My f150 tows 11k but the most I've towed was a uhaul dual axle trailer and a golf cart so roughly 3k.  I wouldn't even try more than 8k.

I don't think volume (above a certain number) is as important as having a platform for decades with minimal investments.  Obviously Toyota has an advantage with long running optimized platforms and volume but I don't think it's so far ahead that Ford can't compete.  They just need to engineer with that goal and that's where I think ce1 proved to Farley and the execs that it can be done profitably.  Now just do it and stick with it.  

Yep, I'm in the 70-75% of rated capacity camp.   My Super Duty is rated at 21k or something like that.  If I had more than 15k behind it regularly, I would move up to a dually.  Our fifth wheel is 11k lbs. empty (probably 12k loaded) and no way would I tow that behind an F150.

At high altitudes you can use lower octane due to thinner air.  85 there is probably the same as 87 near sea level. 

I would not even run that in a lawn mower or any gas powered items. 

Exactly - just because it can tow "up to 11K lbs", if you tow that much regularly, get a SD....the whole point of "up to 11K lbs" means to me that the truck is superior at 8-9K lbs for regular towing. 

11k lbs needs a Super Duty, no matter what Ford says the tow rating is for an F150.

We had gotten as low as $2.51 87 E10,  and as low as $3.09 91 E0  up until Sunday 12/28. Monday afternoon it jumped to $2.79 87 -$3.09-3.99/gal 91. on another forum I'm on, one poster put up a photo of $1.89 85oct. in Denver. I wouldn't run that low octane in my vehicles, but it's widely available there.

F-Series is on 2 different platform, the F-150 and SuperDuty only share the F-Series name and are developed separately as two unique platforms so let's just look at it on apples to apples basis. By my estimate, the F-150 sales volume is roughly 500K a year. We can be charitable and add Expedition and Navigator which are on older version of the F-150 platform (even though the platforms have diverged, there is still lot of synergy like common drivetrain) so let's call it 600K volume a year. Compare to TNGA-F worldwide volume at around 1M a year (Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Prado, 4Runner, LX, GX etc). So on the platform economy of scale basis, I would estimate TGNA-F is equal if not more cost efficient than F-150. Yes, F-150 is important and I'm not saying it is wrong to prioritize it. What I'm pointing out is Ford only prioritize F-150.   Toyota also has TNGA-B, TNGA-C, and TNGA-K. Each of them hosting about 3 million sales last year. Compare to Ford C2 which barely registered about 750K last year. This is what I was pointing out... Ford is so small now it doesn't have the scale to compete. Ford may not have worried about small cars but by not competing, it also doomed its small and midsize CUVs which needs the sales volume to contribute to the C2 economy of scale to be cost competitive.      I agree. A lot of short term thinking... if you outsource something for quick cost cutting, it is now forever a cost item in your BOM. You lose the ability to improve the design and reap the cost saving across different vehicle programs. The supplier now reap the saving...    Same concept applies on Ford selling cars in different markets. Sure, it seems easy to just close up shop and leave India but now you don't have a low cost production base so it limits your ability to compete in the future in Europe and other APAC markets.    Ford and Hyundai entered the Indian market around the same time... Ford actually raced ahead first with Ikon and Figo but Ford is down and out while Hyundai has achieved 20% market share (including its Kia brand). How these companies approach competition is very different and Hyundai more so than Toyota has been the one eating Ford's lunch around the world.