Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-14-2006, 08:40 PM   #15
2 Rivet Member
 
ernesto ca's Avatar
 
1994 34' Excella
Arabela , New Mexico
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32
Images: 2
Amen Brother

Maurice..I REALLY appreciate your feedback...It is making my choice of decision..WAY easier since I am talking to guys that have already done what I am planning to do..but always good to get that upfront instead of after the fact...I think we can get away with the extended cab..because we are shorter in stature...Our son is in college and my girl is going to be a senior in HS so 90% of the time will be my wife and I...100% ..just me...I am also looking at this to be my ranch truck..(NM about 12 hours away that is why I want a diesel engine for the long hauls back and forth)...I test drove the fx4 crewcab and damn...IT was so long I couldnt park that Thing...that is why I wanted to shorten up the length to make it easier to get around...This wouldnt be our primary vehicle but want to make it where the wife will at least drive Sometimes...On the new 25' Safari SE..that unfortunately is nonnegotiable...I pick the truck..she picks the coach...Life could be worse..

Again...thanks and now I can sleep through the night that my choices are "top shelf"...I just want to avoid any problems later....Hasta La vista...Ernesto

Ohh.. BTW..I never play retail..."My Momma didnt raise no fool"
__________________

__________________
ernesto ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2006, 09:02 PM   #16
Tom, the Uber Disney Fan
 
Minnie's Mate's Avatar
 
2006 30' Safari
Orlando , Florida
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,693
Images: 7
You should let your wife test drive the crew cab before you make up your mind unless you just absolutely have your heart set on the extended cab. Before my F-250 I had an F-150 extended cab and my wife never liked to drive it. She drives an Expedition.

Last Fall we took the boys on a Cub Scout tent camp out and one of the boys started running a fever early in the day so my wife took him home and came back the next day to pick up my other son and me. She drove my F-250 crew cab swb for the first time that week end on both leges of the trip home and back without me and said it drove more like her Expedition than my F-150. She said she really didn't mind driving it...maybe it was the leather seats.
__________________

__________________
Minnie's Mate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2006, 09:52 PM   #17
Rivet Master
 
RoadKingMoe's Avatar
 
2001 34' Limited
The State of , Ohio
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,605
Images: 23
My lil' gal is 4'10" and HER truck when we met was a Ford Ranger. She now whips that 21' extended cab/long bed F250 around like it's nothing. She sure gets a lot of looks when she climbs down out of that big 4x4 with the clearance lights on top.

Actually the F250 fits her better than any other vehicle she's ever driven, and that includes the Ranger. It's one of the reasons we have a FORD truck--the power adjustable pedals. For the first time in her life she can reach the pedals without her chest being dangerously right up on the steering wheel air bag. In fact, she drives it with the seat in the same position I use. We don't have to slide it fore and aft. She runs the pedals all the way up and I run them all the way down. I will admit she sits on a cushion to help her see out over the hood a little better, but I just toss it in the back seat when I drive.

The extended cab is every bit as big in the front seat as the crew cab, so your stature doesn't matter. If it's only the two of you with an occasional 3 or 4 adult guests, the standard 60/40 bench seat and extended cab will be fine.

Again, I'll admit the 158" truck isn't as easy to park as a 140" truck, nearly two feet shorter. There are just some parking spots you have to bypass, especially where you'd be sticking out further than the surrounding cars. But you do get used to it. Ask my wife. Personally, I can't imagine a ranch truck not having an 8' bed, but your choice of the 140" model will be just fine pulling a 25 Airstream. I've read of one fella who's towed a 34 all over the country and to Alaska with one, but IIRC, he also had a Hensley hitch.
__________________
Maurice
RoadKingMoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 02:22 AM   #18
More than one rivet loose
 
thecatsandi's Avatar

 
Currently Looking...
Keymar , Maryland
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,754
Go Ford!

I am towing at 2006 31 Classic with a 2004 F-250 4X4 Regular cab, long bed, 5.4L gas. Short bed = Grocery hauler. Might as well go with a mini-van. Going uphill is slower than prevailing traffic but it works. A V10 would be better. A diesel would be have been over kill, not to mention the expense. I looked at the Dodges. I was getting queezy sitting in them. Not sure if it was the colors or the smell.
You should have no problems with a Safari of that size.
__________________
Michelle TAC MT-0
Sarah, Snowball

Looking for a 1962 Flying Cloud

thecatsandi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 10:59 AM   #19
Rivet Master<br><img src="/ugala/forums/images/5rivet.gif">
 
CanoeStream's Avatar

 
2006 25' Safari FB SE
St. Cloud , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,279
Images: 19
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsandi
A V10 would be better. A diesel would be have been over kill, not to mention the expense.
None of these vehicles get great mileage in city driving, but I can't imagine the MPG you'd get towing with V10 (or the 8L Chev for that matter). I have changed some behaviors running diesel as my daily vehicle, but then I bought it for the road and will be retiring soon. Much of the diesel expense will be recovered on re-sale of the tow vehicle. To help pay for it, just put the pennies (... Okay, dollar bills) you save on diesel mileage in the piggy bank. This isn't necessarily a gas vs. diesel argument -- the V8 would pull your proposed Airstream just fine.

The first day we had our Safari last September was a very stormy day. We stopped at a redlight, pointed uphill with sheets of rain flowing down the pavement at us. I switched into 4WD and was very glad to have the solid feel of good traction underneath!
__________________
Bob

5 meter Langford Nahanni

CanoeStream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 11:48 AM   #20
Rivet Master
 
RoadKingMoe's Avatar
 
2001 34' Limited
The State of , Ohio
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,605
Images: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsandi
I am towing...with a ...5.4L gas...A V10 would be better. A diesel would be have been over kill
I think this shows a common misunderstanding when it comes to truck motors. Clearly, the hot-rod towing motor is the V10, not the diesel, which has advantages in other respects. Here are the horsepower and torque numbers for some Ford truck motors. I've converted the horsepower to ft-lbs for comparison:

5.4L V-8 300HP/315FT-LBS @ 5,000 RPM - 365 FT-LB @ 3,750 RPM

6.8L V10 362HP/400FT-LBS @ 4,750 RPM - 457 FT-LB @ 3,250 RPM

6.0L PSD 325HP/517FT-LBS @ 3,300 RPM - 570 FT-LB @ 2,000 RPM

7.3L PSD 250HP/505FT-LBS @ 2,600 RPM - 525 FT-LB @ 1,600 RPM

While torque actually does the work, horsepower shows what can be done with the engine torque by multiplication of gearing by the time it hits the ground.

Here are some rpm at speed observations I've made with our truck. I use the terms Overdrive, Drive, and Drive minus 1 to encompass both 4 speed and 5 speed automatic transmissions.

RPM at 65 MPH in OD (0.71:1) w/3.73:1 gearing and P265/75R16 or equivalent diameter tires: 1,850 RPM

RPM at 65 MPH in D (1.0:1) w/3.73:1 gearing and P265/75R16 or equivalent diameter tires: 2,600 RPM

RPM at 65 MPH in D -1 (1.53:1) w/3.73:1 gearing and P265/75R16 or equivalent diameter tires: 4,000 RPM

Looking at the 5.4L specifications, we can estimate that it puts out about 340 ft-lbs around 4,000 rpm. I'm assuming its Drive minus 1 gearing is about the same as that in the transmission of the larger motors, 1.53:1 so to estimate the torque being fed at the transmission output, we can multiply 340 pounds by 1.53:1 to find 520 ft-lbs, about the same as what the diesel outputs in 1:1 Drive.

5.4L @ 4,000 rpm: approx 340 ft-lbs x 1.53:1 (D -1) = 520 FT-LB

In theory, the 5.4L in D -1 should have the same pulling torque at 65 mph as the 7.3L PSD does in Drive, even with the same axle ratio and tire diameter. The difference is the 5.4L is screaming along at 4,000+ rpm, in a gear where the torque converter is unlocked and generating transmission heat, while the diesel is chugging along at 2,600 rpm, in a gear where the torque converter is locked. I use the + on 4,000 rpm because with the torque converter unlocked and slipping, rpm for the given speed will actually be higher than the gearing indicates.

In fact, if the 5.4L's axle ratio was lower, allowing it to get to the rpm where it develops 300 HP vs the 7.3L PSD's 250, the axle shaft torque of the 5.4L should be even greater than the 7.3L's at 1:1, due to the additional torque multiplication. This is basic physics, and when it comes to doing work over time, horsepower rules.

If we look at the 6.8L with the same 3.73:1 gearing and tires as the diesels, here's its transmission output torque in D -1:

6.8L @ 4,000 rpm: approx 425 ft-lbs x 1.53:1 (D -1) = 650 FT-LB

Clearly that's a LOT more than the either of the diesel's maximums in 1:1 Drive.

What's missing in this simple analysis is that a significant portion of the gas engines' greater outputs can be lost in a slipping torque converter, and dissapated as heat from the transmission cooler. That wouldn't be the case with a manual transmission. OTOH, a manual transmission let's a driver hang onto a higher gear when a lower one is called for to get the engine in its powerband and generate the torque required.


The major advantage here is that the less powerful 7.3L and 6.0L diesel motors get their horsepower with greater torque at lower rpm, the rpm it needs to be at to run in Drive or OverDrive, where the torque converter is locked and not converting power to heat instead of pulling power.

The other major advantage is fuel economy, and that's partially because at less than full throttle, gas engines have to be strangled by a throttle plate in a carburetor or fuel injection system. This is because the fuel only burns properly within a narrow range of air/fuel mixtures. And it means that the cylinder fill on each intake stroke is at less than ambient pressure, so on the compression stroke, what's being compressed is a partial vacuum. That gets even worse at high altitudes, where ambient pressure is less.

Because it burns well over a wide range of air/fuel ratios, diesels operate at efficient full-throttle all the time, even at light-throttle cruise without a towing load. Even without turbocharging the diesel is compressing near-ambient pressure at light throttle, and with a higher compression ratio, it's compressing it even more than the gas engine. This gets even better with a turbocharger, especially at higher altitudes where the air is thinner. As the air gets thinner, its drag on the turbo goes down, meaning the turbo runs faster and achieves nearly the same manifold pressure (this same advantage also applies to turbocharged gas engines).

I won't repeat what Canoe stream said about the cost issue.

So to say that a diesel is "overkill," espeically for towing a 31' Airstream, simply doesn't reflect the facts.

[edit]Removed some incorrect comments about the 5.4L vs 6.0L diesel I caught as soon as I posted
__________________
Maurice
RoadKingMoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 05:18 PM   #21
4 Rivet Member
 
Steve Heywood's Avatar
 
1997 30' Excella
Waddell , Arizona
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 313
Images: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatsandi
I am towing at 2006 31 Classic with a 2004 F-250 4X4 Regular cab, long bed, 5.4L gas. Going uphill is slower than prevailing traffic but it works. A V10 would be better. A diesel would be have been over kill, not to mention the expense.
If you don't mind being stuck behind slower traffic in the mountains (because you don't have enough power to pass them UPHILL) then I guess a turbocharged diesel is overkill.
__________________
Steve Heywood
Waddell, AZ
1999 19' Bambi (SOLD)
1997 30' Excella (SOLD)
Steve Heywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 05:30 PM   #22
Rivet Master<br><img src="/ugala/forums/images/5rivet.gif">
 
CanoeStream's Avatar

 
2006 25' Safari FB SE
St. Cloud , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,279
Images: 19
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Heywood
If you don't mind being stuck behind slower traffic in the mountains ...... turbocharged .....
My first trip to Yellowstone really struck me about how much power I lost at normal mountain altitudes with a normally aspirated mid-sized engine for what-evah vehicle I was driving.
__________________
Bob

5 meter Langford Nahanni

CanoeStream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 10:28 PM   #23
4 Rivet Member
 
Steve Heywood's Avatar
 
1997 30' Excella
Waddell , Arizona
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 313
Images: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canoe stream
My first trip to Yellowstone really struck me about how much power I lost at normal mountain altitudes with a normally aspirated mid-sized engine for what-evah vehicle I was driving.
EXACTLY what I was talking about! I don't know the "derate" altitude of my 6.0L Powerstroke is but I had no trouble outaccelerating a family sedan uphill in the Sierras (about 7,000') while towing my Excella.

What I DID notice was an increase in the "turbo lag" compared to sea level. That (lag) is my only gripe about my 6.0L/automatic combo compared to the 2 7.3L/6-speed manuals I used to own.
__________________
Steve Heywood
Waddell, AZ
1999 19' Bambi (SOLD)
1997 30' Excella (SOLD)
Steve Heywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 11:38 PM   #24
tpi
Rivet Master
 
2005 25' Safari
Trabuco Canyon , California
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 866
Images: 2
I pull a 25' Safari w/ 1999 F250 supercab shortbed diesel. Pulls great, plenty of power and 12-15 MPG. I've heard these engines make full output up to 10,000 ft. but can't cite the sources. I've done plenty of towing at 7000-9000 ft. and can vouch for the fact the engine is losing little, if any, horsepower compared to sea level.
__________________
tpi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 08:29 AM   #25
Tom, the Uber Disney Fan
 
Minnie's Mate's Avatar
 
2006 30' Safari
Orlando , Florida
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,693
Images: 7
One thing you might consider: My garage is exactly 20' deep. My super crew F-250 short bed just fits into the garage with the garage door down. I have to exit the truck and walk around the rear of the truck before closing the door, but it fits. An F-250 long bed, even and extended cab, wouldn't fit.

I use a Pro-Park mat under one of the front tires to let me know when I am all the way in without hitting the front wall of the garage. I drew an outline of the mat with a marker on the floor of the garage so I know when it is properly aligned.
__________________
Minnie's Mate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 09:33 AM   #26
2 Rivet Member
 
1978 31' Excella 500
Slidell , Louisiana
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernesto ca
This forum has been great on my research..Too Good ..my initial research was rather to pursue the 19' or the 23 since I already have a LandCruiser 97..BUT am planning ahead and am lookin at the 2006 F250 SD FX4 SuperCAb not crew with a Shortbed and am Now looking at th 25 foot Safari SE., probably the 2006..My question is with the shorter wheelbase at 142" have much or any impact or affect?...Otherwise the Dude is just to Long..Any comment from the Airstream experts?...Also..my wife kinda wanted me to look at the Dodge 2500 HD but I am partial to the F-250...Any opinion on that issue?..Thanks in advance...
I also purchased a 2006 F250 FX4 Diesel Short Wheel base to tow a 31 Excella and after doing my research comparing the Dodge I went with the Ford and recommend staying with your partial favorite F-250.

I understand that many are having good service from the Dodge Cummins but Ford seemed better in my comparisons including practical components, resale values and 2006 upgrades in my opinion. I also found a good turning radius on my F250 and like the quieter engine this year.
Mine also has the "Optional" tow command brake controller and towing mirrors along with the upfitter switches for powering additional items like a winch or fog lights.

With all that said I really like my F250 Diesel after upgrading from a 2004 Toyota Tundra and I would think you will be happy with the power and brakes of the F250 in Diesel or even Gas although the ride and fuel mileage may or may not compare to your LandCruiser.

Mark
__________________
1978 Excella 500 Rear Twin Center Bath
2006 F250 Powerstroke Diesel Crew Cab FX4
Tow Command Factory Brake Controller
MarkExc500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 01:58 PM   #27
TGK
2 Rivet Member
 
TGK's Avatar
 
1971 23' Safari
Portland , Oregon
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 58
F-250 SD FX4 ShrtBd & 25 Saf SE

I have a 1999 F250 Superduty Supercab Longbed 4X4 with the 5.4 liter engine, 4:10, manual trans., towing package etc. I tow a 1971 23' Safari. The truck tows the Safari like a dream. The only place I notice any issues is when climbing a steep grade. Yes, if I had it to do over, I would have got the V-10 or diesel. Overall, I get from 10 - 11.5 MPG pulling the Safari on the interstate or over the Cascades or Coast range in Oreon. However, when I bought the truck, I was not forseeing that I would be pulling a trailer. Having said that, it works fine for our needs, and given that the Ford only has 48,000 miles on it after 8 years, I will be hanging onto it for a while. The cost/benfit to upgrade to a newer rig isn't there.
__________________

__________________
TGK is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1990 Airstream 250 Motorhome Value? outofcontrol Trailer Values 3 04-08-2006 08:47 PM
Unique 250 Classic Layout toddster General Motorhome Topics 0 03-14-2006 01:03 PM
Classic 250 motorhome gerard General Motorhome Topics 11 07-02-2004 05:11 PM
Found this 1990 250 Classic in San Fran. Astrodokk General Motorhome Topics 6 05-04-2004 09:15 PM
Marshall 250 regulator failure nickcrowhurst LP Gas, Piping, Tanks & Regulators 11 04-18-2004 08:08 AM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.