[jeromedayton]

My head spins with all the combinations possible for towing:

http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/Prelim15FLRVTT_Transit_Apr22.pdf

While I've heard historically that diesel is always the best choice for towing, the Ecoboost 3.5L confuses the issue. This is particularly true when you are looking for an option that supports both heavy duty trailer hauling (for which diesel is supposed to be better) and around town errand running (for which gas is suppose to be better, particularly if you live in a cold climate like a Colorado ski area).

My situation is that I want a Van (not a Wagon), that I can put my recreational toys in (kites, kiteboards, surfboards, skiis, bicycles, etc.) and use around town and short trips and still use to haul a travel trailer across country. I expect the mix to be about 50/50.

The fact that the Ecoboost 3.5L (EB) in the T150, Medium Wheel Base, Low Roof configuration starts at 5600 and can go to 7000 lbs towing versus the Diesel 3.2L that starts at 4700 and jumps to 7500 lbs has me really confused. Why would the diesel start with lower tow rating (3.31 axle, 11,200 EB vs 10,600lb GCWR) suddenly have a greater towing capacity than the EB when configured comparably the same (3.73 axle, 13,000 EB vs 13,500lb CGWR)?

And on the GCWR rating, do they just put in stiffer springs until you reach the 13,000 plateau at which point it is dual rear wheels?

It seems like for my desired use of part time towing a 4500 lb fully loaded trailer with probably another 1000lb in the van, that I would be best off with the Ecoboost 3.5L with an 3.73 axle and 11,200 or 12,600lb GCWR.

What say you guys with towing experience?

 

[stevenmonrad]

Towing

The weight ratings for towing are likely nominal vs. specific because what is being towed can have so much variation.
Tongue weight, number of trailer wheels, weight distribution.
That is, they give a general idea for capacity.
Otherwise, tow choices have always started with model -
what we used to call 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, 1 ton. 150, 250, 350.
These are vehicle weight capacities but affect towing because the firmer your vehicle is planted the safer the towing.
Hertz commercial rentals here (California) won't let customer 1/2 ton trucks drive away with any towed item, no matter how small, cement mixer, trailer, etc.
The weight capacities get stiffer going up and your empty ride suffers a lot, same with aftermarket shocks, springs, bar which may not be important to you. Tow capacities likely the same.
Drive train choices have to do with performance and economy.
Get the most power you can afford and gearing depends upon around town or over the road where economy may mean something. The stronger the motor the less gearing matters.
Tow packages have always been good choices and can include such things as trans cooler (or bigger), different radiator, suspension upgrades, hitch receiver, elec connections. Now there is hitch assist and rear cameras.
So the choices are
1) model,
2) drive train,
3) tow package(s). And there could be overlap, because a tow package could include stiffer suspension which would come with heavier model designation already.
Historically, Ford automatic transmissions haven't done that well with powerful motors and heavy loads. (My experience is construction.)
No feedback on this one?
The van is a good choice to haul toys or work because the wagon interior eats into the room even without seats, according to reviews.

 

[star gazer]

My head spins with all the combinations possible for towing:

http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/Prelim15FLRVTT_Transit_Apr22.pdf

While I've heard historically that diesel is always the best choice for towing, the Ecoboost 3.5L confuses the issue. This is particularly true when you are looking for an option that supports both heavy duty trailer hauling (for which diesel is supposed to be better) and around town errand running (for which gas is suppose to be better, particularly if you live in a cold climate like a Colorado ski area).

My situation is that I want a Van (not a Wagon), that I can put my recreational toys in (kites, kiteboards, surfboards, skiis, bicycles, etc.) and use around town and short trips and still use to haul a travel trailer across country. I expect the mix to be about 50/50.

The fact that the Ecoboost 3.5L (EB) in the T150, Medium Wheel Base, Low Roof configuration starts at 5600 and can go to 7000 lbs towing versus the Diesel 3.2L that starts at 4700 and jumps to 7500 lbs has me really confused. Why would the diesel start with lower tow rating (3.31 axle, 11,200 EB vs 10,600lb GCWR) suddenly have a greater towing capacity than the EB when configured comparably the same (3.73 axle, 13,000 EB vs 13,500lb CGWR)?

And on the GCWR rating, do they just put in stiffer springs until you reach the 13,000 plateau at which point it is dual rear wheels?

It seems like for my desired use of part time towing a 4500 lb fully loaded trailer with probably another 1000lb in the van, that I would be best off with the Ecoboost 3.5L with an 3.73 axle and 11,200 or 12,600lb GCWR.

What say you guys with towing experience?

I went with the 3.31 only because my small travel trailer max's out at about 3500lbs Tows great. If I was doing more then no doubt the 3.73 would have been ordered. I did get the 9000 lb as the next step was more than I wanted to pay extra for.

Dean

 

[Nathan Green]

Towing choices...

My .02 cents....


I have 15,000miles now in 3 months service. Towing about 50% of the time, mostly around 3,500lbs(boats mostly, but also lightweight box trailer--aluminum) with one trip(1,000mi+) with a high top cargo box trailer weighing in at 5,500lbs. I have the eb with 3.73


If I didn't plan on going over 5,000lbs...I think a 3.31 is plenty. The 3.73 is overkill IMO...with the 3.5eb. This thing has way more power than I have ever needed...and that included two trip across the Rockies with 3,500lbs in tow. It has downshifted maybe 3x going up even the steepest inclines out west.


If I was to order one and didn't ever tow 5000lbs+.....eb, 3.31. The ecoboost has more torque and hp than the diesel. Quite frankly the diesel felt slow and a bit underpowered by comparison.


Unless you are driving 50,000mi a year...I think gas will win out over diesel as far as cost. Even at high mileage it is a wash based upon what I've seen. And god forbid you need diesel service....expensive as ****(from personal experience)


Just MO.


Nate

 

[PeterR]

jerome, one factor would be the specific kind of towing you plan to do, in terms of altitude and gradient of the road. I am about to pick up my low roof XLT Wagon with the 130" wheelbase, which was ordered in anticipation of RV trailering over the next few years. Mainly Interstate highway long hauls with little or no back-country off-road use.

Similar to star gazer but larger, the intended trailer will be around 5,000 lbs. fully loaded, and in my view the 3.5 EB and 3.31 LS will be up to the task, especially with the 6-speed transmission.

If your intended trailer use were to be at higher altitudes, or in hilly country, the 3.73 rear end would seem to make more sense. The advantages of diesel it seems to me have been consigned to history, but tastes vary obviously. One factor is engine noise. Is the Transit's diesel as noisy as Ford diesels used to be? NG for camping it seems to me.

Also, your 1,000 lb. load for the van seems light, especially if you have 2-4 occupants in one of the larger vans. A higher GCWR may be needed, as you mentioned, and thus the 3.73 rear end.

As I am turning my radar toward possible trailers to get, any new input on this older thread it would be appreciated:

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/off-topic/3305-small-trailers.html

Thanks!

 

[WN1A]

jerome, one factor would be the specific kind of towing you plan to do, in terms of altitude and gradient of the road.

If your intended trailer use were to be at higher altitudes, or in hilly country, the 3.73 rear end would seem to make more sense.

The key to making the choice of engines and axle ratios is to define the limits of performance you want. The first thing to consider is what will your GCWR really be, the van curb weight, passengers, gear, any installed racks, bins, ect, and the weight of your fully loaded trailer. Knowing that you can calculate the mechanical drag, typically between 1% and 2% of the total weight. There is also aerodynamic drag dependent on speed, the front end cross sectional area, and a drag coefficient. Knowing these two values it is simple to calculate the horse power to maintain a constant speed on a level surface with no wind. I made a rough estimate for the medium height van, a GCWR of 9000 pounds and a drag coefficient of 0.6 at 60 mph requires about 100 horsepower.

That is an estimate of the horsepower needed to maintain 60 mph on the level with no wind. Most driving is not on the level. The specified maximum grade for the interstate highway system is 6% but there are many grades steeper than that. It takes additional work to lift the load vertically. For the same 9000 pound GCWR to climb a 6% grade at 60 mph requires an additional 86 horsepower. To maintain 60 mph under ideal condition on a 6% grade would require 186 horsepower plus the power used to run the alternator and air conditioning. Regardless of the torque performance the 3.2L diesel is at its power limit under such a scenario.

Knowing the tire diameter one can calculate the number of axle rotations per mile, the driveshaft rpm for different ratios, and the engine rpm for the various transmission gear ratios. Torque is a function of horsepower divided by rpm so for each component in the drive system the torque can be calculated. Knowing the engine rpm/torque curves one can choose axle ratios and engines to fit the desired performance.

In my case for the regular wheel base, medium roof SRW the 3.5L Ecoboost was the engine. My use is for a camper conversion to use on extended road trips in the western states. A lot of the driving time is on interstates and secondary highways under less than ideal conditions where maintaining speed is important. Other times dirt roads with steep grades are the challenge.

 

[jeromedayton]

Is the Transit's diesel as noisy as Ford diesels used to be? NG for camping it seems to me.

I have yet to actually see a Ford Transit with diesel but my understanding is that they are supposed to be as quiet as the Sprinter diesel which I have driven and is VERY quiet.

As I am turning my radar toward possible trailers to get, any new input on this older thread it would be appreciated:

I've added a reply to that thread.

 

[Nathan Green]

I have yet to actually see a Ford Transit with diesel but my understanding is that they are supposed to be as quiet as the Sprinter diesel which I have driven and is VERY quiet.



I've added a reply to that thread.

FWIW I drove both the eb and the diesel. The diesel was surprisingly quiet and smooth. At idle you could not tell it was a diesel...it was that quiet. At speed it was slightly more noise than the eb...but still very quiet. (Granted my previous diesel was a 96 suburban)

As far as noise and smoothness goes...you are not giving up anything with the diesel. As mentioned, driven back to back the diesel just felt a,bit underpowered compared to the eb. The eb actually has more torque and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a cost benefit with the diesel.

The eb is a great engine for towing, imo. Lots of torque at all rpms. Stay out of the boost and it does ok fuel mileage...but step on it and mpgs drop quickly.

Nate

 

[Chance]

Most people focus on weight limitations associated with GCWR but don't spend as much time on trailer frontal area; which in my personal experience can be as important or even more so.

The Transit is rated at 55 square feet frontal area. Unless we are talking about very small camping trailers the frontal area will be much larger.

I've towed small light-weight camping trailers around 3,000 pounds that were 8 feet wide and just over 10-feet tall. Larger 6,000-pound trailers weren't much bigger. And all were shaped like a brick. That would far exceed the Transit's 55-square-foot limitations/considerations. Since my fuel economy was about the same it confirms the drivetrain was working nearly as hard.

 

[Nathan Green]

Most people focus on weight limitations associated with GCWR but don't spend as much time on trailer frontal area; which in my personal experience can be as important or even more so.

The Transit is rated at 55 square feet frontal area. Unless we are talking about very small camping trailers the frontal area will be much larger.

I've towed small light-weight camping trailers around 3,000 pounds that were 8 feet wide and just over 10-feet tall. Larger 6,000-pound trailers weren't much bigger. And all were shaped like a brick. That would far exceed the Transit's 55-square-foot limitations/considerations. Since my fuel economy was about the same it confirms the drivetrain was working nearly as hard.

Chance..I would also say that unless I am reading it wrong...frontal area considerations take into account the frontal area exposed to the wind.


I would argue because the transit is so tall..frontal area exposed would be a heck of a lot less than a competing pickup or suv.


I know from personal experience...I saw a less drastic drop in fuel economy when towing a box trailer behind a transit vs. towing same box trailer behind my suburban.


Similarly, whereas there was a huge difference with the suburban when towing a low profile boat/trailer and box trailer(same weight),,,there is less drastic drop with the transit.


Hope I am making sense..or am I reading Ford's guidance regarding "frontal area" all wrong.


Nate


See post-- http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/ford-transit-mileage-mpgs/7825-mpg-3-5-3-73-a-2.html#post119569


Pic of my lightweight v-nose box trailer. Notice how very little is exposed to wind...it tucks right behind the van, mostly out of the wind.




Nate

 

[PeterR]

Ditto to Nate. His photos on the thread he linked above (Post #18) are instructive as to the size differences for the two trailers. Thanks for the real-life feedback on towing 2 dissimilar trailers behind 2 different tow vehicles, and the MPG considerations.