Need input please - Forced Induction

CoronaRaptor

FRF Addict
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Posts
23,823
Reaction score
18,827
Location
CANADA
I hate that this is a Hennessy but this is basically what see when I run up against a Gen 2
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

And I mean to date, I'm sure if a Gen 2 with thousands of dollars upgrades would keep up with me or even be faster.
Is that the coyote s/c? Sounds awesome.
 

FordTechOne

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Posts
3,509
Reaction score
5,934
Location
Detroit
Well if Ford would have designed the 6.2 for the Raptor as an HO engine and built it better to handle, let's say 700 to 800 HP.
Hell, I would have been happy with 600 HP

And not got so cheap with their crappy oil pump gears, I would not have had to buy another engine.
You’re not getting it. Ford didn’t design the 6.2 as a high performance engine. Period. That was their intent; it’s a work truck/fleet engine. All the speculating in the world doesn’t change that fact. They needed an engine above the 5.4 and all they had available was the 6.2 Super Duty base engine. That’s how the Raptor ended up with it.

The oil pump gears aren’t crappy. They have no issue on stock engines. You destroyed your oil pump with your aftermarket modifications. Ford never designed or intended the 6.2 to be supercharged, so that failure is entirely on you. You tried to modify an engine with something it was never designed for and then you blame the manufacturer? Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound? So how far in the hole are you after two engines and all of those modifications? I guarantee a hell of a lot more than a 3.5 with a $3k Garret turbo upgrade that is much faster, on an engine that is actually DESIGNED for forced induction.
So trying to belittle me isn't going to work.
Not sure why you take it personally. The 6.2 isn’t a performance engine and was never designed for boost. Those are facts, not personal opinions.
 
Last edited:

FordTechOne

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Posts
3,509
Reaction score
5,934
Location
Detroit
I hate that this is a Hennessy but this is basically what I see (actually I do way better) when I run up against a Gen 2
That Hennessy truck only has the 5.0L
And I mean to date, I'm pretty sure if a Gen 2 with thousands of dollars of upgrades, would keep up with me or even be faster.
The HP and Torque numbers that you see for the 3.5L don't lie.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
It’s a Supercharged 5.0 against a stock 3.5 Raptor….considering the 5.0 was a claimed 758HP, the stock Raptor kept up pretty well. Not sure what you’re trying to prove with that video, the 5.0 responds well to mods, it’s used in multiple high performance applications and has multiple performance derivatives. The 6.2 does not.
 

CoronaRaptor

FRF Addict
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Posts
23,823
Reaction score
18,827
Location
CANADA
It’s a Supercharged 5.0 against a stock 3.5 Raptor….considering the 5.0 was a claimed 758HP, the stock Raptor kept up pretty well. Not sure what you’re trying to prove with that video, the 5.0 responds well to mods, it’s used in multiple high performance applications and has multiple performance derivatives. The 6.2 does not.
The 6.2 actually seems to hold together not too bad being supercharged, it has seemed to not favor being procharged or turbocharged as well, for some reason, the rods let go more often in those applications. I'm just going by information and following along through history on this site and other sites. Ford did a pretty good job with a "truck" engine as long as you're not trying to boost it too much. Appears the only weak point is the rockers, whether it is modified or stock, later on in it's life. Not such a bad job Ford.
 

MTF

FRF Addict
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Posts
5,044
Reaction score
1,861
Location
NYC
You’re not getting it. Ford didn’t design the 6.2 as a high performance engine. Period. That was their intent; it’s a work truck/fleet engine. All the speculating in the world doesn’t change that fact. They needed an engine above the 5.4 and all they had available was the 6.2 Super Duty base engine. That’s how the Raptor ended up with it.

The oil pump gears aren’t crappy. They have no issue on stock engines. You destroyed your oil pump with your aftermarket modifications. Ford never designed or intended the 6.2 to be supercharged, so that failure is entirely on you. You tried to modify an engine with something it was never designed for and then you blame the manufacturer? Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound? So how far in the hole are you after two engines and all of those modifications? I guarantee a hell of a lot more than a 3.5 with a $3k Garret turbo upgrade that is much faster, on an engine that is actually DESIGNED for forced induction.

Not sure why you take it personally. The 6.2 isn’t a performance engine and was never designed for boost. Those are facts, not personal opinions.
LOL, the Stock oil pump are crappy, plenty of YouTube videos showing that, It's strong for wear but brittle.
Plenty of fleet 6.2L have had their oil pump gears grenade, did the research when mine shattered.
I laugh, every time you say "second engine".
Since I was the first one with that HP level for a 6.2 10 years ago, I was the guinea pig you can say.
Now with the billet gears I've been running strong for 10 years now.

And just to be clear your beloved six banger has its own gremlins too without modifications!!!

No. you're not getting, I don't care what Ford intended the 6.2 to be, but with some money you can take a durable engine and make it better.
If Ford would have continued with the 6.2, R&D would have still continued and prices would have gone down with aftermarket items.
Livernois and member Biggest built the 6.2 to a high performance beast.

If Ford would embrace turbos for the 5.0 and 6.2 they would have more robust hardware and software for the PCM to accommodate turbo lag and control boost levels like they do for the 3.5, this would all be a different story.
 
Last edited:

FordTechOne

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Posts
3,509
Reaction score
5,934
Location
Detroit
The 6.2 actually seems to hold together not too bad being supercharged, it has seemed to not favor being procharged or turbocharged as well, for some reason, the rods let go more often in those applications. I'm just going by information and following along through history on this site and other sites. Ford did a pretty good job with a "truck" engine as long as you're not trying to boost it too much. Appears the only weak point is the rockers, whether it is modified or stock, later on in it's life. Not such a bad job Ford.
The 6.2 has the advantage of being designed for heavy duty use. Meaning an F-350 loaded to max GCWR pulling Davis Dam wide open. It’s robust for its use case, no doubt. That’s why it can temporarily survive the abuse of forced induction that it was never designed for. The valvetrain is quite robust, with shaft mounted rocker arms, just like a Hemi. These are 200k+ mile engines in factory form; but they were never designed to be used in a high performance application or to accommodate forced induction.

To summarize…6.2 is a great engine; dependable and durable. But it will never be a high performance engine, because it wasn’t designed that way from the start.
 
Last edited:

FordTechOne

FRF Addict
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Posts
3,509
Reaction score
5,934
Location
Detroit
LOL, the Stock oil pump are crappy, plenty of YouTube videos showing that, It's strong for wear but brittle.
Plenty of fleet 6.2L have had their oil pump gears grenade, did the research when mine shattered.
The oil pump issues are caused by aftermarket/supercharger mods. These engines run for well over 200K in abusive fleet applications without an issue; the only time there is a “problem” is when some know it all nobody tries to turn it i to something it is isn’t, with the predictable catastrophic results.

I laugh, every time you say "second engine".
Laugh all you want. You destroyed a perfectly good engine with your desire to achieve more output than it designed for.
Since I was the first one with that HP level for a 6.2 10 years ago, I was the guinea pig you can say.
Now with the billet gears I've been running strong for 10 years now.
And your “build” still couldn’t pass a basic OEM durability test.
And just to be clear your beloved six banger has its own gremlins too without modifications!!!
What “gremlins” do you speak of? You can’t even accept the fact that the 6.2 is a work truck/fleet engine, never mind comprehend the capability or potential of the Gen 2 3.5.
No. you're not getting, I don't care what Ford intended the 6.2 to be, but with some money you can take a durable engine and make it better.
If Ford would have continued with the 6.2, R&D would have still continued and prices would have gone down with aftermarket items.
Livernois and member Biggest built the 6.2 to a high performance beast.
I don’t know how much more clear I can be. You “don’t care” what Ford intended the engine to be, yet here you are arguing that it should be something it’s not. It’s a work truck engine. That’s it. You wasting your time and money trying to change that is irrelevant.
If Ford would embrace turbos for the 5.0 and 6.2 they would have more robust hardware and software for the PCM to accommodate turbo lag and control boost levels like they do for the 3.5, this would all be a different story.
The only story is that you have no clue about the auto industry, and especially not engineering. The 6.2 is a base work truck/fleet engine. If buyers want a more powerful and efficient engine, they opt for the 7.3. If they do heavy towing/hauling; they get the 6.7. The 6.2 is the base engine. There is zero reason for Ford to supercharge or turbocharge a 6.2; you’re living in alternate reality guy.
 

MTF

FRF Addict
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Posts
5,044
Reaction score
1,861
Location
NYC
We have a 6.2 running at 1,200HP and a company that modifies the 6.2 to 850HP without a problem.
I Guess the tens of thousands of Supercharged 6.2L seems to not click with him, oh well.
Probably has no choice but to push Ford's agenda.
 
Last edited:
Top