Ford 6.2L - Thoughts

[valhalla360]

Thinking about upgrading the truck. Looking for something in the 7-10yr old range.

With the Ford, that crosses from the V10 to the newer 6.2L V8.

I guess I hadn't been paying attention. Wow, 385HP and 400ft-lb...that would make the biggest diesels from the late 90's look anemic. That jumps up form the current truck that has something like 305HP and I haven't wanted for more power.

So any concerns I should be aware of? If the cost difference is minor, would you bump up to a slightly newer truck to get the 6.2L?

Setting aside the political/environmental hot potato, for non-towing use, I'm liking that it's E85 compatible, since I started watching and E85 is around 30% lower price, so even if I lose 10-15% on the MPG, I still come out ahead on the miles per dollar (calculated a 27% increase in miles per dollar at current local prices assuming a 10% loss in MPG). I can always switch back to the standard E10 stuff if I'm going to do some heavy mountain towing or I know I want the extra range between fill ups.

Weight ratings aren't an issue, so I don't "need" diesel. Whichever one I find in better shape at better price I will go with.

[valhalla360]

Again the E85 was a side issue, not a primary consideration. It's easy enough to switch back to the straight stuff if doing heavy towing.

[lmpres]

I pulled a 10-11K 5r with a 2012 6.2 for 3 years. If you are going to do the same, be ready for the hill climb engine scream! Had trouble getting out of 3rd gear on longer hills. I upgraded to a diesel in Dec and am VERY happy with the increase in torque.

[goducks10]

jkwilson wrote:

Don’t forget the 27% HP drop. That’s the bigger deal with that truck.

The only thing you need to get used to the fact that the gas engine needs turn a lot of RPM to generate horsepower. It takes a while to get used to it.

Then factor in some higher altitude towing and it's even worse.

[jkwilson]

valhalla360 wrote:

jkwilson wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
since I started watching and E85 is around 30% lower price, so even if I lose 10-15% on the MPG, I still come out ahead on the miles per dollar (calculated a 27% increase in miles per dollar at current local prices assuming a 10% loss in MPG).

You are seriously mistaken as to MPG loss. Closer to 20-30% and on the bad end when loaded. It exceeds the price difference.

E10 has 111,836 BTU/gallon while E85 has only 81,800 BTU/gallon. A 27% energy decrease in a gallon of fuel means 27% less power available unless the fuel consumption rate is increased by the same amount.

It almost always comes out costing more to run E85 and you have less available power available for towing.

At current local prices, I would still come out slightly ahead with a 27% MPG drop...but that was a minor side thing and if I got the truck, I could play with it to see the difference and then buy when priced low enough.

But E85 is really more of a side issue.

Don’t forget the 27% HP drop. That’s the bigger deal with that truck.

The only thing you need to get used to the fact that the gas engine needs turn a lot of RPM to generate horsepower. It takes a while to get used to it.

[KD4UPL]

In my experience with E85 in my Buick I lost well over 20% fuel mileage. The price difference of E85 here makes it a terrible deal.

[Charlie_D_]

"On flat land at 60mph in sixth gear you're around ~1500rpm"

Neither of my 2 diesels run those RPM's. Although close, they run 1600 RPM's

[valhalla360]

jkwilson wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
since I started watching and E85 is around 30% lower price, so even if I lose 10-15% on the MPG, I still come out ahead on the miles per dollar (calculated a 27% increase in miles per dollar at current local prices assuming a 10% loss in MPG).

You are seriously mistaken as to MPG loss. Closer to 20-30% and on the bad end when loaded. It exceeds the price difference.

E10 has 111,836 BTU/gallon while E85 has only 81,800 BTU/gallon. A 27% energy decrease in a gallon of fuel means 27% less power available unless the fuel consumption rate is increased by the same amount.

It almost always comes out costing more to run E85 and you have less available power available for towing.

At current local prices, I would still come out slightly ahead with a 27% MPG drop...but that was a minor side thing and if I got the truck, I could play with it to see the difference and then buy when priced low enough.

But E85 is really more of a side issue.

[jkwilson]

2edgesword wrote:

jkwilson wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
since I started watching and E85 is around 30% lower price, so even if I lose 10-15% on the MPG, I still come out ahead on the miles per dollar (calculated a 27% increase in miles per dollar at current local prices assuming a 10% loss in MPG).

You are seriously mistaken as to MPG loss. Closer to 20-30% and on the bad end when loaded. It exceeds the price difference.

E10 has 111,836 BTU/gallon while E85 has only 81,800 BTU/gallon. A 27% energy decrease in a gallon of fuel means 27% less power available unless the fuel consumption rate is increased by the same amount.

It almost always comes out costing more to run E85 and you have less available power available for towing.

It seems the actually mpg difference will vary...

"Due to ethanol's lower energy content, FFVs operating on E85 get roughly 15% to 27% fewer miles per gallon than when operating on regular gasoline, depending on the ethanol content. Regular gasoline typically contains about 10% ethanol."

In my area the cost of regular gas (87 octane) is $2.90 ~ $3.00 and E85 $1.90 ~ $2.00 so if the actually difference in energy content is somewhere midway between 15% ~ 27% E85 is more economical for me.

I have a 2012 F250 6.2L 3.73. I can't talk about the long term reliability of the truck (purchased it use three months ago with 86,000 mile on it) but it does tow my 8,000 pound trailer very well. On flat land at 60mph in sixth gear you're around ~1500rpm, on moderate grades 2500rpm and on the steepest grades I've encounter (Pennsylvania) 3500rpm.

It varies, but only because the engine and tranny go into economy mode when they detect the watered down fuel. If it was possible to generate the same power with 27% less energy in the fuel, they’d do the same techniques with straight gas. It doesn’t work unless you change the driving style which isn’t practical with an RV and is barely practical in a commuter vehicle.

I own land that is grain farmed and will be able to retire next year because of the ethanol scam, so I have no reason to criticize E85 except I know those in power think it’s magic green juice and I’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

[zrone90]

I have a 2015 F 250 with the 6.2. Have towed an 8500lb trailer over 16,000 miles and have had not problems. Last year towed to Mount Rushmore and Yellowstone and it did great on the mountain grades.
Mpg were between 7.5 and 9.2.

[MFL]

Yes, the 6.2 has been a great engine, smooth, but good power/torque. As I have posted before, the real game changer is the 6-speed transmission. Get the 6.2 6-speed, and enjoy the great towing features.

Jerry

[2edgesword]

jkwilson wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
since I started watching and E85 is around 30% lower price, so even if I lose 10-15% on the MPG, I still come out ahead on the miles per dollar (calculated a 27% increase in miles per dollar at current local prices assuming a 10% loss in MPG).

You are seriously mistaken as to MPG loss. Closer to 20-30% and on the bad end when loaded. It exceeds the price difference.

E10 has 111,836 BTU/gallon while E85 has only 81,800 BTU/gallon. A 27% energy decrease in a gallon of fuel means 27% less power available unless the fuel consumption rate is increased by the same amount.

It almost always comes out costing more to run E85 and you have less available power available for towing.

It seems the actually mpg difference will vary...

"Due to ethanol's lower energy content, FFVs operating on E85 get roughly 15% to 27% fewer miles per gallon than when operating on regular gasoline, depending on the ethanol content. Regular gasoline typically contains about 10% ethanol."

In my area the cost of regular gas (87 octane) is $2.90 ~ $3.00 and E85 $1.90 ~ $2.00 so if the actually difference in energy content is somewhere midway between 15% ~ 27% E85 is more economical for me.

I have a 2012 F250 6.2L 3.73. I can't talk about the long term reliability of the truck (purchased it use three months ago with 86,000 mile on it) but it does tow my 8,000 pound trailer very well. On flat land at 60mph in sixth gear you're around ~1500rpm, on moderate grades 2500rpm and on the steepest grades I've encounter (Pennsylvania) 3500rpm.

[jkwilson]

valhalla360 wrote:
since I started watching and E85 is around 30% lower price, so even if I lose 10-15% on the MPG, I still come out ahead on the miles per dollar (calculated a 27% increase in miles per dollar at current local prices assuming a 10% loss in MPG).

You are seriously mistaken as to MPG loss. Closer to 20-30% and on the bad end when loaded. It exceeds the price difference.

E10 has 111,836 BTU/gallon while E85 has only 81,800 BTU/gallon. A 27% energy decrease in a gallon of fuel means 27% less power available unless the fuel consumption rate is increased by the same amount.

It almost always comes out costing more to run E85 and you have less available power available for towing.

[Iraqvet05]

I bought a 2017 F250 6.2 a few months ago and I am impressed so far but haven't put it to long towing test yet. It replaced my aging 2001 Silverado 2500HD with the 6.0. I wish I could have found a 4.30 geared F250 but they are hard to find in the used market.

I asked a few shops about the 6.2 and only one mentioned an issue with the valve timing but they appear to be very reliable.

Ford allegedly reworked the heads in 2017 and squeezed out an extra 30 lbs of torque and the torque curve peaks at a lower RPM. This data looks interesting on paper but I don't know if you could even tell the difference between the pre and post 2017 6.2s.

I haven' tried the E85 so I cannot comment on MPG ratings there. Running around town, I get about 11-12 MPG on regular (87 octane) fuel.

[Second_Chance]

Go here and see what folks are saying:

Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forum

From what I've seen, everyone seems to really like the 6.2.

Rob