Is the new big gasser a good replacement 4 the V10???

 

It will pull even harder than a V10, but it needs more gears and RPMs to do it.

 

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.

 

Specifics on the new motors would be great.

 

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

 

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



What fuel mileage where they getting with the V10s?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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>

 

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?

 

Well, the lighting made 450 lb ft with something like 6 lbs and a very safe tune.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Yea, sorry.
Thats what one link said. I just looked at a few more after you pointed that out and they all say 450.