F150 Ecoboost Forum banner
1721 - 1740 of 1772 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
So for you fellas with pre-2021 trucks, does your owners manual specifically state to reduce your towing capacity rating on the truck by 2% for every 1000' in elevation?

It appears that my 2021 does state that and that would require me to reduce my ~11000 lbs by at least 20% when I head to Colorado. That would be around 8800lbs.

Ford also claims that they are the only manufacturer that notifies the driver that the truck is in reduced power mode. (limp mode is what we call it)

And get this, according to Ford, the towing claims and cooling capacity is based on an SAE standard (SAE J2807) that is done at 45mph. I couldn't find any specific mph mentioned, but the articles did state that there was a MINIMUM speed) This was all news to me and I wonder if this thread would even exist if we were towing with the reduced GVWR based on elevation AND we never exceeded 45mph on these grades that are known to be our nemesis?

View attachment 173337


I got this info from Fords response to TFL F150 going into "Rduced Power Mode" towing 10,000 up Veil gauntlet. (10 mile climb)




Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
So, actually, I think Andre read this wrong. It does not say reduce your trailer by 2% per 1000' it says reduce your GCW by 2% per 1000'. So on a truck with a 17000 lb GCWR, you should really only be at a GCW of 13600 at 10000'. So its 3400 lbs reduced or a 7600 lbs trailer.

That of course is the maximum assuming your truck isnt loaded up with gear.
 

·
Premium Member
2021 Powerboost Platinum FX4 Kodiak Brown
Joined
·
9,453 Posts
Yeah, I saw that too, which is why I worded my interpretation of the owners manual the way I did. But I admit that I had never even paid attention to that small print and it does serve as what it is for Ford.... Cover. Lol

Still, no matter how I look at it, if I step out of the forest and consider the 1/2 ton towing options out there, other than the very specific conditions that can expose the Achilles heal of the 3.5 Ecoboost, in my opinion it is the King of yanking a load behind it. Not necessarily OEM chassis-wise, but you know what I mean. Probably the only thing better would be the 2011-14 chassis but with the 2018-20 drivetrain. But if wishes were horses. :)



Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
So that 2% per 1000' thing didnt appear until the 2013 owners manual. I looked in the 2009, 10, 11, and 12 manuals and did not see it. The only mention of altitude prior to 2013 was related to octane.

So it must be in some way related to the Ecoboost but apparently was not a known problem until 2013?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
I don’t believe Ford fully stress-tested the 13 ecoboost like they did in 2011. A majority of the changes were strictly to cut production costs. Seemed like they started to go in the opposite direction.
 

·
Premium Member
2021 Powerboost Platinum FX4 Kodiak Brown
Joined
·
9,453 Posts
I would guess that the timing aligns with them probably starting to look at the SAE standard for the 13th Gens.
This is exactly what a couple of articles states when you Google the standard itself. Toyota was apparently first to consider adhereing to the standard, and Ford was the first American truck manufacturer to publicly embrace it.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
I would guess that the timing aligns with them probably starting to look at the SAE standard for the 13th Gens.
A 2014 with a 17100 lb GCWR would be limited to 15900 lbs on Davis Dam as I think the top is only 3500'. So its not like catastrophically lower but just a bit.

This is exactly what a couple of articles states when you Google the standard itself. Toyota was apparently first to consider adhereing to the standard, and Ford was the first American truck manufacturer to publicly embrace it.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
Yeah i think the Tundra and Land Cruiser adopted J2807 in 2010.The GX started in 2015 for whatever reason but the rating didn't change from my 2011 at 6500 lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
I don’t believe Ford fully stress-tested the 13 ecoboost like they did in 2011. A majority of the changes were strictly to cut production costs. Seemed like they started to go in the opposite direction.
You mean like deleting the turbo support? :unsure:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
A 2014 with a 17100 lb GCWR would be limited to 15900 lbs on Davis Dam as I think the top is only 3500'. So its not like catastrophically lower but just a bit.



Yeah i think the Tundra and Land Cruiser adopted J2807 in 2010.The GX started in 2015 for whatever reason but the rating didn't change from my 2011 at 6500 lbs.
I really think it's a "wimpy" standard honestly. Kinda like the welterweight of tests. I guess it's satisfies most and then they put systems in place to handle the rest. I guess that I just don't understand the cost impact to just putting in a rad with a larger frontal area and be done with it. Why cheap out....
 

·
Premium Member
2021 Powerboost Platinum FX4 Kodiak Brown
Joined
·
9,453 Posts
I really think it's a "wimpy" standard honestly. Kinda like the welterweight of tests. I guess it's satisfies most and then they put systems in place to handle the rest. I guess that I just don't understand the cost impact to just putting in a rad with a larger frontal area and be done with it. Why cheap out....
I would be OK if the standard was a real world standard. Since it is a towing related standard, then let it be a real world towing test.

In other words, I don't mind the section of road that was chosen. (The Davis damn) But the 45mph minimum is just lowering the bar on behalf of the manufacturer and then making it so much less relative to the consumer.

Put another way, I would be happy enough knowing that the published towing numbers were "certified" with the vehicle in question towing the published weight at 65 mph on the standardized route. In this case, Davis Damn.

Think about how mush LESS the existing standard applies to us simply because it can be certified at 45mph. Heck, how many overheating posts would disappear from this thread if the speed of the poster never exceeded 45mph? Most of them?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
I really think it's a "wimpy" standard honestly. Kinda like the welterweight of tests. I guess it's satisfies most and then they put systems in place to handle the rest. I guess that I just don't understand the cost impact to just putting in a rad with a larger frontal area and be done with it. Why cheap out....
And it doesnt even need to be across the board. Just do it to the Max-tow and HDPP trucks if its that big of a deal and pass the cost onto the customer as part of the package. I would pay an extra $1000 if it just worked from the factory and I didnt have to mess with it.

I would be OK if the standard was a real world standard. Since it is a towing related standard, then let it be a real world towing test.

In other words, I don't mind the section of road that was chosen. (The Davis damn) But the 45mph minimum is just lowering the bar on behalf of the manufacturer and then making it so much less relative to the consumer.

Put another way, I would be happy enough knowing that the published towing numbers were "certified" with the vehicle in question towing the published weight at 65 mph on the standardized route. In this case, Davis Damn.

Think about how mush LESS the existing standard applies to us simply because it can be certified at 45mph. Heck, how many overheating posts would disappear from this thread if the speed of the poster never exceeded 45mph? Most of them?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
Well there in lies the problem. You will inevitably get the, "just slow down" or "its not a race" comment. My problem is I should be able to keep up with the flow of traffic and, around here, that can be 70mph including the 18 wheelers. If I got caught on a bad day I might be stuck doing 55mph just to keep the truck from getting too hot on the flats. The 18 wheelers don't slow down from what i have experienced unless they are literally going to be blown over.

But of course they will just fall back on the 60 sqft requirement. In my 2014 manual says "Vehicles equipped with the trailer tow package or heavy duty payload package SHOULD NOT EXCEED 60 ft^2 trailer frontal area."

It's not even like, you might not want exceed 60 sqft. They just don't want you to at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Good info, it's nice to at least have a statement from ford.

What are peoples thoughts on cutting the coolant lines on the return from the turbos and putting an aluminum heater core in between right there? From a video I saw, they look to be metal lines?

173353


I wonder if something like this would fit in each side, inside of the front bumper parallel to the road
More Information for PRO SOURCE 90007 (rockauto.com)

Probably would need a fan in there to pull some air. I don't know if I'd cook any oil, but the oil I'm using is rated for about 500 F
Mobil 1 5W-30 Synthetic Oil, 1 Quart (102991) - Mobil 1 Racing Store : Synthetic Motor Oil, Grease & Lubricants
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,277 Posts
Just hard to get airflow back there. I thought about doing something similar and turning the turbo inlet at the head into an outlet. This way you can evacuate that rear jacket faster. I just don't know how you'd tie it all into the radiator inlet. I don't think you'd want to put that on the short cycle circuit with the heater core return.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Just hard to get airflow back there. I thought about doing something similar and turning the turbo inlet at the head into an outlet. This way you can evacuate that rear jacket faster. I just don't know how you'd tie it all into the radiator inlet. I don't think you'd want to put that on the short cycle circuit with the heater core return.
That is a very good point.
I wonder if something like this would work: Thermotion. 4-Port, Electronic Heater Control Valve - P/N: 354-69494 - (5/8")
I could build a manual switch or even measure the temperature of the fluid and electronically control the valve that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Good info, it's nice to at least have a statement from ford.

What are peoples thoughts on cutting the coolant lines on the return from the turbos and putting an aluminum heater core in between right there? From a video I saw, they look to be metal lines?

View attachment 173353

I wonder if something like this would fit in each side, inside of the front bumper parallel to the road
More Information for PRO SOURCE 90007 (rockauto.com)

Probably would need a fan in there to pull some air. I don't know if I'd cook any oil, but the oil I'm using is rated for about 500 F
Mobil 1 5W-30 Synthetic Oil, 1 Quart (102991) - Mobil 1 Racing Store : Synthetic Motor Oil, Grease & Lubricants
I'm a pretty firm believer that ford dumped the hot coolant where they did to keep you from cooking the turbos, or oil going through the turbos. If you put a cooler after them and before the block you'll likely trick the temp sensor, but your turbos and manifolds may get torched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoostCamping13

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
I would be OK if the standard was a real world standard. Since it is a towing related standard, then let it be a real world towing test.

In other words, I don't mind the section of road that was chosen. (The Davis damn) But the 45mph minimum is just lowering the bar on behalf of the manufacturer and then making it so much less relative to the consumer.

Put another way, I would be happy enough knowing that the published towing numbers were "certified" with the vehicle in question towing the published weight at 65 mph on the standardized route. In this case, Davis Damn.

Think about how mush LESS the existing standard applies to us simply because it can be certified at 45mph. Heck, how many overheating posts would disappear from this thread if the speed of the poster never exceeded 45mph? Most of them?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
It's probably based on a antiquated standard that just hasn't been updated or takes thing like Semi traffic into consideration (truly just guessing here). It really should be closer to 60mph IMO. Our 100km/h speed limit would be 62-63mph. That's the speed "limit" which is meant for "ideal conditions", so again I'm sure they are taking a bunch of factors in consideration and then saying this standard is the minimum. The number of "hoods up" vehicles I've seen in the mountains is staggering. Usually I see at least one burning or burnt to the ground a year.

I do find it interesting to see the different expectations based on experience. Even on our Trans-Canada Hwy up here, there is no way a Semi would be going faster than 45mph up the passes, usually they are around the 30mph mark as they settle into a speed to make the climb. Last year, I was passing half tons and HD's on the climbs and they had a pretty wide range of trailer sizes and that was with me being overweight. I am rarely one to be under the speed limit while traveling, but I also don't drive like a butthead.

Personally, I would like to see the Davis Dam standard be upped in the speed requirement area, at least then you would know the truck HAS to be designed with more buffer. It would also suit reality much better as you note too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
Chevy doesn't appear to be the solution...
Is there another video associated with this one? They alluded to this at the end of the video snake posted
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
Is there another video associated with this one? They alluded to this at the end of the video snake posted
Not that I've seen. They say in the video it was shot about a month ago and they were waiting to give GM a chance to respond. They didn't get anything back for them yet, but figured it would be good to share anyway.
 
1721 - 1740 of 1772 Posts
Top