kbass24emtp

In one of the videos I saw on here with that red ecoboost. On that truck they moved the coolant res to where the old fuse box was and there was some type of scoop on the right side that looks like some type of ram air thing. Here is the video look at the 48 second mark to see the scoop.

Matt_E_Salesman

For the last two years (2013+2014) the 6.2 has been available in XLT and up trims. Even at the lower base MSRP of the truck, very few were interested in the 6.2. Why would they, when you can get the torque of the 6.2 when you need it, and the day to day economy of the 5.0, by simply selecting the 3.5 EB. That's the reason very few opted for the 6.2.

ColeLarry

Anyone know when Ford will have the build and price program for the 2015 f150

blck012

If there isnt a market for large displacement traditional v8s then why is GM, dodge and toyota still building them? And 2 of those companies have R & D budgets 3x the size of ford. Why isnt ecoboost available in superduty if its such a logical replacement for the 6.2L?

Surely you dont think downsizing an engine and adding turbos + direct injection is alien technology that only ford has the competence to implement.

nfldfordman

X2.

LastResort

That's actually a really good question. Truck buyers, especially heavy duty truck buyers in my observation, are slow to adopt new technology. Perhaps ford is simply playing the waiting game by establishing the motor in other platforms. But maybe there is something we don't know about the reliability of the 6.2 vs. the EB and the expectations of fleet buyers (IE, the ecoboost may be perfectly good for 200k miles, but the 6.2 can give you 350k plus).

Also, Ford appears to have no problem with multiple competing motors but limiting their application. 6.2 and the 3.5EB, the 2.7EB, and the 3.2L I-5 TD. Squeezed in there somewhere is the 3.7 and 5.0 NA.

Personally, I think this is a great way to run such a big company. Don't bet everything on one platform, create multiple competing platforms and take the best items from each to build the next couple of options.

Isn't the new Superduty in development right now, with alooominum? Maybe we'll see the 3.5EB added as an option. Or the much speculated 5.0 TT.

I don't think the overall R&D budget of the company is really the driver of what technology is invented, but where the company places value. I personally don't ever expect to see Toyota innovating, I expect their products to be a follow-the-leader, high value, low risk item.

GM, well, as much as it pains me to say it: the Volt is a decent car that demonstrates the complete lack of market understanding in that company. I expect very little from the company in terms of bringing what the market wants in a timely fashion.

Dodge is another thing, and they are electing to use a motor designed globally and modified to meet US requirements. I think that's a great step, when you're clearly caught behind someone else.

Reading some of the comments here, you'd think so. Subaru, an company that is absolutely allergic to innovations, has been successfully stuffing turbocharged engines in econoboxes for decades and getting good reliability numbers during that time.

I fear no turbocharger!

shaffe

GM and Dodge went the route of cylinder deactivation for their V-8 engines to get the efficiency they need. Ford went the route of smaller engines with turbos,

different strokes for different folks

packplantpath

And ask a gm owner burning 2 quarts of oil per 1000 miles about active fuel management.

Just goea to show that new technology has issues sometimes.

KILOFINAL

If Ford dumps the 5.0 in the next few years and goes exclusively to Ecoboost's, I'll switch brands. No big deal for me and I'm sure Ford won't miss my business.

KILOFINAL

My sister has a 2011 Escalade ESV that gets used rough. The 6.2 hasn't burned excessive oil and has been bullet proof. I drive it on weekends and it's been a great engine.