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

[philh]

You claimed that EPA combined has a towing element to it. Please cite the EPA documents supporting the claim.

You also claimed something about towing and 40%, still waiting for a published cite to support that claim.

Research? I'm a powertrain engineer working in a building of several hundred thousand square feet that has something like 50 or 60 dynomometers running 24/7/365, with an oval test track couple hundred yards behind the facility. I can tell you that towing fuel economy is given like zero attention. There are way too many variables to run any kind of application testing. We do however extensively test product capability while towing.

[drsteve]

Slowmover wrote:

philh wrote:

Slowmover wrote:
You’ve never tested nor researched, have you?

The penalty is 40%.

If MPG has meaning to you (apparently not) it would be obvious the EPA COMBINED is close to that number.

Researched 🙂 BAWAWAWA

I'm a licensed professional engineer working for an automotive OEM, specifically working in powertrain group.

Want to try again and cite the exact source of this alleged 40% penalty claim?

Hook up a TT and find out. What’s the penalty? Steady-state difference, all else the same.

It’s common as a rule of thumb past 50-years.

Your “research” doesn’t extend very far.

Whether higher or lower, the difference will mainly be trailer design.

The noise in the numbers will be the mechanical condition. Which I’d never trust when brand new much less used.

AND

the validity of the hitch rigging.

If it’s much above forty, there are problems with those vehicles.

.

So you have no source to show us for this claim?

[Slowmover]

philh wrote:

Slowmover wrote:
You’ve never tested nor researched, have you?

The penalty is 40%.

If MPG has meaning to you (apparently not) it would be obvious the EPA COMBINED is close to that number.

Researched 🙂 BAWAWAWA

I'm a licensed professional engineer working for an automotive OEM, specifically working in powertrain group.

Want to try again and cite the exact source of this alleged 40% penalty claim?

Hook up a TT and find out. What’s the penalty? Steady-state difference, all else the same.

It’s common as a rule of thumb past 50-years.

Your “research” doesn’t extend very far.

Whether higher or lower, the difference will mainly be trailer design.

The noise in the numbers will be the mechanical condition. Which I’d never trust when brand new much less used.

AND

the validity of the hitch rigging.

If it’s much above forty, there are problems with those vehicles.

.

[Groover]

twodownzero wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
10.2 is pretty good considering! Not sure what you were expecting?

Wait til he discovers that the engine is worn out at 80,000 miles, too. There is no free lunch. Ecoboost might get you better loaded mileage but it comes at the expense of low end torque and longevity. Everything in engineering is a tradeoff! Enjoy your V6 fullsize pickup; the results were predictable but the EPA MPG numbers were too good to pass up.

I am continually amazed with how many people believe that a turbo diesel will last forever but a turbo gas engine will have a quick death. It is neither the turbo or the fuel. It was what the engines are designed to do. Traditionally diesels were designed for commercial use and turbo gas burners for sports cars but traditions do change with time. The 2.7 and 3.5 EcoBoost engines are as much a truck engine as any other gas burner in a half ton truck. There are always outliers in any collection of statistics but those are exceptions, not rules. I notice that State Troopers keep buying them and those guys typically run their engines well over 300,000 miles. They would not put up with an 80,000 mile engine.

[Groover]

I got a 20% improvement going from my old truck with a 460 or the van with a V10 to my EcoBoost when driving the same way. Basically, from 10mpg to 12mpg. The problem is that traffic has picked up a lot speed since those rigs were built plus the EcoBoost is so much quieter and more powerful than those engines that it is easy to add 5-10mph and lose some of that mileage benefit.

[alexleblanc]

Bionic Man wrote:

twodownzero wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
10.2 is pretty good considering! Not sure what you were expecting?

Wait til he discovers that the engine is worn out at 80,000 miles, too. There is no free lunch. Ecoboost might get you better loaded mileage but it comes at the expense of low end torque and longevity. Everything in engineering is a tradeoff! Enjoy your V6 fullsize pickup; the results were predictable but the EPA MPG numbers were too good to pass up.

Worn out at 80,000 miles? Where does that figure come from? I agree that there are always trade offs but an 80,000 mile life expectancy isn’t one of them.

LOL at expense of low end torque..... the EB has more low end torque at a lower RPM than any of the current production V8's, have you see a torque curve?

[alexleblanc]

8 years later and were still debating if the Ecoboost is a good towing motor and that the MPG's aren't any better than a typical V8 towing?

It is nothing new at this point, its proven reliable and to be one of the best towing gas motors in any 1/2 ton platforms - fuel economy while towing is decent at best, we all know that.

[bikendan]

drsteve wrote:
10 mpg sucks? No, it's about average for a gasser, give or take 1 or 2.

Yep, pretty much in the middle range for gassers towing. i get about 10-11mpg with my Ecoboost, towing a 6000lbs TT.

[philh]

mich800 wrote:
Perfect rv.net thread.

Half ton only good for pop up: check
Ecoboost lifespan 80k miles: check
Combined epa mpg=towing mpg: check

Now if we can only get the fridge on during travel equals disaster we can put this one to bed.

LOL

[BarabooBob]

twodownzero---Where did this information come from???? Wait til he discovers that the engine is worn out at 80,000 miles, too. There is no free lunch. Ecoboost might get you better loaded mileage but it comes at the expense of low end torque and longevity. Everything in engineering is a tradeoff! Enjoy your V6 fullsize pickup; the results were predictable but the EPA MPG numbers were too good to pass up.
I currently have 168,000 miles on my EB and we are planning three trips this summer that will be in excess of 10,000 miles. Last year we drove the EB 20,000 miles, 10,000 with a TT and never had a problem. I guess I better tell the wife that we will have to cancel all of our future plans until we buy a 350 with diesel or we will die in ND or Montana. I guess we will have to wait for the net wagon train before heading out by ourselves.
Have you driven an EB? That thing has way more low end torque than I ever imagined. Check the torque and horsepower graphs before yo talk about low end torque. It beats most gas engines no matter what their displacement.

[drsteve]

10 mpg sucks? No, it's about average for a gasser, give or take 1 or 2.

[mich800]

Perfect rv.net thread.

Half ton only good for pop up: check
Ecoboost lifespan 80k miles: check
Combined epa mpg=towing mpg: check

Now if we can only get the fridge on during travel equals disaster we can put this one to bed.

[carringb]

twodownzero wrote:

Wait til he discovers that the engine is worn out at 80,000 miles, too.

Those motors must be just littering the sides of roads everywhere!?!?! After all, it's the most common engine in the most sold vehicle un the United States. Not to mention all those Explorers, Police Interceptors, Flex's and Lincolns. Since that motor has been out since 2010 now, there must be MILLIONS of dead EcoBoost motors. Do they hide them in some secret Ford EcoBoost graveyard? Ford must be secretly swapping in new motors in the dark of the night, so large fleet managers won't find out.

[Bionic_Man]

twodownzero wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
10.2 is pretty good considering! Not sure what you were expecting?

Wait til he discovers that the engine is worn out at 80,000 miles, too. There is no free lunch. Ecoboost might get you better loaded mileage but it comes at the expense of low end torque and longevity. Everything in engineering is a tradeoff! Enjoy your V6 fullsize pickup; the results were predictable but the EPA MPG numbers were too good to pass up.

Worn out at 80,000 miles? Where does that figure come from? I agree that there are always trade offs but an 80,000 mile life expectancy isn’t one of them.