Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-19-2015, 12:44 PM   #15
Slide Out Society #001
 
GCinSC2's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic S/O
Somewhere , South Carolina
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,049
2005 Dodge 2500 5.9L Cummins, 1997 Dodge 3500 5.9L Cummins, 2000 VW 1.9L TDI.

Spark plug free since 2005 and all manuals.
__________________

__________________
S/OS #001
2005 Dodge Ram 2500 5.9L 6 Speed
16" Michelins, Hi Spec Wheels, Max Brake, Carslile Actuator, Equal-i-zer, Dill TPMS. Campfire cook.
GCinSC2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 01:32 PM   #16
Top
Always learning
 
Top's Avatar
 
1972 29' Ambassador
1962 19' Globetrotter
1951 21' Flying Cloud
Central , Texas
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,779
Images: 24
Blog Entries: 2
Send a message via Yahoo to Top
DEF is cheap if you buy it at the truck stop pump. $2.70 gallon. I filled my DEF tank for $21. I get 1,000 MPG from DEF. Cost per mile for DEF is a moot point.

I'll trade 0-60 time for 15MPG towing my Airstream any day.
__________________

__________________
Lance

Work is never done, so take time to play!
Top is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 02:31 PM   #17
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
IMHO the new 2.7l Ecoboost is not going to be a great tow rig for most people, but will be a good powerplant for the huge group of pickup buyers here in Texas who drive their truck to the office and occasionally toss a bicycle or a piece of furniture in the bed but rarely do anything more "trucky" than that. Pulling much of a trailer (either heavy or large frontal area or both) it'll probably do OK up to a point but be in boost all the time and return no better mileage than the 3.5l Ecoboost while being down on power compared to the bigger Ecoboost engine.

Let's face it, Ford is selling to a way bigger market than we constitute, so engines like the 2.7l Ecoboost and the naturally-aspirated 3.5l V6 satisfy other segments of that bigger market.
__________________
ó David

Zero Gravitas ó 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto ó 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ó Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 02:42 PM   #18
Rivet Master
 
Road Ruler's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
St. Catharines , South Western Ontario
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,364
Images: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
Drag racing performance is VERY IMPORTANT in pickup trucks.

It would be more meaningful on this forum to see a towing comparison between those two.
Here it is Steve....
__________________
Airstreams..... The best towing trailers on the planet!
Road Ruler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 02:47 PM   #19
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
I saw no fuel mileage data.
__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 03:55 PM   #20
2 Rivet Member
 
2015 19' Flying Cloud
2011 23' FB International
Dayton , Ohio
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 25
a lot of owners in the Ford forums say they are getting 7.5-9.5mpg pulling 6000 lb. box campers at 55-65mph and get 18-22mpg not towing
__________________
Artvez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 04:07 PM   #21
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
And the video above is obviously a Ford advertisement, and I would suspect no other outcome. Wonder what the outcome would have been if Ram, or Chevrolet conducted the test? I did notice they didn't show the Chevrolet beating the Ford in the heat of the day, but did mention it.

If I had a little 7,000lb trailer, I'd drive a 1/2 ton, and it would probably be gas engine equipped.
__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 04:11 PM   #22
Rivet Master
 
switz's Avatar

 
2014 31' Classic
2015 23' International
2013 25' FB International
Apache Junction , Arizona
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,799
Images: 8
Too small an engine for the job will eventually have issues in reliability. Nothing beats displacement when doing hard work like towing heavy trailers and even more so with large frontal areas added to the towing mix.

When looking at the Ĺ ton market truck GVW and adding in the GVW starting at 7,300 pounds for a 25' Airstream (the most popular size by by unit sales) going up to 10,000 pounds for the 31' Classic, the GCVW numbers can easily be exceeded. While the small motor gets the rig moving, will the under-rated brakes stop a rig that exceeds the GCVW when the trailer has brake failure going down hill?

I would watch safely from the sidelines.
__________________
WBCCI Life Member 5123, AIR 70341, 4CU, WD9EMC

TV - 2012 Dodge 2500 4x4 Cummins HO, automatic, Centramatics, Kelderman level ride airbag suspension, bed shell

2014 31' Classic model 30 twin beds, 50 amp service, 900 watt solar system, Centramatics, Dill TPMS, disc brakes, 16" tires & wheels
switz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 04:33 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
KJRitchie's Avatar

 
2008 25' Classic
Wichita Falls , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,217
Yes the low mpgs while towing with an F150 3.5L is a consideration. But then most who report are towing large, high profile boxy trailers and some are towing 5th wheels. However a F250 with 6.2L non EB engine probably doesn't get any better mileage.

Kelvin
__________________
KJRitchie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 04:51 PM   #24
Rivet Master
 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A , N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 995
Images: 1
EcoBoost engines provide good low end torque, but seem to offer worse MPG, when compared to V8 NA engines (say in GM trucks). They are more of a "Boost" and not so much of an "Eco". The Fast Lane truck guys were pulling a (I believe 7000#) trailer to the Eisenhower tunnel and were getting 3.5 MPG with a 3.6 Liter EcoBoost in Lincoln Navigator.
__________________
rostam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 05:39 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
pappy19's Avatar
 
2002 30' Classic S/O
Garden Valley , Idaho
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,418
Still, an interesting video and the little engine that could.......did.
__________________
2008 F-250 4X4 Lariat V-10
2002 Airstream Classic 30' w/SO #2074
2007 Kubota 900 RTV
1996 Ford Bronco
2007 Lincoln LT
pappy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 06:01 PM   #26
Lost in America
 
mojo's Avatar
 
2015 27' FB International
2006 25' Safari FB SE
2004 19' International CCD
Oak Creek , Arizona
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by switz View Post
Too small an engine for the job will eventually have issues in reliability. Nothing beats displacement when doing hard work like towing heavy trailers and even more so with large frontal areas added to the towing mix.

When looking at the Ĺ ton market truck GVW and adding in the GVW starting at 7,300 pounds for a 25' Airstream (the most popular size by by unit sales) going up to 10,000 pounds for the 31' Classic, the GCVW numbers can easily be exceeded. While the small motor gets the rig moving, will the under-rated brakes stop a rig that exceeds the GCVW when the trailer has brake failure going down hill?

I would watch safely from the sidelines.
Well over 45,000 miles towing 7,200 lbs in the Rocky Mountains of the West with my 2011 Ecoboost and no reliability issues. Averaging 10-12 MPG for the long haul. And it even stops too!

No reason to stay on the old school sidelines.
__________________
This is the strangest life I've ever known - J. Morrison

The Nest Egg - 2015 Airstream International Serenity 27FB
Silverado 2500HD Chevy Duramax Diesel

mojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 06:18 PM   #27
Rivet Master
 
tjdonahoe's Avatar
 
2013 31' Classic
billings , Montana
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,842
After all the problems ford customers had with the 6 liter diesel and the 5.4 spark plugs blowing out of the heads, and the newer ones which were 2 piece, and breaking off when removing them,I ,myself switched to dodge ,and I am glad I did, it makes me wonder about a smaller engine with twin turbos, I wonder if you have to plug the alumium ford into a cathode at night to keep it from corroding?
__________________
tjdonahoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 10:49 PM   #28
3 Rivet Member
 
2015 27' Flying Cloud
Washington , Washington, D.C.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 218
I owned a Saab turbo for 11 years and 120,000 miles and had no issue. Of course that engine was 2.2 liters boosted to 250 hp without variable valve timing and GDI. It would meet its EPA highway mileage rating of 31 mpg doing 65 with the a/c running in the summer carrying a moderate load driving on the East Coast. The engine management system favored low rpm and lots of boost. In fact you accelerate from a standstill to 65 without ever exceeding 2,000 rpm with the auto tranny in normal mode. However the 2.7 Ford engine seems like it's running a lot of boost, given the materials the used for the block (compacted graphite iron) which are often found in diesels. Then there's the issue of deposits accumulating on the intake valves which my understanding is not due to EGR but is oil mist and blow-by gas scavenged by the PCV system and put in the induction. Port injected engines use the same set up, but the gasoline injected just ahead of the intake valves cleans the crud off. So I think I'll probably end up with an F-150 with the max payload package and the 5-liter V-8 which gets a horsepower and torque boost this year but is normally aspirated and has port injection. It has more horsepower than the Ecoboost but about 30 lb-ft. less torque. I think it'll do fine pulling my FC27 at 7600 lbs. GVWR (for the trailer). If I had a 30' classic, I might choose the Ecoboost or go 3/4 ton diesel. In Pickup trucks.com comparison, this truck got better mileage pulling the trailer than either of the Chevy or GMC trucks or either Ecoboost truck, although those did better empty. Being a little less powerful and not having as fat a torque curve as the Ecoboost the 5-liter loses the drag race by a second, but it's fast enough and certainly faster than the RAM eco diesel.
__________________

__________________
DC Bruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone using Ford F150 with Ecoboost kiddoc1 Tow Vehicles 17 01-10-2016 01:46 PM
2015 Ford Expedition with Eco-Boost Roadtech Tow Vehicles 16 02-24-2014 05:43 PM
Ford F-150 EcoBoost review JFScheck Tow Vehicles 387 05-28-2013 05:49 PM
Ford 150 EcoBoost experience GaRoc On The Road... 5 11-17-2011 05:59 AM
Ford 150 EcoBoost power in Mountains GaRoc Tow Vehicles 31 09-20-2011 06:14 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.