![]() |
Originally Posted by Mike Up
(Post 5013957)
This has been debated at rv.net and it turns out that most don't want a puny 3.0L that only has 240 hp and 420 lbs of torque. What most people wanted was a 4.0L diesel that would provide adequate 300 hp and excellent 600 lbs of torque. The 3.0L is anemic just like the Ram payload. Guess they're trying to compete with the VW, BMW, and Merc cars with their little 3.0L diesels. Afterall the truck does have a coil spring car suspension with the payload of a car.:thumbsup: |
Originally Posted by jntibs
(Post 5013962)
People love big numbers, but in reality the powertrains have far surpassed the chassis capabilities in regards to towing and hauling. Want big diesel numbers? Than step up to a platform capable of acually using that power, F250 or bigger.
|
Originally Posted by Mike Up
(Post 5013964)
I agree, but even 480 lbs and up torque would be great. You just want to have enough horsepower to keep your speed up. Been there and done that with a truck that had great diesel torque and little horsepower.
|
Originally Posted by Kevin O.
(Post 5014051)
Mike all you need is to trade in the 5.slow and get the Eco. Plug in a tune and POW! Instant 500+ lb/ft of torque when you want it and great mpg when you don't!!!! :thumbsup:
|
Originally Posted by Kevin O.
(Post 5014051)
Mike all you need is to trade in the 5.slow and get the Eco. Plug in a tune and POW! Instant 500+ lb/ft of torque when you want it and great mpg when you don't!!!! :thumbsup:
I never wanted to race up a hill with 7000 LBS hanging on to the @$$ of my truck, plus the 3.5 seem to lack motor braking like the v8's seem to have. granted its not a diesel with tons of motor brake but its still better than the v6's:banana: |
Originally Posted by blueovelboy
(Post 5014099)
the 5.slow gets about the same MPG as the ego booster (maybe even better)when not towing, and better when towing so ill keep my 5.slow over the ego booster!
I never wanted to race up a hill with 7000 LBS hanging on to the @$$ of my truck, plus the 3.5 seem to lack motor braking like the v8's seem to have. granted its not a diesel with tons of motor brake but its still better than the v6's:banana: No one is talking about racing up any hills.Coming from towing with older diesels I'm use to climbing hills at low rpm's with very little downshifting to maintain speed. The Eco is as close as you can get to know what it's like towing with a diesel. I also towed with a 07 5.4L and i still remember picking up speed before a hill just so i could try and make it to the top without going under the speed limit and having it downshift and rev to the moon. Now I'm sure the 5.0 with the 6 spd is much better than the 5.4L w/ 4spd trans but it still isn't an Eco.:D That's not even mentioning towing at high elevations where the 5.0 would fall on it's face gasping for air while the Eco doesn't skip a beat!:whistle: |
Good grief.
Let's leave the EB out of the equation for just a minute. The 5.0 is a better GAS tow motor than anything else Ford has ever built for 1 ton and lighter trucks except for the 6.2 and V-10, and MAYBE a tweaked 460. All this arguing is giving me a headache and has probably chased the original poster away. |
Nope, he's still here. He replies when I comment on how productive and informative this thread is.
|
Originally Posted by Mike Up
(Post 5013957)
This has been debated at rv.net and it turns out that most don't want a puny 3.0L that only has 240 hp and 420 lbs of torque. What most people wanted was a 4.0L diesel that would provide adequate 300 hp and excellent 600 lbs of torque.
The 3.0L is anemic just like the Ram payload. Guess they're trying to compete with the VW, BMW, and Merc cars with their little 3.0L diesels. Afterall the truck does have a coil spring car suspension with the payload of a car.:thumbsup: |
The airbag suspension on the new Ram half tons does not increase payload or the tow rating.
|
Originally Posted by Rambo
(Post 5014181)
The airbag suspension on the new Ram half tons does not increase payload or the tow rating.
|
Originally Posted by Mike Up;5013911
I wanted an Ecoboost as well when I seen them come out but quickly read of their problems in their first model year, 2011. Now it's 2013 and that [URL="http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/products/news/story/2013/05/ford-moisture-in-cooler-causing-loss-of-power-in-f-150-ecoboost-engines.aspx?prestitial=1" problems still exists[/URL]. No way would I consider it.
Originally Posted by Mike Up
(Post 5013914)
5' X 10' trailer ??? That's not a trailer, it's a cart.:lol:
. Why no faster than 65 mph?? Because that's all a trailer tire is rated for. I can't believe you were going 90 mph with a trailer. If your tires would had blown, you would had caused a pretty bad crash that would likely had cost you your life and maybe someone else around you. Tires are rated at 65 mph and they will blow. I've been witness to this several time by ignorant people knowing no better. So now that you know, please stay with in the speed capacity of the tires. Thanks. |
Originally Posted by KingRanchCoy
(Post 5014210)
Think you need to check your info again, the 2013 have the updated parts and that problem is not a concern.
|
All I know is mine is fixed. I think they may have other issues. coil etc.
|
Sorry. Below is a forum dedicated to the problems of a Eco and even on the 2013. Drill a hole in the intercooler on ecoboost (that will fix it) :)
http://www.f150ecoboost.net/forum/31...boost-problems |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands