Really though, if you regularly tow 7500lbs or more, you should think about buying F250 in my opinion.

 

I absolutely agree with that statement. Although an F-150 may tow that much weight, I wouldn't want to try to stop it too often. When you get up to this much weight in a trailer, you're going to start pushing a lighter truck (like an F-150) around too much.

I work at a marina and tow anything from jet skis to stuff weighing almost 20,000 lbs. and I have my choice of vehicles to do it with. For anything over about 6,000 pounds, I always take one of our one ton trucks.

 

The key is *REGULARLY*. I wouldn't hesitate to tow something right at the limits with a F-150 *OCCASIONALLY*.

 

True, but all it takes is one "oops" while trying to stop that much weight with a half ton truck and the consequences could be ugly. And trust me, I've had a few of them in my 35 years of towing. Luckily, I've never wadded anything up.

 

The brakes on the F150 will stop anything it's rated for plenty fine. They come with 350mm dia rotors in the front and rear. That's a lot bigger than what a Super Duty was using just a few years ago. The new SD is running a 365mm disc, there's not a huge difference there. The factory rotors like to warp but a good set of replacements isn't much money and with upgraded pads you will have all the stopping power you need.

 

Plus any trailer that big will have electric brakes, and the Ford factory brake controller is excellent. Tow/haul mode on the transmission also will give you engine braking.

 

The V6s don't have as much engine braking as the V8s. If I remember correctly the ecoboost coming down the ike had much hotter rotors at the end than the V8 trucks.

 

That's true, the 3.5 is giving up 1.5L and half a point of compression. There's still a good amount of engine braking though.

 

This question is turning into the hottest debate on all Ford forums. Only you can decide what it best for you.

Facts of life that marketing, egos, and loyalties cannot change.

1. An engine is just a pump, and for a given volume, the smaller the pump the harder it has to work, and the less long term durability it will have. Does that make the 2.7 junk? Of course not, but fewer bearings, higher bearing loads, and higher cylinder pressures all equal more stress, but none of us know if this becomes an issue at 200,000, 300,000, or 800,000 thousand miles in this application.

2. At a given horsepower, smaller engines, and in particular boosted ones, tend to be more efficient. Smaller engines have less internal drag and lower reciprocating weight. All else being equal, they will have lower fuel burn.

3. Turbos increase efficiency and make more power per cubic inch. One of my favorite quotes: "Racing without boost is like baseball without steroids". Big Chief.

Anecdotally: You can get a good idea of how hard each engine is being pushed in OE form by looking at what the aftermarket can gain on 93 Octane. Gains on the 2.7 are fairly minimal, the 3.5 gains are significant, and the 5.0 gains are huge. Oddly enough, that is exactly what anyone with experience would expect.

Does any of this make one better? Absolutely not. Just different choices. That said, I don't buy for a second that Ford has them all at a near equal performance level from the factory as an accident. I know what I'm getting and why, but if I were having issues deciding I'd without a doubt get the cheapest option.

 

Say what???

You got it backwards there. On a N/A V8 a performance tune will get you 35Hp or so. A conservative performance tune on a Gen II 3.5 EB will add 100Hp. That's what 5* is getting and their tunes are well on the safe side.

 

Slow down a little and reread what I posted. Not just talking about tweaking a tune. Talking about pushing as much as you can on 93 keeping stock internals, and on the 5.0 that would put you in the range of 800 rwhp.

The comment was referring to how stressed the engine is in factory tune. What you can potentially get with bolt on parts will clearly show the ultimate capability (and therefore stock stress level) of the motor.

I sure don't get why 3.5 fans (great motor) get so pissed when someone states the fact that the 5.0 is less stressed. Not exactly rocket science.

 

Any dipstick "tuner" can jack up the boost and get enormous hp gains on the turbo engines.

 

Agree. Once again anecdotal, but a good way to compare is looking at what a reputable aftermarket company does with both. For example, Roush. What do they get out of the Raptor 3.5 and what do they get out of the 5.0? Unlike some, they have to be able to warranty what they sell.

Some jackwagon cranking up the boost on race gas for a youtube video isn't what I'm talking about.

 

Ok then, what is the limit of the 3.5 on bone stock internals? The GT has 650ish from the factory and that's based on the weaker car version of the block. The limiting factor has always been the fuel system. The rotating assembly is fully forged the other engines don't get that from the factory.

 

OP/Thread Starter Here:

Initially, I'm thinking about either the 2.7 or the 3.5 EcoBoost motors for fuel mileage sake. A coworker has a 3.5 in either a 2015 or 2016 SuperCrew that he uses to pull trailers with. He also makes trips that are five states away, 3-4 times per year and has about 60,000-70,000 miles on it, all with zero engine problems. He said that he can get 19 mpg if he keeps his foot out of it (his wife has a heavier foot than he does!). Also, my independent mechanic has said some good things about the 3.5 in that he hasn't seen many of those in his shop (probably because many are still covered under the manufacturers warranty).

I'm also interested in rear axle ratios. The 3.55 that I've got on my 1999 has served me well in that it seems to have the right combination of towing power and low rpms at highway speeds. If I pulled a trailer more often than 3-4 times per year, I might opt for the 3.73 for the towing power. I would be interested to hear from any owners what their real world mileage is for a 2.7 or a 3.5 EcoBoost motors with a 3.55 rear axle ratio.

I know that the 2.7 will probably beat the 3.5 in fuel mileage, but I am concerned about how much harder (extra wear and tear) the 2.7 has to work in doing its job. I don't want to have engine reliability issues 80 or 90k miles down the road with this new truck. Any experience or thoughts on reliability from some who have had the 2.7 motor long term?

Thanks so much and keep up the good discussion!