Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Fords new 6.2L V8 = 411HP/434tq

Old Dec 18, 2009 | 11:11 AM
  #1  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Fords new 6.2L V8 = 411HP/434tq

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks....announced.html
Old Dec 18, 2009 | 04:07 PM
  #2  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Why wouldn't they put this engine into cars? Sounds like a good, solid performer.
Old Dec 18, 2009 | 04:36 PM
  #3  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
It's good but not great.

Ford have gone to so much trouble to design an engine so much different to GM's comparable V8 without being able to 'defeat' it. I notice it's still got an iron block and extra hardware in the way of cam and spark plugs... it must be heavier than the GM LXX, not to mention more expensive to make.

That's why I love the GM small-block. Throw anything you like at it, and it still comes up 'trumps' in any way you care to compare.

PS I know I'm not comparing truck engines per se. I'm only looking at the Ford's engine specs in isolation compared to GM's range of 6.2L V8s.
Old Dec 18, 2009 | 09:19 PM
  #4  
Aaron91RS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 162
From: St. Louis, MO
1 less HP then the much smaller 5.0.

I think you're doing it wrong
Old Dec 18, 2009 | 09:33 PM
  #5  
bossco's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Gotta look at that torque curve as opposed to those peak numbers. However this motor would make a dandy engine for a 2012 Mach1 (well provided it was punched out to 7L and fitted with VVT 4v DOHC heads and an aluminum block)
Old Dec 19, 2009 | 04:57 AM
  #6  
Bob Cosby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted by Aaron91RS
1 less HP then the much smaller 5.0.

I think you're doing it wrong
It's a TRUCK MOTOR - a SOHC 2V truck motor. The new 5.0 DOHC 4V is a PERFORMANCE CAR motor. The 6.2 makes its peak power 1000 rpm lower than the 5.0, and will have a much fatter low-mid range curve.....which IS important in the truck world, if not so much in the performance car world.

Oh btw....it is the first iteration of a new motor. And its on regular gas.
Old Dec 19, 2009 | 08:32 AM
  #7  
Chuck!'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,610
From: Cincinnati, OH
Any chance with these new Ford motors that we see a new Lightning?
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 10:10 AM
  #8  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Engine keep growing in power output, and yet the trucks still seem to be slow as molasses, unless it's a performance version of the truck (Lightning, SRT-10, even Harley-Davidson is better).

Each time you read the numbers, they sound impressive, then take it to the drag strip and it's still a 16-second+ performer.
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 11:05 AM
  #9  
boomer78's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 253
Last I checked trucks were for towing and hauling, not quarter mile burners.
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 11:09 AM
  #10  
Zigroid's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 948
From: Stroudsburg, PA
Originally Posted by muckz
Engine keep growing in power output, and yet the trucks still seem to be slow as molasses, unless it's a performance version of the truck (Lightning, SRT-10, even Harley-Davidson is better).

Each time you read the numbers, they sound impressive, then take it to the drag strip and it's still a 16-second+ performer.
isnt there a 5 second delay for full power when you floor it in the 400 hp GM trucks?
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 02:19 PM
  #11  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Originally Posted by Zigroid
isnt there a 5 second delay for full power when you floor it in the 400 hp GM trucks?
Right, I forgot about that. What is the point of it anyway? And is it really 5-seconds, or more like 2?

Anyone care to chime in with more info on that technology before I rant on what a crappy idea it is?
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 03:20 PM
  #12  
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Uh, the Toyota Tundra with the 5.7L (near 400 hp) and the GM trucks with the 6.2L (just over 400 hp) do 0-60 in 6.1-6.2 seconds. Extended cab 4x4s.

They may not shine so brightly in the quarter mile, where their relatively poor aero properties compared to cars start to take a toll, but imho that sort of accel is crazy quick for a run-of-the-mill pickup truck. I'm pretty sure they are below 16 seconds, I think high 14s or low 15s in tests I've seen...

What is the point of having that much power in a truck (unless it is a Lightning / SRT10 type truck)? Not that I'd complain about having it, mind you...

Freaking semi trucks pull 80,000 lbs with 400-500 hp...
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 04:01 PM
  #13  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Originally Posted by 96_Camaro_B4C
Uh, the Toyota Tundra with the 5.7L (near 400 hp) and the GM trucks with the 6.2L (just over 400 hp) do 0-60 in 6.1-6.2 seconds. Extended cab 4x4s.
I was under the impression that they still pull high 15/low 16 sec 1/4 mi, but if you're saying that they pull such good numbers, then I'm impressed.


Freaking semi trucks pull 80,000 lbs with 400-500 hp...

Yes, but those are big/healthy horses! They also have 1500 - 1800 lbs/ft of torque.
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 04:04 PM
  #14  
Zigroid's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 948
From: Stroudsburg, PA
Originally Posted by 96_Camaro_B4C
Freaking semi trucks pull 80,000 lbs with 400-500 hp...
yeah and do you like getting behind them when they are going up a long hill fully loaded?

an equivalent power:weight ratio would require a 5,000 lb truck to have about 30 hp... and a whole lot more gears to choose from haha.

I would love to have a chevy regular cab 4x4, short bed/stepside with an LS3... oh yeah, and a 6 speed manual. make it all black so deep you can look in it and see forever. dont need to lower it or raise it they are fine stock ride height. put a set of long tubes on it with true duals and an H-pipe. I will probably have to just dream about that though. dropping the 4x4 idea might be able to make it happen!

back on topic, if I were GM I would be figuring out what to do with the camaro to get it to compete with the 2011 mustang. my buddy's mother's '10 GT 5 speed is neck and neck with my LS1 6-speed formula. another 100 hp and it could get ugly.
Old Dec 21, 2009 | 04:07 PM
  #15  
Zigroid's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 948
From: Stroudsburg, PA
Originally Posted by muckz
I was under the impression that they still pull high 15/low 16 sec 1/4 mi, but if you're saying that they pull such good numbers, then I'm impressed..
IF (and thats a big if) I recall correctly those big escalades ran mid 14s with the 403 hp L92s.

that is impressive for a big truck that probably weighs 6000 lbs or so!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 AM.