I'm scratching my head.......

Just looking over the 'numbers' for this engine....and the differences in performance depending on what truck you're putting it in. Forgive me if I have them wrong, but here goes:

1. F150 Raptor. 411hp/434tq
2. F150. 411hp/434tq
3. F-Series Super-Duty. 385hp/405tq

OK. My off-the-cuff question is.....'WHY'?!!!????

Seriously, I don't understand the numbers. I understand the Raptor is supposed to be the mid-life crisis pee-nus enlarging hot-rod pickup truck and all, but Geez......You would think that the F250/F350/F450 owner pulling gobs of weight 'over the river and through the woods' would need the torque numbers at least......

Make me understand, please. Thanks.

***(NOTE)***A brief scan of the 6.2L forum.....and the SD forum shows a bunch of topics on this engine....So forgive me if this question has been asked before. I realize there's a separate forum for the engine, but mods.....I'm interested more in the SD....so leave the thread HERE please.

Thanks.

 

If you've got your reading glasses on (it's a long thread), you can find that discussed at length here:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...as-engine.html

It has to do with octane, smooth idle, and how SAE rates the heavier trucks, best I can recall.

 

Maybe the power reduction is due to the expected duty cycle in the SD vs the F150?

 

Thanks, Bill.....I'll scan through that........

I'm sure there's a good reason......Again...off-hand....I figured that they'd configure a higher torque engine for the super-duties........HP numbers look good on all models, though......

 

I'm in the middle of rereading that thread. It was a fun one.

As far as the lower peak HP and TQ, I think a good way to sum it up is that they wanted as much low end TQ as possible for the SD, and tuning for that gives up a little on the top end. For heavy haulers, that makes sense. The F150 crowd like the rapid accel and higher end performance.

Now that all the 2011 F150 engines are in production, Ford has been doing everything they can to push the (1) Eco-boost, then the (2) 5.0, and lastly the (3) 6.2 is being treated like the red headed step child.

 

If I didnt need the SD for towing, I would, and have, almost trade it in for a F-150 with the Eco Boost. I think with some upgrades and tuning that engine would spank both the 5.0 and 6.2 plus the mpg figures look pretty good.

But me and the old 6.0 will be together a long time, I cant justify the payment in my head for a replacement truck that would cost me close to 60k.

Sarge

 

I hear ya dude. Sat. I
My son and I was at the dealership getting tires on my wife's mustang. He just had to check out the trucks. All of them. Man the f150 is making a real strong arguement. These trucks are huge on the inside. W/ the 6.2l and 4:30 rearend this 1/2 ton will bena bad boy and will serve most towing needs. That gearshifter is sharp I might add.

 

F150 numbers DO look good.....

I'm in a bit of a pickle (not a bad pickle.....just a pickle.....)......F150 ain't gonna cut it.......Need the SD for carrying capacity and towing capacity......Sometimes both.....My 2000 7.3 SD fits the bill right now......But looking for a 350. And a long-bed.

 

Furthermore, why can't one get the 6.2 V8 in the XL or XLT? It is only available on the Raptor, Lariat, Platinum, Lariat Limited, and Harley Davidson. (Not even available on the King Ranch) Why not have it available to all trim levels? Someone wouldn't want the powerful engine on a simple truck like an XL or even an XLT? Why put the powerful engine only in the higher-end "pretty-boy" trucks that will only ever spend their time in the city at shopping malls whilst towing NOTHING?

 

Before I say anything else let me go on record saying I'm not trying to sell you a truck.
The f150 has a gcwr of 15k. It seats 5 people. With a 4:30 rearend and 6.2l engine a 10k lb trailer will not be any sweat for the f150.
But all that's good and fine. There's more to towing than an engine as is driving people around there is more to it than just having space. What I don't know is if the brakes and the tranny is beefed enough to work hard day in and day out. I don't think the frame or suspention will have any trouble. Factory axles and spindles if a 4x2 might need to be upgraded. Brakes, axle and tranny upgrades could be done a lot less than a compareable f250. On the other hand if you opt for a dually there's no chance for that in the baby of the "F" family. Lol

 

Good points, exiled......

FWIW....IMHO (), one needs an SD for the slide-in camper....at least the ones I'M looking at......They make slide-ins for the F150s (and other light-duty trucks....), but the 8'-bed slide-ins easily....EVEN EMPTY....exceed 3000 lbs......That's a lot of weight.....I need the suspension and tranny for that kind of weight.....especially when I carrying it through deep sand and such.

...........I know, I know.....Airbags and stuff like that.......(I have airbags on my 250).....But still, there's a limit.

 

I have even more bad news for you, in the 2011 Superduty brochure, there is a little note on page 6 which states:
405 lb.-ft. of torque and 385 hp under 10k GVW
397 lb.-ft. of torque and 316 hp over 10k GVW
So this would mean that F350's over 10k CVW would have less power than a F250.
Seems to me Ford wants to sell the Diesel, so they de-rate the gas engine. My.02 cents

 

That also is explained in the thread I linked to. The difference is only the RPM at which they published the ratings. The engine and tuning is actually identical for the SRW and DRW trucks. The reason is kind of hard to understand. But it is enough to know it is the same actual output.

 

Over 10K lbs 6.2 has the same power as the under 10K lbs. The published power ratings for the over 10k are at lower rpm's. Something to do with government regs.


Edit: we must have posted at the exact same time bpounds. Sorry for the double info.

 

No problem. Glad my memory hasn't completely gone.