Forum Discussion
165 Replies
wilber1 wrote:
Shinerbock wrote:
I would also agree about it no necessarily being the best option for towing especially if it is closer to its 7,000 lb limit that Ram rates it at like it was. The same guys that did this video also took a 2014 F150 with a 3.5L up the same run, but with a 7,100 trailer and a 3 people in the cab. They recorded an average of 11.3 mpg which would beg ms to ask the question as to why you would get the Ecodiesel if you towing around 7,000 lbs a lot.
Really? The 3.5 got 11.3 MPG and the 2.7 got 4.3. That would beg me to ask the question, why would anyone buy the 2.7 and why would Ford even build it?
I have wondered about that as well. It reminds me of the GM 4.8 V-8 which mercifully was put to death.mr61impala wrote:
Reading this thread got me interested to see if anybody else had done any comparisons.
In January 2015 Motor Trend actually compared the Ford 2.7L Ecoboost 2.7L, the Silverado 5.3L Ecotech and the Ram 3.0L Ecodiesel.
They did not tow them up Mt. Everest but they did tie a big trailer on the back of each and they report facts and figures both empty and towing.
It was a very interesting read, I just wish I knew how to post a link.
Linkitguy08 wrote:
Bionic Man wrote:
To the folks that keep talking about what would happen in the summer. You do realize that at elevations between 9000' - 11000' it never gets what you would consider hot? 80* in Silverthorne is hot. It rarely, if ever, gets above 80* at the top of the tunnel.
Right and if it's running warm at 32* (there was snow on the ground), what would it do at say 35 more degrees (67*)? Or even some of the, lesser grades where it's even warmer, like AZ, CA, etc?
The Ecodiesel runs at higher temps. Nothing new, or alarming there. And just because there is snow on the ground doesn't mean it is 32*. Welcome to Colorado, where we have days at 50* when there is snow on the ground.
Lesser grades, at lower elevations, are going to be fine. This isn't the first year for the engine. I haven't seen reports of it overheating in the real world.
Patiently waiting for the Ecodiesel haters to Google search for overheating instances.wnjj wrote:
mr61impala wrote:
It was a very interesting read, I just wish I knew how to post a link.
Click on the button with the blue globe and chain link. Paste the link in "Enter the complete URL for the link" box. You can edit your previous post to add the link.
How about on a MacBook Air? This thing has different commands/funtions than my Lenovo running Windows at work.mr61impala wrote:
It was a very interesting read, I just wish I knew how to post a link.
Click on the button with the blue globe and chain link. Paste the link in "Enter the complete URL for the link" box. You can edit your previous post to add the link.- The video I watched the 3.5 ecoboost got 3.6 MPG.
ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
But it is such a great towing machine that it gets three times worse mileage towing the same load up the same hill. And you call me a fan boy.
It is a a good towing machine. It outperformed a larger disceplacment diesel towing the same weight up the hill didn't it. If your opinion of a "towing machine" is solely based on fuel economy then why don't you strap 7,000 to the back of a Jetta TDI. It might not get you up there very quickly, but it would return awesome "towing machine" fuel mileage
Man, the fact you wouldn't question a number that is so obviously wrong to anyone with a bit of critical thinking and then try to support it says a lot.wilber1 wrote:
But it is such a great towing machine that it gets three times worse mileage towing the same load up the same hill. And you call me a fan boy.
It is a a good towing machine. It outperformed a larger disceplacment diesel towing the same weight up the hill didn't it. If your opinion of a "towing machine" is solely based on fuel economy then why don't you strap 7,000 to the back of a Jetta TDI. It might not get you up there very quickly, but it would return awesome "towing machine" fuel mileage- Reading this thread got me interested to see if anybody else had done any comparisons.
In January 2015 Motor Trend actually compared the Ford 2.7L Ecoboost 2.7L, the Silverado 5.3L Ecotech and the Ram 3.0L Ecodiesel.
They did not tow them up Mt. Everest but they did tie a big trailer on the back of each and they report facts and figures both empty and towing.
It was a very interesting read, I just wish I knew how to post a link. ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
Really? The 3.5 got 11.3 MPG and the 2.7 got 4.3. That would beg me to ask the question, why would anyone buy the 2.7 and why would Ford even build it?
Because it gets better fuel mileage unloaded which it was intended for. Ford stated themselves that the 2.7L is for most that don't tow often, but want to have the power if they need to. This is evident in the Pickuptruck.coms 2015 annual physical where the 2.7L got 23.8 mpg unloaded and 9.8 mpg towing a 4,000 lbs enclosed trailer. The 3.5L 4x4 on the other hand got 18.5 mpg unloaded and 11.1 towing a 6,800 lb enclosed trailer on the same road.
But it is such a great towing machine that it gets three times worse mileage towing the same load up the same hill. And you call me a fan boy.
