How about a 4L Ecoboost V8, now that the 6.2L is dead in the F150

[theoldwizard]

The current 6.8L V10 is still similar to the Coyote, and it's proven & reliable. So, I could see Ford sticking with it, give it a CGI block, 4V heads and punching it out to 7.3L or so for F550 and up (and F53) applications. It makes more sense than keeping an oddball engine like the 6.2L around.

Sorry, I disagree. It does NOT "make sense".

 

The 6.8L costs more (10 pistons, etc) than a 6.2L and everything you mentioned will just add even MORE cost.

 

The medium duty market is very cost conscious and the most cost effective way to get more HP and torque our of a gasoline engine is more cubic inches.

[theoldwizard]

Hopefully the 6.2 with some upgrades (3V heads and direct injection).

I certainly hope so ! 3V head is obvious. So is an increase in displacement, 7L minimum, 8L would be better. Direct injection (without turbo) does not make sense if the engine can not run lean during "cruising" situations. "Cruising" implies "light load", which is not likely to happen in a Medium Duty.

 

Without having to worry about the CAFE sensitive F150 market, they have a lot of options.

[theoldwizard]

 

The current 6.8L V-10 is at the limit of the design's maximum displacement. Can't be bored or stroked.

Pretty sure that's not true. It is based on the 5.4. Ford increased its displacement to 5.8. Seems like the 6.8 should be able to go to 7.3.

 

IIRC, the 5.8L version is an "aftermarket" block. Not cost effective.

 

Remember, the bore spacing on the 5.0L maybe the same as the old 4.6L, but it got there using the thinnest cylinder liners in the industry !

Edited January 27, 2014 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

And I agree, it does seem that the 6.2L did not live up to it's design intent. I believe it was supposed to replace the V-10 across the board.

While few inside Ford will admit it, your statement is correct. The little brother was cancelled due to poor fuel economy. The 6.2L never quite got the fuel economy that had hoped, but the fuel economy was better than the 6.8L and it was SOOOO much lighter and cheaper than the V10, they went ahead with it.

 

I know that the reason the 6.2L never made it into Medium Duty applications was temperature related (could not pass durability testing doing long dyno pulls near WOT). 4-6 years ago there were no plans to fix that.

 

With a large number of smaller engines out the door, lets hope the boys in Building #2 can fix it !

[lfeg]

Also keep in mind that for MDT service a natural gas package will be an important offering. To fully cover the requirements of class 6 and to meet the cost / durability expetations of the market, a naturally aspirated displacement of at least 8 liters may be required. Many here have no idea what the duty cycle really is for MDTs. With a severe duty cycle, you want to keep bearing PV (a number relating to a combination of bearing surface speed and loading) values and BMEP values more conservative to increase durability. Just scaling up an engine used in pickups is a recipe for failure, with both Ford and GM having "been there, done that" in the past.

[Edstock]

IIRC, the 5.8L version is an "aftermarket" block. Not cost effective.

 

Remember, the bore spacing on the 5.0L maybe the same as the old 4.6L, but it got there using the thinnest cylinder liners in the industry !

 

IIRC, the 5.0 doesn't use cylinder liners. Like the Nissan GTR, the block's cylinder walls are coated with an ultra-hard coating deposited by a plasma-sputtering technique that Ford of Germany had a hand in developing.

 

End result: thinner, lighter and stronger, with reduction in number of engine components.

[30 OTT 6]

While few inside Ford will admit it, your statement is correct. The little brother was cancelled due to poor fuel economy. The 6.2L never quite got the fuel economy that had hoped, but the fuel economy was better than the 6.8L and it was SOOOO much lighter and cheaper than the V10, they went ahead with it.

 

I know that the reason the 6.2L never made it into Medium Duty applications was temperature related (could not pass durability testing doing long dyno pulls near WOT). 4-6 years ago there were no plans to fix that.

 

With a large number of smaller engines out the door, lets hope the boys in Building #2 can fix it !

Interesting comments. Was the "Hurricane" the cancelled "little brother"? Was it "little" because of smaller bore/stroke or was the block physically smaller (i.e. shorter deck)? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

It's disapointing to read that the Boss had durability issues in the testing phase. The MOD V10 seems to be fairly durable so considering the Boss was suposed to take design cues from the MOD motors the new engine should have at least matched it in durability. Somebody really screwed the pooch on this one.

[jpd80]

A case of doing nothing being the cheapest option?

[Stray Kat]

It's not that I don't believe ya boys, but I have a hard time with the concept that the 6.2 cannot pass durability tests in applications for which it was designed. Now maybe there needs to be some tweaking but I think this matter is overblown or misunderstood. Do any of you remember when Ford created the FT out of the FE gas engine for medium duty trucks? There were lots of changes but they made one helluva truck engine after all. I'd venture to say that a large portion of America's economy was moved by Ford's FT engines. They were prolific in the '60's- '70's. no reason the Boss/ Hurricane can't do the same with a little work.

[fordmantpw]

It's not that I don't believe ya boys, but I have a hard time with the concept that the 6.2 cannot pass durability tests in applications for which it was designed. Now maybe there needs to be some tweaking but I think this matter is overblown or misunderstood. Do any of you remember when Ford created the FT out of the FE gas engine for medium duty trucks? There were lots of changes but they made one helluva truck engine after all. I'd venture to say that a large portion of America's economy was moved by Ford's FT engines. They were prolific in the '60's- '70's. no reason the Boss/ Hurricane can't do the same with a little work.

 

Durability standards of the 60's don't hold a candle to today's standards. I'm sure it can be done, but does Ford want to spend the money to do it? Maybe they already are?

[White99GT]

 

IIRC, the 5.0 doesn't use cylinder liners. Like the Nissan GTR, the block's cylinder walls are coated with an ultra-hard coating deposited by a plasma-sputtering technique that Ford of Germany had a hand in developing.

 

End result: thinner, lighter and stronger, with reduction in number of engine components.

 

5.0 uses standard iron liners, the 2011+ 5.4/5.8 block use PWTA liners.

 

5.0 doesn't even have the thinnest liners at Ford, much less the industry.

Also, the thinner liners had more to do with weight reduction than bore spacing.

[lfeg]

It's not that I don't believe ya boys, but I have a hard time with the concept that the 6.2 cannot pass durability tests in applications for which it was designed. Now maybe there needs to be some tweaking but I think this matter is overblown or misunderstood. Do any of you remember when Ford created the FT out of the FE gas engine for medium duty trucks? There were lots of changes but they made one helluva truck engine after all. I'd venture to say that a large portion of America's economy was moved by Ford's FT engines. They were prolific in the '60's- '70's. no reason the Boss/ Hurricane can't do the same with a little work.

 

In looking at things, the one issue that I see with the 6.2 for service in MDTs is cooling. The 6.2 is designed with low volume water jacketing. For pickups this is pretty much a requirement today, as to hit emissions targets you need fast warmup on cold starts, and a large volume of coolant does not facilitate quick warmup. For the duty cycles seen in MDT service you can have extended periods of very high heat production (WOT and near WOT at rated power output) and to get the heat generated out of the block and heads you need a large volume of coolant moving at a relatively low velocity in a large water jacket. We are not talking short term peaks (15 to 20 minutes), but periods that can be measured in hours. Short term peaks are easy to handle, just let coolant temperature climb a bit, then bring it down after the peak. In MDT service you do not have that luxury, your peak is more akin to a plateau, so you must remove the heat as it is generated.

 

One reason that the FT engines were good at handling the heat of MDT (and for the 391, HDT) service was that the FE engines had large coolant capacities, a legacy of their design in the mid 50s when emissions were not an issue. Sadly, enlarging the water jacket capacity of a block is not easy, so the 6.2 and any variations of it for MDT service may require a different block casting.

[Stray Kat]

Ford's durability measures in the '60's were pretty tough. The changes included huge ext manifolds, 4- ring pistons w/ floating wrist pins, roller timing chains, sodium cooled ext valves, dual thermostats w/ tremendous cooling ancillaries. The list goes on. It looks to me like we are only seeing the light duty version of the 6.2. They have not even bugun to develop this engine. I personally think a CGI block would allow for larger bores and greater cooling capacity. That doesn't seem out of reach to me.

[lfeg]

Ford's durability measures in the '60's were pretty tough. The changes included huge ext manifolds, 4- ring pistons w/ floating wrist pins, roller timing chains, sodium cooled ext valves, dual thermostats w/ tremendous cooling ancillaries. The list goes on. It looks to me like we are only seeing the light duty version of the 6.2. They have not even bugun to develop this engine. I personally think a CGI block would allow for larger bores and greater cooling capacity. That doesn't seem out of reach to me.

No doubt here. Sure, valves, manifolding and such can be added. As can higher flow water pump, bypass thermostat arrangements, and larger radiaters, oil coolers and such. But the block has to support all of this. The 6.2 has a great bottom end and rotating assembly, but where it lacks for MDT service (at least in my opinion) is in water jacket capacity and flow arrangement and in displacement capacity. To get to the 8 + liter displacement that it looks like will be needed for the upper end of the MDT market will take greater bore centers to get enough water jacket between the cylinders and bigger bores. Ford pioneered the "Short Stroke" MDT and HDT engines, and their durability and operating economy were proven over many years. The question now is that does a dedicated MDT engine fit the future product plan.

[30 OTT 6]

 

In looking at things, the one issue that I see with the 6.2 for service in MDTs is cooling. The 6.2 is designed with low volume water jacketing. For pickups this is pretty much a requirement today, as to hit emissions targets you need fast warmup on cold starts, and a large volume of coolant does not facilitate quick warmup. For the duty cycles seen in MDT service you can have extended periods of very high heat production (WOT and near WOT at rated power output) and to get the heat generated out of the block and heads you need a large volume of coolant moving at a relatively low velocity in a large water jacket. We are not talking short term peaks (15 to 20 minutes), but periods that can be measured in hours. Short term peaks are easy to handle, just let coolant temperature climb a bit, then bring it down after the peak. In MDT service you do not have that luxury, your peak is more akin to a plateau, so you must remove the heat as it is generated.

 

One reason that the FT engines were good at handling the heat of MDT (and for the 391, HDT) service was that the FE engines had large coolant capacities, a legacy of their design in the mid 50s when emissions were not an issue. Sadly, enlarging the water jacket capacity of a block is not easy, so the 6.2 and any variations of it for MDT service may require a different block casting.

Does the MOD V10 block have a differant (larger) water jacket design than the the MOD V8 blocks?

[7Mary3]

The use of low volume water jackets on the 6.2L would explain the situation. I didn't know that was a feature of the 'Boss'. I was wondering why the GM iron block 6.0L was certified to 26,000 lbs. GVW in FCCC and 19,500 lbs. GVW in Isuzu trucks with no issues but Ford holds the 6.2L to 13,500 lbs.. Ram has now certified their 6.4L Hemi to 19,500 lbs. as well. Explains why the V-10 is still around.....

 

Didn't know about the 'Boss' having a smaller displacement version planned! No point to a 7.0L version if it can't be used in MDT's. All falling into place....

 

Wonder what is planned for the next Super Duty???

[FordFanForEver]

I wonder what Ford's plan is for the 6.8 V10's replacement in the F-53 motorhome chassis? Right now, Ford owns the Class A gas motorhome segment and I'd like to see them stay a leader in that area.

Edited January 28, 2014 by FordFanForEver

[Deanh]

sidebar....just received a brochure on the new F-150, basically photos, truck looks a LOT better than the press release shots...

[MGolden]

Our company has a fleet of mostly gas superduties. The v10 is hard on gas but has been very reliable. The 6.2 is a very nice engine with the 6 speed auto. It is slightly better than the v10 on mpg's. It also has been reliable, though we just had our first go over 200k miles, where several v10's hit 300k. I guess my point is that I hope they keep developing good gas engines. There is no cost benefit for us to go to diesels. We keep the trucks for 200-300k miles, then they are complete rust buckets. The v10 and 6.2 are awesome engines.

 

Btw, I recently bought a used f150 with a 6.2. It is an absolute blast to drive.

 

-mjg

[Stray Kat]

Well lets just set a few things on the table. The 6.2 Ford has a bore spacing of 4.53". The Dodge is next at 4.46" and the GM is 4.40". The Ford Modular engine series has a bore spacing of 3.937" including the V10. I am going to assume that all of these engines are built with "low volume" water jackets since they all must meet the same emission standards in the light duty configurations. If this is truly the case then I am going to go way out on a limb and say that the 6.2 Ford with a 4.015" bore has the most room between cylinders in which to circulate water. If more volume should actually be necessary then a CGI block with thinner walls or a "pillow" block with enlargements around the cylinders seems like a no brainer in this day and age. Thoughts?

[RichardJensen]

I find the speculation that the 6.2 is incapable of medium duty applications because the engineers had no idea what medium duty applications require to be a bit far-fetched.

 

I make no comment about the current 6.2's suitability, but I'd say with some certainty that if it was intended to replace the 6.8 in all applications, it would need to meet if not exceed the 6.8's performance in all applications.

[Stray Kat]

I agree with you Richard. I don't think Ford would let themselved fumble the ball on the 6.2. Further I think the 6.2 is at least in some ways part of the Modular family. The bellhousing flange and i believe motor mount pattern and placement allows this engine to interchange with earlier Mod engines.

[White99GT]

I find the speculation that the 6.2 is incapable of medium duty applications because the engineers had no idea what medium duty applications require to be a bit far-fetched.

 

As do I, especially considering the almost consistently incorrect source.

[7Mary3]

It sounds to me like the Ford engineers made a choice during the 'Boss' engine development to optimize the design for light duty trucks over medium duty, and thus the decision was made to keep the V-10 in production.

 

If modifying the 6.2L for medium duty applications would require a different block casting and a different machine line, it may just be that the expensive to manufacture 6.8L V-10 is a more cost effective solution for the low volume medium duty market.

 

Bore spacing is only one factor in a block's total coolant volume. You have to factor the depth of the water jackets, ect..

 

I ought to write a book on the FT's!

Edited January 29, 2014 by 7Mary3

[Stray Kat]

Bore spacing is only one factor in a block's total coolant volume. You have to factor the depth of the water jackets, ect..

 

I ought to write a book on the FT's!

 

 

I wonder the the engineers of the `50's and `60's would have been able to do with the luxury of far greater heat dissappating aluminum cylinder heads as found on the current 6.2 Ford? Guys I highly doubt that the 6.2's cylinders aren't fully water jacketed. If they are not and there is a portion of the cylinder that extends into the crankcase like the Windsor series that part is not a high heat area and it is cooled by oil. I think we're on the wrong track here.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Stray Kat