that's why I think it struggled against the ubiquitous 3.5 EB, most buyers will take the more readily available truck

especially if offered in XLT, a Lux pack and $8K incentive at MY run out....all too easy for Ford to steer the customer.

 

but yes, never underestimate self interest.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other examples of Ford basically setting up a situation where the customer goes in the intended direction

and the result is self fulfilling prophecy - our customers prefer Ecoboost over (insert V6/V8 engine)......

 

The 6.2 was available across most of the range in the early days but i doubt that they actually built many to stock

and that's why I think it struggled against the ubiquitous 3.5 EB, most buyers will take the more readily available truck

especially if offered in XLT, a Lux pack and $8K incentive at MY run out....all too easy for Ford to steer the customer.

 

but yes, never underestimate self interest.

Ford has proven over the years theyre willing to artificially limit production to sell what they want to sell. Look no further than what Ive-capades said a few weeks ago about forcing dealers to order lower trim Expeditions.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford has proven over the years theyre willing to artificially limit production to sell what they want to sell. Look no further than what Ive-capades said a few weeks ago about forcing dealers to order lower trim Expeditions.

Absolutely, there are plenty of examples and mostly to justify it's own flawed logic,

they still make a fortune but imagine if they ever got the product mix right....wow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to question Ford's decision to make the 6.2L an overhead cam design. I'll agree that having the cams up top opens up some significant possibilities but Ford didn't take advantage of them.

That's true if their intention was only to use it in the Super Duties, which it clearly wasn't. My guess is that it was intended to be used in a far higher volume in the F-150, but they discovered that the EB35 could fill that role with better CAFE numbers, so it got relegated to Super Duty use, where CAFE isn't a factor.

 

I was working in Engineering at that time. There was a big debate about pushrod vs OHC at the time and do not recall the reason they went with OHC (cost?). Not sure what "did not take advantage" of them really means. There was a short discussion about 4 valve/DOHC but it was quickly dropped due to costs. What surprises me most is that they never did a 3 valve version.

 

Most people have already forgotten that the "Hurricane" was supposed to be a "family" of engines. The 6.2L was the "mid size". Primary goals were better fuel economy thatn the "modular" family. Well, it did NOT ! The 6.2L DID get better fuel economy that the 6.8L but the small engine failed. That failure inspired the "Coyote".

 

The 6.2L would not pass the medium duty durability test so the 6.8L 3 valve was retained. The 6.2L never "fit" in the E-series (I wonder what they had to change to finally make it fit ?) and the the the 2 valve 6.8L was "cheap" as long as the 3 valve stayed in production.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the lack of cylinder deactivation was problematic ...

I don't know that I would say it was "problematic" but upper management wanted it ! A fair amount of effort was put into studying cylinder deactivation, but the combination of variable cam timing and deactivation had some SERIOUS failure modes !

 

I actually worked on the 3x6/4x8 cylinder deactivation program in the late 70s/early 80s. It got cancelled very close to production because the drivability was poor and the fuel economy improvement was not significant. (TRW went on to sell the same cylinder deactivation solenoid to Cadillac who put it into production a few years later. What a debacle !!)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that I would say it was "problematic" but upper management wanted it ! A fair amount of effort was put into studying cylinder deactivation, but the combination of variable cam timing and deactivation had some SERIOUS failure modes !

No wonder they jumped to Ecoboost...it was their only way out of a big hole.

 

If Ecoboost hadn't panned out and the 6.2 was in trouble with gas mileage,

I wonder if a tall deck 5.4 version of Coyote would have then become an option...

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I mention I'm now getting 23 mpg (mixed) in my F150 2WD supercab 3.5L EB with the 3.55 rear end? I think the new 10 speed with auto start/stop is really working.

 

That's really pretty impressive. 10 years ago, you would've been lucky to see 13-14 in that scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other examples of Ford basically setting up a situation where the customer goes in the intended direction

and the result is self fulfilling prophecy - our customers prefer Ecoboost over (insert V6/V8 engine)......

 

The 6.2 was available across most of the range in the early days but i doubt that they actually built many to stock

and that's why I think it struggled against the ubiquitous 3.5 EB, most buyers will take the more readily available truck

especially if offered in XLT, a Lux pack and $8K incentive at MY run out....all too easy for Ford to steer the customer.

 

but yes, never underestimate self interest.

This had a lot to do with the death of the manual transmission in this country (USA) as well. There's three types of car buyers: those who will only buy automatics (probably 50%), those who will buy either (say 40%), and those who will only buy manuals (5-10%). From the manufactures point of view, it's easier to sell to 90% of the buyers with automatics stocked at the dealers and let the remaining 10% order manuals if they really want it that bad. However, if dealer stock had consisted of say, 25-30% manual vehicles, a lot more of that 40% either/or group of buyers would have gone home with a manual, resulting in far more of them on the road.

 

It's always way easier to sell something that's already on the lot.

 

Yet another case of chicken or egg I guess.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...