Just test rode a 2011 F-250 6.2L, it rides just as well if not better than the F-150 I test rode. As for an engine, I would be much more comfortable with a 6.2L than a 3.5 turbo for towing and durability. You're working a much smaller engine that much harder at higher compression to get same or similar performance.

 

Only problem is that F250 is heavy and is a gas guzzler with the 6.2. F150 will get lots better mpg. Why do you think high compression is a problem? Ever heard of a diesel?

 

If you take into account the diesel engines that were developed from car engines (remember that GM 350/5.7 diesel...) they didn't do quite as well.

As I have said before, I sincerely hope the Ecoboost 3.5 will be a great success, but I just don't see rusty 15 year old Ford pickups, 250k miles, overloaded and full of sweaty lawn crew guys, busted springs, etc. going down my street in my future with the original 3.5 Ecoboost motor humming away. Make that roaring since there is a big hole in the muffler, and last oil change was 20k miles ago, with the engine only down 2 quarts.

The 300 inch six could take this kind of treatment (I ordered my 1978 F100 brand new with one of those). I will bet against the Ecoboost. How are those old Mustang SVT's doing? Turbocharged Merkur XR4ti's and TBird Turbo coupes? Are they outlasting the 302's?

George

 

Must have been a good road.

When the 2011s hit the lots I drove a 6.2 and a 6.7L on the roughest concrete highway around. I was suprised how much worse it was than my F150 even though I had 60 psi in my 10 ply rubber. It was a big difference.

 

While I still has my '88, I test drove a 2008 F-250 4x4 6.4L and was completely amazed at how well it rode and handled. It had much better road manners than my old one did and gobs of power to boot.

 

You're comparing 25 year old powertrain technology to the 3.5L EB? An engine designed from the ground up to take the abuse of forced induction? Not just an engine that someone slapped a turbo on, or an engine converted to run diesel as an afterthought.

Saabs, VWs, Porsches, and a number of other car makers have been using turbos for several years and have reliable, potent powerplants. It's not that far of a stretch to design a turbo gas engine for truck use.

The only thing that the 3.5L EB doesn't have going for it is the iconic V8 exhaust note. And while the next few years will really tell the story on EB technology, I think it will do just fine and I'm looking forward to the diesel-like performance.

 

The 3.5 is an upsized version of the Duratec V6; we had one in my wife's '98 Sable and it was a nice motor. The 3.5 Duratec existed in normally aspirated form before Ford slapped the Ecoboost turbos on. (By the way, my nephew managed to put the rod thru the side of the block in his 2002 Duratec Sable a few months ago, after 130k miles or so....probably a fluke. I hooked him up with a low mileage junkyard replacement engine.)

Fancy import cars are designed to be maintained regularly and meticulously by pricey mechanics who know them well. They are not often driven by the lawn crews I discussed. Let's talk in 10 years and we will know how the Ecoboosts have done in the real world after 200k miles. As I said, I *want* them to succeed, but I am not the trusting kind of guy when it comes to complex innovation. I've seen a lot of complex innovation come and go over the years.

To be honest, I had my doubts about the mod V8's as well, and was mostly wrong on that (although my '02 van got a new pair of heads under warranty because it had the early PI heads with bad cooling passages at the backs of the heads).

George

 

OK thats like saying the 6.2 is an "upsized" version of the old 351.

I agree time will tell, but to compare the EB to a 98 Sable is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read @ the EB. They didn't just "slap on" some turbos.

 

The 3.5L Duratec did not derive from the 3.0L Duratec, and in fact the only thing they have in common is the name and the fact that they are both DOHC V6 engines. The 3.0L Duratec is part of the Mondeo engine family and first appeared as a 2.5L Duratec that was introduced in 1994. The 3.0L was introduced in 1996 to replace the 3.8L Essex V6 found in the Taurus and other cars back then. It was updated with variable valve timing around 2006 and variable cam timing in 2010.

The new engine family is the Cyclone family, which is where the new 3.5L and 3.7L Duratec V6s come into the picture. The 3.5L V6 will fit into any engine bay the 3.0L will (replaced the 3.0L in some cases, most notably the larger vehicles like the new Taurus) and first arrived on scene in 2007 in the Ford Edge and some Lincoln cars.

So yes, you are correct in that the 3.5L exists in naturally aspirated form, but according to NEW FORD 3.5L V-6 ENGINE OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED AT 265 HORSEPOWER ON POCKET PLEASING REGULAR FUEL | Ford Motor Company Newsroom :

"Ford's new V-6 engine was designed to be compatible with direct injection and turbocharged direct injection technology, which leaves open the possibility of even higher power and torque output in the future."

So, again, not just an engine with turbos slapped on as an afterthought.

 

I will accept your points on the 3.5 being largely new technology and will admit that I have not followed the Ford V6 evolution that closely.

I will, however, stand by my forecast that these will NOT be 200-400k mile engines like the mod motors currently are--there are a LOT of cop cars, taxis, limos, and trucks that I see daily running mod motors. Let's compare notes in 10-15 years and see how the EcoBoost engines are doing, especially in fleet use.

Thanks for the info, seriously, and please understand that I am a big Ford fan and want them to do well with all of their products, but I have doubts about serious longevity for turbos and small displacement in working truck gas engine applications. I sure would not want to be an early adopter of this technology...

What is Ford's published service life forecast on the EcoBoost V6? I'm guessing 150k miles at the outside. Edit: yes, the turbos at least are designed for a service life of 150k miles per this article--and they can run up to 1740 degrees F...this does not sound like a good formula for long life when you hit that puddle of slush in the winter and it douses the hot turbo:

http://fordecoboostforum.com/index.php?showtopic=45

I believe the mod motors have a designed service life of at least twice this many miles.

Take care,
George

 

Fair enough. I think I can agree that the average EB engine probably is not going to hit 400k before needing a rebuild, but I do think that 200k is not going to be a stretch. The 150k service life is for the turbos, and I agree that only time will tell how well the EB engine will stand as a whole.

 

These new engines are coming out NOW because I bought my new 2010 F150 with the 5.4 last month =)

Nonetheless im happy with it and get 22mpg on the highway and 15.5 in town. im cool with it.

 

What some forget is that the whole truck is designed for 150,000 miles. Thats what its life is designed for. Some parts fail early, some will far exceed if not pushed hard.

Keep those turbos happy with "clean" oil and they'll go for a long time...

All else equal I'd buy a 6.2L, but I'm not spending the extra $$$ to get a Lariat.

 

The F-150 5.4L is no economy king. I'd be willing to bet even with the heavier F-250 that the new 6.2L is real close in mpg, I'm seeing real life mileage reports on the 6.2L in the 13 to 18 mpg range. I believe the mpg figures on the 5.4L F-150 are about the same. High compression, higher rpm's = more heat and wear and tear. It's a fact of life. You can buy what you want but given a choice between a 6.2L and a small 3.5L 6 banger with turbo, I'll take the 6.2L any day of the week. Just my opinion.

 

It depends really. I think everyone is caught up more in the 6 versus 8 cylinders more then anything else. All the cummins fans out there doesn't seem to mind that they are 2 cylinders short.