If you compared two 6.2L engines, one with twice the HP of the other, then it would be very easy to say which one will last more time. The engines pretty much gets to burn "x" amount of fuel until end of life and we all know which one will burn up that fuel first.

Now let's make the comparison a little more difficult. Let's say you have two engines based on the same platform but one has 8 cylinders and the other has 6 cylinders and 25% less displacement. Which one will last longer? Again, it depends how hard you run the 6 cylinder. It's just not going to match the life of the larger engine if you try to run it as hard.

Now let's compare 6.2L V8 to 3.5L Ecoboost. Two totally different architectures. Ecoboost has different and more advanced use of materials. Ecoboost block, mains, and rotating assembly are extremely stout. Pistons are more heavy duty than 6.2L design. Completely different head and valvetrain. Which one lasts longer?

The point I'm trying to make is people that say a smaller engine can't last as long as a larger engine have not taken in to account innovation of design. You most certainly can downsize an engine successfully.... You just have to go about it the right way.

 

There are tons of examples of how durable these trucks are on the internet. I did a search for 2011 through 2015 EcooBoost F150 for sale with more than 200,000 miles and came up with several. There's one with 465,000 miles and it has a clean car fax.

 

These engines are built for the stresses that they endure, not like these engines are turning 5000 rpm all the time, piston speeds are not crazy, cooling systems shuttle away the heat, modern materials manage the rest, pistons are coated with very high tech and long lasting friction reducers to prevent scuff on the skirts, you control the heat, you win the war, it used to be that the kids would build a chevy 350 to 350 to 400 hp and the engines didn't live, all the torque was at 35-45 hundred rpm and piston speeds were high, the cars were always overheating and engines not engineered for the output went south, in addition the cylinder bores being small might be a good thing in relation to the rods and crank journals, I am sure this was taken into consideration when this power plant was designed. Went onto a couple of the car classified sites and found plenty of trucks for sale with 100 plus k on them with3.5 ecoboost engines in them per xr7GT390's suggestion, as a couple of others have said, if the engines are not a lot of trouble, you wont hear about the success stories, only if someone is not happy!

 

My worries are not the durability of the engine; I think Ford has figured it out, and they've really worked on cooling with their turbo design in the 2.7L. It's impressive to look at outside of the truck.

Fuel economy is where I'm concerned. I keep talking to people who aren't getting anywhere near the window sticker.

 

Welcome to the forum. The fuel mileage is a tricky one since there are so many factors involved. It's not hard to get 19 or 20 on the highway you just have to watch your speed. The EPA uses 65 MPH for the highway fuel economy and if that's what you drive you will hit your EPA mark. Right now we are using winter blend fuel so our mileage is worse. On my current tank I'm getting 17.9 commuting to/from work. I drive 28 miles each way. 2 miles of really bad traffic to get on the freeway, 1 mile of stop and go highway before I get off, another mile of okay city traffic. The highway on the way in ranges from 50-80 MPH. On the way home no traffic so I set my cruise at 73ish. When I go on long highway trips I'm usually towing something so my mileage is worse, except for our annual FL trip.

Once a year we drive straight through from Munster, IN to Clermont, FL. which is about 1,200 miles. We can do it stopping for gas once. We try to make Marietta, GA, get gas then continue on. There are flat lands, hills and mountains on the trip. I've made 2 trips with this truck and both times made it each way filling up once. I kind of push the first tank so I arrive at my location with plenty of gas. Gas buddy really helps with planning the stop. I get around 20 MPGs on the trip, maybe this March I'll log some details and post them.

 

You can lookup engine failures on the 5.0, and find them. You can look up engine failures on the Ram Hemi 5.7L and find plenty of them. You can look up engine failures on the GM 5.3 and 6.2L and find plenty of them.


There will a certain percentage of new engines that will have issues. If they are factory issues, they will normally fail at relatively low mileage (depending on what part/s is bad).

 

Even the mostly revered old Cummins, B, 12 valve 5.9 had some failures. In the early 1990s I had the experience of touring the plant in Indiana where they built these engines. They came off the assembly line, went to the dyno for testing. Soon as oil pressure normalized, the engine was run to full throttle. They had a few failures, the rational being "we want them to fail here, not on the road"

 

Thanks for the data point! Really, YMMV exists for this very reason. I've been in a lot of trucks recently and the most consistent to the sticker I've driven (without trying to hypermile) was the EcoDiesel Ram.

I've gotten "good" mileage out of the 5.0L V8 and the 3.5L EcoBoost, but the mileage numbers I'm seeing on the 2.7L match that of the 3.5L. For me, I'd just get the bigger engine (though yes, that'd add to overall cost).

The 2.7L is impressive to drive though. You wouldn't think it's so tiny behind the wheel.

 

The 2.7L isn't even available yet until Ford gets off their collective butts and starts shipping these trucks.

People need to realize that with the ecoboost engines, you don't need to get the 3.73 axles just because they are available. The EB engines will pull their weight with more fuel efficient gear sets.

My truck has 3.31 axles and I exceed the EPA estimate each and every day. I still have a 9200 LB tow rating and it's a 4x4. I think that if people ignore their testosterone and buy what they need they will be pleasantly surprised.

It's not going to match the ecodiesel so there's no reason to get all mad about that. Two different animals.

 

I've only driven the 2.7 once at the Ford test drive event. I liked it and will be following it the next couple years. I was hoping it would get close to the EPA highway.

The Ram is an interesting truck, I'll be watching that too. Right now I'm just not a fan of diesels. They cost more, The fuel costs more, the fuel smells, your hands smell after filling up, not all gas stations have fuel. Then when they do it's one pump in one of the islands you have to find and it's usually the pump blocked by someone shopping inside or it's where the semis fill up, which means your shoes will probably smell from standing in spilled fuel. Then the back of your truck gets that black film on it. On really cold days there are starting and drive-ability issues. I haven't had a diesel in 20 years so maybe it's better now.

 

I think you should take a chance, if you can, to drive a modern diesel. Much has changed, and for the better.

I live in a pretty rinky-dink town, so diesel (if available) is off to the side or the back. Other than Kroger, that has pumps with diesel right next to petrol. A lot of stations I see are doing that now.

I don't find the smell any more offensive than the gasoline smell I get at some stations on my hands. DEF fluid cleans up the exhaust a lot.

Are they perfect? Nope. There still is a cost issue involved, and with gasoline at $2.00/gallon diesel still sits at over $3.00. The EPA testing cycle sure favors diesel engines, though.

 

They do something similar at mack. When the truck comes off the line it goes onto the chassis dyno. they run through all the gears, run it to top speed, then run it at 100% power by adding drag to the dyno drums simulating a full load up a grade. They have the same mentality. If anything is loose or not installed properly, it will fail at the factory and not on the road. They actually had a fire on the dyno a few weeks before i started there.

 

Not just EPA, real world mpg's are fantastic on diesels as well. I believe it has something to do with diesel fuel having more potential energy, and higher compression inherently making the engine more efficient.

If diesel fuel cost was in line with gas, I'd opt for a diesel, regardless of who made it. Unfortunately that's not reality.

I do love the smell of diesel though, reminds me of a former life in the Army.

 

That's certainly true if you're talking about the way they drive. But modern diesels have become stupidly expensive to repair or replace.

People are quick to point out that the EcoBoost engines have many similar components to a diesel engine, but the cost difference is staggering. A single bad tank of fuel in a modern diesel engine will cost the owner $10,000 or more. One of the guys in the 6.7L forum just had an engine fail at 115,000 miles, and it's costing him $14,000 to get the truck back on the road.

It seems like the big dollar repairs on modern diesels just don't exist nearly at the same frequency on DI turbocharged gas engines. The injection system runs at much lower pressure, no complex particulate filter or SCR aftertreatment, no cooled EGR, etc. Out of warranty failures on a modern diesel are the kinds of things that nightmares are made of in my opinion.

 

Ouch. That's a costly repair. I know locals like the Cummings (I know, different brand) because of their reliability. The truck might be rusted through but it's still running like a champ.

It's unfortunate they're getting so difficult and expensive to repair. That would explain Ford's desire to go hybrid in the F-150 before diesel.