Fords altitude towing recomendations

Bionic Man wrote:

tragusa3 wrote:

hone eagle wrote:
"If the ecoboost had a 6 litre ,I possibly would be driving a gasser again"
Funny you would say that,as we speak a 5.2 version of the 5.0 is close to introduction -twin turboed
too. Not sure about direct injection ,but big power and torque is coming.
Replacement for the 6.2 and eventually the V10.

I'm curious! Do you have any links for info?

I also would like to see the source for this. Hard to believe that with the current and upcoming CAFE standards this would be a serious consideration.

Just the guys I used to work with that are still in the plant,machinery is being installed and they are experienced enough to know what they are looking at .
The same building produces the 'nano head'' (2.7L) .
the 5.0 cylinder head has always had the mounts cast in for D.I. ,and the dino lab had a 5.0 up to 1000hp just for *hits and giggles.
I doubt if any links are to found ,the company is still at the "we do not comment on future product" stage.
Still a year or so away I guess.

tragusa3 wrote:

hone eagle wrote:
"If the ecoboost had a 6 litre ,I possibly would be driving a gasser again"
Funny you would say that,as we speak a 5.2 version of the 5.0 is close to introduction -twin turboed
too. Not sure about direct injection ,but big power and torque is coming.
Replacement for the 6.2 and eventually the V10.

I'm curious! Do you have any links for info?

I also would like to see the source for this. Hard to believe that with the current and upcoming CAFE standards this would be a serious consideration.

hone eagle wrote:
"If the ecoboost had a 6 litre ,I possibly would be driving a gasser again"
Funny you would say that,as we speak a 5.2 version of the 5.0 is close to introduction -twin turboed
too. Not sure about direct injection ,but big power and torque is coming.
Replacement for the 6.2 and eventually the V10.

I'm curious! Do you have any links for info?

I understand that fuel economy will not match between gasoline and diesel due to the energy density differences in the fuels, but the penalties of thinner air would no longer be a factor.

My preference is mechanically powered boost over exhaust powered, but that's another discussion for something that currently does not exist in mass produced large displacement engines.

"If the ecoboost had a 6 litre ,I possibly would be driving a gasser again"
Funny you would say that,as we speak a 5.2 version of the 5.0 is close to introduction -twin turboed
too. Not sure about direct injection ,but big power and torque is coming.
Replacement for the 6.2 and eventually the V10.

Tystevens wrote:
I'd agree that the vast majority of people in the USA live and drive below 1000 ft elevation.

That said, I also agree with the post that it doesn't seem to make too much difference. We've towed above 10k ft numerous times in our n/a Suburbans, and I can't say I noticed any problems. Mainly because, I suspect, once you're at those elevations, you are generally on slower speed roads, anyway.

If you're in SLC, you are already close to 4,500' and have lower expectations of what your vehicle can do (your RV is probably more modest in weight). Going up an additional 5500' is not the same as someone that that owns a tow vehicle at sea level (and may have an appropriately sized RV for that elevation) that now climbs to 10,000'.

I live almost at sea level but my most common destinations require 3000-4000' passes which are within 75 miles of home. Between spring and fall I can cross the mountains twice a month. It's not until winter sets in and the chance of chain requirements keeps me in the lowlands or on the coast. Usually twice a year, trips take us on passes over 5000' - This year we did passes over 11,000' without issue. Loosing 10% of my engine's performance would be slightly annoying, losing 20% might be the difference between making a trip enjoyable or stressful, but losing 40% of the engine capacity might make things unsafe. I don't think I would find an impassible grade, but I cannot believe the engine struggling in first or second gear to keep the load moving is how I want to spend time on any portion of road. I stayed with a diesel to get a large engine with forced induction - If the ecoboost had a 6 liter model, I possibly would be driving a gasser again.

Fordlover wrote:

12thgenusa wrote:
I think it's pretty much a non-issue. Yes your engine loses power. All that means is that you slow down a little or your transmission shifts into a lower gear sooner.

I've driven (towed) over most of the passes in Colorado. The interesting thing here (in the mountains) is that as you gain elevation, the roads generally become more twisty with many curves speed marked at 25 to 45 mph. The general speed limit is usually lowered as well as is I-70 approaching the Eisenhower tunnel. So what does all that extra power get you? You have to drive slower anyway.

If Ford is rating their vehicles at sea level, they do a disservice to the majority of drivers since other than people who live directly on the coast, who drives at sea level?

I live in the 4th largest city in the states, about 100 miles off the coast. So if you ask me, a sh*t ton of people drive at (near) sea level. The folks in New Orleans drive below the sea level :)

I'd agree that the vast majority of people in the USA live and drive below 1000 ft elevation.

That said, I also agree with the post that it doesn't seem to make too much difference. We've towed above 10k ft numerous times in our n/a Suburbans, and I can't say I noticed any problems. Mainly because, I suspect, once you're at those elevations, you are generally on slower speed roads, anyway.

12thgenusa wrote:
I think it's pretty much a non-issue. Yes your engine loses power. All that means is that you slow down a little or your transmission shifts into a lower gear sooner.

I've driven (towed) over most of the passes in Colorado. The interesting thing here (in the mountains) is that as you gain elevation, the roads generally become more twisty with many curves speed marked at 25 to 45 mph. The general speed limit is usually lowered as well as is I-70 approaching the Eisenhower tunnel. So what does all that extra power get you? You have to drive slower anyway.

If Ford is rating their vehicles at sea level, they do a disservice to the majority of drivers since other than people who live directly on the coast, who drives at sea level?

I live in the 4th largest city in the states, about 100 miles off the coast. So if you ask me, a sh*t ton of people drive at (near) sea level. The folks in New Orleans drive below the sea level :)

mabynack wrote:
Diesels are greatly affected by air density if they are naturally aspirated. The turbocharger is the key to higher altitude operations, whether it's gas or diesel.

Yeah lots of those running around! Don't get stuck with one someone stole the turbo out of!! Lol