I would go with the 6.2. I don't like buying first year of body style changes in vehicles because those usually have the most hiccups. So as interesting as the ecoboost is........ like others have said I would wait and see on it. Plus there is just something about the sound of a V-8 that I don't think I could do without in a truck!

 

All opinion. No facts.

Direct fuel injection and tubocharging have been used on engines by many manufacturers for at least 10 years. The diesel engines of the 3/4+ ton trucks have used those technologies for at least that long.

The 5.0L was first used in a car too. What does that mean about either engine? Nothing.

Turbocharging by the domestics from 30 years ago did die because it was not worth the cost by the manufacturers to build reliable engines. Today, OEMs cannot afford to not use them.

OP, I don't think anyone will be disappointed with either engine's acceleration. If you want the HD, you do not have the choice of EB anyway. Enjoy the 6.2L and never look back.

 

The EB will get much better gas mileage and will perform better at high altitudes due to the forced induction. The 6.2 will give you the classic V-8 "sound".

 

If the 3.7 can move the F-150 then the 3.5 should be able to move it with out boost. According to Ford thats the idea. You use the efficient V6 most of the time and when needed boost kicks in for more power.
Wonder what the hp and torque ratings of the ecoboost is with 0 psi boost?

 

6.2......No replacement for displacement!

 

If I could get the 6.2L in a FX4 I'd go that route. That said the mpg drop off is going to be significant.

I'm going to wait it out and drive all 3, but probably go EB. Cost too much to go to a Lariat 6.2L.

 

I got this off of pickuptrucks.com. Do we happen to know what gas mileage is rated at on the 6.2 and it even worth it over the 5.4? I know the 6 speed tranny over the 4 speed tranny will make a nice difference

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/04...vt-raptor.html

The single-overhead cam 6.2-liter V-8 is rated at a brawny 411 horsepower and 434 pounds-feet of torque. The fact that it's making its debut in today's frugal times is rather odd, like seeing the strongman sideshow freak turn up in a Cirque du Soleil performance. Where Ford's latest gas and diesel engines are modern marvels that feature direct injection, turbochargers, compacted graphite iron engine blocks and slick tech like twin intake variable cam timing, the 6.2-liter V-8 is a bit of a throwback. It has two valves and two spark plugs per cylinder, a cast-iron engine block and aluminum cylinder heads. It also features a cast-iron crankshaft, forged steel connecting rods and cast-aluminum pistons. "Powered by Ford" is proudly embossed on the valve covers.

 

12c/17h for 6.2L I believe. Not much different than the outgoing 5.4L.

 

Yeah, all those turbo-diesels sure are questionable. Turbos are bad everyone! Step away from the EB! LOL

 

You're right. Why would you ever consider a smaller engine that makes damn near the same power (and considerably more down low where you really need it) and will probably achieve 5-8 more MPG?

I hope y'all enjoy your gass-guzzling 6.2!!

 

I have over 20 years building stout turbocharged gasoline engines, some producing up to 1200 hp. I stay up to date with advancements in technology-diect injection, variable valve timing, advancements in metalurgy, piston coatings, etc. I absolutely love turbocharged gas engines, the boost is very addictive and absolutely fabulous. My arguement is very simple. It is easy to build a 3 to 4 liter gasoline engine that makes 360hp.........keeping it together for more than 5 years when it sees boost every day would be magical.......... -period-........ You will see boost every day with the 3.5 EcoBoost in an F-150.........you simply cannot make a 3.5 liter engine act like a V-8 without seeing boost. The F-150 is heavy, as we all know. The fuel efficiency numbers you see are likely based on little to no boost........so if you drive it like it has a V-8 you will not get the EPA milage. Simple.

If Ford was serious about milage in their trucks there would be a small displacement turbo-Diesel option along with the 5.0.............IMHO

 

I'm into computers and detailing so i don't understand the 12c/17h lingo, lol. what does it mean and are you saying that its not worth the jump

 

c=city
h=highway

BTW - the notion that a small engine will need to dip into boost often can *loosely* be compared to Doodge's experience with their MDS system. Most folks rarely see 4-cylinder mode in mixed daily driving, unless it's steady-state flat running without an incline and little headwind, and not towing. (Heavy compounded with barndoor aeros). Otherwise it's gonna be running on all 8 for the most part. Along with the mileage penalty.

Ok - admittedly, a crappy analogy . And quit shootin' the messenger, lol.

As for the N/A 3.7L - higher compression, etc right? So not a direct comparison to the 3.5L with zero boost. Is gearing any different as well?

MGD

 

I feel so stupid, lol, I should have figured that out

 

Should have specified more in my comment, I figured "that" was limiting, when discussing this turbo and not all turbos seeing that this is not a rice rocket or diesel forum......

Time will tell I guess and maybe this new eco-boost will make me a believer. But I am still siding on the 6.2L side..... As far as mileage goes if we were all concerned about this we'd be on a hybrid forum.

Wasn't Ford talking about putting a smaller diesel turbo in the F150?