The New 6.8L V8 Thread

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

When you put it all together like that ☝️it becomes a pretty incoherent engine plan that luckily the engineers made acceptable with efforts like the Coyote and the 2.7 and 3.5 EcoBoost. 

And this is why we should push back against the image that Ford’s R&D is all seeing, all knowing, especially when they Ty to stick with BS plan when the market is already moving on. That Ford was stunned by the response to 3.5 EB in F150 shows how much they didn’t know about buyer interest but 2.7 EB was also affirmation that Ecoboost was a better strategy in light vehicles than turbo diesel which was popular in Europe and ROW.

 

Quote

 

Just to add to this last night I participated in a live online with some former Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords magazine editors. 
 

One of the comments that they made was that the SN95 Mustang was denied the 351W in the mainstream models because Ford knew the 4.6 was coming and they didn’t want to cut back from 5.8 liters all the way to 4.6. 

That sounds about right, so unfortunate when we’ve see how the 302/351 are transformed by a good HCI package. In comparison to the MODs, sprucing up the Windsors and Limas would have cost so much less…. water under the bridge.

 

Quote

So there’s that. Camaro ate their lunch in a straight line during that deal. 

For all of that, Camaro still took a dirt nap until those pushy Australians from Holden developed a Zeta version…

Edited April 28, 2022 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

The 6.2L was a missed opportunity, seems that right after it was announced that it would not be going into the Mustang the 777 project was gone like it never even happened.  Still wonder what the real story was.  Anyway....

 

 

[jpd80]

39 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

The 6.2L was a missed opportunity, seems that right after it was announced that it would not be going into the Mustang the 777 project was gone like it never even happened.  Still wonder what the real story was.  Anyway....

Money, Mulally scuttled anything that wasn’t seen as necessary, I suspect that he would have approved an Ecoboost V6 before  the 6.2

[Stray Kat]

Can someone on the manufacturing side please inform us as to why bore centers is such a rigid dimension? 
 

How does this affect cost if subsequent products stray from that one dimension. 
 

All of these later V8’s the 6.2, 7.3 and possibly the 6.8 could have been directly related to the original Modular/Coyote architecture has Ford been able to expand the ridiculously tight bore centers on the original design. 
 

That 4.6 was designed constrained massively to fit in a car line that no one even remembers. 
 

Ford built a V8 that was good for that Continental a few years later. It was designed by Yamaha. 
 

Doing the Mod with such a tight bore spacing forced an ultra long stroke requiring longer rods higher deck creating one of the widest car engines ever. What were they thinking?

 

Don’t get me wrong I think the Mods were good engines but man o man they went way off the reservation with regards to packaging. 

[7Mary3]

The most expensive part of an engine program is tooling.  Naturally the tooling is built to acommodate the dimensions of the engine being manufactured, and certain dimensions, bore spacing being one of them, can't be changed without replacing the tooling.  The name 'Modular' was given to the 4.6L because the tooling to produce the engine was modular in design and could acommodate 6, 8, or 10 cylinders and different deck heights of the same engine design, but  even so couldn't acommodate changes in bore centers.  The 'Boss' was a similar designe to the 'Mod', but it was built on all-new tooling due to it's greater bore centers.  I have heard rumors that the 7.3L shares many dimensions, bore centers being one, with the 6.2L.  I wonder if some of the same tooling is used.

 

 

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

The most expensive part of an engine program is tooling.  Naturally the tooling is built to acommodate the dimensions of the engine being manufactured, and certain dimensions, bore spacing being one of them, can't be changed without replacing the tooling.  The name 'Modular' was given to the 4.6L because the tooling to produce the engine was modular in design and could acommodate 6, 8, or 10 cylinders and different deck heights of the same engine design, but  even so couldn't acommodate changes in bore centers.  The 'Boss' was a similar designe to the 'Mod', but it was built on all-new tooling due to it's greater bore centers.  I have heard rumors that the 7.3L shares many dimensions, bore centers being one, with the 6.2L.  I wonder if some of the same tooling is used.

 

The other big cost are changes to castings and forgings, a lot of money can be saved by requesting that suppliers make changes to an existing casting but keep a common  bore spacing. Things like internal coring for cylinder bores, cooling voids and oil passages are much easier to change. Similarly, minor variations to existing crankshaft forgings and connecting rod design save $$$ and allow variation done with different machining.

Coyote evolved from the low deck MOD so kept most of the machinery, Godzilla would have been a similar machinery package as Boss 6.2 and most likely, the 6.8 as well…

 

Scenario 1

If the 6.8 is based on the 6.2, it may follow project 777 changes to block coring to increase the bore by 5mm but keep the 3.74” stroke to save costs but in doing so, fall short of the historic 7.0 engine title.

 

Scenario 2

Equally, a 7.3 Godzilla based engine fitted with a 3.7” crank would produce a faster revving 6.8 V8, add in an alloy block and you’d have a killer crate engine.

 

Back in the 2000s the mod group also suggested what was basically a high deck Coyote instead of the 6.2, would have been similar bore/stroke as 5.8 Trinity, I don’t know if Siamesed iron block or alloy. It doesn’t matter because it didn’t go anywhere but you could imagine a 7.0 or bigger pushrod V8 for SD and a much smaller 5.7/5.8 Coyote V8 for F150.

Edited April 29, 2022 by jpd80

[edselford]

Jpd80,

If the Raptor R gets a version of the sc 5.2V8,

where does the 6.8 V8 get used?

edselford

[Power Kid]

I'll defer to the original article: F150 and Mustang. Thats all I got. 

[ESP08]

24 minutes ago, edselford said:

Jpd80,

If the Raptor R gets a version of the sc 5.2V8,

where does the 6.8 V8 get used?

edselford

We seem to be beyond the if phase of that discussion

The 6.8 really doesn't seem to make much sense in the lineup at this point.  

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by ESP08

[Power Kid]

Seen that last night. Stupid question, we know that's a 5.2L? Obviously a V8 w SC and intended for Raptor. But we know its  a 5.2 based on pic? Based on all the intel I'd be shocked if its not. 

[akirby]

33 minutes ago, Power Kid said:

Seen that last night. Stupid question, we know that's a 5.2L? Obviously a V8 w SC and intended for Raptor. But we know its  a 5.2 based on pic? Based on all the intel I'd be shocked if its not. 

 

[Power Kid]

Ah yes. Should have looked more closely thx. Just looked at pic of engine. 

[Broncofan7]

I wonder if the 6.8 will replace the 3.5L HO in the Raptor?

[7Mary3]

6 hours ago, ESP08 said:

We seem to be beyond the if phase of that discussion

The 6.8 really doesn't seem to make much sense in the lineup at this point.  

 

That is the big question, because it sure seems like the 6.8L doesn't have a purpose at this time.  Unless of course it replaces an existing engine as some here have pointed out.  Although it's possible, I don't think it would replace the 6.2L.  The 6.2L is itself redundant at present, and due to it's large external size I think it's a dead end.  I am wondering if the 6.8L could be a replacement for the 7.3L.  A slightly smaller Godzilla with direct gasoline injection and modulated displacement could be a more efficient engine with better emissions characteristics that produces the same or even slightly more power than the 7.3L.

[fordmantpw]

6.8L hybrid in the Super Duty?

 

Not sure the point of using it over the 7.3L in that case though.

[Power Kid]

Not even 3 years in and 7.3L replaced, but its unfathomable that the 6.8L replaces the 5.0L?  High test 6.8L contradicts every feature Ford wanted in the 7.3L

 

[ESP08]

22 minutes ago, Power Kid said:

 but its unfathomable that the 6.8L replaces the 5.0L?  

 

I think so.

Ford has committed 5.0 production to Essex for the foreseeable future and Ford just invested money in the Gen 4 Coyote (cylinder deactivation) for the 21 MY F150.   

 

I just can't see a Godzilla 6.8 directly replacing the 5.0.  

  

   

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, ESP08 said:

 

I think so.

Ford has committed 5.0 production to Essex for the foreseeable future and Ford just invested money in the Gen 4 Coyote (cylinder deactivation) for the 21 MY F150.   

 

I just can't see a Godzilla 6.8 directly replacing the 5.0.  

It won’t but under certain circumstances, a large capacity engine is preferred, either by customer “gotta have” or as more fuel efficient towing engines. S/C 5.2 is the gun engine at the moment and Ford will keep using it for as long as they see fit. We know from Jerry Dias’ public statements that Ford has plans for the 6.8 V8 in F Series and Mustang but I suspect that it will first see use in Super Duty as some sort of  Apex engine or headline grabber before going into next Gen Mustang.

[jpd80]

The 6.8 is an enigma, we know that it’s progressing but Ford keeping tight control of actual details and usage. It just occurred to me that if the 6.8 has its own engine production and assembly facility, that it wont need to be part of the special engine production line…
 

That tells me the F150 5.2 Raptor R is a different product to that being planned for the 6.8 V8 but what could that be? Makes me think this 6.8 has to be different enough from the 7.3 to justify its development and different enough not to be mentioned until reveal and launch  of new 5.2 Raptor R is done.

 

Is it possible that the special Engine Line continues producing and forward building the 5.2 until it switches location?

Edited May 20, 2022 by jpd80

[Captainp4]

Alright, I'm really reaching here... but is there any identifying features that nail that down as the predator engine? I can see a DOHC head, but what if, as suggested by some, the 6.8 is actually a DOHC engine more closely related to the 6.2 and that picture with "5.2" is just to throw us off? ?

[ESP08]

It would be difficult to ge TiVCT 4-valve 6.8 with a TVS supercharger to make less than 900 crank. 

Unless it’s a surprise of the century it’s gotta be a 5.2.  

 

 

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

Alright, I'm really reaching here... but is there any identifying features that nail that down as the predator engine? I can see a DOHC head, but what if, as suggested by some, the 6.8 is actually a DOHC engine more closely related to the 6.2 and that picture with "5.2" is just to throw us off? ?

Ford already producing the 5.2 V8 for Mustang, very few engine assembly line changes if any required to plug it into F150 Raptor, it’s all about amortising an existing engine.

[Bob Rosadini]

Question...isn't the 6.8 supposed to be a clone of the 7.3?  And it is my understanding the 7.3 gets great reviews as a towing choice. Read one guys view that it was a better choice for him than PS he previously had..no regrets. Could it be a replacement for 3.5 EB in 150?  Less costly to produce, might be more attractive to a lot of people who are still doubtful about longevity of the EB in extended towing operations-and a reason why the GM V-8's are a better choice for these people???

All the attributes of the 7.3 that made it a good design for commercial applications in a smaller package???

[Power Kid]

This is my hope. I just went from a F150 3.5 to a a F250 7.3L. Haven't towed yet though. Soon. 

[Captainp4]

20 hours ago, ESP08 said:

It would be difficult to ge TiVCT 4-valve 6.8 with a TVS supercharger to make less than 900 crank. 

Unless it’s a surprise of the century it’s gotta be a 5.2.  

 

 

I know, but how cool would a DOHC 6.8 with a blower be? Let me dream lol