6.2L vs 6.8L in commercial truck

[theoldwizard]

So I was poking around the Ford web site and looked at some of the stuff under commercial trucks and found something interesting. Commercial truck includes F350/450 chassis cab and everything else up to F650/750.

 

Somewhere around the F450, the 6.2L goes away and is replaced by the 6.8L (V10 modular 3V). Also around 10,000 GVW, the 6.2L gets de-rated. It is de-rated so far that the 6.8L has more torque and almost as much hp !

 

So what's the deal ? The 6,2L can't hack heavy loads or what ?

[TomServo92]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/43963-ford-debuts-gasoline-powered-f-650-medium-duty-work-truck/

[Joe771476]

I saw an F450 with a fifth wheel hauling a what must have been 30 to 40 foot moving van trailer. I'm wondering if an F450 Super Duty with the V-10 gas or the 6.2 diesel could adequately tow a soda beverage trailer without straining/destroying the engine or sucking up more fuel than a class 8 tractor would. Anybody like Bob R. or 7Mary have any imput? And if it wasn't feasible, how would the F750's fair? Would they require the Cummins diesel?

Edited March 14, 2011 by Joe771476

[7Mary3]

What you are seeing with regards to the 6.2L V-8 and 6.8L V-10 output has to do with how the engines are rated in so-called 'medium' duty trucks. The 6.2L is the same engine whether it is installed in an F-250 or an F-350 dually. The difference is the F-350 6.2L is rated at a lower r.p.m. than the lighter truck. Since the horsepower and torque peak in the 6.2L is at a rather high r.p.m., the engine appears to be derated in the heavier truck.

 

My understanding is the 6.2L V-8 was designed to specifically replace the V-10. The V-10 is expensive to manufacture. Think about it- the engine has 10 piston/rod assembles, 30 valves/springs/followers, a balance shaft, 10 injectors, ect.. The engine is long and heavy too. I think the V-10 is still around (for the moment) for plant utilization and to help offset 6.2L demand. I think that the 6.2L (or a 6.2L derivative) will eventually replace the V-10 completely.

 

Can a 6.7L Powerstroke or 6.2L gasser handle a beverage trailer? It all depends on GVW/GCW, but I wouldn't spec. either engine for that vocation. Just because an engine/truck is rated for a specific GVW/GCW doesn't mean it can reliably do that job for 5 or 10 years. Beverage trailers can be quite heavy, and that is stop-and-go service. Pretty rough, particularly in a big city.

[theoldwizard]

My understanding is the 6.2L V-8 was designed to specifically replace the V-10. The V-10 is expensive to manufacture. Think about it- the engine has 10 piston/rod assembles, 30 valves/springs/followers, a balance shaft, 10 injectors, ect.. The engine is long and heavy too. I think the V-10 is still around (for the moment) for plant utilization and to help offset 6.2L demand. I think that the 6.2L (or a 6.2L derivative) will eventually replace the V-10 completely.

My assumptions are the EXACT same as yours, but something is bugging me. A nagging feeling.

 

WHY did they rate the 6.2L in the F350 dually at a lower RPM ? I mean don't you want to advertise the highest horsepower/torque possible ? Like maybe it is de-rated to increase durability that might be compromised under heavy load conditions (beverage trailer) ???

 

Just a nagging feeling.

[7Mary3]

My assumptions are the EXACT same as yours, but something is bugging me. A nagging feeling.

 

WHY did they rate the 6.2L in the F350 dually at a lower RPM ? I mean don't you want to advertise the highest horsepower/torque possible ? Like maybe it is de-rated to increase durability that might be compromised under heavy load conditions (beverage trailer) ???

 

Just a nagging feeling.

 

My understanding is that the issue is an EPA thing. Has to do with uniform ratings, I guess. I know that a GM 6.0L V-8 is 360 h.p. in a 2500, but it is 312 h.p. in a 3500. All because the ratings taken at a different r.p.m.. Same engine.

[Bob Rosadini]

I would say the HP/Torque rating game is a marketing game to a large

degree. And also one that can get people in trouble do to misapplication. Remember the Power Stroke (6.0) was originally offered in the 650-not sure about the 750-but at the same HP ratings as the Cat 3126. Not that the Cat was the best motor but what would you rather have?

 

Better example was the Cat 3208. When it first came out, It was sold by Ford as the "V-200, V-225" etc. At 225 HP, think it was a comparable motor to say a Cummins NH -230? or even an older 220 Cummins? No way-

 

I think 7M makes a good point that a lot of the V-10 vs. 6.2 issue has to do with just what Ford's plant utilization is at the moment. And as the old saying goes-"give me a bucket of paint and a brush and I'll paint you whatever picture you want."

[Sevensecondsuv]

Of course the V10 makes more torque at a lower RPM than the 6.2L. It's stoke is roughly 3/8" longer and it has an extra 2 cylinders with that stroke. The V10 is an absolute torque machine as far as a gasser goes. The 6.2L is also a great engine, but better flowing heads and the latest technological gizmos tend to primarily affect HP, rather than torque. Torque is still mostly a function of displacement and stroke. Now all that doesn't mean that Ford won't eventually completely replace the V10 with the 6.2L. It wouldn't be the first time Ford did away with an awesome product and replaced it with a "newer, more cost-effective" product that never really fills the shoes of the old one.

[White99GT]

Torque is still mostly a function of displacement and stroke.

 

Torque is a function of displacement and H/C/I tuning. Some of the best high revvers around are small bore, long stroke/undersquare engines and vice versa.

[MGolden]

Our Fleet is expecting a new F550 2nd week of april. 200"WB with a v10. THis will be our second unit. This truck tows/hauls just fine with the 4.88 rear. Our boss tried everything possible to convince himself that a diesel is necessary but cannot do it. It would be nice and fun to have more power, but from a business standpoint just doesnt make sense. I get hell from all the Diesel guys on the some popular diesel sites about the business case for gas vs. diesel. They try every excuse possible to justify owning their truck. I have no problem with diesels but if you are looking at cost of ownership, with fuel prices as they are, they dont make sense. That being said, the v10 is a very robust engine. It doesnt have the v v t mech to come apart like the 5.4's we have had. We only have 1 f250 with the 6.2L and it is awesome. Much better fuel ecomony vs the v10 f250's. (13 vs 10) .

 

If the 6.2L holds up to our normal 250-300k miles then it is a real winner. I would think with the 6 speed auto, it would do just fine towing even in the big F550. I ,like others, look for a larger version of this engine in the near future and say bye to the v10. just my thoughts.........

[theoldwizard]

... I have no problem with diesels but if you are looking at cost of ownership, with fuel prices as they are, they dont make sense.

Blame the government for ruining diesels. Particulate filters, urea injection, etc are additional expenses. Of course big turbos, inter-coolers and compact graphite iron blocks are additional expenses not found in most gas engines. How many quarts of oil in a 6.7L diesel vs. the 5.8L V10 ? You can buy a lot of spark plugs for that difference !

 

I'm surprises that "total cost of ownership" is important for what sounds like a small fleet. I know it is a HUGE issue for larger fleets.

[lfeg]

Total cost of ownership is the big driver for just about any fleet today. The business climate is brutal whan it comes to costs today, and whenever there is an opportunityto cut, or keep things from rising too much, you have no choice but to do it.

As to gas vs diesel, based on total cost of ownership we have never (at least over the last 20 + years) been able to justify a diesel E Series over a gas E Series. Even keeping them on the road until well past their prime, the gas engines lower initial costs and lower service costs overcome fuel economy benefits of diesel. And the resale value for a van beat up in warehouse and pickup/delivery service is not much different for gas vs diesel in our experience.

[Blue II]

While we will never see the likes of the 477 & 534 again, it's likely we will see a Hurricane HD. There will be a need for a HD gas DI turbocharged 7.0 engine. You'll likely see alternative fuel versions as well.

[fordmantpw]

While we will never see the likes of the 477 & 534 again, it's likely we will see a Hurricane HD. There will be a need for a HD gas DI turbocharged 7.0 engine. You'll likely see alternative fuel versions as well.

 

Wow! DI turbo 7.0? In a SuperDuty or larger? What about a DI turbo 6.2? That would be a perfect diesel replacement in the SD IMO.

[Bob Rosadini]

While we will never see the likes of the 477 & 534 again, it's likely we will see a Hurricane HD. There will be a need for a HD gas DI turbocharged 7.0 engine. You'll likely see alternative fuel versions as well.

For sure- I always wondered what a Super Duty-you guys under 40-that is what the 401/477/534engines were known as-would have been like with a modern fuel system, ignition etc.

 

As for alternative fuels, I think the 650 with the V-10 will do well assuming it is available in an LPG version-at least those in the (33,000 lb gvw) propane delivery business will have an option to use their own fuel!

[jpvbs]

While we will never see the likes of the 477 & 534 again, it's likely we will see a Hurricane HD. There will be a need for a HD gas DI turbocharged 7.0 engine. You'll likely see alternative fuel versions as well.

 

I'm definitely feeling the need for a DI turbo big block to tow my 2klb camper behind an F150. 1000ft/lbs sounds just about right. :happy feet:

[fordmantpw]

I'm definitely feeling the need for a DI turbo big block to tow my 2klb camper behind an F150. 1000ft/lbs sounds just about right. :happy feet:

 

I'm buying an F650 to tow my pop-up! Hopefully it doesn't drag the fuel economy down too much!

[theoldwizard]

As for alternative fuels, I think the 650 with the V-10 will do well assuming it is available in an LPG version-at least those in the (33,000 lb gvw) propane delivery business will have an option to use their own fuel!

Ford has announced that the 2012 F650/750 V10 will be available with CNG "prep". CNG is cheap and likely to stay that way.

[Joe771476]

It's apparent that manufacturers are going to have to think outside the box....check out this design that Navistar/EcoMotors JV has come up with:

 

http://greenbigtruck.com/2011/02/navistar-and-ecomotors-to-develop-opoc/

[Captainp4]

Ford has announced that the 2012 F650/750 V10 will be available with CNG "prep". CNG is cheap and likely to stay that way.

 

 

How are the emissions on CNG? I've always wondered why it hasn't even been all that popular or why the manufacturers never pushed harder for it.

[theoldwizard]

How are the emissions on CNG? I've always wondered why it hasn't even been all that popular or why the manufacturers never pushed harder for it.

The current federal administration has pushed it to the far back burner. Tax credits ran out last year.

 

Most customers wouldn't buy it because of the cost (the tank takes up a lot of room and it is very heavy and expensive. I heard the steel is 1/2" thick).

 

Despite the downsides, fleets that put a lot of miles on their vehicles locally and are near an existing CNG filling station can save a lot on "total cost of ownership" because the fuel costs are low.

[Bob Rosadini]

The current federal administration has pushed it to the far back burner. Tax credits ran out last year.

 

Most customers wouldn't buy it because of the cost (the tank takes up a lot of room and it is very heavy and expensive. I heard the steel is 1/2" thick).

 

Despite the downsides, fleets that put a lot of miles on their vehicles locally and are near an existing CNG filling station can save a lot on "total cost of ownership" because the fuel costs are low.

I think the biggest block has been the lack of a distribution system to handle it. And you are correct on the weight issue-some of you west coast guys (7M?) probably remember when Ford had some Aeromaxes that had been converted from diesel to CNG-I think Vonns Supermarkets was one of the fleets- not sure if the engines were Cummins or Cats.

 

That is why I think a propane option would be a better one for the 650 gasser. It wasn't that long ago when Ford, GM and International all offered medium trucks with gas/lp options.

[theoldwizard]

That is why I think a propane option would be a better one for the 650 gasser. It wasn't that long ago when Ford, GM and International all offered medium trucks with gas/lp options.

As I said before, if a fleet has a nearby CNG filling station or can afford to install one, the cost of NG is much, MUCH less than LP (unless you are an LP company) !

 

Besides, because LP is a by-product of petroleum refining, LP will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

[7Mary3]

I think the biggest block has been the lack of a distribution system to handle it. And you are correct on the weight issue-some of you west coast guys (7M?) probably remember when Ford had some Aeromaxes that had been converted from diesel to CNG-I think Vonns Supermarkets was one of the fleets- not sure if the engines were Cummins or Cats.

 

That is why I think a propane option would be a better one for the 650 gasser. It wasn't that long ago when Ford, GM and International all offered medium trucks with gas/lp options.

 

CNG is going great guns here. All L.A.M.T.A. buses are on it, many municipal sanitation districts, almost all trucks operating within the port (trailer spotters).

 

Weight of the cylinders is not much of an issue, most are composite/aluminum now. Size is still an issue.

 

Yes, I remember the CNG (and LNG) Aeromaxes. Vons, L.A. Times, and out fleet tried them. Very few were built, and they were not successful. Most were only on the road a couple of years. The issues were engine/fuel system, nothing Ford did.