6.2l Horsepower rating question

[RadRick]

I saw that my small local dealer had some more trucks on the lot, so I stopped by to see if any of them had the 6.2l. Naturally they were all diesel's, and the salesman went on to tell me how a diesel is so much better and blah, blah, blah. He pretty much made it sound like a diesel was mandatory for towing and the gas motor would only get 9 mpg empty if I was lucky, and wouldn't move under its own power if there was anything more than a set of golf clubs in the bed. I told him that my 1999 2V V-10 pulls my 40' 16k pound toyhauler OK, so I would think that with 5 fewer pounds of torque but 110 more horsepower the 6.2 should do a good job. He claimed the 385 hp version of the 6.2 only comes in standard F-250's, and once you move up to the 10k gvwr package or an F-350 the engines drops to only 316 horse power. I though he was full of it and that only the chasis cabs are rated lower, so I went home and looked on the Ford Fleet site and sure enough they show 316 horsepower at 4179 rpm and 397 lb ft at 4179 rpm. Then I went on the Sunrise Ford fleet site where you can create a brochure showing all the specs of the truck (F-350 SRW pu)after using the build and price feature, and it also shows 316 at 4179, but then shows 405 lb ft at 4500, so something is wrong with the data. Is this information right or wrong, and if it is right, are these actually the same engine, just rated at a different rpm? What I mean is maybe any 6.2 would only have 316 hp at 4179 rpm, but let it rev all the way to 5500 and you get the whole 385 hp. Can anyone who has an F-350 tell me if there is a tag on the engine with the horsepower rating, or if there is some other way to find out for sure. Thanks.

[powerstroke72]

I remember reading this somewhere else also. Never found any explanation for it though. It does kind of kill my idea of getting a 6.2 F-350....may stay with diesel.

On another note, I bet GM and Dodge would love to re-run the pickuptrucks.com testing again if they knew about the new ratings.

[powerstroke72]

Well, I just found our answer. It's on the powertrain / dimensions page in the order guide here:

http://www.profleetsales.com/pdf_fil...er%20Guide.pdf

It shows the HP rating for trucks with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. as 316 and the torque as 397. For trucks under 10,000 lbs. GVWR, it's still 385 / 405.

[Byram]

I got the 6.2 - yes in the 250- got out of an '01 v-10 & love it - it pulls well...

I have seen this 350 figures & don't get it.. not sure what to make of it.. maybe someone will come along & clarify ---

[powerstroke72]

I'm not sure either. My 6.0 has been a fantastic trouble-free ride since I bought it new but I'm seriously considering going back to a gasser. I wanted an F-350 but may stick with a 250 now.

[butch50]

I saw that before I ordered my F350 and chatted with a fellow that already had a F350. His understanding, after being on a chat board with the Ford engineer was the only difference between the 2 is what RPM the power is rated at. Look at the the PDF file and you will see that the F350 +10,000# rating is at a much lower RPM than the F250 (torque also). When I first saw that in the brochure I thought the same that I would have to order the F250 to get the higher HP rating but after reading and studing I believe they are the same engines. It was stated that that is just how they have to do it.

On Page 4 of RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Who's got a new Ford 2011 pickup, gas or diesel?
of this thread a fellow by the name the handle of Matho explains it as I asked the same question there.

Is there anybody else out there there that has an opion on this

[2000silverbullet]

Butch50 is right, just rated at a different RPM.

Confirmed by the 6.2 engineer himself:

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/92...ml#post8821026

[KodiakF250]

Didn't make sense to me either. Why would Ford want to support two different versions of the same engine. Gosh, can you say 351W, C, M etc? Then I read the marathon thread where Mike (6.2 engineer) answered a lot of questions. I highly recommend taking the time to read the whole thread that 2000silverbullet gave the link to. In fact, anyone looking at a truck with the 6.2 would benefit from the thread.

I spent about 2-3 hours early one Sunday morning digesting the thread. It get's off course a few times, but it's not too bad and you can skip over the irrelavent stuff.

[RadRick]

Thanks for all of your replies. You guys confirmed what I was thinking, that the engine is just rated at a lower RPM but still has the same amount of power. It's funny, (or is it sad?), that a dealership salesman doesn't know this. Seems like all of their training is geared toward pushing diesel sales...

[kermmydog]

Maybe I'm missing something but this new 6.2 sounds like another Ford Experiment. Lots of HP but only at high RPMs. No Gas mileage again from Ford. Just the little I have read on this new 6.2 I feel Ford once again has MISSED IT. Why can't Ford build a 2011 version of the 460 with lots of HP & Torque at low RPMs & good gas mileage.
Chevy kicked Fords butt in the 2011 diesel match up. They still don't have a good gas option it appears. Crap, I pull 10,000# TT with my 86 F250 4x4 460/C-6 & get 7 MPG & 10 empty. So for $30,000+ what am I gaining.
I'm sorry but I'm really getting disappointed with Fords new trucks & engine options. I hate to say it but if I was to buy a new truck it would be a Chevy. At least GMs get the better gas mileage.
Craig

[Old93junk]

Originally Posted by kermmydog

Maybe I'm missing something but this new 6.2 sounds like another Ford Experiment. Lots of HP but only at high RPMs. No Gas mileage again from Ford. Just the little I have read on this new 6.2 I feel Ford once again has MISSED IT. Why can't Ford build a 2011 version of the 460 with lots of HP & Torque at low RPMs & good gas mileage.
Chevy kicked Fords butt in the 2011 diesel match up. They still don't have a good gas option it appears. Crap, I pull 10,000# TT with my 86 F250 4x4 460/C-6 & get 7 MPG & 10 empty. So for $30,000+ what am I gaining.
I'm sorry but I'm really getting disappointed with Fords new trucks & engine options. I hate to say it but if I was to buy a new truck it would be a Chevy. At least GMs get the better gas mileage.
Craig

Ford should just take the old 460 block, add 2 cylinders to it and be done with it.......THAT would be a torque monster.

[hanklin]

^^^^^^ I like the thinking there Dave

[Krewat]

Originally Posted by powerstroke72

I'm not sure either. My 6.0 has been a fantastic trouble-free ride since I bought it new but I'm seriously considering going back to a gasser. I wanted an F-350 but may stick with a 250 now.

To the dark-side, you will come.

Let's see...

316 HP@4179 rpm and 397 ft/lb@4179 rpm

or

385 HP@5500 RPM and 405 ft/lb@4500 RPM

Let's digest that with the good old (torque*RPM)/5252=HP formula, or Torque=HP*5252/RPM

397=316*5252/4179, and 367=385*5252/5500

So even though the HP output is higher, the torque at that point is lower than the peak torque of the lower-output version.

I suspect that Mike at 5-star will gladly liberate that extra HP and make a few more peak ft/lbs of torque at the same time.

If we had PCM calibration codes from both configurations, Mike might be able to tell us what's different.

On the other hand, they might be making the torque come up at a lower point in the RPM range (notice the peak torque on the lower-output config is 381 RPM lower), which means a reduction in peak HP.

If someone made the trucks available to Mike, I'm sure he'd dyno them just to see what's really different

[powerstroke72]

Hehehehe...Yes, I predict a 6.2 in my future. Looking at some of the posts above also makes me think that at the same RPM, the engines are producing nearly, if not identical numbers. Just patiently waiting.

[Krewat]

Gotta wonder if it's a marketing ploy to make a certain engine more attractive because of the numbers...