MacGregorSailors.com

Tow Vehicle: V-8 or V-6?

http://www.boatingmag.com/how-to/traile ... MTA3MjEzS0

Very interesting how much more power the turbocharged aluminum engine provides.
Ford lists the ecoboost engine package as a $2400 upgrade in cost. Seems like a smart choice if it doesn't cost more in repairs to the turbo.

Although I would genuinely be interested in a V-6 vs V8 battle, I think the authors of the article had an ulterior motive. They probably saw the "FUN" opportunity to test spin the SVT Raptor and this was the only test they could think of being a boat magazine.

The Ford SVT Raptor has a super soft off road suspension with internal bypass racing shocks and a tweaked out racing engine. The acceleration numbers and MPG are not a true comparison of the typical v8 1/2 ton towing a boat.

If the authors wanted a true v6 vs v8 they would have chosen a more reasonable v8 f150 designed for towing, not the f150 designed for prerunning the desert in Baja.

Sorry for the rant, the article just sounded silly.

Interesting article.....although both vehicles are much more than what we would need to tow our Mac's. I have a tow beast with a 5,000 lb tow capacity (purchased specifically for the purpose of towing my Mac)....and I drive it as little as possible for anything else just to save money on gas. If they had an article on a tow beast with hybrid technology....that would really get my attention!

Thanks for sharing!!

A while back a person mentioned that the Mercedes M series (going back to 2005) had a tow enhancement feature.

drams_1999 wrote:Interesting article.....although both vehicles are much more than what we would need to tow our Mac's. I have a tow beast with a 5,000 lb tow capacity (purchased specifically for the purpose of towing my Mac)....and I drive it as little as possible for anything else just to save money on gas. If they had an article on a tow beast with hybrid technology....that would really get my attention!

Thanks for sharing!!

drams_1999 wrote:Interesting article.....although both vehicles are much more than what we would need to tow our Mac's.

We just picked up our new to us and hauled it home using a mini-van. It was a long haul and we stopped at the in-laws who happen to be farmers with weigh scales. The boat and trailer came in at 4800lbs, quite a bit more than the 3500lbs towing capacity the mini-van has. It did a good job towing overall, not sure I want to do long trips with it knowing it weighs so much. I don't think I can pull it out of the water, especially full of ballast.

The boat was relatively loaded with some fuel, dishes and a few extra parts, 2 batteries, pressurized water system (empty), four different anchors, and the like. No food, drinks, clothes, bedding, or anything else you typically carry with you when trailor-sailing. These things really add up.

I think if we get our trailers and boats on a weigh scale, we might be surprised at the true weight of what we are towing.

I did tow the MAC with a Chrysler van for years. The weight, as taime1 points out, was above the limit, but it was still doable. I would have continued to tow it with the van if it hadn't been for a leaking main gasket. Now whether the gasket gave in because the trailer was overweight, or simply because it had reached the end of its life (around 160,000 miles...) is still debatable.

I replaced it with a Nissan Pathfinder that has a much higher towing ability. Conclusions:

1) the van seemed much more stable than the SUV. It also used a little less gas on the highway. Never had a problem pulling the Mac out of the water with a front-wheel drive.
2) the van's engine heated up noticeably when going up-hill, if the slope was longer than, say, 3 miles. We typically stopped half way uphill and waited for 15 minutes, then continued towing. No such problem with the Nissan
3) I was planning on adding the additional cooling system to the van. Didn't look like the rear axle was over-loaded. But then again, in a van, we could spread out the weight between the two axles more efficiently, I guess. On the Nissan, we are somehow restricted on how much we can load the SUV, not to mention the clutter factor.
4) I had a Honda Oddysey whose towing abilities were right on the line, but it didn't have a hitch. I replaced it with the Nissan, but my guess is, the Oddyssey (or even better--a Toyota Sierra) would have worked just fine with the Mac. There are a few people on the board that have used Sierras and their comments are quite positive. I, for one, believe them.
5) THe SUV is a compact, sturdy beast of burden, but it's less stable than the minivan which hugs the ground more efficiently, I guess. Not such a big deal if you pay attention to the weight of the tongue and you're n ot in a hurry though.
6) I think that braking was more efficient and more stable with the van. The SUV seems more squirrely

RussMT wrote:Very interesting how much more power the turbocharged aluminum engine provides.
Ford lists the ecoboost engine package as a $2400 upgrade in cost. Seems like a smart choice if it doesn't cost more in repairs to the turbo.

Two things I wuld like to point out.

First: My F-150 with the EcoBoost is now my fourth turbocharged vehicle I currently own. IMO, the key to longevity is using the best oil available and following the recommended oil change schedule. I have over 230,000 miles on my Volvo with no engine/turbo problems. On the other hand, as long as I let Ford service the engine, including all oil changes, they will warrantee it for life (but I bet they will figure out how to get out of this)

Second: The chart you posted does not tell the whole story. Yeah, the Raptor has a higher horsepower engine but the EcoBoost has more available power. The key is in the torque curve. While on my Volvo, full torque is available just over idle to redline, on the Ford, it is a gentle curve where 90% of available torque is available over the same range. Normally aspirated engines cannot come close to having full torque over the entire RPM range.

Also, do not believe the mileage estimates for a minute - with two high pressure turbochargers, that EcoBoost can swallow gas faster than a bunch of fraternity bros can chug beer.

We towed our 2000 X with a 2000 Windstar minivan with 3.8 L V6 and 3500# factory tow kit. Longest trip was 3200 miles SW Michigan to Flamingo FL and back, driven with the "semis", allowing speed to moderately fall off uphill and build downhill, averaging 60-63 mph on the interstate....basically feather-footing the throttle and allowing the transmission to stay in overdrive or downshift as it wanted to. Averaged 15.3 mpg. Van pulled the unballasted boat+trailer easily up DNR ramps. So, the V6 worked for us and the long van wheelbase stabilized towing at hiighway speeds. Van hauled more people and cargo with less gas than I'd expect from a 3500# rated SUV.
Van rusted badly over time from Michigan winter road salt, and finally this spring the steel sideplate on the side of the transmission rust-holed, making a big tranny fluid leak, fixable only by removing and probably replacing 3 rusted-in support members, at way more cost than the bluebook value of the van.
Overall, the van served well for occasional towing and mostly as the family car.
Ron

My experience with turbos is if you drive them with a light foot and spare the turbo for on ramp merging they do sip gas, but if the boost is on most of the time they drink gas.

This comparison seems a no brainier.... 40% better mileage, cheaper, higher towing capacity.

Based on the mileage numbers alone and 15000 miles per annum driving, I calculate a fuel cost differential of roughly 1200 USD per annum. That's a lot of turbo repairs!

Or concider an inline engine for towing(5 or 6 cylinder, Colorado or Trailblazer). They have great low end torque not as much as a desel but better than most V's of the same size.

if the straight 6 5.9 L ram turbo diesel is to much for you ram now has a smaller V-6 turbo diesel from Cummins in their halfton truck line, at about 450 ft/pnd of torque it should pull a loaded mac very well.

Catigale wrote:...
1200 USD per annum. That's a lot of turbo repairs!

... Not that many....

How does the nursery rhyme go? When they're good, they're very good indeed, but when they're bad they are horrid!

Max Entropy wrote:How does the nursery rhyme go?

There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.

- H.W. Longfellow

Tomfoolery wrote:

Max Entropy wrote:How does the nursery rhyme go?

There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.

- H.W. Longfellow

Now I always thought the last word in that ditty was 'better'..... Must have been my bad upbringing