One man's opinion....

 

I've only heard of ecoboost valves carboning up on sites like this, never in the real world.
Just like I also don't know of anyone that did heads on a 6.2, but sure enough you can find any of these things on the internet.

 

The man in the video is always spot on with his information he has quite a few videos on different subjects.
As a auto tech myself I will say that if I am broken down I would have no problem having this man work on my truck.
Imho,he is one of the good techs that care and take pride in his work.

 

The ecoboost and 6.2 have not been out for 20 years or nothing, we don't know the long term track record of either, to any major extent.
Maybe carbon coked valves are from idling? or crappy gas? too soon to really tell.
Maybe the 6.2 engines start wearing out crank bearings when they start getting higher mileage?
Maybe the ecoboost burns piston rings out?

We really don't know as much about either, as say ford 351's or 7.3 diesels, which are all older, and we know what goes wrong etc.

All I know, is that in the real world, lots of 3.5 ecoboost trucks seem to be running awesome, despite all the fears of pushing so much power from a 3.5 liter engine.
Maybe things would change if the 3.5 was in a super duty though, and always working?

 

Poor fuel maybe since most people who run the 3.5L generally run 87 octane. Every forced induction vehicle I have been in said Premium gas only. But carbon up valves has been an issue from my understanding with direct injected gas engines for a while. BMW and/or Audi had this issue years ago.

3.5L is too small of an engine to be useful in a super duty. It would probably burn out faster for sure in these trucks. The 5.0L could be used in the trucks but Ford would have to give it more attention...higher power ratings than what it has now.

Ford did about 10 years ago had a 351CID V10 that was in prototype, was going to be apart of the Modular family but was dropped. Think it was only to be used in the Mustangs..still would have been a nice option.

Ford is probably going to stay with one diesel and one gas option in the foreseeable future and only make changes when they absolutely have to, to stay competitive and meet CAFE/EPA standards.

Back when it was the 5.4L and a 6.8L for gas options fuel economy between the 2 were pretty much the same. But the 5.4L had to geared lowered to make it worth wild. The V10 was great but it still had the same issues every mod engine had.

I think the 6.2L is fine the way it is. In the Super Duty trucks you still have plenty of room to work on the engine under the hood without too much hassle (other than needing a step stool even with 2wd).

 

Why do you say it is too small to be useful?
The ecoboost tow rating is better than the 5.0 engines tow rating in the f150's.
The TQ curve from the ecoboost is also way better than the 5.0 or 6.2.
On paper, it is a much better towing engine than either of the NA gas engines.

Wether or not it will last as long as a NA v8 engine is really the only question worth asking. lifespan aside, it is a much better towing engine.

Keep in mind also, that the ecoboost is built with upgraded parts inside, so it is not just a gas motor like the 5.0 or 6.2 are, it's got extra strength parts and designed to deal with the power it produces.

 

The ecoboost in the vid is covering the 2.0L EB's, not the 3.5L. The 3.5L is the perfect blend of a Clydesdale and a Stallion and needs to be worked hard periodically to stay healthy.

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was from ethanol fuel, my small motors got carbon buildup from ethanol regular gasoline, but since then I switched to premium. We run premium in all our gas stuff. It is ethanol free, and the MPG difference makes up for the extra expense.

 

It's a PCV problem.

 

...and not everyone wants a V6 engine that drinks fuel like a big-block v8 when you put a load on it, either.

The magazines are already having trouble getting the new 2.7 EB to meet its FE numbers unloaded.

 

As a younger man myself, I wonder how folks lived before. I have a ford commercial truck ad on my desk from 1937, talking about the new HO 84 hp v8. 60hp for thrifty shoppers. Yes I realize speeds were lower and axle ratios make a difference, but rocks haven't gotten heavier. The 6.8 v10 gas makes 450+ torque at 3250 rpm, and can run clear up over 5k in the 650 gassers. These are 26k trucks, and they work well! I don't understand why most people feel the "need" of diesel. Yes there are some other advantages, but I'm not convinced on the $8k price increase for 90% of shoppers. Same with the 150s. Folks get excited over a 351 in a truck, but the modern NA v6 will run circles around me loaded or not. My dad has a perfectly good 5.0 87 F250. I think we're all a bit spoiled by modern technology and we've replaced "needs" with "wants". That's fine, just so long as we recognize it.

At the end of the day, options are best!

 

A simple PCV reroute mod would solve that issue. I'd put it on the exhaust, between the turbo and the cats.

 

I know myself, I find that a high revving engine is distracting, despite the fact it might be absolutely fine running 4000 RPM's 6000, 10000, and could be fine, the exhaust note and engine sound just seem annoying and distracting to me.

I don't mind a loud engine, with exhaust pipes or cats and mufflers removed, but the higher RPM scream I do find distracting.

I think this might be a huge reason why people enjoy diesels and turbocharged gas engines with better TQ curves.

 

This is exactly how I feel. I've got friends now who drive 3/4 and 1-ton trucks. Specifically one who drives a 2012 F-250 Lariat with the 6.2L V8 and another who drives a 2012 Ram 3500 Laramie with the Cummins diesel.

Having ridden with and driven both trucks, I can comprehensibly say that, of course the 6.7L Cummins tow's smoother than the 6.2L V8, but the 6.2L V8 doesn't seem to have much problem getting the job done...It will still tow a 14,000lb trailer down the highway at 80mph, the Cummins just does it with a little more ease.

I don't honestly see the need for modern diesels, I mean I remember riding around with my Grandpa when I was a kid, and he had a 1985 F-250 with the 460 V8 at that time...An engine that make's around 245hp and 400lb/ft of torque, those numbers are petty by modern standards, today a 7.5L engine would be expected to produce upwards of 500hp and over 600lb/ft of torque but despite all of that he still towed campers and car haulers and all kinds of things that weighed just as much as anything anyone today is towing with their trucks, and that old 460 did it just fine.

So I will argue that 90% of diesel owners out there don't actually need a diesel, it's just a convenience, a very expensive luxury option basically.

And with all the DEF and Emission's equipment needed on modern diesel's many people are in fact flocking back to gas engines. My friend with the 2012 F-250 is a prime example of that. He actually traded a Powerstroke in on his 6.2L, He himself has stated that while the Powerstroke would tow with greater ease, the 6.2L gets the job done and is a lot easier and cheaper to maintain than his Powerstroke ever was.

 

how about something like what Ford did in the early 2000's.. they needed test mules for the GT's 5.4 DOHC Supercharged engine, so they took two F250's and dropped the GT's engines into them. The article I read said they would make INCREDIBLE towing engines, because of all the low end torque and high end horsepower..