When you get down to it, the cost of all the parts in a double overhead cam hemi engine with primary and two secondary timing chains (and 3 sprockets) is a lot. And they can build a camshaft in block engine so much faster.

It's down to cost to build the 6.8.

It almost makes you wonder what engines are going into the future Mustang GT's?

 

The 6.2 was aging architecture and its not business smart to have two different architectures if you can avoid it. The 6.8 was an easy solution to replace the entry level gas motor while still offering an optional larger displacement 7.3 gas motor. Teamed with the 10 speed, the 6.8 should offer better mpg than the outgoing 6.2 V8.

 

I would argue that it costs more to build the 6.8 than offer only the 7.3 since they may be essentially the same motor, but now they need more parts. So it's all about having a new base level motor just so they can charge for the upgrade.

 

I've had this same question since hearing about the new mill. My impression is a lot of OEMs are transitioning to a business model where they sell two similar products with different specs (the "standard & HO" model). Ram started it with the Cummins 6.7, have similar with their new gasser 3.0 Hurricane engine, and now we see Ford doing it with both Powerstroke and this Godzilla. NA gassers dont have the same ability to simply change ancillaries or tuning like their turbocharged brethren, so i think this is what Ford has to do to get similar effect.

There could be some other benefits (lower cost components like non-forged rods etc) or fuel economy, but i feel a large part of it is marketing and profitability for a given architecture or design.

 

IMO a Boss 6.2L based engine should be Fords best V8 ever. Why? OHC's are pointless on an engine with only 2V's a cylinder. A cam in block engine will manage 2V's a cylinder just fine. People stereotype OHV engines as not being able to spin, but BS. The biggest limiting factor for making any 2V engine to spin is can you feed it enough air to breathe at higher engine speeds.?.? If you can then then an OHV engine will happily spin. Sure your valvetrain weight/quality of components becomes a factor as does your rotating assembly's weight, but even a LS7 with a 4" stroke, pushing slugs in a 4.125" bore will spin 7K+ RPM's all day. A 4.6L SOHC 2V engine is a boat anchor. 2V's can't flow enough air to make big power on a 92MM bore diameter. The TFS heads flow really well for a 2V Modular head, but that's relative to a 2V Modular. They don't flow really well to say a TFS head designed for use on a LS engine with a 4"+ bore diameter. The 6.2L (with a 4.03" bore diameter) that Ford put in the 1/2 tons made I believe 430 BHP, (not sure the torque #) where the most efficient 4.6L 2V engines made was the New Edge Mustang Bullitt engine which made I believe 265 BHP. In that comparison that larger 6.2L is a huge improvement. Even compared to your 4.165" stroked Modular V8/V10 engines running a 2V setup the 6.2L still made noticeable better power. The larger bore of the 6.2L allowed Ford the ability to use a much more efficient head/topend setup even on a 2V engine. If Ford can make a GEN3 Coyote as efficient as it is with a small 3.66" (I believe this # is correct) bore diameter, with a well designed 4V setup then what do you think they could have done with a well designed 4V head on an engine running larger than a 4" bore diameter? The 6.2L always used a more traditional combo of bore/stroke than Modular and Coyote, even if it's more traditional to an OHV engine.

EDIT: I say all this to say that from a engine performance standpoint (even in truck applications) I think Ford would of been better served updating the 6.2L to a 4V setup than going to the 7.3L/6.8L OHV engine. From a cost to manufacture standpoint, Ford might be better off with the OHV engines, but IDK.

 

Truck engines for 8,001 GVWR+ are exempt from federal MPG as long as they are "clean", so you wont find MPG numbers. I see why Ford did this. Instead of two lines to build engines, especially an old outdated engine that has reached EOL status in the lineup, they consolidate by utilizing an existing new design with minor changes. Same block and heads, different crank and rods. More efficient production as well. Don't think though that the 6.8 is going to be exclusive to the Superduty XL though, it will find its way into a lot of chassis for various fleet sales, like RV's and box trucks too.

 

The Ford guy didn't know what he was talking about. They're using the 7.3 in all kinds of vehicles--including F450 cab/chassis (Class C's) and F650's too. Kind'a makes you wonder if they finally ran out of warehoused V-10 engines that they've been putting in these vehicles.

I have a F250 XLT 7.3 on order. I originally was going with a XL with the 6.8 and the Chrome Package. I found out that the XLT that comes with 7.3 and 4x4 is actually priced about $2,000 less than it should be. It's actually the better value than the XL's that really are built for fleet users and governmental agencies--sold on bid basis.

 

The 6.8 is a clone of the 7.3, using the same block. It is nothing like the 6.2. The 6.2 is an overhead cam engine while the 6.8 uses the conventional cam in the block OHV design with variable timing.

I agree with bamaman, the Ford guy doesn't know what he was talking about.

 

I noticed this too when playing with the build and price.

 

On a 2026 f250 6.8 v8 gas. Traveling from San Antonio tx to Laredo tx 2 way trip, going 65 to 70 mph we were averaging 13 to 14 mpg and we're still climbing. That's with conservative driving. The engine still only had about 1800 miles on it.