[font size="3"]Whoofit,
Thanks for this instructive posting: [a href="http://livinlite-owners.com/post/21200/thread"]http://livinlite-owners.com/post/21200/thread[/a][a href="http://livinlite-owners.com/post/21200/thread"][span] [/span][/a] It's difficult to get the true answer with all the conflicting info out there.
I was thinking of writing something on the towing capability of small TVs with small engines, but your post really highlights the issue. Even though the Escape is rated at 3500# the cross sectional area is only rated at 30 sq. ft. This points out the real limitation of newer small SUVs. Rated towing weight is only a part of the equation. The auto companies are going to smaller and smaller engines in a desperate attempt to meet Government imposed fuel economy standards, but this results in poor performance and limited engine longevity when towing. Unfortunately this is seldom pointed out to the buying public. We are told "It's rated at 3500#, no problem." It's never revealed that towing a 3500# high cross section travel trailer is way different than towing a 3500# boat, popup, or flatbed trailer. For example, the Escort is rated at 30 sq. ft. cross sectional area with the 2.0L turbo Ecoboost engine. Any of the Camplites, regardless of length or weight, will be almost twice that value (7'x8'=56). I assume the 3500# rating will assure safe braking, but buying a small engined TV for a CL is bound to lead to disappointment and expensive engine/transmission replacement down the road.
[/font]
I agree. Never had a problem towing the 16DB with the Escape other than at highway speeds.
You are correct Charlie. I believe that the new 2 liter Eco Boost engine is simply too small to tow any of the full height Camplite's. Ford's 30 SF spec (which as you note, everyone disregards) proves it.
I firmly believe that you need at least a 3.0 liter engine to tow a CL 11 or 14, a 3.5 liter to tow a 16, and a 4.0 liter to tow a 21. And those numbers are irrespective of turbocharging. Turbocharging increases peak horsepower but does nothing for ring and bearing wear.
You can tow with less, but you are wearing out your engine faster. As an old hot rodder once said "nothing beats cubic inches". Not so true today in the turbocharged world, but still true for longevity.
Many, many years ago I had a heavy Coleman pop up with a canoe on top that I towed with a 1.6 liter VW wagon, probably 25 SF frontal area. I put 5-10,000 miles on it while towing the Coleman. After 70,000 overall miles it was burning oil and the rings were shot.
David
[font size="3"]Roger that, David. So would you please write Toyota and have them offer a V8 in the Tacoma. I've been unsuccessful so far so I went to the supercharger. Even with the SC or TC, there's no substitute for cubes. Where is the old time tested Chevy 350 CID? RIP. :'(
[/font]
Quote from: @charliem" source="/post/21211/thread" timestamp="1463437961[font size="3"]Roger that, David. So would you please write Toyota and have them offer a V8 in the Tacoma. I've been unsuccessful so far so I went to the supercharger. Even with the SC or TC, there's no substitute for cubes. Where is the old time tested Chevy 350 CID? RIP. :'(
[/font]
The Tundra is only a little bit more... plus 2016 Tacomas look weird.
[quote source="/post/21212/thread" timestamp="1463442184" author="@tinkeringtechie"][quote timestamp="1463437961" source="/post/21211/thread" author="@charliem"][font size="3"]Roger that, David. So would you please write Toyota and have them offer a V8 in the Tacoma. I've been unsuccessful so far so I went to the supercharger. Even with the SC or TC, there's no substitute for cubes. Where is the old time tested Chevy 350 CID? RIP. :'(
[/font][/quote]The Tundra is only a little bit more... plus 2016 Tacomas look weird.
[font size="3"]It wasn't the cost; it was the size of the Tundra. I originally wanted an F150, but too big for my wife and I sort of agree. I don't like to use a step stool to get stuff out of the back. On the 2016 Tacomas, you may be right. I haven't paid much attention to them yet. [/font]
[/quote]
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160517/b1cc8d81a77c385937fb336d12dce7dd.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160517/62eda6a3397b51c450ca57a9da71944c.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160517/84b429010bc76623e1fefd6cf497ab22.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160517/2e8acd93bd97fc5a4b2f37b2dc801cac.jpg)
Let me reiterate that I'm a relative newbie, so take this as simply anecdotal.
For our Flex with 3.5l boosted V6, Ford lists 40 sq ft frontal area limit (together with a 4,500 lb limit with wd hitch and 450 lb max tongue weight).
I figure the frontal area of our 21BHS is about 63 sq ft (9*7).
I also know our tongue weight exceeds Ford's limit, but we did at least have the hitch reinforced.
Again, only anecdotally, 2+ years and about 10,500 miles of towing and no issues. Yet. We do usually limit our speed to 55mph, both for safety margin and fuel consumption.
So does that mean that with my Escape and my 13QBB I am pushing it?
[quote timestamp="1463496373" author="@paul" source="/post/21241/thread"]So does that mean that with my Escape and my 13QBB I am pushing it?[/quote][font size="3"]Paul,
Assuming you have the 2L Ecoboost I think it depends on your habits. The issue is wind resistance which is proportional to the square of velocity (speed). You will be stressing the engine trying to maintain 60 mph (~100kph) and/or climbing the Canadian Rockies. But, as I believe is your case, your CL spends most of its time in your seasonal site, the added wear is minimal. Just don't push it on the way home and you'll be OK.
[/font]
Paul:
First a bit of tutorial on towing, off the top of my fuzzy head!
Frontal area is the biggest component of drag, probably 75% of the total at 60 mph. Rolling resistance is the rest. So at a level, steady state speed of 60 mph, a CL 11 might require 40 hp, a CL 13 a few hp more, a 16, a few hp more and a 21 roughly 10 hp more. It doesn't change much because the biggest component of drag, frontal area is the same for all four units.
But hp for acceleration and hill climbing are directly related to weight. The CL 21 weighs almost double that of a CL 11, so it will take double the hp to accelerate or climb at the same rate. But the climbing or the acceleration rate is the important parameter. If you want to climb a 6% grade at 60 mph, it will take a lot of hp. But if you slow down to 40 and shift to a lower gear it will take only 2/3 of the hp. It is just like getting a bigger engine if you slow down while climbing.
For my own experience while climbing, I can watch the dashboard fuel consumption data (which is fairly accurate) and see that starting at a flat fuel burn rate of 13-14 mpg at 60 mph, it drops to 8 or so while climbing a 6% grade at 40 mph. If I goosed it up to 60 mph it would drop through the basement. MPG is inversely proportional to fuel burned in gal/hr which is almost directly related to hp used and engine stress.
Hill climbing puts stress on the engine and the only way to deal with that is to slow down or get a bigger engine to reduce the stress.
I based my rule of thumb above (a 3 liter for a CL 11 or 13, a 3.5 liter for a 16 and a 4 liter for a 21) on my own experience towing a 16 with a 3.5 liter as well as some feedback from others here, and adjusting upwards or downwards for CL aize and weight.
So, back to Paul's question, you have a 2.5 liter Escape towing your CL 13, right? So yes I think you are marginal. Nothing immediately bad is going to happen however. The engine will just wear faster than a 3.0 liter and if you stay away from the mountains, or slow down but stay in a lower gear and let the revs go up while climbing them, you will be fine.
David
Quote from: @charliem" source="/post/21242/thread" timestamp="1463497419[quote timestamp="1463496373" source="/post/21241/thread" author="@paul"]So does that mean that with my Escape and my 13QBB I am pushing it?
[font size="3"]Paul,
Assuming you have the 2L Ecoboost I think it depends on your habits. The issue is wind resistance which is proportional to the square of velocity (speed). You will be stressing the engine trying to maintain 60 mph (~100kph) and/or climbing the Canadian Rockies. But, as I believe is your case, your CL spends most of its time in your seasonal site, the added wear is minimal. Just don't push it on the way home and you'll be OK.
[/font][/quote]Yes most time my trailer is at my seasonal site, but I go out about 4 or 5 times during the summer. This year my longest trip will be 900 kms (558 miles) round trip and my other trips will be less than 200-300 miles round trip. I participate to some Geocaching event around the province that's why I go out often with my trailer :-)
Quote from: @david" timestamp="1463499013" source="/post/21243/threadPaul:
First a bit of tutorial on towing, off the top of my fuzzy head!
Frontal area is the biggest component of drag, probably 75% of the total at 60 mph. Rolling resistance is the rest. So at a level, steady state speed of 60 mph, a CL 11 might require 40 hp, a CL 13 a few hp more, a 16, a few hp more and a 21 roughly 10 hp more. It doesn't change much because the biggest component of drag, frontal area is the same for all four units.
But hp for acceleration and hill climbing are directly related to weight. The CL 21 weighs almost double that of a CL 11, so it will take double the hp to accelerate or climb at the same rate. But the climbing or the acceleration rate is the important parameter. If you want to climb a 6% grade at 60 mph, it will take a lot of hp. But if you slow down to 40 and shift to a lower gear it will take only 2/3 of the hp. It is just like getting a bigger engine if you slow down while climbing.
For my own experience while climbing, I can watch the dashboard fuel consumption data (which is fairly accurate) and see that starting at a flat fuel burn rate of 13-14 mpg at 60 mph, it drops to 8 or so while climbing a 6% grade at 40 mph. If I goosed it up to 60 mph it would drop through the basement. MPG is inversely proportional to fuel burned in gal/hr which is almost directly related to hp used and engine stress.
Hill climbing puts stress on the engine and the only way to deal with that is to slow down or get a bigger engine to reduce the stress.
I based my rule of thumb above (a 3 liter for a CL 11 or 13, a 3.5 liter for a 16 and a 4 liter for a 21) on my own experience towing a 16 with a 3.5 liter as well as some feedback from others here, and adjusting upwards or downwards for CL aize and weight.
So, back to Paul's question, you have a 2.5 liter Escape towing your CL 13, right? So yes I think you are marginal. Nothing immediately bad is going to happen however. The engine will just wear faster than a 3.0 liter and if you stay away from the mountains, or slow down but stay in a lower gear and let the revs go up while climbing them, you will be fine.
David
Hi David, thank you for your post. Yes I have the 2.0 liter turbo Escape. I am a bit concern about the wear and tear I put on my Escape and also safety. I also often bring bikes on my roof which I am sure does add to the drag! I am thinking I do no more than 2500 miles a year with my trailer.
It's a shame helpful and important information like in this thread (and others) is not routinely available. I agree with Charlie the buying public is not well informed. I know Honda rates the Pilot differently for towing a boat vs towing a camper due to the frontal area (aerodynamic) differences and that car manufacturers have put a lot of design time into improving the "slipperiness" of vehicles.
As a relevant aside, I wish all RV retailers had scales for tongue weight, trailer weight and vehicle weight. It could improve safety on the road if the buying public knew those numbers and kept things within specs. Some of the rigs I see on the road now were clearly the result of an overly-enthusiastic salesperson and an ignorant buyer.
[quote source="/post/21249/thread" author="@sandroad" timestamp="1463507164"]It's a shame helpful and important information like in this thread (and others) is not routinely available. I agree with Charlie the buying public is not well informed. I know Honda rates the Pilot differently for towing a boat vs towing a camper due to the frontal area (aerodynamic) differences and that car manufacturers have put a lot of design time into improving the "slipperiness" of vehicles.
As a relevant aside, I wish all RV retailers had scales for tongue weight, trailer weight and vehicle weight. It could improve safety on the road if the buying public knew those numbers and kept things within specs. Some of the rigs I see on the road now were clearly the result of an overly-enthusiastic salesperson and an ignorant buyer.[/quote]Yes I wasn't aware of this! I am all worried now, I don't like to be over the limit. I am trying to convince my wife that we need to buy a truck now :)
Quote from: @paul" timestamp="1463580069" source="/post/21275/thread[quote source="/post/21249/thread" author="@sandroad" timestamp="1463507164"]It's a shame helpful and important information like in this thread (and others) is not routinely available. I agree with Charlie the buying public is not well informed. I know Honda rates the Pilot differently for towing a boat vs towing a camper due to the frontal area (aerodynamic) differences and that car manufacturers have put a lot of design time into improving the "slipperiness" of vehicles.
As a relevant aside, I wish all RV retailers had scales for tongue weight, trailer weight and vehicle weight. It could improve safety on the road if the buying public knew those numbers and kept things within specs. Some of the rigs I see on the road now were clearly the result of an overly-enthusiastic salesperson and an ignorant buyer.
Yes I wasn't aware of this! I am all worried now, I don't like to be over the limit. I am trying to convince my wife that we need to buy a truck now :)
[/quote]TANSTATMTV
[quote source="/post/21275/thread" author="@paul" timestamp="1463580069"]
Quote from: @sandroad" source="/post/21249/thread" timestamp="1463507164It's a shame helpful and important information like in this thread (and others) is not routinely available. I agree with Charlie the buying public is not well informed. I know Honda rates the Pilot differently for towing a boat vs towing a camper due to the frontal area (aerodynamic) differences and that car manufacturers have put a lot of design time into improving the "slipperiness" of vehicles.
As a relevant aside, I wish all RV retailers had scales for tongue weight, trailer weight and vehicle weight. It could improve safety on the road if the buying public knew those numbers and kept things within specs. Some of the rigs I see on the road now were clearly the result of an overly-enthusiastic salesperson and an ignorant buyer.
Yes I wasn't aware of this! I am all worried now, I don't like to be over the limit. I am trying to convince my wife that we need to buy a truck now :)
[/quote]If you go for a new truck, I wouldn't go any less than this for a towing a 13.
[attachment id="1398" thumbnail="1"]
[quote source="/post/21277/thread" author="@sandroad" timestamp="1463583762"]
Quote from: @paul" timestamp="1463580069" source="/post/21275/threadYes I wasn't aware of this! I am all worried now, I don't like to be over the limit. I am trying to convince my wife that we need to buy a truck now :)
If you go for a new truck, I wouldn't go any less than this for a towing a 13.
[/quote]Nice!
The wife said yes for a new truck! We are going shopping next week
[font size="3"]Paul,
You win!. Look at the mid-sized trucks like Tacoma, Colorado, Frontier. They'd be great for your 13, despite what Merlin says :) .
[/font]
Quote from: @charliem" timestamp="1463689685" source="/post/21317/thread[font size="3"]Paul,
You win!. Look at the mid-sized trucks like Tacoma, Colorado, Frontier. They'd be great for your 13, despite what Merlin says :) .
[/font]
I think we will get the Ford f150 this is what we are going to look at next week!
[quote timestamp="1463689966" source="/post/21318/thread" author="@paul"][quote timestamp="1463689685" author="@charliem" source="/post/21317/thread"][font size="3"]Paul,
You win!. Look at the mid-sized trucks like Tacoma, Colorado, Frontier. They'd be great for your 13, despite what Merlin says :) .
[/font][/quote]I think we will get the Ford f150 this is what we are going to look at next week!
[/quote]You can't go wrong with a 150..
I switched from a Tacoma to the F150 for 2 reasons: trailer growth potential (If I water my 13 maybe it will become a 16) and power, the extra horsepower really is very noticeable.
I switched from the Escape to the F150 towing the 16DB because people wince and brace for impact, cower and run away, when I approached..
One thing I'll mention. The F150 had more perceived sway than the Escape has. I attribute this to the much longer wheelbase where any sway will appear to be worse because of how it translates along the longer line. Not terrible but noticeable and nothing the Andersen did not completely eliminate.
My new ride!!
We went out for the weekend and the drive was way better than with the Escape! There was a lot of hills I am glad I had the F150! It is nice to have a 136L tank of gas to I was able to get there, do a lot of driving within the park and come back home without refiling, usually when I go there with the Escape I have to stop for gas.
(https://qxfoyq.bl3301.livefilestore.com/y3m7HxeyvAcQtDmGhIuJ9cOR0OY_sBUHbAc8WICChG_1DC_dN_VpO8WA7-oHeQNfLhuidGRZ0-OscphNyw72rO4zfv08Halo_BAWBFW6Tp6_k_JP293wHlJmRf32X1_rLfOimVbBZwnSDYrBytOZBsVF5kM_1GaO6iT5K_jm4XcnDA?width=1024&height=768&cropmode=none)
Quote from: @charliem" source="/post/21320/thread" timestamp="1463690242[quote timestamp="1463689966" source="/post/21318/thread" author="@paul"]I think we will get the Ford f150 this is what we are going to look at next week!
You can't go wrong with a 150..
[/quote]I have a 16 DBS, I was towing it with a 2013 hyundai sante fe. It is rated for 5000 lbs with a 3.3 l engine. I had no issues with power or braking. The problem was the rear springs were to soft. I was wearing the tires out on the inside edge. I was less than 500 lbs tongue weight, I had my generator in the bathroom, my Davey Crocket smoker in the shower and the bikes on the rear bumper to lighten the tongue. I also had trouble with the rear diff actuator, it failed twice. Not sure if it was related but if it was out of warranty it was 1000 bucks to replace. So for piece of mind i figured an aluminum trailer deserves and aluminum truck. I went with the f150. I bought the 2.7 eccoboost, so fuel economy is almost the same as my car was. I am getting 12.5 L/100 kms (19 MPG for our american friends) in mixed city hwy driving. (17 L/100 kms towing, 14 mpg) Very happy with my purchase.
Doug
Congratulations Paul! I feel a little bad that my comments may have pushed you to upgrade from your Escape. But if you like the truck, then all is well. You will be safer and more comfortable towing with the F150.
David
Quote from: @paul" source="/post/21448/thread" timestamp="1464047941My new ride!!
We went out for the weekend and the drive was way better than with the Escape! There was a lot of hills I am glad I had the F150! It is nice to have a 136L tank of gas to I was able to get there, do a lot of driving within the park and come back home without refiling, usually when I go there with the Escape I have to stop for gas.
Yes, the 136 litre tank was the biggest reason I went with the F150 over my Trailblazer.
It's like it was made for towing!
[quote source="/post/21460/thread" timestamp="1464095819" author="@david"]Congratulations Paul! I feel a little bad that my comments may have pushed you to upgrade from your Escape. But if you like the truck, then all is well. You will be safer and more comfortable towing with the F150.
David[/quote][font size="3"]Don't feel bad, David. If I had been able to use this forum to justify a new 150 I'd be sending you a six pack of your choosing 8-) . Better safe than sorry, but much better with a new 150! I don't hear Paul complaining.[/font]
[quote timestamp="1464095819" source="/post/21460/thread" author="@david"]Congratulations Paul! I feel a little bad that my comments may have pushed you to upgrade from your Escape. But if you like the truck, then all is well. You will be safer and more comfortable towing with the F150.
David[/quote]Actually I've been wanting a truck for a while and I didn't had a really good argument to convince my wife and this one sure worked! So I thank you for your post and I do like the truck a lot! It feel way safer when I tow and I don't regret it, it's way better than the Escape!
[quote timestamp="1464100723" source="/post/21465/thread" author="@charliem"][quote timestamp="1464095819" source="/post/21460/thread" author="@david"]Congratulations Paul! I feel a little bad that my comments may have pushed you to upgrade from your Escape. But if you like the truck, then all is well. You will be safer and more comfortable towing with the F150.
David[/quote][font size="3"]Don't feel bad, David. If I had been able to use this forum to justify a new 150 I'd be sending you a six pack of your choosing 8-) . Better safe than sorry, but much better with a new 150! I don't hear Paul complaining.[/font]
[/quote]Yes I am actually really happy and glad that this discussion was brought up :)
Damn...not feeling good about my due diligence at all. We are picking up a new 13BHB( dry weight 2300lbs.) next week 800+ miles away from home. The Audi Q5 ( 2.0t, 220hp,278 torque) is rated for pulling 4400 lbs. After reading the above posts, feeling I am asking for big problems with the engine. Groaning now....
Easwen - as folks in the other thread noted, you'll likely be fine in most circumstances. Where you may be pushing it is if you venture out into strong headwinds and you don't let them slow you down. Likewise, if you hit the hills and you floor it to keep your speed up climbing, you are bound to be pushing the limits. Set lower speed limits for yourself, particularly on hills & against headwinds, and you'll likely be fine and enjoy towing. Back roads with lower posted speed limits are often much more scenic than interstates (and on those back roads it isn't as embarrassing to be driving under the posted limits).
The Audi Q5 with a 2 liter, 220 hp engine is at least 500 lbs heavier than Paul's 2 liter Escape. He just upgraded from his Escape to an F150 pickup to pull his CL13 because of just the concerns you mention. And I am the source of those concerns!!!
I do believe that a 2 liter engine will be taxed pulling a 4,200 lb curb weight vehicle, at least 800 lbs of gas, people and gear and a 3,000 lb loaded trailer- 8,000 lbs total. That is only 500 lbs less than my Pathfinder with a 16TBS but it has a 3.5 liter engine.
As PEIslander notes above, baby it and you will probably be fine. I would keep it down to 55 mph on flat roads and less in a head wind. Go up steep grades slowly and use tow mode so the gear ratio lets the engine rev.
The current trend toward low displacement, highly turbocharged engines is good for EPA mileage but is not good for towing. It will only get worse as we move towards 54.5 mpg in 2025.
David
David,
For what it is worth, the Audi rep. I talked to Friday said that any failure of the engine, trans or other related parts would be covered by the Audi Warranty as long as the trailer weight is under the 4400 lbs. Sounds dubious , hard to prove if I have a problem , etc.
As far as the 3000lbs of loaded trailer, right now I plan on putting 5 gal. of H2 0, one tank of propane and two sleeping bags and some plastic forks (Ha) in the trailer..try to keep the weight as close as possible to the dry weight listed, 2300lbs. A trip to a public scale is in mind.
Interesting Note: At 2 dealers I bought TT from, neither would measure my tongue weight. They always had some excuse,
1) We cannot find our scale
2) It is being repaired
I took both of them home and got my weight using the balance board and bathroom scale
Having towed with my Escape I was over the frontal area limit (30ft sq) but was under the weight specification (3500 lbs) and having towed with a Ford F150 here is my experience. With the Escape it was pulling no problem but the engine was reving more, sometime it felt really uncomfortable but it did the job. It was bouncing a lot on the road when it had bump and such, it is way better with the F150. I had a hard time in hills, I had no problem getting up there but it was slow and seemed to be hard on the engine. It was also a hassle to bring camping gears in the small Ford Escape. With the F150 it is a dream to tow with and you have plenty of space for your gears! Also the F150 is wider and since the 13QBB is only 7ft wide I don't need towing mirror and with my Escape I couldn't do without. You can feel the power difference! My 2.7L ecoboost F150 is rated to tow 7500 lbs and has a 1428lbs payload. With the Escape I was always worried to go over my payload limit but with the F150 I don't really worry about it.
I don't regret my choice, I feel safer it is more convenient to go camping with a pickup truck. Also I have been wanting a truck for a while and wasn't able to convince my wife until I showed her this thread we bought the truck the same week! She is really happy now that we have a truck :) I let her pick the color!
Thank you David!
Paul, You did the right thing by upgrading your TV, congrats on the 16F150 and the Color.
Quote from: @swbc150" timestamp="1466983481" source="/post/22579/threadPaul, You did the right thing by upgrading your TV, congrats on the 16F150 and the Color.
Thank you! the wife wanted this color, wasn't hard to pick this one because I liked it too!
[p]My favorite Blue color Ford has ever offered is the Blue on your 16 F150. I had it too with my then 14 F150 but towing here in the Mountains proved a bit much with the 5.0L and the 3.55 axle ratio. With the darker Blue Jeans Blue on the Ford Superduties and not wanting that deeper Blue color, I'm now with a Ruby Red Ford Superduty for my towing needs.[/p][p]
[/p][p][attachment id="1581" thumbnail="1"][/p]
Hope everyone does not mind this post of my findings with our "new to us" TT.
We were going to buy a larger TV before buying a Ollie at the end of this year. A 2015 Ollie came up for sale used, so we decided buy the Ollie and tow it home from MO with the Frontier. The Fronty surprised us how nicely it handled the Ollie on the trip home. We decided to use the Frontier as a TV for the Ollie in the eastern US this year. Still planning to purchase a larger TV at the end of the year for towing out west next year.
Frontier modifications:
Installed Timbren rear suspension modification on the Fronty. Height with 3? lift forged ball mount to top of ball unloaded is about 21?. With Elite II connected,
height to top of ball measures 19 3/4? with about 1 1/4? of sag with the Timbrens installed. The Timbren rear suspension enhancements reduced rear end sag and bounce.
Downside of this modification while on rough roads, ride is stiff while towing. Not using sway bar or WDH.
(http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu299/vstromklr/2016/IMG_0190_zpsjyyn2m33.jpg) (http://s657.photobucket.com/user/vstromklr/media/2016/IMG_0190_zpsjyyn2m33.jpg.html)
2013 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab 4.0L
GVWR 5730 pounds
GCWR 11,135 pounds
Oliver Legacy Elite II
GVW 7,000 pounds
Equipped with 5200K Dexter Axles with shocks & BFG Light Truck 16" radials.
Weighed Tow Vehicle & Ollie ready to go camping for a weekend outing, without coffee maker (need coffee) & food weights. Fresh, grey, and black water tanks empty.
Scale results:
Tow vehicle (TV) with two occupants and camping gear scale results: 4860 pounds
Combined TV and Ollie scale results: 9800 pounds
Ollie axles weighed while connected to TV scale results: 4520 pounds
Rig weight 9800lbs – 4860lbs TV weight = 4940 pounds Ollie weight ready to camp
Ollie weight 4940lbs – 4520lbs axles weight = 420 pounds Tongue weight ready to camp
TV weight 4860lbs + 420lb tongue weight = 5280 pounds TV weight with two souls on board
Towed the Ollie on a 940 mile round trip in the NC & TN mountains without any issues. Found towing at 62 to 63MPH, overdrive off, (2200RPM) and allowing to slow to 55MPH on slight grades and speed going up to 65MPH down hill averaged 15.1 MPG. Have towed on 6% & 7% grades in 3rd gear, 2500RPM @ about 40MPH so far. Going down 8% grades try not to go over 35 to 40MPH using a combination rig & engine braking. Got 250 miles out of one tank using 15.7 gallons out of a 21.1 gallon tank. Speeds around 55 to 60MPH yielding 15.9MPG on that tank. Tested one tank at about 60 to 65MPH and it yielded 14.6MPG. Overall round trip fuel economy was 15.1MPG.
(http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu299/vstromklr/2016/IMG_0450_zps2zn2eo4z.jpg) (http://s657.photobucket.com/user/vstromklr/media/2016/IMG_0450_zps2zn2eo4z.jpg.html)
Sounds like everything is within specs and towing great. That gas mileage is fantastic. Your speed and engine rpms are the same as my Pathfinder with a 3.5 liter V6 engine (maybe the same block as yours?) and I get 2 mpg less towing a 16 TBS.
David
[quote source="/post/23116/thread" timestamp="1468773017" author="@david"]Sounds like everything is within specs and towing great. That gas mileage is fantastic. Your speed and engine rpms are the same as my Pathfinder with a 3.5 liter V6 engine (maybe the same block as yours?) and I get 2 mpg less towing a 16 TBS.
David[/quote]David,
Thanks!
We were not expecting this kind of performance while towing the Ollie with the Frontier and were greatly surprised. Don't know about differences between the Nissan 3.5L and 4.0L engine. Some of the Ollie owners are towing the Elite II in western US mountains with the F-150 with 3.5L EB engine and really like the 3.5L EB performance/economy. I'm from the school of larger displacement for durability, but Ford has me rethinking that school of thought with their EB engines.
"I'm from the school of larger displacement for durability, but Ford has me rethinking that school of thought with their EB engines."
While small displacement engines with turbos make perfect sense for normal passenger cars, I don't think they make sense for towing. A passenger car that gets 30 mpg on the highway is only producing 25 hp. That is a very small fraction of the available hp which might be 200 plus. So the turbo makes sense. The engine get stressed lightly at normal highway speeds, but you have plenty of oomph when you want to merge, pass or impress your girlfriend with a burst of wot for a few seconds.
But that 30 mpg drops to 15, 13 or maybe even 10 while towing something big and heavy. At 10 mpg that engine has to produce 75 hp- continuously. At that power I would like 4-5 liters of engine to take the forces over a larger bearing and piston area than the 3.5 or even 2.5 liter Eco Boost engines.
Towing with a small displacement turbo charged engine is fine for small trailers, on flatland at speeds of 60 mph or less. Any more and I want cubic inches.
David
David,
Appreciate the information.
Looks like the F-150 3.5L EB produces more HP/Torque at lower RPMs compared to the F-150 5.0L engine.
Honestly don't know yet, how the 3.5L EB stacks up against the 5.0L durability under the same conditions. The 5.0L and 3.5L EB F-150 are both on
my radar at this time. We were also surprised by the 261HP normally aspirated 4.0L Frontier Performance with our "new to us" TT.
It's fun to research, will see!
Here's some 2016 Ford gas power plant numbers not including the more powerful/higher torque 2017 3.5L EB.
2.7L EB 325HP @ 5750RPM 375 lb ft @ 3000RPM
3.5L EB 365HP @ 5000RPM 420 lb ft @ 2500RPM
5.0L Coyote 360HP @ 5500RPM 380 lb ft @ 4250 RPM
Ford information source: http://www.f150hub.com/tech.html
[quote timestamp="1468784839" author="@exploringcarolina" source="/post/23126/thread"]David,
Appreciate the information.
Looks like the F-150 3.5L EB produces more HP/Torque at lower RPMs compared to the F-150 5.0L engine.
Honestly don't know yet, how the 3.5L EB stacks up against the 5.0L durability under the same conditions. The 5.0L and 3.5L EB F-150 are both on
my radar at this time. We were also surprised by the 261HP normally aspirated 4.0L Frontier Performance with our "new to us" TT.
It's fun to research, will see!
Here's some 2016 Ford gas power plant numbers not including the more powerful/higher torque 2017 3.5L EB.
2.7L EB 325HP @ 5750RPM 375 lb ft @ 3000RPM
3.5L EB 365HP @ 5000RPM 420 lb ft @ 2500RPM
5.0L Coyote 360HP @ 5500RPM 380 lb ft @ 4250 RPM
Ford information source: http://www.f150hub.com/tech.html[/quote]I have the 2.7L EB engine and I can tell you that I am very impressed by is towing capabilities vs my Escape! My particular combo (engine/options) can tow 7500 lbs and has a payload of 1440lbs. The economy of gas while not towing is really impressive! While towing not so good but better than while towing with my Escape. On the highway I was able to get 25 MPG and towing about 13-14 MPG. Also with the 36 Gallon gas tank I don't have to stop often for gas. I was able to do a 7 hour drive with my trailer and when I was home I still had some gas left, with my Escape I would have stop at least twice during the trip.
[quote source="/post/23158/thread" timestamp="1468847020" author="@paul"][quote source="/post/23126/thread" timestamp="1468784839" author="@exploringcarolina"][/quote]I have the 2.7L EB engine and I can tell you that I am very impressed by is towing capabilities vs my Escape! My particular combo (engine/options) can tow 7500 lbs and has a payload of 1440lbs. The economy of gas while not towing is really impressive! While towing not so good but better than while towing with my Escape. On the highway I was able to get 25 MPG and towing about 13-14 MPG. Also with the 36 Gallon gas tank I don't have to stop often for gas. I was able to do a 7 hour drive with my trailer and when I was home I still had some gas left, with my Escape I would have stop at least twice during the trip.
[/quote]Paul,
Appreciate the Ford 2.7 EB information.
25MPG is fine economy for a F-150 Pickup while not towing. 13 to 14 MPG is not bad while towing and the large fuel tank is nice to have, too! We have two pickup trucks. Our other PU is a Tacoma. Looking seriously at the 2017 F-150 for the next TV!
Thanks,
[p]This post is a take off on another thread about towing a CL21 with a medium size SUV like the Highlander and is for the technonerds. It is both somewhat theoretical and somewhat empirical. It is based on a 5,000 lb TV like a medium SUV towing a 4,500 lb trailer like a CL21.[/p][p]
[/p][p]At a flat land steady state of 60 mph, such a rig should get about 12 mpg. Since a gasoline engine typically makes 12 hp for every 1 gph of gasoline it burns, that TV is producing 60 horsepower. 60 hp is ok for a 4 liter engine at 15 hp per liter, but a bit high for a 3 liter engine at 20 hp per liter. The more hp per liter you require long term, the shorter the engine life will be.[/p][p]
[/p][p]So now lets go up a hill. The first example will be a 4% grade, sort of a medium slope. It takes 60 hp to pull the rig up that slope in addition to the flat land hp. So it takes a total of 120 hp. That will drop your instantaneous mileage to about 6 mpg.[/p][p]
[/p][p]Now lets try an 8 pct grade, about the steepest I have seen in the eastern US. If you try to maintain 60 mph up that grade it will take a total of 180 hp to do that and your instantaneous mileage will drop to 4 mpg.[/p][p]
[/p][p]If you had a manual transmission and kept it in high (5th or 6th) gear, you couldn't do it. Assuming you were doing 2,000 rpm on flat land, most 4 liter engines can't produce 180 horsepower at 2,000. If you downshifted a few gears and were at 3,000 rpm you might be able to do it but your engine would probably be maxed out because the hp curve is probably near 180 hp at 3,000 rpm. You really would need to down shift more and let the engine rev to 4,000 to have any hope of doing this for more than a minute.[/p][p]
[/p][p]There is one grade in southern Vermont that we go up that ranges from 6-8% for five miles or so. If I ran that at 60 mph and 3,000 rpm I guarantee that my engine would be overheating after a few minutes. And if I did that routinely my engine wouldn't last very long.[/p][p]
[/p][p]So slow down and downshift on long, steep grades- duh, right!! If you take the 8% grade at 40 mph and 3,500 rpm which is what I do, the engine has to produce only 100-120 hp due to spreading the climb over more minutes and the square root effect on wind load by slowing down. While 100-120 hp is a lot, a 4 liter engine can probably produce 200 or more hp at that rpm so the cooling system won't be badly taxed at that rate.[/p][p]
[/p][p]I see a lot of posts on this forum about going up hills and mountains with no slowing down. It seems to be the holy grail of having enough engine. That is fine if you have a 5 liter V8 or bigger. But if you have less, slow down and downshift to let the engine rev up to where it is up high on its hp curve. The engine will like you for doing it.[/p][p]
[/p][p]David[/p]