max trailer tow/ecoboost/mpg
 

I may want to go with the max trailer tow package, not for towing, but for the increased payload. I assume it has a different axle and am wondering how that would affect mpg.

When I ordered max tow it did not change axle ratio. It is still 3.73
I also got the HD payload package. 8200lb on a supercab 4x2 with 8 foot box. I really don't think you need to change axle ratio with 420 poundfeet of torque starting at 2500 rpm.

Al

Max trailer tow REQUIRES the 3.73 axle. HD package also requires it, so if you already have it ,you can't add it.

To answer the OP. Rear axles for the trucks vary from 3.15 to 3.73 (not counting the 4.10 with the Raptor or FX4). We don't know which axles Ford used for EPA testing but would assume the highest 3.15 or 3.31. So with the 3.73 I would expect maybe 1 or 2 mpg lower but then again maybe not. The 3.73 will be better off of the line, so city mileage may actually be better because it will take you less gas to get moving. Hwy mileage will be a little lower.
If you commute over 100 miles a day you would want the 3.15 or 3.31 for max hwy mpg. Me, personally I went with 3.73 but will drive 65-70 instead of 75 to make up the difference. In other words, the 3.73 will run a slightly higher rpm than the the other axles, therefore burning slightly more fuel. By slowing down a few mph, you can run the same rpm and achieve the same mpg

Thanks. I was actually thinking in terms of the FX4, so I guess I need to knock off a total of 2-4 miles? On the other hand, the official report is that the 4wd Ecoboost is 15/21 mpg. If in fact the FX4 has a different axle, it makes me wonder whether it would not be better to get a nonFX4 4WD, assuming I am not going to do any hard core offroading (I do want to go off road, but plan to be sane about it). Thoughts?

The FX4 comes standard with the 3.73 elocker rear end. So you don't have to take the 4.10.

Your other option, if you want to go off road is to get an XLT or Lariat, or whatever trim you like, then add the off road package which has 3.73's as well. As far as I know the FX4 has a different interior, the 4.10 axle option and that's about it. As far as I know it has nothing else to make it handle off road better than any other F150 with the off road package. It does have tuned shocks but then so does the off road package for the other trim levels.

Personally, I am scared of the 4.10 due to potentially lower mpg (of course with the 6 speed tranny no one really know what mpg they will get). If I was going to be towing 10000 lbs every week then I would consider it.

I have a F150 XLT SCAB 4x4 with ecoboost, max tow, 3.73, off road package on order.
I hope to get 17-18 combo city/hwy and 20-21 on the highway. I have been reading reports of the guys running across the U.S. doing the ecoboost tours getting 24mpg, so I figure I should be able to get over 20 easily. Plus with the new way they calculate mpg, it is easier to obtain the EPA figures

GVWR PKGS
 

I was looking at ordering the Ecoboost Supercrew 6.5 box FX4 package and selected max tow with 3.73's, however I did not see any GVWR options to select on the build and price at Fords site....I'm with JohnDeerefarmer on the 3.73's, I think it's the perfect combo and with a deep first gear in the 6 spd tranny it will move a load up to speed with ease and still get decent economy. :-X22

That is exactly right.

The new six speed has such wide ratios that there is no need to fear the 3.73 differential gear. At around 75 the engine is spinning about 2,000 rpm,

My GVWR for a SCAB 4x4 with 6.5' box and max tow is 7700 lbs. Payload is 2040 lbs.

For a SCREW 4x4 with 6.5 box and max tow, it is 7650 lbs with a payload cap. of 1970 lbs

Without max tow the GVWR drops 300-500 lbs

The only way you can get the Heavy Payload package is with an XL or XLT regular cab or super cab with 8 foot bed.

SCrew 4wd 6.5 GVWR is 7,700lbs
SCrew 4wd 5.5 GVWR is 7,650lbs.

Payload figures are maximum less options. ;)

Anyone else think that the 3.73 or higher rear end isn't needed and goes against the purpose and thoughts behind ecoboost torque curve? Just like the new diesels....6 speed transmission and that awesome torque curve...even when towing I don't think it's needed. We are thinking pretty old school on rear ends here.

Depends on whether you want to tow something or you have a daily driver.

I personally don't want anything less than a 3.73 to prevent excessive down shifting while towing heavy.


Sure the ecoboost has a better torque curve and more of it than previous engines but there was no industry standard before for towing. Now it's gonna take the torque of the ecoboost as well as the 3.73 to meet the new SAE standards. I guarantee you that Ford doesn't want to say that the ecoboost can tow up to 11,300 lbs this year and then have to lower it when the standards take effect. Toyota has already lowered theirs. I see that as bad for business.

It might be bad for busines but Toyota's rating is real life. I wish all manufactures used the same system right now.

These half tons can't handle that weight and people shouldn't think they can do it.

If you tow that much weight that often you should be doing it with an F250.

My thoughts on this are that engine speed [RPM] is not the sole defining factor in how many miles per gallon a vehicle gets.

To me, mileage is a product of engine efficiency.

Gearing is only but one factor in efficiency, because it has a direct effect on engine load which, in turn, has an effect on things like intake manifold vacuum and fuel injector duration. An engine that has a large load on it will produce a lot of vacuum and will burn a lot of fuel because the injectors will be "open" for a longer duration and be spraying fuel at a very high rate. This is true regardless of the engine speed.

I can observe this phenomenon regularly with my F250 which has a manual transmission. Even in low engine speed situation, my baby 5.4L truck will use a whopping 12 gallons of fuel per hour (!) with a high engine load. One way I can replicate this is by putting the transmission in 6th at 35mph and flooring it. My engine is only turning about 1500RPM but those injectors are flowing some fuel!

By this logic, it would be more fuel efficient for me to drive in 2nd gear at 35mph with the engine turning 5000RPM because then the engine only needs 8 gallons per hour.

However, if I accelerate normally using 3rd or 4th gear at 3000RPM I can accelerate prudently and use 5.5 gallons per hour during such a maneuver.




I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everything is dependent on the engine RPM. A 4.10:1 ring and pinion ratio will not guarantee worse mileage than a 3.73:1 ratio. Depending on your use, the numerically higher axle ratios could turn better mileage numbers because they reduce engine load through multiplied gearing. You have to ask yourself what kinds of loads do you normally expose your engine to: high payload, trailer towing, larger tires, frequent starts and stops?

You have to keep the engine in it's powerband and, luckily, the new EcoBoost 3.5L has a huge, broad powerband. A jump from 3.73:1 to 4.10:1 usually represents about a 200RPM jump in engine speed on a modern overdrive transmission. This is nothing to an engine that holds it's peak torque for a solid 3000RPM range. I could be wrong, but the increased gearing should only further reduce engine loads and, perhaps... hopefully... actually help mileage in a truck application.

These are my 2.5 cents
LoL
Flame Away
:-X22

The EB tow ratings falls off when you go with a lower rear end (#).

I wouldn't want to be geared too high.

Seminary Ranger,

You have a point. A variable to add to your discussion is the drag of moving mass at speed. Smaller engines and lower speeds have lower frictional losses. Higher speeds reach a point of diminishing returns as friction and the work of pumping all that air through the engine overcome the power being produced by the engine.

Lower gearing does provide greater torque at the rear wheels resulting in quicker acceleration, but there is no free lunch implied in the first law of thermodynamics ... energy is simply converted from one form to another. The efficiency found in the EB concept is to create more power with less rotational drag (friction), with a lighter engine and state of the art engine management. IMHO the six speed transmission makes rear axle ratio selection less important than it used to be. There are simply more gear ratios to use.

While the EB has a broad powerband, it doesn't mean that it's equally efficient at producing rated torque across that range. There is some RPM point where fuel burn is minimized while producing maximum torque.

You want to select a final drive ratio (transmission + rear end) that keeps you at close to this optimal point for as much of the time as possible. Unfortunately, without very careful experiments being done, the amount of information provided to the average truck buyer is not sufficient to accurately determine this.

My feeling is that the 3.73 is sufficient for someone choosing to run stock or close-to-stock tire sizes. The 4.10 exists if you want to go to larger tires (see: Raptor) and don't want to have to regear.

If the 4.10 produced better mileage on the standard EPA tests than the 3.73, you can be rest assured that it would be the standard rear end for this motor...

That's why I tried to say that there's a happy medium in there somewhere when it comes to getting the best possible mileage with the best acceleration.

I ended up ordering the 3.73 ratio behind the EcoBoost but only because the wife really didn't want the trailer tow mirrors included with the Max-Tow Package which you have to select to get the 4.10 ratio. Since those mirrors aren't PowerFold mirrors, we feared the drive-thru at Sonic was at too great of risk of getting smacked! And the bank. And the garage door... haha!

We're probably going to add a size or two large tire in the near future after the truck is delivered, that's the main reason for us wanting the 4.10:1 axle. To counteract some of that increased engine load of taller, more aggressive tires.

As much as I'd like to squeak around that pesky law of thermodynamics, I'll just keep that little 3.5L as happy as I can through gearing.


Thanks for the good discussion!

If your intent is to go to bigger tires, I think I would've gone with the 4.10s and either dealt with the mirrors (I have the dumbo ears and love them... then again, I have a topper with no rear visibility) or replace them/swap them with someone. It would be cheaper and far less work to swap mirrors than to regear, especially if you're going 4WD.

It would be great to get an insider's opinion on gear ratio selection for this motor, since it's such a different beast compared to the motors we're all used to...

no one has made mention of the 3:55 rear end! i would like to hear what we have to say on that rear end lol.

You can't get the max tow package with 355s, also the rated towing capacity is reduced to 9800lbs,

You can't get the offroad package or the electric locking rear diff. either with that ratio.

Greg

I don't understand why I hear this so much. This isn't an 84 F150. These new F150s have bigger brakes, stronger frames, more powerful engines, and stronger transmissions with more gears than the older Super Dutys that were towing everything. Now the F150s even have integrated trailer brake controllers and sway control. IMO there is no reason why they can't tow exactly what they are rated for if you drive within sanity.

Mike

agreed. if the truck couldn't handle the load Ford wouldn't give it a tow rating that says it can... IF you drive smart (which is a rule that applies equally to ANY full size pickup from ANY manufacturer btw). If someone with heavier towning needs feels more comfortable going up to a F-250/350 (and is willing/able to afford the price difference) then they are free to make that choice but, if it's within the rated capability of an F-150 and that's the truck that you want then why should you have to pay the extra $$ to step up to the F-250/350?

I can agree to a point but that is only for towing on flat ground and towing very little. Take that EB and try to tow close to max capacity on a consistant basis in hilly conditions and you'll wear that truck out in no time. And you'll also be getting way less than 8MPG at best

Just because it's rated to tow 11K or whatever the rating is doesn't mean you should do it or it's really capable of doing it. If you will be towing over 70% of max load on a regular basis the EB or a F150 isn't the way to go.

The transmissions while stronger are still underbuilt for the weight they think this truck can handle. All I'm saying is that if you're towing once or twice a month only at 7000 pounds then it's ok. If you are going to pull more than that or that much all the time a F150 is a poor choice.

I guess you didn't watch the torture test where they towed 11000 lbs for 24 hours at max throttle? If she can handle that, the ecoboost and truck can handle anything that you can throw at it.

What qualifications do you have to back up your statements that the tranny is under sized, and that "you will wear that truck out in no time?" None? Oh, that's what I thought

I take it you are just jealous because you can't have one? :-missingt

I did watch the torture test. Yep they were pulling that 11000 pound trailer up and down all kinds of hills in high elevation terrain weren't they . Yup I saw that. Apparently you don't understand physics. It's pretty dang easy to tow something on flat ground with no stops and starts on a banked track once it's moving and keep it moving, yup looks pretty hard alright.

I have no qualifications at all on the tranny but someone I know who works for Ford here in the Valley as a mechanic and has done so for over 15 years said so.
I belive him more than you internet jockeys who wear the rose colored glasses.
Anyone with half a brain wouldn't select the F150 to tow anywhere close to max weight on a consistant basis.

I would order one right now if I wanted to but I'm not sold on them yet. Being burned by every Ford I've ever owned in the past has me leery about jumping in on this EB especially since the MPG's are really dissapointing.

Anyone with more brains than money would know it's best to watch anything new Ford comes out with for a while before jumping in. The EB has yet to be proven and with $4.00 a gallon or higher Gas on the horizon I'd wait until late summer or the end of the year before I jumped in if I really wanted one. Being first to own anything new from Ford isn't always the most prudent move.


It's pretty funny how some poeple like you who know nothing about others motives or financial situations like to jump in with ridiculous comments about jealousy or not being able to afford something when they disagree about the Homers vehicle of choice.

Too funny.

Who do you think I believe? you and your mechanic or the Ford engineer that said that the tranny is plenty stout. Take a guess!

As far as hills go, first of all if truck can run around a NASCAR track WOT towing 11000 lbs a few hills are not going to stop it. No, it might not do as good as my diesel but I don't expect it too. Sure it might need premium fuel and lose a few horses in extreme heat- so what? It's got plenty to spare and a flat torque curve to boot and it's a whole lot cheaper than a diesel both upfront and in maintenance

As far as not having any brains for ordering an ecoboost engine right now, I believe that they added another shift at the engine plant to keep up with demand for the ecoboost. Sure must be alot of dumba$$es like me out there.

It's pretty funny how some people get on these FORD forums, bad mouth the products and think that they are immune from being bashed.
:-yeahrigh

I never complained once about getting bashed.

I expect people like you to come to Ford's defense. I am still looking for a truck. I have been for a few years now. I wanted a Tundra but they are a POS and I wasn't going for a 5.4.

I hope Ford opens two more shifts for the EB and then when gas hits close to 5.00 a gallon later this summer they'll be giving them away.

If the EB pans out in real world driving later this year maybe I'll scoop one up at 10k off.

Guys, there's not much point in this argument. Go look at Excaliber's posting history... he stirs up crap in every forum he visits. Ford builds crap, but Toyotas are crap except for their drivetrain, but the EB will never happen, but Ford needs a major bailout to survive, on and on...

In short, just another forum troll.

I anxiously await Excaliber's witty retort, which I will be so kind as to ignore.

well, I for one am enjoying following the troll-baiting so I would encourage you to sit back, relax, and ignore the admittedly obvious pointlessness of arguing with this guy. after all, i just got a fresh bowl of popcorn ready so, let's see what new brilliant comeback excaliber can come up with next. want some popcorn tvsjr?
http://www.pamba.thinkhost.com/images/LWD/popcorn.gif

Absolutely! Most trolls don't like getting called out, so I can only hope that Excaliber and his rapier wit will return soon!

excaliber551, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Do you honestly believe Ford DOESN'T test every single part that goes into their trucks? Why would they want all the lawsuits, warranty repairs (they have a 5 yr/60k drivetrain warranty) and bad PR that would come with over-rating their vehicles? Just so they can have a little marketing point (highest tow rating)? F150s are only rated a few hundred lbs. higher than their competitors, anyway. Anyone who has looked at new trucks could tell you that.

I've towed my 30' camper with my '10 F150 CC 5.4L and it is far more stable and less taxed than my company vehicle - a '02 Chevy 2500HD - pulling the same weight. The Chevy does very well (especially considering its age), but the F150 is better in every way. It's one of the best towing trucks I've driven and I have towed with a lot of trucks. And towing around where I live is about as bad as it gets. No, I wouldn't pull MORE than 11,300 lbs. with my truck, but I would have no problem doing it all day long. I have far more faith in FoMoCo and their engineers than your buddy who services vehicles at a dealership.

Anyway, I personally think the OP made a great choice. I'm sure the 3.73s with the EB engine will make an excellent combo. And I'm jealous that you can order electronic-locking diffs in the '11 Lariats (no so for '10).

What is the GCWR For the max tow EB 150?

I think @ 17,300 of the top of my head.

Thanks powerkid! Wow, that's an awesome number. I will definetly keep the EB 150 in mind for future needs.
There is no doubt the EB150 can manage those weights ocassionally. I would like to point out that excessive or continous operations at max rated weights will lead to premature failure of life limited parts.This would go for any truck! 150/250/350 and so on.
Most of the parts on our trucks are life limited meaning they will only last for a given number of years. Now before the bashing begins let me offer proof to support this agrument.
Turbofan engines designed by General Electric and Pratt& Whitney are also rated to produce maximum thrust. For arguments sake lets say this is the same as the max weight we can tow. Most operators of these engine do not operate them at max thrust unless necessary for aircraft performance. They instead operate the engines at ratings far lower than max. The reason....the GE& P+W engineers have determined that operations at lower power settings will prolong engine and engine components. The science of metal fatigue, stress, etc is there and I believe the same applies to trucks and the vast majority of their components. The more you run them at max anything the quicker the problems will show up.
The above information can be found by a simple search on the internet. Google assumed temperature takeoffs or de-rated takeoffs.

Let the bashing begin.

It is common sense that operating anything near its max, it will fail faster. No argument there. Doesn't matter if its an engine, turbo, or a transistor in an amplifier that is being operated at it's maximum output.

I will say however that if the ecoboost survived the torture tests including the 24 hours around the NASCAR track- towing max load at WOT it can handle anything that any of us here throw at it- unless we purposely try to destroy it or don't maintain it properly

gas mileage 2012 Eco Boost with a 3.73 rear while carrying
 

I can't supply information for the 3.73 ratio, but the wife's EB(3.55) in my signature has averaged 17.4 for the last 5k miles. No towing, so I cant help there, maybe some of the other members have those numbers.

I can tell you in a couple of weeks....bought one yesterday. EcoBoost with the 3.73 and max tow. Pick it up next week.

I second that motion, once I receive my 163" XL S/Cab 4X4 with HD and Max Tow, I'll weigh in on fuel econo as I am one of those guys who like to monitor data and supply facts.