[finnegan81]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/03/sema-20...f-road-race-tr/
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/03/sema-20...150-raptor-6-2/

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad Asssssssssssssssssss

[fordmantpw]

finnegan81, on Nov 3 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/03/sema-20...f-road-race-tr/
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/03/sema-20...150-raptor-6-2/

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad Asssssssssssssssssss

You beat me to it! :)

What I find impressive is that it will match the 5.4 in fuel economy! Those saying it was a gas guzzler had me concerned, but that's great news!

Those worrying about the 6.2L not being up to the task of the V10 should have some of their fears alleviated. 50 more HP and only 25 less lb-ft of torque, with an extra gear in the tranny, I think the 6.2 will fill the void nicely.

This post has been edited by fordmantpw: 03 November 2009 - 12:21 AM

[finnegan81]

fordmantpw, on Nov 3 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

You beat me to it! :)

What I find impressive is that it will match the 5.4 in fuel economy! Those saying it was a gas guzzler had me concerned, but that's great news!

Those worrying about the 6.2L not being up to the task of the V10 should have some of their fears alleviated. 50 more HP and only 25 less lb-ft of torque, with an extra gear in the tranny, I think the 6.2 will fill the void nicely.

Im a lurker, not a poster. I dove in with both feet haha! The numbers on the BOSS sound good... Stupid question, mostly due to it being late, Im tired, and cant recall, will this shoehorn into a Mustang?

Great Great Great Truck. Great. Excellent job.

[theoldwizard]

finnegan81, on Nov 3 2009, 06:25 AM, said:

...will this shoehorn into a Mustang?

Yes, but probably by aftermarket (Roush, Saleen, etc) to keep the volume low and profits high !

What the article did not say is that the 6.2L in the F150 is also a "limited volume".

[theoldwizard]

fordmantpw, on Nov 3 2009, 06:20 AM, said:

Those worrying about the 6.2L not being up to the task of the V10 should have some of their fears alleviated. 50 more HP and only 25 less lb-ft of torque, with an extra gear in the tranny, I think the 6.2 will fill the void nicely.

Remember, the real goal of the 6.2L was improved fuel economy over the V10. I have not seen any official numbers, but I'll bet it is a significant improvement !

[silvrsvt]

theoldwizard, on Nov 3 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

What the article did not say is that the 6.2L in the F150 is also a "limited volume".

Well there really isn't any need for it besides bragging rights in a F-150, esp with the 5L V8 and to a lesser extent the EB 3.5 V6...The Ecoboost motor will be a great addition for the home depot crowd that uses their F-150 as family hauler also and doesn't need to haul or tow that much.

[MY93SHO]

NO NO NO NO! These numbers can't be right. We all have known for some time now that they are 400/400.

WARNING! SARCASM ALERT! The above statement is aimed squarely at the negatard morons who took the preliminary numbers as gospel.

[Blue II]

[quote name='theoldwizard' date='Nov 3 2009, 06:11 AM' post='566758']
Yes, but probably by aftermarket (Roush, Saleen, etc) to keep the volume low and profits high !

What the article did not say is that the 6.2L in the F150 is also a "limited volume"

The GM 6.2 is rated at 403 HP in the C15. Ford needed to better that and put it in the F-150. Most 6.2 volume will go to the SD.

[2005Explorer]

I wonder how long it will take for old Matt to call this new engine a "boat anchor" on the autoblog board? I will be watching and laughing.

[jpvbs]

I have a few random comments.
While it sucks you can't have the 6.2 in any F150 you want, at least now in comparison tests, the F150 won't be bringing a knife to gunfights anymore. The upcoming 5.0 sounds like it will be a great volume engine though. It will certainly make the 5.3 Chevy look pathetic. BTW, does anyone know the take rate for the 6.2 in GM trucks? I didn't think it was really that high.

I am a little disappointed that the HP numbers weren't a little higher. While I'm sure it has a power band that is reallllly broad compared to the competition, I'm sure we'll still have to listen to the LSwhatever crew and Hemi boys talk smack about how Ford's new state of the art engine only makes a couple hp more. However, I'm guessing these 411hp/434ftlbs are pretty close (if not identical) to the Super Duty numbers. Dodge and Chevy both use lower hp versions of their engines in their heavy duty applications.

And speaking of Home Depot, the $20 truck rental will certainly be a lot more interesting with the 6.2. I may have to go buy new hammer and rent the truck to haul it home.

This post has been edited by jpvbs: 03 November 2009 - 09:03 AM

[FoMoCobra]

Blue II, on Nov 3 2009, 08:35 AM, said:

The GM 6.2 is rated at 403 HP in the C15. Ford needed to better that and put it in the F-150. Most 6.2 volume will go to the SD.

My thoughts exactly. There was no way Ford would let the 6.2L be equal to or less than GM's 6.2.

Now, we wait for the 5.0L numbers: I say 375hp in the F150 and 400hp in the Mustang.

[xr7g428]

I don't know why you guys are so convinced that the 6.2 should not be available in the F150 across the board. You may just need a truck for Home Depot runs, but there are alot of truck buyers that want to tow something heavier than a flower pot, in places that are challenging. I want a 6.2 to tow my collector cars in an enclosed trailer. The 5.4 in my '05 simply doesn't have the nuts to get the job done if it involves elevations above 3500 feet, and temperatures above 100 degrees. In the southwest, these are both givens. When I go to a car show I see a lot of Dodge and Chevy trucks pulling Ford vehicles simply because Ford hasn't had a truck other than the SD that would do the job, even the Toyota does a better job. And the SD is not a choice as it is too big to fit into a garage, and too big to drive on a daily basis. The F150 has the frame and the brakes, now it might just get the engine it needs. I currently tow about 2500 miles a year, if I could use the enclosed trailer, I would probably be able to double that.

It also seems that there is an either or mentality. It seems that some think that offering the 6.2 would mean the elimination of some other choice. I don't get that either. I think the F150 has proven to be the choice for so many people simply because there are so many different ways to spec out an F150. More engine choices make more sense than fewer engine choices.

Frankly, If Ford doesn't build it, I think I might even look at what it would take to get the 6.2 out of wrecked SD (when they hit the street) and put into the '05 I currently have.

[atvman]

FoMoCobra, on Nov 3 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

My thoughts exactly. There was no way Ford would let the 6.2L be equal to or less than GM's 6.2.

Now, we wait for the 5.0L numbers: I say 375hp in the F150 and 400hp in the Mustang.

I was thinking something along the same lines for the 5.0L. The F150 version will probably be tuned for regular gas and torque while the Mustang version will probably require 91 octane and rev higher.

Speaking of octane ratings, what octane is the 6.2L Boss supposed to run on?

[atvman]

xr7g428, on Nov 3 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

I don't know why you guys are so convinced that the 6.2 should not be available in the F150 across the board. You may just need a truck for Home Depot runs, but there are alot of truck buyers that want to tow something heavier than a flower pot, in places that are challenging. I want a 6.2 to tow my collector cars in an enclosed trailer. The 5.4 in my '05 simply doesn't have the nuts to get the job done if it involves elevations above 3500 feet, and temperatures above 100 degrees. In the southwest, these are both givens. When I go to a car show I see a lot of Dodge and Chevy trucks pulling Ford vehicles simply because Ford hasn't had a truck other than the SD that would do the job, even the Toyota does a better job. And the SD is not a choice as it is too big to fit into a garage, and too big to drive on a daily basis. The F150 has the frame and the brakes, now it might just get the engine it needs. I currently tow about 2500 miles a year, if I could use the enclosed trailer, I would probably be able to double that.

It also seems that there is an either or mentality. It seems that some think that offering the 6.2 would mean the elimination of some other choice. I don't get that either. I think the F150 has proven to be the choice for so many people simply because there are so many different ways to spec out an F150. More engine choices make more sense than fewer engine choices.

Frankly, If Ford doesn't build it, I think I might even look at what it would take to get the 6.2 out of wrecked SD (when they hit the street) and put into the '05 I currently have.

2 things to consider:

1. Ford already has the capability to build a 6.2L equipped F150.
2. The 6.2L can't hurt C.A.F.E. if it gets the same EPA mileage as the 5.4L

Personally, I think Ford would be making a mistake not to sell the 6.2L in other F150 trims. If it were me, I'd offer it in XLT, FX4, Lariat, and King Ranch trims only with extended or crew cabs.

[silvrsvt]

xr7g428, on Nov 3 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

I don't know why you guys are so convinced that the 6.2 should not be available in the F150 across the board

Its going to be in higher trim models=$$$ more profit for Ford.

Can you get the big V8 in the lower trim model Chevy/GMC or Dodge truck?

[tailhook]

oh yeah...make mine black please. thank you.

[MY93SHO]

silvrsvt, on Nov 3 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

Its going to be in higher trim models=$$$ more profit for Ford.

Can you get the big V8 in the lower trim model Chevy/GMC or Dodge truck?

In the GM twins the 6.2 is only available in crew cab models in high trim levels. No 6.2 reg.cab short box for those that want to build their own "Lightning".

[kpc655]

finnegan81, on Nov 3 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

will this shoehorn into a Mustang?

yes


be patient

[J-150]

atvman, on Nov 3 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

2. The 6.2L can't hurt C.A.F.E. if it gets the same EPA mileage as the 5.4L

yes it will if CAFE requirements continue to get more strict.

the replacement for the 5.4 and 4.6 will also need to use less fuel. Replacement engines getting the same fuel efficiency will leave Ford in a bad place.

[NickF1011]

J-150, on Nov 3 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

the replacement for the 5.4 and 4.6 will also need to use less fuel. Replacement engines getting the same fuel efficiency will leave Ford in a bad place.

In the volumes being spoken of for the 6.2, it will be a non-factor. Remember, this is more of a 6.8 V10 replacement than anything else. Numbers of those are a pittance in comparison to vehicles equipped with 5.4's or 4.6's.