2015 Tow Guide
10-22-2014, 08:36 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
2015 Tow Guide
Found this link to the 2015 Ford Tow guide over in the 2015 F150 section of the forum.
http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/...Tgde_Sep30.pdf
As usual there's a lot of useful info, rear axle codes, definitions, basic rules for towing, and so on.
But also as usual, it doesn't include max payloads. Although I suppose you could back calculate them from the "Max Cargo Weights" in the Slide-In Camper section on p10 by adding back 150# for each seating position.
Noticed on p28 that the F150 hitch receiver WDH ratings has been boosted to 12,200#/1220#, a nice little boost for those of us with heavy tongue weights.
http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/...Tgde_Sep30.pdf
As usual there's a lot of useful info, rear axle codes, definitions, basic rules for towing, and so on.
But also as usual, it doesn't include max payloads. Although I suppose you could back calculate them from the "Max Cargo Weights" in the Slide-In Camper section on p10 by adding back 150# for each seating position.
Noticed on p28 that the F150 hitch receiver WDH ratings has been boosted to 12,200#/1220#, a nice little boost for those of us with heavy tongue weights.
Last edited by brulaz; 10-22-2014 at 09:32 AM.
The following 3 users liked this post by brulaz:
10-23-2014, 11:31 AM
#2
Senior Member
Thank-you. That was the information I was waiting to see. The only disappointing part is that in 2014 you could get a reg cab long box 4x2 with the EcoBoost and a 3.31 axle ratio. This would have fit my needs very well. Now in 2015 they appear to have dropped the 3.31 option. You have to go with a 3.15 or 3.55 ratio. One is perhaps a bit high, and the other a bit low. The other interesting part is that the maximum loaded trailer capability is reached with the 3.55 ratio and NO heavy duty payload package. No advantage at all with the 3.73 ratio. If they wanted to drop a ratio, it would have made more sense to drop the 3.73 on the EB.
10-23-2014, 11:53 AM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
...
The other interesting part is that the maximum loaded trailer capability is reached with the 3.55 ratio and NO heavy duty payload package. No advantage at all with the 3.73 ratio. If they wanted to drop a ratio, it would have made more sense to drop the 3.73 on the EB.
The other interesting part is that the maximum loaded trailer capability is reached with the 3.55 ratio and NO heavy duty payload package. No advantage at all with the 3.73 ratio. If they wanted to drop a ratio, it would have made more sense to drop the 3.73 on the EB.
Doesn't happen with the other engines. Guess with their lower torque numbers they really need a 3.73 rear end to tow more weight.
But since we're talking about 12,000# total with the 3.5L EcoB, maybe it's just rounding error?
10-23-2014, 12:00 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Thank-you. That was the information I was waiting to see. The only disappointing part is that in 2014 you could get a reg cab long box 4x2 with the EcoBoost and a 3.31 axle ratio. This would have fit my needs very well. Now in 2015 they appear to have dropped the 3.31 option. You have to go with a 3.15 or 3.55 ratio. One is perhaps a bit high, and the other a bit low.
...
...
). 3.31 is available in the 4x4, and with the other engines. We're spoiled with all these options really.
And just realized that Ford is referring to the EcoBoost engines as GTDI in the tables. What's up with that? Marketing? Not enough text space in the table to spell out EcoBoost?
I
EDIT: By the way, Ron, have you had a chance to see a 2015 Regular cab yet? I haven't heard of one being at any of the demos Ford is having. Would love to see how much space is behind the seats.
Last edited by brulaz; 10-23-2014 at 12:03 PM.
10-23-2014, 01:03 PM
#5
Senior Member
You're talking about the 3.5L EcoB (don't want to forget about the 2.7L EcoB). 3.31 is available in the 4x4, and with the other engines.
We're spoiled with all these options really.
And just realized that Ford is referring to the EcoBoost engines as GTDI in the tables. What's up with that? Marketing? Not enough text space in the table to spell out EcoBoost?
.
). 3.31 is available in the 4x4, and with the other engines. We're spoiled with all these options really.
And just realized that Ford is referring to the EcoBoost engines as GTDI in the tables. What's up with that? Marketing? Not enough text space in the table to spell out EcoBoost?
.
Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection...seems shorter still
10-23-2014, 04:25 PM
#7
Grumpy Old Man
Page 29:
"Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is the weight that is obtained when the fully-loaded vehicle is driven onto a scale."
And in bold print:
"The GVW must never exceed the GVWR."
Same idea in every Ford RV and Trailer Towing Guide since Christ was a corporal. So why do so many folks ignore it?
Also, the F-150 and F-450 pickups GCWR and tow ratings now comply with SAE J2807 standard. That does NOT mean that the tow ratings are realistic, but they can now be compared to RAM and GM tow ratings which are not realistic either.
"Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is the weight that is obtained when the fully-loaded vehicle is driven onto a scale."
And in bold print:
"The GVW must never exceed the GVWR."
Same idea in every Ford RV and Trailer Towing Guide since Christ was a corporal. So why do so many folks ignore it?
Also, the F-150 and F-450 pickups GCWR and tow ratings now comply with SAE J2807 standard. That does NOT mean that the tow ratings are realistic, but they can now be compared to RAM and GM tow ratings which are not realistic either.
Last edited by smokeywren; 10-23-2014 at 04:39 PM.
Trending Topics
10-23-2014, 04:44 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
http://www.hannafords.ca/used/Ford/2...db4f6e054f.htm
(Not really used. They've mis-categorized it)
10-23-2014, 05:08 PM
#9
Never realized they made F450 pickups until I ran across this King Ranch the other day. 4864# Payload according to the photo of the yellow sticker.
http://www.hannafords.ca/used/Ford/2...db4f6e054f.htm
(Not really used. They've mis-categorized it)
http://www.hannafords.ca/used/Ford/2...db4f6e054f.htm
(Not really used. They've mis-categorized it)
10-23-2014, 06:27 PM
#10
Senior Member
No, I have not seen one yet. I've reconciled that I will have to live with whatever it is.
