6.2 or Eco Boost, Which one
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 3,460
Likes: 0
From: NYC, Ct & NC
6.2 or Eco Boost, Which one
As many of you have seen me post, If I'm going to get a new truck it will be b/t the 6.2 and the EB. What I would like this thread to do is explain the differences and why. I do tow but only 2-4 times a year and when I do its about 16 hours round trip. I really want the Harley which means I would only get the 6.2 unless for some reason the EB can convince me other wise. Besides HP and Tq what are the other adv.disadv of having the either one of these new engines
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,000
Likes: 0
From: College Station , TX
6.2L. There is no replacement for displacement. Keep in mind you are asking a 3.7L to push a 2.5 ton vehicle, turbo or no turbo, I just couldn't do it. Different strokes for different folks.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 3,460
Likes: 0
From: NYC, Ct & NC
3.5
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 3,460
Likes: 0
From: NYC, Ct & NC
The differences I'm looking for is this:
On the 6.2 I don't think you can get the Electric Power- Assisted Steering.
Now how much of a difference does this play besides fuel economy
On the 6.2 I don't think you can get the Electric Power- Assisted Steering.
Now how much of a difference does this play besides fuel economy
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
From: Baton Rouge
Must be pushing it pretty well if it gets a lot better gas mileage than the 6.2 and has around the same numbers.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,390
Likes: 10
Some perspective;
MGD
After having an in-depth discussion with the Ford Tech rep at SEMA about the 3.5 Eco-Boost twin turbo, I assure those who think it will be a mileage maker in the F-150 will absolutely be dissappointed. This engine was originally intended for a vehicle far lighter. Turbocharged gasoline engines of this displacement pushing a heavy truck will likely see boost "very often" .........not good for mileage or wear and tear. I garantee the mileage will shock you.... unless you drive it like your Grandmother. Physics dictates that torque is required to accelerate.........torque is not free........replacing displacement (5.0-5.4 to a 3.5) with turbocharging may seem like a good idea on paper, but good luck 5 years down the road when your "car" engine starts feeling the strain of moving an F-150......this is a complicated engine, parts will be expensive. Don't be fooled by Horsepower numbers............the fuel burn at it's rated power under full boost is likely staggering. Now if this was a turbo-diesel 3.5 designed initially for use in a truck, different story all together......
Ford, Chrysler, and GM all introduced turbocharged gasoline powered vehicles in the 1980's. (Granted, the advances in technology has been impressive since then.) There is a reason they did not stay in the engine options line-up for long. Reliability was poor at best. Turbochargers produce pressure........ pressure produces heat, neither are friendly. Small displacement engines are at a disadvantage; more stress on wrist pins, rods, crank journals....much higher cylinder pressures put stress on head gaskets, all to achieve similar power level to what are readily available in the 5.0 for less money. The longevity of small displacement turbocharged gasoline engines pushing heavy vehicles is unproven at best. Do you want to be the "test mule"?
I'd go 6.2 and not look back. But then again, I tend to agree that there is no replacement for displacement.
If fuel economy was a concern, I probably wouldn't be buying another truck.
- NCSU
If fuel economy was a concern, I probably wouldn't be buying another truck.
- NCSU
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,673
Likes: 0
From: Rosenberg/Baytown TX
6.2 if you ever want to mess with the engine or even the airfilter.
Eb if you open the airbox or even put a finger print on the plastic cover on the engine you voided your warranty
Eb if you open the airbox or even put a finger print on the plastic cover on the engine you voided your warranty
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, Maryland
I would have said 6.2 also. But after seeing that thread about "Hemi vs. Chevy vs. Ecoboost"... I'm impressed with the Ecoboost in all aspects. I've owned (2) 4.2 V6 F150's since 1999 or so. While they've both been extremely reliable trucks, I made a promise to myself, the next one WILL have the biggest available engine, PERIOD. Not cause I need it or anything, just time for me to treat myself to all the goodies.
But even after all that ranting I just did, I think I'd still strongly consider the new V6 F150 (ecoboost).
But even after all that ranting I just did, I think I'd still strongly consider the new V6 F150 (ecoboost).