tow vehicle question

MUST...RESIST..THE...URGE...TO....JUMP...INTO...THIS...

OK, I can't resist. Here are my thoughts on tow vehicles, in general:

previous post

The best advise I can offer is - do not approach the towing situation with the mindset "What is the smallest tool that I can use to get the job done?"

Personally, I like my camping/travelling to be enjoyable. I find it hard to enjoy the experience when my motor is screaming and I am "in everyone's way" out there. Good luck in your decision. I don't think it possible to go too big/powerful. However, it is possible to go too small.

Now this would be a cool Pod puller...if you can "do" a truck:

Silverado Special Ops

I'd get one...'cept I don't have that kind of money.
Sadly, I've never had that kind of money.

I agree to a point. If one is towing a 5th wheel, one needs a truck. If one is towing a large, heavy trailer, one needs a large, heavy vehicle with loads of horsepower and torque. If, however, one is towing a light trailer such as an R-Pod, Casita, T@B, etc. then one does not need to spend $60,000 on a tow vehicle. On our trip out west towing our RP-179 with our Escape, we were not the slowest thing on the road. We had adequate power with the 2L Ecoboost engine for the climbs we experienced along I40 from NC to Kingman, AZ which is where we picked up US 93 N. Admittedly, this is not like the northern Rockies, but with the turbocharged engine, I would not anticipate the power loss that a naturally aspirated engine would experience.

Would I recommend that someone purchase an Escape for towing an R-Pod? No. If I had it to do over again, I would probably have gone with an Explorer or Expedition with the V6 Ecoboost engine. However, when I purchased the Escape, it was with the intention to get a Casita. That turned out to be a scam in which I lost a considerable sum. That is how I ended up with the R-Pod. I needed something that I could tow with the Escape. The R-Pod works for me.

Towing at 70 mph with any vehicle will require much more power than towing at 60 mph. It will also require much more fuel to do so. On our trip out west, trying to hit 65 to 70 mph uphill with the stiff headwind we encountered just was not happening. Cutting back to 60 mph helped. Getting the AeroPlus to improve the aerodynamics and limiting top speed to 60 mph should make our future trips even more enjoyable. We should save a significant amount of money for fuel as well.

A technical discussion of this topic is here:
http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/27849660.cfm

It will likely not provide all the answers since there are so many variables, but it does illustrate the correlation between drag and mpg.

Originally posted by StephenH However, the same article ...."In the end, all the evidence points to torque as being more important than horsepower when it comes to towing. Why? The power at low-end rpm provided by high levels of torque lets you move huge loads without much effort. As stated before, some diesel trucks produce twice as much torque as they do horsepower at near-idle RPM levels -- meaning that they can start pulling something like a trailer or a boat with ease. Horsepower is important because it allows a car to move faster on the highway and at high rpm. However, if you can't get that trailer off the line, all the horsepower in the world won't help you." T

I reread the article, but disagree with the conclusion as applied to our RV situation. Low end torque may be preferable if you do a lot of start/stop pulling of heavy loads such as a delivery truck, but that’s not our life. For highway speed performance you need horsepower. From my experience our engine related challenges are maintaining highway speeds while pushing headwinds or climbing inclines and passing at highway speeds. These all require horsepower at higher engine speeds. I never have trouble accelerating from a stoplight or getting on a freeway if I plan ahead. At low speeds I can always downshift for acceleration or stay in a lower gear longer, but I can’t do that at high speeds without over revving the engine.

Quoting from the referenced article:

“As we discussed earlier, horsepower is what you depend on at higher rpm. It's what allows you to pass another car on the highway. When you're cruising along in your Honda S2000 and there's another car ahead of you that refuses to move, you can downshift, accelerate and speed past it. That's your horsepower working for you. As you accelerate, rpm levels rise, and that high-end power comes into play as you pass. It's the same when you're towing. When you're driving your truck while pulling another vehicle behind you, you sometimes need to pass the slower drivers in front of you. When you accelerate and pull past the other car, you're putting your horsepower to work. In other words, if your engine doesn't have a ton of horsepower, don't expect to have an easy time of accelerating and passing when you're towing something behind you.”

Given adequate available horsepower, low end torque is nice, but not the predominate consideration.

The super/turbo chargers improve  performance because they just shove more air into the engine. This is most noticeable at low engine speeds because a naturally aspirated engine just can’t suck enough air. I bought the SC specifically for high altitude performance since a V8 was not available. I didn’t need stoplight acceleration, but it’s there if I want it. I’m very impressed with Ford’s TC performance and note they seem to be betting their future on it.

Originally posted by Retroactive From an impartial engineering point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with pulling a load on the high side of the spec.  The question is: how quickly do want to cook your drivetrain? Smaller Motor = Higher Revs = More Heat = Shortened Lifespan

Absolutely! Thanks to the Federal fleet mileage mandates. Now we have engine HP rated at 7000+ RPM