Raptor 6.2 power figures in My Ford mag...

[blksn8k2]

In the Spring 2009 issue of My Ford magazine in an article by Eric Hagerman titled DESERT COMMAND is the following statement:

 

"The 5.4-liter V-8 base engine produces 320 hp and 390 foot-pounds of torque*; a 500 hp, 6.2-liter V-8 engine, calibrated to handle the stop-start brutality of racing, will be available in summer 2009."

 

Now unless you have been paying close attention to all the news/rumors about the F150 SVT Raptor, you would probably assume from that statement that the 6.2L will be producing 500 hp in all Raptors. I assume Mr. Hagerman has confused the statics for the Raptor R race truck with the production version. There have been several articles on the Raptor R that give the 500 hp figure but they also point out that this power level was achieved by modifying the stock 6.2 with exhaust headers, different cams, etc. FYI, the Raptor R is a specially modified race version that so far has finished third in class in the Baja 1000 and second in class in the Terribles 250 off-road races.

 

While I think it would be awesome if the stock Raptor 6.2 actually does come with 500 hp I expect the truth is that Mr. Hagerman should have done a little more research before writing that article.

[Ron W.]

2 Things come to mind...

First, you know what happens when you "assume"

Second, who needs a 500 H.P. half ton?

[blksn8k2]

2 Things come to mind...

First, you know what happens when you "assume"

Second, who needs a 500 H.P. half ton?

 

No one "needs" anything with 500 hp or 13" of suspension travel for that matter but lots of people seem to want one. That's like asking who needs a 1300 cc Harley...different strokes... :shades:

[rmc523]

http://www.truckblog.com/story-5415-ford_f...ble_winter_2010

 

This article says the 6.2 will have 400 horsepower/400 foot pounds of torque.

Edited May 11, 2009 by rmc523

[Noah Harbinger]

No one "needs" anything with 500 hp or 13" of suspension travel for that matter but lots of people seem to want one. That's like asking who needs a 1300 cc Harley...different strokes... :shades:

 

Although at the price point where we'll be seeing the 6.2L Raptor, probably few who don't take advantage of its strengths will be buying one...

Edited May 11, 2009 by Noah Harbinger

[rmc523]

Although at the price point where we'll be seeing the 6.2L Raptor, probably few who don't take advantage of its strengths will be buying one...

 

Perhaps in this economy, yes......but I'm sure you'll still find many who are buying one just to have it.

[jpd80]

2 Things come to mind...

First, you know what happens when you "assume"

Second, who needs a 500 H.P. Mustang/Falcon

 

There, I fixed it for you.

[falcman]

There, I fixed it for you.

:happy feet:

 

 

But will we get it?

[SVTCobra]

Well, I can see the stock 6.2 having 400hp. But, how many SVT branded products have been released with stock engines? Every SVT product released (maybe with the exclusion of the 5.4 version of the Raptor) has had a modified version of a production engine with increased power. Why not release the 6.2 Raptor with factory headers, cams and intake? It would be a great way to test and showcase mods they can make available for the stock 6.2. Now, in the case of the 5.4 Raptor, there is no return on developing and validating a modified version of the engine. The 5.4 is only a stop-gap until the 6.2 becomes available.

 

Just my .02.

[NickF1011]

Well, I can see the stock 6.2 having 400hp. But, how many SVT branded products have been released with stock engines? Every SVT product released (maybe with the exclusion of the 5.4 version of the Raptor) has had a modified version of a production engine with increased power. Why not release the 6.2 Raptor with factory headers, cams and intake? It would be a great way to test and showcase mods they can make available for the stock 6.2. Now, in the case of the 5.4 Raptor, there is no return on developing and validating a modified version of the engine. The 5.4 is only a stop-gap until the 6.2 becomes available.

 

Just my .02.

 

A 6.2 with headers, cams, and intake would probably have a heck of a hard time meeting emissions standards and fuel economy would likely take a huge hit. The fact that no other 1/2 ton is getting the 6.2 already speaks to what SVT is doing with it.

[White99GT]

A 6.2 with headers, cams, and intake would probably have a heck of a hard time meeting emissions standards and fuel economy would likely take a huge hit.

 

Not necessarily. We don't know the cam specs of the ~400 HP 6.2. It's entirely possible the 6.2 could benefit from more aggressive cams without sacrificing idle quality or emissions. The Mach 1s gain upwards of 10 rwhp just by installing 96-01 Cobra intake camshafts with no loss of drivability, and the '00 Cobra R camshafts were far more aggressive still.

 

Have you seen the Tundra 5.7 headers? They are better than some aftermarket Modular shorties.

 

Also, a more aggressive tune with increased timing generally improves fuel economy.

[NickF1011]

Not necessarily. We don't know the cam specs of the ~400 HP 6.2. It's entirely possible the 6.2 could benefit from more aggressive cams without sacrificing idle quality or emissions. The Mach 1s gain upwards of 10 rwhp just by installing 96-01 Cobra intake camshafts with no loss of drivability, and the '00 Cobra R camshafts were far more aggressive still.

 

Have you seen the Tundra 5.7 headers? They are better than some aftermarket Modular shorties.

 

 

Also, a more aggressive tune with increased timing generally improves fuel economy.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but you're talking about a 100 HP gain here. That's not going to improve fuel economy no matter how you slice and dice it. And then you have to wonder about other things-- does the Raptor R even have mufflers or catalytic converters? Can it pass driveby noise standards? Does it meet Ford's NVH criteria for production vehicles? Does it meet Ford's durability standards that all of their production engines do? I think combining a bunch of those answers together gets us to where the production 6.2 in the Raptor sits.

[silvrsvt]

The fact that no other 1/2 ton is getting the 6.2 already speaks to what SVT is doing with it.

 

Um I thought that the 6.2 was going in the Platinum F-150 trim

[NickF1011]

Um I thought that the 6.2 was going in the Platinum F-150 trim

 

So it has been rumored. I don't think that has been confirmed anywhere yet.

[ausrutherford]

Not necessarily. We don't know the cam specs of the ~400 HP 6.2. It's entirely possible the 6.2 could benefit from more aggressive cams without sacrificing idle quality or emissions. The Mach 1s gain upwards of 10 rwhp just by installing 96-01 Cobra intake camshafts with no loss of drivability, and the '00 Cobra R camshafts were far more aggressive still.

 

Have you seen the Tundra 5.7 headers? They are better than some aftermarket Modular shorties.

 

Also, a more aggressive tune with increased timing generally improves fuel economy.

Yup i have! they are amazing!...for they brake all the time.

[atomaro]

It is a good possibility that the author of the article was referring to the Raptor that actually competed in the Baja race. That was indeed a 500hp engine.

[blksn8k2]

It is a good possibility that the author of the article was referring to the Raptor that actually competed in the Baja race. That was indeed a 500hp engine.

 

The problem is that if that is what he meant he should have stated it that way. Now we have a Ford publication stating hp figures that people will assume are for every 6.2 Raptor. Sooner or later someone is going to call Ford on this. I can hear it now, "You guys pulled this same crap with the 99 Cobra!"

[blksn8k2]

Um I thought that the 6.2 was going in the Platinum F-150 trim

 

There have been photos of at least one F150 Harley-Davidson Edition floating around the internet with 6.2L BOSS on the engine cover.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/17/6-2l-bo...arley-davidson/

[7Mary3]

I wonder how the Boss will compare to the 6.4L Hemi that's coming out in the 2011 Ram.

[blksn8k2]

I wonder how the Boss will compare to the 6.4L Hemi that's coming out in the 2011 Ram.

 

Better wait to make sure there is a 2011 Ram. Or is that Topolino?

[White99GT]

That's all fine and dandy, but you're talking about a 100 HP gain here. That's not going to improve fuel economy no matter how you slice and dice it.

 

Really? The '03/'04 305 HP Mach 1 got better fuel economy than the '03/'04 260 HP Mustang GT, in spite of weighing 200 lbs. more and having 3.55s versus 3.27s.

 

2004 Ford Mustang

4.6L 2V 260 hp V8 - 4.6L 4V 305 hp V8

5-Speed Manual: 17 / 25 mpg - 17 / 26 mpg

[jpvbs]

If dodge still exists in 2011, they may be the one with the 500 V8 in their trucks.

 

6.4 hemi

[Blue II]

There, I fixed it for you.

 

GT 500 for sure.

[falcman]

This motor is a monster.

 

GT 500 for sure.

That would be a mongrel. I thought there was an alloy 5.4SC meant to be used in the GT500? Or is the 6.2-in-a-Mustang meant to be for a later iteration of the GT500? I can see there to be quite a few different and lethal factory SE models as RR and RRR would also give the Mustang a deadly punch. Good times ahead.

[NickF1011]

Really? The '03/'04 305 HP Mach 1 got better fuel economy than the '03/'04 260 HP Mustang GT, in spite of weighing 200 lbs. more and having 3.55s versus 3.27s.

 

2004 Ford Mustang

4.6L 2V 260 hp V8 - 4.6L 4V 305 hp V8

5-Speed Manual: 17 / 25 mpg - 17 / 26 mpg

 

I wasn't aware that 305-260=100.

 

And according to fueleconomy.gov (using the new fuel economy measurements), the 5-speed GT and 5-speed Mach 1 are both rated 15/23.

Edited May 12, 2009 by NickF1011