Powerboost Overheated while Towing

[PungoteagueDave]

Maybe it's just me, but if I see something that references a standard, and I need to know what that means, I look it up. It takes an extra 2 minutes to find and a few more to read the standard. I may even learn something in the process. Ford also likely lists the other information as it is not part of the standard, therefore making it pertinent information to add.

Also, surface area is a huge factor at speed. 10,000 lbs of steel will have barely any surface area for wind resistance, whereas a fiberglass tank that may weight 2,000 lbs but had a huge surface area may actually present more issues towing. I'm pretty sure the towing standard is closer to the former than the latter in that they use a flat trailer and put a relatively low profile load on it. It probably would take you less time to look up and read the standard than the amount of time you've spent reading, responding, and complaining about it here.

Yes, it is just you. If you are going to rate your trucks for towing capacity based on 45 MPH maximum speed, you ought to say that somewhere in your extensive TOWING literature, full stop. Saying the customer is responsible to read a VERY TINY footnote and then cross reference to a seperate external SAE spec sheet to only then understand that limitation is complete obfuscation of that limitation - and you know it full well. You know darn well that you (and everyone else around here) never understood that all of Ford's specs for towing incorporate a 45 MPH limit.

Sponsored

 

[BLoflin]

Yes, it is just you. If you are going to rate your trucks for towing capacity based on 45 MPH maximum speed, you ought to say that somewhere in your extensive TOWING literature, full stop. Saying the customer is responsible to read a VERY TINY footnote and then cross reference to a seperate external SAE spec sheet to only then understand that limitation is complete obfuscation of that limitation - and you know it full well. You know darn well that you (and everyone else around here) never understood that all of Ford's specs for towing incorporate a 45 MPH limit.

I'm sorry, but I believe you are confusing what a spec and a testing standard are.

No one, and no where does anyone or Ford say the maximum speed you should/can tow is 45mph.

The standard gives a set of conditions to spec for a test to be able to make a claim.

In this case part of it is for the Max Tow weight spec.

Without a test spec/standard, I guess you can assume you can go 90mph up a 25% grade, with the Maximum specified weight. Of course not.

So of course you can tow faster than 45mph.

But if you want to know how the 11,000lb tow weight for the PB 4x4 was specified you do need to know the testing conditions. Or you do like most, who don't want to bother researching, they realize that is an actual MAXIMUM under some (unknown, at least to them) conditions, and they should stay well under that for their specific use.

Most everything has a specified testing condition for the capabilities they state. The battery life for your phone, the lifetime of your lightbulb, the usable mileage for a tire, etc. In most cases that testing condition is probably not exactly the same as how you are specifically using the product.

 

[F-150 Prius]

Funny, because TFL had another overheat issue but this time w/ a GM press vehicle and at low speeds and their 6.2L . It happened a few weeks ago but they were waiting for a response from GM on the matter and as of yesterday they had no response.

TFL drivers present themselves as licensed professional drivers, but they run a towing stress test and don't look at the temp gauges. I'm not a pro driver, but I tow a triple axle race trailer and I have to arrive in one piece, so when the grade is uphill, I watch the gauges and I drive with "mechanical sympathy" and the temp gauges (and exhaust gas temp if you drive a diesel) set the pace.

Anyway:
1) the PowerBoost engine overheated, not the trans (for some reason TFL went off on a tangent about transmission coolers …)
2) the GM 6.2 trans overheated

If the driver of the Ford had looked at the gauges and not just remained wide-open throttle (ffs) the problem would have been controlled (and anyway, the truck still completed the test and didn't fail.)

The GM actually failed (had to stop or it would die) but again, driver error. We'll have to wait and see if GM says that particular truck had a fault or if it's was just operating out of design limits.

I hesitate to suggest it, but to recover a drivetrain that's overheating, the thing you can do is find a water source and … cautiously … use water to cool the radiator (don't just blast a garden hose on a radiator or the temperature shock can crack the plumbing.)

sidenote: Years ago we had a 454 big block in a 3500 duallie and the previous owner had plumbed a series of sprayers across the face of the radiator and I think windshield washer motor in a water tank so it sprayed the trans cooler, too. There was enough water there to get up the Grapevine and refill the water when filling the gas tank after emptying it at 5 mpg at about 40 mph … here we are 15 years later … 5 mpg at … 45 mph … : )​

Another "trick" is to add waterwetter, but again, I hesitate to suggest it because I don't know if newer F-150 ecoboost/powerboost engines have different coolant chemistry and may not be compatible, but it does appear to be compatible with a 2021 Mustang Ecoboost (they don't list F-150s.)
https://www.redlineoil.com/waterwetter

 

[cool rod]

This is all just a tempest in a teapot. But for anyone who really wants to know about the towing standard, here's an article that goes into it pretty well https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/1502-sae-j2807-tow-tests-the-standard/

Interestingly the standard for cooling specifies that: "The “cooling system performance” requirement also requires zero part failures, no error codes, no driver warnings of any other kind, and no loss of coolant fluid during the test." So the warning on the instrument panel didn't meet the standard.

 

[don.mullins]

Yes, it is just you. If you are going to rate your trucks for towing capacity based on 45 MPH maximum speed, you ought to say that somewhere in your extensive TOWING literature, full stop. Saying the customer is responsible to read a VERY TINY footnote and then cross reference to a seperate external SAE spec sheet to only then understand that limitation is complete obfuscation of that limitation - and you know it full well. You know darn well that you (and everyone else around here) never understood that all of Ford's specs for towing incorporate a 45 MPH limit.

You keep acting like only Ford documents towing capacities this way. Show us how Chevrolet, GMC & Dodge did it “right”. Put up or shut up. Bitching and moaning that Ford follows the exact industry standard as every manufacturer does is meaningless.

You have become so wrapped around the axle on this issue you are simply the Towing Karen for this site. You have tried to highjack every towing related thread except the towing mirror ones it seems.

The chip shortage has the used market in your favor - maybe it’s time you walk the walk and sell that POS F-150 and buy a man’s tow vehicle.

 

[BLoflin]

Interestingly the standard for cooling specifies that: "The “cooling system performance” requirement also requires zero part failures, no error codes, no driver warnings of any other kind, and no loss of coolant fluid during the test." So the warning on the instrument panel didn't meet the standard.

Incorrect.

The TFL test did not meet the standard (i.e. they were driving over 40mph) conditions.

So the fact the F150 had a warning has no bearing on "meeting the standard", as the test was not the standard.

 

[currybob]

This is all rather silly. Now Ford tells us they rate their towing at 45 MPH? That is NOWHERE in their literature. Literally nowhere. So now we are supposed to also be experts in SAE rating standards? Absurd. Ford puts out a ton of information on towing specs, including complex grids and then gives us three stickers on our trucks with VIN-level detail on payload and towing specs. And nowhere does it REALLY tell us what the deal is. So, yeah, the TFL test was outside the specs. But there was no way for them to know that without ALSO being experts in SAE testing protocols because it is not in the Ford literature anywhere that to meet their specs you must drive at 45 mph. And who does THAT? And then Ford goes on to say that their towing test is based on a specific situation at a specific mountain pass. Great. Guess I'll go do all my towing there.

Sounds like you should be angry with the industry for all the truck manufactures limits are based on the same. None of the other manufactures do anything any different from Ford.

 

[Slappy McGee]

Okay Ford fanbois, have at it. Ford spends a lot of effort in its trailering literature and websites to review weights and trailer sizes and what works with various truck configurations - but NOWHERE in all of that does it say this is ALL limited to towing at 45 MPH or less? Please folks, when it spends paragraphs talking about trailer frontal area and weight distributing hitches but fails even once in ANY of its literature to say ANYTHING about its standards being for speeds of 45 MPH or less, you think that's legit? And that we rubes should simply KNOW that the SAE standard includes a 45 MPH limit? Right. I am sure that none of you knew that. Literally none. And that it is also a ridiculous standard. Who is going to tow their boat or RV at a maximum of 45 MPH? Yet that is supposedly the standard that allows Ford to cop out of any responsibility for any towing event that occurs outside the SAE parameters - tow a trailer at 65, you've violated the specified standard, exceeded specs, and anything that happens is on you. This is absurd on its face.

I don’t really have a dog in this hunt, but this is the same as EPA fuel economy test standards. If you actually read the specs, the “highway” driving is really unlike any actual highway driving, and there are a bunch of other wrinkles and nuances that make it a fairly unrealistic test compared to the “real world.” At the end of the day, you’ll very likely get less (or occasionally more) MPG than the EPA rating, but it does allow for a reasonable comparison between manufactures that allows you to say “This one is probably a bit more efficient than this one.”

We’re comparing max tow ratings here, so there needs to be some definition of “max” and while I agree referencing just an SAE standard is less informative than saying “At 45mph on a X-degree incline at 75F ambient” it’s probably a case of “Everyone else is doing it” and analogous to something like fuel economy standards where you just see 24MPG EPA on the label without any explanation of the test parameters.

If this were mission-critical I don’t think it’s unreasonable to lookup the referenced standard and determine how it applied to my specific situation. For example if an MPG rating were the difference between me getting home at night and walking uphill 40 miles both ways through 6’ snowdrifts at -50F (yes, I’m being silly here), I’d want to understand the test conditions and how they applied to my actual environment before jumping in the car and assuming my 20MPG rating and 10gal tank would take me to my home 199.8 miles away that’s bereft of gas stations.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

You keep acting like only Ford documents towing capacities this way. Show us how Chevrolet, GMC & Dodge did it “right”. Put up or shut up. Bitching and moaning that Ford follows the exact industry standard as every manufacturer does is meaningless.

You have become so wrapped around the axle on this issue you are simply the Towing Karen for this site. You have tried to highjack every towing related thread except the towing mirror ones it seems.

The chip shortage has the used market in your favor - maybe it’s time you walk the walk and sell that POS F-150 and buy a man’s tow vehicle.

If you were paying so much attention you'd know that I have an F-250 at my farm and that this truck replaced an F-350 - and I had no choice in downgrading to the F-150 for one boat towing situation given an HOA limitation at one of my properties. I know towing, have many trailers and a lot of towing experience.

My experiences outlined here are for the benefit of potential owners, and for owners who expect to be able to use their trucks to tow to the specifications outlined in the Ford marketing literature. I have found that my truck cannot meet that specification on its face, except when caveated through extremely fine print in an SAE specification that gives Ford an out - yes it can tow my load but not at normal speed, and only with worst-in-class MPG. None of that information was readily available prior to purchase. That is the purpose of these forums - to help other owners or prospective owners understand reality vs. marketing - which is all that I have done. I am a loyal Ford owner, have owned many, will own many more, currently own several Ford trucks, am sticking with the PB KR despite its flaws and misdirected marketing program - because, despite its compromises, it is the best current solution to the set of problems I must solve with this particular truck. Just beware. The Lightning reservation will be another adventure. That's all. peace out.

 

[UGADawg96]

Just don't be upset when your Lightning needs to be recharged every 80 miles pulling that huge boat.

 

[F-150 Prius]

Just don't be upset when your Lightning needs to be recharged every 80 miles pulling that huge boat.

True. Expect about 30-50% of rated range when towing 5000lbs with minimal windage … boats not included!
That's one reason why I'll be waiting for the 2023 Lightning with 500 miles' range … : )

 

[PungoteagueDave]

True. Expect about 30-50% of rated range when towing 5000lbs with minimal windage … boats not included!
That's one reason why I'll be waiting for the 2023 Lightning with 500 miles' range … : )

Yeah, but at 50% of rated max range, I would have the same range in a Lightning as in my current KR Powerboost. The Powerboost has the small 32 gallon tank due to battery using space, and at 5.5 mpg towing, I get 150-160 miles per tank. If the Lighting gets 400 miles unladen as rumored, or even 325, it could be at par. I'm not counting on it, but it'll be interesting.

 

[currybob]

Yeah, but at 50% of rated max range, I would have the same range in a Lightning as in my Current KR Powerboost. The Powerboost has the small 32 gallon tank due to battery using space, and at 5.5 mpg towing, I get 150-160 miles per tank. If the Lighting gets 400 miles unladen as rumoredm or even 325m if could be at par. I'm not counting on it, but it'll be interesting.

I think the under load distance may end up surprising many for the electric motors have very high torque at all speeds and no gears to go through. Read where it makes it more efficient especially when under load. It will get much less range but the percentage is not the same as in ICEs.

 

[F-150 Prius]

Yeah, but at 50% of rated max range, I would have the same range in a Lightning as in my Current KR Powerboost. The Powerboost has the small 32 gallon tank due to battery using space, and at 5.5 mpg towing, I get 150-160 miles per tank. If the Lighting gets 400 miles unladen as rumoredm or even 325m if could be at par. I'm not counting on it, but it'll be interesting.

I'm towing with a PowerBoost and the range in adverse conditions is far beyond my Telsa (which was more of a novelty to see what happens in winter towing snowmobiles short distances) but the bigger difference is the gas stations are everywhere and refilling is 5 minutes to add 30 gallons … the EV Lightning loses range due to cold or very hot air temps and takes hours (without exaggeration) to add miles assuming there's an electric charging station somewhere not too far off the intended route.
With Tesla today, while promised range is 300 miles for the Model X, once you tow, it's 120-150 miles … assuming temperate weather and no terrain … if you're driving uphill or into a headwind, range suffers quickly. Once you reach the charging station with optimal 10% remaining battery charge, and therefore nowhere near enough power to go to another charging station, you have to wait in line, then you have to wait for the battery to reach balanced optimal charging temps before slowly trickle charging.
Imagine stopping at a gas station to pump 20 gallons into the tank and the pump display shows it will take 90 minutes …

 

[spikerS]

Yeah, but at 50% of rated max range, I would have the same range in a Lightning as in my Current KR Powerboost. The Powerboost has the small 32 gallon tank due to battery using space, and at 5.5 mpg towing, I get 150-160 miles per tank. If the Lighting gets 400 miles unladen as rumoredm or even 325m if could be at par. I'm not counting on it, but it'll be interesting.

man, if you are getting 5.5mpg, either you are doing something VERY wrong, or your truck is not set up right at all for your application.

I say this because at highway speeds, you are not using the hybrid system at all. It is all the 3.5 EB doing the work. Even when I am towing a roughly 10,500 lbs cargo trailer through the mountains here in Alberta, I am not that low. Worst I have ever encountered was 7.5mpg (32L/100kms).

When I am towing my 7500lbs travel trailer, I am usually around 10-10.5MPG on the flats, and ~8.5 in the mountains.

So, I think you are trying to do to much, and expecting it to be like your F350, which it isn't. No amount of bitching and whining is going to change that. You are angry that your truck can't do the job as well as your 1 ton, but really, you shouldn't be so mad at the truck, you should be mad at the HOA.

As the old addage goes, the right tool for the job, and my friend, it doesn't sound like you have the right tool.

Sponsored