Half Ton Towing

[buzzcop63]

It would be interesting to get the comments of Forum members to viewing on youtube the following test of half ton towing ability of three 2014 trucks.
The Ford F-150 EcoBoost, the Titan Nissan and Chevy 6.2 liter going up to the Eisenhower Tunnel on a 7% grade and back down, each truck towing 10,000 pounds plus 700Lb of load in the trucks. The trucks are run up the, as they call it "Ike Gauntlet" which starts at elevation of 10,000' and runs up to 12,000'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CxwLSNK3vNU

[Ken / Claudia]

That is interesting. Seems the slowest speed was 45 uphill which I would say is OK, 50-55 is better. I do not know how the HD trucks brake temps compare, but the ford and Nissan sounded way high. At what temp do brakes fade out. With my truck going down a 6% grade pulling about 8,000 lbs I once needed to do a panic stop due to a bicycle entering the highway lane and had seem smoke come up from the driver front wheel well. No skidding and no brake fade that time. I did pull over shortly after to make sure the brakes worked and they did. I have had brakes fade out in police cars and there was/is no warning. Fine one push the next push and little or nothing. I would like to see the same test uphill and slow down from 50 to 35 and attempt to get back to 50. Could they do it like a turbo diesel?

[Dave-Gray]

This video shows only the Titan. I'm confident these guys set a poor example by exceeding the GVWR. I suspect with 700 pounds of weight in the cab along with the tongue weight, the other two truck's GVWR will be exceeded too. They used the published tow capacity and that is never realistic. They should have used http://RVtowCheck.com to get the realistic tow capacity. Comparing the same trailer load weight against the F150 is not a good comparison.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Dave-Gray]

And one other thing. Do they not know how to down-shift to use less brakes going down hill?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[JRTJH]

One consideration that most of these tests fail to recognize is that towing an 18' covered trailer without an equalizer hitch/sway control is "night/day" different than towing a 32' travel trailer with a WD/sway hitch.

I can (could) easily hitch my 2300 pound 18' flatbed trailer behind my F150 and load my 8500 pound diesel tractor/FEL/bush-hog (10800 total weight) and tow "fairly well without sway" when compared to hitching a 32' 8000 pound RV behind the same truck.

Trailer weight is only one consideration to the towing formula. I have, on many occasions here stated, "Almost any truck will "pull" a given weight trailer and get it up to speed." But that isn't the only consideration. The trailer axles on an 18' trailer such as was used in this test are considerably closer to the hitch "pivot point" at the rear end of the truck than are the axles on a 32' travel trailer. The side forces that induce sway on an RV tow vehicle are considerably different than the side forces these guys encountered in their test.

Essentially, what they were "testing" was the HP/torque developed and how it was transferred to the rear axle in the different vehicles. They did not test the stability, the weight distribution (as seen with a longer RV) nor did they test the ability of the trucks to "keep a long flat sided trailer" behind the tow vehicle on either the "uphill or the downhill" runs.

Pretty much all they tested is the "muscle" of the three trucks and the temperature of the brakes on the downhill run, and that wasn't a "fair comparison" when you consider that one was turbocharged and two were naturally aspirated power plants. That's like testing an underground irrigation system with a sprinkler system and expecting to get the same evaporation rate/ground moisture rate per gallon of water applied....

I'd say this test was "interesting" when it comes to 'pulling a trailer" but has very little information that would be of value to an RV'er who is interested in "towing a trailer" (other than the ability to maintain highway speeds).

Apples and Oranges? I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the results of this test when considering RV towing. Our needs are significantly different. Tests and publicity like this are a part of the "issue" when it comes to understanding the needs and capabilities to tow an RV. The sheer size difference/sidewall (sail) area of an RV makes towing a travel trailer a much different ball game from towing a short, heavy load centered on two axles that are much closer to the tow vehicle. There is significantly more to towing an RV with a family in the truck than just "getting a heavy load up and down a mountain pass without overheating the brakes"..... Just sayin'

[sourdough]

I agree with John. To me the test was about the horsepower/torque of the engines, the way the tow haul mode operated when pulling a load, how the tranny worked going downhill and how that affected the brakes. It was interesting but not particularly directed at RV owners IMO.

[talk2cpu]

Hey, don't forget they were comparing a turbocharged engine against naturally aspirated engines. How about the same climb from sea level to 2500 ft. Bet any difference would be negligible.

[sourdough]

Comparing a turbo (or twin turbo) engine to a normally aspirated engine is a little different. You are looking at a 3.5?L 6 cylinder engine being artificially pumped up, with thousands of dollars of add on equipment, to approximate the power of a V8. Twin turbos....big bucks. The reliability of these engines has not been proven under heavy use like towing big trailers (with this V6). I owned Ford's first effort at turbocharging/intercooling with the Mustang SVO. Great performance...reliability not so much. Not to offend any Eco boost fans because I know there are a lot....and it appears to be a nice truck, but, let's see how they do at 200k.

[Randy_K]

Comparing a turbo (or twin turbo) engine to a normally aspirated engine is a little different. You are looking at a 3.5?L 6 cylinder engine being artificially pumped up, with thousands of dollars of add on equipment, to approximate the power of a V8. Twin turbos....big bucks. The reliability of these engines has not been proven under heavy use like towing big trailers (with this V6). I owned Ford's first effort at turbocharging/intercooling with the Mustang SVO. Great performance...reliability not so much. Not to offend any Eco boost fans because I know there are a lot....and it appears to be a nice truck, but, let's see how they do at 200k.

The Ford truck must not be that much extra $$ to build as it sells for a comparable price. To say its a Ford advantage to compare a twin turbo to a normally aspirated is the same as saying its a Unfair advantage to compare a big V8 to a small 6.

Trucks are in the same price range and considered "1/2" ton so it a fair to compare them for buyers.

[sourdough]

I don't think I said it was unfair. I said it was different. Yes, they are all 1/2 ton trucks but we are talking about using that 1/2 ton truck for a specific purpose - towing. And yes, the sales prices are fairly comparable, but, when I have a fuel delivery failure on my V8, non turbo engine I'll be looking at normal repair costs. The Eco Boost has 2 turbochargers. In my experience turbos can be problematic. A turbo can cost $2500 to install (one). When the turbo on my SVO quit it was an anemic 143 c.i. 4 cylinder.

I come from the old hot rod days of the 60's. The bigger, the better...and it was a V8. Pull the heads off the 3.5 and a 6.4 or larger V8. Look at the pistons and imagine them trying to pull 10,000 lbs. The V8 can do it on its own - the V6 has to have help. Keep in mind it is a 213 c.i. engine (small).

Bottom line is horsepower is horsepower and torque is torque. The EcoBoost produces a lot of both. I was duly impressed by it in the video. How it produces it is what worries me (not a lot of others I'm sure). It's been around a while so maybe we will start seeing how it holds up for the long haul in a towing environment. I'm hearing 380hp and 460lb ft of torque from it in 2015. That is a LOT of massaging to a 213 c.i. V6 and a lot to go wrong. JMHO

**Note - I know that turbos are used on diesels and they have been for some time including commercial usage. To me there is a difference in the construction of those and the "hot rod" type used in gas vehicles for personal use which makes me wary.

[buzzcop63]

To see the 2014 Tundra vs the Ram1500 on the same up hill climb watch the below youtube. Episode 4 will show the Tundra and Episode 5 should be the RAM. The trucks are attached to 8,000 of total weight including the three big guy's inside. Also note that their are also 3/4 ton trucks tested on youtube, have not watched those as yet but should be interesting to perspective buyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jyt49D-v2Ho

[sourdough]

Thanks buzzcop63. Pretty interesting. The tranny in the Ram seemed to compensate for the 4.30 vs 3.92 advantage for the Tundra....not bad.