Ford 6.2L -vs- Chevy 6.2L

SDDLUP · Oct 2, 2009

First the Ford 6.2L BOSS engine…

SOHC design, two valves per cylinder, 102mm Bore, 95mm stroke, 2.10” intake valve, 1.65” exhaust valve, 115mm bore spacing, two plugs per cylinder. Target numbers of 425HP and 425 lbs./ft. then 400/400. The Raptor R motor showed 500HP and maybe 350 lbs./ft. at 1,000 RPM dipping to maybe 325 lbs./ft. at 1,500 then back up to 375 lbs./ft. at 2,000 and a nice steady climb from there.

Now the Chevy 6.2L, L92, Vortec 6200 (or whatever it's called)…

OHV design, but apparently uses variable valve timing, makes 403HP and 417 lbs./ft., with what looks like over 300 lbs./ft. right from 1,000RPM, with no dips at all.

I initially though the 6.2L BOSS engine would match the Chevy numbers, but perform better because of a much better torque curve. The Chevy 6.2L however has an extremely flat torque curve that will be tough to beat. I’m still hoping that the Ford will be a better performing engine, and I’ll be happy with 400+ HP but it’s going to need more torque than the Chevy, not just a flat torque curve.

roser · Oct 3, 2009

How about that "Cam in block" design they (GM and Chrysler/UAW) call "OHV"
Overhead valves have been around since the '50s.
Thats when it was a big deal to have valves that weren't in the block like a lawn mower engine.

And what's with the "Hemi" tag line.
When was the last time you saw a new Ford engine that didn't have a hemispherical combustion chamber.

A lot of distracting marketing ploys so you won't realize the manufacturer isn't putting anything into engine development.

Ford is now, with the "eco-boost", 2 generations ahead of the other US manufacturers.

SOCOMech · Oct 3, 2009

Not only that but nobody has seen the numbers or where their made on the factory 6.2 yet.

clubber · Oct 3, 2009

The 6.2 from Ford costs $3000...........Chevys 6.2 costs $1200 :strokin:

SDDLUP · Oct 3, 2009

roser,

I appreciate your sentiments, but the Chevy is of formitable engine, one that will be tough for Ford to surpass I think. Not that they can't.

Dodge "Hemi" is all about marketing.

roser · Oct 3, 2009

SDDLUP said:
roser,

I appreciate your sentiments, but the Chevy is of formitable engine, one that will be tough for Ford to surpass I think. Not that they can't.

Dodge "Hemi" is all about marketing.

Just baggin' on the competition.
I actually built a pushrod motor that was awesome. Ford 427 (not the SOHC) with 428CJ crank. I put it in a 1969 F100 short bed 2wd with BFG Mud T/A.
454 Cubes of brute force and it was 1960's tech except for the MSD and roller stuff.

adrianglock · Apr 30, 2011

I think Chevy is so far the closest match to FORD! Ford is superior in some ways but Chevy has the power and durability to catch up with it's innovative engine design.

mblgjr · Apr 30, 2011

The Chevrolet LS family of engines is cheap to produce, cheap to service, easy to work on (easily modified), and dead reliable. It's also relatively lightweight and compact. Too bad they don't have a truck that's as good as their engines.

The Ford modular family in naturally aspirated form sucks. And I'm a diehard Ford guy. But face it, for the added crap and complexity of the SOHC (much less 3V or 4V configurations) I think they ought to rev about 700rpm higher than the GM and make at least 45HP more than what they do. Generally the compression is too low and the heads are too big; which is why about 7-10psi of boost is such a wonderful thing...ta-da...big power.

The Coyote 5.0 in the Mustang is the first n/a modular that's gotten my attention. I see a direct-injection system coming for it in 2013 probably.

You can keep the Ecoboost. Good idea for the masses in theory. V8 performance in an economical package. I don't foresee it truly holding up to the public's abuse though (not changing the oil, not cooling the turbo's down after extended full-load running, etc. etc.)

bluesun · Apr 30, 2011

Wasn't the 6.2 cancelled at some point? I think they kept it for all the die hard truck guys. Apparently 36% of f150 buyers are going for the eco-boost engine, and they only have a 9 day supply of trucks on the ground. If gas goes up another buck, it's probably going to be over 50%. If they can get a little more power out of it, not sure why you wouldn't want to go that way. All the power, half the gas usage. The 5.0 seems to have the same power as the 6.2, not sure why the tow rating is lower. Is it engineering or is it marketing?

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/28/fords-ecoboost-v6-accounts-for-36-of-all-f-150-sales/

cpetterson · May 1, 2011

adrianglock said:
I think Chevy is so far the closest match to FORD! Ford is superior in some ways but Chevy has the power and durability to catch up with it's innovative engine design.

Chevy truck parts
Parts and accessories
Genuine Car Parts

You heap praise on the Chevy engine, advertise Chevy truck parts in your post, and your user data says you drive a "2009 Ford Raptor"?

Really? Lots of credibility there...

All The Way · May 1, 2011

cpetterson said:
advertise Chevy truck parts in your post

hmm... mods must have missed that

mblgjr · May 1, 2011

bluesun said:
Wasn't the 6.2 cancelled at some point? http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/28/fords-ecoboost-v6-accounts-for-36-of-all-f-150-sales/

No the 6.2 was never cancelled, though the project name did change from "Hurricane" to "Boss" after Katrina.

The Ecoboost serves most people very well. Face it, most of these trucks are hauling groceries, kiddies, and sitting in stop and go traffic 90% of the time.

The 5.0 is basically 50hp and 50tq shy of the Raptor 6.2 and 25/25 shy of the standard 6.2. To me the 5.0 is the bargain of the bunch for the F150 crowd. The 6.2 is a bigger engine under less stress and should survive in severe service a bit longer compared to an Eco or 5.0

Production numbers like that are always skewed because dealers will order the "new" engines and fad-options for any given year. It's like how the numbers show Raptor owners opted for the graphics and luxury package. When in fact thats just how the dealers order them...optioned up. Customers buy them because that's whats available and they don't want to wait. The minority of us just want the base truck without the silly tape graphics and electronic twaddle. But the numbers are skewed a bit IMO.

Boss Hoss · May 1, 2011

My 09 LTZ with the 6.2 was a hands down much faster than the Ford. It did have Mast Performance Cams, and a tune that took three day to get perfect!
Now for the down side---2 rear mains in 52k miles AND the reason the cams were installed---had the engine torn down right before Christmas looking for a ticking noise. Turned out to be a fractured wrist pin bushing in #8!!

No more Government Motors for me for a while LOL!!!

Would love to try out the same modification in the Raptor but there are not that many folks that are offering an aftermarket cam for the 6.2. Who knows how long Ford will even keep this motor around—I would imagine that it will be replaced with a more advanced fuel efficient one in the next couple of years.

You can have the SC and Turbo’s-----nothing replaces a nice lumpy idle at a stop light or the sound at 6200 RPM where mine shifted! Got quite a few complements on that truck and many were interested in the sound because there was no doubt it was not a stock engine lol..

WarSurfer · May 1, 2011

Where we are at a deficit is in our block construction. The biggest plus with the LS series engines is that almost all parts are interchangeable.

we don't have an option for an aluminum block, which in 2011 is ****ing retarded.

mblgjr · May 1, 2011

WarSurfer said:
Where we are at a deficit is in our block construction. The biggest plus with the LS series engines is that almost all parts are interchangeable.

we don't have an option for an aluminum block, which in 2011 is ****ing retarded.

Iron is cheaper and more stable than aluminum.

Weight-wise there is a nominal advantage to going to aluminum.

mblgjr · May 1, 2011

Boss Hoss said:
My 09 LTZ with the 6.2 was a hands down much faster than the Ford. It did have Mast Performance Cams, and a tune that took three day to get perfect!

Well no crap.

A cammed LS with the compression bumped up and a pair of AFR heads will smoke a lot of things and put down some seriously impressive numbers.

We're talking stock for stock here.

Head/cams on the LS is tons o' fun for sure though :smileup:

It's like putting a Whipple 3.4 on a GT500... 800+HP makes for some interesting rides :naughty:

WarSurfer · May 2, 2011

mblgjr said:
Iron is cheaper and more stable than aluminum.

Weight-wise there is a nominal advantage to going to aluminum.

there are all aluminum 1500hp cobra's, I'm guessing that inferior alloy could support a 500hp truck... there are REAL prerunners that are running 800+hp aluminum blocks...

nominal? lets say it's 'only' a 100lb difference, that's 100lbs over the nose. The truck would be much more balanced without that extra 100lbs. Every pound is an advantage with a truck this heavy.

cheaper, yup. for a flagship vehicle I would have rather had aluminum.

slynch68 · May 2, 2011

Google ford's PWTA process. Iron may be more stable than aluminum but look at this technology on the nano molecular level and this leaves iron in the dust. Nissan borrowed and had to pay ford to use the technology on their new GT-R. Ford was probably fine-tuning the process before using under their name and now use it on the 2011 GT500. Not only is the process better than press in liners but cheaper and stronger. Only issue is not being able to bore the motor out. I know there's no replacement for displacement(especially for a heavy truck the bigger the better) but with all the power new motors are making who need more displacement. More cubes just means more guzzle....$4 a gallon doesn't help.

Motomike · May 2, 2011

I have the GM 6.2 in the wife's Denali and that engine is bad ass! The one area I can really appriciate right now is on a long trip I can squeeze 20 mpg out of it. I haven't received my Raptor yet for a door to door comparison but that GM is going to be tough to beat!

Dr Tone · May 2, 2011

Motomike said:
I have the GM 6.2 in the wife's Denali and that engine is bad ass! The one area I can really appriciate right now is on a long trip I can squeeze 20 mpg out of it. I haven't received my Raptor yet for a door to door comparison but that GM is going to be tough to beat!

Comparing gas mileage between to similar engines in 2 completely different vehicles is like comparing apples to oranges.

If you popped the Ford 6.2 in the Denali it will be close to the 20mpg range as well.

Boss Hoss · May 2, 2011

When my 6.2 was stock but with a 4in lift 325 Nitto Terra Grabbers, programmer, air intake but gearing was way too high (always is when you put bigger tires on) got 17.5 hwy @70.

My Raptor pretty much the same mods (no lift) and tire size gets 16 to 16.5 on the same stretch of highway. Both trucks drank gas when you got over 70 to 75. The raptor falls to 11.0 to 12.0 at 85 and the Chevy fell to 11.5 to 12.

I drive the same long stretch of highway across Texas—have for years and the best was the 2003 Duramax, programmer, bigger tires, lift, air intake and different exhaust got 22mpg at 70 and fell to 20.5 at 75-80.

RPF · May 4, 2011

Here's a dyno test comparison A SS Camaro (LS3, manual) and a Raptor (6.2, automatic). Done on the same dyno at about the same time of year. The same consumer website owned both vehicles. Camaro tested with 91 octane fuel, unknown what the Raptor was tested with.

Sorry about the gigantic size, the image isn't mine. Published specs seem to indicate that the LS3 6.2L is a more powerful engine than the L9H 6.2L used in GM's truck line. Also, the LS3 uses a manual transmission in this application while the truck version would use an automatic which would cause more power loss.

Given this info, it would seem that the Ford 6.2L has more power than the GM one. If the GM truck seems faster, it's most likely due to lower weight and a smaller and lighter wheel and tire package.

bluesun · May 5, 2011

Great graph. Thanks for posting.

WarSurfer · May 5, 2011

so we are to believe that the raptor engine, which has less brake hp is putting almost as much hp to the ground? I'm not sure I give much credence to that graph, especially since the camaro is 2wd and using a manual - it would have less parasitic loss than the 4wd truck.

I've owned several LS engines, there is zero doubt in my mind that they are performers.

Camaro 2SS
Torque: 420 ft-lbs
HP: 426

Raptor 6.2
Torque: 434 ft-lbs
HP: 411

There is no ricer magic that I know of that will make that graph work...

the 'average' 6.2l Raptor dyno's ~ 325-330rwhp
the 'average' 2ss Camaro dyno's ~ 365-370rwhp

05 Redfire GT · May 5, 2011

The only way to know is to put 35 inch tires on chevy 6.2 and dyno the same day along side of the ford 6.2. The raptor would probably put down 15-30 more rwhp with 30-31 inch tires. JUST SAYING. INCREASED ROTATING MASS= DECREASE HP

05 Redfire GT · May 5, 2011

OH, also a auto in the camaro would also bring those numbers to around 350hp. Put 35 inch tires on the camaro and see what happens?

Ford 6.2L -vs- Chevy 6.2L

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities