When it comes to full-size trucks and SUVs, engine choice is one of the most critical decisions a buyer can make. For some, the argument is clear – there’s no replacement for displacement. However, for others, a healthy dose of boost can quickly change that age-old sentiment. As such, the GM naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 L87 and the Ford twin-turbocharged 3.5L EcoBoost V6 are two major players in this space. Both engines offer unique strengths, and determining which is “better” depends on what you prioritize in an engine. Which leads us to ask – which one do you think is better?
Under the hood of the Chevy Silverado 1500, the GM 6.2L V8 L87 produces 420 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 460 pound-feet of torque at 4,100 rpm. It also offers a maximum towing capacity of 13,200 pounds and achieves an EPA-estimated fuel economy of 15 mpg in the city, 20 mpg on the highway, and 17 mpg combined. Premium fuel is recommended for optimal performance.
By contrast, the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 in the F-150 delivers 400 horsepower at 6,000 rpm, or 450 horsepower at 5,850 rpm in the Raptor trim, and 500 pound-feet of torque at 3,100 rpm (510 pound-feet at 3,000 rpm in the Raptor). The F-150 also offers a slightly higher maximum towing capacity of 13,500 pounds. Fuel economy is also superior to the L87, with ratings of 16 mpg in the city, 24 mpg on the highway, and 19 mpg combined. Additionally, the V6 runs on regular fuel.
| GM 6.2L V8 L87 | Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Power (horsepower @ rpm) | 420 @ 5,600 | 400 @ 6,000 / 450 @ 5,850 |
| Torque (pound-feet @ rpm) | 460 @ 4,100 | 500 @ 3,100 / 510 @ 3,000 |
| Max Tow Capacity (pounds) | 13,200 | 13,500 |
| Max Payload Capacity (pounds) | 2,050 | 2,445 |
| City/Highway/Combined (mpg) | 15 / 20 / 17 | 16 / 24 / 19 |
| Recommended Fuel | Premium | Regular |
Taking a look at the full-size SUV lineup, the L87 in the Cadillac Escalade matches the Silverado 1500 in terms of power and torque, while offering a maximum towing capacity of 8,100 pounds and fuel economy ratings of 14 mpg city, 18 mpg highway, and 16 mpg combined. Again, premium fuel is recommended. Meanwhile, the Ford 3.5L EcoBoost V6 in the Lincoln Navigator doles out 440 horsepower at 5,850 rpm and 510 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm. The Navigator can also tow up to 8,700 pounds and achieves an EPA-estimated 16 mpg in the city, 22 mpg on the highway, and 18 mpg combined. Like the F-150’s version of the engine, it runs on regular fuel.
| GM 6.2L V8 L87 | Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Power (horsepower @ rpm) | 420 @ 5,600 | 440 @ 5,850 |
| Torque (pound-feet @ rpm) | 460 @ 4,100 | 510 @ 3,000 |
| Max Tow Capacity (pounds) | 8,100 | 8,700 |
| City/Highway/Combined (mpg) | 14 / 18 / 16 | 16 / 22 / 18 |
| Recommended Fuel | Premium | Regular |
On paper, the boosted V6 has the V8 beat in several metrics. However, there are other things at play here that the spec sheets can’t communicate, including how the power delivery feels when you press the throttle, how the engine sounds, and the like. It also bears mentioning that payload and towing capacity are not exclusively the domain of the engine, with the entire vehicle considered when calculating these ratings.
Furthermore, reliability and resale value are two important factors to consider, both of which aren’t included in the above tables.
All of which leads us to ask – which engine is better? Do you prefer the GM 6.2L V8 or the Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6? Vote in the poll and let us know in the comments as well!
Comments
Considering that 1, in the useranual, Ford tells users to drop towing capacity by 2% every 1000 ft elevation, and max towing is only in a single cab, 2wd, vs Chevys 4×4 crew cab, towing-small block win
2, the 6.2 in the RST trim per MT accelerates faster that the F150 platinum.
3, all that complexity for no fuel economy advantage. No weight advantage either despite almost half the displacement.
4, the Chevy doesn’t require pulling the cab to replace the turbos, has no timing chain issues, is more forgiving on oil, and has more engine bay room for fluid changes and routine maintenance.
There’s a reason that GM combined sales have engulfed the F series. The Ecoturd is definitely part of that formula.
5 One of the above sounds like a sewing machine.
Weird — turbo gets FORCED air at elevation where a NA loses power at elevation. How/why would Ford pull towing??
Probably cooling related. As far as power is concerned, HD diesels with 300HP have pulled bigger trailers over mountains just fine, so loosing 30% power out of 420 over a mountain pass is acceptable (and Denver only has 15% thinner air, so not a big hit for diaper driving) however, the thinner air, and more importantly, dryer air, will struggle to cool the engine bay, and we’ve all seen how much gas turbos suck under boost, so your heat dissipation needs to increase despite air density and cooling abilities decreasing. Meanwhile an NA engine is matched well with the air around it.
Biggest think I’m PO’ed about is I wanna really see the 6th gen small block, which I reckon will blow the socks off the EB line, but sales have been so good that GM pushed it back to 2027 instead of 2025 when we thought they were coming out. 😡
Apparently maybe you never owned a 3.5l ecoboost? You do not need to remove cab to replace turbos and they also produce way more low end torque which will tow better. And they are a reliable motor
Lots of bad info there. Max towing isn’t on a regular cab anymore. It’s a 3.5 Ecoboost crew. GM is foolish not to reduce tow at elevation where they struggle unlike either Ecoboost. I haven’t seen one comparison where a comparable 6.2 GM truck and 3.5 Ford truck had the Ford losing in acceleration.
The 6.2 will run fine on regular if it is from Costco, unless the outside temperature is over 95 or you are pulling a trailer. It does have a knock sensor that will retard the timing if excessive knock is sensed.
Also, the ford HP and TQ is rated while running premium. Expect significantly less power on e87
Yeah GM’s 6.2 Silverado is rated on premium too. No Ecoboost is E85 capable, and that fuel usually increases power.
The LS/LT GM engines are very simple mechanical engines. One cam and 16 valves, they sound great and are easy to work around. The 3.5 has 4 cams, long cam chains and 24 valves and two turbos. What could possibly go wrong ??
One correction to your comment, and not a good one 😂😂😂 to shorten the timing chain, Ford made a 3 segment timing chain. Now you got 3 time bombs in your engine 🤮
Simple you say. What about the cylinder cutoff system? Doesn’t sound so simple to me and is very problematic for GM and Ram.
Bearing failure….very common failure…
Yes. How common though?
5k-10k units seems to be the ballpark, given the massive volume of 6.2s produced…
There is no replacement for displacement. end of story.
This is not a pro-ecoboost question… Does the 6.2 have AFM across all uses? If it does, early lifter failure would be the only weak point of the engine.
And before the fangurls downvote me to deep sorrow and defend the system, it’s an objectively a weak point of the design. GM has issues with it. Mopar has issues with it.
No 6.2 has ever had a Recall for AFM. Only engine with AFM issues was the 5.3 LC9, and that was with poor quality oil and clogging lines causing starvation. Many LC9’s made 300k+ miles with proper maintenance.
Hemis issue isn’t AFM related. It’s what happens when you have an aggressive
cam and use thin 5W20 oil.
No 5th Gen small block has had oil or AFM issues. However, select 6.2’s from 2023-2024 had to be removed and trashed due to oversized lifter bores from the factory. Either due to tooling or casting errors. Almost all those should be accounted for by now, and any 2025 will not have this issue.
Both the 5.3 and the 6.2 have had issues with lifter failure going back at least 10 years and it’s still an issue. I had it happen to my 21 Sierra Denali at 58K miles. I was traveling at the time and the dealer that repaired it had the cam and lifters in stock because according to him he repairs/replaces them “regularly”. I’m fanatical about taking care of my trucks, the failure was not because of lack of maintenance. When I returned from my trip I talked to my dealer and he confirmed it’s an ongoing problem. I stopped by the dealer about a week ago and they had a 5.3 and a 6.2 in that week getting the lifters replaced.
Some people say the lifter failure is caused by oil starvation during cylinder deactivation, while others claim it’s poor quality lifters. I don’t know what the cause is, or care. I just know it’s real, it continues to be a problem and it’s a problem with both the 5.3 and 6.2.
The Ford Ecoboost is not without it’s own problems. I have a two friends who own them and both have had ongoing problems with cam phasers, among other things. And while the GM 5.3 and 6.2 get about the same gas mileage in the real world as their EPA ratings, people I know with Ecoboosts don’t usually see the claimed mileage ratings for those engines.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of both the GM 5.3 and 6.2. Over the last 25 years I’ve owned many of them. On average I’ve bought a new Silverado or Sierra every 3-4 years (I trade them at 75K so they still have good trade in value), but the GM V8’s aren’t perfect, or free of the lifter problem.
The Ford definitely looks better on the numbers with way more torque at lower rpm, lower fuel cost, higher resale value. But, the noise those Ford V6 turbos make is just so trucky/agricultural and intrusive, whether it’s in an F150 or a Navigator. Reminds me of the old odd-firing Buick 3.8 V6 from the 70’s, which sounded “off” and was as smooth as a paint shaker. In any case, the sound is enough to make me pass on the better #’s value of the Ford and take the GM.
I would rather have a 6.2 over the ford turbo for longevity. The turbos will break long
before the 6.2 craps out.. the 5.0 would be a better alternative
Id invite you to look at HP curves of the 5.0. also, it’s rated on 93 octane. On e87, it makes nor more torque than the 5.3, and will only make a little more power at a screaming 5000+ rpm.
Best choice is a twin turbo 5.0. It’s not cheap to get the kit but horsepower has never been cheap at that power level. Best part is drivability is excellent.
I’ll take the 3.0 diesel.
I’ve a ’15 Ford Transit van with the 3.5 Turbo V6, and I love it. Engine is quite smooth and responsive, and the when the turbos kick in it flies.
Neither engine is particularly famous for its long-term durability.
But I’ll give the edge to the 6.2, just for a simpler more forgiving design, and not having to pull the cab off when things do go bad.
Obviously the fans will go for the pre-historic 6.2..
I passed on so many huffing and puffing towing 6.2 on mountain with the Ecoboost, it’s no contest. I do like the exhaust noise the struggling v8 makes (buuuurr,looossee) as I pass them.
And you must be 6’4″ and built like superman. While we’re sharing internet anecdotes, I got a 4.3 vortex that will tow the guts outta your Ford.
Must be an 14.3 liter Vortex out towing the 3.5. Maybe The 3.6 from the CT5 for Ecoboost competition otherwise 3.5 EB owners will enjoy the “buurrr,looossse” song from passing struggling GM v8s on hills and mountain interstates and highways …
All that talk and you only drive a 4.3 Chevy. 😂🤣
I’ve owned both. 6.2 smoother and better sounding and works better with the 10 speed. The Ford is so much more powerful in everyday use though I don’t care about the V8 sound anymore. It really can’t compete performance wise and costs more to operate. Somebody needs to remind gm what century we are living in.
I’ve worked as a mechanic for over 20 years, GM hasn’t made their V-8 engines better since they came out. The cylinder deactivation and God awful lifters that will not make it to 100,000 before a major engine tear down is required is absolutely why it’s not even in the same ball park of the Ecoboost… Yes at 200,000 you might need turbos and timing chains but that’s going to keep it going for another 200,000 or about when the same GM V-8 is on its 3rd long block replacement….GM quality has gone down since it’s first rock solid 5.3 put out in 1999… Ford continues to try to make the Ecoboost better, GM it seems is trying to only make their products worse so you have to replace it sooner…
Cool story bro. Got a first gen AFM engines, 218k, so don’t know what your talking about 100K needing a teardown.
Don’t believe your a mechanic. A colaspes lifter, AFM or normal, doesn’t require pulling the engine to repair. It’s remove engine intake and head, lube and insert new lifter, and then zip back up and run.
Timing chain failure is a dead engine. A snapped chain means valves smashing into the piston crown, replacing valves, cams pistons before getting to the actual broken chain, and metal shards all through the oil pump and distribution system.
Reality seams to disagree with you as well. The LS swap is undeniably the king of used engines. Tons of 5.3 V8’s with AFM get pulled every year with over 100K on them from wrecks and totaled bodies, get dropped in with no changes and run for seamily forever in their new bodies. You’ll struggle to find Ecoturds swapped into anything. Only thing close to the LS is the Hemi in terms of doner engines. Sorry reality hurts.
And Ford Ecoboost were NEVER as popular as GMC/Chevrolet V8s here in the Middle East…so your point is moot.
Ecoboosts fail and blow as well- tell that to many who had cam phaser issues, turbo replacements and what not…
I will admit that the 6.2 has some issues as of MY23-24, but the Ecoboost has a higher cost of ownership…
Ok..3.5 twin turbo Ford Motor..Well known timing chain assemblies weak…These engines should stay in midsize trucks and suv’s…..6.2 GM V8 for General Usage…Diesel Duramax for Heavy Duty Usage..25 yr. Mobile Mechanic who knows what’s going to break first……
Yet they do great in large trucks and SUVs with many high mileage 3.5 Ecoboosts out there.
what a ridiculous comparison, why are we comparing engines with one having almost twice the displacement. why not compare the 5L Coyote, or the engines available in Ford;s SuperDuty line to the 6.2L
It’s a fair comparison. They make similar power and are optional engines. The 3.5 Eco compared well and is a good choice if you can get over the sound difference, although you get rewarded with more torque.
Look we all know Ford did there thing with the EcoBeast it’s powerful folks love the torque. Also it’s becoming more reliable through the years . While GM has taken a step back with a low tech pushrod V8 . As a GM fan I would love to see a better more powerful more efficient V8 . Hopefully GM listen to what customers want and need .
I love a good sounding V8 and the 5.3 GM and 5.0 Ford in my experience sound great, so I’d imagine the 6.2 sounds better. With that being said, I’ve only driven a first gen 3.5 Ecoboost F-150, and the torque and acceleration is unlike anything out there. The current 3.5 makes 80 additional lb-ft of torque (500 lb-ft!!) and is in a much lighter truck with a 10 speed, so it must fly.
All trucks mentioned above are great choices and you can’t go wrong with any of them. I think a 4cyl Silverado is what I’d avoid and be critical of.
36-year retired mechanic, just a few years ago. Isn’t Ford on their second or third “Quality Czar” now? In the argument between the two, I think the “Czars” have it. Just sayin’.
I own both an f150 with the eco boost an escalade with the 6.2. Both have excellent torque. I just recently replaced an old f250 with the f150 and was worried about the smaller engine but I have been very happy with it.