your take on the new 2011 V8s - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Notices
Modular V10 (6.8l)  
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

your take on the new 2011 V8s

Reply

 
 
 
  #1  
Old 01-13-2011, 03:02 PM
trinibob's Avatar
trinibob
trinibob is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 50
trinibob is starting off with a positive reputation.
your take on the new 2011 V8s

Is the new big gasser a good replacement 4 the V10???
 
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-13-2011, 05:13 PM
bill11012's Avatar
bill11012
bill11012 is offline
Modular motor junkie
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,190
bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.
It will pull even harder than a V10, but it needs more gears and RPMs to do it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-13-2011, 06:33 PM
Ricohman's Avatar
Ricohman
Ricohman is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,036
Ricohman has a good reputation on FTE.Ricohman has a good reputation on FTE.
It also needs more pedal to get moving. When I replaced my aging 99' 6.8 last fall I tested both the 6.8 and 6.2. The 6.8 had 4.10's and the 6.2's that I drove had 3.73's. There is a noticable difference when moving from a stop. The 6.8 simply feels like it has more torque off idle.
I don't even know the torque numbers on the 6.2 but the 6.8 I drove (and bought!) felt stronger down low.
I choose the 6.8. Both trucks were pretty much the same price.
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-13-2011, 06:40 PM
trinibob's Avatar
trinibob
trinibob is offline
Junior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 50
trinibob is starting off with a positive reputation.
Specifics on the new motors would be great.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2011, 07:54 PM
Sand_Man's Avatar
Sand_Man
Sand_Man is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rogue River, Oregon
Posts: 2,066
Sand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud of
Our company bought 12 new Ford FX4 SD's, 6 with the 6.7 diesel, and 6 with the 6.2 gasser. The 6.2's are getting 8 mpg compared to 15+ that the diesels are getting in the same environment. According to the guys who had the V10's, they aren't really thrilled with the 6.2's
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2011, 08:08 PM
bill11012's Avatar
bill11012
bill11012 is offline
Modular motor junkie
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,190
bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by trinibob View Post
Specifics on the new motors would be great.
385 HP, 405 TQ. 6 speed auto and 3.73s base, 4.30s option

Ford claims something like 20% better fuel mileage than the V10 with more pulling power.
You have to rev it over 4,000 RPM before it starts putting down more power than the V10 though.

Lot more details in this thread: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...as-engine.html


Originally Posted by Sand_Man View Post
Our company bought 12 new Ford FX4 SD's, 6 with the 6.7 diesel, and 6 with the 6.2 gasser. The 6.2's are getting 8 mpg compared to 15+ that the diesels are getting in the same environment. According to the guys who had the V10's, they aren't really thrilled with the 6.2's

What fuel mileage where they getting with the V10s?
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:36 PM
Sand_Man's Avatar
Sand_Man
Sand_Man is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rogue River, Oregon
Posts: 2,066
Sand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud ofSand_Man has much to be proud of
10+ mpg. These trucks are used with a 40/60 split of off-road and highway. The off-road is logging roads, but very well maintained gravel, fairly slow (under 25 mph) speed, very rarely do they need to use 4 wheel drive to get where they need to be.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-14-2011, 07:14 AM
Krewat's Avatar
Krewat
Krewat is offline
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Long Island USA
Posts: 38,534
Krewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputationKrewat has a superb reputation
Check around the 6.2 forum, there's plenty of guys in there that are more than pleased with the 6.2. I think it's a good compromise between the 5.4 and the 6.8, and the new tranny makes up for the lower torque.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-14-2011, 07:30 AM
jonrjen's Avatar
jonrjen
jonrjen is online now
Posting Guru
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 2,021
jonrjen is a splendid one to beholdjonrjen is a splendid one to beholdjonrjen is a splendid one to beholdjonrjen is a splendid one to beholdjonrjen is a splendid one to beholdjonrjen is a splendid one to beholdjonrjen is a splendid one to behold
I test drove a new F-150 super crew Platnium with the new 6.2 V-8 the other day. As I understand the 6.2 in the F-150 has more HP and TQ than the same engine in the Superduty line of trucks. The truck ran out nice, but even in a lighter truck it didn't have the grunt of the V-10. The one item that did impress me over the V-10 was the sound when you tromp down of the go pedal. While I am still a proud owner of a V-10 and plan to hold on to it until the day it dies (which should be a long time from now, heck I may go before it does) there is a special sound from a V-8 that the V-10 just can't mimic with its busy little 10 cylinders fireing off in order.
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-14-2011, 07:32 AM
dkf's Avatar
dkf
dkf is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pa
Posts: 10,095
dkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to behold
The new 6.2l seems to work and perform well. For me I would rather have the 6.8l. I think the 3V 6.8l backed by the 6R140 would work pretty well. I like some torque with my HP.

Specifics on the new motors would be great.
6.2l
385hp @ 5500
405tq @ 4500

3V 6.8l
362hp @ 4750
457tq @ 3250

2V PI 6.8l
310hp @ 4250
425tq @ 3250


<table class="specsTable" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="specsRow_2"><td colspan="1" class="tancell" id="cell_2_21">
</td><td colspan="1" class="tancell" id="cell_3_21">
</td></tr><tr class="specsRow_1"><td colspan="1" class="bluecell" id="cell_1_22">
</td><td colspan="1" class="tancell" id="cell_2_22">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:48 AM
EXCURSIONATOR1's Avatar
EXCURSIONATOR1
EXCURSIONATOR1 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: May 2010
Location: mt.prospect
Posts: 364
EXCURSIONATOR1 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
IMO it's a FAIL. It doesn't make more power or get better fuel mileage than the engines that's out already. It's my opinion. Take or leave it they should have engineered a 5.4 ecoboost. Small displacement for fuel ecomony any big power under boost.

Can you amagine the torque of a 5.4 ecoboost with 10psi of boost?
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-14-2011, 11:17 AM
bill11012's Avatar
bill11012
bill11012 is offline
Modular motor junkie
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,190
bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.
Well, the lighting made 450 lb ft with something like 6 lbs and a very safe tune.
 

Last edited by bill11012; 01-14-2011 at 04:22 PM. Reason: Edited for wrong info
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-14-2011, 11:53 AM
dkf's Avatar
dkf
dkf is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pa
Posts: 10,095
dkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by EXCURSIONATOR1 View Post
IMO it's a FAIL. It doesn't make more power or get better fuel mileage than the engines that's out already. It's my opinion. Take or leave it they should have engineered a 5.4 ecoboost. Small displacement for fuel ecomony any big power under boost.

Can you amagine the torque of a 5.4 ecoboost with 10psi of boost?
With the bore size of the 5.4l and 6.8l you would have a tough time fitting in two valves, two spark plugs and a DFI injector in there.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-14-2011, 03:00 PM
LSchicago2's Avatar
LSchicago2
LSchicago2 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,676
LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.LSchicago2 has a great reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by bill11012 View Post
Well, the lighting made 550 lb ft with something like 6 lbs and a very safe tune.
No bill. The Lightning made 440-450 TQ stock on 8 pounds of boost. To get 550TQ, the lightning would need about 12# boost, and a maxed tune and a filter.
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-14-2011, 04:23 PM
bill11012's Avatar
bill11012
bill11012 is offline
Modular motor junkie
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,190
bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.
Yea, sorry.
Thats what one link said. I just looked at a few more after you pointed that out and they all say 450.
 
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: your take on the new 2011 V8s


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.