Towing a 21 with the Tundra 4.6L V-8

[Santiago]

Yes that is an important consideration. As many have said before, today's truck V6s have more HP and torque that many V8s some years ago.

I have accelerated on on ramps towing and not experienced any unpleasantness. On the mountain passes, I stay with the same 62 mph as I do on flats while towing.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

It feels good to have enough power to easily merge with traffic from the on-ramp.

Yes, but even the slowest rig used to tow an Escape is a race car compared to big commercial trucks (hauling up to 40 tons with 500 hp or less), which manage to work in traffic. Most people don't use the performance they have anyway, as I see every time I drive (without a trailer) and find myself held up in acceleration lanes by vehicles (such as V6 RAV4s ) which I know have much more power and are capable of substantially greater acceleration than my compact economy car.

[gbaglo]

Then there are the ones who decide they can't make it and slam on the brakes at the end of the acceleration ramp.
We hear the sirens almost every day at Capilano Road and Upper Levels. Engineer who designed this ramp should be shot.

[Santiago]

By the way Brian, when visiting England on a ten day holiday a couple of weeks ago, we did NOT see any classic British sports cars. Very disappointing.

It might interest you to know that the whole country uses driver less cars, we often left London taking buses and trains visiting smaller towns. Every one of these cars had a passenger in the front seat being driven by no one behind the wheel !!!!

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Yes, but even the slowest rig used to tow an Escape is a race car compared to big commercial trucks (hauling up to 40 tons with 500 hp or less), which manage to work in traffic. Most people don't use the performance they have anyway, as I see every time I drive (without a trailer) and find myself held up in acceleration lanes by vehicles (such as V6 RAV4s ) which I know have much more power and are capable of substantially greater acceleration than my compact economy car.

I have also had issues on numerous occasions with RAV 4 's & Prius's when trying to enter onto freeways & Interstates ( not sure if they have V6 engines , probably doesn't matter ). I often wondered if the fault was with the vehicle or the driver. Thank you Brian for a clearing that question up .

[War Eagle]

My wife and I own a 2006 Prius (her work commuter car), and when you floor it, it will engage both the gas engine and "the big battery" simultaneously, and I can assure you it will really get up and go. The problem is that we Prius drivers hate doing anything (like that) that will make the MPG readout drop. We'd rather ease along at 50+ mpg than gun it and see the readout drop way down to only 45 mpg or so! Horror of horrors!! We have nearly 170,000 miles on our Prius, no problems, and still getting amazing fuel mileage. Not what I would call a smooth, luxurious driving experience, but amazing mileage for getting back and forth to work every day....

[gbaglo]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I have also had issues on numerous occasions with RAV 4 's & Prius's when trying to enter onto freeways & Interstates ( not sure if they have V6 engines , probably doesn't matter ). I often wondered if the fault was with the vehicle or the driver. Thank you Brian for a clearing that question up .

My RAV4 V6 Sport has 269 HP. I can assure you it can get up and go.
In 2008, when I bought it, the sales guy said that only the Porsche Cayenne had more horse power it it's class. That's what the sales guy said. He said.

[Dave Walter]

My experience has been that with the exception of heavy slow moving trucks, failure to reach highway speeds and merging into traffic is generally due to the merging driver not the vehicle. In majority of cases it is due to the driver being too cautious or too timid to commit to making the merge.

[Ray N]

The ten slowest accelerating cars available in the USA, (according to "Consumer Reports" that is).

10 Cars With the Worst Acceleration in the U.S.

[T&R]

Originally Posted by Jake930

Transferred everything in the back of the Truck to Trailer and coming back we achieved 11.9 mpg coming over both mountain ranges, 12.5 on the high Plains, as soon as we got to the Midwest mileage bounced between 13.9 and 14.5.

Are those figures what the computer is telling you or what you calculated by hand? The computer in my 2015 Tundra 5.7 is typically optimistic by about 2 mpg compared to hand calculation.

The 11.9 (hand calculated) is pretty well spot with what I get in the passes of the Pacific Northwest with my 5.7. I've never towed for an entire tank on the flats to know what I would get in a tank doing so.

When we bought our Tundra in Feb. 2015 there was only a (rated) 1 mpg difference between the 4.6 & 5.7. Around my parts it was hard to even find a 4.6 out there. When towing and having the Tow/Haul mode engaged I have to be careful to not stab the gas pedal too hard as it's hard on the neck.

IMO the 5.7 (& likely 4.6) is way overkill (from a HP & torque perspective) for anything Escape has to offer . But with that acceleration overkill typically comes overkill in the braking and overall stability department as well. And an engine towing 40% of its rated capacity will (should) last longer than an engine towing 80% of its rated capacity.

Lastly if somebody wants to know how to add a brake controller to a 2015+ Tundra look here. Pics are out of order but you get the idea. Toyota was gracious enough to list the integrated brake controller and larger capacity fuel tank in the 2015 model year but not actually offer it so I had to add my own.

Escape Trailer Owners Community - T&R's Album: 2015 Tundra Brake Controller Install

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by T&R

IMO the 5.7 (& likely 4.6) is way overkill (from a HP & torque perspective) for anything Escape has to offer . But with that acceleration overkill typically comes overkill in the braking and overall stability department as well. And an engine towing 40% of its rated capacity will (should) last longer than an engine towing 80% of its rated capacity.

I agree that overworked engines don't last as long. On the other hand, even a tug at 100% of its rated trailer capacity is rarely operated at anywhere near its maximum engine power. The rated capacity of the tug often has more to do with transmission cooling capacity than anything else, and adding that cooling (which is good) makes no difference to the engine... so the engine of the lower-rated vehicle may not be under any more strain. Add the fact that many people's tugs are driven without a trailer for most of their lives, and the strain of trailer towing is probably a small factor in engine reliability in most cases.

The connection of brakes and stability to acceleration is tenuous. Sure, a huge pickup truck has bigger brakes and longer wheelbase than a smaller SUV, but between two engines in the same vehicle choosing the bigger engine rarely changes the brakes and doesn't change the size or stability of the vehicle. Also, the same 4.6 L V8 engine comes in the Tundra, the Lexus LS sedan, and the Lexus GX SUV; these are very different vehicles and the engine does not bring big brakes or great stability to the sedan or the SUV.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Ray N

The ten slowest accelerating cars available in the USA, (according to "Consumer Reports" that is).

10 Cars With the Worst Acceleration in the U.S.

Interesting. Half the list have zero-to-sixty mph acceleration times between 11 and 12 seconds.

Decades ago I subscribed to Popular Science, and I noticed that it was getting to the point that most of the cars they tested got a rating of "5" - on a scale of 1 to 5 - for acceleration. It turns out that their class of best acceleration had become normal for ordinary production cars, not just sports cars. By those Popular Science rating standards, today's slowest-available cars would all rate 4 out of 5 for acceleration. The very worst one would rate 3 out of 5 on the same scale.

Acceleration performance of cars has become irrelevant, except for marketing and boasting purposes. Even for tow vehicles, ability to accelerate which is never used (because the accelerator pedal has never been pushed all the way down) is also irrelevant, and the acceleration actually needed to drive safely in traffic is easily achieved with far less power than many people insist they need.

The second-slowest in that list has 24% more power than my first car, which was never a problem in traffic, including merging onto freeways. The slowest (the Mitsubishi i-MiEV) is just a slug - welcome to electric vehicles for normal people (not Tesla owners)

[gbaglo]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Even for tow vehicles, ability to accelerate which is never used (because the accelerator pedal has never been pushed all the way down) is also irrelevant,

When entering the highway at the rest stop west of Abbotsford, as soon as I cross the last speed bump, I check my mirror and stomp on the gas, all the way to the floor. I'm doing 100/110 kph when merging. Probably use a couple litres of gas.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

When entering the highway at the rest stop west of Abbotsford, as soon as I cross the last speed bump, I check my mirror and stomp on the gas, all the way to the floor. I'm doing 100/110 kph when merging. Probably use a couple litres of gas.

Good!

More like a cupful of gas, but I get the point.

You're not in the category of people who never push the pedal all the way down... like these people:

Originally Posted by ice-breaker

... failure to reach highway speeds and merging into traffic is generally due to the merging driver not the vehicle. In majority of cases it is due to the driver being too cautious or too timid to commit to making the merge.

They never make use of the available performance in similar (or identical) vehicles, and so what the vehicle could do is irrelevant.

[cpaharley2008]

At least it is not like this merging
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...=0&FORM=VDFSRV

[Santiago]

I don't get it.

As modern trailers get smaller, lighter and more aerodynamic, many have not gotten the memo and insist they need more and more HP and torque in the name of towing performance and safety. We are talking full size pick up trucks not 4 cylinder front wheel drive hatchbacks. The trailers we all worry about are lightweight eggs not 32 foot stickies.

[Kountrykamper]

It's about what works for you and your life style. I like a truck. I use it primarily for towing and hauling. We have to have 2 vehicles anyway because we both work so we use the wifes RAV4 if we are going out to town. Actually we have 3 vehicles because I have F150 company truck I use for work so I have 2 trucks and love them. I like the extra towing capacity and things like being able to use cruise control when able which cannot be done on smaller vehicles without the tranimission hunting up every overpass without downshifting. I like big braking power when towing. I have towed lots of miles with all types of vehicles and find smaller vehicles wear me out more because they are not relaxing for me when towing. We usually do 500 plus miles days when on vacation because we are not retired.

Everyone has their own reasons for what vehicle they use to tow with but just because I like a truck don't mean that anybody else has too. Just because someone wants to get 1or 2 mpg better don't mean that's what is important to me.

[Santiago]

Originally Posted by Kountrykamper

Everyone has their own reasons for what vehicle they use to tow with but just because I like a truck don't mean that anybody else has too.

Hi Tom, we like our Ram 1500 too. It's a great cruiser when we make our 400 mile trek to see my old and frail in-laws. We like the ample cabin size, the big seats, console, being higher up and are delighted to have all the comforts of home when on the road, with or without the trailer. We had a Scamp prior to the Escape.

We know going in it was not a sport car, I already have a Porsche, and true to form it handles like a barge but .... we certainly love our truck and would not think of a better highway cruiser. As I have reported often times, at 65mph we never ever average less than 25mpg. Last trip to the inlaws, we averaged over 28mpg at 62 mph, still breaking in I gather. So besides being a great stuff hauler and comfortable on the road, it saves us at the pump and with the larger fuel tank we can cover a lot of ground without re-fueling.

We like small cars, specially sport cars but there is nothing like a full size truck for seeing America.

[cpaharley2008]

We like small cars, specially sport cars but there is nothing like a full size truck for seeing America.

Reminds me of the old tv commercials, "See the USA in your Chevrolet".....

[Ian and Sue]

My 2012 Tundra has a tow package w/everything but tow mirrors(I plan on adding these) and the 4.6 l worked fine to tow my 5.0TA from Vegas to Vermont plenty of extra power