Behavior of turbocharged engines when towing

[WillyB]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

I really wanted a white one, but hard to find with right mix of features. and a stone or beige interior, even harder to find, 90% of them seem to have black interiors.

For me, I want a White with Bronze bottom King Ranch F-150. But........I'll settle for my 2016 Dark Grey XLT.

As one of those cool bands say: "You Can't Always Get Want You Want"

Nice looking TV.

[Rossue]

I almost went for one with the Stone interior, however only the seats aren't black. Everything else is.

[emers382]

Mike I haven't read this entire thread since we're on the road and not checking the forum much. We have a new 2022 F150 with the 2.7EB and can report the following.

Having checked the lie-o-meter against fill ups I find it's pretty accurate so... from March until June when the truck did not tow the overall mileage was 11.5l/100km (20.5 mpg). On this trip of over 3500 km with only one day of driving in Ottawa without the trailer the overall mileage towing is 15.2l/100km (15.5mpg) so my reduction for towing is only about a quarter. The towing on this trip has generally been about 100kph or 62mph, with some at 110 but others at 90, plus little steady interstate type driving i.e. lots of towns so I'm pretty happy with this.

[JeffinBC]

Currently on a trip and after the first 1500km, We’re getting 17.5l/100km (13-14mpg) average with cruise control set to between 55 and 60mph with no giant uphills or downhills. 2018 F-150 with 3.5 Ecoboost towing a 21C.

[7Gentex]

Originally Posted by ericbirk

..........My '95 LC has 150k miles on it, is full armoured

Wait, WUT?

[7Gentex]

Originally Posted by CasparScape

Not seeing this truck mentioned, I thought I would share. My 2021 chevy Silverado 1500 duramax turbodiesel towing E-19 averages a solid 15 mpg, considering mts, flats, and no real effort to drive slowly. This is loaded trailer and 17 ft canoe on the truck rack. Amazingly, I get 30+ mpg highway when not towing, 23 mpg average around town. I really hated to part with my 2000 V-8 Tundra, but even new Tundras still lack serious tow and cargo capacity, and mileage is still embarrassingly low.

Interesting........also believe the 2023/2024 diesel was "upgraded" a bit......

[SeldomSeen]

Back in May/June took a little trip from Cleveland Ohio to Estes Park, RMNP then down to Taos, then back to CLE. 2023 F150 with a 2013 Escape 19.

3725 miles total
14.2mpg overall (with 212 "all electric")

3342 miles towing
13.6 mpg while towing average

Best day was Cleveland to Iowa, towing 492 miles
15mpg

Usually, driving around town on short trips we get about 22mpg. 24mpg or a little better on the 90 mile interstate round trip to see my granddaughter.

Glenn

[Centex]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

Well, this turbo truck just came home with us last night, haven't had a chance to tow with it yet, but man, a backup camera and shorter wheelbase makes hitching 100X easier!...

Congratulations, John, certainly a handsome acquisition! Even though not white on tan, a very tolerable compromise considering other features, IMO

Something on the order of ~4.5 ft shorter wheelbase than your crew/long bed superduty? That'll make a lot more than just hitching easier methinks.

Will the Expedition manage to accommodate your stargazing equipment?

Wishing you many happy miles.

[blue_bullet]

Originally Posted by WillyB

As one of those cool bands say: "You Can't Always Get Want You Want".

"But if you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need." -The Stones

In our 2017 Duramax HD2500 we get 37 mpg; 15 mpg towing our Escape plus 22 mpg not towing.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by pkgman51

There is a great deal of information about EcoBoost engines on YouTube. It appears there are two issues that could be trouble. One is carbon on the valves because direct port ignition engines don't have gas washing over the valves when gas is being pumped into the cylinders.

Originally Posted by WillyB

Where are you pulling this information from? Internet Chatter or Actual Documented?

As already explained, "direct port ignition" is meaningless and the intention was presumably "direct fuel injection" (directly into the cylinders, not into the intake manifold or ports).

Problems with deposits in direct gasoline fuel injection engines are well-known, in all brands; remember, Ford's EcoBoost is not unique in any way, and there are many direct gasoline fuel injection engines. It is not even directly related to turbocharging: direct injection is used with turbocharging, turbocharging is used without direct injection, and more than one manufacturer combines direct injection and turbocharging (because they combine well).

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by dlakeman

This thread discussion seems to be focused on MPG. What about stability when towing with the Tacoma vs. the F-150?

The thread topic is "Behavior of turbocharged engines when towing", which has nothing to do with vehicle stability.

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by Centex

Congratulations, John, certainly a handsome acquisition! Even though not white on tan, a very tolerable compromise considering other features, IMO

Something on the order of ~4.5 ft shorter wheelbase than your crew/long bed superduty? That'll make a lot more than just hitching easier methinks.

Will the Expedition manage to accommodate your stargazing equipment?

Wishing you many happy miles.

42 ft vs 62 ft turning circle is a biggee.

and re my telescope and camping etc equipment? it will do...



about 7' of cargo space from the back of the front seats and center console to the tailgate.

oh, and the wheel base is about 123" vs 160" for the longbed supercab f250.

[C&G in FL]

Having towed my 2015 5.0TA with both a 2.7 EB F-150 and a 3.5 EB I can unequivocally state that my preference is for the 3.5 EB. While it does not get the unhitched fuel mileage that the 2.7 gets, the towing mileage is equal to and sometimes slightly better with the 3.5, possibly because it doesn’t have to work as hard. But my preference results from the power difference. While I found my 2.7 adequate, I find the 3.5 superb. Just my opinion.

[sofmerc]

very nice !...Have fun with it

[splitting_lanes]

Originally Posted by C&G in FL

Having towed my 2015 5.0TA with both a 2.7 EB F-150 and a 3.5 EB I can unequivocally state that my preference is for the 3.5 EB. While it does not get the unhitched fuel mileage that the 2.7 gets, the towing mileage is equal to and sometimes slightly better with the 3.5, possibly because it doesn’t have to work as hard. But my preference results from the power difference. While I found my 2.7 adequate, I find the 3.5 superb. Just my opinion.

Which truck was newer? I’d be inclined to think the better MPGs came from tuning refinement. How hard it works is a function of how much weight it’s pulling, not how hard it *can* work at max.


Edit. Ps, hope your trailer and you are ok given your posted location

[Rossue]

Originally Posted by C&G in FL

Having towed my 2015 5.0TA with both a 2.7 EB F-150 and a 3.5 EB I can unequivocally state that my preference is for the 3.5 EB. While it does not get the unhitched fuel mileage that the 2.7 gets, the towing mileage is equal to and sometimes slightly better with the 3.5, possibly because it doesn’t have to work as hard. But my preference results from the power difference. While I found my 2.7 adequate, I find the 3.5 superb. Just my opinion.

Was waiting for your comment on this as I remembered you had previously made this observation.

[Rossue]

Originally Posted by splitting_lanes

Which truck was newer? I’d be inclined to think the better MPGs came from tuning refinement. How hard it works is a function of how much weight it’s pulling, not how hard it *can* work at max.

Perhaps Brian B.P. can weigh in, however I believe too that the 3.5 will get better mileage as the RPM's are lower pulling 4,000 lbs. vs. a 2.7 which has to be revving higher & in a higher boost level of the turbos.

Remember the Ford Fairmont in the mid-seventies? It primarily had two choices in the U.S.- a 2.3L four cylinder and a 3.3L six cylinder engine. The six cylinder was reported to get better mileage due to better performance.

[Mark B1]

Originally Posted by Rossue

If it was a newer Explorer ST that would've been a hoot for sure & definitely more nimble than an Expedition, however for towing no comparison.

We tow with a 2021 Explorer ST and are quite impressed, both as a get around vehicle and towing. With 400 hp and 415 max torque it does not lack the grunt to tow and comes standard with a class III hitch. We also drove the Expedition but found nice but it was not as much fun to drive (more like a truck), is not as good for parking and mileage in the city, and won't fit well in our garage without some major shuffling. The Explorer is also very comfortable for 4 adults (ours has four bucket seats). With the 3.0 Twin Turbo it is a hoot to drive when not towing, but it tows very well. We average about 17 liters/100 km (close to 17 mpg in US gallons) towing the E19 in all conditions (flats, hills, mountains). We do tend to stick to the speed limit, or sometimes lower if we are not blocking traffic, when towing which helps with mileage, but if we need to get out and pass it has lots of jam to do that. Like the F-150 it has a 10 speed transmission with a tow/haul mode that we find great for towing. I tested the hill descent on a steep gravel road and I didn't have to use brakes (very slow though). It also has a pretty good CGVW so we can carry a fair bit of cargo in the tow vehicle, or four adults and still a good bit of gear. Easy to install roof cross bars to carry a canoe too.

[Akfishman]

My 2020 Ranger has the turbo 4 cylinder engine. I use it to tow my 21c. Highway mileage keeping it 70 I can get 24 mpg. When I’m towing if I keep the speed between 55-60mph I consistently get 15mpg
70-75 mph I’m getting a little better than 13.5 mpg. It’s got plenty of power and torque to haul the 21 easily. I’ve driven it twice to Alaska and the east coast.

[WillyB]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

42 ft vs 62 ft turning circle is a biggee.

and re my telescope and camping etc equipment? it will do...



about 7' of cargo space from the back of the front seats and center console to the tailgate.

oh, and the wheel base is about 123" vs 160" for the longbed supercab f250.

We've camped in the back of our Honda Pilot for years and felt it was the perfect size and very comfortable.

Your new ride would be like camping in a concert hall. That thing is huge!