6000 Mile TT Towing Report
 

I took my 2011 3.7L Scab 4X4 on a cross country trip this summer. I started in Stony Mountain, Manitoba, Canada, and went down through ND, SD, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, and return. The trip worked out to approximately 6000 miles. I'll try to be short and concise, but it was a long trip.

I'll give a summary for those that want the short version. The truck was great, all the typical F150 upsides apply; great ride, quiet, composed, comfortable, reliable, and a joy to travel in. It handled our travel trailer with ease.

Our trailer is a Sunset Trails SK 17 Hybrid. When travelling, it is usually near its max GVW, with 3500# or so on the single axle, and about 300# on the hitch. It tows well, but not easily, as it stands over 10' tall, 8'wide, lots of ground clearance, and has a nearly flat front. I have pulled a few trailers with my truck, and my parents substantially larger TT that is both longer and heavier, tows much easier.

We headed out, with the intention of keeping the speed down, and conserving fuel somewhat. We travelled around 65mph initially (5th gear 2200rpm), but that proved to be too slow for the Interstated once we got to ND. I started going 70 (4th, 2700rpm), for the simple reason is I don't like to cause traffic problems with folks who are blowing by at 80mph+.

We stopped in Fargo to install a Bakflip Tonneau cover, (which is awesome IMO, way better than the solidfold in function and appearance). Immediatly after installing it I noticed the truck towed with less strain. I was now back in 5th @ 2400ish RPM at 70 mph. For the rest of the trip I was able to typically run a gear higher at 70 mph than before, so the tonneau must smooth the aerodynamics a little. Mileage while towing jumped about 5% correspondingly. Wind was a huge factor as well. Any noticable head or crosswind and I was in 4th. The truck did not seem strained, although the intake was not very endearing, with the truck running high load. It was a constant growl, and to be honest, I would remove it in advance of another long trip.

As we got into some climbs, especially 2 VERY steep ones near the black hills, the truck needed to rev. In one scenario, I was stuck at 6000 rpms in 6th for about a minute. I could have slowed down, but it's only noise, right? Here's a simple fact, for those of us who are willing to rev the nuts off it, this truck has the same 300+ horsepower the 5.4 had. At WOT, the 5.4 has no meaningful advantage, other than composure.

As we pressed on through Colorado, and the mountains, I found that I was in 3rd for a lot of climbs, usually able to maintain 65 mph or so. On a number of occasions, such as 7% grades, elevations above 5000 or so feet, 2nd was the only gear that would do it. That left me with a choice, noisy, or slow? I chose noisy, and charge up the mountains at 60 mph, 6000 rpm. I was generally passing most other folks who were towing, even had a couple 5th wheel diesels give up maintaining that speed near me. Other than a couple passes above 10 000 feet, the truck could maintain any speed up to 65 mph, just about anywhere. I am normally easier on the truck, but I had 16 days to do this trip, and was determined not to miss out!

Leaving Salt Lake City a couple days later, I had the same choice, right lane, 30mph with the semi's or next lane over, 65 mph. I hopped into the faster lane, and put the hammer down. Not knowing there was a 10 minute climb ahead of me. This was the only time any of the gauges moved. The engine temp rose from it's usual 4/10ths position to half. The trans never heated up, and nothing went awry. Pretty harsh to be at 6000 rpm for 10 minutes or so. Hopefully my fresh Mobil 1 was taking care of things.

The rest of the trip went much like that, flat and no wind, 2400 rpm@70mph, headwind was 4th@3000, slight grade and strong headwind would mean 3rd and 4000 rpm. That was about as high as I felt like revving the engine, generally speaking, as it gets a tad noisy above that. Mileage was great, and I know mentioning numbers will just trigger a bunch of arguments, but I will say that compared to my dads 4.6, and my previous Tacoma 4.0 5 speed, the F150 beats the Tacoma by about 15-20% while towing, and edges my dads gently driven 2010 4.6 by about 5 - 10% when speed differences and such are factored in. I will say that I usually got around 10mpg, lower on some days, generally higher on others. An average 70 mph day, would yield more than 10 mpg, which for me, is fantastic.

I will say this, as much as I think the 3.7 is and awesome motor, I would not buy it again if I had this sort of trip in mind more than once in a lifetime. It was excellent 90% of the time, right up until I wanted to go over 70 mph into a headwind, or climb 6-8% grades. I say this given the fact that we spent a huge amount of time climbing. I can say without a doubt, that I was thoroughly impressed with the 3.7, it never lacked ability, or power, just had to rev it to get it. I always despised the 5.4, for reasons ranging from crappy throttle response, poor mileage, and mediocre power. I personally think the 3.7 was far superior in all aspects except power, where it was a wash.

One last note, on the last day of our trip, I had to cover 750 miles in under 11 hours, into a wicked headwind. The truck did it, 4400 rpms for the entire day, 6.5 mpgs. But it did it, and didn't break, overheat, or cause any problems, other than ear watering gasoline usage.

For a typical owner / RVer, that has any degree of patience whatsoever, I can say this 3.7 rocks. Keep the speeds reasonable, and it is truly a gem. What an awesome truck. Manual shift function was neat, but the transmission was usually in the right gear anyhow. I used it sometimes to lock in 5th, so that it wouldn't jump down for a few seconds on slight grades. The Tow / Haul engine braking was phenominal. Descending out of Yosemite, it grabbed 2nd gear, and kept the engine around 5000 rpm, providing lots of slowing power. Brilliant. Amazing that this does does so right, everything the Tacoma did so wrong.

The trip was cool, Royal Gorge, Yosemite, and Vegas was fun. We towed the trailer up some mountains in National Forest for some dispersed camping, which was the highlight of the trip. 4Low, crossing streams, up 20% grades, the truck did it all. Best vehicle I have ever owned by a longshot.

Thanks for the report. Looking forward to when I can buy a TT.

Thanks for the report. It sounds like you had an awesome trip.:thumbsup:

I Googled that travel trailer and I am amazed in all that it has and it is only 3,500lbs with some gear.

Glad you had fun. Which engine would you buy if you had to do it over again? 5.0?

Thanks for the write up! It's great to read these positive stories and see what these trucks are capable of.

I'm sure the trip was fun but it sounds like you kicked the **** out of your truck. 10 minute climbs at 6k rpm? 11 hours straight at 4400 RPM? No thanks. Just because it didn't break doesn't mean it made it through unscathed.

OP glad to hear your truck treated you well on the trip

ya, hot damn

do you have the 4" display? how were tranny temps during this?

Great report, sounds like the 3.7 got the job done nicely for you.
Personally, having to hold my engine at 6000rpm for the length of time you you described would bring tears to my eyes, but never the less I'm happy to hear that little motor pushed through everything you hurled at it :thumbsup:

I would likely buy the Eco. So much potential, yet so impressive stock. Not dissing the 5.0, but the rated mileage on it is not impressive to me at all. :thumbsup:

As I mentioned, it was less than ideal. At some points of the tow, it was second gear no matter what. I basically had the choice to ease up, or not. Treating the engine rough is not a concern for me, the noise was, but even then, it was not that bad. I beat the life out of my old Dakota with a 318, and traded it off at 300 000kms. I would be surprised if I was harming the engine. Usually RPMs that high only cause harm because the engine oil overheats, the F150 has a cooler, and Mobil ! in mine.

But I entirely get what you are saying. :thumbsup:

I don't have the screen, but I know from experience, if the trans temps climb, so does the gauge. It never budged. Realistically, I was putting at most 300hp, through a trans built, rated, and cooled to handle 400+. Not so much as a bad shift occurred during any of the thrashings.

That was my reasoning for saying I would opt for the Eco if I had more mountain trips in mind. I figure that if they let it out of the factory, set up to do it, then it should be able to. My sled, and previously my sportbike would spend a lot of time north of 7K RPM.

Still, what a truck. So much better than my Tacoma. And the truck cost nearly $10K less.

pictures of said TT ?

What do you do for a living and what is your knowledge of internal combustion engines?

Great report!!!! Thank you!

All that on a stock f-150 + intake.

Your truck did great.

Just add tuning and it will have enven more power.

I have the 5.0L. But I really want the 3.7 becuase it is so capable. And it has 300+ HP stock.

I'm an engineer by day but on my spare time I race motocross and also drag race. I have built no less than 25 motors for my drag cars from the ground up and in my 29 years of racing motocross I have probably torn down hundreds of motors. I am more than qualified to suggest that running an engine near the limiter for any length of time is not a way to ensure long life.

Really, you want to give up 65hp, or more, as it us underrated, and even more torque? I how you were bring sarcastic.

The 5.0 would surely outperform the 3.7, and likely very better mileage while doing it.

I should have clerified my situation. I dont tow/haul that much.

Not to be the towing police..........but the tires on your TT are only rated for a max of 65 mph....especially at max axle load. Exceeding that speed is asking for tire failure.
Glad that the truck did well for you, but personally I could not listen to 6K for 10 miles. One of the reasons I got rid of my 5.4 was that 3,700 rpm was painful to listen to on the grades....

oh i love listening to my 5.4 under a load...sounds soo good

In an article about the EB's R&D testing, I read that they ran the engine from WOT for ten minutes then was let to sit for ten minutes 1,500 times without changing the oil once. Another test ran the engine at full throttle for 362 hours (15 days) straight and the engine and turbos passed with flying colors. If a similar boosted engine can withstand that and pass then I don't think 10 miles at 6,000 rpm would hurt the N/A 3.7L at all as long as it has sufficient cooling and lubrication. C'mon guys, this is Ford we are talking about here, not some joke Chevy. Even though I wouldn't want to hear an engine at 6,000 rpms for 10 miles, I don't think it will hurt it.

If the 3.7 was able to go as fast as I wanted, or could safely go, and it has lower Brake Specific Fuel Consumption that the 5.0, how would the 5.0 do it more efficiently? That is an old myth going back to the ****tier base engines having a lower level of engineering, and inferior transmissions. Not applicable to this scenario. Remember, I was getting the mileage benefits of the more efficient engine the vast majority of this trip, running 2400 rpm in 5th. Not bashing the 5.0, it is just not as efficient as the 3.7.
I test drove identical trucks, all 3 models, and the average over a mile on the same day, same stretch of road, the 3.7 was the most efficient, EB next, with the 5.0 about 10% back of the 3.7 @ 70 mph.:thumbsup:

That's my thoughts as well. I have never worn out an engine, and I (especially when I was a little younger), treated an engine as abusively as imaginable. The only time I abused an engine to its limit was on successive 1/4 miles with a modded Dodge 318, and I overheated the oil. It developed a light rod knock. Consensus at the time was the oil temp wat the issue.
This trip was a on-off. 80% of 15-20 000 miles a year is usually highway travel, and on that alone the 3.7 saves over 10% on fuel over the 5.0 @ 70 mph.
:thumbsup:

I think his point is that the 5.0 would not have to work near as hard as the 3.7 and when you were driving 70mph in 5th you could have been in 6th with a 5.0(or eb). The first time I towed with my 5.0 was about 7k lb 30' trailer with a flat face against 20MPH headwind for the first part of the trip. Even in tow/haul it would shift to 6th. I only have about 150 miles on the truck so I locked 6th out while I was against the wind. It had no problem as all and didn't hunt gears either. I was pleasantly surprised considered I had the more economical 3.55 gears.

Also your test drives were unloaded. Loaded fuel economy isn't comparable. It also seems fairly unanimous that the 5.0 returns better fuel economy under heavier loads than the EB. Not to say the 5.0 out tows the eb, just uses less fuel under load.

And another point that I think you're missing is that 300hp in one truck can respond completely different than 300hp in another truck. Take a look at the dyno graphs and see where each makes 300hp. More importantly for towing, you should be comparing torque PROFILES not peak hp or torque numbers. To argue that the 3.7 makes the same 300 hp that the 5.0 makes is not a good argument at all. Sure, you can say its true because they do both make 300 hp but the delivery of that 300hp and where it makes it in the rpm range makes all the difference in the world. I would rather pull with a truck that made peak tq of 350 ft lb but made it at 2000 rpm than one that made a peak of 800 at WOT but only 250 at 2000. The fact that the 3.7 had to pull 2nd at redline tells me all I need to know.

I'm not trying to slam on you, I just don't think you completely understand what you're talking about. Even that sounded like a ****ty thing to say but I don't mean it that way.

1) 6K is not redline.
2) I fully understand. I also fully understand that the entire post (about a big engine magically becoming more efficent under load) was based on outdated assumptions. Ignoring BSFC and other things. There is a good chance the 3.7 generates more horsepower at in 5th, than the 5.0 in 6th, and uses less fuel while doing so. BSFC is not RPM dependent, it varies based on RPM obviously, but that is not the end all of the discussion. I doubt the 5.0 would tow my trailer in 6th, the 5.0 is not some torque monster.....
To put it simply, the 3.7 is more efficient from a starting point, I see no reason under moderate load, why the efficiency curve would go under the 5.0's. Ignoring operation above 4000 rpm of course, as full throttle enrichement at those RPM's can throw things out of whack.

I also the point that if 300 hp does the job, (and I wasn't full throttle at 6Krpm anyhow), then why buy the 5.0? Because I feel sorry for revving it? not me. If it could have pulled 3rd, that would have helped, but I don't base my engine choice on the hardest hour the truck is likely to face in it's lifetime.

You missed my point, 80% of my driving is highway / unloaded. That is why I chose the more efficient 3.7.
The EB drinks fuel because it is generating more power, and FI requires a slightly richer mixture, hurting BSFC.:thumbsup:

Yeah, but as he was saying he was not going up hills or had headwind most of the trip so the 3.7L was perfect for him most of the trip. It was a few instances that he had to be in the upper rpms so a majority of the time a 5.0 or EB would be the inefficient engine choice for what he was doing. Same reason why they 5.0ers don't get the EB because they don't tow all the time so that extra pulling power is not needed. They probably could use the power of the EB on a few occasions but for the most part the 5.0L is more than fine.

As for the EB getting worse loaded fuel mileage. I would have to say nay nay to that from my own real world experiences. I pulled almost identical loads (8,000lbs 5.0 2wd Scab 3.55 & 8,500lbs EB 4wd Screw 3.55) on the same stretch of I-10 from SA to Houston with the same no wind situations and the cruise set at 65 mph the whole way. The EB got almost 1 mpg better by hand calculations. I will say that I do prefer the 5.0s engine braking over the EB though.

I would rather the thread not degenerate into the typical compensatory "why a bigger engine is better" type of thing. To do that would miss the entire point of me posting a towing review of the 3.7. It did it, and it did it efficiently. Speculating that a larger less efficient engine would have maybe matched or beaten it for less than 2% of the trip is not the point. The other 98% of the time, I have no doubt the 3.7 is more efficient. I have owned 7 trucks, and had 2 company vehicles, both 1 ton. i have yet to come accross a scenario where a properly geared smaller engine ever gets worse mileage than the larger on. As for the noise / abuse issue, well that is "to each his own".

I think guys getting "worse" in the EB are taking advantage of it's formidable torque. And that uses fuel. Apples to apples, the EB should be no worse, IMO. (My comment about it being worse was at WOT, high load)

There is actually no chance. The 3.7 makes the same power in every gear. It doesn't make more in 5th than it does in 6th. Power is rpm dependent not gear dependent. Therefore, the same is true of the 5.0. The difference is that the 5.0 makes substantially more power at lower rpm's which allows it to up shift and conserve fuel. If you are arguing that with each at 4000 rpm they will burn the same fuel or the 3.7 will burn less, maybe. I don't know the answer to that but what I do know is that when the 3.7 has to pull at 4000 rpm in 3rd or 4th the 5.0 or EB are likely cruising in 6th at 1700.

The second part in bold makes no sense to me. If it is not rpm dependent then why does it change with rpm?

I would like to hear from any 5.0 or EB owner that ever got 6 mpg towing a 3500 pound TT. I tow a 5500 pound enclosed 7x18 with my EB. I can set the cruise at 65 in 6th and get 13 easily. It also rarely downshifts and if it does, it's never below 4th and 85% of the time it downshifts its to 5th.

Fair enough.

I got 5 mpg US towing my 8000# 27ft square front TT.
85 mph up the Coquihalla hwy (see the tv show highway to hell) for an 1 1/2 hours until a trailer tire separated.
2011 FX4 Ecoscrew 6.5 box. Backed off at the summit and drove the rest of the way (300 miles) at 60 mph getting 9 mpg US.
Engine didn't even work hard, get hot. Mostly half throttle in 6th gear. Tons of torque, but will drink if used.

85 mph pulling 8,000lbs!!!!:eek: DAMN!!!!

Hmmmmmm.......I rest my case that TT tires are rated for 65 mph, folks......any faster is a fool's errand.....

And I was right to my tire store getting bigger 10ply rated tires, much better than the dinky 6ply overloaded stock garbage.
But it was a good stess test on the system to see if the little engine could....
Not my usual pace.

Uphill, really steep, really long, hot weather too.

I wasn't going to reply, but your post is wrong in many ways.
I should not need to explain that the amount of horsepower an engine generates is dependant on it's RPM. In 5th gear at 70 mph, a truck has more available horsepower, (than 6th gear) due to 1) more torque X 2)more RPMs. What part of that is unclear?

Look at 2400 rpm.... The 3.7 makes more torque at 2400 (approx 92 horsepower) than the 5.0 at 2000 (76 horsepower) . If geared the same, that also means the 3.7 has more gear reduction. Simply put it makes more horsepower in 5th, that the 5.0 makes in 6th. (at a given speed, all else remaining equal)

Here....
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=ford+f...r:19,s:0,i:142




It it doesn't necessarily increase or decrease, it is not linear. What are you asking? It's relationship to RPM is similar to that of, vibration, for example. The point was that an engine can have a higher or lower BSFC at higher RPM.

It illustrates that the 3.7's (or any engine for that matter), can have better BSFC at certain loads at higher rpm. I relates to friction, pumping losses, volumetric efficiency. RPM is one of the factors that is not crucial.

This is how every thread goes, some EB owner sticks there nose in and brags about some platitudes related to their truck. Take it elsewhere. Your 7 X 8 trailer pales in comparison to a 10'6" tall X 8'wide X 17' long box with 18 inches from chassis to road. Who cares about your wonderful EB, and your wonderful mileage. You are blissfully unaware of how lousy a pull my trailer is.

You should have quit while you were ahead when I conceded that you can do what you want. This post is so full of fail. You have absolutely no reading comprehension and even less concept of what I was trying to explain or how any of this works. In fact, your second sentence made the same point I tried to make but you restated it to try and prove me wrong?

When you pull, torque is what matters, NOT horsepower. Look at the very graph you posted, at 6000 rpm your truck makes right at about 200 foot pounds of torque. The 5.0 makes the same at 2000 and the EB at about 1750. Using your example of 2400 rpm, the 3.7 makes about 210 ft lb, the 5.0 makes about the same at 2000 and the EB makes 250 at 2000. Where do you see that the 3.7 makes more? Take a peak just beyond 2000 rpm. The 3.7 gains NO more and the others keep climbing.

And please don't tell me I don't understand the drag of your trailer. I am an engineer by trade. I actually calculated the difference in drag between a v nose and flat nose at different heights before I bought my trailer to make sure I got the ideal set up. You're not talking to some punk kid in daddy's truck.

BTW, here are some real life dynes for you to chew on.

3.7
http://www.5startuning.com/resources...s-stock-af.jpg

5.0
http://www.5startuning.com/resources...150-5.0L/3.jpg

Everyone likes to bash the peak torque of the 3.7 as if that's the only time it makes torque. If you look at the stock curve most of the torque is there just after 2k RPMs. If it's not enough for you obviously just pick a different engine.
http://m.trucktrend.com/roadtests/pi.../photo_66.html

Pissing... Pissing... Pissing... Yep, drive what you drive. Who really gives a flip? He drove the crap out of his truck, enjoyed the trip, and wanted to tell everyone about it. I liked his write up. There may be lots of people afraid to take a trip because they don't have one of the beast engines. While I probably wouldn't drive mine like he does, I like to read his impression of how it did. It was extreme - 10,000 foot passes towing with a normally aspirated V6 is extreme - and shows that it can be done.

I would hope that rather than caring what someone does with their hard earned money guys would just read, post a comment that makes sense, and move on. If you don't like what he did, don't post.

An engineer who doesn't comprehend the reason the 3.7 makes 300 horsepower. Okay. And also does not comprehend that with said rpm ability, will pull with the same speed, up to it's limit of 300hp / 6500rpms. This requires no less than in excess of 4000 rpm, from the 5.0 to put out more power at a given speed. (Basically when able, the 3.7 can match the towing ability of the 5.0 by running one gear lower, hmm). It will be noisy, but the math is sound, no pun intended.

It does not need to gain torque to gain power Mr Engineer. That's why I stated horsepower in the original 2 posts.
One more time, torque at higher rpm makes more horsepower which is multiplied via gears to make torque at the wheels. As in the 3.7 requires more rpm. Kinda what the original post showed.

The lower torque of the 3.7 vs the 5.0 simply means that up to its horsepower limit, it can compete with revs. Quite simply, I will reiterate, that in 5th gear at 70 mph, the 3.7 generates more pulling power / torque / horsepower at the wheels than the 5.0 in sixth. (interesting fact, no?)
I'm not going engage in the Ecobragging numbers. You get the point.

So why would you compare your best case scenario mileage with a low resistance trailer to my worst case scenario on a much harder pull to prove your point? Because......:whistling2:


This is how every thread goes, some EB owner sticks there nose in and brags about some platitudes related to their truck. Take it elsewhere

Ya know, I was just wanting to convey how it went, and now I have a stalker.
Again, I was very impressed, but would not make a habit of doing it.
On a cringe inducing note, I just drained / changed the oil, after 18600kms, as the OLM said do it. I guess I am blindly trusting Ford makes a good truck. So far, I could not be more impressed. Cutting open the filter this week, and sending the oil in for analysis. I'll only post the results if my stalker leaves me alone.

I agree totally. With a little practice, you can time the mountains or hills perfect for a 3rd gear to 4th gear, low rpm, torque pull at 2k rpms.... best sound ever .....

I shopped around quite a bit in '04 before I purchased my truck. Nothing on the market matched the torque curve of the 5.4 under 2.5k rpm....the only thing that came close was the dodge 360 and it went out of production a year or two before I purchased....

3 years pushing 450 HP and TQ and I haven't had not one single drive train issue....

I don't care what you drive or how you drive it. If you reread my posts I was simply trying to help you understand that your assumptions were incorrect.........just about all of them. This isn't a "my engine vs your engine" post. You made several claims that were way off base, you used the wrong terminology, your math is unfounded, your interpretation of a dyno graph is mind numbing and you even went as far as repeating a point that I made to try to prove that my point was wrong. Regardless, it has taken me several pages of your posts to get it but I understand, you don't get it. No point in beating my head off the wall.

Let me try it one last time as simple as I can. The 3.7 compared to the 5.0 does not not make more HP or tq ANYWHERE IN THE RPM RANGE. At every single point on the dyno the 5.0 puts out more power in both categories......... by a lot.

I was never comparing my truck to yours, I never said your truck sucked, I never said you made a bad choice. All I said was that you were wrong by asserting that the 3.7 could pull more efficiently than the other more powerful options. I was not arguing opinion, I was arguing fact.

Enjoy your truck, they are awesome.

Dang! How are you set up to do 450 HP?

On a side note, I had a 2001 with the 5.4 and it pulled like a beast bone stock. I traded it for a GMC with the 5.3 and it was a huge mistake. IMO, ford has always made motors that put the power in the right places.

So what you're saying is that the 5.0 will do at 4,000rpm what the 3.7 takes 6500 rpm to do. So the 5.0 will tow at part throttle where the 3.7 requires full throttle and the 3.7 is more efficient at full throttle than the 5.0 at part throttle? Yea, because that makes sense. Keep in mind the 5.0 has no problem revving 6,500 rpm once you remove fords cap so the 3.7 can't tow the same as the 5.0. Saying that all the 3.7 has to do is lower a gear when allowed doesn't work because they both have the same transmission ratios and will always be able to lower a gear because you're not going to be towing at 170mph(approx top speed in 5th varying with tire size/diff ratio). I understand that higher gears are not always better. I have been towing and noticed when I put the truck into manual mode and go to 5th the instant MPG will in certain instances increase because of reduced load.

When I towed I used maybe 1/3 throttle to get to speed because the 5.0 has the part throttle torque to get the job done without have to rev and lower(numerically) the a/f to keep it in it's efficiency range. Different circumstances I know which leads me to my next point;

You keep saying that we don't understand the bad aerodynamics of the trailer you pulled, then please, post a picture as it would be a great contribution to your thread.

I personally am more interested in your bed cover. Have you noticed improved fuel economy with not towing?

I'm glad your truck did the job without fail.

Pretty much what I was saying about running a lower, gear, yes. But I have never seen a higher gear get a rolling average better than a lower gear. For short instant times yes, over a mile no. Usually pumping losses and friction at higher RPM negate any benefit of less cylinder filling. At full throttle, enrichment can throw that argument out the window, however.
You are taking out of context what I was saying about the revving and mileage. I was purposely very clear that the better mileage was only expected under lighter loads. It is not however, behond the realms of possibility that the 3.7 can produce power more efficiently than the 5.0, at higher RPMs'. That is the crux of the debate from those who suggest the 5.0 does better than the ECO when towing. Not that I agree or dissagree on that point. There is the aspect that not having the ability to produce more power than the 3.7 limit, practically speaking could limit it's ability to swill fuel under high loads. I only encountered one scenario, where I was actually full throttle cruising at high rpms, and it was brief.

Since we are now waaay off topic here is a numbers comparison, on what RPM each engine can match another engines ability to get torque to the wheels.

ENGINE 3.7
RPM ....TQ.... HP
2000 ...240 ....91
2500 ... 265 ...126
3000 ... 255 ...146
3500 ... 265 ...177
4000 ... 280 ...213
4500 ...275 ...236
5000 ...270 ...257
5500 ...260 ...272
6000 ...250 ...286
6500 ...245 ...303

ENGINE 5.0
RPM.... TRQ.... HP
2000 ...270 ...103
2500 ... 280 ...133
3000 ... 320 ...183
3500 ... 340 ...227
4000 ... 370 ...282
4500 ...380 ...326
5000 ...370 ...352
5500 ...345 ...361
6000 ...315 ...360
6500 0

ENGINE ECO
RPM ....TRQ.... HP
2000 ...365 ...139
2500 ...420 ...200
3000 ... 420 ...240
3500 ... 420... 280
4000 ... 415 ...316
4500 ... 410... 351
5000 ...380 ...362
5500 ... 335 ...351
6000 ...280 ...320
6500 0

The curve picture....
http://image.motortrend.com/f/336268...150-torque.jpg

Tear it apart folks, it's time for some tech talk. Please keep to ideas, and not personal or biased attacks.

Found a flaw in the attachment, ignore it. Updated ECO HP curve.

I'm jumping in here because no one seems to be addressing the physics affecting mileage here.
With identical trucks pulling a load or not the actual fuel mileages do not vary much between engines, BECAUSE....
A certain amount of energy is needed to push that truck down the road,
The engines today make very efficient use of the energy in gasoline,
Gasoline has only so much energy per gallon,
You MUST use that gasoline energy to push the truck down the road. There is no cheating, it is a fact of physics.
THEREFORE....
If you put all three engines discussed here on your identical loads with identical speeds at every second of the test then the difference between them in fuel used is miniscule. Not even worth discussing outside a laboratory.
HOWEVER...
If anyone of the engines goes faster during any portion of the test then it will use more fuel.
In real life it is far too easy to use the extra power available to maintain pace instead of restricting yourself to an economy only mode.
A BIGGER DIFFERENCE...
Is when the motor is in a situation where the constant pull during a test changes to actual real life varying conditions. The motor that manages it's fuel better when coasting, idling, varying throttle settings, slowing on big hills instead of maintaining pace, cold starting, etc has the advantage over the others in fuel economy. This advantage almost always favors smaller horsepower, smaller displacement engines.
So if everyone can understand it takes X amount of energy to go Y speed against Z load you will understand the gains in mpg are coming from other factors than how efficient you think your truck is pulling your trailer up that big hill.
It's the rest of the time that matters.

BSFC is bigger than all of those when towing.

It dictates that the horsepower required (physics again), is generated using the least amount of fuel. (Mixture, rod ratio, bore, stroke, pumping loss, volumetric efficiency and ancillary losses are all part of that)

I agree with everything you said in theory but I was looking at it from a practical real world standpoint. My point was that in the real world at 70mph, he was in 4th at 4400 rpm (roughly) in order to maintain that speed. A more powerful engine could maintain that speed in a higher gear and at a lower RPM hence making the same power more efficiently with the throttle blade only partially open instead of wide open. His original claim was that the 3.7 was more efficient and I simply disagreed.

And when I refer to efficiency, I am not referring to fuel efficiency specifically. I am referring to the efficiency of the motor to make a specific amount of power.

Wrong again MX....You are regurgitating 80's myths.....

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Brake...1/article.html

Per horsepower, engines are more efficient under load. Generally up to or around peak VE.

That is why the Prius for example runs and Un-throttled small engine. The theory of a larger engine working less applies only under very specific situations for very specific reasons. Otherwise we would all have huge V8's in cars for best mileage.

I have experienced what you describe in so many different types of vehicles from boats to diesel trucks and have tried very hard to achieve such results. It never succeeds, at best being equal.
It doesn't matter what gear you're in or what motor. It is simply the energy used to pull the load. With identical loads, drags, speeds, drive train efficiency etc, it doesn't matter it one engine is at 3/4 throttle and 4000 rpm or at 1/3 throttle and 2000 rpm with how efficient today's engines extract power out of gasoline, they both have to put out the same amount of energy.
The real life difference is that the more powerful engines deliver a much better towing experience with better performance in every aspect except fuel economy when using any of that power advantage.
The real silly thing here is arguing over something that would only show a small difference in a laboratory setting when on the road this scenario probably accounts for 1% of my overall mileage record.
Which means choosing another motor would mean a change of 10% on that 1%.
I spent too much time on this already....

You have absolutely no idea what you just read or posted, do you? How in the world does that article make your point? Please don me a favor, take a deep breathe and state your point clearly one last time because nothing you have said has made any sense.

Your original point was that your 3.7 was more efficient under load at 6000 rpm than the larger engines. You also claimed that it makes no difference with respect to efficiency as long as each engine was making 300hp regardless of where in the rpm range it made it. Here is my point, 99% of the time, the further your foot is to the floor, the more fuel you will burn. A smaller engine wide open will burn substantially more fuel than a larger one at partial throttle......PERIOD. I say 99% because there are some exceptions but not with these 3 engines. I also said that the larger engines make the same power as your 3.7 but they make it more efficiently.

Please stop googling all these fancy terms you don't understand. It's making you look crazy.

I had a 4 cyl Tacoma, and a v6. Both with 5 speed transmissions, with a previous po-up camper. The 4 cylinder was substantially more efficient at all times. The 4 cylinder would run 4th gear, the V6 usually 5th, sometimes 4th. It didn't matter, it ALWAYS got better mileage. Verified over 60000 miles with a claibrated scangaugeII Same truck, same chassis, same person, same trailer, same weather. You can't compare more accurately than that.
I would add to that, matching the load to the engine pays off. For example, if the larger engine can still not pull the load in 6th, and your goal is fuel efficiency, you are better off with a) the smaller engine, which will be more efficient at that speed and most likely all the rest of the time, or b) the larger engine geared optimally to run 5th gear more efficiently (say 3.7w 3.73's vs 5.0 w 3.50)

To clarify, you said
Maybe quit trying to tell me what I was saying as a rebuttal. If you've got a point, make it instead of telling me and everyone made up lies about the point I was making. That link very clearly shows why smaller engines are used to obtain efficiency. Only a fool would argue that isn't the case. You have not provided one shred of fact to make your point. Not one, in 6 pages of arguing.
I think we get that you are a troll. MOVE ON!!!!

Poor example.
You may not admit it but your V6 accelerated faster, went up hills faster, towed easier and faster, and burned more fuel at idle.
You did not drive side by side with identical units other than motors for 60,000 miles.
If you did your results would be much closer than you saw.
Now if one had been a diesel with more energy per gallon....

For the exact same vehicle, in regards to weight, gearing and COD, ~125,000btu per gallon is a fixed ratio that cannot be altered and with regards to the 3.5,3.7,5.0 are all probably damn near the same efficiency with regards to combustion. Thus, will achieve nearly the same MPG given the same scenario to recreate. now, that being said, if i have a motor making 150% more torque, the chances of me not utilizing it are slim to NONE and will reward me with more fuel consumption and less mpg.

+100%
Summed up nicely.

Wow, can we cool it guys. Ford makes four bad ass motors. That gives everyone the option to but the engine best for them. No one engine is best for everything, and the pissing match needs to stop.

Fact is, Ford's base V6 now makes more horsepower and torque than amy gasoline engine in a half ton truck just ten years ago. Then there are three more options for those who want then above that.

The fact that they can get 300 hp and more out of all their engines while increasing the mpgs they get is amazing. My 2003 Durango, with the Mercedes sourced V8, made 235 hp, and got 16 mpgs highway.

What a long way we have come since then! If the trend continues, in ten years, an engine in a truck could make 500 hp, and get 25 mpgs or more!

Now that it is settled we can move on to the payload comparison, ex 3.7 basic trucks surpassing uber optioned trucks with less or equivalent payload to an Altima. Lets exclude hd payload since the 3.7 can't get it and most über trims can't either.

Now post the 6.2 and see the bottom end of ecoboost really shine compared to the 8s muahahahah

I'm pretty sure this thread is about the 3.7, and is not a thread about how much better you think your egoboost engine is.

The fact is they are all great engines.

I drove at the same speed (70 mph) for multiple trips over multiple camping seasons to the same destination. No hills. The 4 cylinder has lower pumping losses, less frictional losses, and slightly higher level of efficiency. I would typically accelerate in a similar fashion, although accelerating (as with most "high loads") doesn't affect overall consumption that much. There was no power or speed limitation with the 4 cylinder, as I am referring to a #2600 popup, not my current tall trailer.

And the Tacoma's V6 is a pig on the highway. The same argument could be applied to the highway mileage which you suggest should be the same. It wasn't. The 4 cylinder consistantly got 24mpg average tank average, in the summer, unloaded, 18 mpg towing. The V6 got 20mpg avrg, and 16mpg towing. Like I said, over 60 000 miles of keeping track.

In my experience, the engine that start with better unloaded mpg, loses more, but maintains it's advantage, even as the load increases, but the gap between the 2 typically closes somewhat. In this case, the fact that the V6 could not hold 5th (like the 4 cylinder) meant the 4 cylinder was more efficient. I could bore you with scangauge info, like peak fuel consumption, load, open loop and closed. but that doesn't change the outcome.

The lighter loading of a camper trailer allows for a greater discrepancy than a TT.:thumbsup:

Actually, with 50 more hp, and unrepentant driver could go faster, again, with more noise. Nothing will touch the effortlessness and overall efficiency of the EB, IMO.

ENGINE 3.7
RPM TQ HP
2000 240 91
2500 265 126
3000 255 146
3500 265 177
4000 280 213
4500 275 236
5000 270 257
5500 260 272
6000 250 286
6500 245 303

ENGINE 5
RPM TQ HP
2000 270 103
2500 280 133
3000 320 183
3500 340 227
4000 370 282
4500 380 326
5000 370 352
5500 345 361
6000 315 360
6500 0

ENGINE ECO
RPM TQ HP
2000 365 139
2500 420 200
3000 420 240
3500 420 280
4000 415 316
4500 410 351
5000 380 362
5500 335 351
6000 280 320
6500 0

ENGINE 6.2
RPM TQ HP
2000 320 122
2500 360 171
3000 390 223
3500 395 263
4000 415 316
4500 434 372
5000 415 395
5500 392 411
6000 355 406
6500 0

Haters gonna hate

@isthatahemi
A Toyota V6 is notorious for being a pig on fuel and many new F150 owners get better mileage in their new truck than they did in their mid size Tacoma. The Toyota just hasn't kept up with the times, the F150 line up is far more modern and efficient.
You will see much more comparable results with a 3.7, 5.0, 3.5 comparison due to the similar technology and efficiency in each motor than older tech.
As for acceleration.... it uses more fuel than any other action. Steady state driving is the most efficient (disregarding deceleration) so you confused me there.

I've posted this before, but this seems like a good thread to add it again. I put the data into this chart from a source (I apologize for not remembering where it originated). It's a good tool to compare the Ford engines past and present. This lets you pick an engine based on your individual needs especially if you are familiar with any of the other engines on the chart.

Here is another plot of the data for the various engines

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8202/8...45871141_b.jpg

hemi, we took nearly the same trip from North Carolina sans the TT in August with our 3.7. Discalimer here for the EB owners, "it's not an EB, so with all due respect no comments please". My intentions, like yours was to take a slower pace just to see what the engine would do, but quickly dropped that though so we wouldn't get ran over by a Prius. The best was 23.4 mpg, lowest (in Yellowstone, and the Black Hills) 19.6 mpg with an overall average of 21.4 mpg on a total on 5200 miles. Another disclaimer here for the other engine owners, these are not scientifically calculated numbers. So, again with all due respect no comments please. The engine, and truck did everything required of it even after I decided not to baby the thing. The little engine that could, did.....:thumbsup:

Glad you had a fun, and safe trip. It is a beautiful area of the U.S.A.

So in theory we should get rid of big rigs on the road and replace them with 3.7? Am I reading this right?

Hell big rigs got like what 10 or 18 gears, By the time they hit 2krpm in 18th gear it is WAAAAAAY outside of the efficiency range of the 3.7 at 6k rpm in 3rd.



Have I read this thread correctly???? (sarcasm.)

Sure seeing as a Tundra could tow the space shuttle.

6.2 #'s are on premium fuel if i remember correctly

The official specs from Ford doesn't have a footnote saying premium fuel on power. The color brochure does. Not sure why the difference.

You note about Toyota applies to both their engines. ;-)

My comment about acceleration and mileage, was basically that rate of acceleration does not affect the overall towing mileage. Again, verified through actual testing. Speed attained, and brake usage are the bigger factors.
I'm surprised to hear so much push back on the FACT that smaller engines are capable of better mileage.?

One of the most useful posts on the board, for anyone wondering what each engine is capable of, (except there is 1000 rpm missing at the top), and what rpm is required to achieve it. A fact many forget, is that 300 ft/lbs at 4000 pulls twice as hard, and does twice the work, of 300 ft/lbs at 2000 rpm. Horsepower is the accurate picture, of how much will get to the wheels through gear reduction.

If you read back none of my posts refute a smaller or lower horsepower engine is capable of better mileage, in fact that is to be expected and would be ridiculous if not the case with these engines.
Where I have a problem is believing that if every condition was absolutely equal that a 3.7 pulling a trailer uphill at an equal pace to a 5.0 or EB has any significant fuel savings. Regardless of rpm every motor will need to burn X amount of fuel to create the energy to make the pull. With the excellent fuel systems on these motors the 3.7 is only going to gain a miniscule advantage thru internal losses.
The smaller motor shines more as the loads get lighter and that shows up in the EPA ratings of 2 mpg better than the 5.0 and 1 mpg better than the EB.
But a full throttle tow with the 3.7 will not show any real life advantage over a half throttle 5.0.

To clarify because I seem to be rambling.
A 3.7 pushing out 300 hp going up a hill will not have a fuel savings over a 5.0 or 3.5 pushing the same 300 hp.
The moment the bigger motor pushes more power at any time then yes advantage 3.7.

The bigger motor will not have to push out more power going up said hill. It has more torque. Period. Low end torque. Period. Advantage "bigger" motor. Period

This whole thread is confusing.....

Sorry let me clarify. The original post of 6000 mile tt was very interesting even with the 3.7. Seems more than capable for what the owner wants and needs in a truck.

The rest of the 8-9 pages........i'm just not sure.

The 3.7 will use more fuel going up said hill using 300 horses

But the bigger motor, all other things being equal will not have to use 300 horse power to climb same hill. Cause it has more torque available at lower rpm. So why does the bigger motor need to surpass the 300 horse power to climb same said hill. Please let me know as this is all very confusing :)

It's not that hard. I tow a lot and you need X amount of HP to pull Y amount of trailer at Z speed. The OP was able to get what he needed by upping his rpm at a reduced speed. It's not rocket science.

I know a lot of people like to say "low rpm torque is the key". That is true but only because it creates HP low in rpm which allows you to pull low in rpm.

My only comment to the guy using the 3.7 to tow across the states is "awesome". I'm not sure I would have had the guts to try it.

Sorry, hp and torque are the wrong words to be using to describe the issue here.
Power and energy are more accurate terms.
To make more hp you need more fuel, to make more torque you need more fuel.
The energy needed to make it up said hill is the same for both trucks.
Physics makes it impossible for one engine to make it up a hill easier than another. It is the same amount of work.
They just do it in different ways.

Again....

------Whatch this-------

They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.

http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm

PERFECT! This is what I was trying to say all along. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that in the real world of hills, starting, stopping and wind that the 3.7 is more efficient under load (with a trailer) than the larger options. The more powerful options have to work much less to make the same power which means that they make power more efficiently and they are more efficient at overcoming the real world scenarios I just mentioned. All of the calculations in the world only prove the efficiency argument in a perfectly controlled environment which is impossible in the real world. I gave up trying to explain myself but this video is what I was trying to say.

The OP proved my point by saying that he averaged 6mpg on the last day turning 4400 rpm for 750 miles. Can anyone here with a TT that weighs 3500 pounds and has roughly the same frontal area of the OP's trailer give us some mileage reports with the 5.0 or EB? I can guaranty you that it would be close to double that mileage. That was on page 1. Since then the OP has shoveled out 8 more pages of ridiculousness so I gave up.

Hehe, the engine wasn't the only thing working harder on the Prius, the chassis was pretty over matched as well.
And the Beamer had to move a larger and less areo vehicle...

Very good Steve. The large majority of Prius owners I see on the highway need to see this. Most of ones I see pushing the crap out of their cars.

I was pushing a 30 mph headwind while travelling an average of 75mph over rolling terrain. Are you aware that would be the equivalent wind drag of travelling over 100 mph? That is effectively double the wind resistance! No way anyone is getting much better in a gas truck under those circumstances.

Both of you struggle when it comes to reading comprehension. One more time, maybe I should type it a lot slower, in a bigger font.:whistling2:
A re-post.

To clarify, you said

Didn't you say you only got like 5 or 6mpg wide-open in your little 3.7 pulling ONLY 3500 lbs?? (And yes, running 6k rpm when your redline is 6500 is considered running "wide-open") My 5.0 would pull 3500lbs up a 6-7% grade and get 12-13 all day long. You should run for office, your logic makes no sense. I understand however, you bought a 3.7, and are trying your darndest to make it better than every other Ford engine out there, even with all of these dyno sheets proving otherwise.

Comeon man.... :blink:

There is no way you're trailer is comparable then. Again, for the 5th time, mine is 10'4"tall, 8' wide, and far off the ground (16" or so). This is why mileage discussions are pointless. 1) People who can't read get involved. 2) said people can't figure out they are comparing apples to oranges.
Hopeless. Nothing but conjecture and speculation from theorists.

Another person who can type but not read. Geez pal this was 2 posts above yours!

Haha, you tried so hard to convince everyone your little 3.7 screaming at 6k rpm is a beast!! I recommend you leave your 10-ft tall trailer at home next time you feel like a cross-country trip....you sure are a relentless little fella!