6.2L engine features - Ford Media, 8/17

[therealmrmustang]

LINK: 2010 FORD SVT RAPTOR ENGINE ENDURES EXTREME TESTING TO MEET OFF-ROAD ENTHUSIAST

 

 

Features of the new 6.2-liter V-8 engine include:

 

- Cast-iron engine block and four-bolt main bearing caps, with additional cross bolts, for durability.

 

- Aluminum cylinder heads, with two valves per cylinder head and two spark plugs per cylinder to more efficiently burn the fuel-air mixture in the combustion chamber.

 

- Single overhead camshaft with roller-rocker shaft drivetrain, which creates a stiff valvetrain that allows optimized camshaft lift profiles and results in better low-speed torque. The roller-rocker shafts allow valve angles to be splayed, resulting in optimized intake and exhaust port layout for better engine “breathing”.

 

- Dual-equal variable cam timing means intake and exhaust valve opening and closing events are phased at the same time to optimize fuel economy and performance throughout the engine speed range and throttle positions.

 

- Core to the improvements is using a larger bore and shorter stroke. This approach to creating power has its roots in storied Ford racing engines from the past. The large bore (102 mm) allows for larger intake and exhaust valves for improved engine breathing, and the shorter stroke (95 mm) allows higher engine speed for increased horsepower. Still, peak horsepower is generated at a relatively modest 5,500 rpm. Piston cooling jets squirt oil on the underside of the pistons to keep the piston crowns cool under extreme operating conditions.

 

- Crankcase breathing is also improved to reduce windage losses and oil aeration levels at very high speeds. “That really helps get a robust lubrication system for the engine,” said Harrison. “It allows us to endure a lot of time at extreme high speeds.”

[NickF1011]

102mm bore. That's pretty big. Me likey! :yup:

[Hydro]

Thanks, good info!

[one2gamble]

interesting

[theoldwizard]

102mm bore. That's pretty big. Me likey! :yup:

Not really. The old 302 (original 5.0L) has a 4.00 in bore (101.6 mm)

 

BTW, the valves are HUGE !

Edited August 20, 2009 by theoldwizard

[jpvbs]

I have a feeling Ford is sandbagging with the 400hp\400ft-lbs numbers that have been leaking out. Hopefully they mean 400 = 4xx.

 

How big are the valves?

[Blue II]

The Hurricane is the worst kept secret for a new engine family ever. At least one Raptor has a 7 liter.

[fordmantpw]

The Hurricane is the worst kept secret for a new engine family ever. At least one Raptor has a 7 liter.

 

I think the days of everyone complaining about Fords being underpowered are just about over. :happy feet:

[theoldwizard]

How big are the valves?

I don't know, but the reason there are 2 spark plugs is because there was no room to centrally locate one. The valves are almost touching in the middle ! With one plug off to the side the flame front would have much too far to travel to get all of the fuel burning "at the right time". That's why they added the second plug.

[Blue II]

I think the days of everyone complaining about Fords being underpowered are just about over. :happy feet:

 

I don't think I know!

[fordmantpw]

I don't think I know!

 

So is Ford sandbagging with the 400/400 estimate for the 6.2?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

For a naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 with VCT, 400/400 is about right. I wouldn't expect the final numbers to differ by more than 5% (though, that's 20 hp and 20 lbs of torque).

[one2gamble]

so will there be an AL block built for this thing at some point?

 

what kind of engine weights are we looking at 6.2L vs the current 5.4L and is the 7.0L a stroked 6.2L?

[theoldwizard]

so will there be an AL block built for this thing at some point?

If there is a push from the aftermarket, maybe. I don't think it is likely for a production motor.

 

what kind of engine weights are we looking at 6.2L vs the current 5.4L and is the 7.0L a stroked 6.2L?

Unknown, but I will guarantee the 6.2L weights a lot less than the current V10 which it is meant to replace.

[Swizco]

So is Ford sandbagging with the 400/400 estimate for the 6.2?

 

Recall that the 3.0 and the 3.5 came out with considerably higher power ratings than their 'estimates'.

 

That said, there hasn't been any official announcement of the 400+hp figure, has there?

 

Swizco

[akirby]

So is Ford sandbagging with the 400/400 estimate for the 6.2?

 

When have they NOT sandbagged official power estimates the last 5 years?

[fordmantpw]

When have they NOT sandbagged official power estimates the last 5 years?

 

Valid point...same goes for fuel economy numbers lately.

[OHV 16V]

I would guess the 400/400 figures are close. If anything, I'd say the horsepower number is almost spot-on, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the torque figure climb up to 420/425 lb.-ft.

 

Ford has always had a habit for pulling great torque numbers from their larger truck engines.

[fordmantpw]

I would guess the 400/400 figures are close. If anything, I'd say the horsepower number is almost spot-on, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the torque figure climb up to 420/425 lb.-ft.

 

Ford has always had a habit for pulling great torque numbers from their larger truck engines.

 

I'm thinking about the same. Just scaling up the 5.4 to a 6.2, the torque number would be ~420 (6.2/5.4)*365 = 419.

 

Since it is an entirely new engine, I would expect better torque/displacement, so I don't think 425 is out of the question. I could see 450 ft-lbs in the Super Duty.

 

I doubt we'll see much more than 400 HP yet.

[351cid]

Unknown, but I will guarantee the 6.2L weights a lot less than the current V10 which it is meant to replace.

 

 

I still don't think replacing a 457 lb ft engine with a 400 lb ft is all that exciting.

[V8-X]

Good news! Just would hate to have to change 16 plugs, good lord.

[battyr]

I still don't think replacing a 457 lb ft engine with a 400 lb ft is all that exciting.

 

If the 400 lb ft engine can produce the torque without running flat out, then that is exciting.

 

457 lb ft is not usable if you only get the torque while red lining the engine. Now I am not saying this is the case. I am just saying blind torque and hp numbers means nothing.

[fordmantpw]

I still don't think replacing a 457 lb ft engine with a 400 lb ft is all that exciting.

 

I still don't think you have the final torque numbers! See, this is the problem with Ford sandbagging (if they are). Folks get their panties in a bind before they see the final numbers and have already written it off.

 

Plus, the torque curve is really more important than peak numbers.

[351cid]

If the 400 lb ft engine can produce the torque without running flat out, then that is exciting.

 

457 lb ft is not usable if you only get the torque while red lining the engine. Now I am not saying this is the case. I am just saying blind torque and hp numbers means nothing.

 

 

In essence I agree with you, but owning a V-10 and pulling some serious loads with it, I can attest to that beast. The 6.8L is known to be one of the greatest gas engines ever built. It can (and will) keep up with the diesels in the Superduty both in uphill pulls (see pickup.com's comparison) and also is noted for its long life (300 K not all that unusual). The torque curve on that motor is pretty flat from 1800 rpm through 5500.

[NickF1011]

Not really. The old 302 (original 5.0L) has a 4.00 in bore (101.6 mm)

 

BTW, the valves are HUGE !

 

Yeah, which is basically what I meant. The return to a GOOD size slug in the engine. We Mod owners will continue to be jealous. :lol: