EcoBoost Raptor coming in 2013?? Take a look...

[debate]

Did you guys ever think there could be a 6.2 eco boost? Just something to think about. It could happen

I'll take the 6.2 two-stroke motor. And a heated steering wheel. And a shifter button that's labeled T/HA.

 

[Reptar]

1. Remember when I said the 5.8 was an evolved 5.4?? Ford took the exsisting gt500 5.4 block, bored it out, with the help of some exotic cylinder wall liners, was able to safely achieve 5.8 litres. It's not an all new engine that's ready to sweep the world over. It's the last remaining effort from an all but DEAD engine family. That's it! A couple other refinements a new blower and that's it! It's not some new ****** big deal, its based off a dying engine platform that's three times older then the 6.2.

And the 5.4 is a 4.6 with 1" more deck height or something along those lines. And the 5.0 evolved from the 4.6. That's how things work. They evolve from a previous platform and improve upon them, but just because one engine evolved from another doesn't mean it's not a totally new platform that ford isn't going to utilize to the fullest extent. Ford isn't just taking existing 5.4 blocks and boring them out to 5.8. The entire block is new, and I'm sure it may share a few things that they've learned from the 5.0. It may not be too distant of a cousin from the 5.4, but it's still a new platform, and I'm sure Ford will capitalize on that

2. In theory the tvs blower is making up a little over 325 hp (not counting parasitic losses) of the 650hp on its own. It's a little disspointing the 5.8 takes 15 pounds of boost to achieve 650 hp. Sure its probably conservative tune, but we see the same numbers from less pounds of boost from the dinosaur dirt 6.2.

1st, where do you come up with getting the 5.8 only makes 325 hp on its own and the other 325 comes from the blower?

2nd, who has a TVS blower on a 6.2 to get your second statement from????

3. Is there any good reason to Shit can the 6.2?? Can you give one? It's leading the class in power. It's simple, basic, cheaper to manufacture, has comparable mpg#, and it cleans the air. It makes shy of 500hp with bolt ons. Has no common failure issues. What else do you want??

It's heavy, it's a fuel pig, if Ford can make comparable numbers with smaller displacement and less weight and better mileage and share 1 more powertrain among vehicles it's money in their pocket, and boosts their fleet average fuel economy ratings. Now yes the 6.2 is also utilized in the superduties, but who knows, they could keep it, they could nix it and go 5.8 throughout.

4. The 6.2 does not use epas because it also goes in the superdutys. You tell me how many superdutys use electronic steering GEAR BOXES. None! It needs to have the bolt bosses to mount a power steering pump for the superdutys. The 6.2 could easily use the epas system by simply not bolting a power steering pump to the front of it. It's that ******* simple.

For whatever reason Ford decided not to extend EPAS onto the 6.2 but use it on every other engine option. Could be because as you said the 6.2 is in the superduty and maybe EPAS isn't "ruggedized" enough for superduty standards and they didn't want to develope two systems for the 6.2??? If they did introduce EPAS into the 6.2 and Raptors though, I'm sure SVT would need to do some testing on it with a test mule to make sure it acted and responded as they wanted. IIRC the raptor suprecrews have a different steering ratio than regular supercrews to improve offroad performance of the longer trucks. I've read before some non-6.2 regular f150 guys with EPAS and lifted setups with big tires reported the EPAS didn't like to go too well with the bigger tires, but haven't seen a whole lot on it to know how valid that actually is.

5. What the **** pills are you on because you need to start sharing.

I'm not on any pills, but maybe some of you need some zoloft or something. I'm just a Raptor enthusiast and enjoy talking/debating about what we think could be in future trucks. I don't know why so many current owners get so pissy about it and offended and closed minded on thinking that someday things may change and different things may be offered in the truck. If I'm saying I think the next engine will be a 32v twin turbo direct injection 6.2 and Ford is probably working on an 8.4 liter engine next, then yeah I"m ranting on based on nothing. Saying I could realistically see Ford putting the 5.8's into trucks in the future and sharing that platform since Ford does have an extremely strong history of sharing variations of platforms among many vehicles, I don't understand why that concept can't be grasped by so many.

See the blue.....the color of some pills you probably should be taking lol

Did you guys ever think there could be a 6.2 eco boost? Just something to think about. It could happen

Doubtful. The ecoboost theme is small displacement engines with forced induction to get the performance of an 8 with the fuel economy of a 6.
We'll see an ecoboost 5.0 long before an ecoboost 6.2. Here's a quote from a 5.0 Mustangs Magazine article on the 5.0 development...

Few hard points were fixed at the Coyote's conception, but a handful were quickly set. The new engine's point of departure was the existing 4.6 modular architecture. It would not use EcoBoost- Ford's combination of direct fuel injection and turbocharging-but it would be engineered to withstand forced induction and to package EcoBoost fuel injectors in the future. The new engine would be as physically small as possible while physically stronger than the 4.6. Naturally, the team quickly landed on 5.0 liters of displacement


And as to earlier ignorant responses of "well if Ford didn't ecoboost the 5.0 when it 1st came out then they never will" here's an answer to that, and exactly along with what I said earlier, they did a little work now to be ready for it in the future, and save a lot of work down the road when they do add it, because the space is already allocated for it.


But as we just heard, this doesn't mean the Coyote will always keep its traditional charms. The engine was engineered from the beginning for supercharging or EcoBoost, so why not EcoBoost the engine now?

"We were able to meet our objectives without it, and quite frankly, it's quite expensive," Mike educated. "On this platform, its $50 to do DI on the V-8 with two pumps and eight injectors ... And the other thing is, we only had two years to deliver it, from initially talking about it to spitting 'em out at the factory. It could have been potentially one of the technologies that tripped us up in terms of timing."

Perhaps the final major head-design challenge was packaging everything into the downsized Coyote head. This was only slightly complicated by leaving room for an EcoBoost fuel injector. Its path low on the intake side was protected during Coyote development in case Ford decides to fit the somewhat bulky direct injection injector to the 5.0-liter in the future.

 

[Humvee21]

I stopped reading this thread since page like 8... The posts are getting ridiculously long.

 

[debate]

On the current 3.5 EB's on the regular f150's yes, but ford may have moved those in a different location for the Raptor if they were going to add the 3.5 EB into it,

Yes, "if they were going to add the 3.5 EB into" the Raptor. But the Raptor is a sport 4x4 and the 3.5 EB would be a wet blanket over the concept. When your Raptor is delivered and you tool around in T/H mode, I bet you'll agree that the 6.2 is an excellent motor.

 

[MagicMtnDan]

What the **** pills are you on because you need to start sharing.

Always glad to see the Raptor folks with so much in common treating each other so nicely

 

[pirate air]

Always glad to see the Raptor folks with so much in common treating each other so nicely

Isn't it about time for you to get banned again? And again. And again. And again.

 

[pirate air]

1. The 5.8 is not totally new. It's a modified dying 5.4 engine. What is totally new is the 6.2. It's brand new, oil pan to throttle body. It's got a bunch of the same technology the all new 5.0 has. Also the 6.2 has the same provisions in the heads for Di like the 5.0. The 6.2 isn't leaving anytime soon, it just got here. It makes no financial sense to drag out another motor when the 6.2 still has potential.


2. Corky Bell and/or Smokey Yunick in basic performance engine theory.

I did not say specifically under tvs. I said under boost. Going any further into that is splitting hairs with todays supercharger efficiency differences. The 6.2 is making the same horse power with less boost via supercharger. Take your pick, whipple, vortec, procharger.

3. Heavy? What are you comparing it to? Ford builds the heaviest trucks on the market. You really think they're concerned enough over 100 ish pounds to drag out another engine project? Are you concerned with a truck that weighs over 6000 pounds? Did you order your Raptor as base model? Things like sun roofs, audio amps, navigation heads, ********* coolers all add weight you know.

Fuel pig? How much better mpg does the imaginary 5.8 engine get? Has to be pretty significant to roll out another engine. We could just work on refining the 6.2's mpg, but instead let's have ford pump more money into another engine based off a 16 year old dying platform.



4. I don't think you understand the epas. Its an all electronic steering rack. The superdutys steering and suspension design does not use a rack. It uses a gear box. At this time there is no electronic gear box from ford. The 6.2 got a space for a pump because the super duty had to have a pump for hydraulic pressure to run the gear box. All ford would have to do to make the 6.2 epas is unbolt and discard the power steering pump and upgrade the alternator. That's all there is to it. Epas isn't something internal in the engine. Why are you so hung up on it? Why they didn't do epas for the Raptor I can only guess the electronic rack isn't as strong as the hydro unit. Ford could have done it real easy if they wanted to. The 6.2 does NOT prohibit the us of epas in any way what so ever. None.

 

[Madcowranch]

Always glad to see the Raptor folks with so much in common treating each other so nicely

Pirate's all jacked up on Mtn Dew. Best to just leave him alone.

 

[Reptar]

Yes, "if they were going to add the 3.5 EB into" the Raptor. But the Raptor is a sport 4x4 and the 3.5 EB would be a wet blanket over the concept. When your Raptor is delivered and you tool around in T/H mode, I bet you'll agree that the 6.2 is an excellent motor.

Not even going to dig into that one to the fullest extent. Not everyone needs or wants the 6.2. For some they'd gladly take the $1500 or so less the 3.5 costs, along with the better fuel economy, equal towing capability, marginally less hp, and near comparable tq with slightly lower peak numbers but better curve. Some sacrafices in areas, some benefits in others. Ford sold plenty of 5.4 Raptors before the 6.2 was available and there's a lot of happy 5.4 guys out there. Some traded in for 6.2's, but some love their 5.4s. Again I don't see Ford offereing the 3.5 EB and eliminating the 6.2, but I could see them offering both. After all on average 50% of F-150 sales are ecoboosts. When there is 4 engine options available, and HALF go with the 3.5, that says a lot.

And yes the ecoboost in the raptor wouldn't get as good of mileage as it does in the regular f150, and yes it wouldn't be as fast as the 6.2 in the Raptor. But it would still get better mileage than the 6.2, and it would still be a plenty capable engine for guys who don't need every ounce of power they can get.

I"m sure I'll love my 6.2 when I get my Raptor. But I have a 700+ rwhp truck sitting in my garage that I can drive whenever I want to go fast. A high 14 to 15 second truck just doesn't impress me. Yes it's sufficient, but I'm not getting it for impressing me as "fast" as my definition of that is starkly different than the average joe blow. I would much perfer to have saved $1500 if there was an EB option instead of the 6.2, get better mileage since it'll be my daily driver (and even 2-3 mpg makes a difference over time), and still have full towing capability with the truck. Just because I would have preferred a 3.5 doesn't mean I don't like the 6.2, or there's anything horrible about it, it's a very fitting engine for the truck, but there's clearly a market for offering the EB in the Raptor, and I'd jump in that line as well if there was one.

1. The 5.8 is not totally new. It's a modified dying 5.4 engine. What is totally new is the 6.2. It's brand new, oil pan to throttle body. It's got a bunch of the same technology the all new 5.0 has. Also the 6.2 has the same provisions in the heads for Di like the 5.0. The 6.2 isn't leaving anytime soon, it just got here. It makes no financial sense to drag out another motor when the 6.2 still has potential.

The 5.8 is not a modified 5.4. It's design grew from the 5.4, but they did not take a 5.4 and modify and send it down the assembly line. It shares a deck height and engine architecture to the 5.4, but Ford still has a new manufacturing process to create the 5.8. If it was an existing 5.4 that they just punched out as an extra step on the assembly line then yes I'd agree with you. But the 5.8 is an entire new casting, new internal rotating assembly, revised heads, new cam profiles, cross drilled block, and integrates a cast oil pan for additional structural strenth. To go to such extent to create a new engine (no matter what its based from, it's a new line) I'm sure Ford will capitilize on that investment and get their use out of it.

Unless you're also going to argue that the 4.6 and 5.4 are the same engines too, and Ford just adds an extra step on the assembly line to machine off an inch of deck height to make the 4.6's lol. Two engines that are very similar and share nearly the same engine architecture, but two totally individual platforms regarding manufacturing.

As for the 6.2 and 5.0, LOL yeah they're really similar in the fact they're both 8 cylinders, after that it pretty much stops. One's aluminum block, one's iron block, one's 4v, one's 2v, one's TiVCT, one's not, one's 11:1 compression, one's 9.8:1, would you like me to keep going?

2. Corky Bell and/or Smokey Yunick in basic performance engine theory.

I did not say specifically under tvs. I said under boost. Going any further into that is splitting hairs with todays supercharger efficiency differences. The 6.2 is making the same horse power with less boost via supercharger. Take your pick, whipple, vortec, procharger.

And what was the theory you used to get that number? Did they say divide it in half to get what the supecharger would add? Sweet where's these guys with 800+ hp 6.2's?

And maybe you need to do more than flip the pages and look at the pictures, because there is a big difference in what type of supercharger you go with, in addition to compression ratios. Until you show me a 6.2 with a TVS on it, you can't make any comparison to a 6.2 with a whipple to a 5.8 with a TVS. Also you can't compare a 6.2 with 9.8:1 compression and boost to a 5.8 with 9.0:1 compression and boost. Apples to oranges, bananas to apricots. Just look at the existing GT500's, many guys put on TVS blowers, and many have put on twin screws and laid down more power. Also take any car, add boost, then increase compression and you'll make even more power. So saying the 6.2 makes more power than the 5.8 lb for lb on boost, with different blowers, even ignoring the blowers not being equal, you can't ingore the nearly full point difference in compression ratio if you're trying to make a valid arguement.

And if it were that simple, why didn't Ford save all that time and money creating the 5.8 if they could have just slapped a 6.2 in the GT500?

3. Heavy? What are you comparing it to? Ford builds the heaviest trucks on the market. You really think they're concerned enough over 100 ish pounds to drag out another engine project? Are you concerned with a truck that weighs over 6000 pounds? Did you order your Raptor as base model? Things like sun roofs, audio amps, navigation heads, ********* coolers all add weight you know.

Your ignorance is oozing everywhere Yes Ford is concerned about every 100 lbs they add to the truck, and it's a balancing act of retaining quality and creature comforts, while minimizing weight. And if they can drop 100 lbs that is huge. I am concerned with a truck that weighs over 6k lbs. If I could have had an option for an aluminum block I certainly would have checked that box off. Every 100 lbs of additional weight impacts performance, impacts handling, and impacts fuel economy. I could have gotten a bare bones truck and sacraficed my creature comforts I wanted, but I rather would have gotten the creature comforts I wanted, and an engine option that wasn't a boat anchor yet still retained equal or better performance.

Secondly, they're not dragging out any new engine project, the 5.8 already exists, it's done, the major engineering expenses and time is already spent designing the block and resetting up the Romeo manufacturing line for it. Making tweaks to fit different vehicle platforms now becomes the easy part.

Fuel pig? How much better mpg does the imaginary 5.8 engine get? Has to be pretty significant to roll out another engine. We could just work on refining the 6.2's mpg, but instead let's have ford pump more money into another engine based off a 16 year old dying platform.

LOL, even if it got 0.5 mpg better than the 6.2, it would improve ford's CAFE fleet average fuel economy. And when they're spending BIG bucks to meet the mandated fuel economy ratings, every bit helps. So even if that 0.5 mpg improvement wasn't significant to the consumer, it still helps that overall # Ford needs to hit anyway.

They could (and I'm sure they will) work on refining the 6.2 mpg, but if there's a potential to make the same power, out of a smaller/lighter block, that already exists, it's easier than trying to make the bigger/heavier motor as fuel efficient.

As for the "dying" platform, LOL and what do you think is next? Or "when" is the more appropriate question. When do you think Ford is going to chit-can all of their current motors because they're "old" designs and all evolve from one another? Because all of these engines are similar enough to be considered of that same platform if you're talking about it getting old and ready to die off. 4.6, 5.4, 5.0, 6.2, 5.8, etc. etc. You do realize the Windsor platform was around for 40 years right? The Modular platform will be around for a looooong time to come and isn't anywhere near dieing off yet. The 4.6 is dead, but the 5.0 evolved off that and is healthly and well and in it's infancy as far as the newly developed platform goes. The 5.4 is dead as well now, but the 5.8 evolved off that has just as much potential for growth as the 5.0 has.


4. I don't think you understand the epas. Its an all electronic steering rack. The superdutys steering and suspension design does not use a rack. It uses a gear box. At this time there is no electronic gear box from ford. The 6.2 got a space for a pump because the super duty had to have a pump for hydraulic pressure to run the gear box. All ford would have to do to make the 6.2 epas is unbolt and discard the power steering pump and upgrade the alternator. That's all there is to it. Epas isn't something internal in the engine. Why are you so hung up on it? Why they didn't do epas for the Raptor I can only guess the electronic rack isn't as strong as the hydro unit. Ford could have done it real easy if they wanted to. The 6.2 does NOT prohibit the us of epas in any way what so ever. None.

I'm not saying the 6.2 itself prohibits EPAS. But Ford chose not to use it for whatever reason on the 6.2 desipte all the other f150 lineup having it. I wish they would add it, it took a little getting used to at first, but once I got used to the feel, it was great. Especially while towing.

 

[Madcowranch]

Is there a way I can get a thread to not show up in new posts?