F-150 with EB 2,7 liter

[hondasaurus]

Hi

My actual truck sit at the dealer for the last 4 week. Since I've lost confidence on it's reliability i've started to look at different option. I want a truck, crew cab, 4x4 with locking rear dif with max 18 inch wheel, heated seat, cruise. I use the truck as I fish and hunt also.

From all the choice in truck available, i've eliminated a few:

Ram: never on my dead body and the more than liter motor are subject to a taxe on license plate of more than 100$ yearlly.
Toyota Tacoma: not enough payload at least 1500#
Toyota Tundra: Same as Ram
Ford Ranger: to small tank gaz. So when towing not enough range for my need.
GMC or Chevrolet full size: see RAM
GMC or Chevrolet mid-size. Since I know the product with the diesel motor, I have one the payload is limit but I can do with it. It would be with an gaz engine.
Titan: see RAM.

Left the F-150. The truck is gonna be for travelling with the trailler (Escape -19) or long distance. I have another vehicle for town use.

Since, a full size truck will cover more trailler, I assume the drag will be less than with my actual Canyon. Towing with my diesel Canyon give me 12,5-14 liter per 100 km following the traffic. With the full size truck 15-16 liter per 100 km would be nice.

My question, what is you millage drop when towing?
The one I've bild gonna have the payload max that come with 3,73 rear axel so towing should not be to affected?

Feedback anyone!

[Centex]

Originally Posted by hondasaurus

....
Since, a full size truck will cover more trailler, I assume the drag will be less than with my actual Canyon.
...
Feedback anyone!

Methinks you are putting too fine a point on your evaluation, that the difference insofar as ^this^ factor is not meaningful in the context of the pickup truck + RV trailer combinations you are talking about. I would set this consideration aside in your already difficult decision making problem (make your decision based on other more significant factors).

Wind drag (Cd) for a complex shape like a total truck + trailer rig is a complex aerodynamic calculation. IMO your assumption is, for all practical purposes, false, or at least the net difference would be insignificant in the real world evaluation of mileage, etc.

My comments are in the context of considering a pickup truck + bumper-pull trailer, recognizing the shape of the pickup, the distance from the cab to the trailer, 'collapse' of the airflow in the space between the two shapes, etc. The effect might be different and more meaningful if talking about a 'big rig' (18-wheeler) tractor-trailer where the scale and distances are very different (not a comparable analogy to your pickup + bumper-pull RV situation).

Bottom line, the decision you face is already a challenge the way you are approaching it, I'd work to eliminate factors in that decision which are not significant, and I think this notion about wind drag falls in that category. I suggest you work to simplify the decision, focus on the really meaningful differences between the alternatives you are considering.

IMO, just for your consideration.

[hondasaurus]

Originally Posted by Centex

Methinks you are putting too fine a point on your evaluation, that the difference insofar as ^this^ factor is not meaningful in the context of the pickup truck + RV trailer combinations you are talking about. I would set this consideration aside in your already difficult decision making problem (make your decision based on other more significant factors).

Wind drag (Cd) for a complex shape like a total truck + trailer rig is a complex aerodynamic calculation. IMO your assumption is, for all practical purposes, false, or at least the net difference would be insignificant in the real world evaluation of mileage, etc.

My comments are in the context of considering a pickup truck + bumper-pull trailer, recognizing the shape of the pickup, the distance from the cab to the trailer, 'collapse' of the airflow in the space between the two shapes, etc. The effect might be different and more meaningful if talking about a 'big rig' (18-wheeler) tractor-trailer where the scale and distances are very different (not a comparable analogy to your pickup + bumper-pull RV situation).

Bottom line, the decision you face is already a challenge the way you are approaching it, I'd work to eliminate factors in that decision which are not significant, and I think this notion about wind drag falls in that category. I suggest you work to simplify the decision, focus on the really meaningful differences between the alternatives you are considering.

IMO, just for your consideration.

You are probably right and more knowable than me. But for me the less frontal area hitting become less resistance and easier towing.

[Centex]

Originally Posted by hondasaurus

You are probably right and more knowable than me. But for me the less frontal area hitting become less resistance and easier towing.

OK, it's your decision, my point being that the difference in frontal area of the truck in front of the trailer (within the ranges you are talking about) will not really have any meaningful effect on the wind resistance offered by the trailer (because, in simplest real-world terms, the 'hole punched in the wind' by the frontal area of the truck will in great measure 'collapse' before it reaches the frontal area of the trailer).

Remember, you are looking for meaningful differences between a mid-size and a full-size truck, and in terms of frontal area the differences just aren't that great, IMO.

Factors like engine power, truck wheelbase and weight, etc will, IMO, be much more significant contributors to meaningful differences in overall perceived 'towing-ease'.

Good Luck!

[hondasaurus]

Originally Posted by Centex

(because, in simplest real-world terms, the 'hole punched in the wind' by the frontal area of the truck will in great measure 'collapse' before it reaches the frontal area of the trailer).

Point taken! It makes sense

[emers382]

Allo Luc

Thought I'd jump in here with an answer to your question about mileage. Now towing a 5.0TA is likely a bit different than a 19 but I get 17-18 l/100km towing usually, used to do better with our former 5.0 single axle but then is was lighter and not as wide. We've towed both trailers with this truck to Vancouver Island and a number of times to FL. Also to Eastern ON, and the truck without trailer has been to your city.

Reliability - I would certainly go with another 2.7EB. I've only had one minor issue with the truck and that was covered under the 100K km plan I purchased with the truck. It has 116K km on now (only a little over 1000 km since Oct. 22 and it's our only vehicle)

Sorry to hear you're frustrated with the GM midsize.

[hondasaurus]

Originally Posted by emers382

Allo Luc

Thought I'd jump in here with an answer to your question about mileage. Now towing a 5.0TA is likely a bit different than a 19 but I get 17-18 l/100km towing usually, used to do better with our former 5.0 single axle but then is was lighter and not as wide. We've towed both trailers with this truck to Vancouver Island and a number of times to FL. Also to Eastern ON, and the truck without trailer has been to your city.

Reliability - I would certainly go with another 2.7EB. I've only had one minor issue with the truck and that was covered under the 100K km plan I purchased with the truck. It has 116K km on now (only a little over 1000 km since Oct. 22 and it's our only vehicle)

Sorry to hear you're frustrated with the GM midsize.

Thanks for your Jump inhttps://www.escapeforum.org/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by hondasaurus

... more than liter motor are subject to a taxe on license plate of more than 100$ yearlly.

This sort of taxation scheme based on engine displacement was common, particularly on other continents, but I didn't know it was done here. I certainly didn't know that Quebec still had this nonsense.

The actual rule is not so simple - the annual fee goes up in steps for each 0.1 litre of displacement above 4 litres, from CA$37.25 (for 4.0 L) to CA$397.00 (for 7.0L or greater).

This is incredibly stupid because, while the point is to encourage more fuel-efficient and cleaner vehicles, it means that an F-150 with a 5.0 V8 pays $163.00 more than a 3.5 EcoBoost, even though the smaller but turbocharged EcoBoost uses just as much fuel and emits just as much pollutants. A rational system would use the fuel consumption as published by the federal government, regardless of the engine used to achieve that.

In addition to the Ford EcoBoost engines that skirt this rule, there is the GM 2.7L turbocharged gasoline engine in the Chevrolet and GMC full-sized trucks, plus any of the diesels (if you can still get one) which are (or were) available in Ram 1500, Ford F-150, Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon, Chevrolet Silverado, and GMC Sierra trucks.

[oldwave]

100 bucks a year fro plates doesn’t seem that bad given the cost of the truck and trailer. You’ll spend more than that on a short trip. I’m looking at the next gen tundra when it comes out. Toyota does make reliable vehicles. My old 2004f150 had been ok, but it’s 17 years old and I’d like some modern safety features. Antilock breaks etc. Modern f150s are pretty reliable, but the Tundras are far the best for that but they are gas hogs as current. Will se what 2022 brings

[C&G in FL]

Having towed my 5.0 TA first with a 2012 3.5 EB, then a 2015 2.7 EB (its electronics were fried by EMP From nearby lightning strike, and now with a 2020 3.5 EB, note that I went back to the 3.5 EB. While the 2.7 EB is capable of towing the 5.0TA, IMO the 3.5 is better. I got the same towing mileage with the 2012, steel bodied 3.5 EB F-150 as I did with the aluminum bodied, 800 pounds lighter, 2015 2.7 EB. Same rear end, same (6 speed transmission) in both. Presumable, the 2.7 EB had to work harder to tow the load than did the 3.5 EB and it was noticeable in the transmission’s shifting response. The only place that the 2.7’s mileage was superior was when the trailer was not connected, and not so much in city traffic. On the Highway, disconnected, it beat the 3.5 by about 4 mph. It is too soon for me to report on the 2020 3.5 EB, but unlike the steel bodied 2012 F-150, it is aluminum and has a 10-speed transmission and the larger fuel tank.

[emers382]

Originally Posted by oldwave

100 bucks a year fro plates doesn’t seem that bad given the cost of the truck and trailer. You’ll spend more than that on a short trip. I’m looking at the next gen tundra when it comes out. Toyota does make reliable vehicles. My old 2004f150 had been ok, but it’s 17 years old and I’d like some modern safety features. Antilock breaks etc. Modern f150s are pretty reliable, but the Tundras are far the best for that but they are gas hogs as current. Will se what 2022 brings

I think what Luc is saying is that over as certain displacement there's a $100 tax ON TOP of the usual registration fee, not that his total yearly cost would be $100 only. Taxes in Quebec are very high.

[hondasaurus]

Originally Posted by emers382

I think what Luc is saying is that over as certain displacement there's a $100 tax ON TOP of the usual registration fee, not that his total yearly cost would be $100 only. Taxes in Quebec are very high.

Exactly, a Ram with a Hemmi 5,7 liter is gonna cost 106$ more per year. So for not being a Ram fanatic I would not consider paying 106$ more per year. That also apply to GM Toyota with big displacement.

DROITS D’ACQUISITION

Dorénavant, des droits d’acquisition sont payables lors de l’immatriculation d’un véhicule neuf ou usagé muni d’un moteur d’une cylindrée de 4 litres ou plus. Le montant à payer est déterminé selon la cylindrée :

53,00 $ : cylindrée de 4 à 4,9 litres
106,00 $ : cylindrée de 5 à 5,9 litres
212,00 $ : cylindrée de 6 litres ou plus


Also got new from my dealer and my truck computer finally was able to speak to the fuel pump??!!!. More than 5 000$ in 1 month. Thank for antipollution warranty. Will just take a few week to shop around but my mind is setting on F150 with a 2,7 EC. Just have to find a good deal. I'm sad because the 2,8 Duramax diesel is just to sweet of a motor with a Escape 19. I was hopping to keep that truck for 4 more year. Time will tell.

[Brian B-P]

For those who missed it earlier, the details of this large displacement fee rule are given (in English) in the link:

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

The actual rule is not so simple - the annual fee goes up in steps for each 0.1 litre of displacement above 4 litres, from CA$37.25 (for 4.0 L) to CA$397.00 (for 7.0L or greater).

[Wunfiddy]

2.7 EB with tow package and 136 liter fuel tank would be a good combo.

My 2014 3.7 V6 steel body F150 gets 17-18 L/100km towing our 2500# pop up trailer with a pair of bikes on the trailer roof rack. (And way too much weight in the truck too)
But I'm on oversized heavy tires. If really windy it's been as bad as 22 l/100km.
We get our new Escape 19 late May and will tow it back to MB from BC. Will let you know the fuel economy.
My friend and business partner has a 2.7 EB SCAB 4x4 10 speed, and with ladders, contractor aluminum topper, and lots of weight sees 16-17 average.

[hondasaurus]

Originally Posted by Wunfiddy

We get our new Escape 19 late May and will tow it back to MB from BC. Will let you know the fuel economy.
My friend and business partner has a 2.7 EB SCAB 4x4 10 speed, and with ladders, contractor aluminum topper, and lots of weight sees 16-17 average.

Thanks, that would be nice.