F-150 Raptor Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Well if the coyote has 400hp/400tq then the 6.2 has gotta be more than that. I dont really see the point of making to different sized motors that make the same numbers. So look like the 6.2 could be packing more than they say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
The Eco Boost V6 is quoted to have very similar HP / TQ numbers as well...so why should Ford make 3 engines with very similar numbers?...Because HP / TQ numbers aren't really the whole story...you've got to look at WHEN they make those numbers vs. what your needs are. I know that the 5.4 and 6.2 have very similar numbers from what we're being told currently, but the 6.2 will have a larger Bore which should provide better low-end torque than the 5.4 and the 6.2 seems to be a much heavier-duty design as well. I think they'll both be good motors for a Raptor. Mileage depends a LOT on how you drive. I really wonder why they're replacing the 4.6 / 5.4 design though...it's still a very good design for moderately used engines...I see the 6.2 only really shining when towing VERY heavy loads and at mileages > 300K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts
Yeah read that over at Blue Oval about 6 months ago. The 5.0 was to be the original motor for the Raptor, but they had a big supply of 5.4`s that they needed to get rid of, so what better place than the Raptor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
So why get rid of the 4.6 / 5.4 Modular design in the first place? Technically, it is a more advanced platform...the new platform may well out-last the former, but how many people drive vehicles past 300Kmi anyway? By the time I could get that many miles on an engine, they'll have a solar version that makes 500 HP with 1000 ft. lbs of torque! The EcoBoost is an expensive engine to make and will be even more expensive to maintain / repair...and it's torque will only be available at high RPM's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
So why get rid of the 4.6 / 5.4 Modular design in the first place? Technically, it is a more advanced platform...the new platform may well out-last the former, but how many people drive vehicles past 300Kmi anyway? By the time I could get that many miles on an engine, they'll have a solar version that makes 500 HP with 1000 ft. lbs of torque! The EcoBoost is an expensive engine to make and will be even more expensive to maintain / repair...and it's torque will only be available at high RPM's.
The ecoboost currently available in the Flex, MKS and MKT make their 350lb-ft. starting at 1500 rpm. I don't see where the ecoboost would be more expensive to maintain, maybe takes a bit more oil or something but just because it's turbocharged doesn't really mean more to maintain. In my opinion, I'd say make the ecoboost v6 standard, then the 5.0 and keep a higher number 6.2 for the Raptor, H-D and Super Duty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
The larger bore of the 6.2 does not mean more torque, a longer stroke is responsible for more torque. The 5.4 has a long stroke for an engine of it's size, hence it has good torque. I'm not sure what Ford is doing to ensure the 6.2L Boss has good torque, I'm sure a combination of things.

The 5.0 Coyote may well have good peak numbers, but I'd bet it's a fairly peaky engine too. Fine for a Mustang, but not the best choice for an F-150.

300,000 miles? That has nothing to do with displacement. I've seen a 4.3L Chevy V6 go over 335,000 in a half ton truck without problems. It's down on power, sure, but no mechanical failures whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I didn't say that the 300K mi. had anything to do with the displacement...it's just in the structure...the way the motor is designed. If it was a 3L with the same design, I'd say that it would last equally as long...just with a different purpose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
laredneck,

Thanks for the clarification. I don't have any idea about the "longevity" of the 6.2L Boss design. As far as I know it's designed to be very durable and have a ton of potential. The only particular design point I can think of that's there to enhance longevity is probably the oil stream onto the bottom of the pistons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
I would hope that if the old Pinto 2.3 turbo in my old SVO made it 200k mi. that a motor designed today will make it at least that, lol
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top