2013 Ford F150 3.5 V6 Ecoboost and should I tow with it??

[JaycoJoe]

I'm considering the 2013 Ford F150 3.5 V6 Ecoboost with tow package to pull my 2017 Jayco 28RL Travel Trailer (6800lbs). This truck is rated to pull over 11,000lbs.
My question is do any of you pull anything over 8000lbs of weight plus gear with this truck? I'm very skeptical. Looking for opinions before passing or buying this truck. Any problems with the turbos?

Thanks for your suggestions.

[CheeseEater88]

Hey, I joined just to try and clear the air with the Ecoboost and then with DI in general.

DI and turbos have been around for decades, DI being much older of the two. DI only recently gained popularity because of computer controls to better allow for more precise fuel management. DI engine have several advantages, one being it can fire nearly time except for on the combustion stroke(but it's best only to fire at certain times). The low end torquefound in DI motors is akin to diesels when they accelerate, they produce a large amount of Particulate matter. The revision in the ecoboost is to better fine tune the injectors, gasoline injectors only have so much pressure, and the injectors only have so much duty cycle. So when you have a high output motor you sacrifice some resolution by going up to bigger injectors. So in order to better get a handle on emissions they use the port injectors to supplement the direct injectors, this allows both the DI system and the port system to be more precise and have a better range of operation.

Fords system to my knowledge is not prone to carbon build up. That's with personal experience and some research on the matter.

As to using a fuel induction service, most manufacturers' don't recommend it, it can burn up /clog your catalyst. If your car is having problems, the induction service only mitigates some of the symptoms if any.

Yes, fuel wash and swirl past the valves with detergent gasoline can help keep them cleaner than they would otherwise be, but a good DI setup will plumb itself in such a way that it doesn't matter. There are good and bad DI systems, I don't think anyone should second guess the ecoboost motor because of it.

Odds are with most modern day cars, your engine will out last your frame as long as you properly maintain it. Sure things might go wrong here and there, but quality is vastly better now a days, even compared to just 10 years ago.(I might not be able to make that statement much longer with all the trucks and things going to aluminum)

[FishOnOne]

Yak wrote:
I'm a tech at the same 15 bay Ford dealer since 88, I have yet to see a head taken off an Eco engine. We have replaced a number of timing chains tho.

My cousin started as a Ford tech in 93 and for the last few years been working in the Chrysler shop. He also mentioned the carbon topic has not been an issue with the EcoBoost.

[ib516]

ScottG wrote:
The problem isn't so much the turbo's, it's the direct injection and the resulting carbon build up at higher mileage.
Fords fix in the past has been to replace the heads.
And it's not a "Ford" thing; any gas vehicle with DI is subject to this problem. That's not a reason to not tow with it though.

Now someone is going to come on and say they have 3 million miles and never heard of this or that I'm some sort of anti Ford guy. My history of posts proves otherwise and besides, I owned lots of Ford and Chevys.
I suggest you do some internet research for yourself.

Agreed. The weight is fine for that F150.

The DI engines need more maintenance though, no matter the brand. Our fleet of EcoBoost Police cars and F150s all get a BG induction service regularly to keep the carbon built up at bay. We have had a couple turbos blow, but the EcoBoosts haven't been any more troublesome than the other makes and models we use.

[atwowheelguy]

My 2013, 3.5 EB, 3.55 axle, RWD, Supercrew 145" WB with 1607 lb. payload tows my 27.5 ft. 6740 lb. loaded, 780 lb. tongue weight, toy hauler. The 7100 lb. GVWR truck is loaded to 6920 lb., 97% of GVWR. I would not want to tow anything heavier. The engine is hardly taxed, but the rear suspension is compressed. It now has 96,000 miles on it and still runs great. I've had to replace the tires, front and rear brake pads, front brake rotors, windshield wiper switch and a turbo boost sensor. I am very pleased with it.

[Yak]

I'm a tech at the same 15 bay Ford dealer since 88, I have yet to see a head taken off an Eco engine. We have replaced a number of timing chains tho.

[ShinerBock]

Bionic Man wrote:
TnP. You haven't owned the engine in question. You can't POSSIBLY have useful information....... 😉

Now you're cooking with peanut oil!!!!

[ShinerBock]

TnP, why do you keep spreading false information? I thought you were better than that. Ford did NOT put port and direct injection on the Gen 2 Ecoboost due to carbon issues. They did it to meet emissions. more power, and fuel economy. I posted multiple links stating this so why do you continue to post false information even after knowing the truth?

Also, just because someone is gullible enough to get sold on a catch can and you post their link, does not mean there is an issue. I was a very active member on that same F150 forum for years up until 2015. There were many members who were sold on these catch cans(even the 5.0L guys with port injection) as "cheap insurance" even though they had no carbon buildup issues and many other members were going hundreds of thousands of miles without them and zero issues due to carbon.

What these guys failed to figure out is that port injected has carbon build up on the intake valves too. This is why some black smoke comes out of the tail pipe when you floor it after driving conservatively for a while. So just because they see some carbon on the valves does not mean it is not normal or is harming the engine. It is when the carbon buildup is causing power loss, compression loss, or other mechanical issues when it is a problem. If the amount of carbon on the valves is not causing any of these issues even at 150k or 200k like many have done, then you are not having carbon buildup issues.

So until you can post where the carbon buildup was causing any of these issues on a regular basis, then I would stop trying to scare people with non issues.

[Bionic_Man]

TnP. You haven't owned the engine in question. You can't POSSIBLY have useful information....... 😉

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Op, you might want to read this thread Link where someone who owned one of these engines pulled the heads off at 70K and see what they found.

He mechanically cleaned up his valves and installed a catch can. The reason for the valve carbon problems is the PCV intake line is placed in the intake tract. If you live in a warmer climate the oil gets fumie and is sucked into the intake tract where it can carbon up on the back side of the valves because they are very hot.

The catch can idea keeps the fumes out of the intake tract and keeps the valves clean. It's a pretty good solution to the problem.

Ford saw the light and fixed this problem once and for all with their port injection. 🙂

[joshuajim]

I think the head replacement is just a symptom of modern throw away culture. A $.50 resistor goes bad on a computer board and you are told that you have to buy a new board for $200. No body wants to "fix" things anymore.

The issue is carbon buildup on the back side of the valves. I believe that very few dealers can do a "carbon and valve" job anymore. Have an independent shop pull the heads and clean it up. Minor cost compared to new heads.

[mich800]

ScottG wrote:



BTW, DI isn't anything new. I have a mag form the middle 60's that talks about it but describes the down side of carbon build up and the whole concept it isn't viable because of it. They certainly didn't use EGR either.

Last time I checked automotive technology has exploded over the past decade or two. What was done or thought capable over 50 years ago hardly applies. Now if we could get that 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies are hiding we may have something. :B

[ShinerBock]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Shiner, Ford was killing two birds with one stone.

Do you have an official word from Ford on that or any other data proving that carbon buildup causes major engine issues or is it just an assumption like Scott's?

You guys keep saying it is an issue, but have yet to prove it with factual data where carbon buildup on the Ecoboost or Ecotec engines caused major power loss, compression loss, or any other major issue.

On the other hand, others and myself have posted personal experiences and factual data of owners going well past 150k miles with zero carbon issues like you are stating happens at that mileage. I also posted an article from a reputable source where Ford, GM, and an aftermarket engineer who has substantial experience with DI carbon buildup issues with many makes stating that this is not an issue on all DI engines and is mainly from DI engines with dirty EGR systems.

You guys that don't own or never have owned the engine in question should stop scaring the OP with your false claims unless you can come up with data to back it up.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Shiner, Ford was killing two birds with one stone.

[brulaz]

I pulled a bit over 8000# with my 2011 Ecoboost.

It had MaxTow but not the HD payload option. So I upgraded the tires to LT-E and stiffened the suspension. But that still left me about 300# over-weight on the rear GAWR. If the truck had the HD Payload option the rear axle would have been good, and I wouldn't have needed the tire/suspension mods.

With the mods, and a good anti-sway hitch, the truck pulled and handled that load fine. We went all over North America with it, never a problem. But the over loaded rear axe worried me, and it wasn't a 4x4, so we upgraded after 5 years.