Interesting Towing Test

[schmism]

I think the goal was to take an off the lot pickup, load it near capacity

I think this is a great test of the trucks that are commonly sold to the public. I think there needs to be clear lines drawn between the differences in most commonly sold versions. (couldnt say that the most common version for toyota has a 4.30 rear....) but toyota does have a history of putting tall gears in trucks. the old 90's pickups came with 4.10 and if you bought the 4x package came with V6 (like mine) it came with a 4.56.

Its clear any FI truck would have an advantage pulling in the mountains.

I instead would have cared to see them pull a 9K PB travel trailer (rv). toyhauler would work well cause you could load something in the back to get the weight you wanted. I noticed a SIGNIFICANT difference between pulling my 10K equipment trailer with 4 ton of rock on it and pulling my empty 16' livestock trailer. the livestock trailer was a much harder pull due to wind resistance.

what would you say half the trucks pull these days? RV's and boats vs tractors or cars on trailers?

 

[ruffdog]

When the neighbor bought his EB he was told the 3.15 and 3.31 axles had the best tow numbers so he bought a 3.31. Being that he was going to use the truck to haul his horse trailer, I asked him if he got the 3.73 gears, then he told me what the salesman said. Whatever it takes to sell the units off the lot I suppose.

 

[jejeosborne]

My neighbor has a 2012 ecoboost that came from the factory with the CAC deflector shield. The shield is there to limit the air to the CAC so there is less condensation inside for the engine to digest. Being that water doesn't compress, that could be fatal for a engine. Look at the pics of this ecoboost.http://www.f150forum.com/f70/blown-ecoboost-wtf-pics-inside-170270/

Here are more pictures for you to see the inside of a ecoboost.2011 EcoBoost Failure

So you were able to find a couple ecoboost engine failures on the Internet. I guess I could google in about 5 seconds pictures of failures from any mass produced engines. Big deal.

Truth is that they are very successful engines that make huge amounts of torque when needed and great fuel economy when not. Why such a dislike for the engine? Does your neighbor hate it?

 

[jejeosborne]

When the neighbor bought his EB he was told the 3.15 and 3.31 axles had the best tow numbers so he bought a 3.31. Being that he was going to use the truck to haul his horse trailer, I asked him if he got the 3.73 gears, then he told me what the salesman said. Whatever it takes to sell the units off the lot I suppose.

Sounds like your neighbor shouldn't be towing anything if he doesn't understand gearing. Obviously didn't read the brochure. Who trusts car salesman....this guy.

 

[Sysop]

So you were able to find a couple ecoboost engine failures on the Internet. I guess I could google in about 5 seconds pictures of failures from any mass produced engines. Big deal.

Truth is that they are very successful engines that make huge amounts of torque when needed and great fuel economy when not. Why such a dislike for the engine? Does your neighbor hate it?

I don't hate it, I personally hope it does really well. I also personally chose NOT to buy one for the fact there was something like an additional 400-some-odd part numbers related to the engine alone. When looking at it from a TCO standpoint, I have a hard time believing you can pay more for an item, have more points of possible failure, and still be able to come out ahead. I hope that is not the way it turns out, but I have a hard time plunking my money down before it's proven one way or the other.

 

[ruffdog]

So you were able to find a couple ecoboost engine failures on the Internet. I guess I could google in about 5 seconds pictures of failures from any mass produced engines. Big deal.


Truth is that they are very successful engines that make huge amounts of torque when needed and great fuel economy when not. Why such a dislike for the engine? Does your neighbor hate it?

It is a big deal for the people that have had more than 1 of them blow and the ones PAST warranty. I have no dislike for the engine. I DO dislike people that continue to recite the egoboost specs to whoever will listen(every morning at the restaurant), most of which I hauled much more with a Ranger. To them, yes, it was a EGO boost.

 

[jejeosborne]

I don't hate it, I personally hope it does really well. I also personally chose NOT to buy one for the fact there was something like an additional 400-some-odd part numbers related to the engine alone. When looking at it from a TCO standpoint, I have a hard time believing you can pay more for an item, have more points of possible failure, and still be able to come out ahead. I hope that is not the way it turns out, but I have a hard time plunking my money down before it's proven one way or the other.

What engine is being used for comparison?

TCO for any engine upgrade will not work compared to the base engine generally. Compare the TCO against the 6.2 liter and I believe the Eco will be very close or possibly be cheaper. The 6.2 and the Eco share the same tow ratings.

 

[jejeosborne]

It is a big deal for the people that have had more than 1 of them blow and the ones PAST warranty. I have no dislike for the engine. I DO dislike people that continue to recite the egoboost specs to whoever will listen(every morning at the restaurant), most of which I hauled much more with a Ranger. To them, yes, it was a EGO boost.

I would agree an engine failure out of warranty would be bad for anyone driving ANY vehicle. I guess it is like comparing specs from favorite sports teams when one is having a good year. I own 4 trailers and use it as intended. Most ego type people would prefer a big V8 with loud exhaust. Not much ego elevating happening with the sound of an angry vacuum.

 

[slowzuki]

Engine failures happen in any vehicle. Our Toyota had it's 1.8L 4cyl fail before 60k miles, under warrantee at least. More important are how many are failing.

 

[Sysop]

Engine failures happen in any vehicle. Our Toyota had it's 1.8L 4cyl fail before 60k miles, under warrantee at least. More important are how many are failing.

Engine failures from design flaws are unacceptable on the #1 most used fleet vehicle.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Engine failures happen in any vehicle. Our Toyota had it's 1.8L 4cyl fail before 60k miles, under warrantee at least. More important are how many are failing.

Yep. I had my 4.3L fail blowing a hole through the intake at less than 30,000 miles. I know the 4.3L is a good motor but my S10 Blazer had that isuue along with a list of others.

Chris

 

[Peacock]

The thing that one must remember is that the EcoBoost requires premium fuel, which costs atleast $.20 more than 87 octane. The EcoBoost wil almost certainly have higher operating cost over the long haul and requires pricier fuel.

This is the same argument that some have about a diesel.

Also, the 5.3DI can run on E85 which gives it 380/416 hp/tq. Of course this comes with a fuel economy penalty.

 

[Sysop]

I could have swore I've read that it runs fine on 87, power curves were the same, it just didn't quite get as high of numbers.

 

[Peacock]

I could have swore I've read that it runs fine on 87, power curves were the same, it just didn't quite get as high of numbers.

Maybe it does. I really don't know. The recent review I read in C&D showed 91.

 

[Sysop]

Well, it's a good thing to investigate if making the purchase. All the extra things to break (additional part numbers) on the engines was enough to make me hold off. I do know vehicles that call for premium fuels sometimes require it. I have an 04 Lincoln LS that has a sticker by the gas cap that says "91+". If anything less than 91 is pumped in it sputters and pings and really is quite unhappy. Even using 91 the engine has a bit more valvetrain noise than when using 93 octane. 93 has a little extra pop at the bottom end too.

 

[fordmantpw]

The thing that one must remember is that the EcoBoost requires premium fuel, which costs atleast $.20 more than 87 octane. The EcoBoost wil almost certainly have higher operating cost over the long haul and requires pricier fuel.

This is the same argument that some have about a diesel.

Also, the 5.3DI can run on E85 which gives it 380/416 hp/tq. Of course this comes with a fuel economy penalty.

The EcoBoost does NOT require premium fuel. It will run just fine on 87. However, 91 is recommended for heavy towing, especially at high altitudes, but 87 will not hurt it. And it does make a bit more power on 91 than 87.

 

[ruffdog]

There are more than a few EB's having the condensation in the intake(CAC) problem. They still have the problem with the 2013 models. Ford is scrambling with multiple CAC versions to solve this problem. Some have a shield that blocks about 8" of the CAC, some have plastic inserts inside that block about half the flow, and who knows about the other part numbers. Post #42 in this link says it is common for the engine to ingest up to a ounce of water. We all know liquid does NOT compress so is that what happened to the blown EB's? Which CAC part number do YOU have? Read this ecoboost forum.High Humidity Falter

 

[Peacock]

The EcoBoost does NOT require premium fuel. It will run just fine on 87. However, 91 is recommended for heavy towing, especially at high altitudes, but 87 will not hurt it. And it does make a bit more power on 91 than 87.

Guess I should have checked the Ford site before my post then. C&D probably just used 91 octane.

 

[DeereMann]

None of this seems very mysterious to me. Adding turbo(s) to spark-ignited engines is not new - but it has not been done routinely because the cost versus the next displacement size engine is prohibitive.

Now that fuel economy is king again, they are being considered again. But - you can't overboost like you can with a compression ignition (diesel) engine.....makes detonation. Hence the "use high octane gas for max performance" on boosted S.I. engines.

My concern is longevity for any application that tows routinely - "there is no substitue for displacement" with S.I. engines that are built lightly compared to C.I. engines.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Not really impressed with the test criteria. Here's my tests.

1. Torque & Traction: Time to go from zero to 85 mph (about average passing speed on interstates) under max recommended load. Once on a flat, once on a steep grade (East side of the Bighorn Mountains is a good one, also going up I-80 over the Sierra's is another good one.)

2. Endurance & Cooling: At legal cruising speed (assuming the truck can achieve it under max recommended load) ascending any 10,000 pass in the U.S. Can't get to speed, or overheat, you're out of the running.

3. Braking: Distance from 85 mph to complete stop while under maximum recommended load.

4. Braking Endurance: Go back down those 10,000 foot passes and see what the brake maximum temperature gets to.

Make sure all tested vehicles have identical, brand new tires before doing the tests.