F-150 Raptor Forums banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
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.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
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/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top