F150 - 2.7L vs 3.5L vs 5.0L

[Martinjmpr]

I've never had any issues with the shifting in my 10 speed. Downshifting is nearly instantaneous when passing, and if I want maximum responsiveness, I put it in "Sport" mode. I appreciate that the transmission wants to be in the highest gear possible when cruising, and that it has plenty of gears to choose from. My 5.0 Ford gets better fuel economy than my 4.3 GMC with the 6 speed ever did.

I've had no issues with the 10 speed either. It's light years better than the 4L60 4 speed in my Suburban. the problem with the 4 speed is that when towing and going up a steep climb, it's almost always in the wrong gear. 2nd gear is too low and 3rd is too high. Or else 2nd is too high and 1st is way too low. I would end up crawling to the top of a high pass at about 25 - 30 mph with the trans in 1st gear and the engine screaming.

With the 10 speed and 3.5 EB I'm typically going 55 - 60 mph in the left lane passing other traffic when I'm cresting a high pass like Eisenhower Tunnel.

 

[Todd780]

I actually like the 10sp better than the old 6sp. I’ve never noticed it hunting for gears. I don’t even notice it shifting. It’s buttery smooth. Unlike like my ‘17 Tacoma!!

I'd stick to something older with a pre-10 speed transmission. The transmission never knows what gear it needs to be in. It knows what gear it WANTS to be in - 10th! If you're cruising at low speed (say 35-45 mph) and you want to accelerate, you have to wait a second while the transmission does an awkward 7x downshift before the truck starts to accelerate. Annoying in a 5.0, probably worse in a turbo version. Who knows maybe that time lets the turbos spool so there's no lag? Just a big hit like the secondaries after the bog on a poorly tuned quadrajet? The 6 speed transmissions are annoying enough as it is. I guess I'm just a 4 speed auto kinda guy...

I'd go with a 10 spd. The 6 speeds have an issue with the lead frame. Recalled in the earlier gen trucks with the same transmission.

The same transmission and same part failure in my 2015 wasn't covered.

Cost me over $1,000 out of pocket. It's a very common failure to the point that dealers have a hard time keeping the part in stock.

 

[jadmt]

I want to know which Ford dealership he works at because he gets paid out the ass then to afford a 458

He has been at the same dealership for 40+ years. He has lots of toys and up until recently he had 2 nicely built JK's including a recon edition and just bought a new JL rubicon. I can't remember for sure but I think a paid $150K for the 458 like 3 years ago. He said prices have gone insane. He said he wants a spider but they are high 200's.

 

[D45]

I liked the 6 speed auto that my 2012 F150 had, no complaints at all

 

[D45]

I found a 2018 F150 XLT with the 3.5L

55,000 miles for $35k

In May of 2021 it had the PCM reprogramming (21N08) due to engine shudder

In November of 2021 it had the cam phasers (21N03)

It's a nice truck, with a leveling kit, Raptor wheels and 35s, spray in liner and a nice cap on the bed

The 3.5L is so nice and powerful, but scares me!

Granted, my 3.5L had 90k on it, but the rattling and timing and phasers worry me, especially if I plan on keeping it for the higher miles

 

[nwoodworth1390]

I put 124,000 miles on my 2012 Xlt with 3.5 Eco. I changed plugs and all fluids every 45k, changed oil every 5,000 and used the crap out of that truck. I had a pretty trouble free experience with the exception of the exhaust manifold getting to hot and sheering off some studs. I was always worried about the turbos but I never had any major issues... That said I specifically sought out a gen1 6.2l V8 Raptor because of simplicity and very common 300,000 mile examples of that engine.

 

[D45]

I know the 6.2L was available in the F150, but u have only seen less than 5 on the use truck market

2011 - 2014 F-150 only?

385 hp @ 5,750 rpm
411 hp @ 5,500 rpm

 

[phsycle]

I know the 6.2L was available in the F150, but u have only seen less than 5 on the use truck market

2011 - 2014 F-150 only?

385 hp @ 5,750 rpm
411 hp @ 5,500 rpm

Correct. 6.2 is a stout engine. But I just couldn’t stomach 11mpg in a 1/2 ton. Don’t know how those tundra guys do it ?
I’d just get a F250 if I were going 6.2.

 

[jadmt]

in the grand scheme of things what is the really impact of 11mpg vs 15mpg? in 100,000 miles might $2500 or so. for many that is like $250 a year....

 

[phsycle]

in the grand scheme of things what is the really impact of 11mpg vs 15mpg? in 100,000 miles might $2500 or so. for many that is like $250 a year....

Basing it on current price of $3.59/gallon around here, difference is a bit more than that. Plus, 3.5 eco is more like 17mpg avg for most folks. Which means it’s $11.5k for 100k miles.

Aside from that, range also comes into play.

But honestly, I don’t drive that much so it’s not that big of a deal financially. But psychologically, it kills me ?

 

[Grassland]

in the grand scheme of things what is the really impact of 11mpg vs 15mpg? in 100,000 miles might $2500 or so. for many that is like $250 a year....

Some of us pay a lot more for gas.
Just under $4.92 per gallon locally.
It's getting high enough I may consider OEM tire size

 

[D45]

6.2L - 379 cid
385 hp @ 5,750 rpm
411 hp @ 5,500 rpm

-------------------------------

2.7L - 165 cid
325 HP @ 5,000
400 TQ @ 2,750

3.5L - 213 cid
375 HP @ 5,000
470 TQ @ 2,500

5.0L - 302 cid
395 HP @ 5,750
400 TQ @ 4,500

The 6.2L is a monster for sure, but the 3.5L puts out great numbers and good mpgs

 

[rruff]

Correct. 6.2 is a stout engine. But I just couldn’t stomach 11mpg in a 1/2 ton. Don’t know how those tundra guys do it ?
I’d just get a F250 if I were going 6.2.

According to Fuelly Tundras average about 14 mpg vs 16 for the F150 3.5 Eco, and 13 for the 6.2. Interestingly the Tundra matches it's EPA rating while the 3.5 Eco is 4 mpg shy. And even using the EPA numbers the Tundra is still the cheapest fullsize to own (according to Edmunds). Resale and lack of repairs beats mpg. I have a feeling an F150 with a 6.2 and 150k miles would be worth a good deal more than the 3.5 Eco as well.

in the grand scheme of things what is the really impact of 11mpg vs 15mpg? in 100,000 miles might $2500 or so. for many that is like $250 a year....

Let's use 13 vs 16; more realistic. $3/gal... I don't believe it's going to average more than that for the next 10 years (present value). 100,000/13*3= $23,077. 100,000/16*3= $18,750; $4,327 difference. If you drive a lot of miles every year that's a good amount, but at 10-15k/yr it's not. I've been averaging 3k miles/yr since I bought mine...

But honestly, I don’t drive that much so it’s not that big of a deal financially. But psychologically, it kills me ?

If the mpg bothers you more than $, you could always get a small car for when you don't need a truck. You'd use a lot less gas then.

It's getting high enough I may consider OEM tire size

My big fat heavy tires get better mpg than my OEMs. Depends on which ones they are. Since tests are lacking for truck tires, the best proxy for rolling resistance I've found is to look at speed ratings for similar load and size.

 

[phsycle]

According to Fuelly Tundras average about 14 mpg vs 16 for the F150 3.5 Eco, and 13 for the 6.2. Interestingly the Tundra matches it's EPA rating while the 3.5 Eco is 4 mpg shy. And even using the EPA numbers the Tundra is still the cheapest fullsize to own (according to Edmunds). Resale and lack of repairs beats mpg. I have a feeling an F150 with a 6.2 and 150k miles would be worth a good deal more than the 3.5 Eco as well.

My 2.7 F150 got 20mpg average. Zero repairs since owned (new).
My Toyota 4.7L got 16mpg at best on the freeway. 12-13mpg average. Father and brother both own 5.7 Tundras. 12mpg is average (they’re looking at getting a 3/4 ton). Heck, my old 3rd Gen Taco got 16mpg average, driving the same routes!

This is anecdotal, I know, but that’s what I see with about every Tundra around where I live. Edmunds and fuelly can spit out numbers on paper all they want. Going by my experience, the F150 wins out for me. Cost of ownership was much better as well (considering initial purchase and resale).

 

[rruff]

My 2.7 F150 got 20mpg average...
This is anecdotal, I know, but that’s what I see with about every Tundra around where I live.

On Fuelly the 2.7 Eco averages 18.5, so you aren't terribly far off. I average over 16 with my Tundra, but I rarely drive freeways or stop and go city. Outside of a real controlled test, Fuelly data is as good as you'll get (many anecdotes). Speaking of controlled tests, Consumer Reports gets 15 mpg overall for the Tundra, 19 for the 2.7 Eco.