MacGregorSailors.com

Your results are more inline with what I would expect. I know some gas powered V-8 trucks do better than mine too, but 50% better fuel economy towing with the diesel sounds reasonable. Of course, diesel fuel costs more too so you would have to factor that in to get the whole story. 27 mpg towing a Mac sounds a bit too good to be true...being the skeptic that I am.

Dimitri-2000X-Tampa wrote:Hey what would a similar Dodge truck with a gas powered V8 get compared to that Diesel? Granted, my Sequoia may be heavier, but I only get 17 hwy and around 10 mpg towing the Mac on its dual axle trailer (probably around 4500 lbs).

Dimitri: I know Guys that have the gas versions , and They say the best They can get with a moderate load is around 16-18 mpg....of course a lot of this depends on how heavy the drivers foot is and if They dream of being Mario Andreti Ron. Dauntless.

Without digging for the fuel invoices , I can honestly tell You that when I drove to lake Geneva Wisconsin from My farm near Crockett Texas to buy My Mac..... I burned 2-1/2 30gal tanks. On the return trip I burned 3 tanks. This entire trip was plauged with road work in Arkansas & Illinois.....stop and go etc etc etc. Of course , I run a K&N cold air intake system and a Edge computer and thats what sqeezes the fuel. I might brag on rare occasions, but I will not be untruthful.. Thats a lesson I learned from My Father at a very early age Ron. Dauntless.

VW Touareg TDI - We just purchased one and it is amazing to tow with. 7800lbs towing capacity, 406ft/lbs of torque. I was getting 7.8l/100km while towing the boat on flat and slight grades.

Am extremely happy with it

(lost photos)

Towing about 2900 miles from Alameda, CA to Port Richey, FL with my 5.4l 2008 Ram 1500 2WD, I averaged 11.3 mpg topping 70 on the freeway.
The truck alone gets about 15-16 mpg highway and 12-13 city unless nursed for fuel.
I'm with Dimitri, kind of doubtful of mid 20's when towing a Mac.

Obelix

K9Kampers wrote:s/v Over Easy has a new towbeast:
2013 Ford F150 XLT 5.0L 4X4

We did the same but in a 2014 FX4 black with a canopy (for gear and dogs) Love it and tows like the boats not there. After reading reviews and real life experience between the Eco boost and the 5L V8 the gas mileage is almost the same with less maintenance.

On my long haul, I generally drove faster than I should have, between 70 and 80 mph most of the time. The diesel GL350 v6 got 15.1 mpg overall after 8200 miles. Probably could have gotten 18 mpg had I been willing to keep it to 60mph, but I'm not capable of doing that. This included the full range of towing including going over the continental divide both directions of course.

I'm highly skeptical of any claims of higher overall fuel efficiency unless the tow was absolutely flat and the vehicle was somehow more efficient than mine. My vehicle would report 21 mpg on flat 65mph portions, but that's a momentary number not inclusive of uphill towing, starts, etc.

2014 - How sweet it is!
Our previous tow vehicle was an Escape. Talk about white knuckle fever....
Sorry K9 - Quote: "After reading reviews and real life experience between the Eco boost and the 5L V8 the gas mileage is almost the same with less maintenance."
Apart from confirming their advertising claiming ' Fun to drive!', the Ecoboost has higher towing capacity, and a faster zero to 60 time than the V8. Computers - yes, are a downside. But that argument ended years ago. As for actual gas mileage - I still don't think you can pour it fast enough.

Crikey, welcome to the club. I see you bought a white one, should of purchased the blue one - it is faster

I will agree that you should not buy based on gas mileage - all that power comes from somewhere and I never had a vehicle where I could watch the gas gauge move

Congrats Crikey! Nice – both you guys. And I'm waiting (they're building it as we speak) for a red* one.

Well, an Explorer Sport actually, but it has the same engine in it. The Ecoboost is a good choice for hauling, according to the forums, and the numbers. Will be my first non-V8 vehicle, and yet will have higher hp and torque than any V8 I've had before.

all that power comes from somewhere

Yeah, even if the gas mileage were a wash between the two, the extra torque and power are a bonus.

-B.

*

should of purchased the blue one - it is faster

* 'cause red ones are hotter.

OR

* 'cause white ones are cooler.

Crikey, would you take a look at your intercooler and tell me if the top third is covered to prevent airflow?
This engine had an issue with condensate in the intercooler getting ingested by the engine. Wrecks one of the catalytic converters. The dealer on mine changed out the intercooler and catalytic but the new intercooler is covered on the top third. To me, this reduces the efficiency of the intercooler and on a hot day is likely to reduce the available power from the engine (higher charge air temperature than originally designed and rated at).
I would have rather seen a condensate drain in the intercooler, a more involved design process that I hope has happened and I may be able to get a hold of.

Robert, sorry for the current quality of the photo but the Admiral was in a hurry.

Yes, I had researched that problem shortly before we made the decision to go with the Ecoboost. There is some flow shielding at the top of the inter-cooler but I don't think it overlooks as much as a third of the total area and it is spaced an inch or so away from the fins so cooling flow is not totally obstructed. We've had no noticeable issues to date, including driving in some pretty heavy rainfalls. I'll put up some better pictures soon if you want them.
The chief mechanic at the dealership where we purchased said computer and baffle modifications were made since the earlier models were introduced, and the condensation loading that had mainly affected sea level operations, under high demand situations and saturated humidity, had been eliminated. What year was yours, and had that scenario matched up with your personal repair?

SeaHouse..... Red? Red? You're going to stand out like a Houri's palace!

I have the 2012 and it was a hot HUMID day when this occurred.
So, to try to think thru this issue:
The turbo system is designed to maintain a volumetric efficiency of 1 (non-forced induction engines have problems at high altitude where the air is thin). This is the reason my Volvo 2.5 liter engine can out-accelerate Mustangs and Camaros in the mountains of West Virginia going uphill (and pulling a small boat trailer )
The better the intercooler can cool the charge air to the engine, the more power. This system has issues on hot and humid days. Humid air seems to help on the power side but the ability to cool it as well it could before the intercooler re-design may have resulted in less overall power now. So, I wonder if the HP/torque values were re-evaluated after the system re-design?

The engineer in me wants to know - but I bet Ford will never publish the data.

To answer your question, it looks like we both now have the same configuration (or at least close). Rainfall should not be an issue since it seems to me, the humidity really is not as bad as on a real hot day with saturated air (as we often see around the Chesapeake Bay).

On a positive note, my wife enjoys driving the truck and getting respect she does not get when driving her VW Beetle (red convertible, turbo, manual trans, license plate LADYBG)

Yeah, my Admiral is in love with the thing for the same reasons. She also came from an earlier VW background - German/Canadian, plus my blueprinting efforts with a 2180cc beetle. That sukka could cream anything up to 80mph. Then it wanted to turn into an aeroplane!
The Ford is so strong that you constantly have to keep your eye on the speedometer. Based on what you are saying (Maryland) it sounds like sea level atm density is the original culprit.

R.