7.3 twin turbo Godzilla

ShinerBock wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:


Not going to go into the fuel type argument other than to say the current 6.2 only recommends premium, not requires. It is in the article you referenced.

And the argument of the 3.5 using more air/more power than the 6.2 isn't accurate either. The only place the 6.2 lacked power of the EB was up the passes. And while a lot is made of the Ike runs, all 3 or 4 steep grades where the EB has an advantage on my trips amount to less than 20 miles. So there shouldn't be THAT much of a difference in fuel economy. It would balance out in the rest of the trip, and certainly after fill ups. But it never did/does. The worst MPG I've experienced was towing the boat from Grand Junction Colorado to Bullfrog UT. Not high elevation, no long hills, grades that any V8 could maintain speed at returned MPG of 7.07 MPG. The tank before was 7.82. The tank after was 7.95. Also, when towing my Ranger (3000ish pounds), I was 10.68 MPG in that stretch. 12.44 the tank before, and 10.59 the tank after. The 6.2 pulling the Malibu never pulled less than 8.83 MPG. And towing the little boat I don't think it ever got less than 12 MPG.

I just filled the Ex from our trip home over the weekend. 8.47 MPG towing 72 MPH from Sterling CO to Denver CO (part of the loop that FLT does for their MPG tests). Yes there was some wind and rain, but the truck pulling the 5er still pulled down 10.75 MPG.

My buddy just bought a PowerBoost, and is towing a 26' trailer. He gets 5 - 7 MPG towing (no idea how fast, but he is a retired county sheriff, and never seems to be in a hurry).

The moral of the story is you won't convince me that, overall, while towing, the EcoBoost gets comparable MPG. Solo might be different, but that isn't what we are arguing. And if Ford ever considered giving the same treatment to the 7.3, people would be DREAMING about getting 7 MPG. It would more likely be considerably less.

That is not what we have seen in our fleet although this is in comparison to the Ford 5.0L and GM 5.3L. As I said, the 6.2L does require a premium to achieve its advertised numbers according to GM (LINK), is a different animal since it actually gets better fuel economy than the Ford 5.0L and GM 5.3L.

How much of that is due to it being tuned using premium fuel I have no idea. I would love to see a test using regular fuel in both(which is what the standard Ecoboost is tuned for). The high output 3.5L Ecoboost found in the Raptor and Lincoln's with larger turbo's and more fueling does require premium fuel and is not very fuel-efficient.

From the 2021 Silverado owner's manual, page 283:
"Recommended Fuel (6.2LV8 Engine)Premium unleaded gasoline meeting ASTM specification D4814 with a posted octane rating of 93—(R+M)/2—is highly recommended for best performance and fuel economy. Unleaded gasoline with an octane rated as low as 87 can be used. Using unleaded gasoline rated below 93 octane, however, will lead to reduced acceleration and fuel economy. If knocking occurs, use a gasoline rated at 93 octane as soon as possible, otherwise, the engine could be damaged."

That is much stronger wording than Ford uses. 2021 F150 owner's manual, page 223:
"For best overall vehicle and engine
performance, premium fuel with an octane
rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The
performance gained by using premium fuel
is most noticeable in hot weather as well
as other conditions, for example when
towing a trailer. See Towing a Trailer
(page 375).
Do not be concerned if the engine
sometimes knocks lightly"

Also, note that Ford defines premium as 91 octane where GM says 93.

I have seen many more remarks from 6.2 owners than Ford owners saying that they have premium to control knocking, even though I don't see many 6.2 engines on the road. Also, what do you do when you have filled your 6.2 with regular for just driving to work and you get a sudden urge to take your boat to the lake but you know that might lead to the destructive knocking that the manual describes? That doesn't sound like a good position to be in.

Grit dog wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

bikendan wrote:
My 2014 F150 SCREW 3.5 Ecoboost with Max Tow package has averaged 10-11mpg towing from Washington State to Arizona the entire 4 years I've owned it. I pull a 26ft 6500lb loaded TT.

I don’t get it. Towed the boat yesterday. Flat ground no wind, 70 MPH, hand calculated 10.99 MPG. Computer showed 11.8. My boat has way less drag than a TT.

Your Wakesetter tows more like a box trailer than you might think. And probably weighs about the same as the TT mentioned. +, TT guy didn't say ow fast he tows.

Idk why, as it would seem a bit more aero than a box trailer, but 11mpg is nothing to complain about.
FWIW, I get about the same, maybe 1mpg better, towing the boat as hauling a TC. And about the same mpg hauling TC with boat behind as just the TC.
I think the tower and all its accessories and the open interior has more wind resistance than it appears it would.

I agree that 11 MPG towing that boat isn't bad. But the 8.5 it returned coming home is, as is 11 MPG towing my 3000 pound Ranger.

Again, point is that adding turbos to the 7.3 will make it all but unusable due to MPG.

Bionic Man wrote:


Not going to go into the fuel type argument other than to say the current 6.2 only recommends premium, not requires. It is in the article you referenced.

And the argument of the 3.5 using more air/more power than the 6.2 isn't accurate either. The only place the 6.2 lacked power of the EB was up the passes. And while a lot is made of the Ike runs, all 3 or 4 steep grades where the EB has an advantage on my trips amount to less than 20 miles. So there shouldn't be THAT much of a difference in fuel economy. It would balance out in the rest of the trip, and certainly after fill ups. But it never did/does. The worst MPG I've experienced was towing the boat from Grand Junction Colorado to Bullfrog UT. Not high elevation, no long hills, grades that any V8 could maintain speed at returned MPG of 7.07 MPG. The tank before was 7.82. The tank after was 7.95. Also, when towing my Ranger (3000ish pounds), I was 10.68 MPG in that stretch. 12.44 the tank before, and 10.59 the tank after. The 6.2 pulling the Malibu never pulled less than 8.83 MPG. And towing the little boat I don't think it ever got less than 12 MPG.

I just filled the Ex from our trip home over the weekend. 8.47 MPG towing 72 MPH from Sterling CO to Denver CO (part of the loop that FLT does for their MPG tests). Yes there was some wind and rain, but the truck pulling the 5er still pulled down 10.75 MPG.

My buddy just bought a PowerBoost, and is towing a 26' trailer. He gets 5 - 7 MPG towing (no idea how fast, but he is a retired county sheriff, and never seems to be in a hurry).

The moral of the story is you won't convince me that, overall, while towing, the EcoBoost gets comparable MPG. Solo might be different, but that isn't what we are arguing. And if Ford ever considered giving the same treatment to the 7.3, people would be DREAMING about getting 7 MPG. It would more likely be considerably less.

That is not what we have seen in our fleet although this is in comparison to the Ford 5.0L and GM 5.3L. As I said, the 6.2L does require a premium to achieve its advertised numbers according to GM (LINK), is a different animal since it actually gets better fuel economy than the Ford 5.0L and GM 5.3L.

How much of that is due to it being tuned using premium fuel I have no idea. I would love to see a test using regular fuel in both(which is what the standard Ecoboost is tuned for). The high output 3.5L Ecoboost found in the Raptor and Lincoln's with larger turbo's and more fueling does require premium fuel and is not very fuel-efficient.

mich800 wrote:

Devo the dog wrote:

mich800 wrote:
This is a towing forum and the comment is based on the manufactures recommended limitations....

Really? The forum is "Tow Vehicles" and the topic is 7.3 twin turbo Godzilla. That's slightly different that "Towing".

BTW, turbo lag exists. It just doesn't exist as much as it used to. If the manufacture's were smart, they'd add an electric motor that spools up the turbo when it's needed, which is powered by a battery (making the truck a hybrid).

The vast majority of what people perceive as turbo lag on a modern engine is actually drive by wire throttle programming. Unless you have a single purpose design like shoving a huge fixed vane turbo in a racing application, there is not enough lag to use as a justification between the different options.

I agree. Most of what is perceived as turbo lag is just the drive-by-wire tuning to keep with emissions regulations. The ECM will gradually build up power in stock form. I tuned this out of my old Ecoboost and it made a world of a difference.

If someone wants to find out what real turbo lag is, they should go drive my friend's 6.7L Cummins with a large S467 turbo. That thing has lag, but it is meant for top-end power not power down low which is why I went with the S365 turbo on mine since I tow.

Bionic Man wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I had a work truck 5.0L and later a work truck Ecoboost and they both got the same crappy fuel mileage towing the same exact same trailer. My personal F150 got no different fuel economy than a good friend mine 5.7L Hemi towing roughly the same load (Jeep and gear) down the same roads from Texas to Utah. The only difference was that his engine was huffing and puffing a little more the higher we went while I hardly felt any difference in power.

In my experience, turbocharged gassers get the same horrible fuel mileage when towing as a larger displacement engine with comparable power. More air equals more fuel and a turbocharger increases the amount of air being pushed through the engine just like increasing an engine's displacement does. The only difference is that you can go back to a smaller displacement when you don't need all that air(boost) in a turbocharged vehicle, but can't with a N/A engine of a larger displacment unless it has cylinder dectivatiuon.

I’ll just tell you point blank that hasn’t been my experience. While towing my wake boat, my EcoBoost Expedition gets at least 20% worse MPG than the Yukon 6.2 it replaced. It’s considerably worse when you compare it towing my 17’ fishing boat. Just about everyone on the boating forums I frequent say the same thing.

I’ll also say that the towing experience as well as speed over the passes is better in the EcoBoost than the 6.2. It holds speeds up the passes that the 6.2 simply couldn’t do.

I’m pretty comfortable saying a EcoBoost type engine gets slightly better MPG when solo and quite a bit worse MPG when towing. Which overall is a win in a vehicle that doesn’t tow frequently. But that isn’t what a 7.3 is designed for. It’s designed to be a work truck and if Ford added turbos it would suck fuel like a drunken sailor. The loaded MPG in a vehicle that is designed to spend a lot of time loaded would just make it highly impractical.

And FWIW, for my use in a full size SUV, I’d choose the EcoBoost over a 5.7 or 6.2. Just no way I’d consider it (or especially a super sized version of it) for a full time towing vehicle.

When Pickuptucks.com tested the Ecoboost versus the GM 6.2L, 5.7L Hemi, and Nissan 5.6L back in 2018, the Ecoboost got the best towing mileage and unloaded mileage. However, the 6.2L did get better fuel economy than the other two 5.xL engines when towing. I have read multiple reviews ad MPG loops the 6.2L even got better fuel economy than the smaller 5.3L when towing as well. I am not sure if it is the premium fuel requirement, but many tests I have seen showed the 3.5L Ecoboost and GM 6.2L neck and neck with each other on fuel economy when towing and both are generally better than the rest of the engines.


2018 Best Half-Ton Truck Challenge

I guess I didn’t dig deep enough in the article, but under test results, they call out the EcoBoost for its poor towing MPG.



And, off subject, but I believe at this point both the 6.2 and 3.5 have the same RECOMMENDATION for premium fuel for best performance (not requirement).

Anyway, if the 3.5 is at best equivalent to engines twice its size in towing MPG (I’m still sticking with its worse) than what would a EcoBoost 7.3 be equivalent to? Sounds like it would be the equivalent of a 16 liter engine which MPG would be unimaginably bad.

Regardless if they call it out for unexpected lower fuel economy, it still got better fuel economy towing than the rest.



However, you will use more fuel economy than the others if you are using more air to make power. If your old 6.2L was not able to keep speed while your Ecoboost is, then you are likely moving more air in the Ecoboost than you were in the 6.2L meaning you are using more performance than the 6.2L was capable of and therefore using more fuel. If you are utilizing more power from engine A versus engine B, then it is kind of a no-brainer that you will get worse fuel economy in engine A.

Also, there is a huge difference in the premium recommendation between the two. The 6.2L is tuned for premium and its advertised power numbers are based on premium fuel which it clearly states on its SAE certification. If you put regular fuel in it, then you get less power than advertised and have a higher chance of knock due to its much higher compression ratio.

The Ecoboost on the other hand is tuned for regular fuel, but can adjust timing to take advantage of premium fuel to make more than advertised power. For example, my old F150 Ecoboost made 365 hp on regular and 385 hp on premium according to Ford. It doesn't need it, but it is recommended if you want more power out of your engine which is generally when you are towing.

Not going to go into the fuel type argument other than to say the current 6.2 only recommends premium, not requires. It is in the article you referenced.

And the argument of the 3.5 using more air/more power than the 6.2 isn't accurate either. The only place the 6.2 lacked power of the EB was up the passes. And while a lot is made of the Ike runs, all 3 or 4 steep grades where the EB has an advantage on my trips amount to less than 20 miles. So there shouldn't be THAT much of a difference in fuel economy. It would balance out in the rest of the trip, and certainly after fill ups. But it never did/does. The worst MPG I've experienced was towing the boat from Grand Junction Colorado to Bullfrog UT. Not high elevation, no long hills, grades that any V8 could maintain speed at returned MPG of 7.07 MPG. The tank before was 7.82. The tank after was 7.95. Also, when towing my Ranger (3000ish pounds), I was 10.68 MPG in that stretch. 12.44 the tank before, and 10.59 the tank after. The 6.2 pulling the Malibu never pulled less than 8.83 MPG. And towing the little boat I don't think it ever got less than 12 MPG.

I just filled the Ex from our trip home over the weekend. 8.47 MPG towing 72 MPH from Sterling CO to Denver CO (part of the loop that FLT does for their MPG tests). Yes there was some wind and rain, but the truck pulling the 5er still pulled down 10.75 MPG.

My buddy just bought a PowerBoost, and is towing a 26' trailer. He gets 5 - 7 MPG towing (no idea how fast, but he is a retired county sheriff, and never seems to be in a hurry).

The moral of the story is you won't convince me that, overall, while towing, the EcoBoost gets comparable MPG. Solo might be different, but that isn't what we are arguing. And if Ford ever considered giving the same treatment to the 7.3, people would be DREAMING about getting 7 MPG. It would more likely be considerably less.

I just wanted to have the longest quote in this thread!
Lol

mich800 wrote:

The vast majority of what people perceive as turbo lag...

The vast majority of people I know who experience turbo lag, disappear in my rear view mirror exiting a corner. Then we laugh about it in the pits or at a banquet that night.

I guess I deal with a different crowd.

BTW, a friend's McLaren has turbo lag. It exists. There's not some fancy electric gizmo that delays the throttle like the goofy Ram truck. It's simply turbo lag. You need to spin the engine up to 3000 to 4000 rpm until it kicks in. Talk about how it doesn't exist all you want. But, it does. Does it matter to me in the goofy Ram? No because I don't care and I know that it's programmed that way. When I want to accelerate the Ram on a Tuesday morning into traffic, I get on the throttle a few days in advance. But, if I was to put forced induction on a 7.3, I'd install a supercharger.

ShinerBock wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I had a work truck 5.0L and later a work truck Ecoboost and they both got the same crappy fuel mileage towing the same exact same trailer. My personal F150 got no different fuel economy than a good friend mine 5.7L Hemi towing roughly the same load (Jeep and gear) down the same roads from Texas to Utah. The only difference was that his engine was huffing and puffing a little more the higher we went while I hardly felt any difference in power.

In my experience, turbocharged gassers get the same horrible fuel mileage when towing as a larger displacement engine with comparable power. More air equals more fuel and a turbocharger increases the amount of air being pushed through the engine just like increasing an engine's displacement does. The only difference is that you can go back to a smaller displacement when you don't need all that air(boost) in a turbocharged vehicle, but can't with a N/A engine of a larger displacment unless it has cylinder dectivatiuon.

I’ll just tell you point blank that hasn’t been my experience. While towing my wake boat, my EcoBoost Expedition gets at least 20% worse MPG than the Yukon 6.2 it replaced. It’s considerably worse when you compare it towing my 17’ fishing boat. Just about everyone on the boating forums I frequent say the same thing.

I’ll also say that the towing experience as well as speed over the passes is better in the EcoBoost than the 6.2. It holds speeds up the passes that the 6.2 simply couldn’t do.

I’m pretty comfortable saying a EcoBoost type engine gets slightly better MPG when solo and quite a bit worse MPG when towing. Which overall is a win in a vehicle that doesn’t tow frequently. But that isn’t what a 7.3 is designed for. It’s designed to be a work truck and if Ford added turbos it would suck fuel like a drunken sailor. The loaded MPG in a vehicle that is designed to spend a lot of time loaded would just make it highly impractical.

And FWIW, for my use in a full size SUV, I’d choose the EcoBoost over a 5.7 or 6.2. Just no way I’d consider it (or especially a super sized version of it) for a full time towing vehicle.

When Pickuptucks.com tested the Ecoboost versus the GM 6.2L, 5.7L Hemi, and Nissan 5.6L back in 2018, the Ecoboost got the best towing mileage and unloaded mileage. However, the 6.2L did get better fuel economy than the other two 5.xL engines when towing. I have read multiple reviews ad MPG loops the 6.2L even got better fuel economy than the smaller 5.3L when towing as well. I am not sure if it is the premium fuel requirement, but many tests I have seen showed the 3.5L Ecoboost and GM 6.2L neck and neck with each other on fuel economy when towing and both are generally better than the rest of the engines.


2018 Best Half-Ton Truck Challenge

I guess I didn’t dig deep enough in the article, but under test results, they call out the EcoBoost for its poor towing MPG.



And, off subject, but I believe at this point both the 6.2 and 3.5 have the same RECOMMENDATION for premium fuel for best performance (not requirement).

Anyway, if the 3.5 is at best equivalent to engines twice its size in towing MPG (I’m still sticking with its worse) than what would a EcoBoost 7.3 be equivalent to? Sounds like it would be the equivalent of a 16 liter engine which MPG would be unimaginably bad.

Regardless if they call it out for unexpected lower fuel economy, it still got better fuel economy towing than the rest.



However, you will use more fuel economy than the others if you are using more air to make power. If your old 6.2L was not able to keep speed while your Ecoboost is, then you are likely moving more air in the Ecoboost than you were in the 6.2L meaning you are using more performance than the 6.2L was capable of and therefore using more fuel. If you are utilizing more power from engine A versus engine B, then it is kind of a no-brainer that you will get worse fuel economy in engine A.

Also, there is a huge difference in the premium recommendation between the two. The 6.2L is tuned for premium and its advertised power numbers are based on premium fuel which it clearly states on its SAE certification. If you put regular fuel in it, then you get less power than advertised and have a higher chance of knock due to its much higher compression ratio.

The Ecoboost on the other hand is tuned for regular fuel, but can adjust timing to take advantage of premium fuel to make more than advertised power. For example, my old F150 Ecoboost made 365 hp on regular and 385 hp on premium according to Ford. It doesn't need it, but it is recommended if you want more power out of your engine which is generally when you are towing.

Not going to go into the fuel type argument other than to say the current 6.2 only recommends premium, not requires. It is in the article you referenced.

And the argument of the 3.5 using more air/more power than the 6.2 isn't accurate either. The only place the 6.2 lacked power of the EB was up the passes. And while a lot is made of the Ike runs, all 3 or 4 steep grades where the EB has an advantage on my trips amount to less than 20 miles. So there shouldn't be THAT much of a difference in fuel economy. It would balance out in the rest of the trip, and certainly after fill ups. But it never did/does. The worst MPG I've experienced was towing the boat from Grand Junction Colorado to Bullfrog UT. Not high elevation, no long hills, grades that any V8 could maintain speed at returned MPG of 7.07 MPG. The tank before was 7.82. The tank after was 7.95. Also, when towing my Ranger (3000ish pounds), I was 10.68 MPG in that stretch. 12.44 the tank before, and 10.59 the tank after. The 6.2 pulling the Malibu never pulled less than 8.83 MPG. And towing the little boat I don't think it ever got less than 12 MPG.

I just filled the Ex from our trip home over the weekend. 8.47 MPG towing 72 MPH from Sterling CO to Denver CO (part of the loop that FLT does for their MPG tests). Yes there was some wind and rain, but the truck pulling the 5er still pulled down 10.75 MPG.

My buddy just bought a PowerBoost, and is towing a 26' trailer. He gets 5 - 7 MPG towing (no idea how fast, but he is a retired county sheriff, and never seems to be in a hurry).

The moral of the story is you won't convince me that, overall, while towing, the EcoBoost gets comparable MPG. Solo might be different, but that isn't what we are arguing. And if Ford ever considered giving the same treatment to the 7.3, people would be DREAMING about getting 7 MPG. It would more likely be considerably less.

Devo the dog wrote:

mich800 wrote:
This is a towing forum and the comment is based on the manufactures recommended limitations....

Really? The forum is "Tow Vehicles" and the topic is 7.3 twin turbo Godzilla. That's slightly different that "Towing".

BTW, turbo lag exists. It just doesn't exist as much as it used to. If the manufacture's were smart, they'd add an electric motor that spools up the turbo when it's needed, which is powered by a battery (making the truck a hybrid).

The vast majority of what people perceive as turbo lag on a modern engine is actually drive by wire throttle programming. Unless you have a single purpose design like shoving a huge fixed vane turbo in a racing application, there is not enough lag to use as a justification between the different options.

Maybe Ford is developing the engine to stick in the Expedition or Lincoln Navigator to go up against Lamborghini's 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 Urus? :W

mich800 wrote:
This is a towing forum and the comment is based on the manufactures recommended limitations....

Really? The forum is "Tow Vehicles" and the topic is 7.3 twin turbo Godzilla. That's slightly different that "Towing".

BTW, turbo lag exists. It just doesn't exist as much as it used to. If the manufacture's were smart, they'd add an electric motor that spools up the turbo when it's needed, which is powered by a battery (making the truck a hybrid).