Wanted to quote, but apparently someone broke the quote button with all their novel writing....
lol yeah little truck with typing in the quotes with color to make the responses easier 
A decade on forums, it's second nature lol
1. The 5.8 is still a modified 5.4, not a brand new engine. That's why 5.4 and 5.8 parts will interchange (gee, wonder where the term modular came from), unlike any 6.2 or 5.0 parts. I don't care about the money spent to make the 5.8, the 6.2 took more. The argument that Ford will take the opportunity to capitalize on investment goes to the 6.2 when cost is concerned.
You do realize that many of the 4.6, 5.4, 5.0, and 5.8 parts will all interchange as well right? So the 5.0 isn't a new platform either than by your logic. They all use the same bore spacing, their heads will all bolt up to any block. Even the 6.8 V10 has an identical bore to the 5.4, just 2 more cylinders. So I guess the 5.0 is a dead platform as well.
The 6.2 may not share that same bore spacing, but it still a modular engine. Modular just means the manufacturing process can be retooled with relatively little effort to manufacture different variations of the "modular" engine family, and not all totally unique setups. All of these engines, 6.2/5.4/5.0/4.6/etc. are all based around the same design, primarily OHC (vice pushrods and OHV) and different bores & strokes differentiate the lineup. They're all deep-skirt blocks, they all have cross bolted main caps, they're all crank driven oil pump, they're all OHC (and can interchange DOHC or SOHC heads), and all the same bellhousing/motor mount bolt patterns. In fact the differences are fewer than the similarities. The 6.2 heads have dual plugs, and as far as the block, the main difference on the 6.2 is the wider bore spacing, but tweaking bore size and bore spacings on a new engine setup is far from being radically outside the engine family when the main architecture (SOHC, bolt patterns, etc.) are all the same.
Check it out....
4.6: Bore 90.2mm, Stroke 90mm, Spacing 100mm
5.0: Bore 92.2mm, Stroke 92.7mm, Spacing 100mm
5.4: Bore 90.2mm, Stroke 105.8mm, Spacing 100mm
5.8: Bore 93.0mm, Stroke 105.8mm, Spacing 100mm
6.2: Bore 102.0mm, Stroke 95.0mm, Spacing 115mm
The 4.6 and 5.4 share the same bore
The 4.6, 5.0, 5.4, and 5.8 share the same bore spacing
The 5.4 and 5.8 share the same stroke
Going from the "base" of a 4.6, the 5.0 was achieved by increasing bore and stroke a few mm on each. The 5.4 was achieved by adding stroke to the 4.6. The 5.8 was achieved by adding bore to the 5.4. The 6.2 was achieved by adding bore, adding bore spacing, and adding reducing stroke from the 5.4 (or adding stroke from the 4.6).
Boiling it all down to the basics, my point is just all of these blocks are built upon a very similar architecture, and the only main differences are changes in bore/stroke/spacing. And not to confuse it even more, while the're all similar architectures, they're all unique and different platforms. The 5.8 is no more just a "bored 5.4" than the 5.4 is just a "stroked 4.6", or the 5.0 is just a "bored & stroked 4.6", or the 6.2 is just a "bored and destroked 5.4".
Man I wish I dug up the numbers to post that at the start lol.
2. That's a special picture of the GT500 5.8 you got there. Got any pictures of this imaginary 5.8 truck engine? Or are we back to using the GT500 engine in trucks now?? Make up your mind, GT500 5.8, Imaginary truck 5.8, GT500 5.8, Imaginary truck 5.8...
A 5.8 is a 5.8. Same with the 5.4. Whether it's a Lightning 5.4, a GT500 5.4, a GT 5.4, or a regular f150 5.4, it's still the same block (okay GT and late GT500's are aluminum block, but same rotating assembly and block design) and ford used it in many different vehicles with different heads & intake/exhaust systems. There's no reason why they couldn't do the same with the 5.8 and offer it in different vehicles. I'd LOVE it if it were a detuned varient of the GT500 version 5.0 though lol
3. Please buy a Prius and go away.
Don't stoop to madcow level. I'm enjoying the discussion/debate, lets keep it going, and not turn it into pointless banter.
once again... Is the 6.2 similar, not similar, odd duck, similar, imaginary, or???
All of the above 
Similar in terms of architecture of OHC, etc., yes. Not similar in terms of changed bore spacing, yes. Similar, on some aspects yes, some aspects no, same with any engine. Imaginary, in terms of the Raptor-R, yes lol
4. How about you own and drive a Raptor first before you start a crusade on what imaginary engines and epas systems you think it needs.
Why does the Raptor come with a booklet that tells me all about engines I already own? Owning or driving a Raptor has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion on what is similar or different between each other. I've made absolutely no statements about the 6.2 isn't suitable for the Raptor, so go shove that attempt at rubbing salt in the wound that I'm stil waiting for my order to get pulled lol. As for EPAS, I don't need to own a Raptor to know that after test driving the full 2011 lineup, that EPAS was an awesome feature IMO, and owning a 2011 mustang with EPAS, once again, it's an awesome feature with different modes to change steering response.
