6.2L V8 Discuss the 6.2L V8

Ford Raptor Pricing with 6.2 - $3000 more!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #31  
Old 11-02-2009, 11:22 PM
Scorpion67's Avatar
Scorpion67
Scorpion67 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So pickuptrucks.com just reported 411HP/434lb-ft for the 6.2L V8 - at least for the Raptor anyway.
 
  #32  
Old 11-03-2009, 01:11 PM
Raider50's Avatar
Raider50
Raider50 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Buffalo, Wyoming
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scorpion67
So pickuptrucks.com just reported 411HP/434lb-ft for the 6.2L V8 - at least for the Raptor anyway.
is there a article that goes with it? If i could get a link that would be awesome please. I hope its 411 to the wheels not at the flywheel.
 
  #33  
Old 11-03-2009, 02:51 PM
Raider50's Avatar
Raider50
Raider50 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Buffalo, Wyoming
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
never mind. my bad i found it.
 
  #34  
Old 11-06-2009, 08:23 AM
Chris-NJ's Avatar
Chris-NJ
Chris-NJ is offline
New User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'll pay for performance. Meaning equal of better than what I have now, two GM 6.2/6sp's. I paid 42K for my Sierra Denali and 52K for my wifes Yukon XL Denali, only because they had the 6.2. They are hands down the best vehicles I have ever owned, and I have owned a lot. It looks like Ford will put the 6.2 in Harley, but I hope they offer it in the Platinum or the next lower tier 1/2 tons, only because the Harley is just too much 'look' for me. I get crap now at the jobsites when my Denali is clean, so I keep it covered in dirt/mud, then no one notices it. I even smashed the rear end up recently when I forgot to lock my chipper down, and she smashed into the rear and I'm keeping it smashed.
 
  #35  
Old 11-07-2009, 12:06 PM
Scorpion67's Avatar
Scorpion67
Scorpion67 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i keep alternating what i want F150/SuperDuty, but an F150 Lariat Crew, long bed, 6.2 V8 with max tow package sounds good to me. I wouldn't get the Harley either.
 
  #36  
Old 11-07-2009, 09:08 PM
montecarlo31's Avatar
montecarlo31
montecarlo31 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris-NJ
I'll pay for performance. Meaning equal of better than what I have now, two GM 6.2/6sp's. I paid 42K for my Sierra Denali and 52K for my wifes Yukon XL Denali, only because they had the 6.2. They are hands down the best vehicles I have ever owned, and I have owned a lot. It looks like Ford will put the 6.2 in Harley, but I hope they offer it in the Platinum or the next lower tier 1/2 tons, only because the Harley is just too much 'look' for me. I get crap now at the jobsites when my Denali is clean, so I keep it covered in dirt/mud, then no one notices it. I even smashed the rear end up recently when I forgot to lock my chipper down, and she smashed into the rear and I'm keeping it smashed.
I'm thinking that Ford will over the 6.2 in XLT and up simply because GM is offering the 6.2 in the LS or SLE trim and up.
 
  #37  
Old 11-15-2009, 08:06 PM
irishsince81's Avatar
irishsince81
irishsince81 is offline
Freshman User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Honestly, how come no-one ever thinks about what R.P.M. the torque curve starts. Instead of just numbers, ya know? That's quite important considering actual usable power. Instead of say my old "HEMI" p.o.s. Revving like crazy just to pull a small boat up hill.... Ill take a 6.8.
 
  #38  
Old 11-15-2009, 08:10 PM
irishsince81's Avatar
irishsince81
irishsince81 is offline
Freshman User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Same HEMI that actually put 247 H.P. to the wheels, out of its claimed 345.... Again, Ill take torque..
 
  #39  
Old 11-16-2009, 09:42 AM
Chris-NJ's Avatar
Chris-NJ
Chris-NJ is offline
New User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by irishsince81
Honestly, how come no-one ever thinks about what R.P.M. the torque curve starts. Instead of just numbers, ya know? That's quite important considering actual usable power. Instead of say my old "HEMI" p.o.s. Revving like crazy just to pull a small boat up hill.... Ill take a 6.8.
Your exactly right. One must look at the curves. I researched GM's 8.1 and 6.0 both that I owned, and the marketing motor the 6.0Max, and found the 6.0Max wouldn't cut it for my application. I was left with nothing to buy, even from Ford, and the new upgraded Hemi was not out yet. GM canned the 8.1. When the 6.2/6sp came out, I did it all over again, and found the 6.2 had 417ftlbs at 3500rpm, and had well over the 6.0 even at 2500-3000rpm, which was not too bad condidering it was mated to the 6sp, so I took an educated guess/buy on it, and it works pretty good. Ford always seems to be conservative on applying torque and trying to spread it out the most compared to the other two. The 5.4 does a nice job for such a small engine. So I'm hoping their 6.2 is better than my GM 6.2.
 
  #40  
Old 11-16-2009, 08:09 PM
irishsince81's Avatar
irishsince81
irishsince81 is offline
Freshman User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris-NJ
Your exactly right. One must look at the curves. I researched GM's 8.1 and 6.0 both that I owned, and the marketing motor the 6.0Max, and found the 6.0Max wouldn't cut it for my application. I was left with nothing to buy, even from Ford, and the new upgraded Hemi was not out yet. GM canned the 8.1. When the 6.2/6sp came out, I did it all over again, and found the 6.2 had 417ftlbs at 3500rpm, and had well over the 6.0 even at 2500-3000rpm, which was not too bad condidering it was mated to the 6sp, so I took an educated guess/buy on it, and it works pretty good. Ford always seems to be conservative on applying torque and trying to spread it out the most compared to the other two. The 5.4 does a nice job for such a small engine. So I'm hoping their 6.2 is better than my GM 6.2.

^^^^^ I could have not said it better myself, I loved my 3v 6.8 V10.
 
  #41  
Old 04-30-2010, 09:42 PM
Roller150's Avatar
Roller150
Roller150 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have you had a v10? Its a very reliable and strong engine. Its not a race car engine and never wasn intended to be but there are many of these engines with 3-4 hundred thousand miles on them that work hard. Airport shuttle buses have them and many other applications. No lame duck. I had an 02 super duty with one and it was a very strong engine. Pull one hell of a load. No duck sir at all. It did like gas but not as bad as some big engines.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FishOnOne
2017+ Super Duty
41
09-23-2015 09:30 PM
DerekShiekhi
General Automotive Discussion
1
09-15-2015 05:22 AM
kameronth
2010 - 2014 Ford SVT F150 Raptor
14
05-28-2013 09:52 PM
ccerniglia
6.2L V8
22
01-27-2009 03:17 PM



Quick Reply: Ford Raptor Pricing with 6.2 - $3000 more!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM.