30 OTT 6
-
Posts
600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by 30 OTT 6
-
-
The Mach-E should be on that list.
-
1
-
-
-
56 minutes ago, edselford said:
Looks like the math is off slightly!
bore and stroke of 4.22 X3.68 gets you to 411.76 cubic inches not 415!
The 3.68 might actually be 3.70 or about 94 mm.
However, if we use metric 107.2 X 94 we get to. 6.787 liters or 414 cubic inches
Makes me wonder if the 3.68 and 415 are mis prints?????
edselford
Seems to be a problem with Ford marketing. They also list the current 5.0L Coyote as a 302 CID, not the mathematically correct 307.
-
Looks like a lot more complication and cost for a fuel economy bump no one will ever notice.
-
1 hour ago, blksn8k2 said:
That was me. But as others have pointed out, the 6.8 actually uses a slightly shorter stroke than even the 6.2 Boss did (3.68" vs 3.74"). One of the things that I wondered about with the 6.2 crank was that with it being a SOHC designed if there was some special machining on the snout of the crank to accommodate the mounting of sprockets to run the camshaft for each cylinder head. That would obviously be unnecessary for a pushrod design like the Godzilla. So, if the crank couldn't be used as is without extra machining, then why not optimize the stroke for the 6.8L application? I suppose it's even possible that they are still using the same raw forging as the 6.2 but altering the machining to suit the 6.8.
Interestingly, the 7.3L crank still has two sprockets, the second one is for the oil pump.
-
This answers the question of the 6.8L seeing action in the Mustang. With an iron block it will weight the virtually the same as the 7.3L, to which the 307 Coyote is a lightweight in comparison (by 135 lbs).
-
On 9/15/2022 at 3:29 PM, silvrsvt said:
Ford is embracing the base Mustang's "Secretary Car" heritage. On the plus side, the 2.3L EB is gaining a dual fuel system with port injection and DI... for those secretaries that appreciate clean intake valves.
-
If fuel economy and emission standards are tightening up on the heavier truck classes an aluminum block Godzilla makes sense. From the Ford Performance website, an aluminum block 351 weights 118 lbs compared to 195 lbs iron block. Applying that comparison to a similar sized Godzilla block will add up to significant weight savings for the vehicle.
An aluminum block Godzilla would need iron cylinder sleeves or a thicker cylinder wall with PTWA coating. This could account for a smaller displacement. A 3.6 mm smaller 103.6 mm bore with the same 101 mm stroke yields 6.8L.
-
18 hours ago, jpd80 said:
There’s a fast approaching need for better fuel efficiency/ emissions requirement with F250 and F350,
the 6.8 could give them breathing space with that until the BEV Super Duty is ready…
I just watched The Fast Lane Truck Ford Lighting tow test on Youtube. They got 89 miles towing a typical RV trailer and spent as much time charging the thing as on the road. Is this what to expect from a BEV Super Duty? Aside from the urban cowboys and Californians, how many contractors, farmers, etc. would put their money down on a 3/4 ton with this level of performance.
-
1
-
-
Hopefully they put the chassis on a diet. That'd be worth more than a horsepower bump.
-
2
-
-
-
15 hours ago, fordmantpw said:
The future of nuclear power isn't the type of plant you think of today. It will be the small modular reactors. There is research being done and they are being pursued. I think you will see some commercially operational in 10 years or so.
Side note...I work at a nuke plant that was originally built for 2 units. We started the process to obtain the license for Unit 2 back 10-15 years ago, but abandoned it due to costs. Modular reactors are on our radar to add onsite, but we won't be one of the first ones out of the gate...we're too conservative for that.
From what I've read about small modular reactors (SMRs), they can be retrofitted into a current coal-fired power generating plant. The coal furnaces are replaced with an SMR to generate the steam used by the existing turbine and generator system.
-
18 hours ago, jpd80 said:
I still keep wondering if the 6.8 is a clever rework of the 6.2, a bit like how coyote transformed the Mod V8 into something much better…….and with low cost.
I think it was, with the added conversion of overhead cam to in-block cam. I also think that Coyote would never have happened if the 6.2L Boss (back when it was Hurricane in 2005) had performed better.
-
17 hours ago, Power Kid said:
This has been hashed out many times over the last 18 months but IMHO replacing the 6.2L doesn't make sense as the 6.8L (based on F150 & Mustang applications) will have an aluminum block which won't work in the SD. And even if they did, specs are so close to a 7.3L why bother? 6.2L was old and already around, price point offering. But were all speculating so I guess we'll find out...
Maybe the 6.8L is replacing the 6.2L in Super Duty and the 3.5L Ecoboost in the F150/Expedition? The 6.8L could double duty as the top engine in the F150 and base engine in F250.
-
Phase out cars in favour of SUVs and then make the SUVs more like cars.
-
2
-
-
"a dry friction clutch" What could go wrong?
-
2
-
-
Hopefully Jenny Craig is on the S650 design team.
-
1
-
-
The standard foot steps molded into each side of the bumpers on the Chevy and GMC trucks was the last great innovation in pickup box access. Simple, effective, and not an eye sore.
-
2
-
-
Looks like that design concept was applied to the Gen 1 Probe.
-
Some details came out on the new V8 going into the 2023 Corvette Z06. I didn't catch if this is based off the defunct Cadillac Blackwing V8 or another new engine. There's a bunch of drunken sailors working at GM product planning.
-
14 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
Ford has been passing those additional tech costs onto customers for years, twin turbos and DI to begin with
and then the addition of port injection with DI, I get that it’s not cheap but Ford left low cost solutions years ago
and buyers seem happy to pay a premium for those engines.
Ford Management would love to build a cheaper engine and continue to charge that premium. I'm sure one of them has already calculated their bonus.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, edselford said:
The comment from SoonerLS about a hybrid 6.8 makes allot of sense.
I just wonder if there will be much engine shuffling at ford during the next two years for both F150 and the Superduty 250/350/450?
A hybrid 2.7 ecoboost could replace almost all current 3.5 ecoboost. The 6.8 NA could replace the high output 3.5 ecoboost on F150’s. With a 6.8 light duty hybrid as the up option.
the heavy duty version of the 6.8NA engine could be the base F250/350 engine with a heavy duty 6.8 hybrid replacing the current 7.3NA V8.
the 7.3NA and 7.3hybrid may go into the F450/550’s.
We are in some very interesting times with dynamic cylinder deactivation and new electronic technologies
edselford
The 3.5L Ecoboost is a strong candidate for replacement by a 6.8L V8. The 3.5L is powerful but with the two turbos, intercooler, and all associated piping, it has to be more costly to produce. All that extra equipment seems to kill any weight advantage of the V6. A 3.5L F-150 always seems to weight slightly more than a similarly configured 5.0L. Also, particulate emissions from GTDI engines seems to be the next environmental target.
-
On 6/30/2021 at 8:51 AM, blksn8k2 said:
I think an aluminum block pushrod 6.8 would make great competition for the LS in the aftermarket as well. There's a decent market there and Ford is not that competitive with the overly complex and wide Coyote.
The LS aftermarket includes hundreds of thousands of them sitting in wrecker yards. The 6.8L and 7.3L Godzilla will be hard pressed to compete with that.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Trader 10 said:
A OHV 6.8 would be significantly cheaper to build than the Coyote.
This will be the primary goal of a 6.8L Godzilla, regardless of what Ford Marketing says.
-
1
-
Ford Marshall Plant to Resume, But Be Scaled Back
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
Is there enough Congolese children to mine the cobalt for all those batteries?