Towing an Escape 21: 4Runner or Tacoma? - Page 10 - Escape Trailer Owners Community

Go Back   Escape Trailer Owners Community > Escape Tech > Towing and Hitching
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-07-2014, 01:48 PM   #91
Member
 
floorpanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Trailer: 21' Escape
Posts: 84
I think I said that wrong, I would not trade a fiberglass trailer for either one.
__________________

floorpanel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2014, 09:46 PM   #92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Los Osos, California
Trailer: 2014 21 2013 Yukon
Posts: 2,418
Hi Jerry....are you sure? Maybe you should let me scratch my 2'-itis twice and lemme take your 21(-;
__________________

Rossue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2014, 11:54 PM   #93
Senior Member
 
TAfraser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Auburn, Washington
Trailer: 2013 Escape 21 #3
Posts: 378
You guys make me laugh, TANKS.

By the way, that guy with the 32fter; probably does have a leak because when he's on the flats, and his wife is asleep, he'll travel at 90mph. I think he has way too much "T".
TAfraser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 03:01 AM   #94
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
A late reply, sorry Brian! I was out of the forum for a while.....
In the Tacoma I tried to have the rpm in the range of maximum torque band on the 4l V6, that is between 3000 and 4500 rpm. Once below 3000 rpm the torque rapidly drops of for the most part.
In the Jeep GC with MB diesel 3 l V6 with the MB auto tranny the rpms were much lower, as I recall between 2000 and 3000 rpm. The max torque is available at a low 1800 rpm. I would have set cruise at 95 or 100 kph, the auto transmission did an excellent job of just in time downshifting and staying in the ideal torque band, but even going up the steepest section of the Coquahalla it would shift down at the most 2 gears. The same trip without trailer it would drop just one gear.
In my experience the 2006 Jeep Liberty with a 4 cylinder 2.8L diesel was a great tow vhicle with the 17 ft Escape - albeit less capable, but more noisy and less comfy than the Grand Cherokee.
Gr8Escape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 01:31 PM   #95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 9,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gr8Escape View Post
I have been towing a 19' with a 2012 Tacoma with 6 speed manual transmissionfor the last 2 years. I find that the combination is very stable, but I find power and torque to be disappointing. It is fine on the flat lands but for hills and inclines I find it is not able to maintain speed with the traffic flow, in fact I find that myself having to tuck in behind the 18 wheelers for anything over 5% climbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
What engine speed do you use in the Tacoma to climb hills, when you need as much power as you can get to keep up? What engine speed did the Grand Cherokee run (I'm guessing it's an automatic left in Drive)? I'm curious about whether or not the potential of these engines is used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gr8Escape View Post
A late reply, sorry Brian! I was out of the forum for a while.....
In the Tacoma I tried to have the rpm in the range of maximum torque band on the 4l V6, that is between 3000 and 4500 rpm. Once below 3000 rpm the torque rapidly drops of for the most part.
In the Jeep GC with MB diesel 3 l V6 with the MB auto tranny the rpms were much lower, as I recall between 2000 and 3000 rpm. The max torque is available at a low 1800 rpm.
Thanks for the reply

I don't have the full power/torque curves of the Tacoma engine available, but we do know that at full throttle and 4000 rpm it is putting out (at sea level) 202 hp. 4500 will be something under 227 hp. At only 3000 rpm, it will be producing significantly less torque, at lower speed, for something much less than 150 hp. This is a reasonable speed range in which to run the engine continuously, and it's probably quite efficient in that range, but at the lower end it is putting out less than half its peak power. If you're willing to keep it at the top of that range - or higher - there is a lot more power available.

This is certainly not a case of "screaming a engine at high rpm to get that last bit of power", since it is running at one-half to two-thirds of peak power output, at speeds well below that required to produce peak power, let alone the engine's operating limit.

The broader torque curve of the Grand Cherokee's engine is due to the turbocharger. Even it must rev faster to get more power, but in general it is using more torque at lower speeds to get the same required power.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 01:39 AM   #96
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
I found a description somewhere on the web : ............Here's a better representation of Toyota's 4.0L torque curve : Below 3000 rpm, there's not much there. From 3000 to 5500 rpm, it's stout......[end quote]
Unfortunately I did not manage to copy the graph, however it confirmed what I stated previously: the torque curve plunges almost straight down below 3000. From 3000 to 5500 it produces from 200 to 275 ft lbs.
As is the case with most gasoline naturally aspirated engines the increase in horsepower is pretty much close to linear with the increase in rpm. By the same token turbocharged and supercharged engines provide much more torque at lower rpm. This holds true for both gasoline as well as diesel engines.
Due to the higher rpm required for the Toyota 4l V6 to produce sufficient torque AND horsepower, it will burn significantly more fuel and I would imagine it would wear faster than the diesel running at a more leisurely rpm range.
Gr8Escape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 10:01 AM   #97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 9,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gr8Escape View Post
I found a description somewhere on the web : ............Here's a better representation of Toyota's 4.0L torque curve : Below 3000 rpm, there's not much there. From 3000 to 5500 rpm, it's stout......[end quote]
Unfortunately I did not manage to copy the graph, however it confirmed what I stated previously: the torque curve plunges almost straight down below 3000. From 3000 to 5500 it produces from 200 to 275 ft lbs.
Good info. I can refine my earlier comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
At only 3000 rpm, it will be producing significantly less torque, at lower speed, for something much less than 150 hp.
200 lb-ft at 3000 rpm is only 114 horsepower.
This part remains even more valid:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
If you're willing to keep it at the top of that range <of 3000 to 4500 rpm> - or higher - there is a lot more power available.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 12:21 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
Mike Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa County, Florida
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 1,373
Regarding RAV4 vs. Tacoma's towing capacity: could a longer wheelbase play a part in the Tacoma's higher rating (assuming the Tacoma is longer than a RAV4)? I know that the Wrangler-type Jeeps are usually rated with a low towing capacity even though sometimes they have the same engines as larger Jeep models. I've always assumed that was because their short wheelbase made them less stable when towing.

If this has already been mentioned, well, I just skimmed this thread; sorry.

Mike L.
Mike Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 01:28 PM   #99
Senior Member
 
Mike Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa County, Florida
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 1,373
I meant 4Runner, not RAV4. Dang.
Mike Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:48 PM   #100
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 9,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lewis View Post
... could a longer wheelbase play a part in the Tacoma's higher rating (assuming the Tacoma is longer than a [4Runner])? I know that the Wrangler-type Jeeps are usually rated with a low towing capacity even though sometimes they have the same engines as larger Jeep models. I've always assumed that was because their short wheelbase made them less stable when towing.
The wheelbase is a factor in stability and occasionally drives a difference in ratings - the Wranglers are an excellent (and rare) example. I don't think any pickup truck is short enough for this to be a factor (they are usually just drivetrain, rear suspension, and frame limited). The shortest Tacoma is shorter in wheelbase than the longest Wrangler (which is not a short vehicle at all), although most are somewhat longer; any Tacoma has a longer wheelbase than the shorter Wrangler (a couple feet longer in most cases). The shortest (2WD regular cab) current Tacoma has the same wheelbase as a 4Runner, but most are significantly longer.

Although limiting tow rating due to wheelbase is rare, my guess is that we might see more of it as the SAE J2807 rating standard is used, since it includes a stability testing component. Just a guess...
__________________

Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off






» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.