The New 6.8L V8 Thread

[akirby]

2 hours ago, sumday said:

what a dud for both gassers, f150s have more power among other models

 

ram still has best in class standard 410 horsepower with smaller 6.4L

cheby still has best in class standard 464 torque with smaller 6.6L

 

hopefully dodge and cheby will up there numbers so ford can pull their head out of you know where...should have just made 7.3 standard that would have best in class hp and torque. 

Those F150 engines would grenade pulling 30k lbs.

 

And who gives a rat’s ass about standard power if the optional power is available the way you want it?

 

It’s there to save fleet buyers some money while charging a premium for the 7.3L.

[twintornados]

2 hours ago, sumday said:

hopefully dodge and cheby will ....

 

Guess who's back...

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, sumday said:

Chevy and dodge figured it out and offer only one gasser and diesel. Ford could easily just make only the 7.3 best in class and or offer a HO tune. Either way ford found a way to charge $2k for the 7.3. Its more about making more than to save money for fleet buyers.

 

Im not that into towing or know all the numbers but f150s can pull up to 14k and SDs up to 21k (quick search). If SD had more power then they could pull more but would prolly hurt diesel sales which is a no no

Those that do consistent heavy towing are better off with an F250 or F350 than buying an F150, they tow much better for a start.

Also, the larger capacity 6.8/7.3 are more efficient while towing than the Ecoboost V6 and the 6.7 gives roughly 30% better fuel economy than the gasoline engine. The whole point of the 6.8 was to deliver a better base engine than the 6.2 and the focus being mainly on fleet buyers (XL & XLT only).

the big issue for heavy truck makers is the new CAFE fuel efficiency regulations that now afflict them, Ram and GM hide behind paper thin “best this and that” but the fact is those without the best fuel efficiency under load are gonna get found out. Continual year by year improvement is now required by the EPA.

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by jpd80

[ESP08]

4 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

The H.O. diesel's numbers are impressive.

 

Indeed.   Extremely impressive for a warrantied diesel, IMHO.  

 

It's about time Ford finally leveraged that amazing 6.7 Scorpion architecture to really leapfrog its Duramax and Cummins competitors.  

 

6 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well this has been an impressive thread in terms of the knowledge shown by so  many.

So as always appreciate the education.  How  about an education on these  numbers.

 

Assuming these are dyno numbers let's say we are talking about an F-350-one with a 6.8 and one with a 6.7.  My  first  thought is the PS version has all sorts of engine controls so those torque numbers do not get to the rear wheels  on start up. 

 

If they do, that means everything in the 6.7 drive line is TWICE the rating of the 6.8's components.?  I don't think they  are...so what is the point-other than bragging rights of 1000 lb ft of torque in a 13,000 GCW "one ton"?

 

It looks like the 6.8 will get the 10R100 while the Powerstrokes get the 10R140.  

 

[7Mary3]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

.......the big issue for heavy truck makers is the new CAFE fuel efficiency regulations that now afflict them, Ram and GM hide behind paper thin “best this and that” but the fact is those without the best fuel efficiency under load are gonna get found out. Continual year by year improvement is now required by the EPA.

 

 

I think the GM 6.6L gas gets the best fuel economy of any of the current gasoline HD pickups.  Have to see how well the Ford 6.8L does, but I am not expecting much better than the 7.3L.  Port fuel injection will hurt Ford in both fuel economy and emissions.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Also, the larger capacity 6.8/7.3 are more efficient while towing than the Ecoboost V6 and the 6.7 gives roughly 30% better fuel economy than the gasoline engine. The whole point of the 6.8 was to deliver a better base engine than the 6.2 and the focus being mainly on fleet buyers (XL & XLT only).

 

Recent fuel cost difference between diesel and gas can quickly offset the 30% higher diesel MPG advantage.  In areas I have traveled in last few months,  diesel has been 50 to 60 percent higher per gallon.  If towing heavy loads, the diesel is required anyway, but those who can get by with 7.3L V8 might save cost both up front and on fuel.  Not suggesting gasser tows as strong, just that fuel cost advantage for diesel is not what it once was.  If anything, there may be an opportunity for Ford to increase 7.3L towing capacity even higher.

[7Mary3]

43 minutes ago, sumday said:

There is no reason to "make" the 6.8...could have easily detuned the 7.3 and call it the "7.3xL"

 

If anything a v6 5.5L would have made better sense for xl fleet trucks

 

 

Exactly.  I would have de-stroked and de-bored the 7.3L down to around 6L.

[twintornados]

1 hour ago, sumday said:

There is no reason to "make" the 6.8...could have easily detuned the 7.3 and call it the "7.3xL"

 

If anything a v6 5.5L would have made better sense for xl fleet trucks

 

 

I would rather see an I-6 variant

[LSchicago]

1 hour ago, sumday said:

There is no reason to "make" the 6.8...could have easily detuned the 7.3 and call it the "7.3xL"

 

If anything a v6 5.5L would have made better sense for xl fleet trucks

 

Honestly I loved the way a 429 felt compared to the 460's. 

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

I think the GM 6.6L gas gets the best fuel economy of any of the current gasoline HD pickups.  Have to see how well the Ford 6.8L does, but I am not expecting much better than the 7.3L.  Port fuel injection will hurt Ford in both fuel economy and emissions.

From the anecdotes I’ve read, at highway speed without load , the 6.2, 6.6 and 7.3 all get around the same fuel economy but when loads are applied, the larger capacity 7.3 V8  seems to have better fuel  efficiency under load. Direct injection can improve peak hp and torque  but is no replacement for displacement, good old fashioned PFI was a customer request….

 

And yes, Ford is definitely  sandbagging 7.3’s current outputs,……

Edited October 28, 2022 by jpd80

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Recent fuel cost difference between diesel and gas can quickly offset the 30% higher diesel MPG advantage.  In areas I have traveled in last few months,  diesel has been 50 to 60 percent higher per gallon.  If towing heavy loads, the diesel is required anyway, but those who can get by with 7.3L V8 might save cost both up front and on fuel.  Not suggesting gasser tows as strong, just that fuel cost advantage for diesel is not what it once was.  If anything, there may be an opportunity for Ford to increase 7.3L towing capacity even higher.

That is true, traditionally, the lower price of diesel would be a natural choice diesel but currently, diesel is wickedly expensive compared to gasoline, it’s like the oil companies are scalping commercial/transport industry. It’s not just the US, many countries are reeling from the shocking price gap.

 

[jpd80]

Doing a 10% capacity increase on the 6.2 gives us the 6.8’s possible power and torque numbers

at 420 hp and 470 lb ft…….hmm, if that’s true, I see problems for the GM 6.6.

Maybe 7.3 becomes 440 hp and 500 lb ft……a diesel alternative for those feeling the cost of fuel?

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, sumday said:

Sorry to tell you the numbers are out already...as disappointing as the 7.3L only +10 ft lbs

 

6.8L  405/445

That’s actually quite good to see as it means the base 6.8 is about 20 lb ft under  the GM 6.6 and the 7.3 20 lb ft over it.

The bigger news for 2023 is the 6.7 with 1,200 lb ft and 40,000 lb towing…..GM and Ram muppets all went Awww

Edited October 29, 2022 by jpd80

[jpd80]

On 10/28/2022 at 7:18 AM, sumday said:

There is no reason to "make" the 6.8...could have easily detuned the 7.3 and call it the "7.3xL"

 

If anything a v6 5.5L would have made better sense for xl fleet trucks

 

Clearly, Ford disagrees with you….they’ve already done the detuned 7.3 in certain applications for vans, that real world intel probably guided their decision to develop a 6.8. Knowing Ford’s perchance for saving money, they wouldn’t have developed 6.8 without a valid reason, most likely beyond what is obvious to us outsiders…

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by jpd80

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Maybe 7.3 becomes 440 hp and 500 lb ft……a diesel alternative for those feeling the cost of fuel?

 

If diesel fuel costs remain much higher than gas, perhaps offering a larger displacement gas engine may make sense in order to increase maximum gas towing.  Stroking the 7.3L into range of +/- 8L may not be too expensive if a taller deck block can be used.    If you recall, Ford created 351M and 400 engines by increasing deck height in range of big blocks of the time.  A long-stroke Godzilla variant with similar 10.3-inch deck height may support close to 8L displacement, increasing torque above 500 lb-ft.  Obviously that wouldn’t replace diesel 40,000-pound maximum towing, but would be a nice option to have at lower end of diesel GCWR.

[SoonerLS]

On 10/27/2022 at 5:43 PM, twintornados said:

 

I would rather see an I-6 variant

Yeah, if you're not going to be constrained by the reality of the situation, you might as well go for something nice.

[jpd80]

On 10/28/2022 at 1:53 AM, sumday said:

what a dud for both gassers, f150s have more power among other models

They do but under boost, turbo engines need a rich air fuel mix between 11:1 and 12:1, part throttle boost is still in the 12s. Conversely, a large capacity atmo gas engine can operate between 12.7:1 and 13:2:1, part throttle around 14:1 to 14.7:1. The fuel efficiency required for towing efficiency is the exact opposite strategy required for meeting CAFE.

 

 

Quote

ram still has best in class standard 410 horsepower with smaller 6.4L

cheby still has best in class standard 464 torque with smaller 6.6L

 

hopefully dodge and cheby will up there numbers so ford can pull their head out of you know where...should have just made 7.3 standard that would have best in class hp and torque. 

On reflection, I get the distinct impression that Ford deliberately went low tech with the 7.3 exactly because the chiefs didn’t get what they wanted back in the 2000s, they wanted a 7. Liter V8 pushrod engine to replace the 6.8 V10, the 6.2 V8 promised much but just couldn’t replace the 6.8 V10.

 

Ram has a great engine in the 6.4 V8 Hemi but I sense that it’s heavy duty sales are modest by comparison to Ford and GM. The Cummins 6.7 Diesel would seem to have the goods that most customers want…..

 

All 2500, 3500, 4500 & 5500 Rams are made in Saltillo Mexico,

in the first 9 month, they’ve made just over 46,000 trucks…

Edited October 29, 2022 by jpd80

[ESP08]

On 10/28/2022 at 11:44 PM, jpd80 said:

On reflection, I get the distinct impression that Ford deliberately went low tech with the 7.3 exactly because the chiefs didn’t get what they wanted back in the 2000s, they wanted a 7. Liter V8 pushrod engine to replace the 6.8 V10, the 6.2 V8 promised much but just couldn’t replace the 6.8 V10.

 

Brian Wolfe took full credit for the existence of Godzilla in a live stream.  

Ford was in the beginning stages of developing a 6.9 Boss but Brian made the case it wouldn't fit in Super Duty; which was a crock, since 6.2 didn't need an increase in deck height to achieve that displacement IF they simply chose to implement siamese bores like they did for Godzilla.  

Brian also wasn't "a fan" of two spark plugs per cylinder so he admittedly "steered" Ford towards the Godzilla direction.   

 

Boss could have easily replaced V10 @ 6.8/6.9 liters and served as an outstanding base for a high-performance iteration in future Ford Performance models -- to end Ford's ICE era on a crescendo.     

Edited October 31, 2022 by ESP08

[7Mary3]

No question there was tremendous undeveloped performance potential in the Boss engine.  You may remember very early on the Boss was rumored to be an eventual option in the Mustang, and there was that '777' prototype engine.  Then suddenly Ford seemed to go out of their way to make it known the Boss was not going into the Mustang and the 777 dissappeared without a trace, at that point I figured the Boss would be another orphan Ford engine.  And it was.   

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, ESP08 said:

 

Brian Wolfe took full credit for the existence of Godzilla in a live stream.  

Ford was in the beginning stages of developing a 6.9 Boss but Brian made the case it wouldn't fit in Super Duty; which was a crock, since 6.2 didn't need an increase in deck height to achieve that displacement IF they simply chose to implement siamese bores like they did for Godzilla.  

Brian also wasn't "a fan" of two spark plugs per cylinder so he admittedly "steered" Ford towards the Godzilla direction.   

 

Boss could have easily replaced V10 @ 6.8/6.9 liters and served as an outstanding base for a high-performance iteration in future Ford Performance models -- to end Ford's ICE era on a crescendo.     

No, you misunderstood me I was talking about the original Hurricane /Boss development in the early 2000s. Back then, the chiefs wanted a simple two valve pushrod truck engine of around 7.0 litres to replace the 6.8 V10.
 

At the time, engineering argued that OHC and VCT would allow a smaller engine to fill the role, there was also a proposal to increase the 5.4 V8 capacity to 5.9 litres but ultimately, the Boss won out with planned 5.8 and 6.2 for F150 and Super Duty respectively and a special one off 7.0 V8 for racing development, there was no serious attempt to promote a Boss 7.0 because Mulally was CEO and the 6.8 V10 was already there and diesel was looking like the best bet.

 

Returning to your commentary, Brian Wolfe was the program director and instrumental in picking the parameters for Godzilla It’s also clear that he started with 4.53 bore spacing and probably started with 6.2/7.0 Boss and move away form OHC, two plug heads to a more simplified design - was he developing race engine features in parallel? Probably and most likely an answer to the GM LS/LT engine.

 

One final point, I believe the new 6.8V8 was sold to the chiefs as a way of ending the 6.2 Boss and closing Romeo engine, the scales of economy achieved from that are a recurring annual return to Ford.

Edited October 31, 2022 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

No, you misunderstood me I was talking about the original Hurricane /Boss development in the early 2000s. Back then, the chiefs wanted a simple two valve pushrod truck engine of around 7.0 litres to replace the 6.8 V10.
 

At the time, engineering argued that OHC and VCT would allow a smaller engine to fill the role, there was also a proposal to increase the 5.4 V8 capacity to 5.9 litres but ultimately, the Boss won out with planned 5.8 and 6.2 for F150 and Super Duty respectively and a special one off 7.0 V8 for racing development, there was no serious attempt to promote a Boss 7.0 because Mulally was CEO and the 6.8 V10 was already there and diesel was looking like the best bet.

 

Returning to your commentary, Brian Wolfe was the program director and instrumental in picking the parameters for Godzilla It’s also clear that he started with 4.53 bore spacing and probably started with 6.2/7.0 Boss and move away form OHC, two plug heads to a more simplified design - was he developing race engine features in parallel? Probably and most likely an answer to the GM LS/LT engine.

 

One final point, I believe the new 6.8V8 was sold to the chiefs as a way of ending the 6.2 Boss and closing Romeo engine, the scales of economy achieved from that are a recurring annual return to Ford.

To say  nothing of the fact it had to be a far less costly engine to produce.  And when you look at what Brian  Wolfe has done in "retirement" with the 7.3, looks like he knew what he was doing.  For sure we should start seeing a lot of high dollar "resto--mods" showing up at BJ and Mecom with the distributor on the right end?

[lfeg]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:43 PM, akirby said:

Those F150 engines would grenade pulling 30k lbs.

 

And who gives a rat’s ass about standard power if the optional power is available the way you want it?

 

It’s there to save fleet buyers some money while charging a premium for the 7.3L.

Back in the day I drove  '58 F500 with a 223 I6 (3.7 liter today) regularly loaded to a total gross of about 22,000 lg (cattle feed/chicken feed, fertilizer) (based on the scales at the feed mill) and the engine never grenaded. And it had a horsepower rating of around 126. The engines today in the F150s are very capable if you do not try to do things like taking a steep hill at 75 flat out. You do not need big power to move big loads, you just need to do it sensibly.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, lfeg said:

Back in the day I drove  '58 F500 with a 223 I6 (3.7 liter today) regularly loaded to a total gross of about 22,000 lg (cattle feed/chicken feed, fertilizer) (based on the scales at the feed mill) and the engine never grenaded. And it had a horsepower rating of around 126. The engines today in the F150s are very capable if you do not try to do things like taking a steep hill at 75 flat out. You do not need big power to move big loads, you just need to do it sensibly.

 

Yes, back in the day I got to drive a couple of old F-600 with 300 cubic inch inline sixes (later 4.9L), and while extremely slow by modern standards, they were reliable and durable.  If I recall correctly, power was less than 150 HP gross, so closer to 100 HP by today’s ratings.  In a way, having engine produce less power is an advantage by reducing stresses.  The point that was made earlier was that a small-displacement aluminum turbo V6 may not last long if asked to work hard on a regular basis.  I agree with you that most trucks don’t need so much power to get to where they are going, but drivers today expect far more power than 50 years ago.

 

The 6.8L Godzilla makes little sense to me unless viewed as a possible precursor to an aluminum variant for F-150 and Mustang. For Super Duty application, a six-cylinder (whether V6 or I6) Godzilla would have made as much power as the 5.4L V8 that was used for years, so difficult to argue it wouldn’t have been enough for some owners.  Before the 5.4L V8 existed, my dad drove F-250 4X4 work trucks with 300 sixes and never complained about lack of power.  Personally, a 5.5L pushrod in-line six sounds great, or even better if stroked to square or greater for higher low-end torque.  Granted, demand is too low for required investment.

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, Rick73 said:

The 6.8L Godzilla makes little sense to me unless viewed as a possible precursor to an aluminum variant for F-150 and Mustang.

What you do not understand is that the 6.8 V8 is a low cost incremental product that enables Ford to close down Romeo engine plant. That savings is a recurring one for Ford, the accountants love it because it consolidates manufacturing into one plant.

 

The 6.8 replaces the 6.2 in XL AND XLT commercial fleet sales and allows Ford to keep charging a premium for the 7.3 in higher trims. Its that simple.

 

Quote

For Super Duty application, a six-cylinder (whether V6 or I6) Godzilla would have made as much power as the 5.4L V8 that was used for years, so difficult to argue it wouldn’t have been enough for some owners.  Before the 5.4L V8 existed, my dad drove F-250 4X4 work trucks with 300 sixes and never complained about lack of power.  Personally, a 5.5L pushrod in-line six sounds great, or even better if stroked to square or greater for higher low-end torque.  Granted, demand is too low for required investment.

All your good ideas are noted but Ford is obviously going in a different direction, consolidation of existing engine architecture exactly because it doesn’t want to spend money developing a completely new engine type.

For years, I’ve watched with frustration  Ford fail to deliver  a simple pushrod 7.0 V8 in the 2000s because engineers knew better, sticking Ford with a 6.2 OHC that failed to replace the 6.8 V10 and subsequently banished form F150 due to CAFE and the popularity of the 3.5 EB.

Edited November 2, 2022 by jpd80

[ESP08]

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

For years, I’ve watched with frustration  Ford fail to deliver  a simple pushrod 7.0 V8 in the 2000s because engineers knew better, sticking Ford with a 6.2 OHC that failed to replace the 6.8 V10 and subsequently banished form F150 due to CAFE and the popularity of the 3.5 EB.

  

I seriously doubt any engineer worth their salt believed a 6.2 V8 would be a viable replacement for a 3-valve/cyl 6.8 V10 in medium duty applications. 

The low-end torque isn't going to be there regardless of a 6.2 V8's top end setup.    

 

If Ford was serious about replacing the V10 then Boss should have been offered in various displacements back in 2011 -- a 6.2 and then a 6.8-7.3 liter dedicated V10 replacement.   

There was nothing preventing Boss from expanding displacement to fill different roles, the displacement potential was ultimately the same as Godzilla after all.

 

The difference is that Boss could have been FAR more easily adapted into successful high performance engines -- making it ultimately a more versatile architecture for Ford overall than Godzilla could ever hope to be.