Premium fuel require for max power on EcoBoost and 6.2 - Page 2 - Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans



Premium fuel require for max power on EcoBoost and 6.2

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-03-2013, 04:34 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,620
Thanked 455 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiSmuggs View Post
They will probably contract that out to Shawn Ellis. LOL! And have him do the marketing too!
No way to make that family friendly...or fcc compliant.
jcain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 04:50 PM   #12
Senior Member/Vietnam Vet
5 Year Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern Vermont
Posts: 2,543
Thanked 516 Times in 350 Posts
Default

I am guessing you missed the intended humor in that.
SkiSmuggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 06:09 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,620
Thanked 455 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Sure I did. I was agreeing.
jcain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 06:23 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Youngone2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, tx
Posts: 401
Thanked 20 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcain View Post
No way to make that family friendly...or fcc compliant.
Lmfao!!!!!
Youngone2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 07:53 PM   #15
Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 776
Thanked 40 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndeerefarmer View Post
When the new GM 6.2 hit's the streets with 420hp/460ftlbs I expect Ford to retune the ecoboost to slightly beat those numbers.

Not sure if they will wait until the '15 comes out or do it for the '14. What will be interesting is if they just detuned it to help with the condensation issue, now they are going to crank the power back up higher than before and not expect issues?

Also supposed to be a smaller ecoboost in the '15 lineup. I expect the 3.7 NA to disappear and be replaced by it.
Bump up the 6.2 too...might as well tag team if you can!!! Heck, and after GM showing that Cheyenne concept at SEMA (RCSB w/6.2) might as well get a RCSB Lightning concept ready for when they take the sheet off the next gen truck...I'm thinking TT 5.0 or whatever that "VooDoo" project entails for the next-gen Shelby variant...bring a howitzer to a gun fight...that's how i roll!!!
ClaySlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2013, 08:56 AM   #16
Senior Member
5 Year Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 595
Thanked 57 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaySlayer View Post
Bump up the 6.2 too...might as well tag team if you can!!! Heck, and after GM showing that Cheyenne concept at SEMA (RCSB w/6.2) might as well get a RCSB Lightning concept ready for when they take the sheet off the next gen truck...I'm thinking TT 5.0 or whatever that "VooDoo" project entails for the next-gen Shelby variant...bring a howitzer to a gun fight...that's how i roll!!!
Ford doesn't want to sell many 6.2's in the 1/2 ton market. They get bad fuel mileage and hurt Ford in meeting CAFE standards. GM's new 6.2 is rated at 15/21 for a 2wd while Ford's is rated at I think 13/17. The 6.2 needs either dumped or have some modern technology added to it to increase fuel economy. A TT 5.0 is probably not very likely as the 3.5 can make plenty of added HP without doing anything but retuning it.
johndeerefarmer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to johndeerefarmer For This Useful Post:
SkiSmuggs (11-05-2013)
Old 11-06-2013, 01:44 AM   #17
Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 776
Thanked 40 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndeerefarmer View Post
Ford doesn't want to sell many 6.2's in the 1/2 ton market. They get bad fuel mileage and hurt Ford in meeting CAFE standards. GM's new 6.2 is rated at 15/21 for a 2wd while Ford's is rated at I think 13/17. The 6.2 needs either dumped or have some modern technology added to it to increase fuel economy. A TT 5.0 is probably not very likely as the 3.5 can make plenty of added HP without doing anything but retuning it.
Oh I agree on the 6.2...it's days in the half-ton are numbered and if I was doing an all out build I'd take the 5.0 over the 6.2 due to the newer technology and the support it has with the Mustang crowd...more so the latter. For a volume motor yes the EB could be retuned to make plenty of power BUT if there is going to be a "Lightning" comeback I'm thinking GT500 type output numbers. Having said that I also think the 5.8's days are numbered too. Ford is rumored to be working on a 5.0+ TT motor (VooDoo) making close to 600hp that'll be in the next gen GT500 (or whatever they decide to call it). That's more than a tune to get there with the 3.5EB.
ClaySlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 09:24 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tn.
Posts: 217
Thanked 35 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Blackford View Post
My butt dyno can't tell the difference between ethanol 87 and non-ethanol 93.
I agree,
the wallet will be lighter however, wich may help 60' times.

On the dyno, Fords numbers likely not repeatable as the air is never the same 2 days in a row.
natural gasser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 11:01 PM   #19
Senior Member
5 Year Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 890
Thanked 61 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Should we bring back the thread where I stated the Eco-boost design was optimized to run on premium? Some folks sure jumped at that one.
Enjoy crow for dinner boyz.
isthatahemi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 01:11 AM   #20
Inebriated 4 ur safety
 
Al Kohalic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,524
Thanked 884 Times in 479 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by isthatahemi View Post
Should we bring back the thread where I stated the Eco-boost design was optimized to run on premium? Some folks sure jumped at that one.
Enjoy crow for dinner boyz.

Actually no. I noticed this last month when they changed to the 2014 models. I emailed Mark Williams at Pickuptrucks.com about this since he published different numbers on premium fuel. His response is below.

Premium fuel require for max power on EcoBoost and 6.2-capture.png


This is just how Ford published that the 2011 Ecoboost had a different 6th gear ratio then all the other engines in the spec sheets, but it actually didn't. It wasn't fixed until the following year. I have yet to email Mike Levine who used to have Mark Williams' job as chief editor at Pickuptrcks.com, and now is Ford's truck communications manager. I will let you guys know what he says as well.

Last edited by Al Kohalic; 11-08-2013 at 01:21 AM.
Al Kohalic is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Al Kohalic For This Useful Post:
Samsonsworld (11-08-2013)
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Truck - 2003 F-150 XL SuperCab Bi-Fuel Blenderite 1997 - 2003 Ford F150 77 05-12-2016 10:18 PM
North Central: 2009-2014 XLT Ford OEM Tow Mirrors yamahatim 2009 - 2014 Part Sales 9 05-03-2016 04:40 PM
Texas: 2012 F150 FX4 Ecoboost - Loaded OptimiStick 2009 - 2014 Truck Sales 5 04-11-2016 03:43 PM
Anyone else have a Canadian FX4? Silverlx 2009 - 2014 Ford F150 18 01-21-2016 04:08 PM
Platinum 5.0 oil color and level Takeda 2015 - Present Ford F150 17 09-05-2015 11:20 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Copyright 2006 - 2016 F150Forum.com