# 2011 Ford Trucks



## Dale

Ford has three new Engine choices for 2011. After careful review of the choices, I have decided to go with the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost.

The company I work for has approximately 1000 Ford trucks in it's fleet and plans to move to this engine for the new year. I spoke with Ford's National Fleet Manager and he said this engine should be excellent for towing and deliver better fuel economy. Please refer to the attached analysis provided for me by Ford on the choices for 2010 Vs 2011. What is impressive is the torque and HP out of a 3.5L engine. It develops more torque than the old 5.4L V8 at much lower rpm. Ford says the engine develops 90% of the torque at 1750 rpm and peak at 2500. With a very flat torque curve at low rpm, it should be ideal for towing applications in a gas engine. There is no diesel option on the F150. The tow rating is also 11,300 lbs with this engine.

Did I mention the fuel economy rating is expected to be 18/25 when not towing!

I almost ordered the big 6.2L V8 until I noticed it was premium fuel only.

Sure sounds excellent and hope there are no "bugs" with the twin turbo charged engine in a truck application(the turbos are liquid cooled vs air cooled).

View attachment ford 2011 f150.pdf


----------



## duggy

That sounds pretty impressive for a V6, or even a V8 for that matter.


----------



## go6car

Sounds cool! And I was impressed with our '08!


----------



## outback loft

Dale said:


> Ford has three new Engine choices for 2011. After careful review of the choices, I have decided to go with the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost.
> 
> The company I work for has approximately 1000 Ford trucks in it's fleet and plans to move to this engine for the new year. I spoke with Ford's National Fleet Manager and he said this engine should be excellent for towing and deliver better fuel economy. Please refer to the attached analysis provided for me by Ford on the choices for 2010 Vs 2011. What is impressive is the torque and HP out of a 3.5L engine. It develops more torque than the old 5.4L V8 at much lower rpm. Ford says the engine develops 90% of the torque at 1750 rpm and peak at 2500. With a very flat torque curve at low rpm, it should be ideal for towing applications in a gas engine. There is no diesel option on the F150. The tow rating is also 11,300 lbs with this engine.
> 
> Did I mention the fuel economy rating is expected to be 18/25 when not towing!
> 
> I almost ordered the big 6.2L V8 until I noticed it was premium fuel only.
> 
> Sure sounds excellent and hope there are no "bugs" with the twin turbo charged engine in a truck application(the turbos are liquid cooled vs air cooled).
> 
> View attachment 1250


The standard 6.2 just needs regular unleaded, the one that is in the Raptor needs premium. I just a got a 2011 F250 with the 6.2 and that was one of my questions to them. One of the biggest differences is that the Raptor version has two spark plugs per cylinder, while the other version does not. So far the 6.2 is averaging 13 mpg, which is a hell of a lot better than the 5.2 in my Dodge was getting.

So far my biggest gripe with the truck is that the 6 speed has a hard time staying in one gear at lower speeds.


----------



## Dale

That is good news about regular fuel and makes more sense. I assume there are differences in the HP and Torque ratings between the two versions. Wonder which they quoted in the attached document(because they specifically mentioned premium fuel). I am going to check and will advise.

In hind sight, if I had known that, I may have chosen the 6.2 V8 - but too late now. I am nervous about a V6 twin turbo in a truck even thought they assure me I will be happy. There is nobody with experience to ask - guess I will be among the first to know when the truck is delivered. It is on order but will not built until January due to the engine availability.

Thank you for the comments


----------



## luverofpeanuts

That will be really interesting to hear how this new V6 performs.

Any news or hints at increased payload capacity for the Super Crews, since that is the weak link?


----------



## deanintemp

I love turbo charged engines - very, very efficient and more vehicles should go in this direction. Keep in mind that turbo charged engines can also be "tuned" for even greater horsepower by increasing the boost. Ironically, this tuning also increases the efficiency and mileage at the same time; however, tuned turbocharged engines require premium fuels. I last had a turbo charged Volkswagen EOS with a 2L engine tuned at 285Hp and 280Ft-Lb of torque.

Good luck and keep us up to date on the performance...


----------



## Nathan

outback loft said:


> Ford has three new Engine choices for 2011. After careful review of the choices, I have decided to go with the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost.
> 
> The company I work for has approximately 1000 Ford trucks in it's fleet and plans to move to this engine for the new year. I spoke with Ford's National Fleet Manager and he said this engine should be excellent for towing and deliver better fuel economy. Please refer to the attached analysis provided for me by Ford on the choices for 2010 Vs 2011. What is impressive is the torque and HP out of a 3.5L engine. It develops more torque than the old 5.4L V8 at much lower rpm. Ford says the engine develops 90% of the torque at 1750 rpm and peak at 2500. With a very flat torque curve at low rpm, it should be ideal for towing applications in a gas engine. There is no diesel option on the F150. The tow rating is also 11,300 lbs with this engine.
> 
> Did I mention the fuel economy rating is expected to be 18/25 when not towing!
> 
> I almost ordered the big 6.2L V8 until I noticed it was premium fuel only.
> 
> Sure sounds excellent and hope there are no "bugs" with the twin turbo charged engine in a truck application(the turbos are liquid cooled vs air cooled).
> 
> View attachment 1250


The standard 6.2 just needs regular unleaded, the one that is in the Raptor needs premium. I just a got a 2011 F250 with the 6.2 and that was one of my questions to them. One of the biggest differences is that the Raptor version has two spark plugs per cylinder, while the other version does not. So far the 6.2 is averaging 13 mpg, which is a hell of a lot better than the 5.2 in my Dodge was getting.

So far my biggest gripe with the truck is that the 6 speed has a hard time staying in one gear at lower speeds.
[/quote]

Better pop the hood on that SD and count the number of spark plugs....









As for the turbo engine, it feels really good!








The fuel economy is also way above the 6.2 when driving solo. It will be interesting to hear reports on towing and FE next summer as towing season gets underway.


----------



## Dale

I have a "dealer only document" that was sent to me on the entire truck and engine lines. It is 96 pages long on one and 16 pages for the other. Both are over the 2MB limit so I can not post it. If anyone wants a copy, email me and will be happy to pass it along. I also do not read anything different about the Raptor version 6.2L. It would appear all 6.2's are the same with two plugs per cylinder. I see that the have a footnote on the HP/Torque ratings that they were "achieved using premium" - so apparently not required, but you can use it for best performance.

Dale


----------



## outback loft

Nathan said:


> Ford has three new Engine choices for 2011. After careful review of the choices, I have decided to go with the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost.
> 
> The company I work for has approximately 1000 Ford trucks in it's fleet and plans to move to this engine for the new year. I spoke with Ford's National Fleet Manager and he said this engine should be excellent for towing and deliver better fuel economy. Please refer to the attached analysis provided for me by Ford on the choices for 2010 Vs 2011. What is impressive is the torque and HP out of a 3.5L engine. It develops more torque than the old 5.4L V8 at much lower rpm. Ford says the engine develops 90% of the torque at 1750 rpm and peak at 2500. With a very flat torque curve at low rpm, it should be ideal for towing applications in a gas engine. There is no diesel option on the F150. The tow rating is also 11,300 lbs with this engine.
> 
> Did I mention the fuel economy rating is expected to be 18/25 when not towing!
> 
> I almost ordered the big 6.2L V8 until I noticed it was premium fuel only.
> 
> Sure sounds excellent and hope there are no "bugs" with the twin turbo charged engine in a truck application(the turbos are liquid cooled vs air cooled).
> 
> View attachment 1250


The standard 6.2 just needs regular unleaded, the one that is in the Raptor needs premium. I just a got a 2011 F250 with the 6.2 and that was one of my questions to them. One of the biggest differences is that the Raptor version has two spark plugs per cylinder, while the other version does not. So far the 6.2 is averaging 13 mpg, which is a hell of a lot better than the 5.2 in my Dodge was getting.

So far my biggest gripe with the truck is that the 6 speed has a hard time staying in one gear at lower speeds.
[/quote]

Better pop the hood on that SD and count the number of spark plugs....









As for the turbo engine, it feels really good!








The fuel economy is also way above the 6.2 when driving solo. It will be interesting to hear reports on towing and FE next summer as towing season gets underway.
[/quote]

Well I still only am seeing one spark plug per cylinder. They have gone the same way as Chevy and have individual coil packs, there are 8 coil packs, 8 wires, and 8 spark plugs. It is definitely the 6.2 and it is definitely a gas motor.


----------



## Dan Borer

Dale said:


> That is good news about regular fuel and makes more sense. I assume there are differences in the HP and Torque ratings between the two versions. Wonder which they quoted in the attached document(because they specifically mentioned premium fuel). I am going to check and will advise.
> 
> In hind sight, if I had known that, I may have chosen the 6.2 V8 - but too late now. I am nervous about a V6 twin turbo in a truck even thought they assure me I will be happy. There is nobody with experience to ask - guess I will be among the first to know when the truck is delivered. It is on order but will not built until January due to the engine availability.
> 
> Thank you for the comments


I have a reservation to drive that truck/engine combo while running solo and towing at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, CA on November 13th. I am interested to see how compares to my '09 F-150. Here is what Ford has in store for us:

BE AMONG THE FIRST TO TEST DRIVE THE 2011 F-150 WITH FOUR ALL-NEW POWERTRAINS!

SEE THE FULL 2011 F-150 LINE-UP:
See engine cutaways of the four all-new 2011 F-150 powertrains with host explains the engines and answers questions.

POWER DRIVE COMPETITION: 
Drive any of the 2011 F-150 powertrains in a power test competition on an acceleration and handling course.

TOW WITH THE 2011 F-150 ECOBOOST: 
Tow or ride along in the new 2011 F-150 with EcoBoost engine! 
Towing coaches make it easy, even if someone hasn't towed before.

REFINEMENT ECOBOOST DRIVE: 
Drive a 2011 F-150 on the street and experience Ford's award-winning EcoBoost engine.

DYNO POWER COMPARISON: 
See how the 2011 F-150 performs in power and torque vs. the competition on a portable Dynamometer.


----------



## duggy

Dale said:


> I am nervous about a V6 twin turbo in a truck even thought they assure me I will be happy. There is nobody with experience to ask - guess I will be among the first to know when the truck is delivered. It is on order but will not built until January due to the engine availability.
> 
> Thank you for the comments


I had a Buick Grand National back in 1986. It had a 3.8 liter turbo V6. Tons of power and lots of torque, even at low RPMs. I could pass quickly at highway speeds without downshifting. I wish my new 6.0 V8 had the torque of that turbo. If the new Ford turbo runs anything like my Buick did, you're going to love it.


----------



## Duanesz

I saw the two truck that must be the towing rigs for this test on local freeway last week. There were two supercrews with enclosed trailers behind them. I cant remember what they said on the trailer something like the f-150 tow challenge or something like that. I was kind of mad they dont have anything around Michigan only Orlando Texas and California.



Dan Borer said:


> That is good news about regular fuel and makes more sense. I assume there are differences in the HP and Torque ratings between the two versions. Wonder which they quoted in the attached document(because they specifically mentioned premium fuel). I am going to check and will advise.
> 
> In hind sight, if I had known that, I may have chosen the 6.2 V8 - but too late now. I am nervous about a V6 twin turbo in a truck even thought they assure me I will be happy. There is nobody with experience to ask - guess I will be among the first to know when the truck is delivered. It is on order but will not built until January due to the engine availability.
> 
> Thank you for the comments


I have a reservation to drive that truck/engine combo while running solo and towing at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, CA on November 13th. I am interested to see how compares to my '09 F-150. Here is what Ford has in store for us:

BE AMONG THE FIRST TO TEST DRIVE THE 2011 F-150 WITH FOUR ALL-NEW POWERTRAINS!

SEE THE FULL 2011 F-150 LINE-UP:
See engine cutaways of the four all-new 2011 F-150 powertrains with host explains the engines and answers questions.

POWER DRIVE COMPETITION: 
Drive any of the 2011 F-150 powertrains in a power test competition on an acceleration and handling course.

TOW WITH THE 2011 F-150 ECOBOOST: 
Tow or ride along in the new 2011 F-150 with EcoBoost engine! 
Towing coaches make it easy, even if someone hasn't towed before.

REFINEMENT ECOBOOST DRIVE: 
Drive a 2011 F-150 on the street and experience Ford's award-winning EcoBoost engine.

DYNO POWER COMPARISON: 
See how the 2011 F-150 performs in power and torque vs. the competition on a portable Dynamometer.
[/quote]


----------



## clarkely

duggy said:


> I had a Buick Grand National back in 1986. It had a 3.8 liter turbo V6. Tons of power and lots of torque, even at low RPMs. I could pass quickly at highway speeds without downshifting. I wish my new 6.0 V8 had the torque of that turbo. If the new Ford turbo runs anything like my Buick did, you're going to love it.


*
X2*
87 Buick Grand National was the first New off the lot car i bought, in January of 1998...........That car/engine was AWESOME!!!

The one vehicle i really regret selling........I should have kept that one........ Turbo = Power


----------



## Dale

Now I am getting excited. Everyone sounds supportive of the choice.


----------



## Calvin&Hobbes

Some specs...

*ROBUST, FORD TOUGH: ALL-NEW 6.2-LITER GASOLINE ENGINE COMPLEMENTS 2011 FORD SUPER DUTY*

The 2011 Super Duty with the all-new Ford 6.2-liter V-8 engine will deliver significantly improved torque and horsepower as well as class-leading fuel economy; it can run on regular-grade gasoline, E85 or any blend in between
Optimization of the engine's "breathing" delivers increased horsepower compared with outgoing F-250/F-350 6.8-liter engine
Base engine performing flawlessly in Ford F-150 SVT Rapor R off-road racing truck, complementing rigorous testing regimen
DALLAS, Sept. 24, 2009 - An all-new 6.2-liter V-8 gasoline engine, which has its roots in Ford Racing powerplants, joins the lineup for the 2011 Ford F-Series Super Duty.

"Our all-new 6.2-liter V-8 engine uses reliable components and proven technology that has been optimized for the high performance and efficiency that our Super Duty customers demand," said Mike Harrison, Ford V-8 engine programs manager. "It delivers not only significantly better torque and horsepower than the outgoing engine, but also improved fuel economy."

Core to the improvements is the adoption of an all-new engine architecture, with increased bore spacing, that allows better engine "breathing" in both the intake and exhaust for more power and more overall efficiency.

A closer look at how the new engine achieves its performance:


*Large bore, shorter stroke:* This approach to creating power has its roots in storied Ford racing engines from the past. The large bore (102 mm) allows for larger intake and exhaust valves for improved engine breathing, and the short stroke (95 mm) allows higher engine speed for increased horsepower. Still, peak horsepower is generated at a relatively modest 5,500 rpm.

*SOHC valvetrain with roller-rocker shafts:* The single overhead camshaft (SOHC) per cylinder head design results in a stiff valvetrain that allows optimized camshaft lift profiles and helps produce great low-speed torque. The roller-rocker shafts allow valve angles to be splayed, resulting in optimized intake and exhaust port layout for better breathing.

*Dual-equal variable cam timing:* Intake and exhaust valve opening and closing events are phased at the same time to optimize fuel economy and performance throughout the engine speed range and throttle positions.

*Two spark plugs per cylinder:* Because of the large bore size, two spark plugs per cylinder are used to more efficiently burn the fuel-air mixture in the combustion chamber, enabling better fuel economy and increased engine torque. The twin plugs also help the engine maintain a smooth, stable idle.

*Dual knock sensors:* A knock sensor on each bank of cylinders of the V-8 engine allows the spark timing of each of the cylinders to be individually optimized real time, throughout the engine speed range. The engine continuously monitors engine performance and applies this real-time learning to optimize timing via an adaptive algorithm.

*Better engine crankcase "breathing" and efficiency:* Significant development work and computer-aided engineering optimized the cylinder block for more efficient airflow in the crankcase as the pistons move up and down in the bores, resulting in improved torque at higher engine speeds. Piston-cooling jets squirt oil on the underside of the pistons to keep the piston crowns cool under extreme operating conditions. The cooling jets also allow for a higher compression ratio for better engine efficiency and faster engine oil warm-up on cold starts, also improving fuel economy.
Key features of the new 6.2-liter V-8 gasoline engine include:


Cast-iron engine block and four-bolt main bearing caps, with cross bolts, for durability
Aluminum cylinder heads, with two valves per cylinder and two spark plugs per cylinder
Cast-iron crankshaft, with dual-mode damper
Forged steel connecting rods
Cast-aluminum pistons, with cooling jets
Single overhead camshaft with variable valve timing and roller-rocker shaft valvetrain
Magnesium cam covers for lighter weight
Stamped-steel oil pan
Composite intake manifold
Stainless-steel fuel rail; port-fuel-injected; mechanical returnless fuel system
9.8:1 compression ratio
E85/flex fuel capable
*Performance heritage with proven durability and reliability*
The concept of using a large-bore engine to make horsepower is part of Ford's DNA, especially its racing heritage - the famous Ford Boss 302 and 351 engines, for example, pioneered many of the same concepts. Several racing projects proved out the performance, durability and flexibility of the new 6.2-liter V-8 engine architecture.

Among the racing-themed highlights that contributed to the engine's development:


A 7.0-liter version running on E85 fuel produced 800 horsepower in a winning Mustang drag racing application driven by Don Bowles
A specially calibrated production-based 6.2-liter engine achieved 500 horsepower and ran flawlessly in the Ford F-150 SVT Raptor R race truck in the 2008 Baja 1000
Testing on the 6.2-liter V-8 included running multiple engines for more than 500 hours at peak torque and peak horsepower as well as customer-correlated 1,000-hour road load tests to ensure dependability for even the toughest Ford F-Series Super Duty customer.

All told, more than 50 engines were put through the dynamometer lab, running a variety of durability and development tests, undergoing extremes far harsher than can be expected - or duplicated - in the real world. Testing also included high-speed durability, crankshaft-torsional evaluation and engine thermal cycling where the running engine is "shocked" from one coolant temperature extreme to the other.

"From the first test on the dynamometer, this engine was very reliable," said Bob DeBona, supervisor, Engine Performance and Development. "The precision that went into the engineering and manufacturing of this engine led to very few tweaks to the block during development. Components such as the crank, connecting rods, heads and intake manifold stayed essentially the same throughout our durability testing, which is a testament to the reliability of this new engine. It's able to pound out the torque, hour after hour, week after week, demonstrating extreme durability."

The new 6.2-liter V-8 gasoline engine will be built at the Romeo (Michigan) Engine Plant.


----------



## FZ1dave

Just picked mine up on the 9th.


----------



## crunchman12002

ALL NEW FORD F-150 POWERTRAIN LINEUP DELIVERS BEST-IN-CLASS FUEL ECONOMY, POWER AND CAPABILITY
Print | Email this page | Subscribe
.

The 3.7-liter V6 powering the 
2011 Ford F-150 delivers an estimated 300 horsepower and 275 lb.-ft. of torque.
•The powertrain lineup for the 2011 Ford F-150 features four new truck engines: a 3.7-liter V6, 5.0-liter and 6.2-liter V8s, and a twin-turbocharged EcoBoost™ 3.5-liter
•Headlining the engine lineup is a new twin-turbo EcoBoost engine with Ti-VCT that has been specifically tuned, calibrated and tested for durability and reliability
•Each new engine delivers best-in-class towing and horsepower. The entire 2011 F-150 lineup will be at least 20 percent more fuel efficient than the 2010 F-150 lineup
•Ford is the first and only automaker to equip its entire full-size pickup lineup with fuel-saving six-speed automatic transmissions as standard equipment
DEARBORN, Mich., Aug. 11, 2010 - For the 2011 model year, the Ford F-150 is getting the most extensive powertrain overhaul in the truck's history. The 2011 F-150 has four new truck engines, all coupled to a revised six-speed automatic transmission.

Each engine delivers improved fuel economy, outstanding performance and class-leading capability. This versatile new powertrain lineup enables F-150 customers to choose the engine that best suits their needs.

Related News: 
2011 Ford F-150 Transmission Features Faster, Smoother Shifting, Better Fuel Economy
Fact Sheets: 
New 2011 F-150 3.7-Liter V6
New 2011 F-150 5.0-Liter V8
New 2011 F-150 6.2-Liter V8
New 2011 F-150 3.5-Liter EcoBoost
New 2011 F-150 Six-speed Automatic Transmission
2011 F-150 Powertrain Forum Webcast (8/11/10)

PhotosAvailable at launch are a 3.7-liter V6 and a 5.0-liter V8, each with fuel-saving and performance-enhancing twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT) technology, and a version of the 6.2-liter V8 that is the base engine in the 2011 Ford F-Series Super Duty. A 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine, specially tuned and calibrated for the F-150, will be available in early 2011. Each of the engines offers an unequaled combination of attributes that matter most to F-150 customers: torque, horsepower, fuel economy, performance, durability, reliability and capability. The 2011 F-150 lineup will deliver best-in-class fuel economy. When the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine joins the lineup, the 2011 F-150 will have up to 20 percent better fuel economy compared with the outgoing 2010 F-150.

"Our new engine lineup allows greater flexibility for customers to select the powertrain choice that best suits their needs," said Barb Samardzich, vice president of Powertrain Engineering. "We are in the midst of a powertrain revolution, with 30 new powertrains over the next two years, and our loyal F-150 customers are the next ones to benefit."

Extensive testing program to ensure truck application
To ensure the highest quality, most reliable engines, Ford engineers studied the warranty history of the outgoing engines and developed testing procedures based on the real-world driving experiences from current F-150 drivers.

Prototype engines underwent a wide range of tests to ensure complete compatibility with truck application and truck durability, with all components and systems passing testing to the equivalent of 150,000 miles. Components such as the exhaust manifolds and the crankshaft (forged steel) were upgraded, piston-cooling jets and oil coolers were added, and engines were specifically calibrated for improved heavy-duty operation and durability in F-150.

"Truck customers demand an engine that delivers outstanding low-speed torque to help tow or move heavy payloads, and sustained high-load, low-speed operation is a key attribute they look for," said Samardzich. "The engine lineup for the 2011 Ford F-150 has been tuned specifically for truck operation needs and optimized for fuel economy. The result is a lineup that delivers class-leading towing and payload capability with outstanding horsepower, torque and fuel economy."

Here are the highlights of each new engine:

3.7-liter four-valve Ti-VCT V6
The 3.7-liter will be the most powerful, capable and fuel-efficient base V6 of any truck in its class. Key attributes include:

•Best-in-class 300 horsepower (estimated) at 6,500 rpm
•275 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,500 rpm
•Class-leading fuel economy
•Best-in-class 6,100 pounds maximum trailer tow
•Ti-VCT creates precise, variable timing control of both the intake and exhaust camshafts to optimize power, performance and fuel economy
•E85 flex fuel capability
•Piston-cooling jets, which squirt oil on the underside of the pistons to keep the piston crowns cool under extreme operating conditions
•Forged-steel crankshaft for improved durability
•Built at Cleveland Engine Plant
The 3.7-liter V6 powering the base 2011 F-150 is the latest application of the award-winning Duratec® V6 engine, with additional technology and upgrades for truck application. In particular, more work was done on the bottom end of the engine, a strong point of all Duratec V6 engines.

"This is a well-designed engine with a massive amount of attention to detail around the block and the structure of the block," said Jim Mazuchowski, V6 engines program manager. "This attention to the stiffness and rigidity of the bottom end, how the engine is fastened with four-bolt mains and two side bolts, enhances durability and NVH (noise, vibration and harshness)."

Other enhancements for durability include a forged-steel crankshaft, cast-iron exhaust manifolds and a die-cast aluminum oil pan, which supports a 10,000-mile interval for oil changes. The design of the cylinder bore and piston rings has been optimized for efficient lubrication.

In addition to engine durability, Ti-VCT leads a host of technologies that increase overall engine efficiency. Ti-VCT's precise and variable control of the intake and exhaust camshafts optimizes performance and fuel economy. The piston squirters enable faster engine warm-up, and the polished buckets reduce friction, which aids fuel economy.

5.0-liter four-valve dual-overhead-camshaft Ti-VCT V8
The 5.0-liter V8 in the 2011 F-150 offers many class bests compared with competitors' entry-level V8s, including:

•Best-in-class 360 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 380 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,250 rpm
•Class-leading fuel economy
•Best-in-class 9,800 pounds maximum trailer tow
•New strengthened block and new cylinder head optimized for performance and enhanced cooling
•Unique intake camshafts, combined with Ti-VCT, composite intake manifold and optimized compression ratio for improved low-speed torque and towing capability
•Forged-steel crank and all-new oil cooler enhance durability
•Piston-cooling jets, which squirt oil on the underside of the pistons to keep the piston crowns cool under extreme operating conditions
•E85 flex fuel capability
•Built at Essex Engine Plant; Windsor, Ontario
While this 5.0-liter V8 engine is similar to the one powering the 2011 Mustang GT, it has several important differences to optimize it for the harsh duty cycle truck customers demand. First, the camshafts were tuned to improve low-speed torque, which is key to truck customers. Also, the 10.5:1 compression ratio was optimized to reduce knock tendency at lower engine speeds while towing.

The hardware added to the 5.0 specifically for F-150 includes: an additional oil cooler, which helps extend the life of the oil to 10,000-mile intervals; foam covers for the fuel injectors to reduce NVH; and cast exhaust manifolds for improved durability. The new aluminum block is 70 pounds lighter than the 5.4-liter V8, which aids fuel economy and improves handling. The engine's forged-steel crankshaft also ensures durability.

"This engine uses proven technology to deliver a great combination of low-speed torque and fuel economy with the durability F-150 customers demand," said Mike Harrison, V8 engine programs manager.

6.2-liter two-valve single-overhead-camshaft V8
The 6.2-liter V8 is a premium engine offering on the 2011 F-150, with an expanded offering to F-150 SVT Raptor and other specialty applications. Its attributes include:

•Best-in-class 411 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 434 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,500 rpm
•Best-in-class 11,300 pounds maximum trailer tow
•Competitive fuel economy
•Durability of race-proven components and technology showcased in November 2008 when a 6.2-liter Raptor R not only survived the grueling Baja 1000, it earned a podium finish. The same engine went on to complete every mile of the 2009 Best in the Desert series
•Utilizes a large bore and shorter stroke. This approach to creating power has its roots in storied Ford racing engines. The large bore allows for larger intake and exhaust valves for improved engine airflow, and the short stroke allows higher engine speed for increased horsepower
•Because of the large bore size, two spark plugs per cylinder are used to more efficiently burn the fuel-air mixture in the combustion chamber, enabling better fuel economy and increased engine torque. The twin plugs also help the engine maintain a smooth, stable idle
•Built at Romeo (Mich.) Engine Plant
The 6.2-liter V8, standard on the 2011 F-Series Super Duty, is uniquely tuned for the F-150 with a special cam profile. The engine will be standard on the 2011 F-150 SVT Raptor and other specialty applications, and pumps out up to 411 horsepower and 434 lb.-ft. of torque - making the F-150 the most powerful truck in its class.

"This engine has tons of torque, and already has been proved in the field with both the F-150 SVT Raptor and Super Duty," said Harrison.

3.5-liter Ti-VCT EcoBoost
The 3.5-liter EcoBoost is a premium engine offering available after launch with power comparable to a naturally aspirated V8 and projected class-leading fuel economy. Its attributes include:

•Ti-VCT creates precise, variable timing control of both the intake and exhaust camshafts to optimize power, performance and fuel economy
•Fuel economy improves up to 20 percent versus 2010 model year F-150 5.4-liter V8
•Improved intake and exhaust camshafts optimized for improved fuel economy and performance
•Cast exhaust manifolds for heavy-duty operation and durability
•Improved manifold and cylinder heads for improved performance
•Direct-acting mechanical bucket (DAMB) valvetrain with polished buckets to reduce friction and improve fuel economy
•Built at Cleveland Engine Plant
Transmission features customer-driven enhancements
Ford Motor Company is the first and only manufacturer to equip its entire full-size pickup truck lineup with fuel-saving six-speed automatic transmissions as standard.

For the first time, a six-speed automatic transmission is standard in F-150 on all engines. Several available enhancements have been added to the proven 6R80 transmission to help F-150 customers tow more easily, including SelectShift with both progressive range select and manual functions.

Progressive range select allows the customer to reduce the range of available gears while in Drive. When the customer taps down into range select mode, the display shows the available gears and highlights the current gear state. This feature allows the driver to limit the use of upper gears when heavily loaded or while towing on grades.

With SelectShift, customers can get full manual function by pulling the shift lever into "M" for manual mode and then select the gear desired by pressing the "+" button for upshifts or the "-" button for downshifts. The control system will hold that gear for a full manual transmission feel.

The new engines for the Ford F-150 follow the all-new engine lineup for the 2011 Ford F-Series Super Duty introduced earlier this year and highlighted by the 6.7-liter Power Stroke® V8 turbocharged diesel, which delivers best-in-class torque, horsepower and fuel economy.

"The new powertrain lineup for the 2011 F-150 will provide a wide range of choices to customers to suit their needs, each tested for maximum durability and reliability with outstanding fuel economy," said Samardzich.

# # #

About Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Company, a global automotive industry leader based in Dearborn, Mich., manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. With about 159,000 employees and about 70 plants worldwide, the company's automotive brands include Ford, Lincoln and Mercury, production of which has been announced by the company to be ending in the fourth quarter of 2010. The company provides financial services through Ford Motor Credit Company. For more information regarding Ford's products, please visit www.ford.com.


----------



## OBcanOB

Because I use my truck as my daily driver, we traded in our 2007 F350 SD diesel crewcab, and bought the 2011 F350 SD 6.2 gas. We ordered it with the SuperCab. For daily driving it is amazing, can't say enough about how great it is in comparison. The only two complaints, one is with the shorter wheelbase it is a little more 'bumpy' than the 07 CrewCab, but because it has better suspension, it is very comfortable. The second complaint is in the shifting of the new 6-speed trans, which seems to jump around a bit. I'm told they can fine tune this as it is an electronic shifting problem. As more complaints go in, I think it will make them smooth it out.

Out big concern was pulling our 28FRLS 5er. We got the hitch moved over, hooked the unit up and took it for a drive up in the mountains (lots of them here on the Island). We were very impressed. Granted, not as powerful as the diesel going up the hills, but still very satisfactory. On a steep grade I was still able to go from 40 to 65 with ease, not pushing the engine. It did run a lot in 3rd gear, but that's what the 6 speed trans is all about. On the flat stretches it was smooth and quiet, and the new sway control works just like they say. Overall, a superior ride, better comfort, and I can hear the stereo without turning it up!

I think they have a winner here. Unless you're pulling full time, or that is all the truck is going to do, then I think the diesel is overkill. And at the extra price, I don't think many will pay the diesel price off.


----------



## Tangooutback

The EPA and DOT just come out with new guidelines for fuel efficiency in trucks.

New requirement

_"The fleet of new cars, pickup trucks and SUVs will need to reach 35.5 mpg by 2016, and the government is developing plans for future vehicle models that could push the standards to a range from 47 mpg to 62 mpg by 2025."_

Is it possible to get 35.5 mpg and have adequate torque to pull a 10,000 lbs trailer? that sounds too good to be true.


----------



## WYOCAMPER

WOW! Is that an average for the fleet, though? So if you have a car that gets 51mpg and a truck that gets 20mpg, your average is 35.5?


----------



## W5CI

As a retired truck driver/owner there is nothing like cubic inches/liters, the bigger the better, no more than i will be towing my Outback it dont make a lot of sense to go spend 50k for a new diesel dually to tow with a few times a year. so ill keep what i have.


----------



## Nathan

danny285 said:


> As a retired truck driver/owner there is nothing like cubic inches/liters, the bigger the better, no more than i will be towing my Outback it dont make a lot of sense to go spend 50k for a new diesel dually to tow with a few times a year. so ill keep what i have.


I partially agree, but it's displacement of air, not simply the cylinders. Gasoline engines require the correct fuel/air ratio to run with decent emissions. Therefore you want only a little air at idle, but lots at wide open throttle: therefore a turbo is a good compromise.


----------



## RWRiley

I hope Chevy is watching what Ford is doing (I bet they are). Would be great to see similar technology in the 2500's. I bet a 6.0 L with twin turbos would get pretty close to the power of a Duramax, and for a lot less money.


----------



## RWRiley

Dale said:


> Now I am getting excited. Everyone sounds supportive of the choice.


So How 'bout an update. Did you get the truck yet ? What can you tell us ??

Does anybody else have one already (3.5L Turbo) ?


----------



## willingtonpaul

i am also very curious to hear some owner reports on the ecoboost.....


----------



## Dale

Well I finally received my truck!	I love it and very impressed with the ride and feel on the road. It has a very impressive dash interface with quite a few driver selected options. Of interest for towing, are a towing profile which changes the transmission shift points, provides for engine braking, anti-sway controls, and miles per gallon tracking that is stored separately from the non-towing history. Very cool. Mine has a rear-camera which has three levels of zoom and you can really focus in on the hitch ball and see exactly where you are.

I have not pulled my Outback 295RE yet, but the engine/trans combo seems very powerful and ready for the task. I will post more about my impressions of towing with this combination later. I have a Hensley hitch, so sway will not be an issue - it will be a matter of how impressed I am with the 3.5L, the transmission tow programing, the built-in brake controller and the ability to handle the 8000 lbs. Attached are a few pictures of the truck and dash.


----------



## willingtonpaul

sweet looking truck ! and i love the ecoboost badging, it is very sharp and reminiscent of the powerstroke badging on my 6.0L....
can't wait to hear a towing report.

congrats.


----------



## RWRiley

Dale said:


> Well I finally received my truck!	I love it and very impressed with the ride and feel on the road. It has a very impressive dash interface with quite a few driver selected options. Of interest for towing, are a towing profile which changes the transmission shift points, provides for engine braking, anti-sway controls, and miles per gallon tracking that is stored separately from the non-towing history. Very cool. Mine has a rear-camera which has three levels of zoom and you can really focus in on the hitch ball and see exactly where you are.
> 
> I have not pulled my Outback 295RE yet, but the engine/trans combo seems very powerful and ready for the task. I will post more about my impressions of towing with this combination later. I have a Hensley hitch, so sway will not be an issue - it will be a matter of how impressed I am with the 3.5L, the transmission tow programing, the built-in brake controller and the ability to handle the 8000 lbs. Attached are a few pictures of the truck and dash.


Very Nice ! What can you tell us about performance ? Have you put your foot in it yet ? Can you feel the power ? What about MPG - I know it's only solo so far but interested in what you are seeing ? As you can tell - I think the platform is very exciting - and has the potential to change our expectations about towing performance and efficiency. I'm a Bow-Tie guy - but I think Ford has a better idea in this case. This could be a game-changer (you heard it here 1st)


----------



## Dale

I have not stepped on it yet - only 350 miles. I have given it approximately 3/4 and I WILL be impressed. I have been very impressed with the transmission. Without a load and the transmission in trailer tow mode, the trans downshifts through several gears as you brake. It does not have the same dramatic effect like a diesel brake, but it does help with slowing the vehicle. I also like the manual transmission mode, which allows you to pick a gear and it stays there (within limits I noticed). Sometimes I prefer to "torque" my way up a minor grade and this prevents a downshift. As you could see from my dash picture, the first tank average fuel economy was 16 in the city. I am driving gently and have not had any highway miles to test the claimed 22 MPG.	Ford's 6.2L V8 has a bit more HP (perhaps 35 hp) and only slightly more torque (only 20 ft lbs I believe), but I feel better about a few more MPG's over the rare occasion when I wish I had slightly more power. I usually don't push an engine hard so assume I will be very happy with the power. One of the best claimed engine features to me was the fact that 90% of the torque is available at 1750 RPM and it remains relatively flat to redline. I don't like reving up the RPM's - too noisy for one thing. The big V8 develops it's peak torque at much higher RPM.

I hope for an early spring season and I will be able to say more.


----------



## OBcanOB

Drove from BC to S. Cal, app 1400 miles. We were followed by a friend in his 06 F350 PSD. In the end, it cost me $50 more in fuel than he paid. At that rate I'd be dead by the time I could pay off the value of going to the diesel. And when we're not towing, I much prefer the gas. (If I were a full timer, I'm sure I'd go diesel, but not for the couple trips a year)


----------



## willingtonpaul

OBcanOB said:


> Drove from BC to S. Cal, app 1400 miles. We were followed by a friend in his 06 F350 PSD. In the end, it cost me $50 more in fuel than he paid. At that rate I'd be dead by the time I could pay off the value of going to the diesel. And when we're not towing, I much prefer the gas. (If I were a full timer, I'm sure I'd go diesel, but not for the couple trips a year)


yup, diesel's are for the power and the longevity. you gotta put 250K - 300k on them to get anywhere near the price difference.

your 6.2L gasser is gonna be a great engine for you.....


----------



## Dub

So I test drove an EcoBoost F150 today and I can't say that I believe it would tow 11,000lbs or anything near it. It was a crew cab (the biggest cab), 4x4, with a 5ft box. The interior space was very impressive, even had a 110V outlet in the back. The seats folded up for a ton of space. My favorite features were the cooled seats--freakin amazing, and the driver information center--the best I've ever seen. It had an extremely nice ride and you could barely hear the turbos spooling. The one I test drove only had a 3.55 rearend so maybe that's why I couldn't really feel any torque when I hammered it. Not sure about the mileage, I did about a 10 mile test drive, half city, half highway, hammered it only once and according to the truck I got 17mpg. The 4.10 gears were only available on a couple configurations. I'd be very interested in how the gear ratio affects the mileage of the engine.

According to the book I picked up you can get a 6.5ft box crew cab with an almost 1900lbs, an extended cab had a payload max of 2400lbs which would be good for pulling a 5er.

They only have one on the lot right now (for $51K) but really wanted to sell me a truck. I expressed my concern with the ability of it to pull my trailer and they told me they'd bring one with a 4.1 or 3.73 rearend up to my campsite and let me give it a shot. So I'll be waiting for that call this spring and post more thoughts on it then. If it pulled my trailer well and actually got 20mpg/avg (17ci/23hi) then I would consider one as I could replace my daily driver and truck with one vehicle based on mileage and power.


----------



## RWRiley

Dub said:


> If it pulled my trailer well and actually got 20mpg/avg (17ci/23hi) then I would consider one as I could replace my daily driver and truck with one vehicle based on mileage and power.


I can understand that. It really helps make the case for the truck.


----------



## Dub

RWRiley said:


> If it pulled my trailer well and actually got 20mpg/avg (17ci/23hi) then I would consider one as I could replace my daily driver and truck with one vehicle based on mileage and power.


I can understand that. It really helps make the case for the truck.
[/quote]

And I mean mileage while not towing....towing I'm fine with anything around 9mpg. But if it only averages 17mpg like my test drive then there isn't much of a point to change trucks as I get between 15-17mpg with what I have now mixed driving. I need over 20mpg to make it worthwhile.


----------



## willingtonpaul

Dub said:


> If it pulled my trailer well and actually got 20mpg/avg (17ci/23hi) then I would consider one as I could replace my daily driver and truck with one vehicle based on mileage and power.


I can understand that. It really helps make the case for the truck.
[/quote]

And I mean mileage while not towing....towing I'm fine with anything around 9mpg. But if it only averages 17mpg like my test drive then there isn't much of a point to change trucks as I get between 15-17mpg with what I have now mixed driving. I need over 20mpg to make it worthwhile.
[/quote]

20 mpg is a 17 percent improvement over 17 mpg. with that level of improvement, over the vehicles' useful life, could you even make back the hit you will take on your tundra ?


----------



## RWRiley

willingtonpaul said:


> If it pulled my trailer well and actually got 20mpg/avg (17ci/23hi) then I would consider one as I could replace my daily driver and truck with one vehicle based on mileage and power.


I can understand that. It really helps make the case for the truck.
[/quote]

And I mean mileage while not towing....towing I'm fine with anything around 9mpg. But if it only averages 17mpg like my test drive then there isn't much of a point to change trucks as I get between 15-17mpg with what I have now mixed driving. I need over 20mpg to make it worthwhile.
[/quote]

20 mpg is a 17 percent improvement over 17 mpg. with that level of improvement, over the vehicles' useful life, could you even make back the hit you will take on your tundra ?
[/quote]

In my case 14mpg solo vs 20 solo, assuming 3 mpg and 30,000 miles/year: Gas savings (@$3.00/gal) is $1,912/yr or $160 month. Difference in truck payments are probably more than that, but it helps - and I think part of the pros/cons you have to consider in the process of getting from 2 vehicles to 1.


----------



## Dub

willingtonpaul said:


> If it pulled my trailer well and actually got 20mpg/avg (17ci/23hi) then I would consider one as I could replace my daily driver and truck with one vehicle based on mileage and power.


I can understand that. It really helps make the case for the truck.
[/quote]

And I mean mileage while not towing....towing I'm fine with anything around 9mpg. But if it only averages 17mpg like my test drive then there isn't much of a point to change trucks as I get between 15-17mpg with what I have now mixed driving. I need over 20mpg to make it worthwhile.
[/quote]

20 mpg is a 17 percent improvement over 17 mpg. with that level of improvement, over the vehicles' useful life, could you even make back the hit you will take on your tundra ?
[/quote]

It's a 25% improvement over 15mpg which is what I would see if I used it as a daily driver for a lot of non-highway trips. I would save $500/yr on insurance alone and I shouldn't have a payment trading two vehicles, if I did it would be a small one for a year or less.

I've done a bit of research over the past couple days and most people aren't getting even 19 or 20mpg average with the Ecoboost with mixed driving. I have yet to find anyone tracking their mileage mention what rearend they are using, I would at least one the 3.73 and maybe the 4.10. For some reason I thought I read here people saw 23mpg which would be amazing and I'd make the switch in a heartbeat. That would be halfway between what I get with the truck 15mpg and the car 32mpg. A fair compromise to go to one vehicle. Plus those air conditioned seats would be worth it in the summer.


----------



## Dale

I have two weeks now on my new truck w the EcoBoost and it is averaging 16.2 MPG with mostly commuting to and from work 7 miles on secondary roads. The highway mileage is significantly better, but I don't know if I will see 22-23 they claim yet. Only have 800 miles on the truck, so it may still need to break in. I will say the engine feels a lot quicker after the first 500 miles. It is pretty impressive now when you step on it and it does a nice job pulling up hills without feeling like it wants to downshift. Can't wait to tow my new trailer!


----------



## Dub

I look forward to reading more of your mileage reports and especially hear how it does towing a big trailer. It really would be a dream to have a truck you could use to tow a big trailer and as a daily driver without having to pay $10K extra for a diesel as well as all the extra maintenance and fuel costs associated with one. What axle do you have? 3.73?


----------



## cdnbayside

Dale said:


> I have two weeks now on my new truck w the EcoBoost and it is averaging 16.2 MPG with mostly commuting to and from work 7 miles on secondary roads. The highway mileage is significantly better, but I don't know if I will see 22-23 they claim yet. Only have 800 miles on the truck, so it may still need to break in. I will say the engine feels a lot quicker after the first 500 miles. It is pretty impressive now when you step on it and it does a nice job pulling up hills without feeling like it wants to downshift. Can't wait to tow my new trailer!


Nice truck, congrats. From your pictures it appears you have the tow mirrors and so likely have the "Max tow package". Can you confirm from the door stickers that your GVWR is 7650 lbs. I'm guessing that your Front Axle rating is 3750 lbs and rear is 4050 lbs? From Ford's towing guide your truck has a GCWR of 17,100 lbs and a max trailer weight of 11,300 lbs. What is your payload rating as per the door sticker?

I think 16.2 mpg with a short commute, new engine and winter conditons is very good and will likely improve with age and warmer weather.

Looking forward to your towing report. What truck did you have before the new F-150?


----------



## Dale

I do have the Max tow package and the mirrors extend manually. The axle rating on the front is 3900 lbs and rear is 4050. GVWR is 7650. Tow rating is 11,300 with either the 6.2L or the 3.5L EcoBoost. The GCWR is 17100 lbs. Axle ratio is 3.73. The max cargo capacity is 1960 lbs. I weighed the tongue with a Sureline scale at 1050 lbs with battery and propane and most of my gear. I have a with Hensley hitch and Outback trailer weighs 6850 lbs dry. I have never pulled the trailer (it's new in December) loaded so have no scale weights. I will assume 1500lbs of contents for a total weight of 8350 lbs.

Does it look like I will be ok with the F150?

I am a 15 year Motorhome convert...I had an Explorer (as a toad) towed by couple of Motorhomes prior to selling them last year and now I have joined the trailer towing community!


----------



## cdnbayside

Dale said:


> I do have the Max tow package and the mirrors extend manually. The axle rating on the front is 3900 lbs and rear is 4050. GVWR is 7650. Tow rating is 11,300 with either the 6.2L or the 3.5L EcoBoost. The GCWR is 17100 lbs. Axle ratio is 3.73. The max cargo capacity is 1960 lbs. I weighed the tongue with a Sureline scale at 1050 lbs with battery and propane and most of my gear. I have a with Hensley hitch and Outback trailer weighs 6850 lbs dry. I have never pulled the trailer (it's new in December) loaded so have no scale weights. I will assume 1500lbs of contents for a total weight of 8350 lbs.
> 
> Does it look like I will be ok with the F150?
> 
> I am a 15 year Motorhome convert...I had an Explorer (as a toad) towed by couple of Motorhomes prior to selling them last year and now I have joined the trailer towing community!


You say the max cargo capacity is 1960 lbs. I think that figure is from a base model truck with max tow package. Can you look at the yellow "tire and loading sticker" on your truck. It will tell you the actual payload capacity for your truck with all it's options. The Platinum will weigh more than an XLT, so your payload is decreased from 1960 lbs by the additonal options. I will guess your payload is around 1700 lbs. So with a tongue weight of 1050 lbs, you are left with 650 lbs for people and cargo in the truck.

I don't think you will have 1500 lbs of contents in your Outback. With ours we have a dry weight of 6640 and a scaled weight with all our gear of 7300 lbs, but no water on board (add 320 lbs for a full fresh water tank). We usually travel with the tanks empty.

The eco-boost twin turbo V6 looks to be an excellent engine for towing with lots of bottom end torque and a manual shiftable 6 speed transmission. I think it will tow your Outback very well. You will be near your weight limits, especially on the truck's rear axle due to the trailer's toungue weight. If you can shift some weight to the rear of the trailer this will help reduce the tongue weight.

Keep us posted.


----------



## luverofpeanuts

cdnbayside said:


> You say the max cargo capacity is 1960 lbs. I think that figure is from a base model truck with max tow package. Can you look at the yellow "tire and loading sticker" on your truck. It will tell you the actual payload capacity for your truck with all it's options. The Platinum will weigh more than an XLT, so your payload is decreased from 1960 lbs by the additonal options. I will guess your payload is around 1700 lbs. So with a tongue weight of 1050 lbs, you are left with 650 lbs for people and cargo in the truck.
> 
> I don't think you will have 1500 lbs of contents in your Outback. With ours we have a dry weight of 6640 and a scaled weight with all our gear of 7300 lbs, but no water on board (add 320 lbs for a full fresh water tank). We usually travel with the tanks empty.


I test drove a 2009 Crew Cab Platinum a couple of years ago; it was loaded and had the Max Tow option too. The yellow sticker said 960 pounds of left over capacity. Between myself, my wife and the dogs at that time... I could carry a couple of bags of groceries....and forget about hooking up the trailer.


----------



## Nathan

luverofpeanuts said:


> You say the max cargo capacity is 1960 lbs. I think that figure is from a base model truck with max tow package. Can you look at the yellow "tire and loading sticker" on your truck. It will tell you the actual payload capacity for your truck with all it's options. The Platinum will weigh more than an XLT, so your payload is decreased from 1960 lbs by the additonal options. I will guess your payload is around 1700 lbs. So with a tongue weight of 1050 lbs, you are left with 650 lbs for people and cargo in the truck.
> 
> I don't think you will have 1500 lbs of contents in your Outback. With ours we have a dry weight of 6640 and a scaled weight with all our gear of 7300 lbs, but no water on board (add 320 lbs for a full fresh water tank). We usually travel with the tanks empty.


I test drove a 2009 Crew Cab Platinum a couple of years ago; it was loaded and had the Max Tow option too. The yellow sticker said 960 pounds of left over capacity. Between myself, my wife and the dogs at that time... I could carry a couple of bags of groceries....and forget about hooking up the trailer.
[/quote]
I think he'll have more capacity because that Aluminum block V6 is light compared with the old Iron Block V8's. Always best to check though....


----------



## Dub

Nathan said:


> You say the max cargo capacity is 1960 lbs. I think that figure is from a base model truck with max tow package. Can you look at the yellow "tire and loading sticker" on your truck. It will tell you the actual payload capacity for your truck with all it's options. The Platinum will weigh more than an XLT, so your payload is decreased from 1960 lbs by the additonal options. I will guess your payload is around 1700 lbs. So with a tongue weight of 1050 lbs, you are left with 650 lbs for people and cargo in the truck.
> 
> I don't think you will have 1500 lbs of contents in your Outback. With ours we have a dry weight of 6640 and a scaled weight with all our gear of 7300 lbs, but no water on board (add 320 lbs for a full fresh water tank). We usually travel with the tanks empty.


I test drove a 2009 Crew Cab Platinum a couple of years ago; it was loaded and had the Max Tow option too. The yellow sticker said 960 pounds of left over capacity. Between myself, my wife and the dogs at that time... I could carry a couple of bags of groceries....and forget about hooking up the trailer.
[/quote]
I think he'll have more capacity because that Aluminum block V6 is light compared with the old Iron Block V8's. Always best to check though....
[/quote]

If you look at the 2011 F150 Brochure, they have a picture of all the new engines on one page...the EcoBoost looks to be half the size of the big 6L V8. I thought the same thing myself...that's gotta save some weight.


----------



## Dale

I have 1569 lbs of cargo capacity.







Hope you can expand and read the door stickers.


----------



## luverofpeanuts

Dale said:


> I have 1569 lbs of cargo capacity.
> View attachment 1473
> 
> Hope you can expand and read the door stickers.


Cool. So, if your 295 has dry hitch weight spec'ed at 640... round up to 700 to be conservative.... you have 869 pounds to play with for people and gear (subtract 150 pounds for the driver, since that is accounted for in this number). As long as you don't have a family of 200 pound linebackers, or don't carry tons of gear in the truck, you'll probably be within the weight restriction.


----------



## Dale

I have approximately 150 lbs extra tongue weight due to the Hensley hitch setup. I weighed my tongue with a Sureline Scale at 1050 lbs and the trailer was not fully loaded. So I assume the tongue weight will be around 1200 lbs fully loaded. Never having pulled this setup before, does anybody feel I may benefit from extra suspension support like the Firestone Airbags or those urethane blocks? Am I limited by the rear axle capacity? Not sure what the risk/weak link issue is. If no, I think I will be OK, but at capacity with 1200 lbs on the tongue loaded and the additional weight of my 120 lb wife two small dogs (add 50 lbs total) and some some stuff. Heavier gear could be placed in the mid to rear of the trailer if I need to be that careful with the load distribution. I hear some admit they are a "little over capacity" - is a couple hundred pounds that critical?


----------



## luverofpeanuts

Dale said:


> Would some form of extra load support like the Firestone Airbags or those urethane blocks help if the load is at full capacity or am I limited by the rear axle? Not sure what the risk/weak link issue is. Are there aftermarket solutions? If no, I think I will be at capacity with 1050 lbs on the tongue loaded and the additional weight of myself, wife and some stuff. Heavier gear could be placed in the mid to rear of the trailer if I need to be that careful with the load distribution. I hear some admit they are a "little over capacity" - is a couple hundred pounds that critical?


I think you're right, that it's not uncommon for some to be overloaded. I think your truck is pretty capable, and a few hundred pounds probably isn't going to make a difference in how "safe" the setup is. Airbags or Timbrens supports might help handling even if you are under the limit However, as I understand it, the GVWR and GCWR of your vehicle are set in stone... there is nothing you can do to change the ratings, regardless of how much you beef up the truck. I've read various cautions about going over the limit and having an accident or violation of some sort.... I've never experienced it, so I can't comment on how likely it is, or how serious it is.

The V6 sure did give you extra room than the 2009 Platinum I test drove... so that's great that it saves that much weight. We carry sooo much junk and gear, and still wanted the crew cab, so we went for the used F250. At 2300 pounds of capacity for cargo and gear, it just gave us a lot more room for 1000 pound on the hitch...and the rest of the stuff. I love the King Ranch edition, but it sure doesn't drive like the F150!!!!


----------



## cdnbayside

Dale, once you get your truck and trailer hooked up and adjusted with the Hensley hitch you'll need to go to a scale and weigh the axles. With our F-150 and 300BH our truck's rear axle is at 4100 lbs. Our tongue weight is 800 lbs and we have an Equalizer 1200 hitch. Your tongue being a little heavier may add a little weight to your rear axle. The axle itself is rated for 4800 lbs. It is the wheels that are the weak link, they are rated for 2025 lbs each.

Here's some technical info from 2009 model year. 2011 should be similar for most aspects.

F-150 info


----------



## Steve W

So why the difference between the sticker on Dale's truck (1569 payload capacity) and the Ford brochure which lists the payload at 1960 with the max tow package? Does the sticker account for all options on the truck and do they actually weight each vehicle and give it a custom sticker?

I recently visited a local Ford dealer who thought a diesel would be overkill for my trailer and said that the new F-150 with the new engine could do the job. I was intrigued but skeptical. If the actual payload of the supercrew is closer to 1500 than 1900 then I don't think it will cut it for pulling our 28 RSDS.

Steve


----------



## GO WEST

1200 lbs seems like a lot of hitch weight to put on any half-ton.


----------



## luverofpeanuts

Steve W said:


> So why the difference between the sticker on Dale's truck (1569 payload capacity) and the Ford brochure which lists the payload at 1960 with the max tow package? Does the sticker account for all options on the truck and do they actually weight each vehicle and give it a custom sticker?


I think that is correct. The vehicle is weighed with options as it left the factory. The difference between the GVWR and the weight minus 150 pounds for a river is the cargo capacity. Sometimes brochures..and especially the various websites can have very misleading information... where the list numbers that don't match the cab configuration....or they are a "max" number.



> I recently visited a local Ford dealer who thought a diesel would be overkill for my trailer and said that the new F-150 with the new engine could do the job. I was intrigued but skeptical. If the actual payload of the supercrew is closer to 1500 than 1900 then I don't think it will cut it for pulling our 28 RSDS.


You really have to be careful of the crew cabs...(as I mentioned...I test drove one with only a 980 pound capacity!). It's tough... these are just numbers that we are talking about...alot of these trucks are very capable...clearly. However, the numbers are set for a reason.... some say to differentiate product to make more money... some say to stay within safety margins..etc.

One things is certain... it is *much* more common to hear someone say something like.. "i switched to a 3/4 ton (or 1 ton)... and the tow experience is night and day better than my previous 1/2 ton pickup or 1/2 ton SUV.".... than the opposite....


----------



## Dan Borer

I have the '09 F150 with MaxTow option. My GVRW si 7000# with a 1504# sticker on my door. I pull my 29RLS at 8220# with a tongue weight of 1020#. I carry all my extra stuff in the trailer and only a bike in the bed of the truck. Loaded and ready to roll I'm within 50# of my GVRW but below on all the other weights. I'm very pleased with the performance of my truck. I did, however, get to tow a 6500# trailer behind the '11 EcoBoost F150 at Fontana Raceway a couple of months ago and it really impressed me.


----------



## cdnbayside

Dan, How do you think the 3.5 turbo would compare to the 5.4 for towing?


----------



## Nathan

luverofpeanuts said:


> So why the difference between the sticker on Dale's truck (1569 payload capacity) and the Ford brochure which lists the payload at 1960 with the max tow package? Does the sticker account for all options on the truck and do they actually weight each vehicle and give it a custom sticker?


I think that is correct. The vehicle is weighed with options as it left the factory. The difference between the GVWR and the weight minus 150 pounds for a river is the cargo capacity. Sometimes brochures..and especially the various websites can have very misleading information... where the list numbers that don't match the cab configuration....or they are a "max" number.

[/quote]
I'm not sure that they acutally weigh each one, but yes, the sticker is accounting for the weight of the leather seats, the upgraded radio, the .......

In short, all of those options not only cost money, but add weight. This is the same reason that on some cars, the base model is rated at higher fuel economy than the premium one.


----------



## Dub

luverofpeanuts said:


> I think that is correct. The vehicle is weighed with options as it left the factory. The difference between the GVWR and the weight minus 150 pounds for a driver is the cargo capacity. Sometimes brochures..and especially the various websites can have very misleading information... where the list numbers that don't match the cab configuration....or they are a "max" number.


Where does it say that 150lbs is already included for the driver? Ford has not adopted the new standard for tow ratings and payload which include a driver and passenger as far as I know. Is this documented somewhere in the owners manual?


----------



## Dan Borer

Where does it say that 150lbs is already included for the driver? Ford has not adopted the new standard for tow ratings and payload which include a driver and passenger as far as I know. Is this documented somewhere in the owners manual?
[/quote]

My weights include 210 pounds for the driver. I made sure I was on the scale any time the truck was.


----------



## Dan Borer

cdnbayside said:


> Dan, How do you think the 3.5 turbo would compare to the 5.4 for towing?


I am sure it would be better. It has more torque than the 5.4 and it comes in at lower RPM. In addition to towing my 8220# Outback I sometimes tow a 7000# dump trailer that is closer to the test weight I pulled behind the EcoBoost truck. Both trucks do very well with that weight. The EcoBoost seemed to pull slightly better through the midrange but since we were on a closed course it was hard to get a good feel for what it would be like in the toughest hills in the real world. If I was in the market for a new truck I'd have no reservations about getting the EcoBoost, especially since I drive nearly 50,000 miles a year and the 20% improvement in mileage over the 19.5 MPG I now get running solo would be better than what I get driving the PT Cruiser the boss got for me.


----------



## Dub

Dan Borer said:


> My weights include 210 pounds for the driver. I made sure I was on the scale any time the truck was.


I must have been confused...I thought you were saying that the payload sticker on the door included 150lbs driver in the payload calculation. I didn't realize you were talking about your own calculations...150lbs though...I weighed that in 9th grade ;-)


----------



## luverofpeanuts

Dub said:


> I must have been confused...I thought you were saying that the payload sticker on the door included 150lbs driver in the payload calculation. I didn't realize you were talking about your own calculations...150lbs though...I weighed that in 9th grade ;-)


No, I don't think you were confused. In my post, I did infer that payload capacity assumed 150 lbs driver. That may be an incorrect assumption as you suggest. Going strictly by the label image posted earlier in the thread.... "Occupants" seems to indicate the driver must be accounted for yet. I tend to agree with you, that it seems the driver weight is NOT included in the cargo capacity listed on the sticker. Thanks for the correction ;-)


----------



## Dub

luverofpeanuts said:


> I must have been confused...I thought you were saying that the payload sticker on the door included 150lbs driver in the payload calculation. I didn't realize you were talking about your own calculations...150lbs though...I weighed that in 9th grade ;-)


No, I don't think you were confused. In my post, I did infer that payload capacity assumed 150 lbs driver. That may be an incorrect assumption as you suggest. Going strictly by the label image posted earlier in the thread.... "Occupants" seems to indicate the driver must be accounted for yet. I tend to agree with you, that it seems the driver weight is NOT included in the cargo capacity listed on the sticker. Thanks for the correction ;-)
[/quote]

Some of the manufacturers do include a driver, some include a full gas tank, some include only a partial tank. I think that's why they are all working on the towing and payload standard for trucks due to all the confusion. It'll be interesting to see if they go back and rerate their old vehicles to the standards, some will probably be higher, some lower.


----------



## bama29fan

Dale, have you pulled with it yet? or is Memorial Day going to be the first trip?


----------



## KosinTrouble

I just bought a F150 ecoboost last friday, hoping to get the truck some time this week. Mine is the Adobe (light tan color). It has the max trailer tow package as well and is rated for the 11,300lbs towing...

I too am curious on what others thought once they did tow with it. I talked to a few people on other forums that were towing with it and they said they were amazed on easy it was to get going and stay going. Yes the millage while towing is still the same as a normal v8 but they said they had no issue towing up hills or through mountains with it.

The only thing I did hear was that if you dont have a skid plate on it, the truck sometimes steams when its been raining. And by steaming I mean people around stop and stare because they think the truck is on fire kind of steam. But it only seems to be the f150's without the skid plates.

Kosin Trouble


----------



## Dale

bama29fan said:


> Dale, have you pulled with it yet? or is Memorial Day going to be the first trip?


Friday will be the first tow of approximately 75 miles from Springfield, Ohio to Cincinnati.. I will be with my father who has years of experience and tows 10k lbs with F250 diesel. I intend to let him try out my rig and his opinion will be very interesting! More news on Saturday. I also have noticed the steaming engine and I have the skid plates. It was not severe, but had me concerned at first glance. Only noticed it when parked. My regular around town mileage is between 17-18 mpg. I am happy with that result after 5,500 miles on the vehicle and love the power and acceleration. Should be a great tow truck.


----------



## bama29fan

Dale said:


> Friday will be the first tow of approximately 75 miles from Springfield, Ohio to Cincinnati.. I will be with my father who has years of experience and tows 10k lbs with F250 diesel. I intend to let him try out my rig and his opinion will be very interesting! More news on Saturday. I also have noticed the steaming engine and I have the skid plates. It was not severe, but had me concerned at first glance. Only noticed it when parked. My regular around town mileage is between 17-18 mpg. I am happy with that result after 5,500 miles on the vehicle and love the power and acceleration. Should be a great tow truck.


cool...y'all have fun. looking forward to the towing report.


----------



## Dale

The verdict is in and I am very satisfied. Ran 85 miles with my 295RE (estimate 7500 lbs) with full tank of water. As I left, I set the fuel economy meter. I had several 2% grades (truck has a angle sensor in the dash) and only then did the transmission downshift from 6th to 5th gear. Averaged 60-62 mph and turning 1500-1600rpm and it was 2000 rpm in 5th gear. Most mild grades, the transmission stayed in high gear. Now the great news is I averaged 11.1 mpg. Had relatively no winds. Power was excellent and I was very happy with the ride. I think everyone will be very impressed.

My father has been towing for 25 years (he has a F250 diesel) and he drove 25 miles. His impression was it rode normally but he could notice a difference when merging onto the highway. I would expect that given he also has chipped his diesel. He was a skeptic that my truck was "enough" to tow my unit - even though it was rated considerably higher - 11,300 lb tow limit, he was concerned about the payload capacity given the 1000 lb tongue weight and frontal load's drag on the engine. He drove a bit more aggressively dropped my overall average to 10.8 mpg (perhaps 2-3 mph faster and more agressive on the acceleration than I, thus he probably averaged approximately 10-10.5 mpg with that "confident tow" style).

Yea! Don't need my father saying "I told you so - you should have bought a 3/4 ton diesel". And he said anybody claiming better than 11mpg towing my weight is probably lying so I should be thrilled with 11. His final thought was "this should be a good tow vehicle for you".

Fact is my tongue weight with Hensley hitch installed, full propane and one battery and loaded compartment (unloaded clothing and food stuff) was much lighter than I anticipated. I weighed it before the Hensley hitch install at 1050 lbs. After the hitch with the stinger loaded, it extends the lift point approximately 18 inches further out which I assume account for the lower weight of 825 lbs I have scalled several times. I will try to upload a picture of how I made the measurement (this iPad apparently does not support that feature).


----------



## RWRiley

Dale said:


> The verdict is in and I am very satisfied. Ran 85 miles with my 295RE with full tank of water. As I left, I set the fuel economy meter. I had several 2% grades (truck has a angle sensor in the dash) and only then did the transmission downshift from 6th to 5th gear. Averaged 60-62 mph and turning 1500-1600rpm. Most mild grades, the transmission stayed in high gear. Now the great news is I averaged 11.1 mpg. Had relatively no winds. Power was excellent and I was very happy with the ride. I think everyone will be very impressed.


I for one am impressed. I think we will see more truck makers follow suit - I sure hope so. I would love to see Chevy slap on turbos to a small V8 in a 2500 HD. It might cut into their oil burner business though.


----------



## Nathan

Glad to hear you liked it!!!


----------



## Dale

I am having trouble attaching my photos so next is a link to the website pictures.


----------



## Dale

My Scale, setup for the weight test with Hensley Hitch and Stinger installed and other various mods.

http://www5.snapfish...ISH//EntryIDX=1


----------



## 777aaaviator

Drove my Ecoboost home from Texas to Durango, Colorado Easter weekend. As fabulous as it was driving at sea level on flat terrain, I was excited to see how it towed. I was NOT disappointed! I have a 2010 250RS and have towed it several times now up and down the mountain. Top elevation around 7500 ft. The F150 Ecoboost did an awesome job. Admittedly, the camper was dry and there was no doubt I was towing something. But, I am a novice, yet felt very comfortable as I climbed the substantial grade home. It was effortless compared to my previous tow vehicle.. a 2004 Lincoln Navigator. And the acceleration without a trailer at the high altitudes rocks!!!


----------



## crunchman12002

Hi all,
I bought the new 2011 F-250 Super Duty SuperCab 6.2L XL / 3.73 Electronic locking axle with the heavy duty service suspension. 8' bed / 158" wheelbase. Has the built in Tow package,sway control and trailer brake controller.
I have yet to tow with it, our first trip is Memorial weekend. So far MPG is 14.6 but has topped @ 15.1 MPG.I will keep you posted on tow performance. 
Here is the door panel sticker on this one.
crunchman


----------



## PITA

To me it's good to see Ford trying something new, but I'd worry about the turbos that are gonna run hotter on a gas engine vs. a cooler running diesel. I used to track my turbo/intercooled car which would glow red after just a few laps, and eventually loose power. Problem is we won't see the reliablity question answered for a few years yet.

Was interesting also to see Car & Driver already conclude that the ecoboost engines really falls off in efficiency unless you're driving with half a feather for a throttle foot.


----------



## RWRiley

Good article comparing empty vs loaded Eco-boost performance, and performance in general.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/road-test-review-2011-ford-f-150-fx2-35-liter-ecoboost-v-6-part-1.html


----------

