edselford
-
Posts
258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by edselford
-
-
So how do we find the real bore and stroke of the new 6.8 liter V8?
edselford
-
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
-
Well, it looks like ford is placing itself into a good market position with the lower cost 6.8 V8 when compared to the 6.2 it replaced.
6.8 competes with the GM 6.6 LT8 as base engine in super-duty trucks with 7.3 as a profit generating option!
It will be interesting to see the rod/stroke spec, probably around 1.75 if 6.8 deck height is the same as the 7.3. A little like the old Chevy 327 V8.
Horsepower and torque numbers need to exceed that of the GM LT8 so figure around 415 hp and 475 lbs-ft. I am surprised DI was not included at this point.
edselford
-
Bob
sounds like you had a very fast Torino 428 CJ in a sleeper body, hatch back! I wish I could find a good one out there now.
I had a 1966 Ford Galaxie XL with a 390, 4100 four barrel carb, C6 with a 3.0 axle.
Car was very slow compared to Chevy 327 power glide and my dad’s 352 Galaxie 500.
390 was very dependable and got retired at 149,000 miles with only water pump replacements.
There was a 1968 Ford Galaxie LTD and Cougar that offered a 427 ford side oiler block with hydraulic lifters only offered with the C6 rated at 390 hp. It performed almost as good as the 428 cobra jet!
when I started working at ford in 1969, ford made a 427, a 428 , 429, 462 and 460 engines and it seemed like all at the same time.
edselford
-
2
-
-
- Wewq3. I guess we will have to Wait to see if 6.8 only has port injection????
I do not disagree with your statements on RAM, or 6.8 in F150.
RAM has been the big winner so far based on volume increases versus ten years ago. I doubt that most of the increased volume is due to pushrods vs OHC. They sold the new Ram with the old Ram trucks for quite some time! About $2200 difference in price!
At first, I thought the volume was coming out of Chevy/GMC. It may warrant a closer look with F150 volumes too.
Also before the Coyote 5.0 V8 came out, there was a prior generation 5.8 DOC V8 in the Mustang., tall deck 5.4 bored out to 93.5mm in aluminum with PWT bore coating.
In the same F250 or F350 I would think the 6.8 would get better fuel mileage than the 7.3.
May be Ford hedging their bet with Hydrogen/LNG technology maturing at least in commercial applications with IC engines.
Just think of a 6.8 ecoboost fueled with hydrogen in the not too distant future as an alternative to pure EV.
-
I guess we will have to Wait to see if 6.8 only has port injection????
I do not disagree with your statements on RAM, or 6.8 in F150.
RAM has been the big winner so far based on volume increases versus just a few years ago.
At first, I thought the volume was coming out of Chevy/GMC. It may warrant a closer look with F150 volumes too.
Also before the Coyote 5.0 V8 came out, there was a prior generation 5.8 DOC V8 in the Mustang., talk deck 5.4 bored out to 93.5mm in aluminum with PWT bore coating.
-
Sometimes, UAW contracts limit what companies can do to optimize their cost structure.
Continuation of the 6.2 may be one of these items until contract runs out or replacements are found or plant gets closed.
Seems that the 6.2 SOC V8 was practically dead on arrival as IC engines go.
The 6.8 is Ford’s answer to the GM 6.6 V8 and maybe nothing more.
It would be easy to do a 5.8 version of the Coyote 5.0 at about 600 hp for Mustang.
edselford
-
Think of a direct injected and port injected 6.8liter V8 having the same hp and torque numbers as the current 7.3!
Probably most of the F350/350 customers are going to be happy with better mpg and less susceptible to engine knock!
For F450/550 6.8 as base and just maybe 7.3 DI/Port injection as an up option with approx 8% more torque than current 7.3! or 7.3 goes away completely.
edselfird
-
1
-
-
There was a recent article in the Windsor Star newspaper that said ford would be making IC engines at least to 2040. The article mentioned the 5.0 V8, the 7.3 V8 and the upcoming 6.8!
It seemed to indicate that the ongoing chip shortage has delayed the 6.8.
Maybe, the 6.8 will be built on a refurbished 6.2 line when the equipment is moved to the Windsor facility?
Also, if the7.3 V8 cylinder head fits on the existing 6.2 block with the cylinder head bolts in the same place, it is likely the 6.8 will be a reworked 6.2 block but with a single cam in block design. I expect a 106.75 mm bore and a 95 mm stroke like the existing 6.2.If it is a cast iron block, expect it to slide into the Super Duty. If it is used anywhere else, expect an aluminum or CGI block material.
edselford
-
Bob
Your Point on cost of the 3.5 ecoboost is a very good one on f150.
Then if you want to add the hybrid system to that, the costs are much greater than a gm hybrid system utilizing a 5.3 V8.
Maybe the 6.8 is designed for future hybrid f150 where they run in an Atkinson cycle and utilize the electric motor to fill in the loss in torque of the V8 due to the more efficient Atkinson cycle.
utilizing the 5.0 V8 with its 32 valve doc would not be as cost efficient!
edselford
-
Jpd80,
If the Raptor R gets a version of the sc 5.2V8,
where does the 6.8 V8 get used?
edselford
-
Awills
I am sorry to hear about your experience with 2021 Explorer.
I leased a 2021 Explorer XLT from ford in December 2020 and have had over 17,000 miles of trouble free service. Except for two oil changes and tire rotations , I have had no reason to visit my local ford dealer!
The handling is outstanding and highway fuel economy is about 28.5 mpg which for a large vehicle is great!
performance from ecoboost 2.3 s better than most competitive vehicles but engine noise during acceleration should of been lower!
Transmission feel and downshift characteristics change with each driving mode and is still somewhat confusing to me.
eco settings seems to be the nicest compromise for me even though tip in response
is reduced compared to the normal setting!
I do not care for all the skipped shifts and would prefer shifting thru each gear!
base radio is the worse radio I ever had since I began driving in a 1966 Galaxie XL. (About 55 different vehicles)
Ride quality at highway speeds or full load is good but unloaded vehicle seems to be over damped.
Basic structure of this CD6 platform is great but vehicle could use a higher level of refinement.
good luck to you
edselfird
-
1
-
-
It just have a “feeling” that the 6.8 V8 Mustang for 2024 will only come as a hybrid!.
It would be significantly less expensive to build than an 3.5 ecoboost hybrid!
edselford
-
Be cautious! The step up height on the 2021 Explorer with 20” wheels is pretty tall. Have your wife get in and out a few times before you buy. Vehicle could use a side step!
edselford
-
Stroke is 3.74. These are metric engines so 7.3 has bore and stroke of 107.2 X101 mm
6.2 is at 102X95 mm Do the math in metric and then convert to cubic inches by multiplying by
61.02 cubic inches per liter.
I just wonder if 6.8 with direct injection will replace the 6.2 boss in F250/350? Maybe pushing the 7.3 into F450/550 only?
edselford
-
Well taking the 7.3 bore and 6.2 stroke gives you
418.56 cubic inches or 6.859 liters. Wouldn’t this be called a 6.9 liter V8?
Yes, taking the 6.2 SOC V8 and opening up the bores to 106.75 mm with the 95 mm stroke gives you 6.80 liters or 415.06 cubic inches.
edselford
-
Does anyone know why this engine is 6.8 liters?
The news release from the Canadian union at Windsor talked about 6X. Or it’s derivatives. What does this mean? More different displacements?
edselford
-
Can someone describe technically what changes when you choose different drive modes on a 2021 Ford Explorer four wheel drive?
what happens to the transfer case electronic clutch? Transmission shifting, and skipping gears? throttle response etc????
I have noticed that the eco mode drives better than the normal mode, seems like eco mode shifts at higher engine rpm’s and doesn’t lug the engine at light throttles.
Also, is there a way to change the default mode from normal to say eco?
Thank You
edselford
-
Hi slemke,
thanks for the info on new ci block. Very interesting.
Another approach is to utilize aluminum 5.8 doc block with 5.0 liter bore and 4” stroke.
Rod length to stroke ratio would be about 1.7 to 1 with higher deck block at about 256 mm.
edselford
-
Maybe ford could do. 5.5 liter DOC V8 version of a 5.0 liter with a higher deck for a special Mustang?
Take the 5.0 heads and use a 4” crankshaft, you get 5.5 liters. Would need to have about a 249 mm deck height block with unique con rod length. Don’t need the deck height of the old 5.4/5.8 liter engines at 256mm
edselford
-
Yes, the rod to stroke ratio of the 7.3 is 1.589 to 1. This is probably the lowest of any ford V8!
The FT series truck engines had problems with heat that was never fixed . The fix was the 370 V8 from the 385 series I think ?edselford
-
1
-
-
Mary,
Do you think the comments on the heat issue regarding 7.3 liter is due to the limited amount of coolant flowing through the fly cut between the cylinder bores and the cylinder head or could it be due to a deck height that is somewhat short for a 101mm stroke?
Thanks
edselford
-
Maybe the current Edge will be replaced by a updated version of the Everest?
Once the initial demand for the Bronco is satisfied (hardtop issues completely eliminated) the volume is most likely in the 50 to 65,000 unit/year range. This will take about 18 to 34 months!
Adding Ranger volumes will not completely fill the Wayne assembly complex. Everest just might be in the plan
edselford
-
I would not worry too much about aluminum block melting in medium duty. I think the real issue is fatigue life! Cast iron or CGI is vastly superior for fatigue life!
There must be more with Ford choosing 6.8 over 7 liter like 429 cid for such small volumes in F150 and Mustang? 429 versus 414 cid is almost insignificant except from a marketing perspective, 429 would of worked better!
I just wonder if CO2 footprint of the 6.8 with dynamic skip cylinder deactivation is equal to the CO2 footprint of the high output 3.5 Ecoboost????
Also the rod to stroke ratio is about 1.57 to 1 on the 7.3
It is unlikely the 6.8 deck height will be any different than the 7.3.
edselford
-
1
-
The New 6.8L V8 Thread
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
Very interesting discussion on 427 vs 428 FE offerings.
For the most part what. is reviewed is accurate!
However, in the mid 1960’s Ford needed to come up with a competitive V8 for full sized cars because the 390 V8 was not competitive with the 396/427 Chevy or the other offerings . Also, the base 428 ford offered in 1966 was not much stronger than the 390. Chevy did offer the 427 in full sized cars at lower hp levels (385hp)
Ford had nothing but the high performance 427 which could not be purchased with an automatic or power steering!
In 1968, ford offered a 427 FE side oiler block, hydraulic lifter engine for a short period of time rated at 390 hp. It utilized a 600 cfm Holley carb and it was offered only with a heavy Duty C6 automatic.
The vehicle was almost as fast as the 428 cobra jet.
I think the cobra jet utilized at 750 cfm Holly.
Except for the different blocks bores/strokes, and carburetors, the engines were almost identical .
The big difference was ford’s manufacturing costs because of the 4.63” bore centers of the FE family, the 427 was very expensive to make. The 428 could be made without the high scrap rate of the 427 block machining process and on the same machining line as the 352 & 390 .
The 427 was machined on a special machine, one at a time.
edselford