F150 owners.....3.5 or 2.7 Ecoboost

[JSH]

I prefer the F250 Super Duty. More than enough torque.

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by JSH

I prefer the F250 Super Duty. More than enough torque.

After 25 years of F-250s and F-350s, something I needed working to pull heavy trailers, I was so glad to go to an F-150 with the 3.5L EB to tow my 5.0TA. Not only did it provide more power than I would ever need, it is much more of a pleasure to drive and is a bit smaller.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by kavm

The dog bone seems like a better setup..

I agree in general - if it can lay on the bed floor (or hang directly under the receptacle in more typical situation), a dogbone avoids the tendency of the "block" type to pull out of the receptacle, but that isn't really an issue with the twist-locking receptacle.

Originally Posted by kavm

PS: The LeisureCords as well as Camco adaptors are rated for 125V/3750W. Since the ProPower is rated for 7.2kW power and 240v, I searched a bit more...

The lower power rating just results from using only one side of the power supply (120 volts instead of all 240 volts) and will apply to any adapter to the Escape's connector - the adapter can handle the full 30 amps.

Originally Posted by kavm

Found one from Conntek with Max Rating: 7,500 Watts. Probably an overkill but I am inclined to go with this...

https://www.amazon.com/Conntek-PL143.../dp/B00DVE93PU

That adapts to a different style of 240-volt connection called "L6-30" (which is why it is rated for the full power of the 240 volt receptacle in the truck), not to the trailer's connection at 120 volts (which is called a "TT-30"). The Amazon listing has one disturbing error (it says "Hots are Bridged", and that is not, should not be, and cannot be true) and one amusing error ("Power source type: Propane"); that's okay, because it has nothing to do with the manufacturer or the product (just the stupid retailer).
Here's the correct Conntek adapter in the dogbone/pigtail style:

L14-30P TO TT-30R PIGTAIL ADAPTER WITH ERGO GRIP HANDLE

and in Amazon. The "ergo grip" handle style is nice for pulling it off of the trailer's power cord.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by JSH

I prefer the F250 Super Duty. More than enough torque.

Now we're getting very far from the choice between a 2.7 or 3.5 EcoBoost in an F-150, because an F-250 isn't even in the same series as an F-150 and none of the F-150 engines are available in the F-250 or vice versa. You might as well note that you prefer a Kenworth, which also has more than enough torque.

But the EcoBoost 3.5 L in the F-150 can produce more torque than either gas engine (both large V8's) available in the F-250 (or any Super Duty), and more power than the base gas engine in the Super Duty line including the F-250 (the 6.2 L V8).

Gearing is important. The F-250 doesn't use the same transmissions as the F-150 (although the 10R140 in the Super Duty and the 10R80 in the F-150 are closely related designs) so it doesn't have the same ratios, and the tallest axle ratio in the F-250 (3.73:1) is also the shortest ratio in the F-150. The F-250 is also available with a 4.30:1 axle ratio.

[Bert]

I get all the engine types etc... the biggest upside to an f250 over an f150 is in its stability/ safety, bigger box frame etc.
Having said all that it comes in at a higher price and more fuel consumption (depending)

If I was to purchase the perfect truck for me it would an F250 with the extended cab.
why?
Extended cab is about the same length as an F150 crew cab
Longer box 6 3/4 feet, that extra length works better for me
stronger frame etc.
7.3 liter gasser, don't need a diesel.
I'm a truck guy and don't mind a bit rougher ride.

[kavm]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

I agree in general - if it can lay on the bed floor (or hang directly under the receptacle in more typical situation), a dogbone avoids the tendency of the "block" type to pull out of the receptacle, but that isn't really an issue with the twist-locking receptacle.


The lower power rating just results from using only one side of the power supply (120 volts instead of all 240 volts) and will apply to any adapter to the Escape's connector - the adapter can handle the full 30 amps.


That adapts to a different style of 240-volt connection called "L6-30" (which is why it is rated for the full power of the 240 volt receptacle in the truck), not to the trailer's connection at 120 volts (which is called a "TT-30"). The Amazon listing has one disturbing error (it says "Hots are Bridged", and that is not, should not be, and cannot be true) and one amusing error ("Power source type: Propane"); that's okay, because it has nothing to do with the manufacturer or the product (just the stupid retailer).
Here's the correct Conntek adapter in the dogbone/pigtail style:

L14-30P TO TT-30R PIGTAIL ADAPTER WITH ERGO GRIP HANDLE

and in Amazon. The "ergo grip" handle style is nice for pulling it off of the trailer's power cord.

Thank you so so much, Brian! Really helpful, as always!

[C&G in FL]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

You might as well note that you prefer a Kenworth, which also has more than enough torque.

Brian, thanks! You made me laugh.

[Keith3]

Originally Posted by JSH

I prefer the F250 Super Duty. More than enough torque.

I can’t imagine the axle lift you’d need on a 5.0 to have it tow level behind a new f250 4x4.

But I do know that Camping world has some nice step ladders to get you up and in the door.

[sofmerc]

haven't tried it yet because my 5.0 won't be delivered until spring. I have the F150 Lariat crew cab (wish it was super cab!) 6 1/2' bed tow package and airbags. truck came with bedrails installed so I bought the Andersen ultimate hitch. So far I love the 3.5 Eco boost.

[Wunfiddy]

What's more important than which engine is which final gear ratio and if select shift is on the truck (ability to lock out gears)
I'm not sure on the newest generation, but my 12th gen the ability to lock out gears was not standard, and my truck lacks that feature.
I am towing our new Escape 19 with my 2014 F150 3.7 naturally aspirated V6 on 34x10.5 tires (stock was 31x9.8 I think) on its factory gear ratio of 3.73 so it's essentially equivalent to having 3.45 gearing now.
It struggles in a head wind as the truck, even in tow haul mode, always wants to shift into sixth gear. Then the wind blows harder and the truck downshifts.
The new 10 speed has a steeper first gear, and more OD gears than my 6R80, but I would still prefer the steepest final ratio available.
If looking for a 2.7 I would lean towards the Payload package with heavier rear axle and 3.73 final ratio.
For the 3.5 EcoBoost I wouldn't take anything less than 3.55.
On stock sized tires it's probably not as much of an issue. But I also have #400 or more of stuff bolted on to the truck including skid plates, a topper, and the far heavier tires.

[kavm]

In the new F150, the Tow/Haul mode reduces the top gear from 10 to 8.

[Tom&Joan]

Originally Posted by kavm

In the new F150, the Tow/Haul mode reduces the top gear from 10 to 8.

Sounds like a good idea, unless I do 70, instead of 65, our Ranger stays in 9th most of the time. It has a 3.73 rear. Limiting shifting between gears should translate into trans longevity.

[RobHill]

FWIW, in my aviation experience, yes, supercharging, turbocharging, higher revs will increase horsepower per pound of engine. The extreme example was a geared, turbocharged engine. But the more horsepower per cubic inch, the shorter the time between overhaul and the more maintenance expense, including engines that didn't make it to the factory time between overhaul.


So, I've preferred V8 cubic inches over turbocharging. Or the 3.5 over the 2.7. Of course, if one plans to replace a tow vehicle after it gets 50,000 miles on it, or to tow less than 30% of the time and then on the flatlands, it might work out differently.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by RobHill

FWIW, in my aviation experience, yes, supercharging, turbocharging, higher revs will increase horsepower per pound of engine. The extreme example was a geared, turbocharged engine. But the more horsepower per cubic inch, the shorter the time between overhaul and the more maintenance expense, including engines that didn't make it to the factory time between overhaul.


So, I've preferred V8 cubic inches over turbocharging. Or the 3.5 over the 2.7. Of course, if one plans to replace a tow vehicle after it gets 50,000 miles on it, or to tow less than 30% of the time and then on the flatlands, it might work out differently.

The analogy to aircraft engines isn't really useful. And there is absolutely no need to overhaul an EcoBoost V6 at 50K miles, whether you've towed with it or not. I've owned THREE 2.7L Ecoboost powered F150s, and the engines on each had zero issues, with no loss of power as the miles piled on.

[oldwave]

Really , maintenance on any engine is key, with turbo charging I’d change oil a little more frequently, make sure the air filter is clean and change all other fluids before the recommended intervals. I have a 2004 5.4 v8 that is known to develop phaser problems due to a under designed oil pump. Ergo when towing I change oil at 3000 miles, instead of 5. It’s 17 years old and I have no issues yet. I’d expect the never ecoboosts that have port and direct injection will last a very long time.

[Perry Butler]

Originally Posted by RobHill

FWIW, in my aviation experience, yes, supercharging, turbocharging, higher revs will increase horsepower per pound of engine. The extreme example was a geared, turbocharged engine. But the more horsepower per cubic inch, the shorter the time between overhaul and the more maintenance expense, including engines that didn't make it to the factory time between overhaul.


So, I've preferred V8 cubic inches over turbocharging. Or the 3.5 over the 2.7. Of course, if one plans to replace a tow vehicle after it gets 50,000 miles on it, or to tow less than 30% of the time and then on the flatlands, it might work out differently.

The days you're familiar with are over.

Today's modern engines are built with vastly improved designs, tighter tolerances than ever before, superior lubing, and the metallurgy is far superior to the engines of old.

I know of a 2012 F150 with a 3.5 turbo that has over 300,000 miles and still runs great, plus many over 100,000 miles. If our 2015 had been a quad cab with the goodies our 2019 has we'd still be driving that F150. Our 2015 was bought on the cheap, but I still felt bad trading it in with only 70,000 miles. Our 2019 has 27,000 miles and will probably be the last truck I purchase.

Enjoy,

Perry

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by RobHill

FWIW, in my aviation experience, yes, supercharging, turbocharging, higher revs will increase horsepower per pound of engine. The extreme example was a geared, turbocharged engine. But the more horsepower per cubic inch, the shorter the time between overhaul and the more maintenance expense, including engines that didn't make it to the factory time between overhaul.

So, I've preferred V8 cubic inches over turbocharging. Or the 3.5 over the 2.7. Of course, if one plans to replace a tow vehicle after it gets 50,000 miles on it, or to tow less than 30% of the time and then on the flatlands, it might work out differently.

The heavy duty diesel engines in Class 8 semi's are all turbocharged, run at a much higher duty cycle than passcar engines, and last for over 1,000,000 miles to first overhaul.

This gives a hint. There is nothing inherent about a selected technology (e.g. turbocharging) or specific power (BMEP) that directly translates to longevity. In the sense of pure wearout what matters are all the small design and material decisions and how they match up with the intended BMEP and duty cycle.

I'll also venture that the other key is to not wind up with an engine that has an unfortunate Achilles's heel in some aspect of the design, which may be totally unrelated to the technology or output. There are many examples......the GM 3.1l V6 intake manifold gasket, the Ford 2012-2016 twin clutch transmission in the Focus/Fiesta, Sludging in the Toyota mid-size V6.

[Bert]

Yep I totally agree with you... that's why I'm sold on Ford's F150 5.0 liter.
Other than that if I went to buy a Super Duty F250 I'd go with the 7.3 pushrod engine.
I had a Vette ... pushrod engine, bullet proof!

[WillyB]

I bought a 2016 F150 3.5 EB after talking with many (20+) 3.5 EB owners who had at least 150,000 miles without any issues while the 5.0 owners with similar mileage had several issues from cracked exhaust manifolds to high oil consumption.

I think my new fangled twin turbo 3.5 L V6 Ford appears to be a very solid motor.

But,,,,there is no V8 rumble. Just a tiny little whistle from the twin turbos.

[Fox hunt]

i am very happy with my 2.7 F150 eco boost short bed super cab. all the power i need to haul my 5.0 over mountains etc... and it is my regular driving car the rest of the time with decent mileage. so far no issues but its not very old - 2017 i get regular maintenance from our Ford dealer.