6.8L V-10 Dropped For 2014???

[NLPRacing]

I would be absolutely SHOCKED to see another V10 come out of Ford !

 

The :logical" engine would be a 3 valve 7.0L+ off of the current 6.2L. The biggest issue is that Ford can not come up with a engineering cost/production volume cost analysis that shows that such an engine would be cost effective.

 

What make that equation even worse is that for the F650/750 they really need an engine over 8.0L so that it still puts out adequate power with LPG/CNG. At that size, the current 6.2L probably would not be a viable starting point. To get to that size, you would need a bore of about 4.400 - the 6.2L has a bore of 4.015

 

With the 6.2L having such a large bore, would 3 valves be needed? Wouldn't a canted or hemi 2 valve set-up be better (and simpler)? An OHC 7.5L Boss with canted valves would be sweet!

[jpd80]

Another problem with selecting an engine capacity has to do with the realtive sales numbers of the various SDs,

looking through at a glance, it appears that the majority are indeed F250s but that a progressive half life seems to

happen as you reach higher with F350, F450, F550 ect...

 

The 6.2 may be OK for some F250 applications but perhps it becomes less effective as the weight and load ratings increase.

When you have much lower production numbers, justifying a change becomes harder unless the buyers show financial conviction

It would appear thetat the original 6.8V10 was a better choice for the larger SDs than the current 6.2 and maybe Ford was hoping

that by making the 6.2 a little "modest" that people would begin looking more at the 6.7 diesel?

But as pointed out, that assumption would be at odds with the reality of broad acceptance of CNG in bigger trucks being preferred over diesel..

[White99GT]

Wouldn't a canted or hemi 2 valve set-up be better (and simpler)? An OHC 7.5L Boss with canted valves would be sweet!

 

Current 6.2 heads.

 

 

4V heads would be drastically "better" in every meaningful respect, but the 6.2 heads are already really good as far 2V heads go.

Edited April 30, 2013 by White99GT

[theoldwizard]

With the 6.2L having such a large bore, would 3 valves be needed? Wouldn't a canted or hemi 2 valve set-up be better (and simpler)? An OHC 7.5L Boss with canted valves would be sweet!

The current 6.2L has 2 HUGE valves ! They are so big that there was not adequate room to place the spark plug in the "optimal" position. That is why there are 2 plugs per cylinder.

 

3 valves is a cost/performance compromise.

[theoldwizard]

Another problem with selecting an engine capacity has to do with the realtive sales numbers of the various SDs, looking through at a glance, it appears that the majority are indeed F250s but that a progressive half life seems to happen as you reach higher with F350, F450, F550 ect...

First, I'm curious. Where did you get your data ?

 

Second, I'm surprised that F250 volume is doing so well. The F150 with the proper options can carry more than an F250.

But as pointed out, that assumption would be at odds with the reality of broad acceptance of CNG in bigger trucks being preferred over diesel...

Ford has STILL not made a commitment to factory installed CNG in any vehicle, despite GM and RAM announcements.

 

Oh yeah. Ford DOES have a factory installed 6.8L V10 CNG available ... in Venezuela ! They are working on a factory CNG global Ranger for the same market.

[30 OTT 6]

The current 6.2L has 2 HUGE valves ! They are so big that there was not adequate room to place the spark plug in the "optimal" position. That is why there are 2 plugs per cylinder.

 

3 valves is a cost/performance compromise.

 

I'm curious as to how GM manages to get away with a single plug on their heads (LS and new LT1). The in-line valves can't be any better for spark plug alignment.

[White99GT]

The current 6.2L has 2 HUGE valves ! They are so big that there was not adequate room to place the spark plug in the "optimal" position. That is why there are 2 plugs per cylinder.

 

3 valves is a cost/performance compromise.

 

 

6.2 valves are 2.10/1.65 on a 4.015" bore. GM manages to get a 2.16" intake valve with inline valve alignment on the 4.06" bore L92/LS3.

[jpd80]

First, I'm curious. Where did you get your data ?

 

Second, I'm surprised that F250 volume is doing so well. The F150 with the proper options can carry more than an F250.Ford has STILL not made a commitment to factory installed CNG in any vehicle, despite GM and RAM announcements.

 

Oh yeah. Ford DOES have a factory installed 6.8L V10 CNG available ... in Venezuela ! They are working on a factory CNG global Ranger for the same market.

First, F150 is still the lion's share of sales each month it's around 2/3ds of the sales figures.

What i meant was that the remaining third of F Truck monthly sales are all the SDs

and that half of that number are F250 & F350, then the numbers drop off.

 

I can't understand Ford dragging its feet on CNG, truck buyers and fleets obviously want it as a factory option.

I still have this sense that Ford favored the 6.7 diesel over doing more constructive offers with gasoline and CNG..

[jpd80]

6.2 valves are 2.10/1.65 on a 4.015" bore. GM manages to get a 2.16" intake valve with inline valve alignment on the 4.06" bore L92/LS3.

I have a feeling that the large ports are a problem with producing more low end torque,, Cleveland 4V itis?

[7Mary3]

I'm curious as to how GM manages to get away with a single plug on their heads (LS and new LT1). The in-line valves can't be any better for spark plug alignment.

 

It is because of their high swirl 'Vortec' wedge head design. The spark plug is located at the peak of the wedge between the valves, which is about the best place to locate the plug in a wedge design. The 'Boss' 6.2L is closer to a Hemi.

[7Mary3]

First, F150 is still the lion's share of sales each month it's around 2/3ds of the sales figures.

What i meant was that the remaining third of F Truck monthly sales are all the SDs

and that half of that number are F250 & F350, then the numbers drop off.

 

I can't understand Ford dragging its feet on CNG, truck buyers and fleets obviously want it as a factory option.

I still have this sense that Ford favored the 6.7 diesel over doing more constructive offers with gasoline and CNG..

 

You bring up an interesting point that fits with something I heard quite some time ago about the 6.7L Powerstroke. The story was Ford spent a lot of money on the 6.7L, and while the engine was under development it was felt that the 6.7L would sell in large enough numbers, just in Super Duty pickups, to be profitable in a reasonable time. The problem was by the time the engine actually went into production the economy tanked, but more importantly diesel pickup sales really tanked, and there was a shift back to gasoline engines. This was particularly true with fleets. The economics of diesel engines in class 2 and 3 trucks didn't make much sense anymore, due to the increased purchase price and increased operating expenses. As a result, the 6.7L didn't make it's sales targets. So, Ford looked into selling the 6.7L to other OEM's (without any success) and looked for ways to increase the 'take rate' in Ford vehicles. Part of that effort is supposed to be offering the 6.7L in the F-650 and F-750 (something Ford should be able to do if production of those trucks goes back 'in house'), and now I wonder if there is a possibility that dropping the 6.8L V-10 from the F-250 and F-350 might also be a part of that effort. I don't know if this is accurate or even the whole story, maybe someone can shed some light on what really happened?

[FordFanForEver]

I wonder what they will use in the F-53 chassis for the Class A gas motorhomes?

[NLPRacing]

I wonder what they will use in the F-53 chassis for the Class A gas motorhomes?

The F53 will probably continue to use the 3V 6.8 V10 for the foreseeable future. I would love to see the 6.7 Scorpion become an option.

[FordFanForEver]

The F53 will probably continue to use the 3V 6.8 V10 for the foreseeable future. I would love to see the 6.7 Scorpion become an option.

 

Hello!

 

The 6.7 Scorpion diesel, although a great engine, would defeat the purpose as it would drive the price up another $10,000-15,000 which is getting in the Diesel Pusher range (those are Cummins and Maxxforce Diesels). Plus, the gassers sell more and are more affordable. I understand what you are saying though... But on budget camping, I'd go for the gasoline powered coach and pocket the extra $$$$ to spend on more trips.

 

Read post 31 and then some

 

http://www.irv2.com/forums/f23/v10-maximum-size-of-rv-131699-3.html

 

Back to what was discussed on the IRV2 forums, the 5.0 EB could benefit the Class A gas motorhome BUT someone stated that it would be under constant stress as 30 feet Class A gassers are 14,500-16,000 and the 37' gassers are nearly 19,000 lbs and a little more. I'd to see an attempt with the 5.0 and see what happens. If not a 5.0 EB, there has got to be away for Ford to do something with that 6.2 V8 to get the torque equal to or greater than the 6.8 V10.

 

6.2 in F150 411 hp and 434 lbs torque

6.2 in Super Duty 385 hp and 405 lbs torque

6.8 V10 362 hp and 457 lbs of torque

 

The 6.2 in the F150 beats the 6.8 in power but does not equal the torque and in a motorhome with a huge heavy butt, you need all the torque you can get to climb that steep grade.

 

Hope this post did not turn you away, I just love talking motorhomes... epesically with Ford engines!

Edited May 2, 2013 by FordFanForEver

[NLPRacing]

Hello!

 

The 6.7 Scorpion diesel, although a great engine, would defeat the purpose as it would drive the price up another $10,000-15,000 which is getting in the Diesel Pusher range (those are Cummins and Maxxforce Diesels). Plus, the gassers sell more and are more affordable. I understand what you are saying though... But on budget camping, I'd go for the gasoline powered coach and pocket the extra $$$$ to spend on more trips.

 

Read post 31 and then some

 

http://www.irv2.com/forums/f23/v10-maximum-size-of-rv-131699-3.html

 

Back to what was discussed on the IRV2 forums, the 5.0 EB could benefit the Class A gas motorhome BUT someone stated that it would be under constant stress as 30 feet Class A gassers are 14,500-16,000 and the 37' gassers are nearly 19,000 lbs and a little more. I'd to see an attempt with the 5.0 and see what happens. If not a 5.0 EB, there has got to be away for Ford to do something with that 6.2 V8 to get the torque equal to or greater than the 6.8 V10.

 

6.2 in F150 411 hp and 434 lbs torque

6.2 in Super Duty 385 hp and 405 lbs torque

6.8 V10 362 hp and 457 lbs of torque

 

The 6.2 in the F150 beats the 6.8 in power but does not equal the torque and in a motorhome with a huge heavy butt, you need all the torque you can get to climb that steep grade.

 

Hope this post did not turn you away, I just love talking motorhomes... epesically with Ford engines!

 

If a F53 based motorhome would only cost an additional $10,000 to $15,000 for a 6.7L Scorpion diesel, that would be a bargain. The biggest problem I had with my motorhome was that when I went over 60 mph, the mileage dropped a ton. If a Scorpion powered F53 could get just 10 mpg at 65 to 70 mph, that would save me enough money on fuel that I would be able to take longer cross country trips more frequently.

 

When it comes to big loads, there's no replacement for cubic displacement. Personally, I would like to see the 6.2L Boss grow to 7.0 to 7.5L with a focus on torque to replace the 6.8L V10.

 

I have no idea what Ford will do in the future concerning the next F53, the next F650/F750, or the E350/E450 cutaway replacements, but I have a feeling that once they consolidate production of these in Ohio at the current E-Series plant, we'll see something special. Only problem is, I think not much will happen until the 2015 model year or later.

[Stray Kat]

I am sure that's true, but a race engine and a truck engine are 2 different animals. If anything, medium and heavy truck service is a lot more like marine service, in that it is high load heavy throttle for extended periods of time. And the rumor was the 6.2L had trouble on the dyno while running medium duty truck duty cycles.

Let's break it down. Ford Boss 6.2 bore spacing = 4.53" Chevy 6.2 bore spacing = 4.4" I have no way of knowing how much more stroke the Ford 6.2 will accept but I know for sure that the current block casting and crankcase volume will go to 7.0 fairly easily. Back if the days of the FE engine series Ford developed a class 6 and 7 appropriate powerplant and called it the FT series. Some of the modifications were full floating pistons, 9 qt oil pans, forged steel cranks with 1 3/4" snouts as opposed to the standard passenger car dimension of 1 3/8". Sodium cooled exhaust valves, heavy duty exhaust manifolds. There were other differences but those were the biggies. They did the same thing when they went to the Lima 370 and 429 gasoline engines. These were great engines and served Ford very well.

I have no doubt that the base 6.2 could be upgraded to class 6 and 7 duty. It just takes the will to do it.

 

I believe I have read that the Boss architecture can actually go to 7.5 liters if necessary. Is that big enough for CNG applications? I can't believe this is all that big of a problem for Ford. How about a CGI block for even larger cubes and tougher duty?

Edited May 3, 2013 by Stray Kat

[theoldwizard]

I have a feeling that the large ports are a problem with producing more low end torque,, Cleveland 4V itis?

About 7 or 8 years ago, I recall having a conversation with a 6.2L engineer. They had just settled on the fact it was going to stay SOHC. I commented on the size of the valves. His response was that there was still some debate. He felt a 3 valve (1 sparkplug) design was better but management wanted 2 valves because it was less expensive,

 

 

I said it before, we have a different Ford Motor Company these days. They are very conservative and not willing to invest engineering or tooling into something (like a major redesign of the BOSS engine for Medium Duty applications) unless the bean counters have "run the numbers" and show a good return on investment.

[White99GT]

I would like to see Ford do a DOHC Ti-VCT 4V version of the 6.2, along with a aluminum block in some versions.

 

That combo should have the capability to embarrass the LS7 N/A or 5.8/LS9/etc. boosted.

I can barely imagine the potential of such a combo in the aftermarket, with "big bore" and stroker versions of a 4V 6.2.

 

Talk about an outstanding replacement for 2V 6.2 in the Raptor or the Boss 302-successor/Z28 killer in N/A form.

In EcoBoost form, this could be replacement for the 5.8 and/or a Ford GT successor.

Edited May 3, 2013 by White99GT

[7Mary3]

About 7 or 8 years ago, I recall having a conversation with a 6.2L engineer. They had just settled on the fact it was going to stay SOHC. I commented on the size of the valves. His response was that there was still some debate. He felt a 3 valve (1 sparkplug) design was better but management wanted 2 valves because it was less expensive,

 

 

I said it before, we have a different Ford Motor Company these days. They are very conservative and not willing to invest engineering or tooling into something (like a major redesign of the BOSS engine for Medium Duty applications) unless the bean counters have "run the numbers" and show a good return on investment.

 

I agree, and that is why I find it surprising Ford is going to try to stay in the class 6 and 7 medium truck business given their sales volume. Let alone design (or even redesign) an engine for that specific application.

[twintornados]

May be a dumb question, but would 5.4L Triton "3 valve" heads fit on a Hurricane/Boss block assembly?

Edited May 3, 2013 by twintornados

[NLPRacing]

May be a dumb question, but would 5.4L Triton "3 valve" heads fit on a Hurricane/Boss block assembly?

Doubt it as the bore spacing is different.

[FordFanForEver]

If a F53 based motorhome would only cost an additional $10,000 to $15,000 for a 6.7L Scorpion diesel, that would be a bargain. The biggest problem I had with my motorhome was that when I went over 60 mph, the mileage dropped a ton. If a Scorpion powered F53 could get just 10 mpg at 65 to 70 mph, that would save me enough money on fuel that I would be able to take longer cross country trips more frequently.

 

When it comes to big loads, there's no replacement for cubic displacement. Personally, I would like to see the 6.2L Boss grow to 7.0 to 7.5L with a focus on torque to replace the 6.8L V10.

 

I have no idea what Ford will do in the future concerning the next F53, the next F650/F750, or the E350/E450 cutaway replacements, but I have a feeling that once they consolidate production of these in Ohio at the current E-Series plant, we'll see something special. Only problem is, I think not much will happen until the 2015 model year or later.

 

Hey man, Thanks for the response.

 

I see your point with the 6.7 Diesel and fuel mileage at higher speeds. I don't understand how that problem can be solved since the faster you go, the more fuel the engine will consume. Not only that but if a 6.7 Diesel is put on the F53, then most RV manufactures will most likely add more weight to the chassis... hmeaning heavier frames, higher quality wood finishings, etc. Also, I would think the Diesel would call for a stronger chassis over the current 18,000 and 22,000lbs chassis that are currently used for the Class A gas motorhomes. Diesel maintenence also costs more and when one knows nothing about tending to a Diesel engine, such as myself, that would pose a problem. I'd like to see, as you orignally said, a new big block Gasoline engine for the gasser enthusiats and the 6.7 Diesel to please the Dieselers such as yourself.

 

One of the main reasons I will never consider a Diesel engine is mainly because I know nothing about tending to a Diesel engine and after helping my dad when working on gasoline engines for several years, I started to learn about them. Plus the added maintenence cost of Diesels and the extra price. Plus, I'd put no more than 5,000 a year on my motorhome. Anything more than 5,000 a year then a gasser is not the way to go. If you purchase a diesel and put less than 5,000 a year, I would consider that a terrible investment. It all depends on what you can afford and how much you will use it.

 

I saw a youtube video for MHSRV (Motorhome Specialist), the video was about a Coachmen Class C and one person asked if Coachmen RV is considering using the Transit chassis, much similar to the Sprinter chassis. The manager from Coachmen said that Ford has said the Transit chassis will only be 10,200 (I think that is right) where the current Sprinter chassis is 11,200 (I think that is right). So as of right now, the Eseries will continue for the Class C segment. So like you, I'm also wondering what Ford will do. I'd like to see them continue to be the leader in the Class C segment and Class A gas motorhomes, with introducing the Diesel for the Diesel enthusiats.

 

As for the 6.2 growing into a 7.0 or 7.5, is Ford selling enough of the 6.2 in the F150 or Super Duty that would benefit them to continue further developing that engine? I wish there was a way to see how many 6.7's and 6.2's they sell.

 

Thanks for the talk. I appreciate it.

[Edstock]

since the faster you go, the more fuel the engine will consume.

 

Not necessarily, because of computer-operated fuel injection: how much and when.

[jpd80]

Does anyone know the story behind the scenes as to why Hurricane was first cancelled and then brought back as a more modest plan?

Was it because at the time, F Truck sales were shrinking, general uncertainty or were there other factors at play?

[7Mary3]

Does anyone know the story behind the scenes as to why Hurricane was first cancelled and then brought back as a more modest plan?

Was it because at the time, F Truck sales were shrinking, general uncertainty or were there other factors at play?

 

Yes, I remember that too. Before it was cancelled, word was the Boss would have also been a hi-po option in the Mustang, and was to have been built in a number of different versions and displacements.