Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009+ F150
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


2009+ F150 Discuss the 2009 through 2014 Ford F150 SPONSORED BY:

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 05:55 PM
Arctic Fox Arctic Fox is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 105
Arctic Fox is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Interesting question. 6.2L versus the Ecoboost and 5.0L

moved from the Ecoboost forum:

I really do believe that if the 6.2L was more readily available in more "affordable" F150 packages rather than just the higher end Lariat+, then more people would be excited about the 6.2L. You can't tell me that not more people would be going for the 6.2L rather than the 5.0L or Ecoboost if it was offered over the XLT, FX4, etc line.

BTW, I really do think the 6.2L and the Ecoboost will deliver the same gas mileage especially when towing heavy loads...In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 6.2l does better.

Does anybody have real world info on this? Who has been towing hard with the Ecoboost so far? Real world experience would be very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 06:22 PM
Smokey1 Smokey1 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 133
Smokey1 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I think just the opposite, I even spoke with the salesman about why they would even offer it when the output is only marginally better than the ecoboost. He explained that a lot of the old school guys are afraid of having anything less than a big v8 in their pickup. Honestly if you are towing that much that you feel the 6.2 is necessary, it may be time to think super duty.IMHO
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 06:24 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,006
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
In real world (Non Towing Mileage) the 6.2L will not the same fuel mileage as the 3.5L Ecoboost. However, in towing I would expect the 6.2L to get better mileage than the 3.5L

I too would love to see the 6.2L become a broder option, but unti'l Ford can make its unloaded MPG's compare to that of the 5.0L and Ecoboost I doubt we will see it as an option.

But this doesn't mean there is no hope for this...The 6.2L is a realtivly base set up right now. With its old fashioned SOHC 2v design, Ford could ''and probably will'' make it a DOHC 4v design in the future. That coupled with the weight reduction said to be in the works for the next gen F-150, might just make the 6.2L a viable option for non luxury trucks.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 08:28 PM
Scorpion67 Scorpion67 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 350
Scorpion67 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Ford F150 - Eco Boost + towing BLOWS - Ford F150 .net read that!
Will the 6.2 get better than 14mpg while pulling 5500 lbs? I don't think so (considering it gets 12 city (unloaded). Is the 6.2 cheaper to buy? No. Are the oil change intervals less? No. Does it take less oil? No. Does it have more torque down low? No. Does it tow more? No. All you get to do with a 6.2 is tell everyone how big your engine is. I think the only reason that engine is there, is to win those sorts of people over. The EcoBoost has more power and more torque than the 6.2 from idle right up until 4,500 rpm - where the 6.2 has a slight advantage for about 1000 rpm. From 2000-4000 rpm, the EB has a crap load more torque. I think for the people that just have to have it, make them get the Lariat.
torque curve: http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/10...l-vs-5-0l.html
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:20 PM
Arctic Fox Arctic Fox is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 105
Arctic Fox is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
just wondering...if the ecoboost is superior over the 6.2L as per all the points above, then why is it not offered in the F250/F350 SD over the base 6.2L?

...wouldn't the ecoboost be the preferred engine for the SD?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:36 PM
Smokey1 Smokey1 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 133
Smokey1 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Should it be, probably yes. But I think ford understands that putting this engine in a 1/2 ton was a big step, I don't think putting it in a super duty before it's proven itself is a smart idea. There are too many guys like you that think "there's no replacement for displacement". Turns out there is, boost and technology. I don't see 1 reason to ever choose the 6.2 over the ecoboost, or even the 5.0 for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:47 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,006
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Fox View Post
just wondering...if the ecoboost is superior over the 6.2L as per all the points above, then why is it not offered in the F250/F350 SD over the base 6.2L?

...wouldn't the ecoboost be the preferred engine for the SD?

Good Question and I agree fully with your statement. I'm not bashing the Ecoboost as I know its a capable engine AS is the 6.2L.

What it seems many people fail to realize is that the 6.2L is by most accounts a dinosaur of an engine ''even though its new''. SOHC 2v design? 10 or 15 years ago this would hav been WOW technology for a mass marketed truck. But nowadays its common at best thanks to the Ford 4.6L and 5.4L put in trucks since 1997 and 1998 respectivly.

Imgaine the possibility of a 6.2L Ecoboost? Most people assosciate the word ''Ecoboost'' with V6 engines not displacing any higher than 3.5 or so liters. Hell I wrote a thread earlier today asking people what they want to see in the next Gen F-150 and I was suprised at how many of them are hoping for a ''Ecoboosted'' 5.0L and/or 6.2L.

But my point being...If the 6.2L had the technology built into it that the 3.5L has...The 6.2L would win on EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT....Except fuel mileage. But even so I am inclined to beleive that a 6.2L that has been Ecoboosted would infact get better mileage than its N/A Brother.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 11:45 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,006
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey1 View Post
Should it be, probably yes. But I think ford understands that putting this engine in a 1/2 ton was a big step, I don't think putting it in a super duty before it's proven itself is a smart idea. There are too many guys like you that think "there's no replacement for displacement". Turns out there is, boost and technology. I don't see 1 reason to ever choose the 6.2 over the ecoboost, or even the 5.0 for that matter.
I can think of a couple of reasons.

First off, let me say I'm going to order a 2011 FX4 Extended Cab with the 5.0L this summer...Now let me tell you why I choose the 5.0L over the Ecoboost.

#1 - Long Term Reliablity, Yes Yes I know we have all see the torture test videos of the Ecoboost and what not. As for my next truck, this 2011 I'll be purchasing in a few months, I plan to own it for the next 15 or 20 years...Or more. This will probably equate to well over 300,000 miles. I have heard that the Ecoboost's Turbos will require service and possible replacement by 150,000miles, Cost of that service? = Avoided.

#2 - Fuel Mileage, I know your thinking what? The Ecboost has a higher EPA rating than the 5.0! But here's the deal...The 5.0L is EPA rated at within 1mpg of a similerly equipped Ecoboost. This in turn translates into how well you drive the truck. EPA ratings ''Even more so the new revised ones'' can be pretty easily beat by a thoughtful driver. I fully beleive the 5.0L ''Like the Ecoboost'' is capable of over 20mpg on the highway. As a matter of the fact I know it is, I have seen it for myself.

#3 - Inital Cost - The Ecoboost is a 750$ upcharge over the 5.0L. I personally don't want to add the extra money to my payment, And 750$ will buy alot of gas for an engine thats by most all accounts equally as efficent.

#4 - This one's childish I know...But I love a good V8 sound. No V6 or I4 or V-10 even can make a sound as sweet as a V8. Sorry, but this WAS a realtivly important factor. And for the record its not about me trying to be some kind of show off...Its about my personal pleasure that I get when I hear that symphony of 8 pistons doing their job when I accelrate.

#5 - Turbo V6's don't get the kind of milage your thinking they will. The EPA numbers even suggjest that. People were hoping for a 25-27 highway mpg rating for the Ecoboost trucks...Instead they got 22mpg. And maximum MPG's with turbo engines can only be made when the Turbos ARENT spinning. Example is as I said in the EPA raitings.

5.0L 2WD
15/21

3.5L Ecoboost 2WD
16/22


This is all my thoughts on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2011, 11:51 PM
Scorpion67 Scorpion67 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 350
Scorpion67 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Fox View Post
just wondering...if the ecoboost is superior over the 6.2L as per all the points above, then why is it not offered in the F250/F350 SD over the base 6.2L?

...wouldn't the ecoboost be the preferred engine for the SD?
The EcoBoost is only just being launched in the F150 right now. The 2011 Super Duty has been out since about March 2010! Ford (like any car company) doesn't roll out everything at once. I bet we will see a Super Duty EcoBoost, just as we will with the Expedition. When that will be? Who knows?!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2011, 12:27 AM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,006
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpion67 View Post
The EcoBoost is only just being launched in the F150 right now. The 2011 Super Duty has been out since about March 2010! Ford (like any car company) doesn't roll out everything at once. I bet we will see a Super Duty EcoBoost, just as we will with the Expedition. When that will be? Who knows?!
Ive heard rumors that Ford is considering Ecoboost treatment to either the 5.0L and/or 6.2L for Superduty use.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2011, 07:18 AM
Arctic Fox Arctic Fox is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 105
Arctic Fox is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 640 CI Aluminum FORD View Post
Ive heard rumors that Ford is considering Ecoboost treatment to either the 5.0L and/or 6.2L for Superduty use.
...well then I am glad I am getting mine before they put in those damn turbos...

No but seriously, 640 CI Aluminum FORD, I agree with all you have said...and in my opinion, your choice of the 5.0L is a good one. I just needed a little more power since I will be towing heavy. I did not go with the SD as it is too big a truck to move around everyday. Therefore, I chose the 1/2 ton with the same engine as the base SD.

Fuel mileage is not that big a deal for me, I mean come on, it's a truck.

The Ecoboost is very much a question as far as long term reliability. No one can dispute that.

Yes, the 6.2L is old technology with its 2 valves/SOHC, but I need a powerful truck today, not in three or four years from now.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2011, 07:55 AM
mrpositraction's Avatar
mrpositraction mrpositraction is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 375
mrpositraction is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
You are not going to see a 5.0L or 6.2L ecoboost for a long time if ever. Rumors are just that, rumors. Opinion are opinion and here is mine.

If any of you have experience with putting a turbo (or a good understanding of how increasing pressure) on a large displacement motor you know the sort of power that can be made. They are not going to make the regular F150 have 500-600 hp (which could easily be done with 5-8psi on the 6.2L). There is no need for from a practical stand point. The trucks frame wouldn't handle it and the costs would just be too much for everything.

The superduty maybe but if the diesel guys can get mid 20's on the freeway unloaded they aren't going to want to slap a 6.2L which gets worse mileage just to run gas.

From a gearhead stand point it would be awesome to have that sort of power available on tap (maybe see something in like the GT500 or something) but the simple fact of it being awesome isn't going to make it happen.

__________________
2011 F150 SCrew FX4 Ecoboost
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2011, 08:20 AM
excaliber551 excaliber551 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 508
excaliber551 is starting off with a positive reputation.
If you are towing heavy as you say the Super Duty is the only way to go. I wouldn't want to be towing heavy with a half ton regardless of what engine is in it.

The Super Duty will get better mileage than the 6.2 in the F150 if you go with the Diesel. You say fuel mileage doesn't matter go F250.
I know you say it's too big but the 6.2 really offers no advantage at all in the F150 especially since you have to get the 5.5' bed.
That right there would be a deal breaker for me on top of the fact that the 6.2 is a gas guzzling dinosaur.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Fox View Post
...well then I am glad I am getting mine before they put in those damn turbos...

No but seriously, 640 CI Aluminum FORD, I agree with all you have said...and in my opinion, your choice of the 5.0L is a good one. I just needed a little more power since I will be towing heavy. I did not go with the SD as it is too big a truck to move around everyday. Therefore, I chose the 1/2 ton with the same engine as the base SD.

Fuel mileage is not that big a deal for me, I mean come on, it's a truck.

The Ecoboost is very much a question as far as long term reliability. No one can dispute that.

Yes, the 6.2L is old technology with its 2 valves/SOHC, but I need a powerful truck today, not in three or four years from now.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2011, 10:01 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,006
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpositraction View Post
You are not going to see a 5.0L or 6.2L ecoboost for a long time if ever. Rumors are just that, rumors. Opinion are opinion and here is mine.

If any of you have experience with putting a turbo (or a good understanding of how increasing pressure) on a large displacement motor you know the sort of power that can be made. They are not going to make the regular F150 have 500-600 hp (which could easily be done with 5-8psi on the 6.2L). There is no need for from a practical stand point. The trucks frame wouldn't handle it and the costs would just be too much for everything.

True, I agree that a boosted 6.2L might seem like overkill ''right now'' But think back 25 years. 25 years ago the most powerful 1/2 tons on the market barely made 200hp. 10 years ago the most powerful 1/2 ton's made about 300hp. Today The most powerful 1/2 ton's make about 400hp. I think as long as they can squeeze more power out of an engine and keep it reliable and ''realtivly'' efficient then no one is going to complain about having more power. And as for the intial cost, well the Technology that's used on mass produced pickups today was reserved ONLY for high end luxury cars and sports cars 20 years ago. So there is nothing to say that, what might cost alot to do now...Won't be somewhat if not alot cheaper in the future.

I know 500hp or 600hp might seem crazy and out of the question right now. But who know's what will happen in the next 10 or 20 years?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2011, 10:14 PM
Bronco_Lee Bronco_Lee is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 65
Bronco_Lee is starting off with a positive reputation.
No offense meant Excaliber but you can get a 6.5' bed with the Supercrew as well, I plan to order one. (Although I am aware you can't get an 8' bed in the Screw.)

Lee
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:14 PM
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009+ F150

Tags
060, 2011, 35, 35l, 50, 50l, 62, 62l, ecoboost, f150, ford, mileage, mpg, real, time, v6, v8, vs, world

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup