[quote=howellt39;12951745]
So, overall, it's serviceable and far more comfortable on the interior but missing the extra weight, mileage (12 mpg towing this with the 7.3), stability, and braking performance of the 350.

I have a 2011 EB Crewcab 5.5 box 3.73 Platinum w/20's. I came from the 6.0's (never a problem and excellent mileage). My mileage on the EB has been an extreme disappointment. 9mpg towing, 12-13mpg city and 16-17mpg hwy. Since my 6.0's were flawless, fate has dealt me an EB at the low end of what everyone else is seeing.

The motor otherwise pulls like the diesels and has not disappointed on the power. Being as it is lighter than a diesel the F150 platform gets knocked around by the trailers I pull.

Since 40% of the time I am towing, this is being trading it in tomorrow for a F350 6.7.

 

[quote=Exonvldz;12951851]With 40% towing... Good choice!!!

F150 EB is not a full replacement for a Superduty Diesel. I tow less than 5% of the time and it was a good choice for me. You on the other hand are making the right decision IMO.

As for fuel mileage... Im getting the lower end of the range as well.

 

I tow 60% of miles from March to October. I pull a 7500 lb race trailer all over the state of iowa every weekend during the race season. My EBoost F-150 does an amazing job for that.

 

Iowa is pretty darn flat. I can see how the EB 150 is a great choice for that situation. Mountains, not so much...

What kind of mileage are you seeing when you're towing 7500# and is it an enclosed trailer (air dam)?

 

EB engine will get less fuel mileage than a NA F150 engine while towing. Any time a small displacement forced induction engine is put under a load towing it requires more boost to get the power to move the extra weight. More boost = more fuel. When not towing you don't have the extra weight so you won't be running much boost which = better fuel mileage. Diesels don't use as much boost to move an = load because they are larger displacement engines and have more torque. With that being said, one could expect approximately 8-9 mpg towing a 7000 lb. enclosed trailer with an EB and probably would see 9-10 or possibly even 11mpg with a 5.0L or 6.2L NA engine while towing.

 

That is probably the most ignorant post i have seen in awhile. It is based on nothing, and to boot isnt true.

Moving a load is going to take a certain amount of energy. Period.

My ecoboost gets 11-12 mpg pulling my 7500 lb enclosed race trailer every single weekend. My 99 5.4l only got 8-9 mpg pulling the same load. Maybe a 5.0 would get 11-12mpg as well, maybe not. But it sure as hell wont get better than that. It has little to do with it being a 5.0, V8 or naturally aspirated. The MPG is a reflection of the increased efficiency of the combustion process over the previous engine designs.

Also the ecoboost is only going to put in as much fuel as is required to maintain a certain air/fuel ratio. Same as the 5.0. Seeing how the 3.5 makes more power down low than the 5.0, it will require less throttle position than a 5.0 and inturn should require less fuel to do the same work. Now we all know this isnt always the case, and there are way to many variables.

This debate is impossible to settle with hearsay. But my point is that 5.0 will not yeild better towing MPG. They will be the same. and they will both be worse than anyone wants.

 

Yeah, I kind of agree with this. Forced induction is just another way of getting more air into the smaller cylinder for a more robust power stroke. In the end, it's a function of energy in - friction losses = energy out that you can use.

8-9 mpg is also my experience with a 8000k travel trailer. That's flats, ups, downs, city, highway...no significant changes. And yep, worse that I want!

 

It's only based on my personal experience, BURNSTOUGHFORD. 1/2 mpg ain't that big of a deal either way. It's also common knowledge by now that a 99 5.4L was a fuel sucking turd with no power by now. My 95 5.8L got better mileage towing or not than a 99 5.4L would. But it does take a little fatter fuel curve to run a boosted engine under load than a NA engine and that's most likely why towing fuel economy is lower by a little. Ford programs them that way to avoid warranty claims due to detonation under load. An EB will still out pull a 5.0L any day of the week and will also get better fuel economy at high altitude than a 5.0L. You can believe that or not, it makes not difference to me. But you could use a little more tact than what you did disputing what I have experienced. Didn't hurt my feelings any, but it did remind me of why I don't race any longer.

 

Noticed a few issues about the whole diesel vs. gas and forced induction vs. natural aspiration on this thread. Thought I'd set a few things straight. As for the diesel vs. gas argument, there are a few things that work in the favor of diesels. 1, the fuel has more BTU's per unit volume. So the fuel is more energy dense. So there's more energy that can be extracted out of a gallon of diesel vs gasoline. 2, diesels are a "Lean Burn" engine. That's why the old mechanical diesels throttled by the amount of fuel that's injected, that's still true with modern diesels but the modern ones have throttle bodies to help adjust the EGR (shudder) ratios on the intake side of things. However, the engines runs according to how much fuel is in the chamber. In the case of diesels, boost only makes them much more efficient to maximize the air to fuel ratio. Also, it's impossible to have any ping because of how a diesel works so they run as lean as possible regardless of boost amount. However, with modern emissions this advantage has been pulled back a bit. Gasoline engines are "Stoichiometric". This means there's a specific ratio of fuel to air that gasoline engines function best at which is currently around 14:1 I believe (air:fuel). However, to help avoid detonation issues with a stoichiometric engine, you have to enrich the fuel:air ratio. Even with direct injection, the injectors may need to start injecting before top dead center, and this is where you can run into issues of detonation. It's this enriching of the ratio that kills the fuel economy on the ecoboost. This is also why I'm thinking that Ram is about to get a big leg-up in the fuel economy wars when that VM Motori diesel motor drops this fall. Also, pickuptrucks.com observed superior fuel economy in the 5.0 vs. ecoboost motor. Again, the 5.0 will keep its ratio around 13 or 14:1 while the ecoboost will have to enrich down to around 12:1, maybe less (my sky redline seemed to enrich down to the 12:1 ratio in heavy boost), causing the extra gulping of fuel even though both engines will put out the same amount of horsepower ultimately. Also, I'm sure some driver's right foot also tends to give-in to the ecoboost suffering a mileage penalty while towing.