F150 w 6.2L

phsycle

Adventurer
There is a ‘14 FX4 with 6.2 locally that is intriguing.
Anyone know what the difference is between this and the Superduty 6.2? As far as I’ve been able to find out, different cams. But everything else is the same. I believe.
Do they come with a larger gas tank or was it still an option?

Not sure why it’s catching my eye. I don’t NEED a big block v8. But always wanted one of these for some reason.

Wheels would have to go.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
It is for those that want a little more power than an Ecoboost with about half the mileage...

Maybe not that bad but it isn't great for mileage.

Engine is kinda tight in the engine bay for upkeep too.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
There is a ‘14 FX4 with 6.2 locally that is intriguing.
Anyone know what the difference is between this and the Superduty 6.2? As far as I’ve been able to find out, different cams. But everything else is the same. I believe.
Do they come with a larger gas tank or was it still an option?

Not sure why it’s catching my eye. I don’t NEED a big block v8. But always wanted one of these for some reason.

Wheels would have to go.
The 6.2 is a great motor and is so under rated that it will never hurt it's self. You can get performance cams for it and long tube headers...buuuut they are pricey.

Sadly, its a gas hog and gets smoked by either EcoBoost and even the 5.0. It was cool for its time...but now it's kinda "meh."
 

Bama67

Member
Kinda fake news.

The 6.2 in my giant 2018 Long Bed Super crew F250 4x4 gets 16mpg average. So in the smaller and lighter F150 it should do at least that good if you don't drive like a mad man.

The 6.2 is one of the most durable power plants ever made. Also, same year for year F150 it absolutely doesn't "get smoked" maybe since the aluminum body, 10spd and they upped the power of the 5.0, it might. Those years the Eco and 6.2 was neck and neck.

I've had 2 Eco's and a 2015 5.0, but always wanted an F150 with the 6.2

If the truck is in good shape, buy with confidence. Other than some VERY isolated instances of broken valve springs in the first couple years, these are bulletproof engines that many have taken to 300-500k with very hard duty cycles.
 

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
I only record hwy mileage. Say a full tank on a vacation trip with no stops. I got 15 easy at 77mph, last week. Sometimes 17 if I take my time a little.

I'd expect at least another 1mpg for a lighter 150.

That's a lot of engine for a 150. I thought a properly geared 4.6 was plenty.
 

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
Kinda fake news.
I did kinda try to save it with a "not quite"...

The 6.2 in my giant 2018 Long Bed Super crew F250 4x4 gets 16mpg average. So in the smaller and lighter F150 it should do at least that good if you don't drive like a mad man.

The 6.2 is one of the most durable power plants ever made. Also, same year for year F150 it absolutely doesn't "get smoked" maybe since the aluminum body, 10spd and they upped the power of the 5.0, it might. Those years the Eco and 6.2 was neck and neck.
I think the F-150 gets about the same as what you get with your '250. I kinda half-@$$ed looked into an XTR a couple years ago. Kinda decided that if I am going to get F-250 mpg I would probably be better off getting a F-250 for about the same money (if not cheaper)... and unknown Canadian vehicle oddities were a concern too.

Year for year the Ecoboost wouldn't show the 6.2 a thing and even today for power it would be a brawl the EB would not soon forget.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
Also, same year for year F150 it absolutely doesn't "get smoked" maybe since the aluminum body, 10spd and they upped the power of the 5.0, it might. Those years the Eco and 6.2 was neck and neck.

2011 Ford F-150 XLT Super Crew 4x4 (5.0L V8) 0-60 mph 6.6 Quarter Mile 14.9

2011 Ford F-150 Lariat EcoBoost 4x4 (3.5L Twin Turbo V6) 0-60 mph 6.1, Quarter Mile 14.6

2011 Ford F-150 Harley Davidson Edition (6.2L V8) 0-60 mph 6.2, Quarter Mile 14.8

Using the same years, the 3.5 is 0.2 seconds faster in the 1320. Each 0.1 second is roughly a car length. Getting beat by two car length is considered "getting smoked" in anybodys book and hardly considered "neck and neck."

A 2107 F150 with the 3.5 and 10 speed will run 0-60 in 6.1 and 14.4 in the Quarter Mile. That's a 4 car length difference... That's called getting embarrassed.

The real fun is when you start playing with them. 500.00 sunk into an EcoBoost can net you ~80HP at the rear wheels and drop you into the 13's in the 1320. 500.00 sunk into a 6.2 gets you more noise and no worth while increase in performance.


Interesting enough, a short bed, regular cab, 2wd with the 5.0 and an aggressive tune can break into the 12's if its set up right.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
Year for year the Ecoboost wouldn't show the 6.2 a thing and even today for power it would be a brawl the EB would not soon forget.
I'm guessing that you don't spend much tume at a drag strip...haha? The new EcoBoost will absolutely humiliate the 6.2...lol. It's almost sad to watch...the 6.2 is making all kinds of manly noise and trying so hard....and the 3.5 simply pulls away.

I have raced "modded" 6.2s and gapped the hell out of them. They were quick when they were built...but the EcoBoost trucks toss them to the side with ease.
 

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
I'm guessing that you don't spend much tume at a drag strip...haha? The new EcoBoost will absolutely humiliate the 6.2...lol. It's almost sad to watch...the 6.2 is making all kinds of manly noise and trying so hard....and the 3.5 simply pulls away.

I have raced "modded" 6.2s and gapped the hell out of them. They were quick when they were built...but the EcoBoost trucks toss them to the side with ease.
Nope, I don't drag my 4x4's. Even the ones that do are for the most part boring to watch. Oh my a 14.6sec quarter, welcome to factory stock 1996 Mustang level drag racing! Them new ones that run a whopping 14.2sec quarter, that is like 1996 Mustang with a catback! :ROFLMAO:

I tow with mine, given that the 3.5 was rated the same as a 6.2... my money is on the Super Duty engine doing it better for longer.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
Nope, I don't drag my 4x4's. Even the ones that do are for the most part boring to watch. Oh my a 14.6sec quarter, welcome to factory stock 1996 Mustang level drag racing! Them new ones that run a whopping 14.2sec quarter, that is like 1996 Mustang with a catback! :ROFLMAO:

I tow with mine, given that the 3.5 was rated the same as a 6.2... my money is on the Super Duty engine doing it better for longer.

I'll give you longer (it's all but impossible to kill a 6.2) but I know that the 3.5 will do it "better." I had the 3.5 in a work truck and it was noticeably better than the 6.0 in my new work truck and the 6.2 in our "shop truck." It had zero problem pulling 8-10k at 75mph and didn't slow down for hills. The 6.0 and 6.2 have to down shift... Get their RPMs up and then they start making power. They also accelerated noticeably slower. The 3.5 just chugs along...adjusting the boost pressure as necessary. Its only draw back is the lack of engine breaking when you let off the throttle.

Also...comparing the quarter mile times of a pony car to a 4 door truck is kinda silly. I mean...I had a CBR 1000 that ran high 10s with ease... Is any of that relevant to trucks....nope. ;-)
 

phsycle

Adventurer
I don't want this to turn into a VS battle pissing match. I really couldn't care less what engine is faster. Twin turbo's will typically kick the crap out of an N/A engine, especially at elevation where I live. I had a 2.7L F150 before. It absolutely beat the living crud out of my Toyota V8. No further discussion necessary there. For my uses, a 3.3L would probably suffice! :LOL:

I just like the beastly hunk of metal under the hood. :D The robustness of the engine. Deep rumble. Which is why I wouldn't mind a 7.3, either. But I do not want or need a 3/4 ton. Which is why a 1/2 ton with this engine has intrigued me.

MPG....not super crucial, since I only drive 9-10k miles a year, if that. 30% of that is road trips. I'd imagine with the lift and tires this truck has, I'm on-par with a 250. As long as it comes with a 36 gal tank, range should be plenty sufficient.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
I don't want this to turn into a VS battle pissing match. I really couldn't care less what engine is faster. Twin turbo's will typically kick the crap out of an N/A engine, especially at elevation where I live. I had a 2.7L F150 before. It absolutely beat the living crud out of my Toyota V8. No further discussion necessary there. For my uses, a 3.3L would probably suffice! :LOL:

I just like the beastly hunk of metal under the hood. :D The robustness of the engine. Deep rumble. Which is why I wouldn't mind a 7.3, either. But I do not want or need a 3/4 ton. Which is why a 1/2 ton with this engine has intrigued me.

MPG....not super crucial, since I only drive 9-10k miles a year, if that. 30% of that is road trips. I'd imagine with the lift and tires this truck has, I'm on-par with a 250. As long as it comes with a 36 gal tank, range should be plenty sufficient.

Cam swap + a three stage 150 shot = all kinds of fun in the mud :)
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
I'm in the high-desert---no mud to be found anywhere! :p
I'm too old for desert baja racing, either. I just like cruising the backcountry roads (see San Rafael Swells, Maze district, SW Colorado, etc).
I can definitely respect that!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
177,503
Messages
2,772,192
Members
212,101
Latest member
tcari394
Top