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

[lfeg]

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?

Room between cylinders is only part of it, just as 7Mary3 states. Also, you have to look at the timeframe when the 6.2 was developed. MDTs were an afterthought. Ford was concentrating on the F150 and F250 & F350 Superduties. I doubt that much thought was devoted to use of the 6.2 in the MDT line. Only later was it looked at as a replacement for the V10 in the F450 & F550. But another thing also happened that was probably not forseen by the team developing the 6.2, the change in diesel economics that made gasoline engines a better economic choice in more applications. Going back to the mid 2000s, I could see where the 6.2 was viewed an the replacement for the V10 in the F250 & F350, and the V10 going away leaving the F450 & F550 with just the Powerstroke. But diesels ended up getting more complex aftertreatment systems, diesel fuel continued to command a premium price, and natural gas became a player in fueling MDTs. With all of this, it made the decision to keep the V10 in production easier. The V10 is a stout, reliable engine, well proven in demanding applications in the F450 & F550. Even if it is a low production, higher cost gas engine, it is still less costly than the Powerstroke.

 

I do not know what the future is for the V10, but I do not see it being replaced by the 6.2 or a slightly larger displacement version of the 6.2. There is a demand building for a gasoline / natural gas MDT engine. The V10 is Ford's toe in the water, especially in class 6. But demand is building in the heavier end of class 6 and class 7. Currently the only real option are the conversions of the Cummins diesels to natural gas as a fuel, but those are expensive. Someone is going to develop a family of spark ignition engines in the 8 to 10 liter range that will be accepted in the MDT market. But I do not know if it will fit in Ford's product plans.

[lfeg]

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!

Write that book on the FTs. They were an interesting engine with a block design taken from the car line mixed with modern casting practices of their era. I also liked how the MEL designs were the basis for the old Super Duty engines.

[jpd80]

The one that catches my eye is the Super Duty 401-534 series, don't recall that ever going in anything other than trucks.

[theoldwizard]

Interesting comments. Was the "Hurricane" the cancelled "little brother"?

It was a "family" name.

 

 

 

 

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

 

I don't know for certain. I would guess it would be a lower deck height.

 

 

It's disapointing to read that the Boss had durability issues in the testing phase.

Concur ! Especially since there was supposed to be a "big" brother.

 

 

 

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.

 

I never heard that statement !

 

As a matter of fact, in early development, the Hurricane had pushrods (because GM and The Hemi had pushrods).

Edited January 29, 2014 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

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.

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.

While Ford has used plasma-transferred wire arc (PTWA) o some limited production engines, it was Not used on the Production 5.0L engine.

 

From 5.0L Mustnags and Super Fords Magazine (long article but a good read with lots of pictures)

 

"Coyote engineers took the cylinder liners as thin as they dared to gain maximum possible bore diameter. All bore honing must involve deck plates, they say. However, a thick 13mm block deck and rigid structure mean high cylinder pressures are no problem."

Edited January 29, 2014 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

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.

I have been wondering this for over 4 years now !

 

The F-53 and the F-59 school bus chassis use the same gas engine as the F650/750.

[theoldwizard]

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.

No "speculation". I got it directly from an engineering supervisor of the 6,8L when I asked him why the V10 was in the product plans for 2015/16MY.

 

Also, remember the 6.2L gets better fuel economy than the V10 and is cheaper to build.

Edited January 29, 2014 by theoldwizard

[lfeg]

The one that catches my eye is the Super Duty 401-534 series, don't recall that ever going in anything other than trucks.

Those were big, heavy, relative low RPM V8s with a block like no other Ford V8. They were loosly based on the MEL family. They were never in anything smaller than the 800 Series trucks (F, T, C, N)

[SoonerLS]

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?

Ford had aluminum heads available in the '60s--two of the distinguishing characteristics of the FE PI were the aluminum heads and intake manifold.

[RichardJensen]

No "speculation". I got it directly from an engineering supervisor of the 6,8L when I asked him why the V10 was in the product plans for 2015/16MY.

 

Also, remember the 6.2L gets better fuel economy than the V10 and is cheaper to build.

 

So the engineering supervisor told you: "We have no idea how to engineer a medium duty engine"?

[lfeg]

 

So the engineering supervisor told you: "We have no idea how to engineer a medium duty engine"?

More likely that those who had that know how had left the building.

[351cid]

Ford had aluminum heads available in the '60s--two of the distinguishing characteristics of the FE PI were the aluminum heads and intake manifold.

99% sure that the intake was all that was aluminium. FE production heads have always been iron, to the best of my knowledge.

[SoonerLS]

99% sure that the intake was all that was aluminium. FE production heads have always been iron, to the best of my knowledge.

You may be right; I recall reading somewhere that they did Al PI heads, but I can't find it now, and what I have found in a quick Google search indicates that they were iron heads.

[White99GT]

While Ford has used plasma-transferred wire arc (PTWA) o some limited production engines, it was Not used on the Production 5.0L engine.

 

From 5.0L Mustnags and Super Fords Magazine (long article but a good read with lots of pictures)

 

"Coyote engineers took the cylinder liners as thin as they dared to gain maximum possible bore diameter. All bore honing must involve deck plates, they say. However, a thick 13mm block deck and rigid structure mean high cylinder pressures are no problem."

 

 

Yea, thanks for reiterating exactly what I said.

 

By the way, here's the thinnest liners at Ford.

Edited January 29, 2014 by White99GT

[RichardJensen]

More likely that those who had that know how had left the building.

 

Please. I'm pretty sure that Ford's powertrain engineers are capable of observing the gigantic radiators on big trucks and deducing that cooling is an important part of durability under sustained load.

[jpd80]

The way I see it, after the 2011 model, Ford replaced the 5.4 with the 6.2 in F250 and F350 applications because

that's where the bulk of gasoline engine sales are - that's what Ford was shooting for, not replacing the 6.8 V10.

 

The cost of changing the Boss 6.2 to 7.0 liters versus the 6.8 sales it would absorb, probably isn't worth the effort,

the added costs of pistons and rods in the 6.8 is probably more than covered in the cost of a MD truck.

Originally, the V10's costs were amortized under 5.4 manufacturing, maybe that's changing...

Edited January 30, 2014 by jpd80

[lfeg]

 

Please. I'm pretty sure that Ford's powertrain engineers are capable of observing the gigantic radiators on big trucks and deducing that cooling is an important part of durability under sustained load.

It is much more than gigantic radiators. Go back to when the 6.2 was developed. There was zero focus on MDTs - they were spinning that off to a joint venture and using vendor engines. The market for the 6.2 was the light end - 1/2 ton to 1 ton pickups, and potentially the Mustang. Why design in capabilities for service in a 30,000 lb GVWR truck when it is irrevelant to your task? It is not about the abilities and capabilities of the engineering staff, it is about what they were tasked with.

[lfeg]

The way I see it, after the 2011 model, Ford replaced the 5.4 with the 6.2 in F250 and F350 applications because

that's where the bulk of gasoline engine sales are - that's what Ford was shooting for, not replacing the 6.8 V10.

 

The cost of changing the Boss 6.2 to 7.0 liters versus the 6.8 sales it would absorb, probably isn't worth the effort,

the added costs of pistons and rods in the 6.8 is probably more than covered in the cost of a MD truck.

Originally, the V10's costs were amortized under 5.4 manufacturing, maybe that's changing...

Ford wanted a lower cost big block engine for the pickups that would give better operating economy and hit increasingly stringent emissions targets. That was the task of the 6.2. And I believe that the F450 / F550 were planned to just use the Powerstroke as the V10 went away. Look at the Ram/Dodge 4500 and 5500- at first they were only offered with the Cummins diesel, no gas option. As the cost of operating a diesel increased due to fuel cost and aftertreatment systems, gas engines became attractive again. Ford had the V10, so they kept offering it. In response, Ram/Dodge started offering the Hemi in the 4500 and 5500 trucks to counter Ford. Nothing all that complicated, just a change of plan to keep producing an engine (the V10) because the market still wanted something like it.

[RichardJensen]

There was zero focus on MDTs - they were spinning that off to a joint venture and using vendor engines.

 

They spun off the F250-550 & E250-450?

 

If the 6.2L were intended to replace the 6.8L, then it would be intended to replace the 6.8L in places where the 6.8L was sold at that time. Which would be Ford's own products, not the Blue Diamond JV.

Edited January 30, 2014 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

In Super Duty, the 6.2 replaced the 5.4, not the 6.8

Edited January 30, 2014 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

 

So the engineering supervisor told you: "We have no idea how to engineer a medium duty engine"?

Geez, stop being a baby !

 

To the best of my recollection (this was about 2-3 years ago) he said words to the effect that the 6.2L did NOT pass the medium duty truck durability test and that (at that time) the 6.8L V10 2V and 3V would carry on in the E-series (cut away and chassis) and F-series F450 and up.

 

Does that mean it is cast in stone ? Of course not ! Just there were no plans to do anything about it AT THAT TIME

[Stray Kat]

Well I'll tell ya, if Ford lets the 6.2 die on the vine it would be a shame. There will be a demand for big inch gasoline v8's for a good long time. With the design tools, rapid prototyping and manufacturing it doesn't seem like it would be asking for too much. I'd like to see the technology transfer from the Coyote to the Boss/Hurricane for the simple reason is I want Ford to be building the greatest V8 engine before they become extinct. The biggest drawback on the Mod engines is the tight bore spacing. The Boss in the TiVict 4-valve configuration would be a world beater. I could see it in practical hard use in trucks all the way to marine use and supercar power. I think while the 5.0 while a phenominal piece just won't be enough with its limited ability to gain cubes. Ford needs something above this and I wouldn't be wasting time it needs to get done IMHO.

[RichardJensen]

Geez, stop being a baby !

 

Observe

 

Me: "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"

 

You: "I got it directly from an engineering supervisor of the 6,8L"

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/55692-how-about-a-4l-ecoboost-v8-now-that-the-62l-is-dead-in-the-f150/?p=890659

 

Me: "So the engineering supervisor told you: 'We have no idea how to engineer a medium duty engine'?"

 

Now, how else am I supposed to understand what you posted?

 

If it is your contention that the 6.2 was not designed for medium duty use, that's very different from contending that Ford's engineers are incapable of designing an engine for medium duty use.

[lfeg]

Face it. The 6.2 is not an MDT powerplant. It is a fine engine with great capabilities, but not in MDTs.

 

The MDT market (particularly in the upper ranges of class 5, and classes 6 and 7) has some duty cycle demands that are unique and different from light vehicles (and that definition of light vehicles includes the F250 and F350). The duty cycle requires robust engines. But the market is not all that large, and Ford's share will never equal their sales of F250 / F350 pickups. Now, would Ford be willing to devote the resources to developing a true MDT engine - either clean sheet or basing it on the 6.2? Remember, a good baseline for base MDT engine capabilities is the Cummins 6.7 diesel - it and the previous 5.9 pretty much set the standard. Natural gas as a fuel for MDTs is a fact, so any spark ignition engine will have to be NG capable. To meet the performance expectations set by recent diesels (everything from the Cummins diesels to the old International DT466) a naturally aspirated spark ignition engine will need displacement of at least 8 liters, and have to durability and reliability at least equal to the diesels serving the market at a lower cost.

[RichardJensen]

I don't get your post, because of this: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/07/ford-to-offer-6-8-liter-v10-in-f-650-and-f-750-chassis-cab-models.html

 

There may be reasons why the 6.2 block cannot be used in medium duty, but I firstly doubt that is because Ford had no idea how to replace the 6.8, and secondly, because the 6.8 itself is not a medium duty capable engine. The 6.8 is rated up to 26,000 GVWR (well, 25,999) in the 650/750.