Jump to content

RPF

Member
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RPF

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Per the BOSS engine CPE, in the link I mentioned above, he said that the 6.2L would require upgraded exhaust valves and exhaust manifolds to pass the MD dyno cert test. He specifically mentioned that the 6.8L required those upgrades as well, so the 6.8L pickup engines would fail the test. If you go back and watch the TFL video on the new 7.3L gas you will see that the 7.3L CPE mentions that the MD variants of that engine get an upgraded valve and a cast stainless exhaust manifold that the pickup variants don't need in order to meet the MD duty cycle requirements.
  2. jpd, I just quoted that little snippet to keep the post at a reasonable length, but I'll address more than just that section. Your 6.8L power numbers are no longer current, in the E-Series, the 2V is rated at 305hp@4250 RPM and 420 ft-lb@3250 RPM. In the F-450/550, the 3V is rated at 288hp@4000 RPM and 424 ft-lb@3000. Talking about the "glory" of the 6.8L is somewhat like me trying to rationally discuss the how a 4.0L Falcon would drive relative to a 5.0L one. I could surmise based on charts, magazines and internet forums but it's not available here so I can't actually experience the difference. I owned 6.2L and 6.8L vehicles, at the same time. I can tell you, from experience, that the 6.2L is better than you think it is and the 6.8L is not as impressive as you make it out to be. Most 6.8L trucks (mine included) came with the 5R110W "5-speed" transmission with a 3:1 1st gear compared to the 6.2L which came with 6-speeds with 1st gears around 4:1. So the actual torque at the tire on launch wasn't all that different as the 6.2L had about a third deeper gearing. Also remember from physics class that you can increase torque at the tire using gearing, but you can't increase power this way. Also recall that the speed you can maintain for a given weight is based on power (rate of doing work) not torque (force). Newer 6.8L's were finally available with the 6R, but my 2013 was too old to get that trans and no pickups ever came with it. My relative "dislike" of the 6.8L comes from how it feels up at highway speeds. It would need to downshift to maintain speeds over highway overpasses, at sea level. At those engine speeds the 6.8L has lots of vibration, does not sound good, and consumes a ton of fuel. The 6.2L has less vibration, lower levels of noise at cruise speeds, and sounds much better when operated at the top end of the RPM range. On grades and at similar weights they both require about the same RPM, but the 6.2L sounds and feels better operating there and feels like it has more ability to accelerate (due to greater available power and about 1000 RPM wider powerband per gear). Things will get a lot better with the new 7.3L. From what the CPE said in the TFL video, it will put down enough power at reasonable cruising speeds to eliminate the need for a lot of the downshifting that always seems to be the big complaint with the gassers. The NVH that it does have will most likely be similar to the 6.2L, so it'll sound MUCH better and be smoother when being worked hard than the 6.8L. It will have 10 speeds so it will be easier to select a gear that produces the needed level of hp without needing to run up to the power peak. With significantly more available power and lower 1st gear in the transmission, vehicles like the E-450 will no longer need deep 4.56:1 final drives. This will result in being able cruise on the highway at lower RPM, leading to even better NVH. The lower engine speeds plus its ability to run at 14.7:1 AFR more often will bring much better fuel economy. Finally, given the increased power it should get closer to the GCWR's that are available with the PowerStroke, without the higher up-front cost, maintenance expense or the worry that a bad tank of fuel will cause $10K+ of fuel system damage.
  3. The F-150 from 2011+ came STANDARD with the 535/Trailer Tow Package in all trims above XLT. WITH ALL AVAILABLE ENGINES. 525 Trailer Tow and 60C Max Trailer Tow Packages both list "Upgraded Radiator" as a feature. I put it in quotes because only the 3.5L actually has a different radiator listed for with and without trailer tow in the parts catalog, and the configurations that came without would have a very low take rate with that engine. The Raptor lists the TT package as standard. The Platinum/Limited/HD lists its features as "All Lariat features plus" meaning that they came standard with the 535 Trailer Tow Package. You can verify this from the Ordering Guides. The link them is up above in the header. The 6.2L only came in configurations with one of the TT packages. Are you really going to try to claim that this is because of a cooling system defect?
  4. RPF

    Corsair Engine Info

    More constrained intake/exhaust system packaging leading to slightly less flow, perhaps? Sounds like those two engines are carryover.
  5. The 6.2L F-150 never got a "cheap" radiator because it never went into a "cheap" truck. It either went into special editions (Raptor, Limited, HD) or into Lariat/Platinum 145" WB Crew Cabs WITH the Max-Tow Package (see attached excerpts from the order guide). The engine option was $3K. I don't see how this equals "cooling issues". The GCWR with the Lariat and Platinum was the same as with the 3.5L. The Raptor was GCWR limited due to its suspension. The HD/Limited were limited by their tire/wheel package.
  6. Two different links and CPEs. The link I'm talking about was a discussion with the BOSS CPE back from 2010, way before the 7.3L program. I am not referring to the TFLTruck videos with the 7.3L CPE. What is your point here? Everything that has come out from FoMoCo regarding the 7.3L is that it is an engine tuned for HD truck duty cycles. The hope/hype on boards like this is that this engine is going to end up being a 550+ hp monster perfect for a Mustang or V8 Raptor. Based on what was said by the CPE, we're probably looking at more like a 450 hp engine with torque in the low 500 ft-lb range. The 6.8L V-10 is a low specific output (45-53 hp/L) engine and it still needs to spin up to between 4250-4750 RPM to make those numbers. Anyone that has ever had to drive one of those in front of a load, like had to up to August, will tell you that it has plenty of low-end torque and can keep up with almost anything up to about 40 MPH. At speeds above it, it's lack of horsepower really starts showing. Acceleration at highway speeds is very slow and going over even raised grade crossings on the highway requires downshifts and 4500+ RPM to maintain speed. The 6.8's NVH was not great, especially when you are sitting basically on top of it like you are in the E-Series or F-53. So from the videos with the 7.3's CPE it sounds like they were aiming for a gas engine that could put down the amount of power that the 6.8L did in the 4500 RPM range (low 300's) down around 2500 RPM and at 14.7:1 AFR. This would result in an engine with not only better economy, but with better drivability and lower NVH as well. And the increased power at the peak (which given the OHV/2V configuration is probably still in the mid 4000 RPM range) will give increased GCWR capability. I guess the question to you is what do you consider to be "High specific output" for this engine? I'm guessing we're going to end up between 60-65 hp/L given the configuration and intended use. While this is better than the 50ish that the V10 made, it is still low by today's standards, and not enough to make the numbers it seems that the internet message board community is hoping for. Again, going back to the goals behind the development of the 7.3L, it probably needed more engine speed and a lower AFR to produce the power that a HD truck needs for maintaining highway speeds loaded.
  7. Just with Ford, various revisions of the 4R100, 5R110W and 6R140 automatic transmissions came with pans with drain plugs. Sometimes it was easy to figure out which one had it (4X4 4R100 for example), other times not. The 2013 5R110W I had came with a plug, while the 6R140 on my 2019 F-450 is missing one. It's a frequent question/topic over at FTE. No one can seem to figure out the pattern with 6R140 pans with plugs and those without.
  8. That came directly from the engine program's chief engineer. The link is earlier in this topic. The 777 was a 7.0L BOSS engine with a 4V head. The point is that the 7L displacement was designed as well as the 4V head for this engine family. It's not like it would need a new development program. The information that has come out about the 7.3L indicates that it is an engine designed to constantly and under high load put out a large fraction of its available power at a relatively low RPM. This indicates that the peak power number may not be as high as many would like (relatively low specific output for an engine introduced in 2020) and is probably not a good "performance" engine for a high-end Mustang or V8 Raptor. A 7L 4V BOSS would fit that application better. That's the first I have heard of that being the reason for a 6.2L displacement. As far as I have heard from those in the know about the program, that was always a planned displacement of the 3 for the engine family. Only recently has Ford tried to put DOD on an OHC engine, and I believe it is on a new 3 and 4 cylinder engine family.
  9. The 2010 used a separate TCM, that functionality was integrated into the PCM in 2011. It's strange that the recall is just for a reflash. Didn't the TSB/SSM dealing with this have replacement of the molded leadframe as the repair method?
  10. Only the FWD 6-speeds are a joint design, and GM led that effort. The Colorado's RWD transmissions, both 6 and 8 speed are pure GM. Only the RWD 10-speed that GM uses in things like Silvererra and Camaro is a shared design, and Ford led that effort. Ford's 6-speed RWD transmissions are either their own design (6R140) or a variant of the ZF 6HP (6R80).
  11. An aftermarket kit wouldn't be too shocking. Same way you'd get a SFA under the front of a '80-'96 Bronco or a SRA on a 2015+ Mustang.
  12. The BOSS engine family was originally supposed to have 3 displacements 5.8/6.2/7.0. Both 2 and 4 valve cylinder heads. The 2V head was provisioned for DI and I'd assume if the 4V head ever made it past the 777 design study it would have had this provision as well. The 5.8L variant didn't meet its FE goals for the Mustang application it was meant for. But this variant would probably be the one to get the EB treatment if they were ever going to do a GTDI version of any current V8 engine family. I don't think that will happen though, if an EB V8 engine ever makes it out of Ford it will probably be an all new engine of smaller (4.xL ish) displacement with inside-out flow like the 6.7L Powerstroke
  13. I believe the SFA rumor started when Dana won the contract for the F/R axle assemblies on the Ranger/Bronco. People automatically assume Dana=Live Axle. Dana makes differential assemblies for driven independent suspensions for most of the industry, including Ford. For instance look at the rear axle on the back on something like the Edge, Escape or Explorer. Dana rear differential with independent suspension. Or look at what is on the front of the new Ranger. I'd be shocked if this ends up with a SFA.
  14. Yeah, basically the point I was trying to make, the swing gate itself is more complicated and expensive, but easier to make compliant and build than the tailgate plus a swing out tire carrier. It's a bummer for my nostalgia and the way I'd like to use the new one, but I can see why the decision was made. I think there will be a few more decisions like this that will piss off the "purists". My predictions as to the big ones: IFS: Some purists will be pissed off about this, but the Bronco was IFS longer than it was SFA and it will be necessary to beat the Wrangler in ride and NVH, not to mention the Raptor version will require it. Off road, IFS is superior to SFA in all but rock crawling type usage. My take: Let Jeep take that market, be better at everything else. No V8: As long as we get a V6, preferably Nano-family EB (and just the 2.3L EB like the initial Ranger), it should do just fine. 4-door: No way this doesn't get built as a 4-door, Wrangler Unlimited sales vs the 2-door model show where the market is now. The JK Wrangler Unlimited pissed off the Jeep guys, for all of about a day and then they got over it. Same thing will happen with the Bronco. A 2-door would be nice, and hopefully its still makes it but I'd rather have the 2-door cost-cut from the program than overall quality elsewhere, power under the hood, and a Raptor version. Removable roof: This will probably be the big one. I expect some form of power BAMR or manual removable panels like Jeep Renegade "to let the air in", not a removable rear roof section. Cue the bitching-and-moaning! Overall, unless they totally F it up with too much Steelcase cost cutting or 4-cylinder only power under the hood, I'll be buying one of these. If they have a Raptor version, make that two. This product and F-Series is where my memories have always been with Ford, not cars or their other SUV's even though I've owned some of those as well. Needless to say I just knocked on wood and have my fingers crossed that this one meets all of our heady expectations.
  15. Well, from the pictures we knew it had an exterior spare. Going with Wrangler heritage instead of Bronco heritage is the strange part. All Broncos had a tailgate. But I'm guessing that the larger rear opening and parts were cheaper than the swing away carrier combined with a tailgate. Edit: It's not a decision I'm happy about. Loved sitting on the tailgate of the SJ Cherokee and 4th Gen Bronco my dad had while I was growing up prepping for fishing trips and the like. Sitting on the inside of a Wrangler cargo area just isn't the same.
×