Here's proof that there's nowhere our longterm 2010 Ford F-150 Raptor SVT won't go. It barely fit on the rollers of the Dynojet chassis dyno, but fit it did. And that's a good enough reason to put it there.
There's also a more compelling reason. The 6.2-liter gasser under the Raptor's hood is a new offering from the blue oval. Sporting bore diameters of a hair more than four inches and a stroke that's a quarter-inch less than the bore diameter, this mill is surprisingly oversquare.
It's also got two spark plugs per cylinder, which is likely a measure made necessary by the large-diameters cylinder bores -- large combustion chambers burn their contents more slowly than compact chambers. You want a quick rate of combustion for optimum power, efficiency and to minimize cycle to cycle variation. Adding another spark plug effectively doubles the total area of the flame front, quickening the burn rate.
The large cylinder bores also permit the use of large valve diameters, which are great for high-rpm breathing. Roller rockers and and overhead cams round out the impression that this engine is more of a revvy screamer than a truck engine.
There's one very effective way to find out. Hit the jump.
The stats don't support this conclusion. Ford reckons the big V8 produces its peak power of 411 horsepower at a trucky 5,500 rpm. Peak torque of 434 lb-ft arrives at 4,500 rpm, which seems fairly high for a truck...
...until you see that there's plenty of torque swelling on either side of the peak. Here's our dyno result.
The big ramp in torque output that you see at 3,500 rpm was no fluke. It was there run after run after run. This gives the heavy Raptor a good shove right where it needs it. As measured at the wheels, peak torque is 372 lb-ft at 4,700 rpm, and peak power of 361 hp arrives at 5,750 rpm. The rev limiter cuts in softly at 5,900 rpm with a hard limit at 6,000 rpm.
One tricky aspect to dyno testing vehicles equipped with automatic gearboxes is that slushboxes are in fact sentient beings. They're unruly, downshifting at will when you floor the go pedal. The only workaround is to begin the dyno pull from very high revs and leave no room on the tach for a downshift. Naturally, this approach misses out on a lot of data.
However, the Raptor's gearbox behaves differently -- when you select '3' with the console shifter, the transmission stays in third gear. No downshifting, no nonsense. This makes dyno testing a breeze as it allows us to begin the big truck's dyno pulls from as low on the tach as the torque converter's lockup characteristics allow.
Of course, Ford didn't craft this feature to make dyno testing easy, they did it because if you're in a situation that requires you stir the transmission's gear selector -- say, in dirt -- you very likely need fine throttle control too. A big, whompin' downshift would cause instant wheelspin when you want it least.
Okay, back to the engine. The Raptor's V8 displaces 6.2 liters and employs two valves per cylinder. Sound familiar? GM's LS3 V8 ticks those same boxes.
Lo and behold, we just happened to have dynoed our 2010 Chevy Camaro SS a few months ago on this same dyno, so I threw them together for a quick comparison. Yeah, one's tuned for truck duty and the other's not, but that actually makes things even more interesting.
For instance, the Raptor makes a whole lot more peak torque (nearly 30 lb-ft), which you possibly maybe might expect, but it's worth pointing out that the truck only gives 9 hp at its peak to the Chevy coupe. Also worthy of note is the Chevy's edge below 3100 rpm.
So despite the spec sheet's suggestion to the contrary, the Raptor indeed has an engine that suits its mission. Still, all of the Ford 6.2's rev-tolerant hardware makes one wonder what kind of latent potential lies within.
Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor @ 5,029 miles.
greenpony says:
05:49 PM, 08/24/10
Forced induction 6.2L + Mustang = happiness.
parchisi64 says:
07:38 PM, 08/24/10
Maybe we'll see another version of the Boss Mustang with this beast under the hood. But upon further consideration, I think it would be more likely to be the next GT500 powerplant. Or at least that's what I hope. I'm not sure if this will fit between the Mustangs strut towers or not.
fuhteng says:
08:17 PM, 08/24/10
Forced induction 5.0 would be pretty happy too! That is interesting about the two spark-plugs per cylinder. Thank God you don't have to change them much. 16 plugs would be a pain! Good article.
actualsize says:
08:53 PM, 08/24/10
@parchisi64: when I talked to the Ford guys at the Raptor 6.2 drive event in Michigan, they told me "the 6.2 will fit anywhere the 5.4 will fit."
windsor5 says:
09:32 PM, 08/24/10
I dont think increasing displacement would benefit the mustang. Remeber the old 5.4 before it was alluminum sure it had gobs of power but it was nose heavy the 6.2 would only make things worse it is a heavy heavy block more suited to trucks then muscle cars.
Look what the 5.0 can do they have ford superchargers for well over 500hp with the weight savings you get against the 5.4L this would be a much better engine for the mustang shelby gt500 than the 6.2. so maybee we can see an ecoboost 5.0 for shelby gt 500 =)
but the 6.2 is going to be a beast for truck duty I see this as going to be a very powerful and reliable truck engine for the f-series pickups/
docrr says:
10:23 PM, 08/24/10
Sometimes people are confused about the claim of hp by the manufacture and what the vehicle is actually putting down. The manufacture uses an SAE rating from the flywheel, which tends to be much higher than what we see from a typical dyno due to not taking into account the loss of power by friction through the transmission, rear end and hubs.
In this case, the dyno shown a hp of 361 which is about right on par if you take into account a 15% drivetrain loss (give or take) which gives a consistent rating as with the manufacture claim.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
church123 says:
10:34 PM, 08/24/10
Several things to consider....
1) The Raptor is spinning much bigger, heavier wheels/tires than the Camaro. Not to mention that the flex inherent in the off-road tires is going to sap more power. Test both these vehicles with the same wheel/tire combo (not realistic, I know) and the Ford motor is going to beat the Chevy everywhere above 3000 rpm.
2) The rather lumpy torque curve looks to me like Ford was using variable valve timing to extract every last bit of output. Combined with intake and exhaust tuning that doesn't always make for the smoothest curve, but with that much mass to propel, I don't think drivers will notice the bumpiness.
All in all, looks like Ford is _finally_ showing what their cammer design can do versus pushrods. I was always a little disappointed with early iterations of their OHC V8s. Too bad it took 15 years, but I'm glad they finally got there. The new 5.0 and the 6.2 both look like highly desireable powerplants.
hybris says:
11:58 PM, 08/24/10
I can't wait for a 6.2L stroker kit to come out.
carpaul1 says:
12:51 AM, 08/25/10
Not exactly sure what the point of this truck is. Ford should be investing its dollar wisely in this very difficult market. Just sayin it was only a few years ago when another domestic manufacturer tried to spend large sums catering to a niche SUV offroad market. We all know where that brand Hum... ended up, along with the negative connotations of owning one attached to its manufacturer.
lostboyz says:
03:52 AM, 08/25/10
this is a low production vehicle, not an entire brand of poseur mobiles.
loving that 6.2L
throwback says:
05:25 AM, 08/25/10
carpaul, comparing this truck to the Hummer brand is an apples and tomatoes comparison. The cost to Ford to do this truck is miniscule. The F150 is there number one selling, AND most profitable vehicle. This is simply a halo truck for the top selling vehicle in the country. My guess is Ford more than made their money back on the development of the Raptor, plus they have a unique vehicle that no other company sells. Other than styling, there was nothing unique about Hummers.
jeepsrt says:
07:20 AM, 08/25/10
Comparing this too Hummer makes no sense, my Brother had an H2 before his Raptor and hated it after about 2 months, no storage and being the SUT model not enough room for his dogs. I didn't know this engine had 2 plugs per cylinder just like the Hemi engines from Chrysler.
typer_801 says:
09:04 AM, 08/25/10
I love the dyno comparison of between the Raptor 6.2L and the Camaro SS LS3, however, are they really comparable? It's my understanding that live axle power delivery is much more efficient that an independent rear suspension setup (diff & axle shafts). Say 10-12% drivetrain loss for a Live Axle vehicle vs 15-18% for a independent rear suspension. In other words, there should be considerably less parasitic drivetrain power loss in a Raptor than a Camaro SS assuming all else was equal. That's not true in this case because the Raptor has an Automatic transmission and the camaro a manual. So maybe the auto in the Raptor helps to even out the drivetrain loss between the two. Regardless, not convinced this is an apples-to-apples comparion, but still an interesting comparison.
sherief says:
09:28 AM, 08/25/10
Considering each wheel+tire combo weighs 95 pounds each, that is an amazing number to put down to the ground.
v8muscle says:
10:03 AM, 08/25/10
it's a good mill for what it was made for !!!
i think that the supercharger 5.0 producing 624 bhp and 536 lb-ft of torque will do the job right under the hood of the GT500. :D
chrgman says:
11:59 AM, 08/25/10
May I suggest that your tests use DC's LOAD CELL Dynapak dyno.... not the accellerometer style
DynoJet? Although this would bring down the numbers, it would be closer to the real output/minus
losses, to what you are now getting.
As for two plugs per cylinder, their use is dictated by driveability issues at light load, low RPM
operation with high EGR levels. A large flamefront is needed during these lean burn conditions.
Indeed Hot Rod's Hemi test a few years back found no HP or torque gain running on 1 plug/cyl.
Please do a comparison test between thes two DC dyno's....
church123 says:
01:21 PM, 08/25/10
Actually chrgman, a Dynapack should read higher than a Dynojet. Removing all that wheel/tire mass frees up a lot of power, not to mention the losses inherent in tire and contact patch deformation as the tire rolls.
Yes, I know some Dynapacks read lower than Dynojets, unfortunately, the factory Dynapack calibrations over the years have changed. I should know, I have three of them. Anyways, if they're going to switch to Dynapack, they should come to my shop, I'm not too far from MD where they go now. :-) But they aren't going to switch, because while a Dynojet has plenty of limitations, especially from a tuning perspective, its the most consistent dyno from unit to unit across the world, and also the simplest to operate with the least number of variables for operators to screw with.
cardesigner82 says:
01:57 PM, 08/25/10
docrr says:
"Sometimes people are confused about the claim of hp by the manufacture and what the vehicle is actually putting down. The manufacture uses an SAE rating from the flywheel, which tends to be much higher than what we see from a typical dyno due to not taking into account the loss of power by friction through the transmission, rear end and hubs.
In this case, the dyno shown a hp of 361 which is about right on par if you take into account a 15% drivetrain loss (give or take) which gives a consistent rating as with the manufacture claim.
Please correct me if I'm wrong."
SAE is measured at the crankshaft, and does not account for the loss of kinetic energy from there on back. Dyno measures at the wheels. Manufacturers use the SAE rating, so Fords claims are that of SAE.
greenpony says:
06:55 PM, 08/25/10
@Dan: "when I talked to the Ford guys at the Raptor 6.2 drive event in Michigan, they told me "the 6.2 will fit anywhere the 5.4 will fit.""
You've mentioned this before, and it has stuck in my mind ever since. Where else is the 5.4L used? Expedition, Navigator, F-series, and Mustang.
500rwhp says:
06:07 AM, 08/26/10
typer_801 says:
It's my understanding that live axle power delivery is much more efficient that an independent rear suspension setup (diff & axle shafts#. Say 10-12% drivetrain loss for a Live Axle vehicle vs 15-18% for a independent rear suspension.//
That's not true in this case because the Raptor has an Automatic transmission and the camaro a manual. So maybe the auto in the Raptor helps to even out the drivetrain loss between the two.
If the gear mesh in an IRS loses 5-6%, that'd be extreme. The total powertrain loss for IRS vs fixed axle should be essentially similar at static conditions #no moving of the joint during test#. If you were losing that much power, the oil in the IRS diff would need to be changed pretty darn often as there is no way to cool it. and 5% of 400 HP is 20HP, or about 5 tons #the size of your house A/C unit). Also, as a constant torque load, you wouldn't be able to turn it by hand as the torque would be so high. At readline in 3rd gear you are looking at < 1000RPM for the axle shafts. That's just not that fast. To use up 20HP, that would be requiring like 100lb-ft of torque. There's not way............
And yes, the torque converter will absorb a fair amount of power, so it's pretty likely the Raptor engine makes better power from 3000RPM up, as has been commented, likely due the variable valve timing.
redraiderguy08 says:
10:06 AM, 08/26/10
The total powertrain loss for IRS vs. Fixed axle is not similar in static conditions, unless the half shafts are completely perpendicular to the ground with the center line of the differential and center line of the wheel being at the same elevations. If there is any angle at all in the half shafts (which i can guarantee there is) than power is being transferred to the u-joints or in this case cv joints. Also worth nothing is that the camaro uses a two piece drive shaft with a carrier bearing that also creates more losses. I do not think an automatic+single drive shaft+ soild rear axle (with heavy tires) has more parasitic losses than a manual+two piece drive shaft+ IRS+ heavy 20in Rims. Either way both arguments are mute, if you want to know which has more power look at the SAE numbers, those are a guaranteed min. when engine tolerances are at there worst allowable clearances. Meaning most (both) engines will outperform the SAE numbers.
toxic_science says:
11:07 AM, 08/26/10
The 6.2 is awesome and would fit nicely into a GT500 if it were an aluminum block and not cast iron. I know that the 5.0 with the stage 2 supercharger option makes upwards of 600 hp but ford doesn't warranty that addtion to the mustang. Even the stage 1 option is only warrantied for 1 year. I'd be worried about detonation and durabiltiy with the 5.0 + supercharger due to the thin cylinder walls. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the 5.0 is basically a 4.6 block bored out to 5.0 and instead of a cast iron cylinder sleeve they put in a slick coating.
Either way, this is a great engine for Ford. I'd like to put this in my expedition. My anemic 5.4 runs out of breath to easily.
greenpony says:
12:12 PM, 08/26/10
@redraiderguy08:
mute.
–adjective
1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
2. not emitting or having sound of any kind.
3. incapable of speech; dumb.
4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced.
5. Law . (of a person who has been arraigned) making no plea or giving an irrelevant response when arraigned, or refusing to stand trial (used chiefly in the phrase to stand mute ).
6. Fox Hunting . (of a hound) hunting a line without giving tongue or cry.
moot.
–adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
lt1boy says:
07:09 PM, 08/26/10
You really can't take any of IL's dyno tests seriously. When they dynoed the Viper SRT-10 and the ZR1, the Viper had about 50 rwhp more than the ZR1 did.
IL pretty much lost all credibility there, after that test, when it comes to dyno numbers.