Towing with F150

**BjornF16** · 01-10-2018, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Cate&Rob

It will be interesting to see the actual numbers for the new F150 diesel. Not all diesel powertrains are built to haul . . . this technology also works to maximize fuel economy (think diesel Rabbit). For me, the only reason to make the F150 HDPP work is to get the Ecoboost engine. To deal with the cost and complication of an emissions compliant diesel . . . there are a lot better and bigger trucks/powertrains built for towing that I would go with.

Rob

250 hp, 440 ft-lbs, 11,400 lbs max tow...

I imagine the tow rating is for 4x2 Regular cab. Can’t see any reason to go 3.0 diesel instead of 3.5 EcoBoost with its’ 13,200 lb max tow rating.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ft-30-mpg.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**steve gravelle** · 01-10-2018, 11:13 AM

Rob may chime in here, but my question is long term durability of the Eco Boost compared to the current larger diesels from Ford, GM, and Ram. Our Cummins 6.7 just turned 155000 miles, believe and hope it has many more trouble free miles. We know that for a given displacement, a diesel has roughly twice as much torque, which is way more important than horsepower for towing.

**Cate&Rob** · 01-10-2018, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by steve gravelle

Rob may chime in here, but my question is long term durability of the Eco Boost compared to the current larger diesels from Ford, GM, and Ram. Our Cummins 6.7 just turned 155000 miles, believe and hope it has many more trouble free miles. We know that for a given displacement, a diesel has roughly twice as much torque, which is way more important than horsepower for towing.

Hi Steve - I know that Ford had some durability issues with early Ecoboost engines but most recent reports are favourable. Such as https://jalopnik.com/heres-how-a-for...0-m-1790602670

Agreed that torque is the important number when towing and RPM range at maximum torque is equally important. This is why diesels do so well. Gasoline engines typically reach max torque for only a narrow RPM range, typically around 5000 RPM. The Ecoboost has a "diesel shaped" torque curve . . . albeit at 450 rather than 900 ft lbs. A broad 450 ft lb torque curve is more than sufficient for hauling a 10,000 lb trailer. A diesel engine is certainly the right engine for hauling larger trailers.

Rob

**Gem1n1** · 02-26-2018, 08:55 PM

Read a ton about weights, payloads and gvwr’s in this thread. All ratings aside. How does the f150 eco handle the 10,000 plus pound TT? Starting, stopping, handling and maintaining speed.

**picker** · 02-27-2018, 06:40 AM

I second what Sande005 said earlier - same truck, same weight (~8500), Blue Ridge, Poconos, Adirondacks - no issues! But I can't speak for the additional 1500 lbs.

**jw^2 family** · 03-21-2018, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Cate&Rob

I am just guessing, but your limitation might be low profile tires . . . do you have 20" or larger wheels?.

I'm not sure whether it's still the case for the 2018 F150 that the original poster has, but for my 2014 F150, having 20"-dia. wheels from the factory also meant getting a higher-rated rear axle. My 2014 F150 has a rear GAWR of 4,050-lbs. instead of the standard 3,850-lbs. solely because of the 20"-dia. wheels. I think that Rob's HD package bumped the rear GAWR up to 4,800-lbs.

**jw^2 family** · 03-21-2018, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by steve gravelle

...my question is long term durability of the Eco Boost...

My understanding is that the 1st generation 3.5L EcoBoost (2011-2016) is susceptible to carbon build-up on intake valve due to direct-only injection, but the 2nd generation 3.5L EcoBoost (2017-present) has changed to combination direct & port injection to avoid carbon build-up on valves. Since I have a 1st-gen. EcoBoost, I've installed an air-oil separator (Moroso #85520) on the PCV line to catch some of the "junk" before it goes back into the intake, which will hopefully reduce the chances of carbon build-up on the valves.

**pilotpip** · 07-19-2018, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by steve gravelle

Rob may chime in here, but my question is long term durability of the Eco Boost compared to the current larger diesels from Ford, GM, and Ram. Our Cummins 6.7 just turned 155000 miles, believe and hope it has many more trouble free miles. We know that for a given displacement, a diesel has roughly twice as much torque, which is way more important than horsepower for towing.

Purely anecdotal, but for what it's worth:

The first gen did have some issues, I currently have 70,000 on my 13 and have had zero problems aside from a thermostat that died early and was replaced under warranty. My wife's 14 explorer sport has one as well, with about 40,000 on the odometer. The timing chain was replaced due to an issue with one of the pulleys that was part of a recall, other than that, zero problems. I change my oil twice a year at roughly 5,000 mile intervals. I use valvoline synthetic, and a wix filter. I might switch it to max life soon for the additional additives because I think it's a big reason I got nearly 300,000 miles on my jeep cherokee's 4 banger.

Carbon build up is a problem that effects all direct injection motors. I've been in the habit of getting on the gas as I get on the interstate a couple times a week, and will probably change my spark plugs within the next month or so because I'm starting to see a slight drop in MPG. New plugs with proper gap have been said to help, and the stock motorcraft plugs are cheap. I've seen none of the oil dilution issues that some have had either. I don't see a ton of carbon build up on the exhaust pipe of the 150, but I do on my wife's car and I suspect it's because she has a short drive to work and does about 75% of her driving on city streets.

The specs on the eco compared to the 5.0 coyote are pretty close until you look at the fine print. The torque band on the 3.5 maxes out around 1500rpm, and stays there. The coyote is screaming at around 4500rpm to make as much torque. If you're into V8 drone, that's cool. Been there, done that, will listen to it again some day in a camaro or a mustang. For now, I'm very happy with my ecos. If Ford were to put one in a 250, I'd have to think long and hard about it vs a diesel, but in that application I don't think it would do well. They get very thirsty when those little centrifugal turbines spool up and squeeze more air into the throttle body. I doubt I'd see anywhere near the 18mpg I'm seeing out of my current truck.

**bertschb** · 07-19-2018, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Cate&Rob

For me, the only reason to make the F150 HDPP work is to get the Ecoboost engine. To deal with the cost and complication of an emissions compliant diesel . . . there are a lot better and bigger trucks/powertrains built for towing that I would go with.

I agree...

**MidwestCamper** · 07-20-2018, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by pilotpip

Purely anecdotal, but for what it's worth:

The first gen did have some issues, I currently have 70,000 on my 13 and have had zero problems aside from a thermostat that died early and was replaced under warranty. My wife's 14 explorer sport has one as well, with about 40,000 on the odometer. The timing chain was replaced due to an issue with one of the pulleys that was part of a recall, other than that, zero problems. I change my oil twice a year at roughly 5,000 mile intervals. I use valvoline synthetic, and a wix filter. I might switch it to max life soon for the additional additives because I think it's a big reason I got nearly 300,000 miles on my jeep cherokee's 4 banger.

Carbon build up is a problem that effects all direct injection motors. I've been in the habit of getting on the gas as I get on the interstate a couple times a week, and will probably change my spark plugs within the next month or so because I'm starting to see a slight drop in MPG. New plugs with proper gap have been said to help, and the stock motorcraft plugs are cheap. I've seen none of the oil dilution issues that some have had either. I don't see a ton of carbon build up on the exhaust pipe of the 150, but I do on my wife's car and I suspect it's because she has a short drive to work and does about 75% of her driving on city streets.

The specs on the eco compared to the 5.0 coyote are pretty close until you look at the fine print. The torque band on the 3.5 maxes out around 1500rpm, and stays there. The coyote is screaming at around 4500rpm to make as much torque. If you're into V8 drone, that's cool. Been there, done that, will listen to it again some day in a camaro or a mustang. For now, I'm very happy with my ecos. If Ford were to put one in a 250, I'd have to think long and hard about it vs a diesel, but in that application I don't think it would do well. They get very thirsty when those little centrifugal turbines spool up and squeeze more air into the throttle body. I doubt I'd see anywhere near the 18mpg I'm seeing out of my current truck.

The 3.5 L EB is a fine engine and with DI and PFI fueling, Ford can handle a couple issues well. One, PFI is better for cold start particulate emissions and keeping valves clean while DI offers additional low end torque, even on naturally aspirated engines. But the real question is one you hit on. Why is the 3.5 EB not offered in the F250?