Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-16-2012, 08:42 AM   #15
4 Rivet Member
 
timmaah's Avatar
 
1999 25' Safari
On , the road
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 296
I was under the impression that the Excursions had much lower payload capacities than the Ford trucks.
__________________

__________________
timmaah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:44 AM   #16
Rivet Master
 
1981 31' Excella II
New Market , Alabama
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,648
I really don't pay attention to any of that. The frame and drive train and brakes are all F-250/350 spec. Heavier springs might be in order if you load it up. It is essentially the same as a F250 extended cab short bed. Like I said, those specs don't mean anything. It is the hardware that supports the whole mess that is important. The lower payload specs are based on spring rate and nothing else.

Perry
__________________

__________________
perryg114 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:59 AM   #17
4 Rivet Member
 
timmaah's Avatar
 
1999 25' Safari
On , the road
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by perryg114 View Post
I really don't pay attention to any of that. The frame and drive train and brakes are all F-250/350 spec. Heavier springs might be in order if you load it up. It is essentially the same as a F250 extended cab short bed. Like I said, those specs don't mean anything. It is the hardware that supports the whole mess that is important. The lower payload specs are based on spring rate and nothing else.

Perry
This is why I am going in circles on trying to nail down what would be best for us. You say the F150 towing is BS on the high side, yet the Excursion payload is BS on the low side and the with the Tundra I am "going to reach my limits".

How do we know what these limits are? Seems it is mostly trial and error by the individual person.
__________________
timmaah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:11 AM   #18
Vintage Kin
 
slowmover's Avatar
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,577
Images: 1
Better general definitions by the OP are needed in order to plumb the depths around here. Better specifics are requested as one can go in any of a number of directions based on what is written (thus far).

So, for what is available:

I wouldn't bother with a 3/4T and would just go ahead and put the one ton trucks on the list. For what you are doing an 8' bed on a real pickup is easier to live with (to continue what BartS is trying to say). They both ride about the same unloaded, but one has better payload capacity. (Ride "quality" can be changed with progressive spring packs, shocks, etc).

A bed topper gives you another 170-cubic feet of storage and no worries about weight. I don't recommend these trucks as the "obvious solution" to TT towing (there are other, sometimes better choices), but a truck is really hard to beat until one knows what to pack and what not to pack. And that takes a good deal of experience. Full-timing means 4-season clothes and supplies. May want to address whether you'll be returning to a storage facility to change out supplies based on climate/terrain to be encountered.

The "thinking flaw" of someone new is in underestimating the need for space and weight of supplies required. They tend to multiply exponentially. I don't in any way respect those who tell me that they themselves are simple in needs or wants. This Conestoga wagon has needs of it's own, and that to be respected. After time, one gets better. But full-timing with no home base is the deciding factor. On tools -- alone -- the weight/space requirement is high. The "flaw" is continued in thinking that what I am doing is primary to how I am doing it when the order is actually reversed as the means dictate the ends.

The Tundra wouldn't even be on my list. Nor would a diesel Ford. Nor would 4WD. Take some time and identify brand, year and model and truck spec more closely according to budget (Auto or manual trans, etc). There is a good range of experience here that can take into account all those differences. $12k buys one truck, $27k buys another where totally different brand and spec according to what is "best" for the odometer mileage specified. (Which is rather low according to what trucks are capable). Be a bit more specific. You'll find someone who has -- or has had -- that TV.

I'd also recommend EDMUNDS True Cost to Own as a departure point to understand cost-per-mile calculations. Some truck spec's mean a $1/mile (and higher) op-cost. Mine is 40-cpm. The difference in one year over 20k miles between them could be $15,000 in adjusted expense. This may matter or not. It does to me: were I moving the trailer 300-miles weekly that would be at 24-cpm, and solo miles would be 16-cpm fuel cost (a high, conservative estimate for my rig; a gasoline truck would be double this cpm). Overall economy is the bigger picture, thus some trucks will actually fit what you want better than others by this analysis tool. And, as none of them are cheap to own/operate, the trade-offs are crucial (and parking them at the grocery or "ride quality" are actually a ways down the list of what is important).

Good to see you already have a sway-eliminating hitch, so add trailer disc brakes and a state-of-the art brake controller as well (Brakesmart or Direclink). There is no adequate substitute, especially with high annual miles for these items. Read 2Air's posts/threads on hitch rigging, brakes and tire maintenance. Numbers, numbers, numbers via certified weigh scales (hitch rigging) and setting up controller for surfaces (paved, unpaved, wet, etc; know the brake boost settings) and how to "read" tires and interpret results.

With that age trailer (1999) I'd also be concerned about axle condition (plus alignment).

16" wheels and LT tires would also be on my list (and with a diesel truck, an exhaust brake unless factory-equipped) as well as Load Range E MICHELIN (LTX A/S or M/S) or BRIDGESTONE (Duravis 500 or 700) tires only on that truck.

.
__________________
1990 35' Silver Streak Sterling; 9k GVWR.
2004 DODGE Cummins 305/555; 6-manual; 9k GVWR.
Hensley Arrow. 9-cpm solo, 15-cpm towing
Sold: Silver Streak Model 3411
slowmover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:12 AM   #19
Rivet Master
 
casa3805's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
Corpus Christi , Texas
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 869
Images: 41
We have a 1984, 27ft Sovereign. 6000 lbs if we had everything full. It never is full. We tow with a 2010 Tundra crew cab, 5.7l V8. 2 dogs, and we also often have a truck bed fill of ” necessities” (-; Tow package on the truck and it does just fine.
Truck has a 10,400lbs load capacity
Good brakes and rides smooth.
Enjoy the hunt!
__________________
Chuck & Skye
Rock and Roll Will Never Die!

WBCCI 3805
AIR 54011 Since July 2011
casa3805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:29 AM   #20
4 Rivet Member
 
timmaah's Avatar
 
1999 25' Safari
On , the road
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by REDNAX View Post
I don't in any way respect those who tell me that they themselves are simple in needs or wants.
Seriously? Umm thanks for the advice though.
__________________
timmaah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:37 AM   #21
Rivet Master
 
1981 31' Excella II
New Market , Alabama
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,648
It comes down to durability. An F150 or Tundra is going to have less heavy duty components. The F150 has a smaller axel and transmission and lighter duty components in general. The tow ratings are really fantasy to lure buyers. It is all a mine is bigger mentality. Chevy, Ford, and Dodge all play this game with tow ratings and horsepower. There maybe some other forums like Trailer life or something like that what could tell you what long term problems are. Consumer reports I am not a big fan of but sometimes they can provide usefull information. If you are going to tow occasionally like most folks do the a 1/2 tons is ok. If you start stacking up the miles and pulling long grades you are going to start seeing weaknesses with smaller trucks. I am sure there are Toyota forums where you can get some info. It is all about the research. What size axels do all these trucks have compared to each other?

Perry

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmaah View Post
This is why I am going in circles on trying to nail down what would be best for us. You say the F150 towing is BS on the high side, yet the Excursion payload is BS on the low side and the with the Tundra I am "going to reach my limits".

How do we know what these limits are? Seems it is mostly trial and error by the individual person.
__________________
perryg114 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:54 AM   #22
4 Rivet Member
 
2007 27' Classic FB
Ridgefield , Washington
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 359
Images: 8
I have gone down the route where I am right at the max when towing and decided this time around it wasn't going to happen. It is not worth the anxiety while driving. We decided on the F250 SD diesel and we are happy with it. The ride is surprisingly good and I have great confidence in it when towing in the mountains. I like the Toyota products but the Ford was the best option for us.
Good luck!
__________________
John & Lisa
Woosch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 02:21 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
Tinmaah, back to your original concern, payload limit. With a weight distribution hitch you are not right up against it because part of the trailer tongue weight (theoretically a third) is transferred to and carried by the trailer axles. The Hensley is a weight distribution hitch. It also eliminates trailer sway which is another concern about shorter wheelbase tow vehicles.

doug k
__________________
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 03:19 PM   #24
A.K.A "THE STREAM"
 
THEPILL's Avatar
 
2010 25' FB International
Arlington , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,285
Images: 4
The Ford f250 seems to be the logical choice. Why drive and worry about weight all the time. Overkill? I think not when full timing. You don't necessarily have to get a diesel. You can get a Ford f250 gasser and have the advantages of the beefed up brakes and suspension...compared to the tundra.
I bought the diesel because of all,of the miles put on. This will,hopefully be my last Ford F250. Gonna have my airstream a long time so a long lasting truck is in order for me.

Good luck in your search.

Shane
__________________
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g2...h_postcard.jpg

"Stay Thirsty My Friends"

Tow Vehicle" 2011 Superduty Diesel!!"

TAC ID TX-1432
THEPILL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 03:35 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
JimGolden's Avatar
 
Vintage Kin Owner
1977 31' Excella 500
Berkeley Springs , West Virginia
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,619
Images: 7
Don't buy a Triton below 2004...

If you're looking at Ford Excursions, be sure to get a 2004 or newer!

I had a 2001. It had the flawwed head design that blew up on me. Ford would not cover it, even though I purchased an extended powertrain warranty.

They claim to have fixed it in 2003. I wouldn't even consider one prior to '04.

The problem? They only threaded half the depth of the combustion chamber roof so the plugs only had 7 threads. They would loosen up and the pressure would blow the plug out of the head, trashing the coil-on-plug-ignition coil and also wreck the threads. You now have a V-9 which ain't worth much....

The Ex did tow nicely, though not nearly as nicely as my Dodge diesel does. But, it rides a little softer and seats 8.

Get yourself a diesel crewcab and you'll be ready to rock. I love my Ram. I haven't hit a hill yet that I can't accelerate up with my 34 footer loaded to the gills. And I get 21mpg empty with it. Oh, I wouldn't own a truck that wasn't 4x4. But if you want a 2x...you'll get 2-3mpg more.

cheers,
__________________
- Jim
JimGolden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 04:15 PM   #26
Vintage Kin
 
slowmover's Avatar
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,577
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmaah View Post
Seriously? Umm thanks for the advice though.
Oh boy, the land of feelings . . where thinking takes the back seat. Get out your hard hat.

Got your attention as intended, but you missed the repetition of the word "respect", the second use of it as a device: I don't in any way respect those who tell me that they themselves are simple in needs or wants. This Conestoga wagon has needs of it's own, and that is to be respected . . . ., as putting the cart before the horse (ends over means) is the backasswards way to go in TV prioritizing for fulltiming.

The size of your trailer has little to do with it. That's only a starting point.

There is nothing simple about a TT or TV. Both are sophisticated machines. So, the usual claptrap about "simplifying my life" by moving to a trailer, short term or long, is always funny. Shelter is a need. Mobile shelter is a desire. A house is the simple choice by comparison to a TT/TV rig. Mistakes have different orders of consequence between them. Better to keep those things clear, thus my earlier post opening asking for more information, better definitions of what is being requested.

"Fulltiming" is not the same as a three week trip. Unless your idea of it is 3-out and 3-at home. That is not a commonly understood definition of full-timing (3-months out at a time comes closer). Quite a few full-timers have no "home base" beyond some items in storage somewhere.

"Going exploring" can mean: drive to trailhead and hike. Or, antiquing. Or, renting a Jeep to go back country. It has no meaning without explanation.

I can go on with examples about assumptions made in the OP. What you intend to convey, and how others are trying to help needs your input for clarity's sake. I looked over all your other posts before my earlier reply. They do not provide enough, either. A broad sketch was fine. More is now needed.

Do that -- define things -- and you may find what you need. As it is distinct from desire, which is never clear nor has sufficient boundaries to work from.

Try reading a little more deeply when others have dealt with this longer and with the consequences of their decisions in their attempts to answer a vague original post short on actual information. Details like brake size and tow rating misinformation is not to the point and is easily dispensed with; thus the recommendation of qualified reading. A good fit between TT and TV is what we all try for. . . doing it the first time is beyond rare, especially when fulltiming.

Start with that definition, what it means to you.

Good luck

.
__________________
1990 35' Silver Streak Sterling; 9k GVWR.
2004 DODGE Cummins 305/555; 6-manual; 9k GVWR.
Hensley Arrow. 9-cpm solo, 15-cpm towing
Sold: Silver Streak Model 3411
slowmover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 04:32 PM   #27
Rivet Master
 
TG Twinkie's Avatar
 
1974 Argosy 26
Morrill , Nebraska
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,139
Images: 2
Blog Entries: 5
It is important not only to check the GVWR of the TV but also the rear axle weight rating along with towing capacity.
I use a 3/4 ton 2 wheel drive long box extended cab pickup to pull our 26' Argosy. The engine is a 360 cubic inch gas. I get 10 to 12 mpg. There are times I wish it had a few more horses but most of the time it does just fine.
If Toyota made a 3/4 ton unit. I would buy it in a second. If my trailer was 22' or smaller I would buy a Toyota without hesitation.
Of coarse I am a big fan of Toyota. I've owned 2 of them since 1976 and still have the last one I bought. Between the 2 of them I have logged over 1 1/2 million miles. Unfortunately the one I have is not big enough to haul a 26'er.
Good luck in your search and in your travels.
__________________
Knowledge: "A gift to be shared. A treasure to receive."
TG Twinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 04:59 PM   #28
4 Rivet Member
 
timmaah's Avatar
 
1999 25' Safari
On , the road
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkottum View Post
Tinmaah, back to your original concern, payload limit. With a weight distribution hitch you are not right up against it because part of the trailer tongue weight (theoretically a third) is transferred to and carried by the trailer axles. The Hensley is a weight distribution hitch. It also eliminates trailer sway which is another concern about shorter wheelbase tow vehicles.

doug k
Heh.. I figured the weight of the Hensley itself might offset anything gained by the WD portion. That thing is a beast. I am excited to have it and try it out.
__________________

__________________
timmaah 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
Aluminum vs Steel Roof Truss masseyfarm Classic Motorhomes 16 12-11-2014 04:04 PM
ST vs LT tires Phil&Sher Tires 125 08-31-2012 03:11 PM
235/75R15XL vs 225/75-15 trailer tire perryg114 Tires 129 07-18-2012 02:59 PM
Full timing and the eternal toilet question... racer155 Full-Timing 20 03-03-2012 07:33 PM
Classic 1969 airstream 18' travel trailer with factory air & full bathroom ca eBay Watch Airstreams on eBay 0 02-12-2012 07:50 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:27 AM.


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.