Just wanted to clarify something...

The platinum and limited (actually called Lariat Limited) are two different models. The base price difference between the two is nearly $3,600 with the limited being more expensive. The only way to get the pricing of the two models such that the platinum is nearly $4000 more expensive is to compare a 4x4 platinum to a 4x2 limited.

So, going off the description of the trucks, you compared a 4x4 Ecoboost with 3.55 gears to a 4x2 6.2L with 3.73 gears.

 

The EB is a $1750 option, where is all this $4000 stuff coming from! One must compare apples to apples before making these comparisons!

 

IMHO, the 6.2L is a bandade. If not, then why didn't Ford do it's due diligence and make it more competitive with Dodge, GM and Toy's larger engines?

Why is it only 16 mpg? Why is not a 3V or 4V engine? Why does it not have a cylinder deactivation feature to conserve fuel at hwy speeds? Why is it in such limited production? It didn't cost Ford squat to tune this engine for the F-150, a version of it is in the SD for cripes sakes.

Ford gave us what we wanted but, they didn't necessarily give us what we needed.

Ecoboost technology will only get better and the NA engines will fade off as a distant memory.

Discussion?

 

Good lord Tim, that's a lot of questions this early in the AM.

I think you're right though. The 6.2L was only put in the F150 for the die-hard faithfuls with a pile of cash in their pockets. Obviously CAFE ratings play a big part, but FORD would have been criticized heavily if the only V8 in the lineup was the 5.0L.

I think you're right about the EcoBoost becoming the engines of choice. I'm thinking that a 2.5L 4cyl EB might have good use in replacing the 3.7L V6 soon. Upper 200's in HP, close to 300lb/ft of torque, and maybe high 20's on the highway.

The 6.2L is no doubt a beast...why else would it be the ONLY base engine in the SuperDuty? It's a qualified hauler and can definitely get the job done. But IMHO I do not think it belongs in the F150 lineup. I think Ford threw the V8 guys a bone here just to see who would bite on it. I see the 6.2L fading out in the light duty trucks soon.

Whew...time for some caffeine.

 

Tim, I tried to rep you but the system won't let me. Great points about this engine.

I suspect it's there simply to have a high-output V8 on the table for competitive comparisons more than anything. In the future if the market is there for it, I suspect we'll see a 6.2L with some kind of variable valvetrain which will improve efficiency to make it more competitive with the likes of the Chevy and Dodge big V8s. But to be honest I don't see that happening.

How much power is useful in a half-ton truck? The 6.2L gas engine already makes more horsepower than many semi trucks. It's pretty obvious that nobody needs this much power to effectively tow 11,000 lbs, so now it becomes an issue of want.

After driving the ecoboost, I'm willing to bet that most of us who need to tow near the upper end of the F150s capacity will be perfectly satisfied with the performance of the EcoBoost. Moreover, I'm willing to bet that any cost-conscious buyer will nearly always choose the EcoBoost over the 6.2L. I believe this to be true whether the 6.2 is in it's current archaic form or with a mondernized, 18 MPG form.

So in my opinion Ford did a great thing the way they set things up. Those wanting the biggest engine possible are going to spend for the 6.2L engine. Most buyers like this don't have a problem with the extra coin to buy in, and will be more satisfied with their purchase in the long run. The rest of us who want a capable pickup that can tow 10,000 lbs with relative ease but still want lower operating costs will pick the EcoBoost, with it's best in class fuel economy and towing power.

Something for everyone with this lineup.

I hear talk of this every time I come up to the F150 forum. A mid-20s MPG F150.

Hate to say it, it's just not possible. My wife used to have a 2008 Honda CR-V. This car was AWD and had the itsy-bitsy 2.4L 4-cylinder engine with a 5-speed auto. This was a thoroughly modern engine set-up to get the best fuel economy possible in a vehicle such as this. But efficiency was handicapped with the less-streamlined aerodynamics and AWD, so it was only rated for 19/26. It also weighed only 3,600 lbs.

Now look at an F150. Much higher off the ground and it weighs over 5,000 lbs. Not sure of drag coefficient, but I'm sure it's MUCH higher than the little CR-V. You can put any engine you like into it, down to the smallest available that can push the truck to 65 MPH, and not see mid-20s for fuel economy.

When I bought my F350 back in July of last year, my salesman told me that he heard rumors that the EcoBoost F150s would get 27. I simply told him that it wasn't possible, and referenced the 21-MPG EcoBoost Flex that surely weighs much less than an F150.

Engine efficiency is important, but overall vehicle efficiency is at least as important. It takes a LOT more power to push these trucks down the road than a sedan, and no matter which engine is used it WILL take more fuel.

 

come on now Tim, you must admit that if the 6.2L was available in the trim model that you'd prefer, then you would no doubt be choosing this engine over the EB or the 5.0. I do believe that this is the common denominator reason behind the animosity of the 6.2L that most people on this forum quietly keep in their back pocket...and I blame Ford for this, that they only offer this engine in upper models...but that is how they chose to market this animal.

By the way, I'll ask the question again, have you test driven this engine in a F150 yet? I'd really like to hear opinions of those that have.

 

Look guys, I'm not knocking the engine or it's limited availability. I simply think Ford rushed it.

And to be perfectly truthful with you sir, I would definitely NOT choose the 6.2L as I am more of need vs want guy.

As I've said before, i have no intentions of pulling anything with my future truck, but if I did actually decide to pull anything of any substance, I would most definitely NOT toy around with an F-150.

I've actually created a wants vs needs list. It's driving my poor wife crazy. The wants out number the needs.

I could easily get by with a 3.7L 4x2 truck and with the gas situation, that's looking better all the time.

But to show good sportsmanship and all, if I were in the business of pulling a trailer, say 5K-8K every day, I'd most certainly give the 6.2L a great deal of consideration before I put my money down on the 3.5L.

 

Why do you think so many people would want that engine? I think it's the other way around. That engine would be my last choice even if it was a thousand cheaper than the EB or 5.0.

I wouldn't want a 6.2 when you have to get the 5.5' bed that comes with it?
If Ford wanted to make it a big seller they would have built an economical and efficient 6.2. It is was a DOHC 4V maybe but 2V? The only advantage it has over the EB is it's abilty to tow more.

The only problem with that is if you need a 6.2 to tow you should be in a SD not the F150.

 

The EcoBoost is capable of towing just as much as the 6.2L engine is in the F150s. We are now limited by the chassis, not the engine.

Check it out:

2011 Ford F-150 | View Towing Specifications | Ford.com

The EcoBoost is actually rated to tow more, as it's available with the same 17,100 lb GCVWR that the 6.2L is. But it's lighter, so it's rated up to 200 lbs more than the highest rated 6.2L truck is.

 

I'm just glad Ford provides engine choices with very good power ratings, more than the competition can boast about.

 

Fair enough. I do appreciate your well thought out counter-arguments.

 

Hey Bro' don't argue with Tim he will confuse you with logic every time...
And to answer your other question. I would not want the 6.2 in the F150 it is powerful and likes to drink gas. 15 years ago when I lived in Texas and was paying .97 a gallon. Then yes I would have loved it. Now I have a mortgage and a car note. So any easy way to save money I will.

 

If I were to buy a truck today it would be an EcoBoost F150. I have 400 HP parked in the garage that does nothing for me 95% of the time. I can tow a house, but that comes at the expense of operating cost. And for my truck this is significantly higher than the EcoBoost truck, which would fit my needs just fine.

The 6.2L isn't quite as expensive to operate as my F350, but it's a good deal more than the EcoBoost. I think it's a great engine that lots of people want, but not something that I would likely buy. It has more power than my '08 6.4L PSD truck and far lower operating costs!

 

Hey Tim...you wanted discussion, so...

The 6.2 was designed as a REAL TRUCK engine to replace the 6.8 V10 and the 5.4 V8 in Super Duty trucks. You do NOT need 3 or 4 valves in an engine that is designed to have low rpm grunt, and in fact multiple valves can actually hurt performance at low rpm's by lowering the velocity of the intake charge. (Edit--I will also note that the 6.2 has variable valve timing.)

How many valves does the Chrysler hemi have? How many valves do GM V8's have these days?

The reason Ford went to more valves in the mod motors is that the bores were a tiny 3.55 inches because the engine was designed to fit sideways in cars. There was simply not enough room in the 5.4 combustion chamber to put decent sized intake valves, so Ford went to the 3 valve design. Using these tiny bore centers was a really dumb design choice for an engine as large as 5.4 liters IMO. Overhead cams on an engine as undersquare as the old 5.4 was also not necessary, IMO, even though the engine was quite successful. The 6.2 has a bore over 4", and can actually accommodate valves that are large enough for truck use, where the engine is not going to be revving at 7k rpm's.

I personally believe that the 6.2 will outlast the Ecoboost and new 5.0 (and the 5.0 needs the additional valves because it still has a small bore diameter) in heavy duty truck use. I note that you said you would consider the 6.2 if you were pulling 5-8k lbs of trailer, and that is exactly where the 6.2 will excel. For trucks that are used like passenger cars, I suspect that all three engines (actually add the 3.7 V6 too) will do just fine and last quite a while. The 6.2 has a cast iron block while the others are aluminum, and IMO that is also still the best approach for a heavy duty truck engine.

I like the technology in the Ecoboost, but let's see how they are doing after a whole bunch of them have gone well over 100-150k miles, especially those that have been used to pull heavy trailers and stuff.

George

 

Outstanding George! Lets keep it going.....