6.2L 'Boss' Rumor and a Question...

[7Mary3]

First off, I have heard a rumor that Ford is already thinking about replacing the 'Boss' engine family with larger versions of the 5.0L 'Coyote' V-8. This wouldn't happen for quite some time, but the story is the 'Boss' can only be used in trucks while the 'Coyote' is capable of larger displacements, so it would make sense to eventually consolidate down to one V-8 engine family. I personally don't believe that story, but maybe someone can shed more light on it. Now the 'Boss' question is why is Ford continuing the 3 valve V-10 in the 450 and 550 and not using the 'Boss' in those trucks? I can't see the sense in that decision at all. I understand why the 2 valve V-10 is staying around for the E series (width issue) but I have no clue why they are keeping the 3 valve V-10. The 'Boss' is going to make a lot more horsepower, and the torque will not be that far off. What gives?

[jpd80]

Coyote 5.0 V8 shares the 4.6's bore spacing and deck height making increases in

capacity difficult and using the 5.4's high deck would only yield about 5.6 liters.

 

The best route for power adding is Turbos or a supercharger.

 

Boss 6.2 is here until at least 2015.

Edited December 29, 2009 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Coyote 5.0 V8 shares the 4.6's bore spacing and deck height making increases in

capacity difficult and using the 5.4's high deck would only yield about 5.6 liters.

Doing this, would also bring back the 5.4L biggest problem. The long stroke introduces significant sliding friction from the piston rings. HP and Torque will not scale up !

[jpd80]

The 5.4s are now redundant, they served a purpose but time to move on to the newer Ford engines.

 

Heck, the 6.2 isn't even out and some are wishing it gone, we should experience it before dismissing it.

[ausrutherford]

The 5.4s are now redundant, they served a purpose but time to move on to the newer Ford engines.

 

Heck, the 6.2 isn't even out and some are wishing it gone, we should experience it before dismissing it.

 

They could switch it to aluminium to save weight like the 5.4 SC next year (eventhough it already was for the GT).

[atvman]

I want to know why Ford didn't built the Boss with a 3V head. When the 4.6L and 5.4L made the switch from 2V to 3V, they gained about 15% more power. If the Boss were to even yield half that, it would still be at about 440hp. Perhaps they are saving it for a few years down the road? Also, where's the DI? I think the Boss is going to be a great engine, I just can't help but think that it could have been better.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, as the above poster said, if you left the 5.4L stroke alone and just increased the bore to the same size as the 5.0L, the 5.4L would become a 5.6L. However, if you conclude that it will make the 66% of the same percentage of improvements that the 4.6L made going to 5.0L, you'd have an engine that is now rated at ~400 HP and, hold on to your bottoms, 430 lbs of torque. That's using a rather toned down 1.17 improvement factor instead of the 1.24 that the 4.6L got going to 5.0L.

 

Now, I ask you, would you prefer a heavier, thirsty 6.2L V8, or a lighter TiVCt DOHC 5.6L V8 that makes almost as much power, but is likely more efficient at doing it? Frankly, in the F-150, I think I'd rather have the 5.6L version of the 5.4L. Now, I realize that this is benchracing the engines, and that the tune on the mustang is going to be rather different than a truck tune for the f-150. But, If they go conservative on the 5.6L in the truck and make 375 hp and 420 lbs of torque, that's still going to bring it into the pack for engines in it's competitive set. That would also mean saving jobs and reusing parts at the existing 5.4L plants in the US instead of using more of them down in Mexico. It would likely be a more expensive engine than it is now, but, not by a major amount.

[Deanh]

Well, as the above poster said, if you left the 5.4L stroke alone and just increased the bore to the same size as the 5.0L, the 5.4L would become a 5.6L. However, if you conclude that it will make the 66% of the same percentage of improvements that the 4.6L made going to 5.0L, you'd have an engine that is now rated at ~400 HP and, hold on to your bottoms, 430 lbs of torque. That's using a rather toned down 1.17 improvement factor instead of the 1.24 that the 4.6L got going to 5.0L.

 

Now, I ask you, would you prefer a heavier, thirsty 6.2L V8, or a lighter TiVCt DOHC 5.6L V8 that makes almost as much power, but is likely more efficient at doing it? Frankly, in the F-150, I think I'd rather have the 5.6L version of the 5.4L. Now, I realize that this is benchracing the engines, and that the tune on the mustang is going to be rather different than a truck tune for the f-150. But, If they go conservative on the 5.6L in the truck and make 375 hp and 420 lbs of torque, that's still going to bring it into the pack for engines in it's competitive set. That would also mean saving jobs and reusing parts at the existing 5.4L plants in the US instead of using more of them down in Mexico. It would likely be a more expensive engine than it is now, but, not by a major amount.

sorry to burst bubbles boys, but the chances of 4 valve per cylinder heads making it into an f series are ZERO....2 or 3 valve maybe and tuned for torque/ towing...so no valves, noTiVCt and no DOHC would be my bet.....any takers?.

[atvman]

Well, as the above poster said, if you left the 5.4L stroke alone and just increased the bore to the same size as the 5.0L, the 5.4L would become a 5.6L. However, if you conclude that it will make the 66% of the same percentage of improvements that the 4.6L made going to 5.0L, you'd have an engine that is now rated at ~400 HP and, hold on to your bottoms, 430 lbs of torque. That's using a rather toned down 1.17 improvement factor instead of the 1.24 that the 4.6L got going to 5.0L.

 

Now, I ask you, would you prefer a heavier, thirsty 6.2L V8, or a lighter TiVCt DOHC 5.6L V8 that makes almost as much power, but is likely more efficient at doing it? Frankly, in the F-150, I think I'd rather have the 5.6L version of the 5.4L. Now, I realize that this is benchracing the engines, and that the tune on the mustang is going to be rather different than a truck tune for the f-150. But, If they go conservative on the 5.6L in the truck and make 375 hp and 420 lbs of torque, that's still going to bring it into the pack for engines in it's competitive set. That would also mean saving jobs and reusing parts at the existing 5.4L plants in the US instead of using more of them down in Mexico. It would likely be a more expensive engine than it is now, but, not by a major amount.

 

I agree with this sentiment. Even if Ford were to keep building the 6.2L for the SD, a stroked 5.0L (5.6L) would be a great F150 engine. Your 400hp/420lb-ft estimates were about what I figured a stroked 5.0L could make in F150 trim. Even if it only makes 375hp and 420lb-ft it would be a very welcome addition to the F150.

 

BTW, is the 6.2L going to make its way into the F150 or is it an SD and Raptor only engine?

[Hemiman]

I agree with this sentiment. Even if Ford were to keep building the 6.2L for the SD, a stroked 5.0L (5.6L) would be a great F150 engine. Your 400hp/420lb-ft estimates were about what I figured a stroked 5.0L could make in F150 trim. Even if it only makes 375hp and 420lb-ft it would be a very welcome addition to the F150.

 

BTW, is the 6.2L going to make its way into the F150 or is it an SD and Raptor only engine?

 

 

The 6.2 addresses loading on the main and rod bearings that the 5.4/5.6 can't. The increased bore spacing allows for an increase in bearing width. As the HP and tow ratings go up, this becomes a real issue.

[theoldwizard]

I want to know why Ford didn't built the Boss with a 3V head.

This engine "came back from the dead" at least twice. There was much debate about number of valves and even OHC vs. pushrod.

 

My guess is 2 valves are cheaper than 3, although another head on this engine is not completely out of the question after a few years.

[theoldwizard]

BTW, is the 6.2L going to make its way into the F150 or is it an SD and Raptor only engine?

The 6.2L is primarily aimed at the Super Duty (F-250/F-350) but as you said it will show up in some limited edition F-150 models.

 

How much you want to bet it never shows up in an E-Series ?

[NLPRacing]

The 6.2L is primarily aimed at the Super Duty (F-250/F-350) but as you said it will show up in some limited edition F-150 models.

 

How much you want to bet it never shows up in an E-Series ?

 

Not even as a Class C motorhome?

[White99GT]

sorry to burst bubbles boys, but the chances of 4 valve per cylinder heads making it into an f series are ZERO....2 or 3 valve maybe and tuned for torque/ towing...so no valves, noTiVCt and no DOHC would be my bet.....any takers?.

 

I'll take that bet. F150 is getting a 4V 5.0L next year.

[Deanh]

I'll take that bet. F150 is getting a 4V 5.0L next year.

you are on...Starbux...a DOHC 4 valve in a work type vehicle is un-necessarily complex and 4 valves usually moves the torque curve UP the Rpm range, which is pointless on a pickup ( unless we witness anothe SVT variant of course in which higher RPM HP takes precedence, unless blown of course )

[old_fairmont_wagon]

With two of their 4 competitors using 4V dOHC engines, I wouldn't be shocked. Though, those two competitors are the smallest of the 4. The others use, lets see, a dual plug 2V pushrod (HEMI) and a single plug 2V pushrod GM v8.

[kenp77]

I will go with white on this one, they are still having cam phaser issues on the 5.4 and ford needs to be competitive with the other 3 players or they will loose sales. Dean: U think we will hear anything at the detroit auto show on this issue????

[Deanh]

I will go with white on this one, they are still having cam phaser issues on the 5.4 and ford needs to be competitive with the other 3 players or they will loose sales. Dean: U think we will hear anything at the detroit auto show on this issue????

nope, have heard the 6.2 is having hiccups though....

[jpd80]

So a truck version of 5.0 is going to replace the old 5.4 3V in the F150, that sounds kind of risky.

Maybe that's where the Ecoboost V6 comes in with its good spread of torque, interesting times ahead...

 

Surely having 6.2 engine option on mid and upper series has to be the plan,

people still want the easy torque that comes with a big relaxed engine.

Edited December 29, 2009 by jpd80

[Hemiman]

quote name='jpd80' post='583296' date='Dec 30 2009, 12:19 AM']Surely having 6.2 engine option on mid and upper series has to be the plan,

people still want the easy torque that comes with a big relaxed engine.

 

 

This may have been posted already, but it has some nice pics of the 6.2 Pics 22 & 24 are of particular interest to me.

 

http://jalopnik.com/5367095/2011-ford-f+se...allery/gallery/

 

A few more:

 

Edited December 30, 2009 by Hemiman

[7Mary3]

The 3 valve head on the Tritons was a total band-aid. The cylinder bore is so small that if the intake valve sizes are increased the valve is shrouded too much, and there is no improvement in breathing. The solution in this case is to go with 2 intake valves, as 2 small valves and ports have more unshrouded open area in a small bore cylinder. Of course, there is a penalty in increased mechanical drag from the additional valves, more weight, more complexity. The 3 valve V-10 is a study in mechanical drag with it's long stroke, 10 cylinders, 30 valves, and balance shaft. Not to mention it is also long and wide. The 6.2L is a step in the right direction, and has far more potential than the V-10 ever did. And, the 'Boss' simply has no need for more than a 2 valve head, as the valve and port sizes are large enough for a 7+L engine.

Edited December 29, 2009 by 7Mary3

[White99GT]

you are on...Starbux...a DOHC 4 valve in a work type vehicle is un-necessarily complex and 4 valves usually moves the torque curve UP the Rpm range, which is pointless on a pickup ( unless we witness anothe SVT variant of course in which higher RPM HP takes precedence, unless blown of course )

 

Improvement in power across the entire powerband, allowing a 5.0L engine to make power comparable to competitor's 5.7 engines with superior fuel economy. Sounds like win - win to me. 4V is coming to F150. :hyper:

 

Additional complexity doesn't come with a decrease in reliability.

[kenp77]

nope, have heard the 6.2 is having hiccups though....

Deano: U are scaring me here was really hoping for a 5.0 in the f-150 guess all we can do is wait and see now. Happy New Year

[Deanh]

The 3 valve head on the Tritons was a total band-aid. The cylinder bore is so small that if the intake valve sizes are increased the valve is shrouded too much, and there is no improvement in breathing. The solution in this case is to go with 2 intake valves, as 2 small valves and ports have more unshrouded open area in a small bore cylinder. Of course, there is a penalty in increased mechanical drag from the additional valves, more weight, more complexity. The 3 valve V-10 is a study in mechanical drag with it's long stroke, 10 cylinders, 30 valves, and balance shaft. Not to mention it is also long and wide. The 6.2L is a step in the right direction, and has far more potential than the V-10 ever did. And, the 'Boss' simply has no need for more than a 2 valve head, as the valve and port sizes are large enough for a 7+L engine.

band aid perhaps, I also heard the gains of the 4V heads were not that significant given the additional costs/ complexity and purported dependability....classic case of trade offs....

[jpd80]

The 3 valve head on the Tritons was a total band-aid.

With all of the mucking around Ford did with the Mod 3V heads, they could have redesigned

the existing 4V heads years ago to accept basic VCT and reaped a lot more benefit.

 

There's obviously a reason why they didn't do that but it just seems strange now...

Edited December 30, 2009 by jpd80