17.4 MPH

[FordTechOne]

It takes a certain amount of energy to move 6000 lbs of truck around.

The V6 is mainly more efficient at low engine loads because it has 2 less cylinder ring packs dragging on the cylinder walls.

When you are accelerating, going up a decent grade, and the engine load far outweighs the drag from those 2 sets of rings, then as you said- not much difference really.

Given the huge tires on these trucks, there's just not much time when you are at low load, other than idling. Once the Gen 2 guys start putting aftermarket tires on in place the the featherweight OEM BFGs, they'll see the heavier tire with less efficient tread pattern drag their mileage down a lot since they will be spending even less time in that low engine load range.

The difference of 2 less cylinder ring packs is not going to account for a 4 MPG variance between the two engines. That’s simply a ridiculous theory, and dismissive of the advancements in engine technology that have resulted in huge improvements in power and efficiency.

The improvements in fuel economy come from the 3.5’s higher volumetric efficiency, lower pumping losses, and direct fuel injection. The 3.5 gets better fuel economy than the old 6.2 under all conditions, it’s simply a more efficient engine. Not to mention it generates significantly more power and torque.

As far as load, these engines don’t see boost under light to moderate driving conditions. You act as if it’s a small diesel that needs boost to move; your claim that it only improves efficiency at idle is inaccurate and just plain wrong.

 

[EricM]

The difference of 2 less cylinder ring packs is not going to account for a 4 MPG variance between the two engines. That’s simply a ridiculous theory, and dismissive of the advancements in engine technology that have resulted in huge improvements in power and efficiency.

The improvements in fuel economy come from the 3.5’s higher volumetric efficiency, lower pumping losses, and direct fuel injection. The 3.5 gets better fuel economy than the old 6.2 under all conditions, it’s simply a more efficient engine. Not to mention it generates significantly more power and torque.

As far as load, these engines don’t see boost under light to moderate driving conditions. You act as if it’s a small diesel that needs boost to move; your claim that it only improves efficiency at idle is inaccurate and just plain wrong.

Great in theory land, but in reality world- way more Gen 2s are in the 12-14 MPG range than the 16-18 MPG range. Same as 6.2Ls.

The ring packs dragging the cylinder walls at low loads is what matters more than anything- by far, for mileage differences in the same vehicle.

You act like the 6.2L is a 60 year old engine design. It's a newer design than the Cyclone engine.

 

[FordTechOne]

Great in theory land, but in reality world- way more Gen 2s are in the 12-14 MPG range than the 16-18 MPG range. Same as 6.2Ls.

The ring packs dragging the cylinder walls at low loads is what matters more than anything- by far, for mileage differences in the same vehicle.

You act like the 6.2L is a 60 year old engine design. It's a newer design than the Cyclone engine.

Why do continue to perpetuate the same misinformation? 6.2 was designed 15 years ago. Gen 2 3.5 was all new in 2017. Your ridiculous claims that the 3.5 gets the same fuel economy as your E-Series 6.2 is a joke, you’re delusional. Not that you’d know regardless since you don’t own a Gen 2.

The numbers all go against everything your claiming, in common sense as well as the EPA ratings and real world results. Never mind the SAE studies and data. Your claims have no data to back them up, you just spew baseless nonsense and see what you can get to stick. You’re more interested in satisfying your insecurities than providing the forum with anything resembling factual information.

 

[FordTechOne]

No point in arguing with Fordtechnone. I will say that the ecoboost gets infinitely better gas mileage than the 6.2....... only because the ecoboost is stuck in the ford service center all the time.
Nobody is comparing the ecoboost and the 6.2 and then saying the 6.2 is better than ecoboost. What needs to be understood is that the reliability factor IS an issue for the 3.5 ecoboost.
Fordtechnone also disregards the common repeat design issues that the ecoboost has. He shrugs them off every single time even though TSBs address them. He uses data conveniently.... he is the CNN fake news of the raptor world. I love my 12 Raptor 6.2.

Nobody cares Kuan. You are the Sasquatch of this forum, you try and hang on people’s coat tails hoping to get attention, but everyone already knows who you are. It’s pathetic at this point.

You aren’t a tech, you don’t work at a Ford dealer, you don’t own a Raptor, and you don’t have the slightest clue about these TSBs you’re going off about. You’re a know nothing clown. You make reliability claims but have no data to back anything up. And for the record, the 6.2 has a bad habit of dropping valves at 100k+ miles. There are multiple people on this forum looking for engines right now, only to find that they’re on indefinite backorder.

Also - from an earlier post recognizing the 5.4 3V engine. Yes, I COMPLETELY agree that thing was garbage. I owned one and dumped it after 20k miles. It was under powered and nothing like the 2V version. Sooooo glad I got out of it!!! ANymore, I think the only Ford engine I trust is the 7.3 gas engine. I don't care about power or mpg... I want reliability. Too bad I can't throw my 5.8 SC in a new raptor and call it a day!!

 

[CoronaRaptor]

No point in arguing with Fordtechnone. I will say that the ecoboost gets infinitely better gas mileage than the 6.2....... only because the ecoboost is stuck in the ford service center all the time.

OMG, I haven't laughed so hard all day!! Good come back, even though it's not true!

 

[Jakenbake]

OMG, I haven't laughed so hard all day!! Good come back, even though it's not true!

Technically, in that example the fuel mileage is either zero in that case or you are dividing by zero.

 

[Gen1 Beast]

If I gave a crap about mileage, I wouldn't own a Raptor (Gen1, Gen2 or Gen3).

If I gave a crap about engine reliability, I wouldn't own a Raptor (Gen1, Gen2, or Gen3).

If I gave a crap about driving like a grandma, I wouldn't own a Raptor (Gen1, Gen2, or Gen3).

I own a Raptor.

 

[thatJeepguy]

If I gave a crap about mileage, I wouldn't own a Raptor (Gen1, Gen2 or Gen3).

If I gave a crap about engine reliability, I wouldn't own a Raptor (Gen1, Gen2, or Gen3).

If I gave a crap about driving like a grandma, I wouldn't own a Raptor (Gen1, Gen2, or Gen3).

I own a Raptor.

Speak for yourself. I care about the top 2. However I just want to get as good of gas milage that my 3.6 jeep wrangler rubicon got. On 33’s no less. But it has twice the room, twice the power, the list goes on. Im not an ev f-a-g but its better to conserve resources whenever you can.

By the way im pretty sure i read that the gen 2 eco boost has low friction rings…

 

[FordTechOne]

Speak for yourself. I care about the top 2. However I just want to get as good of gas milage that my 3.6 jeep wrangler rubicon got. On 33’s no less. But it has twice the room, twice the power, the list goes on. Im not an ev f-a-g but its better to conserve resources whenever you can.

By the way im pretty sure i read that the gen 2 eco boost has low friction rings…

Agreed. I want the best combination of power, torque, and fuel economy; I don't understand how anyone can argue against that.

 

[GCATX]

According to the Lie-O-Meter I was averaging 16-16.5 on the 2018. Until Branden made me switch to 87 octane from 93 however many months ago. Down to 14.6-14.8. If I'm on the highway, at least half the time for sure, I am doing 75-85.