I just want to say thank you for coming to this forum and answering any questions at all. Knowing that someone related to the manufacture of the Super Duty, or it's engines, is checking in from time to time, seeing what owners are actually saying, is great.

I am very sorry to see the V10 go. It's been an exceptional engine for me. I expect the 6.2L will also be an exceptional engine.

Edited to add: I do have a question(s): I have read elsewhere that the 6.8L V10 was engineered with a duty life of 400,000 or 450,000 miles or so. Is this something engineers actually do, engineer engines with a service life or duty life related to mileage? Or, maybe reading this was just Internet blathering by someone that didn't really know what he/she was talking about...I don't know. If engines are truly designed/engineered with this type of mileage life, then is/was the V10 engineered with such a service life, and how does the 6.2L compare?

 

89CrewCab - I'm sticking by my 1% - 2%, for the 1 CR increase that DI by itself enables, on a well engineered base engine.

Good luck with your truck purchase - I hope you choose the Ford, but encourage you to drive both.

 

It appears from what you have stated that the larger bore is causing the 6.2 to have an inefficient combustion chamber. I assume that is why you are using two spark plugs to fire each cylinder. I also assume that at that low of compression ratio you can't control the flame front in the cylinder as well as you need to to meet current and future emission standards.

What design considerations went into both the bore diameter, piston, and cylinder head designs to help the controlled burning of the cylinder charge? Was the dual plug the only way to acheive complete combustion? It has always been my thoughts that dual plugs are just a band-aid.

Also, is there going to be a similar future evolution with the 6.2 as seen with the MOD 4.6, 5.4, 6.8 consurning the advent of additional valves (2 vs 3 vs 4..).

It has generally been the norm that modular ford rods have been the weak spot when starting to lean on the Modular engines. What kind of crank and rods are in the 6.2. What kind of ultimate hp goals were used to steer your designs.

Thanks

John

 

That's what I was afraid of.

One request: Post a torque curve for the 6.2

 

I am guessing the 6speed transmission will help counteract that somewhat

One other question I forgot about was, how does the weight of the engine compare to the outgoing engines?
Particularly for those that use their truck off-road, do heavy hauling/towing, a light engine helps get across soft ground and allows users to maximize their effective payload within a GVW/GCW.

 

Hi Mike, thank you so much for stopping in!

I have a 2011 F350 all spec'd out at my local dealer and will be placing my order tomorrow.


I tow a TT that weighs around 7,000 wet, have a slide in camper weighs around 1500, tow a enclosed snowmobile trailer, and probably haul my dirtbikes in bed around mostly on weekends. I live at 7000 ft elevation in Flagstaff.

I am getting rid of my little sporty WRX and my F350 6.0L diesel. In the past 20 years I have flopped between ford's 7.3 in a coupla versions, a GM 6.0 gas, and my most recent 6.0L Diesel all of them in manual transmission.

So, I will be dropping down to just one all round vehicle, thus I am returning to a gasser engine as they make a better daily driver. And I love the new side curtain airbags in the new F-350.

My biggest question is should I go with the 3.73 or 4.30 rear diff with your new 6.2L and the 6R140?
More than half my miles will be basically unladen, with the rest towing my different sized trailers or campers.

What routine driving around town fuel econ will I get if I currently get 16-17mpg with my 6.0L CC 4x4 f350. I assume down maybe 20% with your engine?

Any guesses as to when my truck would be built? F350 SRW CC LB 4x4 XL with your 6.2L engine?

Who makes your pistons for your new engine?

Thanks again! I'm also a ramblin wreck from GaTech Mech Eng from about 30 years ago. Do medical products here in Flagstaff- but am a gearhead at heart, envy your job except for your locale.

 

Thanks, Mike. So far, I'm liking the 2011 SD the best!!

I looked at the specs for the 2011 Mustang V6 and it proves that higher horsepower and good MPG can be had WITHOUT Direct Injection.

 

Adrian - cost of service should be similar to 5.4L - same change interval and capacity.
The significant difference is 16 plugs instead of 8 at 100k miles.

Weight of 6.2 is somewhere in the middle of a 5.4 and 6.8.

 

Ace - it's a difficult question to answer, because it depends on the individual customer dutycycle.
We do have many different customer duty cycles in our database, and we use these to set the number of cycles on the wear, fatigue and thermal cycle tests.
The 6.2L is designed with the same criteria as the 6.8L.
We continually update test methodologies to take account of new learnings in service.

Hope this helps. Mike.

 

Hi John - great questions.
Probably beyond the scope of my typing skills - I could write a paper, and many people have
But here goes. It has a large bore. It has a large bore to enable larger valve area and reduced stroke, to be able to increase the engine speed to meet the power objectives.
It needs 2 plugs to burn the charge on a timely basis. You need to burn the charge relatively quickly because the longer it is in the chamber unburned, the more heat the charge picks up from the chamber and the more knock (detonation) limited you are. If you increase charge motion (tumble/swirl) the time to burn the charge reduces but the charge picks up more heat from the chamber (higher charge motion leads to higher heat transfer), so you again end up being more knock limited. Adding charge motion via swirl or tumble also reduces port flow coefficients so horsepower is reduced.
Twin plugs and a high flowing port was a good solution for this engine we feel.
The compression ratio is also a fuel economy compromise between unladen and laden (or towing) driving with regular gasoline. If you go to too high a CR, it's great for city driving, but when towing a trailer the spark needs to be retarded too much to avoid knock, and fuel economy suffers.

The components in the engine are typically designed with an adequate safety factor to the specific application. If there is a redesign to improve performance then all the parts get looked at and re-designed to ensure durability and reliability.

 

Forgot to add.

Crank is Cast iron, rods are forged steel.

 

Buckholz, I've spent many happy days in Flagstaff, doing real world testing. Usually stayed at Little America Motel (I think). Wonderful area.

If it was me, I would go with the 3.73. We spent 2 weeks last summer towing in Denver and Utah in an '11 6.2L Superduty CC w/3.73. I had a 10k trailer in tow. The truck was very capable. I believe we went as high at 11,000 feet, and up some steep grades.
I think the option gear is a 4.10.
Your FE estimates are somewhere in the ball park, but again, it's highly dependent on driving style, the highway/city mix, etc.

Please read the owners manual on the transmission control features to get the most out of it. You can select manual control of every gear (manual gear select) which can be really helpful when towing. You can also lock out the top gears too. It also has tow haul modes and other great features.

 

MIke, yes, Little America in Flag is a popular spot. You have a good memory. I like the manual control of the auto, thus my willingness to switch from shifting gears. And thank you very much for the 3.73 advice. I will go that way (with the Elocking function).

You sold at least one '11 6.2L SuperDuty today! Now only another 99,999 to go for the year (or whatever your forcast is...)

What are you doing for air filtration on the 6.2L? One of the very best things about my 6.0L diesel is that super air filter cartridge that holds like 10lbs of dirt before restricting flow. Forget the name....

 

Donaldson

 

Are the tow ratings going to be as good as the V-10, all other thing's being the same ie 4:30 rear end, automatic trans, F-350 supercab etc