[frorider]

I have about 4600 miles now on my diesel van, which has been partially converted to a camping van and uses snow-rated BFG KO2 tires w/ a pretty aggressive tread (which btw have been working great in the snow so far in 2WD...I have chains but haven't used them yet).

nearly all my driving is above 5,000 ft elevation, with lots of hiway driving and mountain passes. sometimes up to 9,000 ft or so.

hand-calculated mpg has been 22 mpg on several tankfuls that were uneventful basic hiway driving around 70 mph with moderate or low winds; more typically, the hand-calculated mpg on an whole tank has been closer to 20 - 21 mpg for tanks that included some low-speed driving (2nd gear) on steep USFS roads in addition to the hiway driving.

Interestingly, the dash display always seems to show 19.5 mpg for every tank I've driven. Even on a tank that included significant city driving and idling.

DEF usage has been about 2.5 gallons over 4000 miles.

On a side note, I'm finding that several of the truck stops I use for hiway refueling use B20 even here in California. In at least one case, the B20 wasn't labeled on the pump; I only found out by asking the manager.

 

[SilentlySoaring]

Opinion re: Rear Gearing

TXAggie,

First, thank you for a short but informative post. I can understand how the higher rear gearing (3.31) can get slightly better fuel MPG over the lower gearing (3.73). However, I'd like your opinion regarding gearing if one was towing at least 75% of those miles.

We are about to order a T350 Wagon, LWB, MR and are simply stuck on the engine choice (but I prefer diesel) and rear gearing combination. We need the T350 to replace an '01 Excursion 4WD w/ 7.3 PSD and 3.73 gears. We love the Ex, but need more seats. AND, we pull a 4,000-4,500 lb trailer at least 75%, if not 90% of the time.

My gut tells me that, since I'm a diesel bigot, that I'll never be fully happy with the 3.5 EB, regardless of gearing choice. My gut also tells me that I'd likely get better MPGs with the 3.31 gears, IF we were only driving the T350 with passengers and gear. But with our typical use, I suspect that I'd get better mileage (3.31 vs 3.73) towing a trailer all over the country.

We're not foolishly thinking we'll be able to get great MPGs with our final choice. But we want to make the best choice in order to get the best MPG possible with all of our towing.

Your experience with similar vehicles with the major difference being the rear gearing make you a 'subject matter expert' at this point with this vehicle. So we would like your opinion. I think I've already made my decision, so I guess I'm looking for someone to disprove or concur that the 3.2 with 3.73 gears will give better MPGs towing than the 3.2 with 3.31 gearing.

(This message was targeted to TXAggie, but we'd like input from others as well.)

Thank you,
Martin
aka SilentlySoaring

 

[Geoman]

You may want to check the tow ratings of the various configurations you are looking at. The 3.31 with the diesel and MR LWB variant has a rating of around 3600 lbs. That is quite a bit less than your trailer. The 3.73 adds a bit of capacity but I think it would still be under rated for your trailer. You may need to go with the 3.5 or a Sprinter if you want to stick with diesel.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

 

[jonsobi]

Here is something I look at for tow vehicle engine and drivetrain selection.

I like to travel between 65 and 70 mph when towing. So at what RPM power and efficiency range, in 6th gear, will my engine be turning, at that speed?

With a 3.31 ratio the ecoboost might be at, say 1800 rpm. I would consider that lower than optimum for the aero and mass load of a trailer at 65 mph. With the 3.73, the RPM might be closer to 2000.

Based on the HP and torque curves of the 3.5, I would conclude that the 3.73 would be my preferred choice for towing at my preferred speed.

 

[Whitedog]

Here is something I look at for tow vehicle engine and drivetrain selection.

I like to travel between 65 and 70 mph when towing. So at what RPM power and efficiency range, in 6th gear, will my engine be turning, at that speed?

With a 3.31 ratio the ecoboost might be at, say 1800 rpm. I would consider that lower than optimum for the aero and mass load of a trailer at 65 mph. With the 3.73, the RPM might be closer to 2000.

Based on the HP and torque curves of the 3.5, I would conclude that the 3.73 would be my preferred choice for towing at my preferred speed.

Great post. Don't give him a fish, teach him to fish.

(Edit: This is why I don't do likes. If I had just given a Like, it doesn't explain WHY I liked it.)

 

[Budsky]

With a 3.31 ratio the ecoboost might be at, say 1800 rpm. I would consider that lower than optimum for the aero and mass load of a trailer at 65 mph. With the 3.73, the RPM might be closer to 2000.

Based on the HP and torque curves of the 3.5, I would conclude that the 3.73 would be my preferred choice for towing at my preferred speed.

My 3.73 3.2D is just a hair above 2000 at 65 mph, where I usually tow.

 

[TXAggie]

SilentlySoaring,

I found the MPG difference between the SRW 3.31LS Rear, 12 pax wagon at 20.08 MPG vs. the DRW 3.73LS Rear, 15 pax wagon at 19.29 MPG to not be that significant.

However, according to the 2015 Transit Product Information Book, page 15, which deals with the wagon version, the capacities are as follows:

350HD DRW - High Roof / Long EL wheelbase @ 148" / 3.2L Max payload of 3,340# / base curb weight of 6,941# / GVWR of 10,360#
350 SRW - High Roof / Long wheelbase @ 148" / 3.2L Max payload of 2,750# / base curb weight of 6,432# / GVWR of 9,250#

Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 SRW / 3.31 rear => 10,600# GCWR / 4,000# max trailer towing
Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 SRW / 3.73 rear => 11,200# GCWR / 4,600# max trailer towing
Max towing capacity, 3.5LEB / 148 SRW / 3.31 or 3.73 => 11,200# GCWR / 4,800# max trailer towing

Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 DRW / 3.31 rear => 10,600# GCWR / 3,100# max trailer towing
Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 DRW / 3.73 rear => 11,200# GCWR / 3,700# max trailer towing
Max towiing capacity, 3.5LEB / 148 DRW / 3.73 or 4.10 => 11,200# GCWR / 4,100# max trailer towing

So as you can see the MPG difference between the SWR & DRW were within 1 MPG, but the towing capacity is 900# more with the SRW over the DRW.

Even going up & down the hills of western MD & PA, the diesel had more than enough torque & power to travel uphill, fully loaded with pax at 65 MPH plus and still maintain speed and have reserve power to pass the big rigs and slower cars going uphill. With the proper hitch and controller, I'm sure the use of the tow/haul option would make hauling the trailer a breeze.

 

[jonsobi]

Great post. Don't give him a fish, teach him to fish.

(Edit: This is why I don't do likes. If I had just given a Like, it doesn't explain WHY I liked it.)

Tks Whitedog. I don't do likes often either, but have to say it feels good to get one!

Wish my spouse gave out likes.

 

[jonsobi]

Don't forget aero load

SilentlySoaring,

I found the MPG difference between the SRW 3.31LS Rear, 12 pax wagon at 20.08 MPG vs. the DRW 3.73LS Rear, 15 pax wagon at 19.29 MPG to not be that significant.

However, according to the 2015 Transit Product Information Book, page 15, which deals with the wagon version, the capacities are as follows:

350HD DRW - High Roof / Long EL wheelbase @ 148" / 3.2L Max payload of 3,340# / base curb weight of 6,941# / GVWR of 10,360#
350 SRW - High Roof / Long wheelbase @ 148" / 3.2L Max payload of 2,750# / base curb weight of 6,432# / GVWR of 9,250#

Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 SRW / 3.31 rear => 10,600# GCWR / 4,000# max trailer towing
Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 SRW / 3.73 rear => 11,200# GCWR / 4,600# max trailer towing
Max towing capacity, 3.5LEB / 148 SRW / 3.31 or 3.73 => 11,200# GCWR / 4,800# max trailer towing

Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 DRW / 3.31 rear => 10,600# GCWR / 3,100# max trailer towing
Max towing capacity, 3.2LPS / 148 DRW / 3.73 rear => 11,200# GCWR / 3,700# max trailer towing
Max towiing capacity, 3.5LEB / 148 DRW / 3.73 or 4.10 => 11,200# GCWR / 4,100# max trailer towing

So as you can see the MPG difference between the SWR & DRW were within 1 MPG, but the towing capacity is 900# more with the SRW over the DRW.

Even going up & down the hills of western MD & PA, the diesel had more than enough torque & power to travel uphill, fully loaded with pax at 65 MPH plus and still maintain speed and have reserve power to pass the big rigs and slower cars going uphill. With the proper hitch and controller, I'm sure the use of the tow/haul option would make hauling the trailer a breeze.

I read your post a few times and think I get it. I was surprised at the almost 7000# curb weight of the DRW wagon. The seats and interior trim add up fast.

One factor that is not accounted for in the towing specs is aero load. A 4000lb boat and trailer will be easier on the drivetrain than a larger flat fronted travel trailer. My many years of long distance towing TTs made me dread headwinds, and I only had one passenger.

Would not think towing would quite be a "breeze" if your trailer is of the larger frontal area models. The diesel will work hard, but that is what they are good at.

 

[Budsky]

I was surprised at the almost 7000# curb weight of the DRW wagon. The seats and interior trim add up fast.

The comparison in TXaggies' post was for an EL DRW at 6,941 to an L SRW at 6,432.
Looking at some of Ford's spec's the dual wheels/tires add about 250 lbs and the EL adds about 250.

Looks like the Wagon interior/seats etc adds almost 1000 lbs to the same size Van! Of course that amount has to come off towing and cargo capacity.

 

[kayakcurt]

geoman i would stay away from the new diesels.#1 . mpg and power [ hp/torque] advantages are basicly gone with ecoboost. #2 diesel option cost plus def cost will buy a fair amount of gas.#3 can't idle and use heat or a/c to keep vehicle comfortable without concern about need for exhaust regen cycle unless you get high idle switch option, more $. I had an 08 f550 with the "better" 6.4 ltr diesel; sometimes had to drive past my house after hours of driving ,because regen cycle light had come on [don't shut engine down when light is on] per manual. cycle may take up to 30 mins of driving are u freaking kidding me!!!!! #4 new diesels with their high pressure fuel systems very sensitive to contaminates like water and particulate such as; what looked like sand particles in the secondary! fuel filter housing i found when changing original fuel filters. Then going on diesel forum and reading how guys would go in for oil change,and be told they were over full 3-5qts! tests indicating diesel fuel contamination, probably caused by particulate jambing fuel injector open, sending fuel into crankcase. your engine warrantee is voided, bearing surfaces are damaged your new engine will cost you $18,000 installed!!! Won't buy a diesel made after 07 when emission regs changed and they ruined the diesel engine. I'm driving an 05 sprinter now which replaced the 08 F550 it gave me 7.6mpg on the dash. the sprinter 28mpg calc. on the way home after buying. i'm thinking of a t350 srw jumbo with e.b. myself.

 

[frorider]

everyone is free to make their own overall conclusion on turbo diesel vs turbo gas. i think many folks were surprised to see the decent actual mpg for the 3.5 EB transit since the real world mpg for the F150 version has been pretty poor, as thousands of owners will tell you. with moderately boosted gas engines, the hiway mpg can be good if you're the type of driver who is good at keeping it out of the boost range...but when towing or even just driving into a headwind it can drop significantly.

Direct injection gas engines, as a 'category', have all kinds of issues as you know. Personally I'm hopeful that the 2.7 ecoboost (which I don't own, but considered buying) solved those issues but it's hard to say at this point. My point is that you are categorically proposing that 'all' post 2007 diesels have an inherent issue.

I keep idling to a minimum, and rarely drive my diesel transit less than 50 miles at a time. In the process of installing a diesel-powered air and water heater...one of the advantages of a diesel van in the first place is diesel-powered european RV appliances...so I would rarely be in a position of idling the van to keep the interior warm.

 

[prdrz]

LR SWB 3.2L milage

dash reads 10.7L/100k all in town short trip driving only on highway to clean exhaust. 4000kms so far. Uses 1/2 the fuel of my old E250. Ian

 

[gregsfc]

everyone is free to make their own overall conclusion on turbo diesel vs turbo gas. i think many folks were surprised to see the decent actual mpg for the 3.5 EB transit since the real world mpg for the F150 version has been pretty poor, as thousands of owners will tell you. with moderately boosted gas engines, the hiway mpg can be good if you're the type of driver who is good at keeping it out of the boost range...but when towing or even just driving into a headwind it can drop significantly.

Direct injection gas engines, as a 'category', have all kinds of issues as you know. Personally I'm hopeful that the 2.7 ecoboost (which I don't own, but considered buying) solved those issues but it's hard to say at this point. My point is that you are categorically proposing that 'all' post 2007 diesels have an inherent issue.

I know I'm off topic just a little, but just to chime in, because I think I've probably got one of the most highly-achievable examples of what a Ford Ecoboost in 1/2-ton duty utility can do. I've got an aluminum F150XL, reg cab, 2wd, short bed with 3.31 rear axle, and the new 2.7 EB. At less than 4200 lbs of curb weight, in the highest gearing and smallest configuration, driving as conservatively as possible w/o hypermiling, in mostly 45-65 mph state highway commutes with little traffic, running regular E10 gasoline, I am so far averaging 23.6 on fuelly, but when I take out 65 mph highway trips, I'm likely going to come in around 22.5 mpg lifetime in this truck.

I am way, way above the other 83 reporters on fuelly with the F150 and the 2.7 and am so far out that I come in as an outlier. Only one other shows above 23, but that person has a huge error fillup of over 50 mpg. The median area for the F150 (of all different configurations, wheel bases and 2wd and 4wd) with the 2.7 is in the 18-20 mpg area for those most-likely reporting empty trucks and conscientious driving.

I'm a huge diesel-power fan and have needed a truck for years and came to read this thread, because I've always wished for a Euro-style van configured as a truck with a cab chassis and one of those Euro-styled drop side bodies with a 6 cylinder diesel, but configuring a truck this way in the U.S. would be financially ludicrous but still follow the Euro vans like the transit with diesel just to satisfy my interest.

My perception and observation, based on my own beliefs and experiences and biases is that "yes" an EB can get decent mpg but what I miss with the diesel experience is being able to drive like I want and still get good mpg. If I even think about pressing down on the pedal in my new truck, it starts to suck gas hard and that's not what I'm used to coming from my VW TDI that stayed above 40 no matter how I drove it.

If I were in the market for a commercial van and needed and wanted to work it hard, regardless of the payoff argument, due in part to my own admitted biases, I'd definitely be ordering the Transit with the 3.2.

Funny to me that one could go to a Mustang Forum and never once read about the payoff for choosing the GT with the 8 cylinder, but when it comes to a superior technology like a well-designed hybrid or a frugal diesel, everyone wants to start arguing about payoff. The payoff for me would be the driving dynamics of a hard working diesel versus and screaming gasser. It would be an immediate payoff, and I wish such a choice was offered in a base pickup truck, but is not. In a pickup, the OEMs insist that one buy one of the larger configurations and loaded up with features, and that's why I've got a screaming gasser but at least with some low-end grunt, so there is a way to keep it from screaming and sucking fuel. But with the EB there is a choice: you can drive hard and have fun or you can get good mpg, but not both at the same time.

 

[danski0224]

I'm a huge diesel-power fan and have needed a truck for years and came to read this thread, because I've always wished for a Euro-style van configured as a truck with a cab chassis and one of those Euro-styled drop side bodies with a 6 cylinder diesel, but configuring a truck this way in the U.S. would be financially ludicrous but still follow the Euro vans like the transit with diesel just to satisfy my interest.

In comparison with the EcoBoost option, the diesel is "only" ~$2,000.00 more, a little less if you order the dual battery option with the gas engine.

If a utility body fits your needs, the prices on those aren't too bad when you take the added purchase price of interior van shelving into account, and the utility body may actually be a bit less when compared to the upper end aluminum shelving vendors.

There are a couple of commercial-focused Ford dealers near me and they always have cutaway vans and now Transits with minimal options on the lot with enclosed Reading utility service bodies.

The one big drawback (for me) is the limitation to a 10' utility body without going to a much bigger truck or with a custom body. I'd definitely go with an aluminum utility body for longevity and weight savings. You have to watch the weight- the steel bodies are heavy and some of the composite ones aren't much lighter.

As far as comparatively optioned diesels go, there is little difference in price between a Sprinter and the Transit.

It's a tough call.

I also expect ~20 mpg out of an EcoBoost to be highly optimistic. The largest Transit must be every bit of 700 pounds more and more frontal area than an F150- but I am not checking it over on Ford's website.

 

[TXAggie]

Round trip from Waldorf, MD to Campbellsville, KY via I-64.

Route included 5 mile stretch of 7% grade interstate, and lots of up and down hills in WV & KY.

Transit 350HD XL, 12 pax plus luggage
1,413 miles total
78.1 gallons of diesel total
18.09 MPG overall

341 miles, 20.6 gals, 16.55 MPG, Westbound
401 miles, 20.2 gals, 19.85 MPG, WB
246 miles, 16.7 gals, 14.73 MPG, EB
425 miles, 20.6 gals, 20.63 MPG, EB

 

[PIC350HD]

350 HD long and tall dually with the 3.73 limited slip.

hand calculated for the first 3 fill-ups to date

17.5
17.0
18.9

I'll take that all year long !

 

[MDC]

Doesn't the ecoboost require premium gas?

Premium was not required in my F150 FX4. They recommended Mid-Grade.
And know this: There is no "Eco" in the Eco Boost motor! LOL! Without getting through an entire tank yet, I'm getting almost 10 miles more per gallon with the 3.2! To say I'm STOKED is a gross understatement! I live in a mountain town at 8000 ft of elevation, so the stop-and-go takes a toll on the mpg, but I can't wait to take a hwy trip, or one of our many annual trips to Moab and see what this van can do! I haven't put 400 miles on it yet.

 

[Whitedog]

350 HD long and tall dually with the 3.73 limited slip.

hand calculated for the first 3 fill-ups to date

17.5
17.0
18.9

I'll take that all year long !

What kind of load, what kind of driving?

 

[hammerdown]

Ditto Whitedog. My long tall 250 was doing 18 in the summer, and is down to about 15 for the winter. But I remote start it for 10 minutes every morning, do about a 20 minute all city, stop and go round trip to drop the wife off, then my commute is about 50/50 highway city and only about 20 minutes one way. Also, Goodyear Wranglers are taller and heavier. Also winter blended diesel, if that's still a thing.

I also routinely hole shot from lights, and don't drive with MPG in mind. So I'm still pretty happy.