An aluminum tow vehicle for an aluminum Camplite.

[whoofit]

Charlie, I would much prefer what you did and have a supercharger on my work truck. Like you said, the 2.7l EB is a towing monster! Very sexy indeed. But in my position carrying at least 1/2 ton or more payload every day of the week means I would always be in Turbo Territory for that vehicle. A SC solution like yours would be a better fit for economy and longevity (in my humble opinion).

So, for instance, I drive 25 miles in hilly New England to a job with 3/4 ton loaded onboard, maybe towing another 3/4 ton. My turbos have gotten me there in Nascar fashion at the expense of fuel economy. They are running red hot (200,000 rpm) and I shut down the motor. The oil contained in the turbos now is stagnant. I do not feel comfortable with this scenario. Rinse and repeat daily for a dozen years.

From what I have read about you, you have already gotten through Colorado successfully on paper. The real world test is only a formality. Anxiously awaiting your results...

[whoofit]

[quote source="/post/15162/thread" timestamp="1441985462" author="@david"]Here is my take on the small Eco Boost V6 vs the bigger naturally aspirated V8.

For all around driving the EB is lighter and gets somewhat better mileage than the V8. That engine only produces about 30 hp while running at a steady state 60 mph with no tow. That is a small fraction of its maximum hp and is also small for its 3.5 liter displacement. When you punch it to enter a freeway or just to impress your girlfriend, you are putting out its enormous torque (for its displacement) for only a few seconds. So the stress is nothing like towing and is manageable.

Now hook up a 5,000 lb trailer with a large cross section and your mileage will drop to near 12 mpg at 60 mph whether you are pulling with an EB V6 or the bigger V8. The hp required more than doubles. But even that would be ok on a flat, steady state road, maybe 60 hp. Still not too much for a 3.5 liter V6.

Now head up a long 8% grade with that rig. Unless you want to gear down and go slow (which is what I would recommend) you will be pulling a lot of torque from that engine. And for a long time, maybe 10 minutes not 5 seconds like entering the freeway. The stress on the engine skyrockets, the turbos are dumping a bunch of extra air into the cylinders. The exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs) skyrocket. All bad for the engine.

The V8 OTOH will do this with 2/3 the stress on the engine components and more importantly less EGT. High EGT means less life to the valves.

So for towing I would much prefer the bigger V8. It can take the heavy torque of towing easier and will last longer.

David[/quote][p]David, one of the most forefront statements in my mind when deciding to get the EB or 5.0 was something you said a while back. It made perfect sense and kept replaying in my head like a catchy tune you just can't shake.[/p][p]
[/p][p]It went something like, and I paraphrase:  "The greater difference between fuel mileage while not towing and while towing is a good rule of thumb to measure how badly you are beating on the engine." The 5.0 fits that bill as the best of the F-150 line-up.[/p][p]
[/p][p]This forum and it's members help more than they know. I read and remember everybody's words here.
[/p]

[charliem]

[font size="3"]Thanks Whoofit and David for your insight. I think it confirms my general impression the the EB is great for impressing yourself and the EPA, but not so great for the long haul towing application. Now where are the good old 350/351s ?
[/font]

[whoofit]

And just to add that I can not take anything away from an individuals decision to get either or. Mine was decided based on being a work truck primarily. It's routine is well mapped. It will suffice as a long range TV if I ask it to. After the wife upgrades next year hers will resume tow duties of the CampLite. I do not want the mileage on my new F-150. It is a purchase that will not be traded-in in a couple years. It needs to last.

Have you all seen the Mike Rowe series of PR videos made by Ford? They make a great case for the EB engines in general. Ford has been busy.

[charliem]

[font size="3"]Whoofit,

Yes, paper meets reality. So far, driving around Denver without the trailer, I notice no difference at altitude. SC is working fine. The SC whine took a bit of getting used to, but now we hardly notice.
[/font]

[whoofit]

[quote timestamp="1441988281" author="@charliem" source="/post/15167/thread"][font size="3"]Whoofit,

Yes, paper meets reality. So far, driving around Denver without the trailer, I notice no difference at altitude. SC is working fine. The SC whine took a bit of getting used to, but now we hardly notice.
[/font][/quote][p]I think just having a blower is slick in itself. There is a tiny amount of whir from the EB's I drove too. Coming from a service van where all the product and tools are constantly bouncing around back there any thing short of a belt squeal would go unnoticed for me.[/p][p]
[/p][p]Glad to hear it's all you knew it would be. That is a spectacular TV you have there. You are fortunate to have such a vehicle dedicated to towing only..
[/p]

[whoofit]

[p]Had the chance to do a couple runs with this truck. First run was unloaded with only me in it. Mostly all highway from my Home to Hooksett NH. 86 miles one-way. Then we decided to take the trailer for an overnight on almost the same identical route to Allenstown NH us and the dog and full propane and fresh tanks

Unloaded on cruise control 65-70mph. 20.6mpg
Towing on cruise control 65-70mph. 12.8mpg

These numbers were verified at the pump and jive with the calculated values in the dash.

There is more sway than the Escape had. This is a bit disconcerting. That Escape is tight at the wheel when towing. The F-150 is a bit looser. A different experience. Tip of the hat in comfort goes to the Escape as I expected. The winner in fuel economy goes to the F-150 as the Escape might have eeked out 11mpg on that trip.[/p][p]
[/p][p]


[/p]

[charliem]

[quote source="/post/15234/thread" timestamp="1442234215" author="@whoofit"][p]There is more sway than the Escape had. This is a bit disconcerting. That Escape is tight at the wheel when towing. The F-150 is a bit looser. A different experience.
[/p][p]
[/p][p]
[/p][p][font size="3"]Did you have WDH/sway control on either or both?

[/font][/p][/quote]

[whoofit]

No mechanical bolt on sway control or WD on either, Charlie. I have a sense it has to do with the longer wheel base on the F-150 though I have no way to back that up so it's more like "just sayin" at the moment. This is my observation coming from a too small TV to a too large one. At least with the F-150 I have plenty of room in the TW and cargo capacity ratings for a WDH. The Escape has neither with the 16DB attached.

Not sure it's bad enough to invest in a WDH or sway device. Besides that the truck brutalizes the little 16DB if I ask it to.

[whoofit]

[p]Went up to get the truck rustproofed today. The closest shop that sells my preferred brand was quite a haul away. It looks like the MPG's are improving. These are numbers I got with cruise set to 65-71 mph.

1st leg to the shop at 80F.
[/p][p]
[/p][p]

[whoofit]

[p]The combo in the White Mountains NF, NH. These are some of the toughest roads around in New England. Nothing like CO but still grades of 13+%. The truck laughed at the load.[/p][p]
[/p][p]

[ammobob]

Thought you might like this. They are developing a TT with the Ford brand soon too. It will unfortunately have a steel frame. It will be the only TT they will build with a steel frame.

Had a chance to visit LL factory yesterday and got some good info I'll share later.

[a href="http://s304.photobucket.com/user/bvabob1/media/LivinLite%20Factory/image_zpshk0vgk5o.jpeg.html"]
[img style="max-width:100%;" src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn197/bvabob1/LivinLite%20Factory/image_zpshk0vgk5o.jpeg"][/a]

[whoofit]

[p] Thanks for the pics. Those are some pretty awesome looking TC's. This is huge for LL....and a big win for Ford too.  8-) I did hear it is a compromise on some of the dyed-in-the-wool LL attributes. But that's Ford for you. Too big to fail and powerful enough to back that up..[/p]

[david]

I will bet that Ford specified a steel frame for their branded trailer as a resut of a simple marketing need. Their trucks have steel frames and aluminum bodies, so how could they promote an aluminum frame in a trailer pulled by a steel frame truck?

David

[whoofit]

[quote source="/post/15526/thread" timestamp="1443305502" author="@david"]I will bet that Ford specified a steel frame for their branded trailer as a resut of a simple marketing need. Their trucks have steel frames and aluminum bodies, so how could they promote an aluminum frame in a trailer pulled by a steel frame truck?

David
[/quote][p]Probably right![/p][p]
[/p][p]It seems, with recent events at LL. Ford may soon need to reconsider the Woody. 
[/p]