Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 2015 Ford F-150 with aluminum frame  (Read 48945 times)
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12095




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2015, 03:37:27 PM »

I'm getting close to 16mpg on my 2014 F-150 V8 Coyote engine in towm and 22 on the road.  I opted not to get the Ecoboost or wait for the aluminum body and am very happy.  New engine + big hype usually = dissapointment down the road

Yes it looks good on paper and advertisements but real world is different. The guy I knew that towed with eco boost got much better MPG towing with a V8. He was lead to believe eco boost would do better which is rarely true.

2013 EcoBoost Supercrew 4X4.  I had a 2011 as well.

Low of 8, high of 12.5 towing 8,000b travel trailer. The 8 was into a 30mph head wind.

Around town I get 18 to 20, and highway 20 to 21.5. On a back road, if I set the cruise to 45mph, I can get 22.4.

Above about 6,000 feet (CO, WY, ID, MT) there is no "Stock" V8 that will keep up.  Rule of thumb is about a 3% loss in power for every 1,000 feet you go up.

Since this is a radio site, it's got dual Icom 2820s, with MotoTbro waiting to go in. Yes, I drill holes.

It depends on engine. I have traveled the rockies since early 70's with many power plants. Old carburated engines did the worst at altutude while modern high compression fuel injected multivalve engines do better and lean mixture and advance timing to make better use of thin air. I have found that went you get at or above about 8000 feet is when you noticeably feel it on most cars. How well your car runs at sea level has some bearing on its performance at altitude. If it is underpowered down low, up high it will get worse. The other side of coin is while a turbo boost power at altitude, efficiency of cooling system drops will altitude and it looses cooling ability in thinner air. Normally it kinda balances as engine output and heat load drops with altitude on a non turbo motor. With a turbo, the heat load increases because inter-cooler works harder and engine is making same heat but cooling system can handle less heat. For many years GM had heating problems with Dmax towing hard at altitudes on low speed climbs. There solution at time was for it to be normal for engine to get hotter. I have found that the top of pass will still be there when ever you get there and I do no care about being first but rather get there with everything nice and cool too.

I think turbo charged gas motors make some sense in in low profile cars that have minimal power requirements when cruising and therefore rarely need boost cruising. But a high profile SUV of heavy P/U with a very small displacement motor using a high boost to make power will have to boost a lot in normal driving. Fords move from a 3.5 to a 2.7 makes it worse because even more boost is needed daily. As boost increases, efficiency (HP hours per pound of fuel) decreases. 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 07:29:15 AM by W8JX » Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
KB8WXG
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2015, 06:10:27 PM »

Good evening Smiley

Sorry, I have been lurking forever on this forum... I have a 2015 with the 2.7.. and it's FAST when you want it to be. I have 5,000 miles on it presently, and am averaging 22mpg on the high way, 19 mixed.. and it's a 4 door fx4/4x4... but that's enough about the truck Tongue

Curious as to what people are doing for antennae.  I travel quite often from Michigan to Ohio and have had a mag mount dual-bander as I usually use an HT in the car.. but I'm now looking for a new solution besides the ducky on my HT.
Logged
K6JH
Member

Posts: 404




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2015, 11:42:13 PM »

Curious as to what people are doing for antennae.  I travel quite often from Michigan to Ohio and have had a mag mount dual-bander as I usually use an HT in the car.. but I'm now looking for a new solution besides the ducky on my HT.

I can't help you, but I'm curious: I take it the roof is not aluminum? Your mag-mount sticks? If the roof panel is steel I'd be tempted to just use a standard NMO mounted antenna.
Logged

73
Jim K6JH
KB8WXG
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2015, 10:50:02 AM »


I can't help you, but I'm curious: I take it the roof is not aluminum? Your mag-mount sticks? If the roof panel is steel I'd be tempted to just use a standard NMO mounted antenna.

The only steel on the outside of the truck is the bumpers... the frame is Steel, but the body is all aluminium. A magnet won't stick anywhere on the exterior of the truck with the exception of the bumpers and the bolts in the bed.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12095




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2015, 04:04:25 PM »


I can't help you, but I'm curious: I take it the roof is not aluminum? Your mag-mount sticks? If the roof panel is steel I'd be tempted to just use a standard NMO mounted antenna.

The only steel on the outside of the truck is the bumpers... the frame is Steel, but the body is all aluminium. A magnet won't stick anywhere on the exterior of the truck with the exception of the bumpers and the bolts in the bed.

Aluminum unlike steel weakens under constant flexing. Also when treated for stiffness it work hardens when bent and further attempts to bend it can crack it making repair more expensive because more replacement will be needed. Time will tell but it could be a can of worms over time. Yes they use it in airplanes but engineering is far more extensive with expensive alloys and there is scheduled inspections and repairs.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
G8YMW
Member

Posts: 661




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2015, 05:49:08 PM »

Depends which alloy of aluminium, Land Rovers have used a type of ally since 1948 and as far as I know there has not been any problems with metal fatigue.
Don't forget Ford has owned Jaguar Land Rover before selling it to Tata (Indian company)
Logged

73 de Tony
Windows 10:  Making me profane since March 2017
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12095




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2015, 06:18:49 PM »

Depends which alloy of aluminium, Land Rovers have used a type of ally since 1948 and as far as I know there has not been any problems with metal fatigue.
Don't forget Ford has owned Jaguar Land Rover before selling it to Tata (Indian company)

Kinda, it seems they used a alloy called Birmabright with a high magnesium content from 1948 till 1980 when plant that made alloy shut down. It's use was born out of lack of steel at a reasonable price after war as most went to rebuilding. It was more durable and more corrosion resistant than current alloy being used.  
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 07:07:57 PM by W8JX » Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
W4FID
Member

Posts: 180




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2015, 04:50:30 AM »

I had horrendous QRN in my 2007 F-150 that was engine running related. Did all the basic grounding and lead filtering stuff with zero improvement. So I added an Am-Com digital clear speech filter speaker. Cleared it up 100% and HF operation was fun. I realize mine was a 2007 not 2015 like you asked and Ford may have made changes. I also realize you asked about the new aluminum truck and mine was steel. But for what it's worth do the basic stuff -- keep radio wires as clear from vehicle wires as much as you can. Ground everything together (helps QRN and also antenna performance). After that consider a filtered speaker is easy and effective for whatever vehicle you're doing.
Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 1192




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2015, 11:31:09 AM »

As to the 2.7 liter in the F-150, Ford kept the 3.5 liter also. The 2.7 liter is for lighter loads and less heavy towed loads, the 3.5 for heavier loading. My 3.5 liter eco-boost F-150 turned in 16.7 MPG towing a fully loaded large U-Haul trailer from central Florida to far north Tennessee. Radiowise, I have no HF equipment in my truck, but find no noise at all on VHF and UHF FM like I have with some vehicles an no alternator whine either received or sent.

By the way good luck with the 2015 F-150. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoy my 2013.

KF7CG
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12095




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2015, 11:51:20 AM »

My 3.5 liter eco-boost F-150 turned in 16.7 MPG towing a fully loaded large U-Haul trailer from central Florida to far north Tennessee.

In all fairness a large U-haul trailer is not very big and has a low profile to reduce drag towing and is not much of a challenge to tow at all.  Put a serious trailer on it like a heavy camper and you will see single digits. If you regularly tow heavy loads you are better off with a V8 for better MPG towing.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
WT3O
Member

Posts: 29




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2015, 06:40:41 PM »

Well, I picked up my truck this week! I'm hoping to figure out my radio install over the next few weeks.
Logged
WA9CFK
Member

Posts: 174




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2015, 05:25:36 PM »

I have run mobile from a 2011 F-150, I also had a rig in my 2002 F-150.

I usually run 17, 40 and 80 meters with an old Hustler antenna mounted on the back bumper.

The 2002 fuel pump puts a lot of hash on a CB rig but it is mostly AM. Not such an issues with the 2011?

If i recall correctly the 90's vintage Dakota I had used a non metal hood.

On the lower bands the antenna efficiency is so poor, I doubt the type of body metal makes a difference.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12095




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2015, 04:14:27 PM »

I see only 2015 F150 crew cab passed car test (it has steel inserts in body). Regular cab a club cab did worse with club/extended cab being worse. Ford plans to redesign for 2016. Insurance institute says they cost more to repair too. Time will tell if aluminum pickup body is a good idea or not.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
K0BG
Member

Posts: 10248


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2015, 06:25:10 PM »

I'll make a prediction.

Within 3 years, all of the big three, and perhaps the Pacific Rim trucks too, with be mostly aluminum. Starting in 2016, most will have composite beds as an intermittent stop-gap until tooling catches up.

All one has to do is look at the CAFE standards, especially the one on light trucks, to know things will be getting lighter, if not smaller as well. Progress don't you know?

Logged

M0GVZ
Member

Posts: 344




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2015, 08:25:05 PM »

If you regularly tow heavy loads you are better off with a V8 for better MPG towing.

No, you're better off with a diesel. My MK4 Ford Mondeo, the one on my QRZ.com page, with a 2 litre TDCi 140 engine can tow a 1.8 ton 28ft long twin axle caravan and return 33MPG Imp / 27MPG US cruising at 55-60MPH and it can manage to tow that caravan up a 1 in 6 hill (1ft rise for every 6ft travelled or roughly 15% gradient) at 40MPH. It could probably do the hill I have in mind faster were it not for the tight S bends at the bottom.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2015, 08:34:03 PM by M0GVZ » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!