The New 6.8L V8 Thread

[silvrsvt]

30 minutes ago, ESP08 said:

  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.  

 

 

My memory is a bit rusty but the 6.2 was code named the Hurricane and it had a difficult development cycle from what I remember/understand and had issues with heavy duty applications with its cylinder design. 

 

As for performance applications-the modular 5.0 V8 and the Ecoboost 3.5L had that already covered in light duty applications. This isn’t the 1960s (yeah over a half of century ago) anymore. 
 

ICE is in its twilight right now. 
 

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, ESP08 said:

  

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.   

You would think so but it never happened that way, that’s why Hurricane was cancelled and then brought back as Boss, the chiefs wanted a simple large pushrod V8 for Super Duty to replace the 6.8 V10. What was offered was an engine above the 5.4 V8 which then became the base engine in SD. THE 6.8 then being retired because eng convinced the cheifs that the 6.7 Powerstroke could cover 450 up without a gas option.

 

If Ford was serious the 7.0 Boss would have been first designed and a 5.8 below it, the latter for F150 and base SD engine below the 7.0. ……this is the frustrating thing, they didn’t do what was needed.

The 5.8 was ditched because Ford wanted to continue with the 5.4 as a way to save money, fewest changes. The 6.2 was chosen because it bridged F150 and SD, something that didn’t last long…..

 

Quote

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

Of course but Mulally was CEO from 2006 and because of Ford’s dire situation, plans were pared back to save money, thoughts of a 7.0 engine evaporated because Ford wanted to maximise 6.7 Powerstroke sales, its that simple.

 

Quote

 

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.  

Your lips to god’s ears,

the truth is that execs were focused on  the Godzilla being a pared back, low cost, low tech engine without DI, what would amount to an enlarged copy of the GM LS V8 and that’s basically what we ended up with….right or wrong, Ford chose to copy its main truck competitor with a bigger engine.

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by jpd80

[tarheels23]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:55 AM, 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.

I remember reading a short story in 11th grade english about a soldier in North Korea who changed the gearing on a Jeep that would be under fire and made it faster than the enemy though and therefore the kooks did not hit it because it was faster than their manuals said it could go and he said he  could use a washing machine motor to power a freight train if he had enough gears.

[jpd80]

Todays customer expectations are completely different to the past, more torque and horsepower sells trucks.

 

today’s manufacturers are not interested in providing bare to the bones trucks, they want every customer to keep paying more…..

 

Its the way of the world now

Edited November 2, 2022 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

Well as for the pushrods from Ram and GM-keep in mind GM does sell more full size pick ups than Ford and OHC is over twenty years old, and the competitors have stuck with non OHC,

I wonder what the competitors "cost of goods" is when it comes to engines??

I know, I'm old and a minority when it comes to the practicality of the 7.3 and 6.8?

[SoonerLS]

23 hours ago, jpd80 said:

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.

Imagine how that meeting went.

 

"So, you're telling me that, basically, for the price of a crankshaft and a set of con rods, we can replace a relatively expensive engine with a less expensive engine, and keep another relatively inexpensive to build engine as a premium option, plus we can shut down an entire plant? What took you so long!"

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

Imagine how that meeting went.

 

"So, you're telling me that, basically, for the price of a crankshaft and a set of con rods, we can replace a relatively expensive engine with a less expensive engine, and keep another relatively inexpensive to build engine as a premium option, plus we can shut down an entire plant? What took you so long!"

An agreement in the current UAW contract to not shut down Romeo engine until late 2022

Ford also wanted to get them most out of the 6.2 engine, amortising every last drop.

Edited November 3, 2022 by jpd80

[ESP08]

10 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well as for the pushrods from Ram and GM-keep in mind GM does sell more full size pick ups than Ford and OHC is over twenty years old, and the competitors have stuck with non OHC

 

Over the last decade or so F-Series has outsold Silverado/Sierra more often than not.  

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by ESP08

[Bob Rosadini]

2 hours ago, ESP08 said:

 

Over the last decade or so F-Series has outsold Silverado/Sierra more often than not.  

 

Thx for the stats.  I was referring to what would be the current trend.  I understand Barra made a recent statement that ..."GM, not Ford is the pickup leader" or words  to that effect.  I made my post in defense of the 6.8/7.3 as it appears to me there are a lot of detractors on this thread regarding the return of "simple pushrods". And I'm suggesting Ford went the complex OHC route 22 years ago and did it bite Gm/Dodge in the ass?  Force them to duplicate?  Doesn't look like that. 

 

Having said that and as a Ford Blue guy as anyone on this site, Ford has done a great job.  I was thinking the other day..in a lot of the current political  news of late numerous times I've heard...."the voters are more concerned about putting gas in their F-150" or words  to that effect.  Seems like "150" is the new generic term for truck..Like "Scotch" is to tape and "Kleenex" is to tissue.

 

Go  back a few posts and check out Sooner's post.  He makes the best case about the reason for 6.8/7.3 IMO.  

[akirby]

GM led in total truck sales before Ranger launched.  On full sized Ford is still just slightly ahead in 3rd quarter.  If they could have delivered those 40k trucks waiting on parts Ford would be way ahead in both full sized and total truck sales.  And the new Ranger and new BEVs should keep that lead.

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, ESP08 said:

 

Over the last decade or so F-Series has outsold Silverado/Sierra more often than not.  

 

The one big change that GM did in recent years was to replace SC builds and sales with now super popular crew cab models. Sure, the last three years have been frustrating where neither Ford or GM can max out production, so the data is a little skewed…

Edited November 3, 2022 by jpd80

[sd350]

I wish they just kept the 6.2 even though the 6.8 would have been O.K. I have had a great experience with my 6.2 for daily work, private truck couldn`t have asked for anything better, was a diesel guy until the price per mpg was lost to the gas . Plowing was great plenty of power never got stuck could push snow uphill without a problem & plenty of power for daily driving. I personally think if they asked gas customers they would have left the 6.8 as standard equipment even on the 350`s XLT not just the XL.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, sd350 said:

I wish they just kept the 6.2 even though the 6.8 would have been O.K. I have had a great experience with my 6.2 for daily work, private truck couldn`t have asked for anything better, was a diesel guy until the price per mpg was lost to the gas . Plowing was great plenty of power never got stuck could push snow uphill without a problem & plenty of power for daily driving. I personally think if they asked gas customers they would have left the 6.8 as standard equipment even on the 350`s XLT not just the XL.

So true, I think that pulling the 6.8 V10 form the F350 and up was a mistake  but clearly aimed at maximising $$$ from Diesel sales. Had the Boss 6.2 been built as the alternate  5.8/7.0 combination, Many Super Duty owners would have gotten exactly what they wanted years ago.

Edited November 6, 2022 by jpd80

[Captainp4]

Never cared for the 6.2 in the sooper poopy, always thought the older v10s pulled better. Would have been cool to see it utilized in a high performance application, but it didn't make a great truck engine the way it was imo. 6.8/7.3 makes sense when you look at canning the 6.2, and there's no reason it can't make a wild performance engine either if they do an aluminum block, a little port work, intake and a bigger bump stick.. but I'm guessing it's not likely.

[Flying68]

The 6.2 in my dad's '19 F250 did just fine pulling an 8000lb camper up and over Berthoud Pass this summer.  Gas mileage wasn't great ~8 mpg roundtrip, but I wasn't lacking power.  I wasn't blowing past people like some of the diesels do, but was able to maintain the speed limit, which is fast enough going up and down the pass.  Interstate I kept it at 75 on the flatlands.  I would have been curious to see if the 10 speed would have improved things vs the 6 that it had.

[ESP08]

1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

I would have been curious to see if the 10 speed would have improved things vs the 6 that it had.

 

...by a lot.  

[jpd80]

Certain versions of the 3V 6.8 had up to 460 lb ft without VCT, which makes me think that the 6.8 V8 probably has more to give at a later update….

 

Just noticed the high output 6.7 powerstroke has 500 hp and 1,200 lb ft, that’s brutal

 

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by jpd80

[ESP08]

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Certain versions of the 3V 6.8 had up to 460 lb ft without VCT, which makes me think that the 6.8 V8 probably has more to give at a later update….

 

Just noticed the high output 6.7 powerstroke has 500 hp and 1,200 lb ft, that’s brutal

 

 

I personally don't think 6.8 Babyzilla will match the 3V V10's torque output (in Super Duty-friendly configuration) without DI.   

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by ESP08

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, ESP08 said:

 

I personally don't think 6.8 Babyzilla will match the 3V V10's VE percentages (in Super Duty-friendly configuration) without DI/even higher compression. 

 

Babyzilla already has much higher compression than the 3V V10 - 10.8:1 vs 9.2:1.  

 

Don’t get me wrong, the 6.8 V10 could make bags of torque at 3,000 but collapses rapidly beyond 4,750 (400 lb ft) and 5,200 (<350 lb ft. While the 6.8 V8 won’t match that peak torque at 3,000, it’s definitely better  by 40-50 lb ft in the 4,750 to 5,200 range.

 

All of these engine design are a compromise, the V10 was tuned for more torque lower in the range when horsepower wasn’t developed  to the extent it is today, the 6.8 V8 certainly has a much broader torque curve and that’s better in every respect when towing and moving up gears.

Edited November 8, 2022 by jpd80

[ESP08]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Don’t get me wrong, the 6.8 V10 could make bags of torque at 3,000 but collapses rapidly beyond 4,750 (400 lb ft) and 5,200 (<350 lb ft. While the 6.8 V8 won’t match that peak torque at 3,000, it’s definitely better  by 40-50 lb ft in the 4,750 to 5,200 range.

 

All of these engine design are a compromise, the V10 was tuned for more torque lower in the range when horsepower wasn’t developed  to the extent it is today, the 6.8 V8 certainly has a much broader torque curve and that’s better in every respect when towing and moving up gears.

 

For sure

 

I guess the point I was trying to make it that I think bringing Babyzilla's VE (and thermal efficiency) percentages up is a substantially taller goal than extending the 3V V10s working RPM range through a few relatively simple changes would have been - ex: higher CR, slightly longer duration cam profile, VCT, dual runner length intake, etc.    

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by ESP08

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, ESP08 said:

 

For sure

 

I guess the point I was trying to make it that I think bringing Babyzilla's VE (and thermal efficiency) percentages up is a substantially taller goal than extending the 3V V10s working RPM range through a few relatively simple changes would have been - ex: higher CR, slightly longer duration cam profile, VCT, dual runner length intake, etc.    

 

The balance shaft running on the top left cylinder bank stops the use of VCT. I can think of a way that VCT could probably be applied but the spur gear for the balancer would have to go.

 

The whole idea of V10 that uses an extension of the 90 degree 5.4 fell off  a cliff, a short summary:

 

1. Originally they wanted to use shared pin odd fire that required no balancer but the crank developed cracks

 

2. Once they went to even fire split crank, a balancer was required but the position prevented adding VCT.

 

3. Without VCT, the cam timing had to be anchored at a point where low end torque was guaranteed

 

4. Adding the MOD 3V head really helped power and torque, a 4V alve head would have added the missing horsepower and top end torque.

 

5. A dedicated 72 degree V10 neatly avoids all of the above issues but Ford was never going to do that.
 

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

Not getting VVT saved the 6.8L from being junk like the 5.4L 3v. is.  The V-10 still suffered from some of the timing chain tensioner and valve train issues common on 3 valve Mods., but not as bad as the VVT versions. 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

Not getting VVT saved the 6.8L from being junk like the 5.4L 3v. is.  The V-10 still suffered from some of the timing chain tensioner and valve train issues common on 3 valve Mods., but not as bad as the VVT versions. 

Yes, in the early days, VCT could be unreliable until it was improved in the 20 teens

 

Just know that Ford missed badly with just Boss 6.2, that engine should have been 5.8 &7.0 that could have replaced the MODs, 5.4 and 6.8 V10

[7Mary3]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Yes, in the early days, VCT could be unreliable until it was improved in the 20 teens

 

Just know that Ford missed badly with just Boss 6.2, that engine should have been 5.8 &7.0 that could have replaced the MODs, 5.4 and 6.8 V10

 

The VVT was substantially redesigned on the 6.2L, it didn't have issues.  A smaller 'Boss' never made it to production, efficiency wasn't there.  I believe since the 6.2L supposedly had issues in higher G.V.W. vehicles a larger displacement version was not pursued.  Kind of makes sense why the 6.2L ended up an orphan when you consider all that plus the fact that it never went into the Mustang and was pulled from the F-150 after only a few years.   

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

The VVT was substantially redesigned on the 6.2L, it didn't have issues.  A smaller 'Boss' never made it to production, efficiency wasn't there.  I believe since the 6.2L supposedly had issues in higher G.V.W. vehicles a larger displacement version was not pursued.  Kind of makes sense why the 6.2L ended up an orphan when you consider all that plus the fact that it never went into the Mustang and was pulled from the F-150 after only a few years.   

The big issue was that Ford couldn’t get its own version of variable displacement to work, so the Boss never had it. The 3.5 EB sent it to an early grave as did rising CAFE limits.