Okay. Serious Thoughts On EcoBoost Towing 9.5K

[Kampfirekid]

Im really trying hard to buy an economy car to allow me to keep my 2010 F250 6.4L Harley Edition Super Duty. Its not coming together well. Its several hundred dollars each month more than I spend now on my truck and fuel alone. It seems the savings in fuel alone by driving an economy car will pay for the truck payment alone, but there still is no savings. I put miles on too fast to pay my truck off before it hits 150k, and at 65k niw, Id like to get a car now while miles are low. Frankly, I dont want this truck after 100k as a daily driver. For pleasure and towing, okay, ill keep it past 150k.

So, I only tow about 4-5,000 miles a year, if that. All through the Midwest, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Usually less than 500 miles round trip. Our trailer is a 2011 Jayco Jay Flight 32BHDS. It weighs about 9,200 loaded. The tongue weight at 1,180. I am wondering if the Ecoboost Supercrew with the Heavy Duty Payload Package (yielding close to 2,200 lbs of payload) will foot the bill for the 12 trips a year under 500 miles. The expected payload already exceeds my 1,950 on my Harley F250 diesel. Will the lighter-duty F150 be that much more unstable and unbearable for my needs?

I was hoping my limited edition Harley could move to the pole barn for restricted use and a car run daily until it falls apart, 150k miles... whichever comes first. Frankly, it looks like a dream. The EcoBoost F150 could makea better daily driver being more comfortable, and netting better fuel economy at a reduced cost per gallon Granted, it wont get 30mpg, but it will beat the diesel, still tow, and fuel and maintence is cheaper.

All thoughts are appreciated.

[jerem0621]

Eco-Boost sounds like a good match to that trailer to me. Especially if you opt for the HD package.

Thanks!

[Passin_Thru]

Buy a used Prius. 46-50 MPG and reliable. Keep the diesel. Too much trailer for that 1/2 ton.

[Lowsuv]

A solution to the cheapest cost considering all of your options might be :
Change your tires to a larger diameter highway tire .
The odometer will turn over less miles and the rolling resistance of a highway tire ( especially these new fuel saver types ) will help you pick up real fuel mileage in actual usage .
Your diesel has enough low end torque and first gear is plenty low enough to handle this .
Further the tires themselves will go a greater distance .
You only would have to insure one car and maintain one car and polish one car and park one car ( inside i hope ) .
Two of my RV buddies have high mileage Powerstrokes one with 300,000 the other with 214,000 on the odometer .
Drive that fancy smancy H-D pickup and take care of it .

[Kampfirekid]

...sentiment being an impediment to clear thinking...

What? Let me get an interpreter. There is no impediment.

[Lantley]

Slowmover wrote:
The weak link is the trailer, not the tow vehicle.

I started from scratch years ago on both TT ad TV. Both needed to have the lowest long-term cost and highest reliability. 200k plus miles for both, even if the TT took twice as long to get that far. Most work for the most miles at the lowest cost with the highest reliability.

Only an all-aluminum, aero TT could fit that bill. Same for the truck (as it had IRS business miles): a turbocharged diesel. And the only one with the rep earned in hard service was Dodge.

Bought both TT and TV for just under $30k together. Rig and numbers in sig.

Were I starting again today and could afford new I'd go with a 27-28' Airstream and a V6, 8-speed Charger.

Cost of operation per mile on the TV, and cost of ownership per night aboard for the TT over any period is the way to cut things. Five years? Ten? My folks kept their Silver Streak 27-years with but two tow vehicles. And weren't driving around in econobox junkers.

Look at the larger context, the big story, to get a handle on $$.

The right TT means a TV better suited to solo duties, not just being safer. The money savings -- as the OP is learning the hard way (sentiment being an impediment to clear thinking) -- is in the combination. They must be well-matched. Design is everything.

.

I am only posting to enjoy/continue the discussion. I have no dog in this fight.
Is your point the TT won't last long enough to be viable or the TT is a poor match for the TV.
Why is the TT the weak link?

[Slowmover]

The weak link is the trailer, not the tow vehicle.

I started from scratch years ago on both TT ad TV. Both needed to have the lowest long-term cost and highest reliability. 200k plus miles for both, even if the TT took twice as long to get that far. Most work for the most miles at the lowest cost with the highest reliability.

Only an all-aluminum, aero TT could fit that bill. Same for the truck (as it had IRS business miles): a turbocharged diesel. And the only one with the rep earned in hard service was Dodge.

Bought both TT and TV for just under $30k together. Rig and numbers in sig.

Were I starting again today and could afford new I'd go with a 27-28' Airstream and a V6, 8-speed Charger.

Cost of operation per mile on the TV, and cost of ownership per night aboard for the TT over any period is the way to cut things. Five years? Ten? My folks kept their Silver Streak 27-years with but two tow vehicles. And weren't driving around in econobox junkers.

Look at the larger context, the big story, to get a handle on $$.

The right TT means a TV better suited to solo duties, not just being safer. The money savings -- as the OP is learning the hard way (sentiment being an impediment to clear thinking) -- is in the combination. They must be well-matched. Design is everything.

.

[Mike_Up]

pappcam wrote:

mkirsch wrote:
There is no such thing as a "reliable used econobox for $5k."

$5K gets you a 10-year-old car with 100K+ miles around here.

I've got a friend who is reliably getting 22MPG out of his Ecoboost after 15,000 miles. The best that diesel will do is 18MPG if you drive it like an old duffer.

He says the towing power is night and day compared to the 5.3L Chevy he replaced.

I call BS on the ecoboost mileage. It's a truck and there's no way he's getting that mileage unless he's driving well below the speed limit and holding up traffic.

I thought the ecoboost mileage hype was already done with.

Well if I go no more than 65 mph on an expressway, drive very very concervatively will little downshifting, I can get 21 mpg out of my truck. I did it a few times. The problem is that I can't drive that slow and that passive. Most speed limits here are 70 mph and you'll get ran over going that.

Pulling my camper, I regularly get 10.5 to 11.0 mpg on flat lands or hills.

The problem with the Ecoboost is that once you get into the boost, which you normally have to with such a small 3.5L displacement, you start eating the gas. Then the Ecoboost usually has lower fuel efficiency than the 5.0L. Go to F150forum or F150online and read all about the Ecoboost disappointing fuel economy.

By the way, our rigs look very similar. 🙂

[2112]

I guess I'll add my experience to this:
DW and I always have a small beater, grocery getter as an extra vehicle. Currently it's a 1997 Ranger 4 cyl, 5 speed I bought in 2009 for $3K. Insurance runs $180/yr. Prior to the Ranger it was a '82 Civic I bought for $4K and lasted 6 trouble free years until vacuum lines under the hood starting cracking to pieces.
When weather permits I'll commute on my MC and she'll take the beater otherwise I'm in the beater and she drives her high mileage '05 500. My EB is not a DD even though 22mph is easily reached if you don't drive it like a race truck. I have found if you keep the tire pressure at 38lbs mileage improves without causing wear issues. The TVs job is to tow/haul and she will do it for many years to come, I hope!

As far as towing a heavy TT with the F150 EB. I had a 35' 9000lb Outback and it was not fun towing it due to sway and reaction to passing vehicles. I suspect the short wheelbase was the issue but never proved it. The FW in my sig is a perfect fit for it.

All situations are different but a cheap beater has worked well for us. However, I understand they are not readily available in the Rust States. Rule of thumb down here is do not buy a used vehicle that has lived in the NE.

[reddwar]

I see you are a Ford man but you may want to look at this, check out {Texas Truck Rodeo} here. New for 2014 Dodge 1500 is coming out with a 3.0 diesel with 240 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque, and a towing capacity of 9,200 lbs. Has a 8 speed auto & get 27 mpg on the road. You will be at the upper end but looks like it would work for great for you. You may want to put Tmbrens on the back as you are close to max, had to put them on the back of our SRW F350 to stop folks from flashing there light at up at night when we were close to max.

Or keep the F250 & just get a VW TDI Jetta sport wagon 40+ mpg with lots of room. I looked at one a while back & was giving life time free oil change & life time drive train don't know if still are.

Red

[Buck50HD]

I'd rather pull a 9500lb 5th wheel behind an F150HD than a 9500lb TT behind a 3/4 ton. So, I guess my answer is no on a standard F150 and 9.5k TT. I wouldn't do it with my HD.

[NWKomfort350]

I recently sold my econobox. 2001 honda civic with 290, 000 miles on it. My wife bought it before we married... she bought it with 250, 000 miles for $4,000. We put 40k miles on it in 4 years and sold it for 1900. Reliable the whole time we drove it. 40k miles over 4 years for $2, 100 . No rust problem here which helps.

[Taco]

If anybody wants to sell me a car for 3-5k that will provide me with 200k of reliable transportation I will buy it in a second.

Sadly that deal just isn't available around here, or at least not that you can count on. Buying a used vehicle is a pig in a poke proposition, no more no less. A used vehicle has it's best days behind it, and will only get less reliable and costlier per mile to maintain.

I buy new, plan to keep for a long time and evaluate as I go the cost benefit of replacing the vehicle. When it is time for a new car I hope to get 400k and 10 years out of it. I expect 6 years and 250k if I take care of it. The one thing I have in my favor for outstanding longevity is I only use it to go to work. It is started and heat cycled twice a day. I average 53 mph every minute the car is running compared to about 25-30 which is average. So in 400k I will put the same amount of hours on the car as 200k in more normal use. I also have very little stop and go miles and very few short trips.

[rexlion]

PartyMarty wrote:
In addition to the insurance expense of an extra car I have discovered :
I left my glasses in my other vehicle .
I left my important paperwork in my other vehicle .
I needed my jacket that I left in my other vehicle .
I needed my tool kit that I left in my other vehicle .
I left my cell phone charger in my other vehicle .
I had to wash 2 cars and a truck this weekend because they were all dirty .
The list goes on .....

LOL! That's a good list.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Kampfirekid wrote:
Gotta say, the savings isn't so astronomical with a second car that I'm am interested in driving the perverbial beater. I work long hours and have no interest in spending my off time turning wrenches. Most cars here at $5k and under are 140k mile rust buckets with worn out seats. I'm too old for that crap. I will consider a comfortable ride that is in good shape, and would pay extra for lower miles than sit in a pregnant rollerskate with 100k miles.

You might want to look in other parts of the US. A few months back I bought a Beamer in mint condition for 10K. So what if it had 100k on it. Looks like new, drives like new and is about 40K less than new.

Next week I'm going to buy an Infinity for 3K. Not as nice as the Beamer but REALLY nice car!

They are out there. You just might have to travel to find them that's all. It just give you an excuse to RV to none rust states and pick up a car. :B