Jump to content
Blue Oval Forums





Recommended Posts

I think that this 6.8l engine will be a direct competitor to the 392. Though, in addition to being in the F-150 and Mustang, I want it in the Bronco as well.

 

Could this technology eventually come into play here:

 

Future Ford F-150 Might Add Maserati-Like Prechamber Ignition Tech (automobilemag.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know if it’s been said recently but there hasn’t been much new information dropped about this engine project in a while. 
 

I hope Ford keeps a handle on expectations and people call it a flop because they’re disappointed. 
 

Right now with rumors of the 6.8 being both an F150 and a Mustang engine has got people’s imaginations running wild. Mine included!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

I don’t know if it’s been said recently but there hasn’t been much new information dropped about this engine project in a while. 
 

I hope Ford keeps a handle on expectations and people call it a flop because they’re disappointed. 
 

Right now with rumors of the 6.8 being both an F150 and a Mustang engine has got people’s imaginations running wild. Mine included!

What is your guess as to what it will be and hp/tq numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 1:23 AM, jpd80 said:

Knowing Ford, all those added costs (for EcoBoost 3.5L) are already being factored into the price and passed onto customers.

 

The marketeers have done a great job selling EcoBoost !

 

On 4/1/2021 at 1:23 AM, jpd80 said:

7.3 in various power ratings seems set to replace the 6.2 in Super Duty and E Series,

 

Sadly, I thnk they aimed kind of low, especially for the Medium Duty market.  Possibly due to lack of commitment to the Medium Duty market ?

 

On 4/1/2021 at 1:23 AM, jpd80 said:

the 6.8 is shaping as the replacement for the low volume high performance 5.2 V8

that is Currently  restricted to just Mustang.

I'm thinking that the 6.8 V8 is most definitely a remedy for the 392, the potential is huge.

The 6.8L would be awesome in a Mustang and they could sell a lot of them in F150.

 

As for a 392 crate replacement, they need an aftermarket head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 6:05 AM, Broncofan7 said:

I think that this 6.8l engine will be a direct competitor to the 392. Though, in addition to being in the F-150 and Mustang, I want it in the Bronco as well.

 

Could this technology eventually come into play here:

 

Future Ford F-150 Might Add Maserati-Like Prechamber Ignition Tech (automobilemag.com)

 

The Gen 3 5.0 already has the 392 covered.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, theoldwizard1 said:

 

The marketeers have done a great job selling EcoBoost !

 

 

Sadly, I thnk they aimed kind of low, especially for the Medium Duty market.  Possibly due to lack of commitment to the Medium Duty market ?

 

The 6.8L would be awesome in a Mustang and they could sell a lot of them in F150.

 

As for a 392 crate replacement, they need an aftermarket head.

1. The 3.5 EB was a fortunate engine for Ford, it wasn’t expecting such a early strong  response and fortunate in that CAFE pressure on the 6.2 saw it recede to the SD only.

yes it was good mark ting but many buyers also saw the potential and embraced the EB 3.5 and shunned the6.2 V8,  completely counter to GM and FCA, being different worked.

 

2. the 7.3 was all about Super Duty gasoline sales and making good on a promise to replace the 6.8 V10 that was let lapse for many years. I suspect that  Medium Duty taken in house was premised around some managers pushing the idea that cancellation of the F650 / F750 may cause lost sales inSuper Duty. I wonder hink that F600 is Ford’s way of migrating some gasoline sales away from MD ahead of declaring it non-viable to replace. If Ford is not interested in bespoke industry equipment for them. it really stunts sales potential. As a diesel alternative in MD, the 7.3 is too small, needs to be ~9.0 litres IMO, the current 7.3 strategy is just a low entry point vehicle.

 

 

3. There’s  obviously more to  the 6.8 than being just half a litre less than the 7.3, the perception is throwing up all kinds of possibilities and that hat it’s more than just a small Godzilla, something tells me that it’s a clever rework of something like the 6.2. Boss

and is aimed a completely unseating the Dodge/Ram/Jeep 6.4 and SC 6.2 Hemis. To do that, Ford needs to bring it’s A Game because the 5.2 shows what can be done by taking the fight in the other direction and for many,  it will be the yardstick that the 6.8 is measured against.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 7.3L was indeed designed expressly for the Super Duty line, in particular the 250-550.  It is probably not optimal for the 650/750, but it's cheap and it works.

 

As for the 6.8L, there has has been no news on it for quite some time.  With the EPA quickly re-writing vehicle emission standards (in particular GHG emissions) and word that a California style de-facto ban on ICE vehicles is NOT going to be ruled out, I hate to admit the 6.8L's future is a lot more murky than it was 3 months ago.

 

 

Share this post


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

The 7.3L was indeed designed expressly for the Super Duty line, in particular the 250-550.  It is probably not optimal for the 650/750, but it's cheap and it works.

 

As for the 6.8L, there has has been no news on it for quite some time.  With the EPA quickly re-writing vehicle emission standards (in particular GHG emissions) and word that a California style de-facto ban on ICE vehicles is NOT going to be ruled out, I hate to admit the 6.8L's future is a lot more murky than it was 3 months ago.

I doubt that the application of the 6.8 is anything more than a hand built special for apex models in F150 and Mustang,

keeping it on a very short lead is the key to maintaining desirability through exclusivity and avoiding CAFE issues.

 

Heck, imagine if the 6.8 also had power boost PHEV, now that would throw up an interesting pickle for competitors....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6.8L would be a range topper in F150 and replace 6.2L in F250/350 as the standard power plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think there would be enough difference in power or economy to justify offering both a 6.8L and the 7.3L in the Super Duty.  I think the 6.2L will eventually be replaced in the Super Duty by the lower power/higher economy 7.3L currently offered in the E series.  Also, isn't the 6.8L supposed to have an aluminum block?  Might not want that in a Super Duty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the 7.3, help me out guys.  The 7.3 is a pushrod engine that is far cheaper to produce than the 6.8 V-10 with its OHC's, balance shafts etc.  Or so I'm lead to believe.  It also should be a lot cheaper to produce than the 6.2 for the same reasons--I would think?
 

While the 7.3 was designed as a MD truck engine, what have the gear heads done?  From what I've read, it's a beast and the hot car guys keep getting more out of it.

 

Now to those who say its not big enough for MD (class 7),  as I've previously said, at 445 CI, it puts out more than the old 401 SD and I think comes close  to topping the torque and HP numbers for the 477 SD.  And there were a lot of  T-850 and T-950 10 wheelers on the road in my youth with those SD engines.  Sadly, my "youth" was 50 years ago, but they did the job.  Or were HP and torque values of 50 years ago calculated on a different basis than they are today?😎

 

I  have to laugh when I see the HP and torque numbers in the Ford/GM/Dodge pick up wars today.  "Can you top this!"  Thank god for electronic controls or there would not be enough driveline shops to keep today's pick ups on the road!

 

So help this old guy out-what am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horsepower and torque are addictive, that’s why Ford gets to charge so much more for the 6.7 Powerstroke.

 

 The 6.8V10 was gravy for Ford MD sales, the engine development was amortised years ago but now a newer lower cost to produce engine replaces it, there is still the development cost to amortise.


 

the heads on the truck 7.3 flow 300 cfm on the intakes and can be ported to 400 cfm without welding, the valve angle is very shallow (8 degrees?) and cantered 1.8 degrees so very deceptive in term of flow potential.

 

Share this post


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

Horsepower and torque are addictive, that’s why Ford gets to charge so much more for the 6.7 Powerstroke.

 

 The 6.8V10 was gravy for Ford MD sales, the engine development was amortised years ago but now a newer lower cost to produce engine replaces it, there is still the development cost to amortise.


 

the heads on the truck 7.3 flow 300 cfm on the intakes and can be ported to 400 cfm without welding, the valve angle is very shallow (8 degrees?) and cantered 1.8 degrees so very deceptive in term of flow potential.

 

 

Last I saw Brian Wolfe was saying he was getting 350-360 out out CNC ported 7.3 heads with OS valves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ESP08 said:

 

Last I saw Brian Wolfe was saying he was getting 350-360 out out CNC ported 7.3 heads with OS valves.  

They’re now getting up to 400 cfm without welding, the point being that’s big numbers

for what are essentially truck heads.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

They’re now getting up to 400 cfm without welding, the point being that’s big numbers

for what are essentially truck heads.

 

At what valve size/lift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

At what valve size/lift?

The stock intake valve is 2.17”, I’ve heard mention of up to 660 lift but possibly more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

At the AGM in the Swedish Co Sintercast in 2019 they said

 

"The company also expects the production approval of a new SinterCast-CGI petrol engine, potentially marking the company's second passenger vehicle petrol engine application."

 

The material will be CGI the same as the 2.7 and 3 l EcoBoost

Is it this V8 we are waiting for?

 

https://www.introduce.se/en/companies/sintercast/news/2019/5/sintercast-to-confirm-new-series-production-and-new-installation-activities-at-annual-general-meeting

 

Edited by CGIron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Nope, that link is from two years ago.

and the new engine is an 11 to 13 litre diesel for Navistar trucks, goes into production next year,

announced on Wards Auto.

 I mean the unknown petrol, not a diesel. There are several diesels coming i production that we are aware of but the petrolengine is still a mystery

The link you wrote is too old. from 2006. Gear up. 

Edited by CGIron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

On 4/9/2021 at 5:26 PM, CGIron said:

The link you wrote is too old. from 2006. Gear up. 

The link in my last post is to Wards Auto and is date stamped April 07, 2021

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the 6.8L was supposed to have an aluminum block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I thought the 6.8L was supposed to have an aluminum block.

That’s the rumour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gas and emissions crisis of the early 70’s destroyed the gestation of several legendary Ford V8’s such as the Boss 302,351 and 429.

 

It would be a sad sad thing if this new shift away from ICE killed yet another potentially epic Ford V8. 
 

If I was a betting man I’d say the 6.8 is a shorter deck/stroke aluminum block version of the 7.3 Godzilla. I would also not be surprised if the cylinder head intake ports were repositioned to effectively lower the intake manifold in order to get this package under flat hoods in the Mustang. 
 

It’s even possible that we don’t know about an even smaller version say 330”-345” to be coupled with the “Powerboost” driveline. 
 

That ☝️might be a cool engine line. You might see the 3.5 EB go away leaving EcoBoost to the 2.7/3.0 Nano and down applications. This might seem unlikely but it may surprise you because the 3.5 EB is really all by itself in design. As such it might be cheaper to reduce to the smaller EB line and the pushrod Godzilla family for the bigger jobs with no one off engine in between. 
 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stray Kat said:

The gas and emissions crisis of the early 70’s destroyed the gestation of several legendary Ford V8’s such as the Boss 302,351 and 429.

 

Thoughts?

Don't forget the venerable PROCO V8 program that is in essence the grandfather to today's direct injection gas motors...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44632577?seq=1

image.png.1ab7fe38a0075b1452d97f8744224335.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya

back in the early 1970’s, ford engine engineering had allot going on!

I was a carburetor engineer and supplied various 2150 and 4300 , 4300D units to various engine groups.

The last high performance efforts were the boss 351 followed by the 351 cobra jet engines based off of the 351cleveland design.

The Proco was an attempt to meet future EPA requirements without going to catalytic converters.when all was said and done, adding catalysts was cheaper and lower risk.

Basically, high performance ended to allow all resources to focus on meeting the upcoming standards with low lead and no lead gasoline.

There was a time where 390/428, 429/460, 351W/351C were produced at the same time.

I do remember the 351W being chosen and the 351C being dropped as more and more volume shifted to smaller engines. However, someone did not project the right volumes and we were going to run short on 351W ‘s so their was a proposal to build a 351 out of the 400 and that became the 351M!

carburators were cheap to make but caused allot of variability unit to unit. A few years later, ford started to work with electric port fuel injection based on the original Bendix patents!

With electronic fuel injection, flow rates could be matched cylinder to cylinder because every injector was individually flowed and calibrated!

edselford

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

×