WarSurfer

I doubt the ECO has 47ftlbs on the 6.2 anywhere on the curve. This is pretty obvious by the videos of them drag racing each other. You can't post your 'ringer' steady state line without an accompanying line for a steady state 6.2 run.

I am also suspect of 'Ford' Dyno charts now in general as they don't even jive amongst themselves. You can find several released by their marketing department, all with the same lines in different places.

I am in no way discounting the performance of the Eco, I am saying that Fords marketing of the engine has been less than accurate.

My numbers were from Ford data as well but now the images are corrupt.

https://www.f150forum.com/f38/torque...-6l-2v-110234/

edit: found 'em

https://www.f150forum.com/f70/whos-h...187345/index3/

page 3 of the thread - those are snapshots of Ford marketing slicks.



according to these Ford numbers, the 6.2 is north of 350# at 1,500rpm

WarSurfer

example of said shady marketing:



you'll notice in the above image that the 6.2 max tq of 434 appears to be achieved much closer to 5k rpms. We both know that the 6.2 makes 434 at 4,500 rpms. it seems clear to me that the red line has been pushed to the right to accentuate the line of the eco - the rest of the lines are interestingly the same distance to the left of the red line as the 434 is away from 4,500rpms. hmmmm.

so to re-cap. the 6.2 is a beast when compared to the competition (according to Ford) but is less so when compared to the eco (again, according to Ford). this couldn't have anything to do with marketing push for the eco could it?

to further emphasize my point:



this is the mis-alignment I am referring to...

f150man3.5

Stop with the ford literature. Go to youtube. Punch 6.2 ford stock dyno.....bang proof is in the pudding....now do the same for the eco and the 5oh.....well holy ****, stock to stock the 6.2 barely eeks out in horsepower....but the torque #'s are definately in the eco's favour.
I know you are going to go into all the rederic of why and why not and the how. Vid after vid of reputable shops on there....sorry man eco wins that torque fight hands down.

Now i'm not knocking any of these engines, as ford did one hell of a job on all of them.

WarSurfer

I think you mis-understood my point - or I didn't make a clear one

I wasn't saying the 6.2 beat the eco at anything. I was saying the 'gulf' isn't as wide (either way) as has been portrayed. I am of the opinion that the two engines are very close in numbers. Tq going to the eco, hp going to the 6.2. They have very close performance but get there through different methods. I wasn't trying to knock or build up either one.

f150man3.5

Yes, my bad. I understand your lingo there. Yes put these engines on the dyno....privately and the #'s look different to the rear tires.
The 6.2 wears the crown for the horsepower race. But the eco takes the crown in the torque department. The whole reason it can even hang with the 6.2 in the first place(racing). All that torque down low

Roadrunner2

And the 6.2 wears the crowns of hardly ever hearing a problem about it! Can't say that about the EBl I own a 6.2 2011 and I tow a lot and it gives every thing I ask of it. "Problem Free"

f150man3.5

I hear you on that. But they sold how many 6.2's compared to how many hundreds of thousands of ecoboost.

my67falcon

In all fairness that might just be a numbers game. Far more Eco's out there

DDT414

I just ordered a new 2013 FX4 and was having trouble deciding between the 6.2 and EB. My brother has a 5.0L and EB wasn't in love with either engine. The dealer stocks the 5.0L in the FX4. The 5.0L wasn't an option for me as I'm coming out of a 2010 Ram Crew Sport with the Hemi and 3.73 gears and I needed (OK wanted) something quicker than it. I also do tow with my truck.
I drove EB with 3.55 and 3.73 gears and 6.2L with 3.55 on long test drives - 15 miles and highway mpg was near identical at 75 mph. The EB did get better fuel economy in town.
Went back and talked to dealer again and asked which one he would want back in 2 - 3 years and he said 5.0L, then 6.2L and then EB. The option price on the FX4 for the 6.2L in Canada is $1900 retail over the base 5.0L. Thought about it over the weekend and reviewed lots of post on this forum and ordered the 6.2L with 3.55 gears.
I accept that I will likely burn a bit more fuel but it was the one that fit me the best and put a grin on my face. I also believe that FX4 6.2L will hold their value well in the used market.
So to put this back to the OP; the 6.2L is proven technology, has lots of power, achieves consistent fuel economy and is fun to drive.

my67falcon

Ninja got me