That's exactly what I saw on Facebook! Gotta be true.

 

Now your reaching, stuck in the 80's???
It's a laser show that's based on the music your listening to based on the torque your demanding from the engine and if it's an FX4 there is an allowance for the algorithm that changes with the terrain. This way it can be as dangerous in the daytime as well.

 

+1 for disco ball.

 

Yea and the truck comes with a pair of white platform shoes and a satin shirt.......... get the foooook outta hea.

 

If the shirt has French cuffs I'm in!

 

The Duramax is currently being heavily revised or will be all new with info or release happening this fall. I think it will be a very impressive engine. I'm surprised the current Duramax has been unchanged since 2011, but as someone else stated, it always tests very well even with "just" 765lb-ft of torque. The GM trucks tend to be lighter.

As for the Cummins, who knows. It is a beefy engine, and can probably withstand enough additional boost in current guise to hit 1000lb-ft, but they cannot easily get more horsepower out of it. This becomes a marketing problem for RAM, because while the engine will move huge loads, it tests out as the slowest truck by far against the higher-horsepower V8's.

 

No you didn't.

 

Yep, he's right.

I know my brother's BFF, whose cousin's hairdresser's stepson is dating the niece of a engineer at Ford, who said the power gains were tremendous !!

But she was drunk at the time, and owns a Toyota Camry, so I would probably not put that as a reliable source...

 

Also a lot of talk on here about a new 5.8? Why do you think they would send the 6.2 out to pasture

 

Some reasons that I can think of:

1) Fuel efficiency
2) The fact that it cannot be used in the F450 & F550 trucks due to cooling requirements
3) It's rather low-tech
4) They want to slap a turbo on it and they want to decrease the displacement for a little safety margin

It may be none, 1, all, or any combination of them, I don't know, just guessing.

Getting a new engine doesn't mean the 6.2L will be put out to pasture. If the 5.8L comes with a turbo, then the 6.2L would be a base, low-cost option.

 

I wonder if they are going to revise the turd behind the Duramax?

 

Are the 2016 Ram HD's Output Figures Bogus? » AutoGuide.com News

Nice read about the difference in the ratings for the big three.

I can't find the article with about the ram numbers but one of the cummins guys said all they did to go from the 865 to 900 was change the tuning and engine calibrations, and if ram needed more power from the cummins all they would need to do is go back to swap some 1s and 0s to give ram what they wanted.

 

Interesting. I think your item #1 is the primary reason; in fact that is rapidly becoming the primary motivator for basically all engines as CAFE standards tighten their grip.

#2 I have never heard of. Could you expound?

#3 I do not actually agree with this - its all relative. GM and RAM V8s would classify as much lower tech than the 6.2L. You have to remember, the 6.2L still has a few features which cost Ford some money: cam-actuated De-VCT, roller rockers, dual spark plugs per cylinder, and it is OHC. It only has two valves per cylinder, but they are very large valves - equaling or exceeding the valve area of the old Triton 3V arrangement. The EcoBoost engines are higher tech - 4 cams, 4 valves, Ti-VCT, direct injection, and turbos...but they have some drawbacks as well.

4. Not sure your logic is sound on this one - the idea would be a larger displacement engine uses more fuel, and with forced aspiration, the larger displacement would not be needed to achieve the power goals. There is no "safety margin" needed with this engine - the internals are very stout and there is appropriate spacing between cylinders, etc. Roush designed a 700HP version of this engine early on with turbochargers. Another interesting fact is that the 6.2L was designed to be able to grow in size all the way to 7.3L.

I like the 6.2L. In current Super Duty form, it feels a bit lazy and yes, it does get poor fuel economy (but remember the size and weight it is moving!). The laziness is partially due to poorly programmed throttle response which limits max throttle until an RPM level is reached, and partially because this engine develops peak torque at a much higher RPM level the EcoBoost or diesel engines. Right now, it is just a solid engine which will produce many years of reliable operation. It is pretty quiet at idle, and produces a nice startup belch and a deep bellow at high RPM under load. Its otherwise a quiet freeway cruiser.

I'm really hoping Ford sees fit to bump this engine to at least 400HP and 430lb-ft for the '17 Super Duty. Right now, I drive a new 6.7L but I'm going back to gas - I love the diesel, I'll miss the power, but the gas makes more sense for me. Less worries in the long term.

 

The issue with cooling is that the 6.2L would not pass Ford tests (internal Ford tests...they have a very high set of standards) for cooling during prolonged stints at max HP and max load in the medium duty trucks. This is why the 6.2L is not available in the F450+ trucks and they stuck with the V10. This is also one reason why the 6.2L has not been enlarged for use in the MD trucks as well.

For being low-tech, agreed, it's relative. I meant relative to the other Ford engines. Mostly, pointing out that it is not really related to the other Ford engines and is a 'one-off'.

#4 is just a guess. Lowering the displacement would allow them to add a turbo and meet fuel economy targets as well. I was thinking smaller for a bit more bore spacing, but that may not be the case.

 

Well, the V10 is more "low tech" than the 6.2, but I guess whatever does the job.

Regarding the cooling, that seems very strange. I'm certain the cooling requirements could be easily met by enlarging the radiator for that application or putting a supplemental fan on, etc. I have never heard that, and I'd love to see the source of that info, but I'd bet in reality it has more to do with the 6.2's lack of low-down torque. The V10 produces its torque at a lower RPM.

I think the 6.2L actually has a pretty robust cooling system - personally I've never had a problem with my two previous 6.2L trucks hauling heavy in 90F humidity, but that's just me.