Ford already has. 150k "simulated" miles on a dyno, pulled logs, 1600 miles pulling 11,300 pounds @ 82mph average, a towing competition, and then Baja 1000 all with the same engine.

Direct fuel injection and turbocharging in heavy truck have proven to last millions of miles under loads far more than the Ecoboost will see. Don't most diesels in Europe have direct fuel injection and turbochargers?

 

It's not a point of gas prices - it's CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards mandated by the US "government". Without getting into a political debate, it's something the vehicle makers have to deal with. They have to maintain a minimum average MPG standard across the entire line of offerings. If they can't get better MPG out of the trucks, they will have to limit production to compensate - then all of you will REALLY be whining when you have to wait 6 months to buy a truck and deal with opportunistic dealers who won't sell them for anything less than $6000 over MSRP. This is exactly why they have limited the 6.2 availability, and I'm betting that it's going to be difficult to buy one at any kind of discount.

 

eye, Wwwwhat?! You're not free to ride a bike instead of drive? If you don't like big gov taxing then don't use the drug. I hate the same taxes and over regulation as you do but not going to complain when I choose to drive a vehicle that gets 14 mpg. When I hate it enough I'll get something that gets 50 mpg and drive a lot less, or not drive at all. Nothing tangible is really free in this world, including gasoline. We do however have a free market for point of this discussion.

And Haggis, how do you publish mileage under boost mpg? Under how much boost are they supposed to publish the mpg's for? Who does that? There are plenty of turbo engines out and how many post under boost mileage? What naturally aspirated engines publishes mpg's under max load? No one posts mpg when towing X pounds or X level of acceleration, etc.

GT500 made some good points. If Ford designed this engine from the get for boost then it shouldn't make a crap bit of difference if it makes more heat. This is not an engine originally built to be naturally aspirated and then had boost slapped on.

The doubters make vague assumptions on the engine. No one has made a good point as to why we are to doubt this engine.

 

I'm amazed at the crap people dream up. If you're so worried about seeing mileage numbers when the EB is under full boost, then you should be concerned with mileage numbers for NA engines under full throttle.

Manufacturers post best-case scenarios for their fuel mileage. They're not going to post 2.6 MPG at full throttle pulling a 11,000 trailer up a 7% grade.

 

I think you are forgetting one very important piece the TRANSMISSION. With proper gearing a 3.5L will see no addition stress from moving a 5500lb truck or even when towing 11300lbs. You keep mentioning stress levels, are you speaking about cylinder pressure or rotating mass? You do know that with 90%+ of torque available at 2000rpm the eco boost will not have to rev near as much as the 5.0 or 6.2 to maintain the same speed and power level. Most people that know engines will agree that normally when an engine lets go it is at or near the rev limiter. You will not have to rev the eco boost to make power and torque thanks to the turbos. No extensive alloys need to be, nor ever have been needed to withstand daily use and abuse in any engine. Simple forged aluminum has been proven to withstand 1000's of HP for many years. I love your quote "eco boost f150 will see boost everyday" umm duh! It will see boost the second you merge into traffic or accelerate from a stop sign. Thats the beauty of new turbos, no lag. Boost, in a properly designed platform, is a great thing to have. Once again and engine built for boost see no additional stress by being in boost as opposed to vaccume. Mileage while in boost? Unless you are driving at full throttle 100% of the time you are going to see boost come and go. When you come to a big hill it will go into boost, for a second after shifting you will see boost. But 80% of normal driving will be done in vaccume. Just like all turbo charged and supercharged vehicles have since the invention of by-pass valves. I think you are going out of your way to make the 3.5 eco boost look bad. I was a big believer in bigger is better until they released this engine. This truly is the future and my 2010 5.4 will soon be upgraded to a 3.5 eco boost.

 

ok ok ok. I'm leaning on picking up a 2011 Harley 6.2L but I want to make sure this is the right thing to do. I do tow but not much (maybe 3 to 4 times a year). Each trip is 16 hours round trip. By me getting the Harley 6.2L do you think I will notice a huge difference in towing with the 6.2 vs the 5.4 or should I stick with what I have. I usually tow around 3500lbs no more than 4K. Also how much can the Harley really tow? not what the brochure says it can.

 

I like what I hear about the EB but until its been around for 2 or 3 years I wouldn't own one. So I would be getting the 6.2L. Historically there are lots of changes made to year one motors in the first couple years of production and I'd rather let someone else be the guinea pig. That said if you are going to own it a couple years and trade it in whats the difference?

 

Brochure says around 7200-7500 in the 2011 towing guide for the Harley. If you only tow 4k I would keep my current truck unless you just want to buy a new one. You will definitely see a drop in fuel economy by moving to a 6.2 from the 5.4. Also the 5.0 would easily tow that amount and be lots cheaper up front and in gas, you just couldn't have the Harley Edition

 

Watch the payload. The payload is going to be the worst on the Harley. The website list 1230 lbs payload for the Harley and the actual sticker could be less. It was 999 lbs on some 2010's. Even with a lighter 4000 lb trailer, let alone the max 7500 lb trailer, tongue weight, passengers, and cargo you could be overweight very easily.

 

Sorry I haven't read all 8 pages, but my .02 is this. With fuel ratings of 12/16 for the 6.2 and the impending spike in gas prices, there is no way I would go down that road. I can not imagine averaging 14mpg and filling up that tank when speculation is that our current average gas price of $3.05 will seem cheap a year from now.

 

man you already have a 5.4 so im sure you can imagine 14mpg lol sure it sucks however both have their plus's and minus's, the 6.2 with some dyno time will make great power, however the eco boost also will make great power most likely a tad under the 6.2 from what i have seen out of the sho and raptors engine, the 6.2 i think will outlast the f/i engine, heat soak and oil leaks would be my biggest fear of hot summer towing or idleing with the EB as it is with any turbo engine the risk of oil loss is always greater. if i was going to purchase a new truck right this second id go for the 6.2 2 valves of proven ford design

 

4000 lb trailer x 15% tongue weight = 600 lb

1000 lb payload - 600 = 400 lb payload

Yourself in excess of 150 lb, any other passengers, cargo, tools, etc must be less than 400 lbs. Wow. I don't think the Harley is made for towing.

 

I wonder how this compares to what I'm running now. I never had my truck weighed but its the FX2 sport 5.4 with 3.55 gears and 23" wheels, so I know im getting slammed in gas but not sure about my payload, etc. HELP, lol

 

Can someone school me on the tow formula or explain it so I can see what I can and can not do I would appreciate it

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think rim and tire size are the major player.