Some 2020/21 Tow Vehicles

[Mark B1]

Originally Posted by JeffreyG

Well, the XLT starts at $37,000 MSRP, while the ST starts at $55,000 MSRP. By the time I add AWD and trailer tow to the XLT to make them closer in capability, the XLT is still only $38,500 MSRP.

What I always do with car shopping is start by listing my must have options (or capabilties). Once I get there, I check each additional trim line and ask myself "would I pay X for Y?" For me personally, the price step to the ST is too high compared to what it brings. Other people may have a different view.
I don't eschew the bigger Ford Ecoboost engines. At $995 I'd definitely add the 2.7 EB to the F150 XLT over the 2.3 base engine.

I agree that you need to spend what makes sense to you, that applies to all things. The base price for the ST on Fords Canadian web site is $57,599CDN or about $43,107US, plus shipping and taxes. It is surprising that they are so much different. I do know that many new vehicles have different standard packages in different countries but it should not be that different.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by Mark B1

I agree that you need to spend what makes sense to you, that applies to all things. The base price for the ST on Fords Canadian web site is $57,599CDN or about $43,107US, plus shipping and taxes. It is surprising that they are so much different. I do know that many new vehicles have different standard packages in different countries but it should not be that different.

Well, if I could cross the border maybe I'd start importing Explorer STs.

Very strange difference in pricing vs. trim between the two countries. The ST is not as attractive here.

[Mark B1]

Originally Posted by JeffreyG

Well, if I could cross the border maybe I'd start importing Explorer STs.

Very strange difference in pricing vs. trim between the two countries.

Yea, usually Canadian vehicle prices are higher. I do know people who have crossed the border to purchase a new one in the US, but not recently though. Here is the link to Ford's Canadian site if you are interested:
https://shop.ford.ca/build/explorer/...5D?gnav=vhpnav
I used an exchange rate of 1 CDN$ = .75 US$

[Mark B1]

Here is the image from Fords site (Canadian Dollars)

[Rossue]

[QUOTE=JeffreyG;359920]Well, the XLT starts at $37,000 MSRP, while the ST starts at $55,000 MSRP. For me personally, the price step to the ST is too high compared to what it brings. Other people may have a different view.
I don't eschew the bigger Ford Ecoboost engines. At $995 I'd definitely add the 2.7 EB to the F150 XLT over the 2.3 base engine.[/QUOTE

I agree the ST is priced high, and when I test drove it they quoted me $5K Over MSRP as it was brand new a year ago, which is why I bought a end of year Expedition. The Explorer ST is 3.0 EcoBoost, XLT trim is 2.3 four cylinder. Not sure I would want to tow 4300 #'s with that.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by Rossue

The Explorer ST is 3.0 EcoBoost, XLT trim is 2.3 four cylinder. Not sure I would want to tow 4300 #'s with that.

Well, I've towed around 4500 pounds (with sea kayaks on the roof) with the Daimler 2.0 turbo gas engine. Subjectively it works well, and objectively as an engineer that designs engines, it is a good approach. The vehicle has a >12,000 GCVWR. I know for a lot of people used to older engines, the small displacements seems disconcerting.

I actually would prefer something like the Ford 2.3 Ecoboost to most of these other 3 to 3.5 liter naturally aspirated engines. Ignoring the rest of the features of all these vehicles, I'd rank the desirability of the engines as Ford 2.7EB > GM 2.8 diesel > Ford 2.3 EB......and then the rest with the really outdated Toyota engines probably on the bottom.

The turbocharged engines are preferable for higher altitude as well as they will continue to generate near their rated power and torque at low pressure. Or they should unless they run into turbine speed limitations in the design.

[EdColorado]

Did you leave the MB vans/ Metris out of your analysis for a reason?
As an employee, I thought you might get a good price.

I’ve seen people towing with a van and it always struck me as an interesting choice.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by EdColorado

Did you leave the MB vans/ Metris out of your analysis for a reason?
As an employee, I thought you might get a good price.

I’ve seen people towing with a van and it always struck me as an interesting choice.

My driveway averages a 20% grade from the road to my garage while climbing 40 feet. I only own AWD or 4x4 vehicles. It's a condition unique to me, but one more thing limiting my choices.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Rossue

The Explorer ST is 3.0 EcoBoost, XLT trim is 2.3 four cylinder. Not sure I would want to tow 4300 #'s with that.

That's a 2.3 L EcoBoost - essentially 77% of the 3.0. It also has a 270 horsepower output, and is the only engine choice in the Ranger, which is rated to tow up to 7500 pounds.

[sherminator]

Here are some recent real world numbers. Last week, I weighed our F150 4x4 SuperCrew, with a load of a 90# kayak, firewood, extra 20# propane tank, heavy duty canopy, 4 directors chairs, camp table, crab pot, fishing gear, a tool box, and 220# driver. It weighed out at 5900# with the WDH (including bars) and no trailer. With the 21NE hooked up using the WDH, it weighed out at 6300# - 200# under the 6500# GVWR, and without my wife and two granddaughters, who would exceed that 200#. (The granddaughters didn't go on this trip, and if they did, the kayak would not have, so I was very close to, but under my GVWR with my wife in the truck, and would be slightly over without the kayak and with the granddaughters.)

[Rossue]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

That's a 2.3 L EcoBoost - essentially the 77% of the 3.0. It also has a 270 horsepower output, and is the only engine choice in the Ranger, which is rated to tow up to 7500 pounds.

Right; I was looking for the Explorer to be a change from our Yukon. Would an XLT with 2.3 EcoBoost do the job? In retrospect, yes- of course, and agree with OP that it would be better than a current Toyota equivalent. For the OP, however-given the particular needs, I would again suggest the Expedition over Explorer for passenger space and cargo room, not to mention clearance and overall comfort.

[Akfishman]

Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for putting that list together, very interesting. You should note the Colorado you have listed is a diesel and quite a bit more expensive than the gas model. I just bought a new ranger to tow the 21 I have on order, based on your research I think it should work fine.

[EdColorado]

Originally Posted by Rossue

, I would again suggest the Expedition ... for passenger space and cargo room, not to mention clearance and overall comfort.

We’re looking at the Expedition as well. With the max tow package it’s rated to tow 9,200# with a GCWR of 15,500#.
I don’t want to buy any tow vehicle that will limit me to a 5,000-6,000# trailer. Rather keep my options open for the future.

Ed.
Waiting for the 23’ lottery.

[Rossue]

Yes- get the HD Tow Package. Much more than just increased tow capacity. Integrated brake controller, 3.73 electronic limited-slip differential, beefier rear springs. People looking for used Expeditions see the HD Tow as a unicorn and are hard to find.

https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/content...tion_Oct15.pdf

[emers382]

Originally Posted by JeffreyG

The F150 is what I probably want. Better take the tape measure back into the garage and figure this out.


Best bet is to probably take my wife to a dealer and have her drive one. Then she'll be on my side trying to make it work, instead of telling me "It's too big, pick a smaller truck."

Jeffrey check the door sticker for the payload when you're looking at the F150. I didn't when we bought our 2015 Supercab XLT 2.7EB 36 gal tank. Payload is only 1484! So I really have to watch it as I have a heavy fifth wheel hitch, bed liner and aluminum rollup tonneau cover.

[Mike G]

Regarding engines, isn’t “outdated” another word for “proven?” I don’t mind having an engine that’s been around long enough to have shown its reliability and durability. As for fuel economy, going from 19 mpg average to 22 mpg only saves about $1800 in 100,000 miles (assuming $2.50/gallon gas); I would expect that $1800 to be eaten up by excess repairs on some brands versus the Toyota in that 100k mile usage.

I used to think Dodges were good, until I bought a Ford. Then I thought Fords were great... until I bought a Toyota!

[yangstyle]

Originally Posted by emers382

Jeffrey check the door sticker for the payload when you're looking at the F150. I didn't when we bought our 2015 Supercab XLT 2.7EB 36 gal tank. Payload is only 1484! So I really have to watch it as I have a heavy fifth wheel hitch, bed liner and aluminum rollup tonneau cover.

It is certainly a good idea to check the door stickers as the payload can vary a lot.
Our 2018 Supercrew Lariat with 5.0L and 36 gal tank has a Payload of 1712.
Sadly it does not fit in our garage so has to sit outside. We really like the F150 though, it is so comfortable we can drive all day in it and not get too fatigued. It is also nice not to have to worry about how much weight we are towing.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by Mike G

Regarding engines, isn’t “outdated” another word for “proven?”

I know what you mean, but I can't agree as I design engines for a living and I see what progress means. I'll take a current engine over anything from the past because I know what kind of stuff has improved.

I don’t mind having an engine that’s been around long enough to have shown its reliability and durability.

Not so much engine, but in vehicles the joke is you always want the second or third production year of any model. They've figured out the glaring problems, but the cost reduction team hasn't fully gotten to it yet.

As for fuel economy, going from 19 mpg average to 22 mpg only saves about $1800 in 100,000 miles (assuming $2.50/gallon gas); I would expect that $1800 to be eaten up by excess repairs on some brands versus the Toyota in that 100k mile usage.

Cost is one thing, range is another. Most of these tow vehicles have 18-22 gallon tanks. That's perfectly adequate in normal driving but can be way skimpy towing. My GLE can deliver as little as 10 mpg pulling a wide, stick built camper while carrying two sea kayaks. That's 180 miles to the fuel light coming on.

I've had some big range concerns in northern Ontario.

[yangstyle]

Originally Posted by JeffreyG

Cost is one thing, range is another. Most of these tow vehicles have 18-22 gallon tanks. That's perfectly adequate in normal driving but can be way skimpy towing. My GLE can deliver as little as 10 mpg pulling a wide, stick built camper while carrying two sea kayaks. That's 180 miles to the fuel light coming on.

I've had some big range concerns in northern Ontario.

We did a trip to Ottawa from Edmonton and back in September. We made it from Thunder Bay to Sault St. Marie on 1 tank of gas which was around 685Km (425 Mi). I did it on the way back also, it was a little risky as both ways had around 30 Km of fuel left. That is towing a 21 with at least 1/2 tank of fresh water and the road is hilly and lots of curves although the speed limit is 90Km.
It is nice to have the option of where to stop for fuel.

I did notice that once we went over100 to 105 Km/h our fuel range went down a bit which might be because of the 5.0 L and the 3.73 differential. Actually last year we did 2 trips to the Rocky's in BC and our mileage towing in the mountains (speed limit of 90 Km/h) was the same as on the highway when we were travelling 105 Km/h or a little more. Speed limit was 110 Km/h.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by yangstyle

We did a trip to Ottawa from Edmonton and back in September. We made it from Thunder Bay to Sault St. Marie on 1 tank of gas which was around 685Km (425 Mi). I did it on the way back also, it was a little risky as both ways had around 30 Km of fuel left. That is towing a 21 with at least 1/2 tank of fresh water and the road is hilly and lots of curves although the speed limit is 90Km.
It is nice to have the option of where to stop for fuel.

Same area, we fueled at the last stop north of Sault St. Marie and camped in the trailer at Rabbit Blanket. Our plan involved dropping off one car at Gargantua Harbor, then shuttling back up to Old Woman Bay and then paddling down the coast of Lake Superior one way.

With short legs, the choice was either bring jerry cans of fuel, or make the 40 mile RT detour up to Wawa to refuel as part of the shuttle drive.

We could have just done a round trip paddle, but actually getting around Cap Chaillon once turned out to be exciting enough given the weather.

Anyway.....I'll take a 36 gallon tank, or diesel towing efficiency, or both. Limited range is, well, limiting.