Jump to content

Another new V8 ?


Recommended Posts

One big question in my mind:

 

What happens to the Coyote?

 

I picture the 6.8 being a more exclusive engine only in the Shelbies or Raptors, not replacing the 5.0 in the GT. I could see the F-150 losing the 5.0, but is there really enough volume to produce it solely for the Mustang?

 

Interesting nonetheless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Broncofan7 said:

One big question in my mind:

 

What happens to the Coyote?

 

I picture the 6.8 being a more exclusive engine only in the Shelbies or Raptors, not replacing the 5.0 in the GT. I could see the F-150 losing the 5.0, but is there really enough volume to produce it solely for the Mustang?

 

Interesting nonetheless...

The '21 Coyote now has cylinder deactivation, so it's not going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assume the 7.3 V8 bore centers are the same as the old 6.2?

If so, Ford could use its forged crankshaft Of 95 mm and put it with a bore of 107 mm and get 

6.833 liter V8 or 417 cubic inch.

I don’t know if the would use the arc spray on iron or cylinder liners though

edselford

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Broncofan7 said:

 

Forgot about that when writing that post. Yeah, the Coyote is staying. And the F-150 could have a bunch of V-8 engine options.

 

My bet is it replaces the 3.5eb as the top tier engine.  DOHC, two turbos, an intercooler, and direct injection fuel system makes for an expensive engine for a mass market model.  Ford probably realized they could deliver the same performance with a big pushrod engine at a fraction of the powertrain unit cost.  And from what I hear about 3.5eb, a 6.8 would probably deliver the same fuel economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

My bet is it replaces the 3.5eb as the top tier engine.  DOHC, two turbos, an intercooler, and direct injection fuel system makes for an expensive engine for a mass market model.  Ford probably realized they could deliver the same performance with a big pushrod engine at a fraction of the powertrain unit cost.  And from what I hear about 3.5eb, a 6.8 would probably deliver the same fuel economy.

 

I thought about that, but I just do not see Ford leaving the 3.5L EB as a top engine because of how much time and effort they have spent with it over the past decade. But, I don't know for sure of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of this stuff does not make sense. If ford keeps the 3.5 ecoboost in the F150, the volumes would be so low on the 6.8 that ford could not justify the validation of the 6.8 V8 on the f150?
It might be that the 6.8 is the new base engine on the F250/F350 with the 7.3 as an option? This would be a “stable volume”
cylinder deactivation on a pushrod V8 is less expensive and less complicated than an overhead cam engine (6.2 boss versus 7.3 derivative)

edselford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, edselford said:

Some of this stuff does not make sense. If ford keeps the 3.5 ecoboost in the F150, the volumes would be so low on the 6.8 that ford could not justify the validation of the 6.8 V8 on the f150?
It might be that the 6.8 is the new base engine on the F250/F350 with the 7.3 as an option? This would be a “stable volume”
cylinder deactivation on a pushrod V8 is less expensive and less complicated than an overhead cam engine (6.2 boss versus 7.3 derivative)

edselford

The 6.8 is for specials like F-150 Raptor and Shelby Mustang

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, twintornados said:

A possible 6.8L derivative of the Windsor big block would work in applications other than F-Series....E-Series, MD line, stripped chassis, stationary powerplant applications. etc, etc. 

 

I don't see the 6.8 and 7.3 going in the same product.  7.3 is a cast iron truck engine.  I'm guessing the 6.8 will have an aluminum block and the reduced displacement will be entirely from a shorter stroke.  This will move the powerband upwards by about 500 rpm while also letting it rev to 6500+.  So two entirely different engines for different applications.

 

My guess is the naturally aspirated 6.8 will be about 500 hp and will replace the 3.5eb above the coyote in F150.  It'll also appear in the expedition and navigator (either standard or above coyote).  It'll be the base engine in Raptor, with a 750-800 hp supercharged version optional.  The naturally aspirated 6.8 will be limited to special editions of the mustang while the standard GT will get the improved coyote, and the GT500 will share the supercharged version from the raptor.

 

I don't see the 6.8 going into F250/350.  If ford does a smaller V8 in the 250/350 and E-series, I would think it's gotta be a de-bored / de-stroked iron block godzilla at about 5.5-6.0L displacement.  A 5.5L (exactly 3/4 of a 7.3L) cast iron straight-6 or V6 version of godzilla would also make a ton of sense for a base engine in fleet F250s, E series, and larger Transits, but I'm not sure how high on Fords R&D priority list such an animal would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

I don't see the 6.8 and 7.3 going in the same product.  7.3 is a cast iron truck engine.  I'm guessing the 6.8 will have an aluminum block and the reduced displacement will be entirely from a shorter stroke.  This will move the powerband upwards by about 500 rpm while also letting it rev to 6500+.  So two entirely different engines for different applications.

 

My guess is the naturally aspirated 6.8 will be about 500 hp and will replace the 3.5eb above the coyote in F150.  It'll also appear in the expedition and navigator (either standard or above coyote).  It'll be the base engine in Raptor, with a 750-800 hp supercharged version optional.  The naturally aspirated 6.8 will be limited to special editions of the mustang while the standard GT will get the improved coyote, and the GT500 will share the supercharged version from the raptor.

 

I don't see the 6.8 going into F250/350.  If ford does a smaller V8 in the 250/350 and E-series, I would think it's gotta be a de-bored / de-stroked iron block godzilla at about 5.5-6.0L displacement.  A 5.5L (exactly 3/4 of a 7.3L) cast iron straight-6 or V6 version of godzilla would also make a ton of sense for a base engine in fleet F250s, E series, and larger Transits, but I'm not sure how high on Fords R&D priority list such an animal would be.

While I agree that the 6.8 and 7.3 will be for different applications, I don’t see the 6.8 replacing the coyote or 3.5l eb.  cafe is applicable for under 8500lbs.  The 3.5l eb powerboost is the top engine in the Non-raptor F-150 and will likely remain so.

 

As far as additional engines to cover the market, I think a ~4.0l ecoboost v8 would be a nice addition for Navigator and F-150.  Something to line up with the Germans and above offerings from GM and Fca.  I just don’t see it as a high enough priority to get the necessary development dollars.  An in-line 6 hurricane/boss/Godzilla as mentioned is another candidate whenever Ford has some development dollars that need spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go back to what Jerry Dias said when asked what applications the 6.8 would be used in?

His reply was derivatives of F150 and Mustang, that's code for Raptor and Shelby Mustang.

 

Ford has already shown it's hand in E-Series with the 7.3 being available in different power levels,

that's a lot easier and costs less  to do  than changing crank, rods and pistons.

 

I think that the 6.8 as a HP crate engine would have a massive following, an engine that could

be used in a lot of repower applications in lots of vehicles due to the compact external dimensions?

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I go back to what Jerry Dias said when asked what applications the 6.8 would be used in?

His reply was derivatives of F150 and Mustang, that's code for Raptor and Shelby Mustang.

 

Ford has already shown it's hand in E-Series with the 7.3 being available in different power levels,

that's a lot easier and costs less  to do  than changing crank, rods and pistons.

 

Anyone hear exactly how they do it?  Short of a different cam, about the only thing I can think of is a much smaller throttle body or simply a spark/fuel cut at 4000 rpm.  In either case, why bother?

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

Anyone hear exactly how they do it?  Short of a different cam, about the only thing I can think of is a much smaller throttle body or simply a spark/fuel cut at 4000 rpm.  In either case, why bother?

Giving up power and torque for greater fuel efficiency under load.

It's basically an electronic tune that extends the 14.7:1 mixtures and clips the top end HP.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I go back to what Jerry Dias said when asked what applications the 6.8 would be used in?

His reply was derivatives of F150 and Mustang, that's code for Raptor and Shelby Mustang.

 

Well a naturally aspirated 6.8 would barely move the needle from the current 3.5eb raptor.  So clearly we'd be talking about a supercharged 6.8 in Raptor and Shelby.  You may be right and that's the only 6.8 coming.  I tend to think there'll be a naturally aspirated version too, if only to increase volume.  This is where I see top level of F150 as a potential application.  Also the expedition is screaming for this engine (and then also offer the electric F150 drivetrain as an option).  Yes a small V8 ecoboost w/hybrid would be more correct for Navigator, but obviously that would be a ton of engineering with very little volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

Well a naturally aspirated 6.8 would barely move the needle from the current 3.5eb raptor.  So clearly we'd be talking about a supercharged 6.8 in Raptor and Shelby.  You may be right and that's the only 6.8 coming.  I tend to think there'll be a naturally aspirated version too, if only to increase volume.  This is where I see top level of F150 as a potential application.  Also the expedition is screaming for this engine (and then also offer the electric F150 drivetrain as an option).  Yes a small V8 ecoboost w/hybrid would be more correct for Navigator, but obviously that would be a ton of engineering with very little volume.

Think of the 6.8 this way, naturally aspirated it would be about 500 Up/500 lb ft and easy 750 HP Supercharged.

They're ideal for Raptor and Shelby Mustang but CAFE prevents or disuades wider use than those specials.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Think of the 6.8 this way, naturally aspirated it would be about 500 Up/500 lb ft and easy 750 HP Supercharged.

They're ideal for Raptor and Shelby Mustang but CAFE prevents or disuades wider use than those specials.

 

How do the electric F150 and Mach E affect CAFE scores?  Perhaps those are making room for a big atmo engine option in the CAFE formula?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

 

How do the electric F150 and Mach E affect CAFE scores?  Perhaps those are making room for a big atmo engine option in the CAFE formula?

Possibly but the way they calculate the fleet average economy using the inverse mean (add all gallons/Mile and then average)

stops manufacturers selling lots of thirsty engines and then trying to cover that with super cefficient versions.

It is possible that the electric F150 can fully offset a 6.8 insider use but i don't think that Ford will do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Possibly but the way they calculate the fleet average economy using the inverse mean (add all gallons/Mile and then average)

stops manufacturers selling lots of thirsty engines and then trying to cover that with super cefficient versions.

It is possible that the electric F150 can fully offset a 6.8 insider use but i don't think that Ford will do that.

 

And obviously we're talking CAFE numbers.  Real world, the 3.5eb and 5.0 coyote are about even in fuel economy based on my non-scientific average of several dozen trucks.  Properly engineered, a 6.8L powertrain would only be marginally worse.  Again, CAFE numbers are different....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking out loud.  

 

If Ford has decided a very large pushrod V8 is something they want for Mustang/F150, why would they decide to go with a smaller bore/destroked 7.3?  If you were going to go big, why not just go with an alloy 7.3?  Go big or go home.  Was that extra .5l just a bridge too far?

 

That makes me think the idea that the 6.8 being an upgraded 6.2 makes sense.  I believe when the 6.2 was released the word was they engineered it to go up to 7.0l.  A coyote-ized 6.8 could reasonably make 600+ hp NA. 

Edited by jpvbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpvbs said:

Just thinking out loud.  

 

If Ford has decided a very large pushrod V8 is something they want for Mustang/F150, why would they decide to go with a smaller bore/destroked 7.3?  If you were going to go big, why not just go with an alloy 7.3?  Go big or go home.  Was that extra .5l just a bridge too far?

 

That makes me think the idea that the 6.8 being an upgraded 6.2 makes sense.  I believe when the 6.2 was released the word was they engineered it to go up to 7.0l.  A coyote-ized 6.8 could reasonably make 600+ hp NA. 

The 6.2 ends in about a years time, the 6.8 is Godzilla based with a shorter throw crank like the 6.2.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of big displacement.  Gas engines run in a very tight range of air/fuel ratio and BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption).  I.e. it's going to take a relatively constant amount of fuel to make X horsepower whether you're using a 2.0L, 5.0L or 8.0L engine.  In a lot of ways boost, rpm, and displacement all achieve the same thing: capability for more power.

 

A smaller turbocharged engine has drawbacks in complication, unit cost, and requires a lower air-fuel ratio under boost.  A larger displacement engine has higher pumping losses when running at low output.  A medium engine like the 5.0 can make the same power as a 7.0L but is going to have to spin approximately 40% faster to move air (and therefore produce power) at the same rate and will have a softer torque curve down low as a result.

 

However, with 10 speed transmissions, cylinder deactivation, variable valve timing, computational fluid dynamics-assisted design of combustion chambers, and electronic throttle-based ECM control strategies, the drawbacks to all three categories of engines can be minimized relative to the others.

 

So to me, it really comes down to how to deliver the desired torque and power curves at the lowest unit cost and with acceptable fuel economy and emissions.  It's possible Ford did the math and decided 6.8L was the best answer for upper levels of mustang, F150, and SUVs.  We'll find out soon enough...

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...