Downsizing tow vehicle will I regret it

[sturski]

Originally Posted by ichrisdr

I'm would be curious how those with a Tacoma would feel after pulling their rig with a full size through some mountain passes? I've heard both arguments that the Tacoma works hard in the mountains and other say it is no problem. I have also heard gas mileage is pretty bad when towing.

Another vote, as it were, for the diesel Canyon/Colorado.

I live at 8600' and pulled my 2015 Escape19 for three years with a 2009 Tacoma SR5. It went to Banff twice, Yellowstone once, and had ~20k miles of towing. No real issues, gas mileage stunk, range was so-so, and you wouldn't win any drag races; but it got the job done.

I didn't want to enter retirement with a truck that had 200k on it so I replaced it in 2017. Just didn't care for the Atkinson engine on the new Tacomas. Bought a 2017 GMC Canyon All Terrain Diesel and couldn't be happier with it. Gas (diesel) mileage is 27 without the trailer and 16 with, as opposed to 19/9. Still won't win any drag races; but I can exceed the speed limit with a trailer, if I choose to do so. Every time I connect the trailer, I need to pull it over a pass, generally 12,200' in RMNP, it isn't an issue. The turbo diesel makes altitude insignificant. The integrated brake controller is wonderful and far exceeds the stand alone one that I had in the Tacoma.

Couldn't be happier with it. If you go that route, I'd suggest the Z71 offroad suspension (part of the All Terrain package on the GMC). The standard suspension seemed a bit wimpy (to me).

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

I'm curious as to the difference between these twin diesels which are 2.8 cyl compare to the 2.7 and 3.5 Ford eco boost engines? I realize the diesel has lower rpm torque but are the three similar in performance and efficiency?

No, diesels do not inherently produce more torque - at low speed or any speed - than gasoline engines. The "high torque" reputation of diesel engines is entirely the result of three factors:

1. diesel engines tend to be large
2. modern diesels are all turbocharged
3. diesels work poorly at high speeds, so they are optimized for low speeds (in the same ways that a gasoline engine can be optimized for low speed

Among supercharged (including turbocharged) engines, diesels have an advantage in that the boost improves combustion, while boost in a spark-ignition (gasoline) engine causes problems. More boost means more torque and therefore more power at a given engine speed. Direct fuel injection is used in engines such as the EcoBoost series to manage the problems of handling boost with gasoline and spark ignition, so the diesels don't have as much advantage now.

EcoBoost 2.7: 400 lb-ft @ 2750 rpm
EcoBoost 3.5: 470 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Duramax 2.8: 369 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
While the engine speeds seem high for EcoBoost peak torque, they can put out nearly that torque over a wide speed range. While the Duramax seems to have good torque at low speeds, it runs out of breath very early so it can only do work at half the rate of these EcoBoosts.

Efficiency will not be very different under ideal conditions, but engines rarely operate under ideal conditions. The diesels will have an advantage under light loads (and almost all driving is nowhere near full load) because they don't have the throttling losses of a gas engine.

The Colorado/Canyon Duramax (diesel) 2.8 has lower peak performance than even the non-turbocharged 3.6 L gas engine in the same vehicle; a 2.8L or 3.5L EcoBoost engine would run circles around it, if installed in the same truck with the same transmission, because they have more than twice the available power. That's not an option - GM doesn't even offer their 2.7L turbo gas 4-cylinder in this truck, and Ford is not offering the EcoBoost V6 engines in the Ranger, either.

[Kent]

Two other things to consider;

Compression ratio, 16.5:1 on the 4 cylinder Duramax versus 10.0:1 on V6 2.7 or 3.5 Eco-boost. Higher compression engines extracts more power using less fuel.

Number of Cylinders. It takes 6 gas cylinders to do what the Diesel 4 cylinder does.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Kent

Compression ratio, 16.5:1 on the 4 cylinder Duramax versus 10.0:1 on V6 2.7 or 3.5 Eco-boost. Higher compression engines extracts more power using less fuel.

Yes, and even direct-injected engines such as the EcoBoost series have a lower compression ratio (compared to unboosted versions) to handle those combustion/ignition issues with gasoline. On the other hand

• the effect of compression ratio at these values is not huge (ideal thermodynamic efficiency of 50% at 10.0:1 and 56% at 16.5:1), and
• compression-ignition (diesel) is inherently less efficient for the same compression ratio due to the extended period of combustion (compare the cycles in slides 29 and 30 of this presentation*).

The second effect gets worse as load incrases, so this is less important in ordinary driving than at full power.

* - This material is from a course, but not one I took, just an illustration that I found rather than drawing it for this discussion

Originally Posted by Kent

Number of Cylinders. It takes 6 gas cylinders to do what the Diesel 4 cylinder does.

In this specific example the engines have six cylinders; however, four-cylinder turbocharged gas engines have similar performance for similar displacement to these specific engines. There's just a common tendency to use more cylinders for larger displacement for smooth operation, and the current industry practice is to switch from 4 to 6 at about 2.7 litres in gas engines (which are used in cars, where smooth and quiet is important). The Ranger's EcoBoost is a 2.3 L four-cylinder while the Ranger's diesels (in other markets) are 4- and 5-cylinders; the diesel available in the F-150 is a V-6, just like the EcoBoost engines in the same model. Similarly, the engines in Ford and GM heavy-duty pickups are all V-8's, whether gas or diesel (and the gas engines don't have or need the turbochargers that the diesels do).

The transition in number cylinders can be at a larger displacement in diesels (as high as 3.0 litres in light trucks, and much larger in commercial vehicles), because trucks and commercial vehicles are marketable with rougher engines... and fewer cylinders is less expensive. The classic Cummins B-series engine (in Ram full-size trucks and a huge array of commercial vehicles) is about one litre per cylinder, and came in both four and six-cylinder versions; imagine how rough a 4-litre inline four-cylinder is without balance shafts.

But most importantly, the Duramax 2.8 is far short of the EcoBoost 2.7 or 3.5 in performance, so it's not really doing the same job with fewer cylinders. It's not surprising that Ford has never offered the F-150 with a four- or five-cylinder diesel. The Duramax 2.8 is a four while the gas Colorado engine is a six, but the diesel has a turbo while that gas engine does not... a much more important factor than the number of cylinders.

[Mike Lewis]

I remember when shopping for a small pickup back in 1990 I test drove a Nissan with a large displacement four-cylinder engine; it might have even been four liters, I don't remember. I thought at the time, "man, this would be a rough ride". I ended up with a Ford Ranger that had a 4.0 V-6, the first year for that particular drivetrain. I drove it for eighteen years.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

I remember when shopping for a small pickup back in 1990 I test drove a Nissan with a large displacement four-cylinder engine; it might have even been four liters, I don't remember. I thought at the time, "man, this would be a rough ride".]I ended up with a Ford Ranger that had a 4.0 V-6, the first year for that particular drivetrain.

Before balance shafts (which were popularized by Mitsubishi in their 2.6 litre engines), large inline fours were brutal. Assuming it was not a diesel, that Nissan pickup (a D21 "Hardbody") with a four-cylinder would have had the KA24E engine, which was only 2.4 litres.

My parents test-drove small cars in 1973 (with me in the back seat), and bought a Gremlin in part because the competitors (Pinto and Vega) had four-cylinder engines that seemed comparatively rough-running... especially the Vega. The same size of inline four-cylinders (2.0 L in the Pinto, 2.3 L in the Vega) now would have balance shafts, which make a huge difference.

[currinh]

We have a 2011 '19 which we towed for several years with a Nissan Xterra (I think the same as the Nissan Frontier underneath). It worked well. We traveled around 60mph and were slow in the mountains. Mileage was about 14mpg towing. We used a weight distribution hitch which was helpful. It was good off-road and we took it to some scary places. Great rig. I think, in taking enough stuff to go full time (in the back of the Xterra), we overload it.

Going full time we replaced the Xterra with a RAM 2500 diesel. It's pretty much overkill for the '19, but that's what we wanted. No problem taking a lot of heavy stuff. Mileage towing now around 16mpg. We now comfortably travel 65 - 70mph and can't tell the trailer is there. No, really can't tell it's there. Kept the WDH since we had it but don't think it's necessary. The Xterra was stable but the RAM is rock solid. The RAM is very capable off-road, but it is SO big it is hard to take off-road. We can easily handle rough dirt roads but now stay away from "off-roading". No problem getting to trail heads etc. The RAM is also really big for running errands and in town travel.

Your choice. One main consideration will be how much and what kind off-road travel you plan on. We have had Tacoma pickups and took them to scary places (like the Xterra).

Originally Posted by ichrisdr

.....During the summer months I travel full time with my wife and dog around Colorado, Utah, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho etc. Places with real mountains. We hike, SUP, mountain bike, explore towns, explore wilderness. With that in mind here is my list of pros and cons:

Pros:
Mid size truck much easier getting around while not trailing the camper.
Something better offroad. My current truck is decent off road but I would get something like the Tacoma TRD Pro. Something that will make me more comfortable exploring off the beaten path. .....

[Micheal K]

The (diminishing) diesel engine fuel economy advantage is also in part due to diesel fuel having about 15% more energy per unit volme than gas.

[Mike Lewis]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Before balance shafts (which were popularized by Mitsubishi in their 2.6 litre engines), large inline fours were brutal. Assuming it was not a diesel, that Nissan pickup (a D21 "Hardbody") with a four-cylinder would have had the KA24E engine, which was only 2.4 litres.

In 1980 my boss gave me a ride home from work one day. She had a small car that had an unusually smooth-running four-cylinder engine. I remember putting my hand on the dash and being unable to feel any vibrations, and she mentioned that the engine had a balance shaft. I think this feature was advertised for that car at the time. It might have been a Mitsubishi, but for some reason I think it was a Dodge that was actually a rebranded Japanese car. I don't remember what it was.

[jrb1947]

Originally Posted by Ron in BC

I'm not sure that all the new features are sweet. We're fully loaded, ready to head out at the crack of dawn tomorrow, or what usually happens, about 9:00 am

We have the hard tonneau cover. I just went to open the tailgate to add one little thing to the fully packed box. We have the electronic tailgate. Touched the button, nothing. Tried several times and still nothing. It was at this point that I realized that there isn't a manual way of unlocking the tailgate. Frantic reading of the manual etc. Then I tried using the button on the fob and it worked. Great sigh of relief and now the tailgate button is working. :confused

I can't take it a chance on it not working again because there's no access to the box cover unless the tailgate is opened. Well, there is now. Can't take a chance on having to pry open and damaging the box cover if the release doesn't work.

So it's looking to me that the electronic tailgate release is one new feature that I'd rather not have.

Ron

We have a 2016 4runner with a similar issue. If the key fob is in the car or the car is running, you cannot operate the tailgate window or the tailgate itself. Software engineer must have feared car jacking. Another software annoyance is the gps announcements do not mute the radio. I know they know how to do this via software as the radio mutes when you get a phone call. They need to hire better idiots to idiot proof their software.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

In 1980 my boss gave me a ride home from work one day. She had a small car that had an unusually smooth-running four-cylinder engine. I remember putting my hand on the dash and being unable to feel any vibrations, and she mentioned that the engine had a balance shaft. I think this feature was advertised for that car at the time. It might have been a Mitsubishi, but for some reason I think it was a Dodge that was actually a rebranded Japanese car.

That would be the good old Mitsubishi Silent Shaft balancing system. Mitsubishi built many vehicles (cars and pickup trucks) for Chrysler, sold as Dodges (Colt, Challenger, D50, Ram 50), Plymouths (Champ, Colt, Arrow, Sapporo, Laser) and Eagles (Talon). I learned to drive a manual transmission in a Dodge D50 pickup which was built by Mitsubishi, and equipped with one of those balance-shaft engines. Mitsubishi also supplied many engines to Chrysler, for cars and minivans built in North America.

Mitsubishi later licensed the balance shaft design to Porsche, who used it for the 4-cylinder they derived from their V-8, for use in the 944. Now most manufacturers have some kind of balancing system for their inline-fours.

[skyfree]

The Chevy Colorado ZR2 Duramax diesel is a good option if you want to disconnect and do some off-road stuff. With front and rear lockers stock, a 2" lift, and the magic DSSV shocks it's pretty sweet. Mine is also my daily driver and my go-to vehicle when I'm heading into a snow storm/blizzard so it fills a lot of different shoes.

I'll state the obvious -- if you are worried about interior space, go test drive one and bring your human cargo and drinks with you.

[Hilola]

Originally Posted by skyfree

I'll state the obvious -- if you are worried about interior space, go test drive one and bring your human cargo and drinks with you.

Good idea, but does it have 19 cupholders like the Subaru Ascent?

[Red]

There is no magic bullet to help you decide. This becomes a decision that you make based on how you weight those pros and cons. I can tell you that a well equipped mid size will pull a 19 without issue through the mountains and in the steepest passes and will do so much faster than 10 mph. There is no question that a 6.2L will pull stronger and faster with lower rpm and will not feel labored, its the biggest motor available in a full size. The mid size will give you better fuel economy but not by that much particularly when towing. In Canada the full size have become ridiculously expensive so for some people it does become a cost issue. The mid size is better in the city and off road but will never have the interior space of a full size. For me its like comparing a fun to drive sporty handler to a very capable luxury cruiser. You decide!

[arniesea]

Originally Posted by ichrisdr

OP here. Just catching up. SOB I just typed a lengthy post on my phone and it didn't post. I have to retype the whole thing.

I'm would be curious how those with a Tacoma would feel after pulling their rig with a full size through some mountain passes? I've heard both arguments that the Tacoma works hard in the mountains and other say it is no problem. I have also heard gas mileage is pretty bad when towing.

I have owned GM trucks for 23 years. I have a love had relationship with my 15 GMC Sierra and don't know if I'll ever buy a GM product again. I understand improving fuel economy but the transmission in my truck is horrible. I have had to have the torque converter replaced at under 40k. I have had some other issues as well. I have a friend with a similar GM truck and his 4WD broke with less than 10k miles and had to be towed off a job site by a Ford because he was stuck. True story. I also know someone who has a GM product with the same motor as mine and the motor blew up around 100k. They said it was caused by the active fuel management system that turns off 4 cylinders to save fuel. My favor GM truck was my 95 Chevy ZR2. I got so excited when they brought it back and looked at them and almost pulled the trigger but held back. I love the way my truck drives and is super comfortable during long days. BTW I just replaced the shocks at 50k and went from stock Ranchos to Bilstein and it rides so much better. So I'll probably keep it until the power train warranty is up. I just like thinking about this stuff.

I'm super frugal with my money so it's funny it was brought up in this thread. I think that is what makes the decision so tough because I don't want to make a bad or irrational decision.

I can speak to Tacomas pulling a 19' Escape. I have a 2013 19' Classic Escape which is about 1000 lbs lighter than the Second Gen Escape 19'. (Assuming that is what you have by your profile signature.) I started with a second gen 2014 Tacoma then bought a new 3rd Gen 2016 TRD Sport Tacoma March of 2016. The 3rd gen Tacoma's have a smaller engine with a optimal torque range about 700 RPM higher than the 2nd Generation. However the 3rd Gen also have a 6 speed auto transmission that also allows one to manually select any gear. I love the tranny on the 3rd gen but did not like having to pull long grades at 3500 to 4000 RPM depending on speed. (55 mph - 65 mph) Both of my Tacoma's pulled my Escape just fine over a variety of roads and against headwinds. But they did it differently. The 2014 had more low end torque but less flexibility in finding the perfect gear. With both Trucks the MPG in normal flatland towing was about 15 to 18 MPG. But most of my travels involve mountains. Pulling grades the MPG drops to 11-14 Mpg. The worst milage I ever had was 10 MPG coming across Idaho with strong headwinds for the whole day.

My Ideal truck would be the 2nd Gen engine with the 3rd gen tranny.

Note: I am moving up to the 5.0 TA so I traded in my 2016 Taco on a 2017 Tundra. I have taken my 19' out once since then and it was like the trailer was not even there. I got about the same milage in the Tundra as the Tacoma pulling the trailer because the Tundra has the power to stay in lower gears with lower RPM.

Bottom line: I miss my 2016 Tacoma for daily driving. It is so much easier to handle in traffic, parking etc. But the Tundra tows like a dream so I prefer it for that task.

[sprinkledavid@gmail.com]

Met a couple recently who full time in their 22 ft Airstream and have been doing so for 6 years. They base out of Colorado and say that the Tacoma works hard going up the steep mountain passes but they have kept it for its around town and off road abilities. They said the towing weight of their Airstream is 5100 lbs but they don't overload the shell canopy mounted on the bed. A loaded 21 Escape is a bit lighter than that...hmm.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by sprinkledavid@gmail.com

Met a couple recently who full time in their 22 ft Airstream and have been doing so for 6 years. They base out of Colorado and say that the Tacoma works hard going up the steep mountain passes but they have kept it for its around town and off road abilities. They said the towing weight of their Airstream is 5100 lbs but they don't overload the shell canopy mounted on the bed. A loaded 21 Escape is a bit lighter than that...hmm.

As a side note, they may not be overloading their Taco, but if we're talking about a 2012 or so Airstream 22 (Bambi), they are overloading the trailer. With a towing weight of 5100 lbs, they have exceeded their 4500 lb GVWR by quite a bit.

[Red]

Tacomas can tow up to 6500. When investigating the Escape 19 I spoke to 3 owners who all used Tacomas and lived and towed in the mountains. They all said that it was a good tow vehicle and that it would rev up on 8% grades. My experience is that it will hold 50 MPH at 3500 RPM on 8% grades. That is with two of use and a few hundred pounds of gear in the truck. I would not want to pull a 5100 lb airstream with a Tacoma but a 3100 lb Escape is not a problem.

[cpaharley2008]

As Escape has grown, so has their trailers, I believe the 19 is now approaching 4000 lbs wet as the 21 is now close to 4500 lbs wet.

[Red]

The following is from the Escape Industries web site.

Total length 19'-6"
Interior Body length 15'-8"
Total height 8'-6"
Exterior width 7'
Approx. Dry hitch weight 256 lbs
Approx. Dry axle weight 2,694 lbs
Approx. Total dry weight 2,950 lbs
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 5,000 lbs
Front bed / dinette 44" X 80"
Permanent Queen Bed 60" X 80"
Interior height 6'-5"
Bathroom size 40"w x 27"d x 72"h