F-150 Eco Boost Towing Vs Nissan Titan

[crazyal]

Enclosed trailers are a beast. I had a 26' 12k enclosed trailer I used to haul about 4.5K worth of race car/ gear once a week about 250 miles with my Tundra. The trip was about 30 miles on interstate, about 20 miles in towns, and the rest on local highways with lots of twisty hills. On the interstate there was a huge difference between 60, 65, and 70 mph.

60mph was easy and really didn't use much power. 65 mph was fine but I was on the throttle more but it didn't work the engine too much. 70 mph was very different. At 70 any gusts hitting the front of the trailer were immediately felt. To compensate I needed to use the gas quite heavily. Any headwind really made the engine work.

The trip included a 2.5 mile stretch of uphill on the interstate that I couldn't do anything more than 65 at the top of it. Very few trucks towing any weight can hold speeds higher than 65 on it. I averaged about 11.5 mpg. The only other truck I used was a 2003 1 ton GMC stake bed with a 6.6 diesel and the Allison transmission. That got about 14 mpg.

It's nice seeing some real world side by side information under about the same conditions.

 

[clemsonfor]

Yes. I fly a corporate jet and we have two full crew's for it. Captain and First Officer. I am a captain and last year my crew worked 138 days, or about 12 days a month. This week for example I leave at 3:45 pm monday and get home on wednesday at 7:15 pm. We hit 9 cities on this trip. There are some weeks I will not fly at all and others I will fly all 5 days.

Last week I few to DC on tuesday and did not fly home till thursday. Highlight of that trip was seeing the shuttle land 20 minutes behind us on a 747. I also managed to do a Rhino Lining, do this trip yesterday, and work on a boat and trailer monday. I am always busy. Today we sleep in, went to Dennys, and now are relaxing then seeing the new America Pie Movie tonight.

Chris

I new you flew a Coperate Jet, and figured that it was a fly week straight type of deal then off a week. The only thing that made any sense?

 

[jeffsw6]

On an unrelated note, I can never understand why the GM 5.3 liter gets dogged so much here.

I have a 2005 Suburban K1500 5.3 3.42, similar to your truck. Without seeing a picture of the trailers diamondpilot was towing, I could only guess, but my truck got about 7 to 8 MPG towing my 8.5x20 7'6" high box trailer on a relatively easy stretch of I-75 doing 75 MPH. It spent more time in 2nd gear than 4th.

I am guessing your 09 Silverado has the six speed transmission and perhaps other improvements since 05, but the fact is the 5.3 has a crappy torque curve. I am not unhappy with my truck, but I did just buy a 97 Dodge V10 because my needs have out-grown the 1/2-ton Suburban.

...I still think that the 5.3 V8 is the overall best engine for people that want to own only one truck. Frankly, I probably would have bought a 5.3 V8 equipped 2500HD with 4.10 gears if such a combination was available.

I think they don't offer that combination because it's unlikely to be as useful or as fuel-efficient as a 6.0 with 3.73 gears. Personally, when I upgrade my Suburban, I will get something better than the 5.3. I would not mind having a 6.0 but I didn't feel it was a big enough difference for me to spend another few months looking for a good used one; but now my towing needs are greater.

 

[Dmace]

Who would compare the ecoboost with a GM 5.3 or the Ford 5.4 liters? These engines are not in the same class for HP and Torque so why compare fuel efficiency.

The same reason why someone would compare a 317hp Titan vs a 365hp F150. They're not in the same class either but you didn't have a problem with that now did you Phord Phan? It's comparing truck vs truck not hp vs hp.

Next time offer up your "9 year old simple and proven truck (RAM 1500 4x4 HEMI QC 3.73)" for the same test and put your money where your mouth is. There is no doubt that the ecoboost will have better fuel efficiency than the Hemi over the coarse of the life of the trucks as well. I would also bet that the ecoboost will also beat the proven Hemi in a drag race towing those trailers as well.
I haven't read too many post online about how great the hemi is on fuel either except from you.

There is no "proof" in these fuel mileage threads so take it for what it's worth. I believe DP's numbers and compared to what I get with a much larger trailer (more drag), I have no doubt any other newer V8 truck will be closer to the Ecoboost numbers than the Titan numbers. Then again, that kind of logic must require more than an aerospace degree as simple mathmatics are left to us with civil/mechanical engineering degrees...

I don't think my fuel mileage is great but it's no worse than any other truck making over 300hp. The difference is Ford's marketing campaign constantly pushing this Ecoboost as "V8 power with V6 fuel efficiency". So far I've only seen V8 power with V8 fuel mileage but a ton more complicated, more expensive and more diificult to work on...

 

[Egon]

20% of small numbers is still not much.

 

[timswi]

20% of small numbers is still not much.

Fully agree with that..I'll just be happy with my 404HP GMC that is very similar.

 

[jwstewar]

Good test. While unlikely that I'll be considering a new truck any time soon, it's nice to see such comparisons. While I guess I was hoping that the ecoboost would have done a little better on fuel economy, from what I understand that's not what it's really all about. As I understand it the ecoboost was designed around people like myself. People that can't or don't want to have two trucks. They need a truck sometimes, and need some decent power sometimes, but also use their truck like a car too. The ecoboost is supposed to use virtually none of that power on tap when driving the truck like a car, without a load, and deliver really great fuel economy when it's not used like a truck (well good fuel economy for a truck anyway). However, when used as a truck and those twin turbos start spooling and it makes more power it uses more fuel, and isn't supposed to be all that much better with respect to fuel economy when towing. If I could average 19 to 20 mpg driving fairly conservatively when driving the truck like a car, but get 11 or 12 when towing, I could certainly live with that tradeoff.

On an unrelated note, I can never understand why the GM 5.3 liter gets dogged so much here. I think it's a great engine, and does a great job of delivering adequate power, with decent fuel economy. With 3.42 gears on my 2009 Silverado I pulled roughly 11,000 pounds (over 1,500 pounds over its tow rating) of tractor, trailer, gear and people up through the Adirondack mountains. I had to drop to about 50 to 55 mph in order to keep the rpms under 4,000 on one particularly steep hill that normally has the 18 wheelers down to 40 mph, but I was okay with that as I'm not in a race when towing anything, even a snowmobile trailer. I was perfectly happy with the performance of the 5.3 liter V8, and only upgraded to a 3/4 ton when I added the backhoe attachment to my tractor which way overtaxed the rear springs and axle on the half ton truck. As someone who owns a GM 6.0 liter V8, owned several 5.3 liter V8's, drives a hemi for work, drove a 5.4 liter V8 powered Expedition for work previously and owns an old 7.3 Powerstroke diesel and owned a 6.4 Powerstroke diesel I still think that the 5.3 V8 is the overall best engine for people that want to own only one truck. Frankly, I probably would have bought a 5.3 V8 equipped 2500HD with 4.10 gears if such a combination was available.

I agree with you that the 5.3 isn't as bad as everyone here wants to believe. I pull our 16' stock trailer with ours, I also pull our 18' utility trailer like nothing is back there even when they are both loaded. I pull Mom's 30' camper very easily. Our camper works the truck pretty hard. It is 36' and over 11' tall with 2 slides. It weighs over 8k empty. Figuring 9500 or so loaded plus firewood and 35 gallons of water in the bed a 5 people in the cab. All the while I can get 9.8 MPGs running 60 mph. Not bad for a 99 1500 truck that only averages 19 when running empty.

 

[Lt CHEG]

I agree with you that the 5.3 isn't as bad as everyone here wants to believe. I pull our 16' stock trailer with ours, I also pull our 18' utility trailer like nothing is back there even when they are both loaded. I pull Mom's 30' camper very easily. Our camper works the truck pretty hard. It is 36' and over 11' tall with 2 slides. It weighs over 8k empty. Figuring 9500 or so loaded plus firewood and 35 gallons of water in the bed a 5 people in the cab. All the while I can get 9.8 MPGs running 60 mph. Not bad for a 99 1500 truck that only averages 19 when running empty.

I'm with you. Today's 5.3 liter puts out more horsepower and comparable torque to the good old fashioned 454's and 460's of yesterday. People were pulling heavy loads years ago with less power than today's 5.3 liter but it gets such a bad rap here. I don't have to drive fast towing a heavy load. With the frequency that I tow heavy over long distances I can check my ego and even drive below the speed limit if need be. For people who don't tow heavy often or aren't towing for money I think most people would be perfectly well suited with today's smaller engines for trucks that are used for more than just trucks.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Thanks for your post.
I can only add that I drove a '06 Titan crew cab, with big tow package, just over 5000miles hauling a 7500lb enclosed cargo trailer and had a trip mileage of about 11.5-12mpg. This was from Maine to Alaska.

That seems like a little better than what my Titan could do.

I will add that I have well over 500,000 miles of towing in 5.4L Fords towing loads from 7,000# to about 10,000# and never saw anything over 8 mpg.

I have also some miles behind the 5.3L GM trucks, maybe 3,000 miles, and the Hemi powered Dodge trucks, maybe 25,000 miles. The 5.3 did the same as the Ford as did the Dodge with comparable loads.

The Fords turned in about 15/16mpg empty, 8 towing a real load.

The GM trucks turned in 16/18mpg empty, 8 towing a real load.

The Dodges turned in 12/14 empty, and 8 towing a real load.

Chris

 

[jejeosborne]

20% of small numbers is still not much.

20% of $4.00/gallon gas is $0.80/gallon. Heck, I drive across the street if gas is $0.01 cheaper. I guess small to some vs others is different.

 

[Diamondpilot]

20% of $4.00/gallon gas is $0.80/gallon. Heck, I drive across the street if gas is $0.01 cheaper. I guess small to some vs others is different.

Yep, tough to convince the flock.

Chris

 

[jejeosborne]

Good test. While unlikely that I'll be considering a new truck any time soon, it's nice to see such comparisons. While I guess I was hoping that the ecoboost would have done a little better on fuel economy, from what I understand that's not what it's really all about. As I understand it the ecoboost was designed around people like myself. People that can't or don't want to have two trucks. They need a truck sometimes, and need some decent power sometimes, but also use their truck like a car too. The ecoboost is supposed to use virtually none of that power on tap when driving the truck like a car, without a load, and deliver really great fuel economy when it's not used like a truck (well good fuel economy for a truck anyway). However, when used as a truck and those twin turbos start spooling and it makes more power it uses more fuel, and isn't supposed to be all that much better with respect to fuel economy when towing. If I could average 19 to 20 mpg driving fairly conservatively when driving the truck like a car, but get 11 or 12 when towing, I could certainly live with that tradeoff.

On an unrelated note, I can never understand why the GM 5.3 liter gets dogged so much here. I think it's a great engine, and does a great job of delivering adequate power, with decent fuel economy. With 3.42 gears on my 2009 Silverado I pulled roughly 11,000 pounds (over 1,500 pounds over its tow rating) of tractor, trailer, gear and people up through the Adirondack mountains. I had to drop to about 50 to 55 mph in order to keep the rpms under 4,000 on one particularly steep hill that normally has the 18 wheelers down to 40 mph, but I was okay with that as I'm not in a race when towing anything, even a snowmobile trailer. I was perfectly happy with the performance of the 5.3 liter V8, and only upgraded to a 3/4 ton when I added the backhoe attachment to my tractor which way overtaxed the rear springs and axle on the half ton truck. As someone who owns a GM 6.0 liter V8, owned several 5.3 liter V8's, drives a hemi for work, drove a 5.4 liter V8 powered Expedition for work previously and owns an old 7.3 Powerstroke diesel and owned a 6.4 Powerstroke diesel I still think that the 5.3 V8 is the overall best engine for people that want to own only one truck. Frankly, I probably would have bought a 5.3 V8 equipped 2500HD with 4.10 gears if such a combination was available.

I hope you don't think I was dogging the 5.3 engine. I think it is a proven reliable engine. I was just stating that when comparing engines, pick engines in the same class. The ecoboost would be a closer comparison to a 6.0-6.2 liter normally aspirated engine.

 

[Dmace]

The Fords turned in about 15/16mpg empty, 8 towing a real load.

The GM trucks turned in 16/18mpg empty, 8 towing a real load.

The Dodges turned in 12/14 empty, and 8 towing a real load.

Chris

So how many of those Ford and GM trucks getting 15-18mpg were 3/4 ton 4x4's like the Dodge you supposedly owned?
Just trying to keep your data honest...

 

[jejeosborne]

The same reason why someone would compare a 317hp Titan vs a 365hp F150. They're not in the same class either but you didn't have a problem with that now did you Phord Phan? It's comparing truck vs truck not hp vs hp.

You are correct, a stronger engine getting better mileage, why would I contest that?!!!! That is awesome!

You are correct, truck vs truck. Why did you bring the other trucks into the thread?

I am currently a "phord phan", whatever that means? I think all trucks today are pretty good. Certainly wouldn't jump into someone's thread and bad mouth one brand unless instigated.

I don't think my fuel mileage is great but it's no worse than any other truck making over 300hp. The difference is Ford's marketing campaign constantly pushing this Ecoboost as "V8 power with V6 fuel efficiency". So far I've only seen V8 power with V8 fuel mileage but a ton more complicated, more expensive and more diificult to work on...

You won't admit it but I think you are incorrect. It is worse than at least one truck making greater than 300 HP. 365 HP to be exact. Towing mileage may be the same but riding empty, there is no way your hemi can compete and that is not marketing but real numbers. Come on dmace, bring your engineering mind into the current times and pat fellow engineers on the back for a pretty good engine design.

 

[Dmace]

You are correct, a stronger engine getting better mileage, why would I contest that?!!!! That is awesome!
You are correct, truck vs truck. Why did you bring the other trucks into the thread?
I am currently a "phord phan", whatever that means?

It means exactly what you just proved, when someone says something good about a Ford it's great, but when someone else questions those claims all of a sudden they are not making fair comparisons. Can't take the reality?
[ QUOTE="jejeosborne"] You won't admit it but I think you are incorrect. It is worse than at least one truck making greater than 300 HP. 365 HP to be exact. Towing mileage may be the same but riding empty, there is no way your hemi can compete and that is not marketing but real numbers. Come on dmace, bring your engineering mind into the current times and pat fellow engineers on the back for a pretty good engine design.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem admitting the Ecoboost has slightly better unloaded fuel mileage than todays competition. I also stand-by the fact that I'm not impressed by it either, it's a waste of technology and engineering when it's hardly any better than it's aging competition...

 

[jejeosborne]

It means exactly what you just proved, when someone says something good about a Ford it's great, but when someone else questions those claims all of a sudden they are not making fair comparisons. Can't take the reality?

I have no problem with any comparison that has an inequality if the person is showing what should be the weaker item outperforming the stronger one as diamondpilot has done. Of coarse a less powerful engine should get better mileage but you mentioned that it just got the same mileage. Who would want a weaker engine that gets the same mileage besides you?

Why is that hard for a self proclaimed engineer to understand?

 

[jeffsw6]

Getting turbochargers into the mainstream is a great thing. We both know that the amount of power a natural-breathing engine can make, with a given combustion chamber displacement, is limited by the amount of air available. With a turbo it's limited by, what, the materials and assembly, right? In other words, it's limited by engineering/technology? Good!

If Ford puts a few million turbocharged cars and trucks on the road, even if I don't buy one myself, that will surely make it easier for my brand of choice to introduce a turbo engine into a market segment that wouldn't otherwise be interested in it, right? Good!

 

[Egon]

20% of $4.00/gallon gas is $0.80/gallon. Heck, I drive across the street if gas is $0.01 cheaper. I guess small to some vs others is different.

Did that once. Ended up with a tank full of water!

 

[Storm56]

Regarding all this mileage talk, one needs to consider the OTD price of the vehicles in question, no one brought that up. Just this year as previously mentioned I did buy a new truck, and I looked hard at Ford. I was not convinced their eco was for me, but that is another issue.

The eco window stickered as a $995 option when I was looking. I was interested in the 5.0 so that is where I spent most of my comparison time, but in the end I bought a Ram with a couple more options than the Ford for right about $4,000 less out the door. Throw in the eco option and tack on another $1,000 with tax.

So let's say $5,000 for round numbers.

Let's say that the eco gives 25% better over all economy than the Hemi. Doing the math for say 150,000 miles @ $4.00 per gallon means I still have about $500 left in my pocket. That does not take into account the 3.5% interest that I get on that account. Say it takes me 10 years to do that 150,000 miles and factor in that 3.5% interest and I should net another $500.

So in 150,000 miles of ownership using my real world numbers I am still $1000 ahead of the game with the Ram. Remeber you need to look at all aspects of buying and ownership, not just the difference in fuel mileage when considering cost of ownership.

 

[Dmace]

Who would want a weaker engine that gets the same mileage besides you?

If it means more reliable at the same time, everyone else as well.
Compare the newer V8's to the Ecoboost and you'll see stronger engines with basically the same mileage...
When comparing fuel mileage, the EPA is the only accurate measurement for comparison since all the vehicles go through the same exact test. Real world numbers aren't that accurate as one guy on the flat south driving like grandpa could get 20 mpg where another guy with the same vehicle could get 15 mpg in the same area.