New engine options
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
From what heard, the 6.2 has a good track record. It hasnt been out too long, but i remember last year hearing about a guy who had over 200,000 on his 6.2 toe truck and said all he ever did was change the oil, and it still ran like new.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,118
Likes: 650
From: NH
The 6.2L is a good engine. Both the 6.2L and 6.7L see changes for 2017. That's great news, considering they could have just carried over the these engines unchanged and still been very competitive.
The 6.2L is a very good, low-maintenance, low cost of operation engine. It makes good power, has some advanced features, and should last longer than most of us will own our trucks. Biggest complaints were the power coming at too high an RPM level, and fuel consumption. For 2017, the torque has been bumper up 25lb-ft (significant) and at 700RPM less (very significant.) Supposedly fuel economy will improve, albeit slightly.
The 6.7L has also established itself as a very reliable and powerful engine. For 2017, the torque is increased 65lb-ft albeit at 200 RPM higher.
The 6.2L is a very good, low-maintenance, low cost of operation engine. It makes good power, has some advanced features, and should last longer than most of us will own our trucks. Biggest complaints were the power coming at too high an RPM level, and fuel consumption. For 2017, the torque has been bumper up 25lb-ft (significant) and at 700RPM less (very significant.) Supposedly fuel economy will improve, albeit slightly.
The 6.7L has also established itself as a very reliable and powerful engine. For 2017, the torque is increased 65lb-ft albeit at 200 RPM higher.
Cargo Master
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,898
Likes: 185
You might see an EB after Ford sees if the 17 F150 with 375/470 and both DI and port injection works out. If they put turbos on the 5.0 they would have to keep the power quite a bit less than the 6.7 or it would bite into their highly profitable Powerstroke.
I am also not sure if an ecoboost could handle the severe duty that a lot of SD's see.
I am also not sure if an ecoboost could handle the severe duty that a lot of SD's see.
Senior User
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 334
Likes: 5
From: Woodland Park, CO
My 6.2 has 212k and doing great. Gas mileage is horrible. Might go to a 2017 150 max tow EB with 385hp/470lb and 10 speed auto.
Trending Topics
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 221
Likes: 7
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
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
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
I wonder what the 6.2 mpg will be now with the new tranny in the f250. since they dont have to publish it, we probably know till someone buys one and gives us real world numbers.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,118
Likes: 650
From: NH
You might see an EB after Ford sees if the 17 F150 with 375/470 and both DI and port injection works out. If they put turbos on the 5.0 they would have to keep the power quite a bit less than the 6.7 or it would bite into their highly profitable Powerstroke.
I am also not sure if an ecoboost could handle the severe duty that a lot of SD's see.
I am also not sure if an ecoboost could handle the severe duty that a lot of SD's see.
If there was to be an EcoBoost in a Super Duty, I'd like it to be larger displacement (maybe 5.0) but reduced output (350HP, 450lb-ft). This would still provide great towing characteristics but also provide likely better efficiency and longevity.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,118
Likes: 650
From: NH
The solution to DI coking is what they've done on the gen-2 3.5L with both DI and port injection.
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Im glad to hear that. Im sure they have the DI worked out, but i still feel better with the tried and proven design. I do remember reading about that, where they use port injection just enough to clean/ coat valves with fuel, while the rest of the time running DI.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,118
Likes: 650
From: NH
In our family, we have two other EcoBoost products - a 2010 Lincoln MKS with the 3.5 EB, and a 2016 F-150 with the 2.7L EB. Both are awesome motors. But, at what point will coking cause the intake valve to not seat completely and cause the MIL to light up? Cleaning is perfectly possible, but expensive on most DI engines.
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Manufacturers claim the DI / Port combo has other advantages beyond just cleaning the backs of intake valves. Who knows.
In our family, we have two other EcoBoost products - a 2010 Lincoln MKS with the 3.5 EB, and a 2016 F-150 with the 2.7L EB. Both are awesome motors. But, at what point will coking cause the intake valve to not seat completely and cause the MIL to light up? Cleaning is perfectly possible, but expensive on most DI engines.
In our family, we have two other EcoBoost products - a 2010 Lincoln MKS with the 3.5 EB, and a 2016 F-150 with the 2.7L EB. Both are awesome motors. But, at what point will coking cause the intake valve to not seat completely and cause the MIL to light up? Cleaning is perfectly possible, but expensive on most DI engines.