Should I be okay with the F150 Eco-Boost

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by PaulG_4307

A member of our WBCCI club has the Ford Ecoboost and complains constantly about the performance. The aluminum frame makes the rear end so light his trailer pulls it sideways on turns. It will work but just barely. The Tundra V8 was our choice. Made in Texas and has performed perfectly with the Flying Cloud 27FB.

Like others have said, I think your fellow unit member has a problem with setup. Perhaps it's tires, perhaps it's the hitch, perhaps it's the balance of the trailer. I just towed our tongue-heavy 26U about 1900 miles over 5 days, using a Blue Ox Swaypro hitch. I have the 4WD truck, and have Goodyear Wrangler "Fortitude" tires (which frankly could be better.) I ran them at 48 psi rear, 42 psi front and they performed well enough, but in the "edge cases" such as being passed by a semi in a crosswind, you can feel that the tires are a little too flexible. Other than that, the truck performed really well including coming in a little hot on the worse exit ramp I've ever been down (from westbound I-10 into the Atchafalaya welcome center in Louisiana, I'd describe the pavement as "corrugated.")

[jcl]

Originally Posted by rostam

While smaller displacement turbo charged engines seem to get better MPG per EPA tests, real world testing shows negligible improvement in MPG. I believe Car and Driver did a comparison test of F150 EcoBoost and F150 5.0 V8. They both got the same MPG, not towing, while towing MPG of 5.0 V8 was better than EcoBoost.

Turbocharging increases efficiency, as does the direct injection. The Ecoboost also has a more efficient transmission than the 5.0. The test numbers show a significant fuel efficiency advantage for the Ecoboost over the 5.0, with similar hp figures. But, as you say, that is on the dyno.

I think what may be happening in the real world is that we don't run either of them up to 5000 + rpm very often, where they have similar peak hp. We run them more often at 2500-3000 rpm. At 2500 rpm, the Ecoboost is making 200 hp, 1/3 more than the 5.0. And hp isn't free, it takes fuel to make it. If one drove the Ecoboost the same as the 5.0 (as happens on the EPA test, where acceleration rates are prescribed) then it does quite a bit better. But that power is so easily accessible that people tend to use it. And then the fuel efficiency drops to a number similar to the 5.0.

For better fuel efficiency, the answer is to run it no faster, and accelerate no quicker, than the 5.0. But I suspect that owners would say that's no fun.

[DKB_SATX]

As to fuel economy for the 3.5 Ecoboost, I averaged a hand-calculated 19.5 mpg over a 3-day drive from Texas to New Jersey running 75-80 mph. On the return, towing a new 26U that's a much heavier trailer and also has more frontal area than my vintage Argosy had, I averaged about 11 mpg at around 68 mph, compared to around 10 mpg towing the Argosy with my '07 V8 F150.

[Oxen]

Originally Posted by PaulG_4307

A member of our WBCCI club has the Ford Ecoboost and complains constantly about the performance. The aluminum frame makes the rear end so light his trailer pulls it sideways on turns. It will work but just barely. The Tundra V8 was our choice. Made in Texas and has performed perfectly with the Flying Cloud 27FB.

F-150s do not have aluminum frames. It's the bodies that are aluminum. The frames are made of steel.

[AirMiles]

"Should I be okay with the ___________?" (fill in the blank tow vehicle).

The answer to this question is inside the driver's door of the vehicle you are considering. Open the door and find the "Tire and Loading Information" sticker. Find the "never exceed" weight on that sticker. If the combined weight of the people, cargo and trailer tongue weight is within 150# of this "never exceed" weight, the answer is yes.

Two suggestions:
1) For your trailer tongue weight, use 15% of the trailer manufacturer's maximum capacity weight.
2) For your test drive, take a trip across a (CAT) scale to verify the "never exceed" weight by subtracting the actual scale weight from the tow vehicle's DOT sticker GVWR.

Have fun with your search for a new tow vehicle.

[ronderful]

I agree. Now that the industry uses the same SAE standard to measure capacity it is apples to apples.

[Wconley]

Originally Posted by turk123

Guys, the ford payload ratings include a driver at 170 lbs. don't count the driver.

It seems payload calculations are about as clear as mud. Since I'm fairly limited on payload I got excited when I read this so I went back to my manual for my 2013 F150. Here's a quote from my manual,

THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF OCCUPANTS AND CARGO SHOULD NEVER EXCEED XXX kg OR XXX lb.”.

They even put it in all caps and bold print. I had hoped it would say "passengers" so the driver conceivably wouldn't be included in the payload limit. "Occupant" makes it pretty clear that you have to include all bodies as payload and I will continue to be mindful of what goes into my loaded Platinum.

Note that some generations of F150s may have an allowance for driver so this might not apply for all F150s.

[rostam]

Originally Posted by Wconley

It seems payload calculations are about as clear as mud. Since I'm fairly limited on payload I got excited when I read this so I went back to my manual for my 2013 F150. Here's a quote from my manual,

THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF OCCUPANTS AND CARGO SHOULD NEVER EXCEED XXX kg OR XXX lb.”.

They even put it in all caps and bold print. I had hoped it would say "passengers" so the driver conceivably wouldn't be included in the payload limit. "Occupant" makes it pretty clear that you have to include all bodies as payload and I will continue to be mindful of what goes into my loaded Platinum.

Note that some generations of F150s may have an allowance for driver so this might not apply for all F150s.

Payload info are indeed unclear. My understanding is that GCWR is calculated with a 150# driver in the truck. However, for payload purposes, you must include driver as well as passengers. The best way is to weight the vehicle at a truck scale. No confusion there.

This is from F150's owners manual (page 250):

1. Locate the statement "The combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kg or XXX lb." on your vehicle’s placard.
2. Determine the combined weight of the driver and passengers that will be riding in your vehicle.
3. Subtract the combined weight of the driver and passengers from XXX kg or XXX lb.
...

[ronderful]

The manufactures primary reason for using a turbocharged engine is to improve CAFE numbers for the federal government. This means that EPA fuel economy ratings are most important. It is not to improve real world fuel economy.

[jayseejay]

I recently went through this during the purchase of our F150. The confusion with the F150 comes from the fact that the latest Ford brochures quote payloads with a footnote saying the quoted weight includes the driver's weight, while the yellow sticker "never exceed" amount does not include the driver.

[Mergatroyd]

I think on most tow vehicles the main constraint to what you can tow is the payload. If you want to stay within spec, you have to go by the payload sticker. In order to do that you may have to reduce your tongue load. That is possible if you move cargo to the rear of the trailer, but then you come up against the next constraint that tells you you need a minimum of 10% on the tongue (some say you can go as low as 8%). If you go lower there is a danger of trailer sway. If that's your situation then you need a tow vehicle with more payload capacity.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by ronderful

The manufactures primary reason for using a turbocharged engine is to improve CAFE numbers for the federal government. This means that EPA fuel economy ratings are most important. It is not to improve real world fuel economy.

That wasn't my experience with a twin turbo 3.0 litre gasoline engine. If I used all the power that was available, mileage suffered. If I drove with a lighter foot, I was able to get excellent mileage. See my post above.

Some posters report better mileage with their turbocharged engines. Others report much more power. It is a challenge to get both concurrently.

Note that we don't have an EPA or CAFE where I live, but do have an organization with a similar mandate.

[dkottum]

Originally Posted by Mergatroyd

I think on most tow vehicles the main constraint to what you can tow is the payload. If you want to stay within spec, you have to go by the payload sticker. In order to do that you may have to reduce your tongue load. That is possible if you move cargo to the rear of the trailer, but then you come up against the next constraint that tells you you need a minimum of 10% on the tongue (some say you can go as low as 8%). If you go lower there is a danger of trailer sway. If that's your situation then you need a tow vehicle with more payload capacity.

I think a more logical approach is to concern yourself with axle ratings (GAWR) when using a properly set up weight distribution hitch, and verify your axle loads on a CAT scale. Payload/GVWR advises us of little to nothing and can leave us with a overloaded tow vehicle axle. The combined weight of the rig, also verified at the CAT scale, advises us if our tow vehicle is designed to tow and stop the combination (GCWR).

Scale weights are informative, our Airstream at the CAT scale adds 800 lbs to our truck's weight. Because of its extra length from receiver to trailer axles, our ProPride hitch weight adds nothing to the truck's weight. If we load gear behind the truck's rear axle, the weight distribution hitch carries some of it and transfers some of it.

[Mergatroyd]

Originally Posted by dkottum

I think a more logical approach is to concern yourself with axle ratings (GAWR)

Normally your individual axial ratings, when added together, will be more than your payload rating, so you should be able to get around that problem by distributing the load with a WD hitch.

By all means, weigh your rig.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by Mergatroyd

Ford's 3.5 liter V-6 has a lot more torque than their 5 liter V-8, 470 ft-lbs vs 387 ft-lbs, so I would definitely choose the V-6 for a tow vehicle. The V-8 is basically obsolete.

I can blow the doors off any EB pickup with my 6.2 and it weighs 7k lbs.

[ALANSD]

I sense jealousy from sob buyers...I have only heard great reports about the ecoboost F series. As for me Chevys suck, in my experience.

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

I can blow the doors off any EB pickup with my 6.2 and it weighs 7k lbs.

I'm curious about your magical superfast SuperDuty... since Truck Trends said the F250 KR with the 6.2 V8 runs to 60 in 8.2 seconds, and the quarter mile takes 16.4. Compare that to a Gen2 Ecoboost F150 like mine, that Motor Trend says in instrumented testing ran to 60 in just 6.1 seconds and did the quarter in 14.7. I'd REALLY like to see how performance compares between the two in someplace like Denver, or Flagstaff.

[SailorSam205]

Originally Posted by jcl

That wasn't my experience with a twin turbo 3.0 litre gasoline engine. If I used all the power that was available, mileage suffered. If I drove with a lighter foot, I was able to get excellent mileage. See my post above.

Some posters report better mileage with their turbocharged engines. Others report much more power. It is a challenge to get both concurrently.

Note that we don't have an EPA or CAFE where I live, but do have an organization with a similar mandate.

LOL. That can be summarized as "you can have Eco or Boost, but not at the same time..."

[SailorSam205]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

I can blow the doors off any EB pickup with my 6.2 and it weighs 7k lbs.

I've seen a 3.5 EB smoke it's tires while in 4WD, not sure you can do that...

[jcl]

Originally Posted by SailorSam205

LOL. That can be summarized as "you can have Eco or Boost, but not at the same time..."

That may be a bit binary, but not a bad way of putting it IMO.

With an NA engine, you don't get the choice. With a turbo engine, you do. There is another binary cut at it.

The real world is more analog than both of these, though.