As someone already mentioned, a forged crank in an engine that only revs to 6,000 and is tuned to well below its limit is just something to talk about. A tiny 1.6 EcoBoost pushing close to 200 hp in an Escape which weighs in close to 4,000# is working a lot harder to do its job and needs to be able to breathe.

I personally don't want a HD truck with an engine turned up as close to the ragged edge as it can be. Would a 500 hp 6.2 be awesome? Yes absolutely. Would it be practical in an 8,000# truck made to do work? Probably not.

 

These super-duty trucks are primarily aimed at working for a living and making money for their owners. I know from owning my own contracting company and my own experience that reliability is a huge concern and downtime is not an option, even to be off the road for a day can cost a lot of money in lost work time and increased aggravation from the people that hire me. So would I want a truck that takes its power to the boy-racer limit and run a greater risk of breakdown or have a beautifully reliable & solidly dependable unit that runs forever with no downtime? i will take the latter thanks. Power is nice but not my #1 concern which is why I will stay with gas and not diesel for now. I would rather that ford stayed away from the power wars in the sd trucks, heck I even miss my old indestructable 6cyl 300. In reality I want a truck that will go a 1/4 million & more miles and never see the inside of a shop, and that I can do oil and filters in my driveway because the shop hoists can't lift it because its loaded for bear & hooked up to a trailer all the time. Ford can take their time in providing a 4 valve with legendary reliability I don't want another rush job like the 6.0 so that I can smile at all the broken down Dodges i pass on the way to the work site

 

AMEN!
Screw the power wars, I need DURABILITY!

 

Gentlemen, it's almost 2014. There is NO reason why we can't have power, good fuel economy, AND durability. Two thousand fourteen! We CAN have it all! Please read this post from page one of this thread:

That base model 3.7 liter V6's 302hp 278tq would be an easy 506hp 466tq as a 6.2 V8, with better fuel economy too because of the greater efficiency afforded by the superior breathing and superior combustion chamber shape of the 4 valve heads which also allows a higher compression ratio too. And even low-end performance and economy are better too because you can run more conservative cam lift and duration when your heads breath so well. These reasons and more are why the 3.7 Ford totally spanked the competition. (The Ford's 6spd auto helped some too though.)

Now here we are three years later and the Ford 4 valve 3.7 has and is proving to be an outstanding truck engine. It can be done. It IS being done. Ford just needs to do the same with the 6.2 now. Oh, and that little 4 valve 3.7 V6's torque peak is 500 RPM LOWER than the 2 valve 6.2's torque peak is. Food for thought.

And please, let's remember that this 6.2 is also an F150 engine as well, and we need to consider that market too, because, the reality is, the F150 market is the BIGGER market.

Regards,
Eric

 

Yeah.
That.
Consider what you can buy and why.
A tiny engine in an SD truck doesn't make sales or stats.
I don't tow fast. I'll get to the top of the hill when I get to the top of the hill.
The 3.7 would work well for me. Can I get it in an SD? No.
Would it do the job? Yes.
Cresting a pass at 4 or 11 mph means nothing to a trucker.
If semi's had to get to the top at a certain speed then turbines capable of 6,000 HP would be required for them to be on the road.
We all pass semi's pulling huge loads.
No one needs an efficient economical way to haul loads.
Yet.
We need to let go of the details and our egos and move in to the present/future.
Manufacturers are building vehicles based on engines that are stupidly inefficient.

 

I read somewhere that the 2015 6.2 engines will have about 15% better gas mileage. Also the current 6.2 engines do have 4 bolt main bearing caps and 2 cross bolts. For extreme durability. That's right in the brochure. Everything I read about the current engine impresses me.

 

All current OEM production V8 engines have those features now. The first Modulars had those features back in the early-90s. I think the Northstar and the Mopar 4.7 are the only V8s that take it to the next level with a full-on bottom-end bedplate/girdle.

The next generation Titan is just around the corner, and it, in addition to all of it's other improvements, is going to have direct fuel injection, for yet another increase in fuel efficiency and power. The new Chevy trucks now have this feature as well. Even in the base V6!

Oh, I know, only a third of the fuel we consume in our trucks is actually used to propel the truck down the road. I know all about that.

Maybe we should give your turbines some more serious consideration.......

Here I am just trying to get just a small improvement in efficiency and I can't even have that.

So I guess that means that turbines are out of the question.......

Regards,
Eric

 

10 years ago people would give their left ******** to have the factory power we enjoy now with the 6.2. 500 hp in a HD gas engine is only a matter time.

 

And I would welcome that if it was a durable motor that could take a long 6% grade at 100 degrees at full GCWR day after day and not fall apart or over heat any of its parts but until then I will take my present 6.2.

Denny

 

And people wonder why gm went broke. Using parts that aren't needed sounds like a total waste of money to me

 

GM went broke because their high legacy costs, which were the highest of any other auto manufacturer, were absolutely killing them.

If I spend fifty fricking thousand dollars on a truck, they had better include a forged crank. Whether they or anybody else thinks I need it or not. The forged crank is stronger, and I absolutely INSIST that whoever gets my fifty grand include it. To me, it's a sign that my truck company is interested in giving ME my money's worth, not just making their rich stockholders more money. It absolutely boggles my mind how you all can be happy with second best when other truck buyers are getting first best. You don't feel a little slighted to know that even EVERY other Ford truck engine has a forged crank? Did you guys know that Ford makes more than $10,000 per unit on EVERY SD that it sells? Now I don't know just exactly how much more money it costs to include a forged crank, but I am confident that it can't cost them more than $100 per unit. That would cut their profit down to $9,900! We all work super hard for our money, and Ford is already taking $10,000 of it in pure profit. Where's the outrage here? Even at $9,900, it's still pure robbery! The LEAST they can do is give us the BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT FOR OUR HARD EARNED MONEY! If you are going to get that much of my money, I want it OVERBUILT, OVERENGINEERED, and all out OVERKILL! I insist that it be the absolute best that it possibly can be! I ABSOLUTELY INSIST ON IT OR YOU AIN'T GETING ANY OF MY MONEY!!! The rich Ford family is saying "Let them eat cake." and you guys are happily gobbling it up.

It absolutely boggles my mind why I'm the only one here who isn't biting. It truly baffles me. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. I just don't get it! I'm stumped! I'm bewildered! I'm mystified! I'm perplexed!

The only way things are ever going to change is if enough of us start hollering about it, but nobody else seems to care, so I guess you all will continue to get the second best cranks that you all justly deserve.

It's 2014 and Ford can and could build an engine that could do all that and more but only if market forces force them to. It's just too bad that they are apparently going to wait till they are forced to, rather than jump ahead of the herd and lead instead of follow. Let's face it, market forces are what forced the miserable 5.4 out, but Ford's replacement, the 6.2, only brought them back up to par with the competition, instead of ahead of it. Ford could have and should have done better!

It's really too bad cause I really wanted a new Ford truck. (It is absolutely time to replace my beloved Festus!) But not unless they give me a forged crank, direct injection, and 4 valve heads.

Regards,
Eric

 

So by your logic, even if you don't need something you demand you have it for free. So if I only need a 150 should I demand they give me a superduty just in case? Or if I only need 2 wd should I demand they give me a 4x4? Or if I only need a gas v8 should I demand they give me a diesel? Your mindset is a little ridiculous.

Ford like any company is there for one sole purpose. To make money. If you think any compamy cares about you any more then it takes to get you in their doors you are sadly mistaken.

I for one have never seen a broken crank in a truck, although I'm sure it has happened, but why would anyone put a product in that doesn't need to be there. Hell we might as well demand all wires in the truck are gold to insure proper voltage throughout. Well that would just be silly almost a silly as "NEEDING" a crank that thetruck clearly doesn't need.

Also, about the piece of crap 5.4 you were talking about. I did a lot of research on that motor and did you know it makes more torque below 3000 rpm then both the gm 6.0 and ram 5.7. Itaactually makes almost 40 more lb/ft then the 5.7 and 30 more then the gm. So don't just look at the overall numbers, look at where th usable power it. And hands down ford makes the most low end grunt which is what you need. Who the hell cares who wins a 1 ton drag race. I for one don't. I want it to pull when I need, and work when I need and there is simply no better truck to do that with then a ford

 

One thing to keep in mind is that, the Boss platform was supposed to be introduced much earlier than it was. It should have seen production around 2008/2009, but was pushed back due to Ford's financial issues and the state of the economy at the time. It would have come out and went head to head with a 345hp Hemi and a 353hp Vortec 6.0L. At that point in time 385hp was nothing to sneeze at.

Now that the other manufacturers are starting to catch up and Ford sees that consumers aren't afraid of more advanced technology in trucks, you're definitely going to see some changes to the Boss architecture. One of the first big ones is that the Boss engine will become a Super Duty only affair. This should open up the palette a little bit for Ford.

Now I don't know if you'll see three/four valves per cylinder. With the modular engine platform that was necessary to get good flow characteristics from the undersquare engine design. The Boss architecture is oversquare and supposedly flows extremely well, even from 2v heads. If they increase the displacement you might see a forged crank (if that's so important to you), but on the other hand Ford is investing a lot in powdered/sintered alloy technology. Even with the Ecoboost they found no need for forged pistons or rods.

One of the big changes I think we'll see is direct injection. It wouldn't surprise me if they went to an aluminum or compacted graphite block, as the current iron block is extremely heavy and Ford is on a big push to reduce weight.

All in all, the 6.2L is most definitely capable of a lot more. In race applications we've already seen 460ci versions that will rev to 8500rpms and make 800+hp. Obviously we wont see that in production form, but I know for a fact the Boss architecture was designed with larger displacements than 6.2L in mind should the need arise.


On a side note, the reason the 3.7L uses a forged crank is because it uses the same crank as the 3.5L ecoboost. It was cheaper to use one crank for both engines than it would have been to use two different cranks. So it was really a cost cutting measure on Ford's part.

 

A very good post. Well put. Thank you.

Yes, I am aware of that. But you'll note that both the GM and Mopar power and torque levels have since gone up again. Where's Ford?

It's not THAT oversquare. The 6.2's bore to stroke ratio is 1.07 which is less undersquare than even some legendary big blocks. Three of my favorites: the Ford 460's is 1.13, the Mopar 440's is 1.15, and the Buick 455's is 1.11! Even the SBC 400 comes in at 1.10, as does the Pontiac 400! The 6.2's bore and stroke are in fact almost identical to the average .030 over 350 SBC based 383! (6.2: 4.02 X 3.74, 383: 4.03 X 3.75)

Back in the 80s, there used to be a 2 valve SOHC 3.0 liter I6 Mercedes engine. In 1990, they brought out a 4 valve version, and with no other changes, the HP shot up by 51 hp, and the torque by 13 ft pounds. (The torque gain could have and would have been even higher, but they were going for hp.) That engine had a 1.10 bore to stroke ratio BTW, which is also more oversquare than the 6.2 Ford, yet that even more oversquare "oversquare" engine still benefitted greatly from 4 valve heads.

I respectfully disagree. Again, even the pedestrian 3.0 Duratec of the mid-late-90s had a forged crank. There was not a more powerful boosted version that it shared a crank with, yet it still had a forged crank anyways.

Regards,
Eric

 

To be fair:

GM's 6.0L in the 2015 HD trucks makes 360hp/380ft-lbs tq. The Super Duty had that beat with 385/405 back in 2011.

Prior to now, Ram's best engine was the 5.7L Hemi making 383hp/400ft-lbs tq on mid-grade gasoline. It took them until part way into the 2014 model year to beat the Super Duty with their new 6.4L at 410/429 on regular.

The Super Duty isn't really that far behind. If anything, its taken the other manufacturers until now to start to catch up. Then Ford will release their next generation Super Duty and the cycle will start all over again.