Hi - new here, but not new to the world of forum.
Need some help with impending decisions regarding truck selections ...

Currently have a 2006 GM diesel LBZ. Truly a great engine/tranny combo. Unfortunately wrapped in a less-than-stellar chassis with sub-par blah-blah-blah. I know ... don't talk about GMs on a Ford site, or vice versa. But, the drive-train has been awesome. The rest of the vehicle is causing me to think it's time for a new truck. Likely will end up back with Ford.

That brand in mind, I still am trying to decide on F150/5.0 vs F250/6.2 options. My max expected load would be perhaps 8-10k pounds, towed infrequently (summer RV trips or pulling the Kubota tractor). Some light-load running around. But this is also not my daily driver, either. I currently drive a 2007 MGM; great car. The truck is a third vehicle for purposes other than work commuting. I have a one-ton GM, but today's half-ton trucks can nearly do what my decade-old truck is "rated" for. Getting a SD today would be nearly overkill.

For me, the days of fast stuff (cars, bikes, women) are long gone. I now cherish affordability (kids in college) and reliability (longevity is king in my world). I was tending towards the F150/5.0, but it seems there may be some issues with the 5.0 such as knocking/ticks, etc. No EB for me; too much complexity. Same thing with a "new" 6.7 PSD; no thanks to all the EGR/DPF/Urea junk. Simple and powerful is what I am after. To me, both the 5.0 and 6.2 would have enough grunt to make me happy. I think the F150 would ride better and be more driver friendly, but the SD does have it's appeal.

The reason I am posting the question here (6.2L section) is that of all the choices, this engine intrigues me the most simply because I actually know the least about it. Am I wrong, or does this engine have one of the better reliability records? Seems there are very few engine problems reported for the 6.2L, versus the 5.0L or EB3.5 having more. Am I imagining this?

I have spec'd my choices on the Ford site; looks like this:
F150/5.0 with payload package and 3.73s; tows about 10,900# (a bit of cushion, but not much lee-way over my highest planned load)
F250/6.2L with standard GVRW and 4.30s; tows 15,000# (PLENTY of reserve capacity and giddy-up)
Either would likely be 4x4, SuperCab, long bed. Trying to stay as much "apples to apples" in terms of options, capability, etc.

Realizing that the F250 does now get the (what I'm going to call) medium duty trans (TS-G), I don't think that would dissuade me. I'm not intending to haul anywhere near the rated limit of 15,000 pounds (6.2 with 4.30 gears), so the 6R100 does not really scare me. If it were brand new, I'd hesitate. But being an outgrowth of the 6R80, I must confess I expect most kinks are already worked out. OTOH, the cost and ride of the F250 are what I'm somewhat cautious of. Don't need to spend more money on capacity I'll likely never use, nor want a ride that's taxing. But, don't want the 5.0 to bite my posterior when I could of have a "bigger" V-8.

Yes - I am like everyone else and want the most of everything for the least money/pain/grief. That's just the human condition wanting "more for less". I don't need a lecture on how I am trying to have my cake and eat it too; I fully realize I'm human and fallible.


So the question to you, specifically those who have actually made the switch from one to the other (F150 to F250, or F250 to F150), what can you extend me in terms of experiences to help me sort this out? Have you made the switch and regretted it? Have you made it and never looked back?



Thanks for indulging my ramblings ...

 

I would just caution that the maximum trailer weight ratings are not absolute. They assume a "standard" vehicle (XL trim?) and a driver but with no options and probably no passengers or cargo. They also assume operation at sea-level's normal barometric pressure.

In crunching you numbers, I'd suggest factoring in the weights of any options, passengers, and/or cargo you may be carrying in the truck, as these weights must be subtracted from the maximum trailer weight spec. And, if you're going to be towing at significant elevation with the naturally-aspirated (non-turbo) engine, then I'd recommend factoring in Ford's guidance to reduce the rated GCWR by 2% per 1,000 ft in elevation.

For example, our new truck (F350 CCSB 2WD 6.2 w/ 3.73) has a 19,500# GCWR. Allowing for operation in the Rockies at up to 10K feet, I'll cut that value by 20%, resulting in an operational GCWR of 15,600#. I'll aim to keep the combined weight of the truck (actual curb weight), me, passengers, pets, stuff, cargo, and the travel trailer well within this lower limit.

And, this thread about (possible) benefits using higher AKI fuel in the 2017 6.2 may be useful.

HTH with your deliberations!
Jim / crewzer

 

I had to choose between a f150 and f250. I was pulled to the f150 because it's also my daily driver, in your case, it's not. It would be a no brainier for me, the f250. I ended up getting a '16 "highly optioned" xl f250 cheaper than a sport f150 2.7. I made a great choice, I love my truck. Only regrets was 3.73 gears, and I'm about to fix that.

I can promise you when you have 10k hooked up or pulling a travel trailer down the interstate, there is no comparison in any aspect(except maybe a 3.5 ecoboost pulling power), especially with stability.

 

Both engines are very reliable. However the 6.2 won't work as hard to achieve 385HP.

 

Am I to conclude that using fuel other than 91 octane will result in something less than the "rated" power? That the 430 torque and 385 power figures are not attainable with 87 octane?

I am not sure what to make of this, although it's certainly in line with all of Ford's other mixed-message statements like lubricants ...

If you look up the Mustang specs, they clearly rate the engine HP/Trq figures with a fuel qualification right on the specs page ( ... "premium fuel"). But I see nothing to that effect in the SD 6.2 specs. There is a similar octane statement in the Mustang manual, as compared to the SD manual.

So why do they make note of that in the SD owner's manual, but not on the website specs page? If this is the case, that's a bit disingenuous of Ford. I have no intention of paying for high-test fuel for every tank to get the "rated" power. Around my area, it averages perhaps $.75-$1.00 more for a gallon. In no way am I going to pay that for every fill up. I have to do that with my Victory motorcycle, but I knew that going in, and at least it gets around 40mpg, so the pain is spread out over decent fuel mileage. Getting 10mpg or less pulling my RV is not going to happen if I have to pay such a premium for premium (pardon the pun). I realize it will run just fine on 87 octane, but they should "rate" the published figures on the base fuel, or if they are going to use rated figures based upon premium, note it as such on the specs page. Now, I'm not sure if those HP/Trq figures are accurate for my intended fuel (regular).

Also, given that Ford now uses the SAE towing standard for it's tow ratings, I believe they must account for things like elevation changes, etc in the ratings. I do understand, however, that people/stuff will affect GVWR. All vehicles will lose some power at altitude, but it's all relative; that's what the SAE standard helps ascertain now; strict criteria for comparative purposes.


The input is appreciated, but I've not really heard anything convincing one way or another.

One thing I'm interested in, and may be very hard to discern at this point, is how the F150 with HD payload package would ride, compared to an F250 with no heavy service package. In my area, on the dealer lots, it's nearly impossible to find an F150 with that HD package to test drive; they are all luxury loaded daily drivers. To the other extreme, good luck trying to find a standard suspension F250 for a test drive; just about everything has a snow-plow prep package, or slide-in camper package; these up-rate the springs to a higher load factor. I either want to have a heavy-duty F150, or a standard-duty F250; both rare as hens teeth, at least around here. Hard to compare when you cannot drive them.

 

I can't really help with your 6.2 questions but I am watching this because I am facing the same sort of dilemma. I'm currently driving a 2010 F150 XLT, Supercab long bed 4x4 with the HD payload package and pondering whether to replace it with another F150 or something larger.

I have no need for the 6.7L so if I go F250 (or more likely F350) it would be the 6.2L. I have no interest in the 3.5 because... complicated.

This will be my daily driver (although I have a Honda VFR800 for the warmer months), usually unloaded and only occasionally towing my cargo trailer. But I am thinking about a slide-in camper at some point and those things are H-E-A-V-Y, so I seem to have developed a payload fetish.

Pricing between the F150 and gas F250/F350 is not that different and the cab styling is converging. So while the frame various capacities are different the main distinction to me is the 5.0L vs. 6.2L.

The SD is heavier and the 6.2L is thirstier so fuel costs will be higher but I can't determine by how much. Also the 6.2L has 16 spark plugs and likely more oil capacity so servicing costs will be higher, again I don;t know by how much.

So this is an interesting discussion, the only thing I can contribute at this point is that the ride in my 2010 F150 SC LB HD is OK but not great, especially on certain types of gravel roads and more so when empty. It rides best with several hundred pounds in the bed, so for dump runs and moving other peoples' junk it is quite comfortable.

 

My take on Ford's statement is that the 2017 6.2 will meet HP and torque specs at sea level when running 87 AKI fuel. We'll need to delve deeper into SAE J1349 to understand this better.

Ford's statement refers to "The performance gained by using premium fuel...". The cautiously optimistic side of me interprets this to mean that the engine performance can beat spec under certain circumstances when using higher AKI gasoline. On the other hand, my pessimistic side interprets this to mean that the engine management computer may retard ignition timing when using 87 AKI fuel and the engine gets hot, i.e. in hot ambient temperatures and/or when towing, and the way to avoid retarding the ignition would be to use higher AKI fuel.

I'll see what I can dig up!

Good for you! We've been considering a Palomino SS-1251, and the numbers are a challenge:

• Camper: ~1800#
• Propane, water, and batteries: ~300#
• Stuff: ~400#?
• Driver, co-pilot, pet, and more stuff: ~500#?

That's 3K# in a hurry!

Without looking it up, my recollection is the 16 plugs are good for ~100K miles, and the sump capacity is 7 qts.

Regards,
Jim / crewzer

 

As best as I can tell so far, SAE J1349 power and torque ratings are based on:

• Ambient temperature: 77F (25C)
• Barometric pressure: 29.235 ~ 29.31 inHg (depending on source), or a normalized elevation of ~570 - 640 ft above sea-level
• Humidity: 0%

So, a (gas?) engine certified to SAE J1349 should be able to meet something close to spec using the specified fuel grade on a moderately cool, very dry day at a low elevation (i.e., Palm Springs, CA on a typical afternoon in late February or early March).

However, carrying/hauling/towing a heavy load westbound (uphill) across Nebraska on I-80 in the middle of summer afternoon while running the a/c would be something else, and higher AKI fuel should help with performance, including top gear selection to reduce AT hunting. Whether the improved performance would be worth the added fuel cost is another matter.

Note that GM "recommends" "premium" (93 AKI) fuel for its L86 6.2L V8 (ref: 2017 Silverado OM, page 30):




I'm looking forward to experimenting with this matter.

HTH,
Jim / crewzer

 

Just traded my 2010 F150 HD for an SD F350 6.2. The F150 was great and in my opinion hands down was a better ride, but going to a slide-in camper and also wanting to use the same truck to tow our fiver, the switch made sense.

On the Interstate the 6.2 costs me about 2 miles per gallon and the ride is absolutely brutal compared to the F150 HD (the 6.2 has camper and plow spring packs along with rear anti-sway bar).

Now that I am retired we will be spending months at a time on the road exploring so the 6.2 just made sense with a camper in the bed (just bought a Northstar), but my F150 was a great truck! If I were not needing the payload, I would still have the F150.

Just my two cents,

Steve

 

I went from an 07 F150 (5.4l) to a '12 F250 CCSB 6.2l. I have a family of 6 and a ~7000-8000lb trailer, and I just felt that the F250 was the better choice as I would rather have a vehicle that is more than enough for the task, than a vehicle that is at or near its max.

As for the two engines, I can't comment much on the 5.0, but based on my research before and after getting my F250, the 6.2l is one of the most reliable, longest-lasting, minimal issues, low maintenance engines out there. Period (aside from the 16 spark plugs, but that's such an infrequent maintenance item, that it shouldn't be much of a factor). If you're ok with the gas mileage, and understand that diesels will probably be passing you on hills when you're loaded, you really can't go wrong with the 6.2l.

 

I've read stuff about the 5.0s having some notoriety deserved or not about one of the cylinders having problems and developing the infamous 5.0 knock. Might be an urban legend though or people who didn't take care of their truck and want to warranty it out.

 

I've read that too, both here and on other sites.

At first I was convinced that a 5.0 Coy was the way to go, but that concern has me second guessing the option. The real question is this: just how common is that 5.0 knocking issue? The bad ones (not just a tick but real mechanical problem) have shown that the rear cylinders are known to warp at times. I've read some stories of people having to get an entire new short/long block after 50-100k miles; typically after warranty is over. That scares the crap out of me.

OTOH, the 6.2L seems to have no real ills, other than guzzle fuel and a lack of power when contrasted to a 6.7L torque monster. Everything must be kept in context, is my position. Sure, it gulps fuel, but a 6.2L also costs about $8,000 LESS than a diesel. That can make up for a LOT of fuel over many years. And, anything will seem weak when put against today's diesel engines. Let's remember that is was not that long ago (about a decade) that the good old 7.3L PSD only had 525 ft-lb of torque. A 6.2L engine at 430 ft-lb isn't that far off. Sure, the diesel makes it down low, but the 6.2L also has WAY more HP than the old diesels could ever imagine. Today's common rail diesels have it all, and they set an almost unapproachably high bar. But I don't think a 6.2L is anything to sneeze at. Even the 5.0 performs very well for it's class.

I currently have a 6.6LBZ. I realize that torque is awesome and diesel fuel economy is going to be missed. But the entrance fee to a new diesel now is unworldly expensive, and I cannot justify it with part-time use. I won't drive it enough to off-set the cost even in 20 years. For those who use their trucks every day and truly work them, it makes sense. But not for me.

At this stage of my life, I cherish value and reliability; those are king to me. I don't need the shiniest fastest ride up the mountain. I want this to be perhaps the last truck I buy. If I can get 25 happy years out of it, that would be enough. I don't need the long term complexity of an EB or a gizmo-laden diesel. I want a simple NA gasser. Question is ... which one? When i google the 5.0 for problems, there are reports on the net. When I google 6.2L problems, it's almost a silent echo of nothing. Makes me think these 6.2L engines are just as reliable as a piece of granite. Maybe not the most efficient or powerful, but can hold their own and will do it for decades, especially given my part-time use. If you know of 6.2L engine issues (past the 2011 intro year), let me hear it. I cannot seem to find a flaw in the 6.2L other than "it's not a diesel". OK - I get that, but that does not matter to me. I want to know if the 5.0 or 6.2 is a better engine. That is what I am after.

I would love to hear more from anyone else who's moved from the 5.0 to 6.2, or vice versa. All are welcome to chime in, but those whom have direct experience with these are most interesting to me.

 

I went from an F150 (5.4L) to F250 (6.2L). I have found the 6.2 to be an absolute joy. I like the 250 much better than the 150 too. Mostly likely because the 150 was an XLT and the 250 is a Lariat with FX4 and a bunch of other goodies the 150 didn't have.
I am not at all worried about the engine. What I am worried about is the suspension. Many years ago I had a Jeep Grand Cherokee with solid front axle that developed death wobble. I never was able to cure it. Last week I crossed a set of railroad tracks and the front end of the truck felt like it was just a hair's breadth away from launching into full blown death wobble. It settled itself out pretty quickly, but still, it's been on my mind ever since.

 

Man, I hope that does not turn out to be a commonality!

Steve

 

I had a 90s Toyota Landcruiser that had a solid front axle and I experienced the death wobble. It had around 190k miles on it at the time. I changed out the springs and shocks and never had the problem again.