WOW - Ford Ratings

[Jon A]

But what do you mean the 6.2 will tow circles around 3/4 ton? Do you mean like up a hill? In a straight line? Anything over 8k or so with a 1/2 ton is just too much if you're pulling a lot.

 

 

In that sentence I was specifically talking about the engines; towing a load uphill. The 6.0 is a dog compared with the 6.2. Personally I would not buy a 6.0 for towing heavy loads—I could see a use for it if one had a specific need for the payload (hauling bricks, gravel, construction stuff, etc in the bed) but for pulling a trailer bigger than I thought the ½ ton could handle I’d skip straight to the Duramax.

 

As for the other stuff, again I agree with the sentiment, but everything is a matter of degree. In general I dislike generalizations because generally they’re wrong in specific instances….. “ ½ tons are like this, ¾ tons are like that…” generalizations are no different.

 

Not all ½ tons are created equal, nor are all ¾ tons. They both span a wide spectrum of capability and on the extreme ends of each spectrum there is quite a bit of overlap in capability. Looking at some of the things you mentioned:

 

Weight: The 2500’s start out at about 5900 lbs for a regular cab 6.0. My ½ ton was over 5800 lbs as delivered from the factory—and its wheelbase is 20” longer. Unless your physics book has stuff in it mine doesn’t, any trailer that is going to “push the ½ ton off the road” will do the same to the ¾ ton based upon size alone. Loss of steering control due to the tongue weight will be greater with the ¾ ton.

 

Brakes: The brakes they’re putting on the latest top model ½ tons now are better than the brakes they were putting on ¾ tons just a few years ago. Was everybody driving a ¾ ton with more than 8K lbs just a few years ago being unsafe? Again, it’s a matter of degree.

 

If you had ever towed with the 6.2, you’d know you could tow 10K lbs down a 7% grade and not have to touch the brakes at all. Its grade/engine braking is that effective. Your brakes will hardly be warm at the bottom of the pass. Fading/failing brakes are a possibility at some point of course, but I think you’d need to be towing about 15K or so before it became a worry with this setup.

 

That’s something an Ecoboost cannot do. Like I said, they’re not all created equal. Older trucks with other engines were lousy at this as well. Our family’s newest 2500 Dodge Cummins (a very “typical ranch truck” found in Montana) is old enough it has no exhaust brake. That thing sucks going down long grades. Its brakes are nothing impressive either, you will smell them at the bottom of the hill…hopefully that’ll be all you have to worry about. There’s nothing safer about that setup and it was "state of the art ¾ ton" just a few years ago….

 

The biggest thing you will actually notice between a ¾ ton and a ½ ton set up like mine that could be remotely safety related is the stiffness of the suspension. Even though GM stiffened the ½ tons up quite a bit for 2014, they’re still much softer than a ¾ ton. In stock form they will feel squishier when pulling a heavy trailer compared with a ¾ ton. That’s the biggest real-world issue one is going to notice.

 

Luckily, about 90% of that difference can be eliminated with a few simple mods that I recommend to anybody who will be towing much: Aftermarket shocks, airbags and E-rated tires. Those simple changes make a dramatic difference. Enough to want to tow 15K lbs with it? No, but enough to tow 8K and feel safe? Laughably so. Overkill for that much weight.

 

 

Btw I'm not trying to start another epic jon a vs chevyboy thread argument...just stating my opinion. 1/2 tons are bagged out with 10k

 

 

No need for an epic argument. If we just stick to facts we’ll be fine. I don’t think you’re opinion is wrong—I think it’s perfectly correct for some ½ tons. With some ½ tons I wouldn’t want to tow 5K very far. I just think it’s overly broad—a sweeping generalization that’s not always applicable. Some are perfectly fine with twice that weight.

 

If you felt unsafe towing 8K lbs in a ½ ton, I can guarantee you it wasn’t in a 2014+ 6.2 GM with the simple mods listed above. Try it in one of those and get back to me.

 

How will the new Ford F-150 compare? I don’t know. With the increased payload it likely has stiffer springs stock so it should feel a bit better (not going to be as good as airbags though). Power will be OK for towing with the Ecoboost (better than the GM 6.0, but not as good as the 6.2). But with lighter weight and worse grade braking, those other issues might become a problem at a lower weight than with the GM.

 

Like I said, they’re not all created equal. Generalized statements treating them as such are asking to be questioned.

[LaserBlueZ71]

I think the next big kick in the pants for tow ratings will come from diesels in half ton trucks.

 

The Ram has their EcoDiesel, which is too small IMO. If GM comes out with a mini Duramax in the 4.0L or so range, they would own the market. Ford should stop wasting time developing smaller and smaller gas engines running at super high outputs and develop small to mid size diesel engines. They are far more efficient, and would give an instant overnight fuel economy increase of probably 6 - 8 MPG overall.

 

Gas engines simply are not the answer. Everything should be diesel in this day and age. No ignition system to worry about, no ethanol/fuel degrading problems, better MPG, better longevity, better driving experience. Diesel is easier to make than gasoline, it requires way less refining. It would be better for the world overall if all vehicles were diesels!

 

I honestly don't think these small displacement, high output engines will last a long time. They have to work very hard to do the job, heck even just moving a full size pickup truck through traffic is an exercise for a 2.7L engine. I would bet money that you will never see those engines alive and well after 300,000 + miles like the GM small block V8's. You have to love LS engines, they just go, and go, and go, and go, and go. Heck you can shit kick an LS engine all day everyday.

 

Give me my naturally aspirated 5.3 V8 any day of the week over a wimpy 2.7L.

[Colossus]

let's keep in mind that just because a 1/2 ton may claim to be able to tow 12,000 lbs doesn't nessicarly mean that it has been constructed to do that. the 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton means more than just want it can haul in the back. Take into consideration frame strength, brakes, axle, drive train straingth/transmissions... the works. When you see a F-150 or a Silverado 1500, or a RAM 1500 trying to tow a long trailer with a backhole on it, you know that driver has no clue what he is doing. They are usually the ones who end up injured or dead later on in an accident.

[Cowpie]

While in the past I would side that everything being diesel would be a good thing, given the way the EPA has wrapped it's hands around diesel engines, it is not really that great of an option nowadays. The substantive addition maintenance issues surrounding this, along with the exorbitant costs tied to it, really does not make it a good choice for the majority of folks. And diesel, while it does get better fuel efficiency on average, the cost is also over gasoline or ethanol, so again it seems like a losing deal for most folks. Anyone with familiarity with SCR with DEF, DPF, EGR issues with diesel engines knows what I am talking about.

 

 

But as whether small displacement is a problem, it is all in a matter of how beefy the internals are. I would readily put up my 2.8L V M inline 4 diesel against any small block V8 in terms of reliability, performance, and fuel efficiency. A cast iron block, wet sleeved, common rail injection with over 20,000 psi at the injectors, a Carter variable geometry turbo..... yep a pretty solid product. This engine was initially designed for marine use. And the company than made this one, is the one that is making the 3.0 in the Dodge products. They have substantial experience with diesel of this variety. I wouldn't be too hasty about poo pooing the smaller diesels. Keep in mind, Penske and Detroit Diesel also played a hand in VM's product line development over the years. Daimler has been tied at the hip with VM for quite a while.

 

The performance curve of the engine is as important as it's size. My VM 2.8L reaches peak torque at 2000 RPM. The Ford Ecoboost reaches it at 2500, last time I checked. This is the range than most people use their engines. Not too many people tow their boat or RV at 4200 RPM, which is where the 5.3L small block FINALLY reaches it's peak torque. The Dodge Ecodiesel also reaches it's peak torque at 2000 RPM. The GM small blocks, most folks are barely at 90% of the rated torque at typical RPM's most people are running them. What a waste of a motor's potential.

[MikeNH]

And if I spent all day, every day towing I might care about all that stuff. You keep viewing this from the point of a commercial driver. But that sin't how these trucks are used. I bet 90% of truck owners who tow do it a handful of times per year to drag a boat/camper/toy hauler on vacation. The rest of the year they're driving it as a commuter. And that's when I want the truck to be able to scream down an onramp and merge onto a highway without drama. The diesel in the Ram is a slug in that regard. If I was buying the Ram I'd get the 5.7 and deal with the higher peak power RPMs for the few times I need to really work the truck. I don't get why so many people have this aversion to letting their engines run at high RPMs when working the truck. Unless you're in the Rockies it'll only be for short periods of time so fuel use is inconsequential. They're designed to do that, it won't hurt anything after all.

[kstruckcountry]

Even in the mountains or towing, spinning 3k rpm isn't an issue. The thing people who like performance generally run 91 or higher octane and are tuned. Diesel is usually the same price as 91, at least here. The diesel will get better fuel mileage too.

[sdeeter19555]

Everytime I see a 1/2 ton GM/Ford/Dodge towing a big trailer, I think of that semifloater axle breaking and the tire and wheel parting company from the truck...there is a reason the 2500/3500 series are much heavier, its not bragging rights.

 

This was a known affliction with the 80s/90s 10-bolt...I can't count how many times I saw a 1\2 ton Chevy sitting along the road with the tire three feet out of the wheel well.

[Colossus]

You know.. I've driven a few 3/4 and 1 ton diesels in my time, my last truck was an 08 Duramax 3/4 ton. No major issues whatsoever, in fact no issues with the engine and drive train at all. Same thing with a few work trucks- 2 having the 6.5 diesel (pre-Duramax) grant it one of them did have glow plug issues, but they finally got that worked out- but all in all they were good trucks. We put 200,000 miles on those things and by the time I quit they were still going strong. Then there were the Ford Power Strokes.. 97, 98, 99 models, engines never gave us issues, only the trannies. And we drove them very hard with the weight we were hauling (they were box trucks) which of course is why the trannies went out several times, but the engines held of well, we wore out a few turbos and we got rid of the trucks at around 150,000 miles and were replaced with Freightliner FL-60s & 70s box trucks that could handle the weight we needed to haul with ease. It has been my personal observation over on Duramax Forums and on some of the Cummins and Power Stroke sites that the issues these folks have tend to come from those who modify their trucks beyond factory settings. They do stupid stuff like power tunes and lift kits, and stupid crap with the exhaust and then when things fail, they want to blame the manufacturer instead of themselves. If you maintain the trucks and keep in mind what they are built for, regardless of what brand, chances are your going to be very satisfied.

[Jon A]

let's keep in mind that just because a 1/2 ton may claim to be able to tow 12,000 lbs doesn't nessicarly mean that it has been constructed to do that.

 

True, but there's no basis from which to say they aren't either. The 3/4 tons are "constructed to tow" 18,000 lbs; so some lighter duty parts on a 1/2 ton only means they aren't "constructed for 18,000." What do you think they are built to tow? Is it 12,000? 10,000? 6,000? 17,000? 2000? And what would you be basing it on?

 

First you'd need to decide what exactly that phrase means, then figure out criteria against which to test. Otherwise you're just making up numbers. I personally think SAE J2807 does a better job of this than anybody had done before. Not perfect, but infinitely better than just making up numbers (which is actually what GM is still doing with their 3/4 and 1-tons). In what ways do you feel it lacking? What testing procedures would you add?

 

Anyway, there's definitely much truth in what you say about lighter duty transmissions, axles, frames, etc. Though keep in mind the disagreements above were regarding safety. Most of the "heavy duty" parts mentioned don't directly affect safety--their main advantage is durability. I don't think anybody would advocate towing 12,000 or even 10,000 or even 8,000 with a 1/2 ton every day, for 50-100,000 miles a year as so many HD's are used. You could expect to go through transmissions, axle bearings, etc, much faster than an HD would. If you're doing that every day, you don't want a 1/2 ton. If you're doing it only occasionally, the long term durability under the heavy load of these parts is unlikely to come into play.

[Jon A]

While in the past I would side that everything being diesel would be a good thing, given the way the EPA has wrapped it's hands around diesel engines, it is not really that great of an option nowadays.

 

I agree with that. A few years ago I was on the bandwagon of the small diesel ruling if they ever made them. But the EPA has just killed their potential in recent years...while gas engines have gotten much better in recent years in both power and economy.

 

The small turbo gas engines are not the way to go for trucks IMHO. While they can be tuned to have a nice torque curve down low so they "feel good"--sort of like a diesel, they can never do it with decent economy. A small turbo gas engine when being worked will be under boost. Under boost they need to run rich or they will blow up. Running rich gives you lousy economy. So, great economy potential when empty, but when under load they'll suck down gas like an old big block.

 

In contrast, the GM 5.3 and 6.2 for example, can run at 75% throttle at 14.2:1 AFR all day long. So while they don't quite match the economy of a diesel, they do a lot better than a turbo motor running a couple points richer under load.

 

[j-ten-ner]

 

...a turbo motor running a couple points richer under load...

 

 

 

As far as I know the turbo motor is not running richer. They get more fuel to match up with the added amount of oxygen.

The reason is to stay close to a 14.2:1 air/fuel mix (Stoichiometry).

 

so long

j-ten-ner

 

Edit: I meant 14.7:1 ...

[MikeNH]

I've read the EB motors run rich under load compared to other motors. No idea if it's accurate.

[Jon A]

 

As far as I know the turbo motor is not running richer. They get more fuel to match up with the added amount of oxygen.

The reason is to stay close to a 14.2:1 air/fuel mix (Stoichiometry).

 

 

No, they run in the 10.5-11.5:1 range any time they're under much boost--it doesn't have to be WOT. Go leaner than that and you're asking for it to blow up--that's just the way it is with forced induction gas engines. It's completely different than a Turbo Diesel where you don't really have to worry about any of that--basically just give it as much fuel as it needs....

 

The 5.3 & 6.2 run richer than 14.2 at WOT, of course, but it's in the 12+:1 range. And you can go up to around 80% throttle and stay at 14.2--it'll only go richer with your foot all the way to the floor, which you hardly ever need to do with the 6.2 even when towing a lot.

[j-ten-ner]

 

No, they run in the 10.5-11.5:1 ...

 

10.5...? That's a lot.

No wonder that they start slurping fuel under load.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[Bvonscott]

The thing I noticed driving the ego boost I had for work truck for a week or so is it feels extremely laggy, if youre not in boost it's super weak. Transmission shifts life crazy, seems confused. Sure it makes good power and tows good with your foot to th floor...but if you set cruise at 60-65 it feels laggy and tranny searches around it was annoying to drive IMO

Thats exactly the issue. Ford put all thier eggs on the ecoboost being the top motor instead of a V8, and its super weak without turbo power. Most drivers dont push their truck so they will get annoyed by the lack of power without stomping it. Im all for saving better gas milesge but to me ford is using tricks to compensate. GM has been doing this since 1912 i think they know whats best for them and the consumer.