Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Joe771476

New light & medium duty news

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ausrutherford said:

So, just to be clear the 7.3L will make it into the F-650 and F-750, right?

Since the 7.3L is intended to replace the 6.8L Triton V10, yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Thank you for that, it's been my belief that every engine intended for MD has to be suitably upgraded for the expected heavy and sustained load. It wasn't something peculiar to the 6.2 Boss, just something that highlighted the engines lack of capacity and unsuitability in that role....however, a bore and stroke increase like the GM 6.6 V8 received  might have worked...it may have needed more capacity like 7.0 liters

I think it both understandable and unfortunate that Ford first developed the 6.2 Boss to work across F150 and SD.  Ford did originally have a plan for two Boss capacities a 5.8 and a 6.2 but if the Boss had been developed just for Super Duty, I'm sure that Ford would have increased capacity and made it a true replacement for the 6.8 V10. Obviously that wasn't the plan and everything worked out OK in the end with the 6.8 V10 3V making a reappearance in MD.

The 7.3 V8 now sits above the 6.2 Boss which is fine by me as plenty of buyers will love both engines, so I'm wondering how or if Ford can build more. Maybe Ford will be forced to make more SD capacity....

 

The BOSS engine family was originally supposed to have 3 displacements 5.8/6.2/7.0. Both 2 and 4 valve cylinder heads. The 2V head was provisioned for DI and I'd assume if the 4V head ever made it past the 777 design study it would have had this provision as well. The 5.8L variant didn't meet its FE goals for the Mustang application it was meant for. But this variant would probably be the one to get the EB treatment if they were ever going to do a GTDI version of any current V8 engine family. I don't think that will happen though, if an EB V8 engine ever makes it out of Ford it will probably be an all new engine of smaller (4.xL ish) displacement with inside-out flow like the 6.7L Powerstroke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was happy to see about five Class 4 or 5 Ford tow trucks on the cover of Tow Times magazine with an F650/750 medium in the middle, all from the same towing outfit.  But what lurked inside was ominous.  International's new CV class 4 and 5 trucks are of course targeting Ford's leadership and the cabs are the size of Ford's mediums F650/750.  But just thinking, they might LOOK more powerful and intimidating, but will the extra weight and size translate into less maneuverability and less fuel mileage?  I told you:  VW, International, GM......all of them want a piece of Ford's action!  So now it's time to go after THEIR action and enter Class 8!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently invited to an event where the topic is the new International class 4 &5 trucks. These guys must be planning a real push as these are introduced as they are doing this one on a Sunday in just over a week. About all I know other than the topic is that someone from a dealer in Y-town will be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 3:59 PM, Joe771476 said:

I was happy to see about five Class 4 or 5 Ford tow trucks on the cover of Tow Times magazine with an F650/750 medium in the middle, all from the same towing outfit.  But what lurked inside was ominous.  International's new CV class 4 and 5 trucks are of course targeting Ford's leadership and the cabs are the size of Ford's mediums F650/750.  But just thinking, they might LOOK more powerful and intimidating, but will the extra weight and size translate into less maneuverability and less fuel mileage?  I told you:  VW, International, GM......all of them want a piece of Ford's action!  So now it's time to go after THEIR action and enter Class 8!!

Hate to say it Joe but I think we can forget about class 8.  Let's just hope they do a good job with what is left-in particular class 4-7.  Hopefully we will see some good things at the upcoming Work Truck Show.   The 7.3 V-8 is a good start and that should do very well in class 6 and 7-in particular as of now it will have no gas engine competition in conventional cabs.  You can bet though that International for sure will not be content to abandon the gasoline/"gaseous" market when Ford starts to show some success.

By the way did see a new Davey Tree 750 bucket truck in service the other day and it was a 6.7.  Interesting as story I heard were the tree guys who have a lot of engine idling time were fed up with the diesel regen issues and have been asking for good gasoline power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 10:11 AM, RPF said:

The BOSS engine family was originally supposed to have 3 displacements 5.8/6.2/7.0. Both 2 and 4 valve cylinder heads. The 2V head was provisioned for DI and I'd assume if the 4V head ever made it past the 777 design study it would have had this provision as well.

I doubt that the 2V was ever provisioned for DI given the need for two spark plugs..

001.jpg

 

Quote

The 5.8L variant didn't meet its FE goals for the Mustang application it was meant for. But this variant would probably be the one to get the EB treatment if they were ever going to do a GTDI version of any current V8 engine family. I don't think that will happen though, if an EB V8 engine ever makes it out of Ford it will probably be an all new engine of smaller (4.xL ish) displacement with inside-out flow like the 6.7L Powerstroke

I heard that the big issue with Hurricane/ Boss was that Ford couldn't get its cylinder deactivation tech to work properly and  that  was the major reason why the Boss program was curtailed back to just the 6.2 V8. The Ecoboost V6 was pressed to the fore to improve FE.

The 777 program was relegated to racing with no real intent of using it in any truck,  Ford being more interested in selling 6.7 Powerstroke at $8K premium. Had Ford given the 6.2 a little more deck height and stroke as  a 6.8 or 7.0 V8 engine could have been the ideal replacement for the 6.8 V10  in Super Duty and commercial vehicles years ago. It was unfortunate that at the time Ford could not see just how big of a success the new the 3.5 EB V6.was gong to be in not only F150 but also in FWD.AWD vehicles.

 

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Hate to say it Joe but I think we can forget about class 8.  Let's just hope they do a good job with what is left-in particular class 4-7.  Hopefully we will see some good things at the upcoming Work Truck Show.   The 7.3 V-8 is a good start and that should do very well in class 6 and 7-in particular as of now it will have no gas engine competition in conventional cabs.  You can bet though that International for sure will not be content to abandon the gasoline/"gaseous" market when Ford starts to show some success.

By the way did see a new Davey Tree 750 bucket truck in service the other day and it was a 6.7.  Interesting as story I heard were the tree guys who have a lot of engine idling time were fed up with the diesel regen issues and have been asking for good gasoline power. 

The new 7.3 V8 is probably going to have around the 500 lb ft mark which, if I'm not mistake, is close to the torque provided by the older 7.3 Powerstroke. I know that comparison is with an engines from ages ago but maybe Ford  overshoots that mark with the newer 6.7 PS when all these guys want is something closer to what they used to have but in a less costly and easier to maintain engine package..

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I doubt that the 2V was ever provisioned for DI given the need for two spark plugs..

That came directly from the engine program's chief engineer. The link is earlier in this topic.

 

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The 777 program was relegated to racing with no real intent of using it in any truck

The 777 was a 7.0L BOSS engine with a 4V head. The point is that the 7L displacement was designed as well as the 4V head for this engine family. It's not like it would need a new development program.

 

The information that has come out about the 7.3L indicates that it is an engine designed to constantly and under high load put out a large fraction of its available power at a relatively low RPM. This indicates that the peak power number may not be as high as many would like (relatively low specific output for an engine introduced in 2020) and is probably not a good "performance" engine for a high-end Mustang or V8 Raptor. A 7L 4V BOSS would fit that application better.

 

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I heard that the big issue with Hurricane/ Boss was that Ford couldn't get its cylinder deactivation tech to work properly and  that  was the major reason why the Boss program was curtailed back to just the 6.2 V8.

That's the first I have heard of that being the reason for a 6.2L displacement. As far as I have heard from those in the know about the program, that was always a planned displacement of the 3 for the engine family. Only recently has Ford tried to put DOD on an OHC engine, and I believe it is on a new 3 and 4 cylinder engine family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The new 7.3 V8 is probably going to have around the 500 lb ft mark which, if I'm not mistake, is close to the torque provided by the older 7.3 Powerstroke. I know that comparison is with an engines from ages ago but maybe Ford  overshoots that mark with the newer 6.7 PS when all these guys want is something closer to what they used to have but in a less costly and easier to maintain engine package..

If the 7.3 comes out close to 500 lb ft I say  ..."Home Run".   Again it IS a medium duty truck engine!. 

Not to again dwell in the past but the 534 I think in its best form never put out more than around 266HP and 481 lb ft.  AND it was used in T-950's with up to 15,000 lb fronts and 60,000 lb rears for a GVW of 75,000 lbs!  In my long ago youth, triaxles had not come of age.  So you moved dirt in 10 wheelers or tandem tractors pulling tandem dump trailers.  And trust me Ford Super Duty T-950's were very much in use-with that 534 under the hood moving big loads with just 481 lb ft!

I think everyone has lost perspective with these crazy Power Stroke, Duramax, Cummins 6.7's with HP and torque numbers that are far greater than the HP and torque ratings of a lot of 60's, 70's class 8 diesels.

Thanks to today's electronics, these monsters are controlled so they don't destroy the rest of the drivetrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RPF said:

That came directly from the engine program's chief engineer. The link is earlier in this topic.

.....................................................................

The 777 was a 7.0L BOSS engine with a 4V head. The point is that the 7L displacement was designed as well as the 4V head for this engine family. It's not like it would need a new development program.

1. I think that the program engineer was talking about the new 7.3 V8, not the 6.2 Boss.

2. Rousch developed the 7.0 V8 for racing, pretty sure it still had the massive 2V heads...

Quote

The information that has come out about the 7.3L indicates that it is an engine designed to constantly and under high load put out a large fraction of its available power at a relatively low RPM. This indicates that the peak power number may not be as high as many would like (relatively low specific output for an engine introduced in 2020) and is probably not a good "performance" engine for a high-end Mustang or V8 Raptor. A 7L 4V BOSS would fit that application better.

I think you're cherry picking what was said to fit your narrative, yes the engine will have high specific power output in the lower rpm but the program engneer also said that the 7.3 will operate at similar engine speeds as the current truck engines (6.2 & 6.8)

Quote

That's the first I have heard of that being the reason for a 6.2L displacement. As far as I have heard from those in the know about the program, that was always a planned displacement of the 3 for the engine family. Only recently has Ford tried to put DOD on an OHC engine, and I believe it is on a new 3 and 4 cylinder engine family.

First off, Ford had been trying to develop cylinder deactivation for years in the 1990s and 2000s but for what ever reason, the engines did not receive it, so that limited their usability in vehicles subjected to CAFE and probably why the 6.2 was so short lived in the F150. Secondly, the 5.8 and 7.0 never made it to production, so plans obviously changed from 2005 to 2010. We can only summize that ford wasn't confident in replacing the 6.8 with the 7.0 Boss be that a reliability thing or just sheer cost of replacement for an engine that was coping.

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good news on the Avon Lake Ford Mediums, traveling today from Baltimore to Las Vegas through Chicago, I did notice Southwest Airlines using several of the Avon Lake Mediums as service trucks for their airplanes!  From a distance, they appeared to be 6.8L V-10s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 7:11 PM, RPF said:

The BOSS engine family was originally supposed to have 3 displacements 5.8/6.2/7.0. Both 2 and 4 valve cylinder heads. The 2V head was provisioned for DI

I was there at the time.  DI was not even a "twinkle in the eye" of any engine designer when the BOSS engine was developed (there was some discussion of pushrods at the time).  The 6.2L "made the cut" because it had better power than the 5.4L, but testing for Medium Duty application showed it could not meet internal standards (cooling?) for those applications.  I think this is what killed the 7.0L  The 4V version of the 5.4L was deemed to be too expensive for F450 and up.  Same reason why you have never seem turbo/super chargers in those product lines.

Ford was in a quandary at the time with nothing to replace the 4.6L and 5.4L in the low end E-series and F-Series.  The decision to replace the E150/E250 (did not meet upcoming crash standards) with the Transit and put the Coyote and the Gen II 3.5L EcoBoost (much cheaper than the Gen I) in the F150, sealed the fate of the V8 Modular engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

 The 6.2L "made the cut" because it had better power than the 5.4L, but testing for Medium Duty application showed it could not meet internal standards (cooling?) for those applications. 

Another piece of anecdotal evidence about the 6.2 and cooling... The Coyote and EB35 both have two radiator options in the 12th Gen F-150. The Coyote has a "normal" radiator and a "tow package" radiator, the latter of which has more cooling capacity (more rows of tubing and more fins, IIRC). The EB35 also has two radiators. Its "regular" radiator is the same as the Coyote tow package radiator, but it also gets a bigger "max tow" radiator.

The 6.2 only gets one radiator: the "max tow" radiator (same as the EB35 max tow radiator).

To me, that indicates that the 6.2 has some cooling issues, because not all of the 6.2s were in heavy-hauling F-150s (the 6.2 Limiteds, for example, were relative light-weights in towing). Obviously, the bigger radiator addressed the issues in the F-150, or we would've heard about it by now, but it still makes you wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm out in Las Vegas for the International Builders Show.  Ford has a nice display of commercial vehicles, including an F-650 Dump Truck.  In talking with their Commercial People here, the only thing they would have liked to have displayed that they didn't was a Ranger, but they admitted Ford is marketing those towards the retail market right now and not the Commercial side quite yet.

IMG_0704.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, jpd80 said:

1. I think that the program engineer was talking about the new 7.3 V8, not the 6.2 Boss.

Two different links and CPEs. The link I'm talking about was a discussion with the BOSS CPE back from 2010, way before the 7.3L program. I am not referring to the TFLTruck videos with the 7.3L CPE.

On 2/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, jpd80 said:

I think you're cherry picking what was said to fit your narrative, yes the engine will have high specific power output in the lower rpm but the program engneer also said that the 7.3 will operate at similar engine speeds as the current truck engines (6.2 & 6.8)

What is your point here? Everything that has come out from FoMoCo regarding the 7.3L is that it is an engine tuned for HD truck duty cycles. The hope/hype on boards like this is that this engine is going to end up being a 550+ hp monster perfect for a Mustang or V8 Raptor. Based on what was said by the CPE, we're probably looking at more like a 450 hp engine with torque in the low 500 ft-lb range. The 6.8L V-10 is a low specific output (45-53 hp/L) engine and it still needs to spin up to between 4250-4750 RPM to make those numbers. Anyone that has ever had to drive one of those in front of a load, like had to up to August, will tell you that it has plenty of low-end torque and can keep up with almost anything up to about 40 MPH. At speeds above it, it's lack of horsepower really starts showing. Acceleration at highway speeds is very slow and going over even raised grade crossings on the highway requires downshifts and 4500+ RPM to maintain speed. The 6.8's NVH was not great, especially when you are sitting basically on top of it like you are in the E-Series or F-53. So from the videos with the 7.3's CPE it sounds like they were aiming for a gas engine that could put down the amount of power that the 6.8L did in the 4500 RPM range (low 300's) down around 2500 RPM and at 14.7:1 AFR. This would result in an engine with not only better economy, but with better drivability and lower NVH as well. And the increased power at the peak (which given the OHV/2V configuration is probably still in the mid 4000 RPM range) will give increased GCWR capability.

 

I guess the question to you is what do you consider to be "High specific output" for this engine? I'm guessing we're going to end up between 60-65 hp/L given the configuration and intended use. While this is better than the 50ish that the V10 made, it is still low by today's standards, and not enough to make the numbers it seems that the internet message board community is hoping for. 

 

On 2/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, jpd80 said:

We can only summize that ford wasn't confident in replacing the 6.8 with the 7.0 Boss be that a reliability thing or just sheer cost of replacement for an engine that was coping.

Again, going back to the goals behind the development of the 7.3L, it probably needed more engine speed and a lower AFR to produce the power that a HD truck needs for maintaining highway speeds loaded. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

Another piece of anecdotal evidence about the 6.2 and cooling... The Coyote and EB35 both have two radiator options in the 12th Gen F-150. The Coyote has a "normal" radiator and a "tow package" radiator, the latter of which has more cooling capacity (more rows of tubing and more fins, IIRC). The EB35 also has two radiators. Its "regular" radiator is the same as the Coyote tow package radiator, but it also gets a bigger "max tow" radiator.

The 6.2 only gets one radiator: the "max tow" radiator (same as the EB35 max tow radiator).

To me, that indicates that the 6.2 has some cooling issues, because not all of the 6.2s were in heavy-hauling F-150s (the 6.2 Limiteds, for example, were relative light-weights in towing). Obviously, the bigger radiator addressed the issues in the F-150, or we would've heard about it by now, but it still makes you wonder.

The 6.2L F-150 never got a "cheap" radiator because it never went into a "cheap" truck. It either went into special editions (Raptor, Limited, HD) or into Lariat/Platinum 145" WB Crew Cabs WITH the Max-Tow Package (see attached excerpts from the order guide). The engine option was $3K. I don't see how this equals "cooling issues". The GCWR with the Lariat and Platinum was the same as with the 3.5L. The Raptor was GCWR limited due to its suspension. The HD/Limited were limited by their tire/wheel package.

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 22.06.43.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 22.07.10.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RPF said:

Two different links and CPEs. The link I'm talking about was a discussion with the BOSS CPE back from 2010, way before the 7.3L program. I am not referring to the TFLTruck videos with the 7.3L CPE.

First thank you for clarification regarding which link. Now regardless of what's said recently, we know theoldwizzard was there during development of Hurricane / Boss and if he says it wasn't considered back then then I'm deferring to smoeone who was actually there and discussing  the program with engineers first hand. It is possible that Ford considered DI for later applications but they have shown zero interest in changing the sewer pipe 2V head and the twin spark plug set up that would seem to block any favorable positioning of the direct injector.

 

Quote

What is your point here? Everything that has come out from FoMoCo regarding the 7.3L is that it is an engine tuned for HD truck duty cycles. The hope/hype on boards like this is that this engine is going to end up being a 550+ hp monster perfect for a Mustang or V8 Raptor. Based on what was said by the CPE, we're probably looking at more like a 450 hp engine with torque in the low 500 ft-lb range.

(I think you misunderstood my post I'm agreeing with what you're saying, nowhere did I mention anything about non-truck HP versions. )

Which is exactly what I said ( 450 HP and 500 lb ft) that was based on the Ford engineer on the TFL video who said that the 7.3 would give a good incremental increase over the two current  engines, the 6.2 and 6.8 ....he also said that the 7.3 would have a similar operating range as the current F Series engines  - the 6.2 an 4.5 have peak power at 5750 and 4750 respectively,

Quote

The 6.8L V-10 is a low specific output (45-53 hp/L) engine and it still needs to spin up to between 4250-4750 RPM to make those numbers. Anyone that has ever had to drive one of those in front of a load, like had to up to August, will tell you that it has plenty of low-end torque and can keep up with almost anything up to about 40 MPH. At speeds above it, it's lack of horsepower really starts showing. Acceleration at highway speeds is very slow and going over even raised grade crossings on the highway requires downshifts and 4500+ RPM to maintain speed. The 6.8's NVH was not great, especially when you are sitting basically on top of it like you are in the E-Series or F-53. So from the videos with the 7.3's CPE it sounds like they were aiming for a gas engine that could put down the amount of power that the 6.8L did in the 4500 RPM range (low 300's) down around 2500 RPM and at 14.7:1 AFR. This would result in an engine with not only better economy, but with better drivability and lower NVH as well. And the increased power at the peak (which given the OHV/2V configuration is probably still in the mid 4000 RPM range) will give increased GCWR capability.

The later 6.8 v10 3V puts out 369 HP @ 4750, not the 2V's 320 HP. The current 6.2 puts out 385 HP at 5750 thanks to its VCT giving it more top end. The glory of the 6.8 V10 3v is that it has 400 lb ft at 1600, rising to 457 lb ft at 3250 and even at its lowish 4750 peak power, it still has 400 lb ft. which then leads me to your next piece.

Quote

I guess the question to you is what do you consider to be "High specific output" for this engine? I'm guessing we're going to end up between 60-65 hp/L given the configuration and intended use. While this is better than the 50ish that the V10 made, it is still low by today's standards, and not enough to make the numbers it seems that the internet message board community is hoping for. 

OK, following on from discussion the 6.8 V10 3V torque curve above, it is my belief that the 7.3 will deliver 50 lb ft more everywhere than the 6.8 V10, and spelling that out.....450 lb ft @ 1600 rpm, rising to 500 lb ft at 3250 or 3500 and then trailing off to 450 lb ft at 5200 (our 450 HP point)

Quote

Again, going back to the goals behind the development of the 7.3L, it probably needed more engine speed and a lower AFR to produce the power that a HD truck needs for maintaining highway speeds loaded. 

Totally agree, I  think that the priority was getting the biggest, broadest torque curve possible and let the peak HP fall wherever  but in saying that probably enough to beat GM 6.6. I hope this clarifys my opinons with the new 7.3 as i believe we're basically saying the same thing. All anyone has to do is look at the engine cutaway and see just how long the valve stems and springs are compared to the rockers just above them...that's an MD engine.

 

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know tunes can be changed, right? The same Dodge 8.0 V10 powered trucks and Vipers.

 

Same with the mods, the 460 and so on. 

A block is a block.  Moving the 7.3 to a Mustang would obviously have new heads, camshafts, timing, intake/exhaust etc. No truck engine would go in a car as-is.

Edited by J-150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J-150 said:

You know tunes can be changed, right? The same Dodge 8.0 V10 powered trucks and Vipers.

 

Same with the mods, the 460 and so on. 

A block is a block.  Moving the 7.3 to a Mustang would obviously have new heads, camshafts, timing, intake/exhaust etc. No truck engine would go in a car as-is.

You're missing the obvious, look at the rocker in the shot below and then compare it with the size/length of the valve spring and the stem of the valve, those things are huge and heavy.....

2020-Ford-Super-Duty-Big-Block-V8-02.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RPF said:

The 6.2L F-150 never got a "cheap" radiator because it never went into a "cheap" truck. It either went into special editions (Raptor, Limited, HD) or into Lariat/Platinum 145" WB Crew Cabs WITH the Max-Tow Package (see attached excerpts from the order guide). The engine option was $3K. I don't see how this equals "cooling issues". The GCWR with the Lariat and Platinum was the same as with the 3.5L. The Raptor was GCWR limited due to its suspension. The HD/Limited were limited by their tire/wheel package.

I'm not sure what the price of the truck has to do with the cooling capacity of the radiator. My Coyote has the "expensive" radiator, despite being significantly less expensive than other Coyote-powered trucks that got the "cheap" radiator. (I'd also note that "cheap" is your description; I neither expressed not implied that.)

My point is that the engineers decided that the 6.2 needed the bigger radiator regardless of the truck's configuration, unlike the other engines in the F-150, which only got the bigger radiator with the Tow or Max Tow packages. That means they thought it needed more cooling, regardless of what it would be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That valve train does not look like it was designed for high r.p.m. use!  Those springs are indeed tall, they appear to be single, and not even a beehive design.  Again, great for low r.p.m.'s, and provide for a long valve stem.  Pushrods are very long too, but I can't see the diameter.  A few other things about the 7.3L's design jump out at me:  The head bolts are very short, oil pump appears to be below the crank and chain-driven from the front of the crank, block looks like a very light-weight casting.  Main bearing caps look light too, but they are cross-bolted.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

That valve train does not look like it was designed for high r.p.m. use!  Those springs are indeed tall, they appear to be single, and not even a beehive design.  Again, great for low r.p.m.'s, and provide for a long valve stem.  Pushrods are very long too, but I can't see the diameter.  A few other things about the 7.3L's design jump out at me:  The head bolts are very short, oil pump appears to be below the crank and chain-driven from the front of the crank, block looks like a very light-weight casting.  Main bearing caps look light too, but they are cross-bolted.     

I disagree with some of the points you raise. I think those long stems are necessary to keep the valve gear above the nearly vertical intake port. No other pushrod engine that I know of is configured with such intake ports. 

They do appear to be beehive springs which is really industry standard now. 

The rockers are roller trunion which is a hallmark of quality pushrod valve gear. 

The pushrods are stout and appear to be tapered.

The valves are shallow cant and the combustion chambers are accordingly shallow and tight. 

I see no glaring deficiencies in the bottom end either. Looks stout.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 12:41 AM, theoldwizard said:

I was there at the time.  DI was not even a "twinkle in the eye" of any engine designer when the BOSS engine was developed (there was some discussion of pushrods at the time).  The 6.2L "made the cut" because it had better power than the 5.4L, but testing for Medium Duty application showed it could not meet internal standards (cooling?) for those applications.  I think this is what killed the 7.0L  The 4V version of the 5.4L was deemed to be too expensive for F450 and up.  Same reason why you have never seem turbo/super chargers in those product lines.

Ford was in a quandary at the time with nothing to replace the 4.6L and 5.4L in the low end E-series and F-Series.  The decision to replace the E150/E250 (did not meet upcoming crash standards) with the Transit and put the Coyote and the Gen II 3.5L EcoBoost (much cheaper than the Gen I) in the F150, sealed the fate of the V8 Modular engines.

  If Ford had their time over I wonder whether they would have just made the 6.2 slightly larger as say a 6.6 like GM and limited its use to heavier trucks.

Ecoboost V6s and 5.0 Coyote seem to have F150 covered pretty well..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×