Ford has a pretty interesting engine coming for the new mustang:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/5-thing...lat-crank-v-8/

So... any guess if this will ever come to the F-150?... perhaps the Lightning.

Let's look address the anticipated responses first:
"8000 RPM will never be able to last in a truck."
-It would be tuned down to perhaps 7000 rpm and the 3.7L is more than tough enough. This is not the 1970s.

"The torque curve will suck"
- Maybe. and it surely won't match an ecoboost. Then again, Ferrari claims 80% torque before 3500 rpm, which is less than half throttle. Honestly throttle % should matter more than an arbitrary number. That's pretty good and Ford could probably do better for the f-150.

The benefits are it's even lighter than the coyote and has ridiculous power potential. the downside is excessive vibration, but it seems Ford has worked that out.

So what do you all think?

 

A V8 ecoboost is much more likely.

 

Raptor motor?

 

WTF?!? Ford has never even mentioned the possibility of making a factory EcoBoost V8. This engine is already slated for production. In what world is an imaginary engine more likely than a real one?

 

Did you intend to come across as total smartass?

To directly answer you question, it would be in the world that a flat plane crank is not well suited to a truck motor, and well proven ecoboost technology would be much more suited due to far better torque per cubic inch, even for a hotrod like a raptor. So, while you are busy crafting another smartass retort, keep in mind that I never said an ecoboost was coming, I said that it would be more likely than a flat plane ending up in an f150, which was a direct and non-derogatory answer to the OP's question.

 

You knew that wasn't going to get a happy response. The EB V-8 has been on imaginary paper for years.

 

I think you'll be seeing the VooDoo in the F150 although probably as a premium engine in the Raptor first. While there are always the nay sayers, here's the positive side of a flat plane engine. The firing order will be a R_L_R_L_R_L sequence. It makes for far better exhaust scavenging. The exhaust manifolds won't have to look like a two turnpikes meeting with all of the different bends, etc. There are no counter weights on the crank. This reduces considerably the engine rotating mass and frees up significant HP that's pulling the truck instead of turning the weighted crank. It can also rev much higher due to the lighter mass.The torque is no different although many want to say it will be low. All of the flat plane engines today are short stroked, they're race engines. So how do we build torque? We just design the engine with a longer stroke for more torque. Balancing and vibration are not going to be an issue. If Ford can balance a 3 cylinder Eco Boost, a flat planed 8 is not an issue. You also have a lighter engine making more power across the board. So where are the negatives?
Are you aware this is not Fords first flat plane engine? Yep, they raced flat planed engines back in the 60's. So this is not Fords first rodeo with flat planed engines. As usual, they're about to hit yet another one outa the ballpark with the VooDoo. Yeah, I'm a believer in this one.

 

It will just as likely to have this 5.2 end up in an F150 as the 5.8L out of the GT500 in the F150. Which didn't happen, and neither will the 5.2.

 

Great info Labnerd, Thanks for posting

sort of a lame analogy - I don't think anyone expected the 650 hp purpose-built Shelby engine to end up in the F-150. Then again, who would of thought 10 years ago that the F-150 would have 2 different turbo V-8 options.
The engine is possible, especially with the massive weight savings that would make a regular cab not far off in weight from a mustang.

 

Butthurt much?

The entire marketing line for the EB has been "big engine power with little engine fuel mileage". A twin turbo V8 would only fit this bill if it replaced a V10 or very large displacement engine. A V10 has never be offered in an F-150 so what is there to replace? The current 3.5EB is already capable of making more power than the largest V8 ever offered (6.2L). What would be the logic behind replacing it with something else?

See two posts below for why your entire premise is wrong about the flat-plane crank.

 

http://articles.sae.org/13709/

http://50yearsofmustang.com/category...elby-gt350svt/