6.2 or Eco Boost, Which one
#181
12-05-2011, 11:02 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: White Lake, MI
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#182
12-05-2011, 07:04 PM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No duh! Did you have to research that all night to come up with that?
The comparison is new technology versus old technology. There is a replacement for displacement. The EcoBoost proves it. It's not the game of taking a small engine and one almost twice the size and boosting them the same and saying "My boosted 6.2L will beat your puny 3.5L Eco. It is about offering an engine option that gives you better economy than a V-8 and gives you as good of performance.
The comparison is new technology versus old technology. There is a replacement for displacement. The EcoBoost proves it. It's not the game of taking a small engine and one almost twice the size and boosting them the same and saying "My boosted 6.2L will beat your puny 3.5L Eco. It is about offering an engine option that gives you better economy than a V-8 and gives you as good of performance.
My post was referring to a previous post regarding specific performance modifictions to both offered engines and their specific resulted gains, not arguing which one was more technologically advanced from the factory or which was better on fuel. But thanks for the smart@ss remark and irrelevant comment.
#183
12-05-2011, 07:29 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: La Salle, MI
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There is no replacement for displacement"...keep telling yourselves that old timers. The replacement for displacement is forced induction... Don't think so? Look at many modern super cars, no HUGE displacement anchors under the hood, smaller, higher revving engines with some type of forced induction.
Do you realize that you can't get the 6.2 in all trim levels? Not having the ability to order a Fx4 with the 6.2 is what put the ecoboost in my driveway.
The only reason anybody should choose the eco over the 6.2 is because of the gas mileage. If fuel economy is a concern then by all means, go eco. But if it's not, then go 6.2. Eco owners get all defensive when people say anything negative about their precious engines.
Last edited by Langford; 12-05-2011 at 07:37 PM.
#184
12-05-2011, 07:31 PM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#185
12-06-2011, 12:12 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#186
12-06-2011, 12:19 AM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There is no replacement for displacement"...keep telling yourselves that old timers. The replacement for displacement is forced induction... Don't think so? Look at many modern super cars, no HUGE displacement anchors under the hood, smaller, higher revving engines with some type of forced induction.
Last edited by mSaLL150; 12-06-2011 at 12:23 AM.
#188
12-06-2011, 10:27 AM
I think you need to read the forums a little more. More often than not you will find that an Eco thread gets crapped on by a 5.0. I think many 5.0 buyers thought they were getting the "top" engine (6.2 aside, that's a specialty IMO since it's only available on certain trim levels) and then realized it wasn't. 5.0 replaced the 4.6 and what a nice upgrade in comparison but the Eco was the engine that replaced the 5.4.
#189
12-20-2014, 10:28 AM
#191
12-20-2014, 11:05 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE TX
Posts: 1,605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#192
12-20-2014, 11:26 AM
#193
12-20-2014, 11:47 AM
#194
12-20-2014, 11:53 AM
Senior Member
