Go Back   iRV2 Forums > TRAVEL TRAILER, 5th WHEEL & TRUCK CAMPER FORUMS > Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-30-2013, 09:55 PM   #29
Registered User
 
KSCRUDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Land Of Oz RVM17
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
How is the fuel economy of the 6.2 towing. Have a few customers around here that really like the engine but I don't think they tow with it. Always wondered how it was towing. The last one I drove was empty of course but the power was pretty good. Also drove one for work for a week and the empty economy was mid teens I believe.

BTW what is DC motors?
I just said DC for short, government motors (GM) DC being their headquarters now! Owned by all of us taxpayers! I haven't towed anything yet with the 6.2 but I have 3 V10 6.8 almost identical trucks. They make about 10 to 12 empty in all around mixed driving. The 6.2 seems to be doing about the same. Last big tow with a V10 on a 24 car trailer loaded heavy out and empty back over the Rocky Mountains in all kinds of weather, I got 8.2 average overall. 2800 mile trip so good run for average. I don't think the 6.2 will do any better. It does have a 6 speed auto, the V 10s have 5, the 6.2 has more HP but the V10 has more torque. It feels like the V10 will out pull the 6.2 V8 but I just can't say. They used to offer the 5.4 V8 or the V10 in the super duties, now its just the 6.2 V8 or the 6.7 diesel. The V10 in the F53 and in some cab and chassis configurations. The 6.7 diesel in the F53 would be a no brainer, as that's where you need all that torque. It would be a great FRED, front engine diesel.
__________________

__________________
KSCRUDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 07-30-2013, 10:04 PM   #30
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Thanks. I wish they offered the V10 in the 250/350 as I think it would be a great option for many that do not want a diesel. However the 6.2 is a huge leap forward over the 5.4. While the 5.4 works, it is not great. But I do see a lot of 5.4s in superdutys with over 150K come in for regular service and no real issues to speak of. But it is better suited (kinda) for towing in an F150.

If I was in the market for a new class A FRED and the 6.7L was an option, totally agree that is a no brainer. I do wonder how long the 5R110W will remain in the F53 though since the 6.8 is already paired up with the 6R140 in the F650. While no MPG gain would likely occur, city driving would have to be improved.
__________________

__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013, 10:17 PM   #31
Registered User
 
KSCRUDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Land Of Oz RVM17
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
Thanks. I wish they offered the V10 in the 250/350 as I think it would be a great option for many that do not want a diesel. However the 6.2 is a huge leap forward over the 5.4. While the 5.4 works, it is not great. But I do see a lot of 5.4s in superdutys with over 150K come in for regular service and no real issues to speak of. But it is better suited (kinda) for towing in an F150.

If I was in the market for a new class A FRED and the 6.7L was an option, totally agree that is a no brainer. I do wonder how long the 5R110W will remain in the F53 though since the 6.8 is already paired up with the 6R140 in the F650. While no MPG gain would likely occur, city driving would have to be improved.
Yes and the six speed select shift in the 6.2 V8 is light years ahead of the 5 speed they still use in F53. The five speed will be gone when they run out of em! The 5.4 is a dog compared to the 3.6 Ecoboost in the F150 line. The Ecoboost has HP and torque almost the same at the V10 and 6.2 V8!
__________________
KSCRUDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 06:03 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
tuffr2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Palm Coast Florida
Posts: 2,454
I read that GDI (Gas Direct Injected) engines run cooler than MPI (multi port injection) engines. The turbo on the eco-boost engine should last a good long time because it does not get as hot as a turbo on an MPI engine.

The 5.0 litre engine in the F-150 has cooling jets that spray oil on the underside of the piston. I think the same happens for the 6.2 litre and eco-boost. Ford is trying to keep the engine cooler.

A turbo is added complexity. But so are a myriad of other engine changes like gas engines with a 11.5 compression ratio. Hybird cars, CVT transmissions, 800ft lb torque from diesel engines. (Now 850 in the Ram), and the DEF for diesel engines.
You have skyactiv, pure drive, bluetec, eco-boost, electric assist, etc. to choose from.

With all the complex changes vehicles today are much much better than 10 or 20 years ago. There is no more 'KISS' being applied anywhere in the truck or auto industry.

I just wish the RV industry could improve build quality like the auto industry.

P.S. still no flying cars.
__________________
tuffr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 09:06 AM   #33
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
Do you know how many of those are a take off shudder issue. 2011's and early 2012's seemed to be the worse and most of it has been deemed characteristic. I have noticed it and at Ford we have a video of the axle when the shudder occurs. Personally I don't feel it is acceptable but in the end engineers call most of the shots and they say it is characteristic if it is comparable to like units. In mid Jan of 2012 there have been some frame design changes and drive shaft changes that reduce this. After driving a newer truck it is much better even though some is still there.

Stiffer rear springs cure the issue but affects ride quality and many of the owners still want that plush ride. Me, it is a truck and should ride like a truck. But I also had a 12 second Lightning that was lowered 1" and handled very well for what it was.
From what I have read most had the axle wrap/hop issue during takeoff, the Eco shutter/loss of power seems to be much more rare. The axle wrap seems to be most common in the long wheel base 157" models (longer drive shaft and rear leafs) with lower gearing (3.73+). I don't experience the shutter personally, with 3.73 and shorter 145" wheel base, but I did add an Roadmaster Active Suspension system when I bought my fiver. I got it to help with rear end sag but from what I have seen guys with the axle wrap have added one and it has all but eliminated the axle hop issue. Similar to adding stiffer rear suspension components I suppose.
__________________
jjm1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 11:05 AM   #34
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefoot68 View Post
Have an accident and good trailer brakes are not going to save you. Your first obligation is to make sure your rig is legal. Your truck is Overloaded regardless of what you think. Brakes on most trailers out there are under rated for the job just like your f150 is underrated for the job you are using it for.
I was going to let this go, but I'm a little pissed that I did all of my homework just to have a 3/4 ton or 1 ton ONLY (assuming here) tell me I am wrong because "my truck is overloaded regardless of what I think." Besides, I enjoyed doing the research and homework so my family and I could be safe and have fun camping within our own budget. Maybe this will also help the original poster have an idea of what he/she should do to research their original question more fully on what tow vehicle they should seek out.

So here you go my friend, I do my homework before making large investments. Care sharing your calculations with the group?

  • Trailer Tow Limit = 11,300
Actual Trailer Weight (loaded with all supplies and full tank of water) = 10,130
  • CGVWR Allowed = 17,100
Actual = Truck (6,230) + Loaded Trailer (10,130) = 16,360
  • GVWR Allowed = 8,200 lbs
Actual Unloaded = 6,230 (truck weighed with me, wife, dog, full tank of gas, 5th wheel hitch, no tailgate, no spare tire which is carried in rear of the fiver, toneau removed and left home)
Available for fiver hitch = 1,970 lbs
Actual hitch weight = 1,995
Actual Loaded GVWR = 8,225
  • FAWR = 4,050
Front Axle No Fiver = 3,430 lbs (weighed same setup as above)
Front Axle with Fiver = 3,470 lbs
  • RAWR = 4,800
Rear Axle No Fiver = 2,820 lbs (weight same setup as above)
Rear Axle with Fiver = 4,775
A recap:
  1. I have 1,170 lbs to spare on my trailer weight.
  2. I have 740 lbs to spare on my CGVWR.
  3. I am 25 lbs over on my GVWR (A few notes: (A)The DW and I could lose a couple pounds, if we were our ideal weight we maybe okay lol! (B) We rarely travel with full tanks but all weights were taken with a 3/4 full black, 3/4 full grey, 3/4 full galley grey, and full fresh water tank. . .this is substantial amount of weight but may have a limited effect on hitch weight due to the teeter-taughter effect. My black tank and grey tank are in front of my trailer axle and my galley grey and fresh are behind my axles. All that said, I'm sure it helps the overall setup to not have the tanks full. Maybe I'll remeasure and recalculate the end of this year with everything empty).
  4. I have 580 lbs to spare on my FAWR (maybe I should load my firewood over my hood instead of in the rear of fiver. . .lol)
  5. I have 25 lbs to spare on my RAWR (essentially zero and if I am not as diligent on my packing this will quickly diminish to zero).
  6. I did not list my tire ratings because I have 4 load Es on the truck and am well within my limits there.



As seen above, the RAWR and the payload are always the limiting factors from my experience and this is no different with my setup. I am 25 lbs over on my payload and and 25 lbs under on my RAWR. Obviously not ideal but close enough so that I feel more then confident with my setup. Even though the teeter-taughering of the trailer will probably limit the amount of weight savings on my truck by losing all black, grey, and fresh water (which is our normal setup) I'm confident I'll still be close on my limits. Ideally traveling with a full fresh (stored behind the axles) and empty grey and black (in front of the axle) will help me the most.


FYI a fun piece of info to show you what a towing only F-150 could do: You can equip an F-150 with a payload of 3,120 lbs. I will admit, they are somewhat of a unicorn, a stripped down long bed, single cab, 4x2, 5.0 (ecoboost isn't available is reg cab) with max tow and hd payload, but they do exist.

Longest
Post
EVER!

Hope it was useful to some and proved to others that my truck is not going to burst into flames and run over everyone on the road! You would be amazed what a modern day F150 can do. It takes careful planning during the purchasing phase, a lot of research, some math, and careful packing once you get your rig, but it is possible.

Happy Camping!
__________________
jjm1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 11:45 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
Im not sure what you mean by "large trend" NHTSA investigates Jeep Wrangler and Chevrolet Cruze for potential engine fires - Autoweek as these complaints are 10 and 2. From what I can tell there is a total of 95 complaints out of 400,000 trucks about what you are talking about. Also, consumer reports also does not show a "large trend" either. However, Ford is looking into some of these concerns and has a newer TSB out for the intercooler and adding a baffle. Looks like they are trying to keep more heat in the intercooler. The explanation I have been given is there is moisture build up from lack of heavy throttle accelerations. Then when it is needed, the moisture will then get pushed into the intake and cause a slight stumble. Never experienced to determine the amount of stumble but some customers barely notice it but detect something is different.

Unfortunately the days of KISS is no longer. The emissions and fuel standards are here to stay and get worse. Technology is here to stay. So is variable valve timing, direct fuel injection, turbo charging and supercharging, etc. Those that fear it just argue that it is voodoo. Myself I embrace this stuff and have no problems learning it. Diag is very easy, at least to me. In fact Ford has one of the best diagnostic tools out there that aid techs in accurate diag. A huge flood of information at our finger tips. Just have to know how to use it. But I also enjoy a good puzzler also. Never had an issue figuring something out though. I guess the simplest is the horse and buggy. Not much to go wrong there.
Engine fires are always investigated. The NHTSA has a priority criteria, and engine fires are at the top of the list. As for only 95, that is just formal complaints to the NHTSA. The NHTSA also looks at warranty records from ford, which i'm sure will show much higher numbers than 95, which is when they launch a formal investigation.

As i've said before, i'm not knocking new technologies. But my family likes to run vehicles forever, and when they get to the age that we have some vehicles, every little thing will start to break. As far as variable valve timing, i haven't seen any issues and it's a pretty simple mechanism. Direct injection has been around forever in diesels, and only very recent in cars. However, diesels are designed for much higher lifespans, while cars will probably need new injectors when the engine is at the end of life. A new set of injectors will probably be very costly as compared to normal injectors. Supercharged engines have never been very reliable beyond 130k miles for the 2 vehicles of friends that had them(mazda millenia and nissan xterra). Turbo charged cars are so-so. Some last forever, others have issues that need addressing. But naturally aspirated engines have always been reliable in my family.

As said before, ecoboost is nice to have, but it isn't the answer to all of life's questions, and i still think a NA engine will inherently be more reliable long term. Only time and miles will reveal.
__________________

__________________
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.