I think the 6.2 is the gas version of the 7.3 Powerstroke
#32
09-05-2017, 08:04 AM
#33
09-05-2017, 08:16 AM
Postmaster
#34
09-05-2017, 08:33 AM
In the last year I have started seeing more and more 6.2 trucks around here than ever before. I think people are realizing they have a ton of power (I think Ford made a bad decision when they put the 5.4 in the Super Duty) and are very, very reliable.
I did a 300 mile round trip on Sunday, part of that being off pavement and on some two track dirt roads, and I got 15.3 mpg round trip with the cruise set at 70 mph.. That is in a 1 ton truck! Can you really expect much more than that? Yea, I would like to get 15 mpg when I am hauling my camper and towing my ATV trailer but that is not going to happen but those only make up maybe 25-30% of the overall miles on the truck so I don't really care too much about that.
I had a 2000 SD with the 7.3 and while it would out pull the 6.2 which I would expect it to being a diesel, I will take this truck any day of the week.
I did a 300 mile round trip on Sunday, part of that being off pavement and on some two track dirt roads, and I got 15.3 mpg round trip with the cruise set at 70 mph.. That is in a 1 ton truck! Can you really expect much more than that? Yea, I would like to get 15 mpg when I am hauling my camper and towing my ATV trailer but that is not going to happen but those only make up maybe 25-30% of the overall miles on the truck so I don't really care too much about that.
I had a 2000 SD with the 7.3 and while it would out pull the 6.2 which I would expect it to being a diesel, I will take this truck any day of the week.
#37
09-23-2017, 03:21 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#38
09-24-2017, 08:40 AM
#39
09-24-2017, 09:49 AM
I have to admit that one thing I love about the 6.2 is the exhaust note. at my airport job, our company only uses fords (f250 single cab 4x2) and when the first 6.2 showed up, we were in awe of it's exhaust note. when we heard that 6.2 for the first time, we went around the back to see if it had 2 tailpipes. I like that it is not intrusive, but when you step on it it sounds like a throaty, hungry beast.
now that I have my own 2011 F250 FX4 6.2, I love stepping on it and listening to that music.
it is not loud but It sounds awesome.
now that I have my own 2011 F250 FX4 6.2, I love stepping on it and listening to that music.
it is not loud but It sounds awesome.
#40
09-24-2017, 11:58 AM
Originally Posted by BIGRED 011
I have to admit that one thing I love about the 6.2 is the exhaust note. at my airport job, our company only uses fords (f250 single cab 4x2) and when the first 6.2 showed up, we were in awe of it's exhaust note. when we heard that 6.2 for the first time, we went around the back to see if it had 2 tailpipes. I like that it is not intrusive, but when you step on it it sounds like a throaty, hungry beast.
now that I have my own 2011 F250 FX4 6.2, I love stepping on it and listening to that music.
it is not loud but It sounds awesome.
now that I have my own 2011 F250 FX4 6.2, I love stepping on it and listening to that music.
it is not loud but It sounds awesome.
#41
09-24-2017, 04:07 PM
More Turbo
I have to admit that one thing I love about the 6.2 is the exhaust note. at my airport job, our company only uses fords (f250 single cab 4x2) and when the first 6.2 showed up, we were in awe of it's exhaust note. when we heard that 6.2 for the first time, we went around the back to see if it had 2 tailpipes. I like that it is not intrusive, but when you step on it it sounds like a throaty, hungry beast.
now that I have my own 2011 F250 FX4 6.2, I love stepping on it and listening to that music.
it is not loud but It sounds awesome.
now that I have my own 2011 F250 FX4 6.2, I love stepping on it and listening to that music.
it is not loud but It sounds awesome.
#42
09-24-2017, 04:46 PM
This is an entertaining thread, and the topic is fun to discuss, but ...
It's kind of moot. If you want an old 7.3L PSD, you're going to get a legendary running engine, complete with oil leaks and noise. I know; we owned one for a while. Great running engine, but not without issues. They never quit running, but they sure did offer annoyances, too. Let's not be blind to the issues they did have. IPRs, oil galley o-rings, oil cooler o-rings, short-life fuel filters, glow plug relays, etc ... The thing that made the legendary was the fact that, for the day, they were every bit as robust as a Cummins, but in a Ford chassis! The 7.3L block, crank, heads were pretty much bullet proof. But the HEUI and related stuff still had issues. Let's not pretend they were perfect. Low mileage units were near-perfect. High mileage units leaked like a seize and all of them were LOUD.
But again - it's moot. Why? You cannot buy a "new" truck with a 7.3L. The choices we have today are 6.7L or 6.2L. That's it.
The one thing we can say about the 7.3L vs 6.2L is that the torque differences are minimal today. 525 for the 7.3 versus 430 for the 6.2. That's not a lot of difference. And the trannies today now make up for much of that delta torque loss. It's easier to keep a gasser in the powerband. While I agree the old 7.3L can grunt it's way up a hill, that old 4R100 had a BIG spread between gears, and the shifts often made the 7.3L either strain to rev up, or lunge when dropping down. If you pulled a heavy load, you really were working the tranny hard. The engine was up to it, but the 4R100 just wasn't a great pairing with the diesel. Not that they had much choice; that was about the only thing they had available at the time. And it did a good job for it was asked to do. And the "new" trannies give you the ability to pick the gear via shift-select. No such option with the old 4R100; you could lock out 4th, and that was it. But today you can manually shift your auto tranny! All of the control with none of the fancy footwork.
My point, though, is that the 6.2L with a 6-speed will pull every bit as much (if not more) than the old 7.3L with 4R100. You just have to realign your mental sound-meter to accept that the new gasser is a rev machine. There's nothing wrong with revving an engine that is designed to do so. The 6.2 engine is "oversquare" and loves to rev. The old 5.4L and 6.8L were "undersquare" and would rev, but made lots of noise and it was stressful on the components. The new gasser simply is made to rev; short stroke keeps the crank, con-rod stresses down and the piston speeds down. It may sound odd to rev an engine at 4500 rpm for minutes on end, but the 6.2L is made for it. You're not hurting it to do so. It just sounds odd if you're used to a diesel.
I love the old 7.3L; it was a stalwart. But the 6.2L is one in it's own right. It's an unsung hero outside of Ford circles. There are tons of them out there, but you hear very little about them. Maybe that's a good thing !!!!!
It's kind of moot. If you want an old 7.3L PSD, you're going to get a legendary running engine, complete with oil leaks and noise. I know; we owned one for a while. Great running engine, but not without issues. They never quit running, but they sure did offer annoyances, too. Let's not be blind to the issues they did have. IPRs, oil galley o-rings, oil cooler o-rings, short-life fuel filters, glow plug relays, etc ... The thing that made the legendary was the fact that, for the day, they were every bit as robust as a Cummins, but in a Ford chassis! The 7.3L block, crank, heads were pretty much bullet proof. But the HEUI and related stuff still had issues. Let's not pretend they were perfect. Low mileage units were near-perfect. High mileage units leaked like a seize and all of them were LOUD.
But again - it's moot. Why? You cannot buy a "new" truck with a 7.3L. The choices we have today are 6.7L or 6.2L. That's it.
The one thing we can say about the 7.3L vs 6.2L is that the torque differences are minimal today. 525 for the 7.3 versus 430 for the 6.2. That's not a lot of difference. And the trannies today now make up for much of that delta torque loss. It's easier to keep a gasser in the powerband. While I agree the old 7.3L can grunt it's way up a hill, that old 4R100 had a BIG spread between gears, and the shifts often made the 7.3L either strain to rev up, or lunge when dropping down. If you pulled a heavy load, you really were working the tranny hard. The engine was up to it, but the 4R100 just wasn't a great pairing with the diesel. Not that they had much choice; that was about the only thing they had available at the time. And it did a good job for it was asked to do. And the "new" trannies give you the ability to pick the gear via shift-select. No such option with the old 4R100; you could lock out 4th, and that was it. But today you can manually shift your auto tranny! All of the control with none of the fancy footwork.
My point, though, is that the 6.2L with a 6-speed will pull every bit as much (if not more) than the old 7.3L with 4R100. You just have to realign your mental sound-meter to accept that the new gasser is a rev machine. There's nothing wrong with revving an engine that is designed to do so. The 6.2 engine is "oversquare" and loves to rev. The old 5.4L and 6.8L were "undersquare" and would rev, but made lots of noise and it was stressful on the components. The new gasser simply is made to rev; short stroke keeps the crank, con-rod stresses down and the piston speeds down. It may sound odd to rev an engine at 4500 rpm for minutes on end, but the 6.2L is made for it. You're not hurting it to do so. It just sounds odd if you're used to a diesel.
I love the old 7.3L; it was a stalwart. But the 6.2L is one in it's own right. It's an unsung hero outside of Ford circles. There are tons of them out there, but you hear very little about them. Maybe that's a good thing !!!!!
#43
09-24-2017, 05:11 PM
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: McDonouch,GA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I love the old 7.3L; it was a stalwart. But the 6.2L is one in it's own right."
And that's the point of the thread. The 6.0 and 6.4 were always compared to the 7.3. It was the bench mark. And look at what Ford has given us now. The 6.2L that's virtually problem free in a comfortable truck with a great and versatile transmission.
Win,win and win
And that's the point of the thread. The 6.0 and 6.4 were always compared to the 7.3. It was the bench mark. And look at what Ford has given us now. The 6.2L that's virtually problem free in a comfortable truck with a great and versatile transmission.
Win,win and win
#44
09-24-2017, 05:32 PM
This is an entertaining thread, and the topic is fun to discuss, but ...
It's kind of moot. If you want an old 7.3L PSD, you're going to get a legendary running engine, complete with oil leaks and noise. I know; we owned one for a while. Great running engine, but not without issues. They never quit running, but they sure did offer annoyances, too. Let's not be blind to the issues they did have. IPRs, oil galley o-rings, oil cooler o-rings, short-life fuel filters, glow plug relays, etc ... The thing that made the legendary was the fact that, for the day, they were every bit as robust as a Cummins, but in a Ford chassis! The 7.3L block, crank, heads were pretty much bullet proof. But the HEUI and related stuff still had issues. Let's not pretend they were perfect. Low mileage units were near-perfect. High mileage units leaked like a seize and all of them were LOUD.
But again - it's moot. Why? You cannot buy a "new" truck with a 7.3L. The choices we have today are 6.7L or 6.2L. That's it.
The one thing we can say about the 7.3L vs 6.2L is that the torque differences are minimal today. 525 for the 7.3 versus 430 for the 6.2. That's not a lot of difference. And the trannies today now make up for much of that delta torque loss. It's easier to keep a gasser in the powerband. While I agree the old 7.3L can grunt it's way up a hill, that old 4R100 had a BIG spread between gears, and the shifts often made the 7.3L either strain to rev up, or lunge when dropping down. If you pulled a heavy load, you really were working the tranny hard. The engine was up to it, but the 4R100 just wasn't a great pairing with the diesel. Not that they had much choice; that was about the only thing they had available at the time. And it did a good job for it was asked to do. And the "new" trannies give you the ability to pick the gear via shift-select. No such option with the old 4R100; you could lock out 4th, and that was it. But today you can manually shift your auto tranny! All of the control with none of the fancy footwork.
My point, though, is that the 6.2L with a 6-speed will pull every bit as much (if not more) than the old 7.3L with 4R100. You just have to realign your mental sound-meter to accept that the new gasser is a rev machine. There's nothing wrong with revving an engine that is designed to do so. The 6.2 engine is "oversquare" and loves to rev. The old 5.4L and 6.8L were "undersquare" and would rev, but made lots of noise and it was stressful on the components. The new gasser simply is made to rev; short stroke keeps the crank, con-rod stresses down and the piston speeds down. It may sound odd to rev an engine at 4500 rpm for minutes on end, but the 6.2L is made for it. You're not hurting it to do so. It just sounds odd if you're used to a diesel.
I love the old 7.3L; it was a stalwart. But the 6.2L is one in it's own right. It's an unsung hero outside of Ford circles. There are tons of them out there, but you hear very little about them. Maybe that's a good thing !!!!!
It's kind of moot. If you want an old 7.3L PSD, you're going to get a legendary running engine, complete with oil leaks and noise. I know; we owned one for a while. Great running engine, but not without issues. They never quit running, but they sure did offer annoyances, too. Let's not be blind to the issues they did have. IPRs, oil galley o-rings, oil cooler o-rings, short-life fuel filters, glow plug relays, etc ... The thing that made the legendary was the fact that, for the day, they were every bit as robust as a Cummins, but in a Ford chassis! The 7.3L block, crank, heads were pretty much bullet proof. But the HEUI and related stuff still had issues. Let's not pretend they were perfect. Low mileage units were near-perfect. High mileage units leaked like a seize and all of them were LOUD.
But again - it's moot. Why? You cannot buy a "new" truck with a 7.3L. The choices we have today are 6.7L or 6.2L. That's it.
The one thing we can say about the 7.3L vs 6.2L is that the torque differences are minimal today. 525 for the 7.3 versus 430 for the 6.2. That's not a lot of difference. And the trannies today now make up for much of that delta torque loss. It's easier to keep a gasser in the powerband. While I agree the old 7.3L can grunt it's way up a hill, that old 4R100 had a BIG spread between gears, and the shifts often made the 7.3L either strain to rev up, or lunge when dropping down. If you pulled a heavy load, you really were working the tranny hard. The engine was up to it, but the 4R100 just wasn't a great pairing with the diesel. Not that they had much choice; that was about the only thing they had available at the time. And it did a good job for it was asked to do. And the "new" trannies give you the ability to pick the gear via shift-select. No such option with the old 4R100; you could lock out 4th, and that was it. But today you can manually shift your auto tranny! All of the control with none of the fancy footwork.
My point, though, is that the 6.2L with a 6-speed will pull every bit as much (if not more) than the old 7.3L with 4R100. You just have to realign your mental sound-meter to accept that the new gasser is a rev machine. There's nothing wrong with revving an engine that is designed to do so. The 6.2 engine is "oversquare" and loves to rev. The old 5.4L and 6.8L were "undersquare" and would rev, but made lots of noise and it was stressful on the components. The new gasser simply is made to rev; short stroke keeps the crank, con-rod stresses down and the piston speeds down. It may sound odd to rev an engine at 4500 rpm for minutes on end, but the 6.2L is made for it. You're not hurting it to do so. It just sounds odd if you're used to a diesel.
I love the old 7.3L; it was a stalwart. But the 6.2L is one in it's own right. It's an unsung hero outside of Ford circles. There are tons of them out there, but you hear very little about them. Maybe that's a good thing !!!!!
Huh??
#45
09-25-2017, 04:38 AM
Postmaster