Ecoboost 3.5 Towing MPG Sucks

[Grodyman]

Hi all, back after a couple years without a RV......I jumped back in with a Passport Ultra Lite 153ML, GVWR of 4500lbs.

I just returned from picking up the trailer and pulled it with my 2017 F150 3.5 Ecoboost with 3.55 gears.

I was astonished to pull such a lightweight, aerodynamic trailer and the best MPG I got was 10.2 MPG. I went as low as 8.5 MPG.

I could have done better than that with my F250 with the 6.2 V8.

I am surprised how dreadful the towing MPG is with truck considering the overall weight of the truck/trailer combo is a couple thousand pounds lighter than I usually travel.

Unloaded this truck is great, but if you are on the fence about a F150 and a F250, go with the F250 gasser all the way UNLESS you drive a lot of unloaded miles.

The truck had plenty of power, no issue there, but I simply cannot imagine pulling 7K-10K lbs with this truck, the MPG's must be around 5.

My current range is about 250 miles pulling this Ultralight, given the fuel tank size. So, essentially, adding an ultralight trailer dropped my MPG nearly in half. Not what I expected.

Gman

[Grit_dog]

Bottom line, if you’re hauling @ss, you’re burnin gas! And the easier and the more plentiful the power available, the easier it is to use it. This is what we’re really talking about now.

[thomasmnile]

The EcoBoost was all about improving fuel economy in an enormously popular 4000 lb plus vehicle that now falls under Federal EPA CAFE standards. Same rationale for GM, FCA-Ram, with the small diesels (Ford too). The EcoBoost as well as the small diesels do what was intended; raise fuel mileage when the vehicle is driven relatively unladen, not towing something. EcoBoost provides towing oomph but the fuel mileage suffers, same as the small diesels, though the diesels fare slightly better when towing it appears.

[Atlee]

Agree 100%. Should have just been marketed as a twin turbo.

Any time those turbos are spinning they are using a lot of gas. With the turbos spinning, the gas mileage will be in the 8-10 range depending on speed, wind direction, and hills, or lack thereof.

Driving on a 55 mph country road with cruise set at 60 and running empty, I can get 20 & change.

Fully loaded pulling my 27' trailer, at 63 mph on an interstate, it will usually get between 8 and 10.

tragusa3 wrote:
Ford never should have marketed it as "Eco-boost". People expect the Eco part of the name. If they would have named it "monster V6", people would not have the expectations of efficiency and it would live up to that name!

I adore mine. It towed my 6.5k pounds around the country several times. It did it more relaxed than any truck available, aside from the big diesels. Couldn't have asked for anything more. Oh, and not one problem.

On a 7k mile cross country trip pulling 3.5k pound TT, we averaged 11.1 over the entirety. On two other 7k mile trips with 6.5k pound TT, we averaged 9.5.

Effortless power comes at a price. I'd rather tow effortlessly and get 9mpg than be wound up like a top and get 10mpg.

[eflyersteve]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
With that size TT you should look at the f-150 3.0 diesel. But what I don't understand is where are all the guys that claim to be making 12/13 mpg towing a 32' 10K# TT with their Eco Boost at? Dump the EB and get the baby diesel if you want fuel mileage. I made 24 mpg coming home for Knoxville running 85 mph average. Try that in a EB.

Don

With current diesel vs gas costs, the Ecoboost would have been cheaper per mile to operate on fuel costs alone. Do the math.

[ShinerBock]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
With that size TT you should look at the f-150 3.0 diesel. But what I don't understand is where are all the guys that claim to be making 12/13 mpg towing a 32' 10K# TT with their Eco Boost at? Dump the EB and get the baby diesel if you want fuel mileage. I made 24 mpg coming home for Knoxville running 85 mph average. Try that in a EB.

Don

I towed over 9.5k up 7% grade mountain roads through the Rockies maintaining 70 mph. Try that in an Ecodiesel. :B

I know, Iknow, not everyone wants to race. Well not everyone is so concerned about saving an extra $20 in fuel, and time is more valuable than money. I can make more more money, I can't make more time and the less amount of time I have to spend on the road stuck behind some 18 wheeler because I don't have the power to pass him, the happier I am. That my friend is worth every penny in extra fuel spent. I understand that you don't feel the same way.

Besides, I have a diesel car that gets 45 mpg combined, has roughly the same power to the wheels as an Ecodiesel, weighs only 3,500 lbs, and is a heck of a lot more fun to drive if I want to be frugal about fuel. I can do 85 mph in that and still get above 40 mpg.

[drsteve]

APT wrote:

Grodyman wrote:
I was astonished to pull such a lightweight, aerodynamic trailer and the best MPG I got was 10.2 MPG. I went as low as 8.5 MPG.

I could have done better than that with my F250 with the 6.2 V8.

I'm not sure where you got those expectations. Every gas engine seems to get 8-10mpg towing any high walled RV. Budget for 8mpg and be happy when you get 9. Budget for 10mpg and you'll be unhappy about 9. Reset your expectations and enjoy camping. 10% less fuel used when towing is likely not going to impact your budget significantly.

X2. If you're worried about fuel economy, then RVing is not for you.

[APT]

Grodyman wrote:
I was astonished to pull such a lightweight, aerodynamic trailer and the best MPG I got was 10.2 MPG. I went as low as 8.5 MPG.

I could have done better than that with my F250 with the 6.2 V8.

I'm not sure where you got those expectations. Every gas engine seems to get 8-10mpg towing any high walled RV. Budget for 8mpg and be happy when you get 9. Budget for 10mpg and you'll be unhappy about 9. Reset your expectations and enjoy camping. 10% less fuel used when towing is likely not going to impact your budget significantly.

[BarabooBob]

Towing a TT is not a fuel efficient thing to do. If you want great mpg, drive a Prius and stay at Motel 6.

[valhalla360]

ppine wrote:
It is counter intuitive, but larger diesel trucks solve all of these limitations. A 3.5 liter engine has to work hard to pull. That generates heat and uses a lot of fuel.

The Ford 7.3 liter is not working hard at all towing 4,500 pounds. It gets much better mileage than a 3.5 liter gas engine and will last twice as long.

This is incorrect.

It's not an issue of the engine working hard. In fact for the power developed, working an engine relatively hard (but not flat out) is usually more efficient per HP generated. Running at very light loads is less efficient (hence why you see little 4 cylinder engines in small cars rather than big V8's).

The difference with your 7.3 is primarily because diesel engines are more efficient...this comes from using higher compression longer strokes extracting more energy from each explosion...diesel containing more energy per gallon...also your older 7.3 doesn't have some of the newer energy robbing emissions controls

[1320Fastback]

Eco or Boost, not Ecoboost.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

With that size TT you should look at the f-150 3.0 diesel. But what I don't understand is where are all the guys that claim to be making 12/13 mpg towing a 32' 10K# TT with their Eco Boost at? Dump the EB and get the baby diesel if you want fuel mileage. I made 24 mpg coming home for Knoxville running 85 mph average. Try that in a EB.

Don

[bikendan]

Campfire Time wrote:
I'm wondering what the OP was expecting. Also wonder at what speed he was traveling at. The laws of physics still apply. Towing a box down the road isn't going to get much above 12mpg, and only in the best of conditions at 60mph. The average towing mileage is 10mpg.

Exactly! I towed a 24' HTT with my 2007 5.3 Avalanche 4x2 with DOD and I averaged overall around 10mpg.
I now tow with a 2014 SCREW 3.5 Ecoboost 4x4 with Max Tow package and 3.73 rear end ratio, pulling a heavier 26' TT and i still average 10mpg.

So i get the same towing mpg, with a bigger/heavier truck that has 4x4 and tows a heavier trailer. And it pulls like a diesel through the Western mountain ranges.

I'm very happy with my Ecoboost.

[dockmasterdave]

I agree with ktmrfs as speed doubles wind drag squares.
Want more horsepower ? burn more fuel.
A 3.5 ecoboost with both turbos open pushes 6 liters of fuel and air through the cylinders, and will burn an appropriate amount of fuel. It's not the motor, it's what you are asking it to do. No 5.0L can make the same HP on less fuel. Common sense. Fuel = HP. Which do you want ???
My ecoboost gets over 30 mpg cruising in the 40 mph range with cruise on. Ever see that out of a 6.2L ?
Having a v6 and listening to it purr at 1500 rpm at 65 MPH with cruise and tow haul on for hundreds of miles gets, almost, boring. Never needs to shift out of 6th (second OD ). Had dozens of trucks but, nothing that pulled like a diesel with the economy of a gasser. YUP, I have owned a diesel truck, the turbo ecoboost pulls a lot like one.

[tragusa3]

Ford never should have marketed it as "Eco-boost". People expect the Eco part of the name. If they would have named it "monster V6", people would not have the expectations of efficiency and it would live up to that name!

I adore mine. It towed my 6.5k pounds around the country several times. It did it more relaxed than any truck available, aside from the big diesels. Couldn't have asked for anything more. Oh, and not one problem.

On a 7k mile cross country trip pulling 3.5k pound TT, we averaged 11.1 over the entirety. On two other 7k mile trips with 6.5k pound TT, we averaged 9.5.

Effortless power comes at a price. I'd rather tow effortlessly and get 9mpg than be wound up like a top and get 10mpg.

[ktmrfs]

Grodyman wrote:
Hi all, back after a couple years without a RV......I jumped back in with a Passport Ultra Lite 153ML, GVWR of 4500lbs.

I just returned from picking up the trailer and pulled it with my 2017 F150 3.5 Ecoboost with 3.55 gears.

I was astonished to pull such a lightweight, aerodynamic trailer and the best MPG I got was 10.2 MPG. I went as low as 8.5 MPG.

I could have done better than that with my F250 with the 6.2 V8.

I am surprised how dreadful the towing MPG is with truck considering the overall weight of the truck/trailer combo is a couple thousand pounds lighter than I usually travel.

Unloaded this truck is great, but if you are on the fence about a F150 and a F250, go with the F250 gasser all the way UNLESS you drive a lot of unloaded miles.

The truck had plenty of power, no issue there, but I simply cannot imagine pulling 7K-10K lbs with this truck, the MPG's must be around 5.

My current range is about 250 miles pulling this Ultralight, given the fuel tank size. So, essentially, adding an ultralight trailer dropped my MPG nearly in half. Not what I expected.

Gman

the biggest factor with mileage when towing a trailer is wind drag which is a square law function. Weight doesn't affect towing mileage that much unless you are constantly going up and down hill or accelerating and braking. It's the frontal area. As an example I have a 7x14 cargo trailer 5K lbs loaded and a 35Ft 9,000 TT. the difference towing mileage between the two is at best 1 to 1.5 mpg and the 7x14 has much less frontal area than the big trailer. and even the 7x14 when compare to the highway mileage unloaded is about 40% less than unloaded highway mileage. Or towing mileage is about 60% of unloaded highway mileage. And unloaded avg speed is at least 15% faster than my towing avg speed!

your towing a barn door down the highway with a Cd of near 1. By comparison your truck is a garage door with a Cd likely aroud .35
That is the wind resistance of the truck is about like 1/3 of a garage door while the trailer is like a big barn door.


towing speed is one of the biggest impacts on your mileage given the square law relationship of wind drag. 10mph can make a noticeable difference.