7.3 twin turbo Godzilla

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.

Grit dog wrote:

400/700 beats 500/500 all day long up a hill.
We both matted the skinny pedals on the steep stretch. Him with 2500lb flatbed trailer. Me with 3500lb enclosed.
I walked away from him like walking away from a chick with herpes. .

Two problems with your test.
- We have no idea if your buddy was really getting 500/500 or just theorized it based on some rough calculations for boost pressure.
- Did he swap out the tranny to take advantage of the new power output? Gearing that works well running empty in a truck intended to mostly run empty, may have been horribly inadequate towing. If the truck can never get up in the RPM range for 500/500...of course, it can't put out 500/500. For all we know it may have been limited to 350/400 and of course the diesel that was professionally mated to the transmission would win out.

The difference with the 7.3, is it's designed to put out crazy HP and the newer 10speed transmissions can let the engine wind up to where it can use that 500/500. Big difference from a home brew 5.X L power plant.

Assuming Ford finishes this out and optimizes it for towing, I'd put my money on the 7.3 w/turbos over the diesel in a towing contest...but my guess is they don't do that because it would split the profitable diesel sales numbers.

Devo the dog wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

Devo the dog wrote:
I'd put on a supercharger instead. Even though there is a parasitic loss, I'd prefer it over a turbo.

Superchargers are great for drag racing as they can negate turbo lag and get you off the line a hair quicker.

In a towing situation where time to spool up the turbo isn't an issue, it makes no sense to accept the parasitic loss...particularly for a manufacturer looking at govt fuel economy rules.

That's just your opinion. Furthermore,I said nothing about government, manufacture or fuel economy rules.

I stated that I would install a supercharger instead of a turbo. Let me put it another way: if I was going to pay money to modify my car or truck and was choosing between a turbo and a supercharger, I'd choose a supercharger.. It's my preference. It's less complicated.

BTW, turbos are used in drag racing and road racing.

Not so much an opinion but an explanation why you are unlikely to ever see supercharger come with a new truck. It's really a technology that has very limited uses (drag racing being one of them).

You can add a NOX system if you want to, just doesn't make a lot of sense for a manufacturer to consider it.

Turbos can be used in drag racing...just at the upper limits, they go superchargers as they don't have do do anything complicated to negate turbo lag...of course, that was the point...this is a thread about a production engine in a truck and a little turbo lag isn't a big concern for towing.

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.

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.

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.

Groover wrote:
That would only be true if you are asking the 7.3 to crank out 500-800hp on a regular basis. I don't see that happening.

Given that the stock NA 7.3 gas is putting out 430hp, that's exactly what would be happening. 800 hp all day long, at least until it starts to overheat and defuel. But again I don't see it being engineered as a towing motor, it's going to be a go-stupid-fast motor to put in a Raptor-like truck to keep up with (or beat) the Ram TRX.

A 500hp gasser still won’t pull as well as a new diesel. It’ll pull like a really strong gasser.
Short story. And it even involves pulling the Ike with trailers! Lol. Before them other goofballs became YouTube stars doing it...
Buddy had a TRD supercharged Tundra. It was suppose to be 500hp or 550 something. I forget.
We had a LB7 duramax, stock, set on 120hp tune.
Both trucks otherwise stock.
400/700 beats 500/500 all day long up a hill.
We both matted the skinny pedals on the steep stretch. Him with 2500lb flatbed trailer. Me with 3500lb enclosed.
I walked away from him like walking away from a chick with herpes.

Empty, that TuRD would scoot! It was fast. Especially compared to the current crop of 300 and something HP trucks at the time.

That said a brand new factory 600hp + blown big block HD truck sounds pretty awesome!
I wouldn’t even waste the R&D to sell 500hp versions.

"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."

That would only be true if you are asking the 7.3 to crank out 500-800hp on a regular basis. I don't see that happening.

What I think would be more likely is boosting the 7.3 up to the 500+ range so that it can pull as well as the Powerstroke, even in the mountains. The 7.3 was designed to give great fuel economy at lower RPM so if you kept it in its efficient range most of the time and just used mild boost when climbing hills or accelerating I think that it would turn in some pretty respectable economy numbers while making for a good diesel substitute.

As for the fuel recommendation I don't know anyone that puts premium in their own standard performance Ecoboost but most with the 6.2 say that you have to have it, at least for towing. The 450hp Ecoboost used in the Raptor and some Limiteds does require premium.

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.