Why did ford put a 6.2 in the raptor instead of the ecoboost engine?

[The Car Stereo Company]

haha

 

[BlueSVT]

90% of the FRF members are fanatical.. 5% are purist
2.5% are undefinable
1.5% are stocker/street queens
.5% are birdman
.5% are legendary FRF members Chris Ross, Rick Ryckman, etc..

-Greg

1.5% stocker/street queens?

I'd say far more than that!

P.S. Dirt + Forced induction is bad, mmm'kay?

 

[Squatting Dog]

1.5% stocker/street queens?

I'd say far more than that!

P.S. Dirt + Forced induction is bad, mmm'kay?

You think there is more than 315 street queens?

-Greg

 

[Fred]

I would guess 10% street queens...


Sent from iPad 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Squatting Dog]

2100 street queens... That's it I'm selling my Raptor..

-Greg

 

[Fred]

Ha ha...it could be more...


Sent from iPad 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Dv8tor]

Did anyone notice the 2013 Cobra Jet Concept car? Pretty interesting. Something tells me that ford does have something up their sleeve for future svt products. Maybe even bringing back the Lightning? Maybe project "Bobcat" is real?

 

[ARH1956]

The new 5.0's are fantastic motors. Waaaay more technologically advanced then our 6.2's.

Why do you think the 5.0 is more technologically advanced than the 6.2? The aluminum block? DOHC? Aluminum is lighter but cast iron is far more durable! Here's an example; in 2002, and other years BMW 3 series Inline 6 engines all used aluminum blocks with one exception. The most advanced inline 6, used in my M3, a 3.2L 333HP screamer redlining @ 8,200 rpm used a cast iron block. Why, because aluminum blocks were found to be less reliable than the cast iron blocks.

 

[tbonemcniel]

Why do you think the 5.0 is more technologically advanced than the 6.2? The aluminum block? DOHC? Aluminum is lighter but cast iron is far more durable! Here's an example; in 2002, and other years BMW 3 series Inline 6 engines all used aluminum blocks with one exception. The most advanced inline 6, used in my M3, a 3.2L 333HP screamer redlining @ 8,200 rpm used a cast iron block. Why, because aluminum blocks were found to be less reliable than the cast iron blocks.

The 4v heads/cams with TWIN independent variable cam timing. Yes, we have variable cam timing, but Ford's been doing that since '98! There are 15 tables for cam timing alone in the 5.0 tune.

While the 6.2 is still leaps and bounds more advanced and better thought out than the 4.6/5.4, the 5.0 is still a step ahead of it. The amount of engineering the 5.0 went through before making it to production is insane.

I wish our 6.2's were making 84 hp per liter, or 78 ft/lb of torque per liter like the Mustang 5.0. That would leave us at 521 hp, 484 ft/lb.

Or even the truck 5.0 ratios would get us to 446 hp, 471 ft/lb.


What I would have loved, is the old 302/351W idea. Same heads, wider intake, same bore, just taller decked block for more stroke and displacement. That idea to have been applied to the new 5.0. So basically, imagine the new 5.0, but with 6.2 liters of displacement.

No don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the 6.2. Hey, I bought one didn't I! I'm just saying Ford "tried harder" on the Coyote 5.0 then our 6.2.

 

[ARH1956]

The 4v heads/cams with TWIN independent variable cam timing. Yes, we have variable cam timing, but Ford's been doing that since '98! There are 15 tables for cam timing alone in the 5.0 tune.

While the 6.2 is still leaps and bounds more advanced and better thought out than the 4.6/5.4, the 5.0 is still a step ahead of it. The amount of engineering the 5.0 went through before making it to production is insane.

I wish our 6.2's were making 84 hp per liter, or 78 ft/lb of torque per liter like the Mustang 5.0. That would leave us at 521 hp, 484 ft/lb.

Or even the truck 5.0 ratios would get us to 446 hp, 471 ft/lb.


What I would have loved, is the old 302/351W idea. Same heads, wider intake, same bore, just taller decked block for more stroke and displacement. That idea to have been applied to the new 5.0. So basically, imagine the new 5.0, but with 6.2 liters of displacement.

No don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the 6.2. Hey, I bought one didn't I! I'm just saying Ford "tried harder" on the Coyote 5.0 then our 6.2.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Here's my take on the 6.2. The Raptor is marketed as a desert racer to be sold to the general public. The expectation is that a higher percentage of it's buyers will engage in high speed off-road use than with any other FOMOCO truck, ever. With this target in mind Ford designed a new engine architecture based loosely on the modular V-8 with durability as top priority, not achieving the maximum specific output per CI. Will an aluminum block DOHC 6.2 be offered as an option in future Raptors? Possibly. Will the added mechanical complexity make it a more "advanced" engine, not especially. Will it be more durable or reliable for Raptor owners, doubtful. Unlike guys driving actual trophy trucks where motors are built for maximum output I, and most Raptor owners don't have a full support team to follow my every move, nor the desire or resources to rebuild the motor every 2-3K miles. I understand your position and a part of me would like to have an aluminum block DOHC 6.2 right now, not because it would be more advanced but because you can never have too much HP, LOL. BTW, I love the Coyote 5.0 as well as the 3.5 EcoBoost, both are an amazing engines I simply prefer the 6.2 in the Raptor. Ford has truly got it's act together across the board when it comes to truck power plants. Well done FOMOCO and SVT!