Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-22-2013, 10:02 AM   #15
Rivet Master

 
1986 31' Sovereign
Miami , Florida
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,651
Blog Entries: 13
There are two separate issues here. One is power the other is sway control.
No question the torque of a big honking diesel will enable you to cruise up those Rocky Mountain Grades at warp speed and pull the odd Palm Tree out by the roots if necessary.

My Titan and I have spent some time in the "granny" lane doing 45 in 3rd gear but not enough over the past 50000 miles for me to justify the extra initial expense or the extra cost of diesel (and now DEF).

To each his own.

As to sway. Certainly having electronic sway control can't hurt but the single most important factor in sway control is a properly set up WD hitch with sway control. The ProPride/Hensley style hitches seem to be universally acknowledged as the gold standard. That given, unless you are going to full time, perhaps a solid V-8 gasser (choose your favorite brand) with a PP/Hensley would be the most bang for the buck.

Just a few more thoughts...

Mike
__________________

__________________
n2916s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:37 AM   #16
Rivet Master
 
Phrunes's Avatar
 
1978 31' Sovereign
Oakley , California
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuffr2 View Post
I felt the gas 6.2 litre F-250 was under powered. In rough numbers a F-150 weighs 5,700 lbs and a F-250 weighs 7,700 lbs.

You used to be able to get the 6.2 litre engine in a F-150. Not sure about 2013.
You can in a Raptor.
__________________

__________________
Phrunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:49 AM   #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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrunes View Post
You can in a Raptor.
You can also get it in certain configurations of regular F150s, though I suspect you'd never find one on the lot, you'd have to order it. You can't order it with the necessary components for HD Payload, though. For example, you can get it in a Lariat Supercrew with the 5.5' bed and electronic-locker rear diff, but not with the 6.5' bed and 3.73 limited-slip diff that are required for HD Payload.
__________________
— David

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

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 12:01 PM   #18
Vintage Kin
 
slowmover's Avatar
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,588
Images: 1
The ProPride/Hensley style hitches seem to be universally acknowledged as the gold standard. That given, unless you are going to full time, perhaps a solid V-8 gasser (choose your favorite brand) with a PP/Hensley would be the most bang for the buck.

I concur with this for the reasons of running a business. The intial expense of a 1T (don't bother with 3/4T) is offset by the amount of pax/payload one can carry. A gasser in that configuration is easiest to live with. The number of service companies I see in the oilfield running this truck spec with an equipment trailer is enormous. Employees fall out the doors and the company gets to work on what is needed at a drilling rig.

Set up the hitch (PRO PRIDE) on a certified scale. Check the various loadings from time to time in the same way. Have a set of scale tickets to show proper FALR (front axle load restoration) and one has covered the variables for those different loads.

Disc brakes on the TT is the other pieces of the puzzle.

If, longer term, the business is better served by a smaller truck (payload/pax), then the PP hitch and disc brakes complement any TV with best performance.

.
__________________
1990 35' Silver Streak Sterling; 9k GVWR.
2004 DODGE Cummins 305/555; 6-manual; 9k GVWR.
Hensley Arrow. 9-cpm solo, 15-cpm towing
Sold: Silver Streak Model 3411
slowmover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 12:50 PM   #19
Rivet Master
 
Phrunes's Avatar
 
1978 31' Sovereign
Oakley , California
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,197
I agree with slowmover...I like diesels because you can pull a house with all that torque. But...low sulfer diesel has ruined fuel economy gains and really upped the maintenance costs...filters etc. must be changed regularly, almost 10 quarts of oil neede at oil change time, injectors, etc. Gas is the way to go. A 250 with a 5.4 and a trans cooler will last you a lifetime and with a Hensley, drama free miles. Get the FX4 and the ride won't be too shabby either. The $20,000 or more you save will pay for a lot of fuel. 5.4 is my preference, not sure you can still get that config.?
__________________
Phrunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:06 PM   #20
2 Rivet Member
 
Columbus , Ohio
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 77
Phrunes - you need to get out more. That 5.4 engine was a dog. It could not breath like the new Ford Engines. Example the new 5.0 produces more HP and more Torque than the old 5.4. Ford knew it had to do something because it engines were the weakest part of there trucks. Now with the new engines the truck and engine are much better matches.
__________________
tuffr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 02:55 PM   #21
Rivet Master
 
Phrunes's Avatar
 
1978 31' Sovereign
Oakley , California
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuffr2 View Post
Phrunes - you need to get out more. That 5.4 engine was a dog. It could not breath like the new Ford Engines. Example the new 5.0 produces more HP and more Torque than the old 5.4. Ford knew it had to do something because it engines were the weakest part of there trucks. Now with the new engines the truck and engine are much better matches.
Hmmm...ever stoplight dragged a Ford GT(40), or more realistically a Lightning? Yes, in normal configuration I agree that the 5.4 was underpowered...I have one in my Ford truck. However, HP and torque do not tell the whole story either. The 5.0 is NOT a truck motor, its block and heads are car based 30 year old technology. I've ownned both, and can tell you that when all things are equal...ie ring and pinion ratios, options configurations, etc. the 5.0 is consistently operating at higher rpm's (rpm = wear) and searching for more downshifts than the bigger mill. All of that aside, gas makes more sense for the average tower than does the oil burner. I have no doubt that the 5.0 is now a better engine than it was, but there is a reason they use them in F150's and not the 3/4 ton. As unfortunate as it is the 6.2 is about as efficient as the failed V10 was factoring ho and torque numbers. All of this is moot of course, because new, you can only get what they are currently producing.
__________________
Phrunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 03:31 PM   #22
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrunes View Post
Hmmm...ever stoplight dragged a Ford GT(40), or more realistically a Lightning? Yes, in normal configuration I agree that the 5.4 was underpowered...I have one in my Ford truck. However, HP and torque do not tell the whole story either. The 5.0 is NOT a truck motor, its block and heads are car based 30 year old technology. I've ownned both, and can tell you that when all things are equal...ie ring and pinion ratios, options configurations, etc. the 5.0 is consistently operating at higher rpm's (rpm = wear) and searching for more downshifts than the bigger mill. All of that aside, gas makes more sense for the average tower than does the oil burner. I have no doubt that the 5.0 is now a better engine than it was, but there is a reason they use them in F150's and not the 3/4 ton. As unfortunate as it is the 6.2 is about as efficient as the failed V10 was factoring ho and torque numbers. All of this is moot of course, because new, you can only get what they are currently producing.

I think you may be talking about the 4.9 (302) which Ford marketed as a 5.0 when you're talking about "car based 30 year old technology".

The only resemblance the new engine (Coyote 5.0) bears to a 302 is that it's got 8 cylinders and is mostly made of metal and it's sold by Ford.
__________________
— David

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

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 03:42 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
Phrunes's Avatar
 
1978 31' Sovereign
Oakley , California
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,197
The 5.0 L (4951 cc, 302 cid) [12] "Coyote" V8 is the latest evolution of the Modular engine. Ford engineers needed to design a V8, specifically for the Mustang GT, that would compete with the GM 6.2L LS3 used in the new Chevrolet Camaro, and the new Chrysler 6.4L Hemi ESF in the Charger and Challenger. This engine had to remain close to the same physical size of the outgoing 4.6, and share other specifications with it such as bore spacing, deck height, bell housing bolt pattern, etc. in order for the engine to utilize existing Modular production line tooling. The result was the 5.0 Coyote, which produced roughly the same amount of power as its competitors, but with a much smaller displacement. To strengthen the block enough to handle increased output, webbing was extensively used as reinforcement in the casting, rather than increasing the thickness of the walls....more?

I'm a huge Ford fan, but all they did was strengthen the block and rework the heads on their car engine.
__________________
Phrunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 03:57 PM   #24
Rivet Master
 
Phrunes's Avatar
 
1978 31' Sovereign
Oakley , California
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,197
5.0 "Coyote" F-150 Variant

A torque-biased variant of the Coyote is produced as an alternative to the EcoBoost V6 in the new F-150 pickup truck. The F150 5.0L receives a lower compression ratio (10.5:1), intake camshafts with less duration, cast iron exhaust manifolds, and revised cylinder heads and intake manifold intended to promote low-end and mid-range power and torque. The engine retains the Coyote's forged steel crank and piston-cooling jets but benefits from the addition of an external engine oil cooler similar to the Boss 302's. The changes result in the engine's peak horsepower dropping to 360 hp (268 kW; 365 PS) while torque remains the same as the Boss 302 at 380 lb·ft
__________________
Phrunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 04:07 PM   #25
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
So tell me how a 5.4l is superior to that? Webbing is a better choice than mass for increasing block strength, IMHO. I wish my '07 5.4 made 380 lb-ft of torque. Or 360 hp for that matter.

First you were talking about 30-year-old engine technology (which made me think you were talking about the old 302) then you're dismissing the Coyote for being developed from the 4.6l, which was introduced in the early 90s.
__________________
— David

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

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 04:29 PM   #26
Rivet Master
 
Phrunes's Avatar
 
1978 31' Sovereign
Oakley , California
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,197
Don't get me wrong, I wish my 5.4 had it too...its a pig. But the fact is that it has been ABUSED over the past 130,000 miles and has never once failed to perform It goes like a banshee over the hill to Tahoe, pulls my 28 ft overloaded wakeboarding boat thru the mountains and the twisties without a hiccup, and like my high school girlfriend...she might not be a 10, but shes dependable and affordable. Not so sure the 5.0 will ever be so trouble free over the long haul or if ignored and abused like this 5.4.
__________________

__________________
Phrunes 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



Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:15 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.