2010 versus 2011
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 21
Well, when I drive somewhere, Ill put 100 + miles on whatever I drive. Its nothing for me to drive 500+ miles in a week. I average 500 miles a week. can be more. so with the miles I drive, fuel economy is a concern. But I will say that my 6.2 does very well on gas . my 2001 with the 5.4 does no better. only time it does is when I drive it empty on a road trip.......and the 5.4 truck has 3.55s and the 6.2 has 3.73s.
Bleed Ford Blue
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,578
Likes: 157
From: Anchorage Alaska
Well, when I drive somewhere, Ill put 100 + miles on whatever I drive. Its nothing for me to drive 500+ miles in a week. I average 500 miles a week. can be more. so with the miles I drive, fuel economy is a concern. But I will say that my 6.2 does very well on gas . my 2001 with the 5.4 does no better. only time it does is when I drive it empty on a road trip.......and the 5.4 truck has 3.55s and the 6.2 has 3.73s.
I hear ya, I've settled down on miles to about 300 every 10 days or so with my daily commute but sometimes weekend trips will rack it up higher.
Back when gas was $4.40/gallon and I was driving the 6.8 Excursion daily I was putting $160-$180 in every 8-10 days, combined with my old 5.4 Expedition which was getting the same amount of miles weekly I spent $800-900 a month in fuel for awhile.
Cargo Master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 39
From: North Dakota
My work truck is a 2013 5.0 F150 and I typically only get about 1 to 1.5 mpg more in that than my 6.2.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
Likewise the old 5.4L makes a bit more low-end torque than the newer 5.0L engine. The only option that I wouldn't choose would be the 4.6L 2V engine, and that's mainly because it's in front of the dinosaur-spec 4R75E transmission.
Cargo Master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 39
From: North Dakota
Perhaps for top-end performance, but certainly not low-end grunt. I've pulled with a 6.2L in a Super Duty and it was pretty undewhelming compared to the low-end grunt of my previous V10. The EcoBoost has significantly more low-end torque than the 6.2L does, which means the 6.2 will be shifting around more when pulling. Nothing at all wrong with that, but some folks don't like it.
Likewise the old 5.4L makes a bit more low-end torque than the newer 5.0L engine. The only option that I wouldn't choose would be the 4.6L 2V engine, and that's mainly because it's in front of the dinosaur-spec 4R75E transmission.
Likewise the old 5.4L makes a bit more low-end torque than the newer 5.0L engine. The only option that I wouldn't choose would be the 4.6L 2V engine, and that's mainly because it's in front of the dinosaur-spec 4R75E transmission.
You can't compare the 6.2 in the Superduty to the 6.2 in the F150. The Superduty 6.2 is tuned down and a much heavier truck. I agree, the 6.2 in the Superduty is underwhelming compared to the V10.
Cargo Master
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,710
Likes: 77
From: Central Florida
I've read somewhere on this forum that the 6.2 make the same power in both trucks. There is a different rating for the F250. Probably the weight and size of the F250 makes it feel slower. I have no complaints with the 6.2 in my F250. My EcoBoost F150 is more fun to drive.
I did a lot of towing with my EB. About 40K of the 80K miles on it were towing. That engine is a fantastic towing engine.
I did a lot of towing with my EB. About 40K of the 80K miles on it were towing. That engine is a fantastic towing engine.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Cargo Master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 39
From: North Dakota
I've read somewhere on this forum that the 6.2 make the same power in both trucks. There is a different rating for the F250. Probably the weight and size of the F250 makes it feel slower. I have no complaints with the 6.2 in my F250. My EcoBoost F150 is more fun to drive.
I did a lot of towing with my EB. About 40K of the 80K miles on it were towing. That engine is a fantastic towing engine.
I did a lot of towing with my EB. About 40K of the 80K miles on it were towing. That engine is a fantastic towing engine.
The F150 6.2 makes 411 hp and 434 lb. ft. of torque.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
When the 6.2 was offered in the F150, it was Ford's premium engine in the line up over the 3.5, 5.0, 3.7. While I do agree the ecoboost makes it's torque sooner on the curve than the 6.2, it's still less than the 6.2. In fact the 6.2 makes almost 30 ft lbs more torque than the eco, just at a higher rpm.
Originally Posted by kameronth
You can't compare the 6.2 in the Superduty to the 6.2 in the F150. The Superduty 6.2 is tuned down and a much heavier truck. I agree, the 6.2 in the Superduty is underwhelming compared to the V10.
Here's a link to the Q&A thread from six years ago:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...ml#post8487428
Cargo Master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 39
From: North Dakota
434 - 420 = 14 ft-lbs difference, not 30.
According to Mike Harrison, the chief engineer for the 6.2L engine, the Super Duty engine isn't turned down any:
There is some speculation that it's rated on premium fuel for the F150 and 87-octane in the Super Duty.
Here's a link to the Q&A thread from six years ago:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...ml#post8487428
According to Mike Harrison, the chief engineer for the 6.2L engine, the Super Duty engine isn't turned down any:
There is some speculation that it's rated on premium fuel for the F150 and 87-octane in the Super Duty.
Here's a link to the Q&A thread from six years ago:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...ml#post8487428
Ha! Good catch and you are correct. I was calculating the difference between the SD and F150.
I've seen that q and a as well. It was early on before everything went into production and hard numbers were out. The hp tq numbers I got were from Ford's website.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
Don't get me wrong, I think the 6.2L is a great engine. I think it's more likely to see super high miles while living a hard life, and the high-end power is really amazing. I'd love to get the chance to compare it directly with an EB truck with a trailer in tow, but they're rare enough that it would be tough to put that together.
I drove 70 miles to check out a used 6.2L Super Duty. Wasn't in as good of shape as I wanted, and I ended up being offered a deal I couldn't refuse on my '15 F150.
I drove 70 miles to check out a used 6.2L Super Duty. Wasn't in as good of shape as I wanted, and I ended up being offered a deal I couldn't refuse on my '15 F150.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 21
I really like my 6.2. it has ALOT more power than the 5.4. from what Ive read the 3.5 ecoboost does have more torque on the low end, and that is what you want for trailer towing. But maybe Im just too old fashioned......I just prefer a NA V8. but Im slowly opening my mind to the ecoboost. Ive talked to people about theirs and they are happy with them.