Anyone else curious why the 6.2 is not a major point of conversation?
12-31-2012, 05:30 PM
#111
Official Member: Vast RWC
Bummer... seems i showed late to the party...
The words Raptor and "performance" shouldnt be used in the same sentence unless this is a thread on racedezert.com
Will you care about gas when its $6 a gallon and you still have 3 years left to pay on your truck?
lol
x2
wow
Tell that to the military who has been putting n/a 6.2 and 6.5 diesels in their 5/4 ton trucks and HMMVs for decades.
I have two buddies with Ecos, let me just say i agree with him in Performance as I have the 6.2 and am never worried about being behind them and when my Banks exhaust gets here it'll sound like a truck should. I have zero bad things to say about the ECO, its a great engine but is definately not for me. Dont care about gas what so ever and everyone on this forum who has the 6.2 loves the engine just like me.
lol
Except for the dealers with ridiculous markups, the 6.2 variants have been snapped up in very short order. So much for a bad economy. I'm glad Ford is offering the engine in other trims, I hope this will increase aftermarket support and drive down prices. Right now there is a considerable premium on mods for the 6.2 which, IMO, is contributing to the lack of info (1/4 times, etc...).
Lets really compare apples to apples here. Hennessey has a twin turbo 6.2L engine that gets 800HP with 600RWHP. Now lets compare that to the EB that only has 365HP. Im pretty sure we can all pick out which truck has the V6 in that race.
I love how the EB owners will defend their decision to the death that they CHOSE the eco boost over the Harley or a Raptor. I guarantee if you put a HD and an EB side by side and told everyone on here that you can have all of your gas paid for and the trucks were free that they would pick the HD every time. That brings it back to money. People choose the EB because its cheaper for the truck and to drive regularly. "Comparable performance" wouldnt play any part in that.
The few of us that bought the 6.2L obviously were not concerned with the gas mileage. we wanted and old school, raw HP beast of an engine and thats what we got. The EB is impressive what they could get from a V6 but it is still a V6 in my book and nothing compares to a V8. There is nothing like the rumble of a V8 with good exhaust on it. You will never get that on a V6.
There is my 2cents, and im sure there will be a ton of backlash for that but I am just tired of hearing that a turbo charged V6 that is about 400lbs lighter is the same as a bone stock 6.2L V8. EB owners, you have a nice truck but its no V8 so just accept that.
I love how the EB owners will defend their decision to the death that they CHOSE the eco boost over the Harley or a Raptor. I guarantee if you put a HD and an EB side by side and told everyone on here that you can have all of your gas paid for and the trucks were free that they would pick the HD every time. That brings it back to money. People choose the EB because its cheaper for the truck and to drive regularly. "Comparable performance" wouldnt play any part in that.
The few of us that bought the 6.2L obviously were not concerned with the gas mileage. we wanted and old school, raw HP beast of an engine and thats what we got. The EB is impressive what they could get from a V6 but it is still a V6 in my book and nothing compares to a V8. There is nothing like the rumble of a V8 with good exhaust on it. You will never get that on a V6.
There is my 2cents, and im sure there will be a ton of backlash for that but I am just tired of hearing that a turbo charged V6 that is about 400lbs lighter is the same as a bone stock 6.2L V8. EB owners, you have a nice truck but its no V8 so just accept that.
wow
A gas V6 can run without a turbo. A Diesel engine in all Heavy Duty applications requires a turbo to run, have you ever seen what a Diesel engine does without a turbo? For a DIESEL engine, the turbo is the life of the engine, you can find non heavy duty application Diesel engines and see what I mean, they have no power.
12-31-2012, 08:09 PM
#112
Bummer... seems i showed late to the party...
The words Raptor and "performance" shouldnt be used in the same sentence unless this is a thread on racedezert.com
Will you care about gas when its $6 a gallon and you still have 3 years left to pay on your truck?
lol
x2
wow
Tell that to the military who has been putting n/a 6.2 and 6.5 diesels in their 5/4 ton trucks and HMMVs for decades.
The words Raptor and "performance" shouldnt be used in the same sentence unless this is a thread on racedezert.com
Will you care about gas when its $6 a gallon and you still have 3 years left to pay on your truck?
lol
x2
wow
Tell that to the military who has been putting n/a 6.2 and 6.5 diesels in their 5/4 ton trucks and HMMVs for decades.
01-01-2013, 03:55 AM
#113
No they shouldnt wine about having 2 fewer cylinders. They should be comparing that truck to the other V6's in which case it blows that crappy 3.7L out of the water. You will always be able to max the 6.2L engine out to higher than your V6.
Just because ford sells it turbo charged doesnt mean that is a stock engine. Would you compare the lightning to a regular 5.4L truck? No, not at all. There is no competition. By your logic they are both "stock" because that is the way ford sold them. You cant compare something that was stock and beefed up a great deal just to bring it up to the level as something with 0 modifications on it.
Where are the 12second stock EB? You keep proving my point. The only way you can get that with your V6 is to keep putting more and more mods on it. I could be making the same argument if i was comparing my engine that was supercharged and had headers, exhaust, tuner, and on and on.
I will always have the fact that when i drive past people like you they will always turn and look at my truck wishing they had one.
Just because ford sells it turbo charged doesnt mean that is a stock engine. Would you compare the lightning to a regular 5.4L truck? No, not at all. There is no competition. By your logic they are both "stock" because that is the way ford sold them. You cant compare something that was stock and beefed up a great deal just to bring it up to the level as something with 0 modifications on it.
Where are the 12second stock EB? You keep proving my point. The only way you can get that with your V6 is to keep putting more and more mods on it. I could be making the same argument if i was comparing my engine that was supercharged and had headers, exhaust, tuner, and on and on.
I will always have the fact that when i drive past people like you they will always turn and look at my truck wishing they had one.
First: Calling the 3.7L a crappy engine just proves how ignorant you are. The 3.7L is a great engine and if I didn't have a 8,500lbs boat to tow around I would have bought the 3.7L. That engine is probably the "best in class" in a 1500 truck of equivalent set up.
Second: Saying the Ecoboost isn't stock is another ignorant remark. The whole Ecoboost Engine was conceived, designed, and built from the ground up BY FORD to have turbos, and I will let you in on a little secret "That makes it Stock" Yes it does share some similarities of there other V6's like: I don't know maybe having, pistons, connecting rods, camshaft, crankshaft, oil pan but was built different. The F150 Lighting was a SVT truck that used a after-market blower installed by FORD onto a 5.4L engine. Plus it was a limited production truck. I would love to see you argue with a Ford engineer on that. I think you need to spend some time doing your research on the word " Stock engine" and less time making yourself look like idiot on this fourm.
Third: If I drive by you in my Ecoboost I'm not going to look at your truck and wish I had one, (I VERY EASILY COULD HAVE HAD ONE and STILL CAN) I will just feel sorry for you having an inferiority complex, cause your last comment removed ALL doubt.
Lesson to learn: Its better to look dumb and ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Last edited by BoostedFx; 01-01-2013 at 03:57 AM.
The following 2 users liked this post by BoostedFx:
EcoboostKev (01-01-2013),
Hunttman01 (01-01-2013)
01-01-2013, 10:27 AM
#115
01-01-2013, 06:20 PM
#117
Probably because he's tired of being the Penyata...lol lol. Instead of candy falling out its BS. Maybe now we can bring this thread back to it's roots.
I'm Curious about what would happen to the 6.2L if Ford gave it direct injection and a 4 valve setup like the Ecoboost with all the fancy electronics. Would that maybe help with the MPG of the 6.2L?? The 6.2L is a good engine and I think Ford could get a steady 20mpg out of it. Also Employ a the cylinder shut down like the Hemi and maybe even the start-stop technology for city driving. This is just my ¢2 but any thoughts out there????
May we all enjoy our F150's no matter what engine we have. Happy New Year to everyone.
I'm Curious about what would happen to the 6.2L if Ford gave it direct injection and a 4 valve setup like the Ecoboost with all the fancy electronics. Would that maybe help with the MPG of the 6.2L?? The 6.2L is a good engine and I think Ford could get a steady 20mpg out of it. Also Employ a the cylinder shut down like the Hemi and maybe even the start-stop technology for city driving. This is just my ¢2 but any thoughts out there????
May we all enjoy our F150's no matter what engine we have. Happy New Year to everyone.
01-01-2013, 07:55 PM
#118
Probably because he's tired of being the Penyata...lol lol. Instead of candy falling out its BS. Maybe now we can bring this thread back to it's roots.
I'm Curious about what would happen to the 6.2L if Ford gave it direct injection and a 4 valve setup like the Ecoboost with all the fancy electronics. Would that maybe help with the MPG of the 6.2L?? The 6.2L is a good engine and I think Ford could get a steady 20mpg out of it. Also Employ a the cylinder shut down like the Hemi and maybe even the start-stop technology for city driving. This is just my ¢2 but any thoughts out there????
May we all enjoy our F150's no matter what engine we have. Happy New Year to everyone.
01-01-2013, 08:54 PM
#119
Senior Member
...I'm Curious about what would happen to the 6.2L if Ford gave it direct injection and a 4 valve setup like the Ecoboost with all the fancy electronics. Would that maybe help with the MPG of the 6.2L?? The 6.2L is a good engine and I think Ford could get a steady 20mpg out of it. Also Employ a the cylinder shut down like the Hemi and maybe even the start-stop technology for city driving. ..
I'm pretty sure that the 4-valve heads alone would add easily 100 hp to the 6.2, but no fuel economy unless they did TiVVT too.
Between TiVVT, DI, and variable displacement, it might squeek out 20 mpg hwy. However, the variable displacement systems always seem kinda gimmicky to me.
Funny you bring up the 4-valve thing. I've said for years that you could get power 3 ways: 1) displacement, 2) rpm/airflow, and 3) boost. Ford offers each option to us in 1) 6.2, 2) 5.0, and 3) EB. If you start combining them, as in a turbo 5.0 or 4-valve 6.2, then you make BIG power.
Last edited by engineermike; 01-01-2013 at 09:03 PM.
01-01-2013, 10:52 PM
#120
A few years ago, Cadillac apparently offered 2 different v6's in the CTS, one with DI and one regular EFI. The difference was about 5% better fuel economy and 15% more power. I'm not sure if there were other differences in the engines, though.
I'm pretty sure that the 4-valve heads alone would add easily 100 hp to the 6.2, but no fuel economy unless they did TiVVT too.
Between TiVVT, DI, and variable displacement, it might squeek out 20 mpg hwy. However, the variable displacement systems always seem kinda gimmicky to me.
Funny you bring up the 4-valve thing. I've said for years that you could get power 3 ways: 1) displacement, 2) rpm/airflow, and 3) boost. Ford offers each option to us in 1) 6.2, 2) 5.0, and 3) EB. If you start combining them, as in a turbo 5.0 or 4-valve 6.2, then you make BIG power.