Tow Vehicle Advice Needed

[jcl]

Originally Posted by tjdonahoe

Bio-LPG.? Where?

That would be LNG, not LPG (unless you want to run a BBQ).

CNG and LNG are both available here. I am sure that at some point Montana will have stations as well.

I passed a Pete 386 on the TransCanada freeway last weekend, hauling a tanker. It is one of 50 in a local fleet running on LNG. The station near their depot opened in 2011. Someone should tell them that nobody runs gas engines any more

http://www.veddertransportation.com/lng-updates.php

Map of US natural gas stations here:

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/na...arest?fuel=CNG

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

This is an excellent comparison of two very closely matched trucks gas vs diesel of similar power output.

IMO these stack well against F150/1500 class or even some SUV size. They are considerably less powerful when compared to a F250/ 2500 DIESEL class truck. Gas XD vs F150 3.5Eco (gas) also did not do well.

The fastest XD (gas) in the video pulled 10600 lbs up the gauntlet in 9:45

The F150 3.5 Ecoboost pulled 9500 lbs up the same run in 7:58

The Ram 2500 Hemi (gas) pulled 11900 lbs up the same in 13:20 BOOOOOOO (obvious weight to HP problem)

The Ram 2500 Cummings (diesel) pulled 12,500 lbs up the same run in 8:05

That is a significant time difference in only 8 miles with WAY more total weight for the Ram.

XD diesel has 310hp/555 lb-ft vs Ram Cummings 370hp/800 lb-ft of torque.

F150 3.5Eco has 375hp/470 lb-ft torque vs Nissan XD 390hp/394 lb-ft torque (gas)

The interesting "take away" is the trucks in each class (gas or diesel) with higher torque pulled MUCH faster than the ones with higher HP when maxed in weight to pull.

These are some numbers and times that should be able to help determine what can tow what "best".

Safe journeys !

There are so many unmatched variables in this “data” I didn’t even read the whole test. The torque/hp “argument” is like asking someone whether they would rather have more volts or kilowatts. Or whether they’d rather walk to work or take their lunch.

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

There are so many unmatched variables in this “data” I didn’t even read the whole test. The torque/hp “argument” is like asking someone whether they would rather have more volts or kilowatts. Or whether they’d rather walk to work or take their lunch.

Unmatched variables...

Well it is a simple test many look to for towing performance.

Each truck is loaded to max payload, max tow capacity then timed up the sane 8 mile hill. Pretty straight forward.

How you interpreted the data or what you like best HP or Torque is your choice.

I put up 4 separate trucks so people can see an actual “test” of capabilities instead of theoretical guesses. Your unwillingness to accept the data does not disprove its accuracy.

I hope whatever you have exceeds your expectation!

[DRPREECE]

Originally Posted by jcl

We are a long way past the early sixties patent for the Jacob compression brake, over five decades.

In the past six years or so, most heavy truck manufacturers have moved to offer gas engines. Look to Peterbilt, Kenworth, Navistar, Volvo, Mercedes, and others.

Modern gas engines are cleaner burning, offer longer oil change intervals than diesels due to that cleaner burning, offer longer overhaul intervals in many cases (these engines are built on the same blocks as their diesel kin), and are now available in some models with not only identical hp and torque curves, but matching torque curves for the same driving experience. Those ones are engines using the diesel cycle, but not burning diesel. Westport is a supplier, working with Cummins. I should say similar driving experience, since they are quieter (lower peak cylinder pressures). And remember that the fuel is cheaper.

They are not yet for every application due to the range issues (return to base applications often work well with CNG, longer range applications may use LNG on some routes).

The most recent Volvo release is here (global site):

http://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/tru...vo-fh-lng.html

Coming soon to North America. Apparently these companies didn't get the memo that there are no big gas engines anymore.

These new engines burn CNG or LNG, not gasoline. Big difference. Industry has been using Diesel engines converted to burn these fuels for decades. The only difference here is the engine is designed from the beginning to burn them.

[switz]

I wonder if the steel storage tanks for LNG weigh more than the diesel tanks? If so, that cuts into the already limited weight carrying capacity of the smaller vehicles used in towing RVs.

[sbowman]

Originally Posted by switz

I wonder if the steel storage tanks for LNG weigh more than the diesel tanks? If so, that cuts into the already limited weight carrying capacity of the smaller vehicles used in towing RVs.

I would presume yes, steel LNG tanks weigh more than plastic fuel tank, presuming your fuel tank is plastic. This is of course not taking into account weight of LNG or fuel. Have no clue if MFG's account for this in there claimed carry capacity.........

Best regards and safe travels

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DRPREECE

These new engines burn CNG or LNG, not gasoline. Big difference. Industry has been using Diesel engines converted to burn these fuels for decades. The only difference here is the engine is designed from the beginning to burn them.

Yes, I was referring to CNG and LNG gaseous fuels. I was in the industry.

There are diesel engines converted to gas, but the ones I was referring to were designed as gas engines, based on diesel engine blocks and cranks.

The point was that in engines designed for similar HD service, running on gas extends the life, and the service intervals. And that these engines are available in heavy trucks. Maybe not in Montana, but that is a Montana issue, not a gas engine issue.

That was in contrast to tj's claim that there are no big gas engines in trucks, and his often made suggestion that the service life of his 3406 Cat 14 litre engine in his Kenworth is proof of the inappropriateness of towing with a 3.5 litre Ecoboost.

On an Airstream note, many here have done or plan to do the Alaska Highway. Many may go through Jasper Alberta. The electrical generating station in Jasper uses natural gas for the townsite. There is a Cat 3616 natural gas engine there (340 litre displacement). It was designed as a gas engine, but built on a diesel 3616 block. First G3616 engine in the world.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by switz

I wonder if the steel storage tanks for LNG weigh more than the diesel tanks? If so, that cuts into the already limited weight carrying capacity of the smaller vehicles used in towing RVs.

Yes, LNG tanks weigh more than diesel tanks, but it isn't just the tank, rather the system weight. An LNG tank is a cryogenic vessel, so it is essentially two tanks, one inside the other, with a vacuum between. Then you may need to add in a vaporizer, since LNG has to be warmed up in order to use it. If it is an HPDI gas engine (Westport direct injection of gas and diesel in the same injector) then you will have a high pressure cryogenic pump, controls systems, and so on.

You won't see LNG on smaller vehicles not just because of the weight, but because of the cost of the system, there isn't a payback. You do see (and will see more) CNG, as it is a simple pressure vessel.

With larger trucks, the weight isn't so much of an issue (smaller percentage of total vehicle weight) but there is an issue with vehicle packaging, as the LNG system takes more space than the equivalent diesel fuel system.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by sbowman

I would presume yes, steel LNG tanks weigh more than plastic fuel tank, presuming your fuel tank is plastic. This is of course not taking into account weight of LNG or fuel. Have no clue if MFG's account for this in their claimed carry capacity.........

Of course it is taken into account. These are heavy duty trucks designed for commercial use. Weights are legal issues there, as well as being competitive issues between brands.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

No one is arguing, at least no one with engineering background. The high school crowd still does though...

That’s funny, considering first the unimportance of engine power once past a reasonable power/weight ratio. Or, use an acceleration test. 0-60 in 20-seconds is more than adequate for a tow rig. Is, “good”. (Thirty seconds is where things fail off).

“Satisfaction” is around here defined as “not knowing what the hell is going on” with the rig via feedback; thus the emphasis of what’s not needed as those or that replace vehicle factors which ARE important. Compromise not justified.

Think you missed the mark: junior high school arguments (engine power; emotion) where dynamic factors towing or solo have precedence (senior high; formulas).

Those advocating a “test” are correct. And it won’t be about 0-60 times (that’s covered) nor will it be about fuel economy (40% penalty at 60-mph versus when loaded same). Those are already factored.

It will be about distance in braking the rig to a complete halt, and otherwise not rolling over sooner than the TT under the same conditions with a better vehicle.

Braking. Steering. Handling.

Solo duty is first.

Guessing that’s never been a consideration, either. What’s best. With testable proofs.

Want to avoid problems? Vehicle design class matters: COG, Independent Suspension, and a suitable wheelbase (no real benefit past 120”)

Neither is it payload or tow rating. Those might narrow a field, but that’s all they do. Hitch rigging is ALSO factored. A non-starter.

Drivetrain fuel? Seriously?

You guys should argue paint colors. Interior appointments. They’ve the same “weight” as you’re making emotional arguments.

Ignoring what does matter.

.

[mefly2]

Wow, it has been hard to dodge the many insults and inferences slung back and forth - but an interesting read.
If only I would have been able to read this information before undergoing the expense to trade a late model F150 in on a Ram 2500 TD in on a GM 2500 HD. The money I could have saved!
Lighten up fellows, the insults serve no one.
Yes, I graduated from HS...even studied engineering and have an advanced degree. But, you know what...I still put my pants or flight suit on one leg at a time.

To each their own as their ability to pay factors in. We have a common interest in Airstreams. That can be said without insult to the folks either with 16 footers or 30+ footers. What is best for you may not be best for me. Heck, I had to have two doors on my last two AS to be happy!

[slowmover]

Are you a girl or a boy?

As to what’s “fun” there’s a difference.

So long as one will say in person what’s written, where’s the problem?

(“I know, I know!! Not enough beer)

As it boils down to risk (accident statis

[tjdonahoe]

Originally Posted by jcl

Yes, I was referring to CNG and LNG gaseous fuels. I was in the industry.

There are diesel engines converted to gas, but the ones I was referring to were designed as gas engines, based on diesel engine blocks and cranks.

The point was that in engines designed for similar HD service, running on gas extends the life, and the service intervals. And that these engines are available in heavy trucks. Maybe not in Montana, but that is a Montana issue, not a gas engine issue.

That was in contrast to tj's claim that there are no big gas engines in trucks, and his often made suggestion that the service life of his 3406 Cat 14 litre engine in his Kenworth is proof of the inappropriateness of towing with a 3.5 litre Ecoboost.

On an Airstream note, many here have done or plan to do the Alaska Highway. Many may go through Jasper Alberta. The electrical generating station in Jasper uses natural gas for the townsite. There is a Cat 3616 natural gas engine there (340 litre displacement). It was designed as a gas engine, but built on a diesel 3616 block. First G3616 engine in the world.

....nothing new...Johnson Fuel Liners, Newcastle, Wyoming..was running Hall Scot engines on propane in the 1950’s, pulling propane tankers, they switched to diesel in the 1980’s...

[switz]

As we age, our reaction times increase. That thought can be followed to perhaps driving slower and not tail gating to improve the chance of avoiding an incident. One can make other safety conscious thoughts like planning to avoid rush hour traffic in major cities or not driving in snow or ice conditions.

Somehow during the 50s to 70s before disc brakes and all kinds of other "safety" stuff, the folks hooked up and towed with what they had and lived to tell the tale.

All this new equipment comes at a cost we all pay, but still can not fix the mistakes of inattention while driving or going to fast for the conditions. The weak link is still the person behind the steering wheel.

[delrossa]

I pull a 28’ fc with a f150 super crew. I think it’s perfect. Just returned from a long trip to southern Florida from upstate NY and back. This pickup rides better than most luxury vehicles.
For any tow vehicle it has to have the right setup.
I run 65 mph with no issues. I avg from 11 to 12.5 mpg.
When we r not towing, the F150 is a nice 5 passenger vehicle. My wife is not afraid to take it shopping as it’s not too big.
As long as you do your homework you will be fine.
The weights of the different AS models vary quite a bit. Make sure your vehicle tow specs equals what the RV weighs.

[jklotz13]

Originally Posted by brick1

The diesel 3/4 ton will tow better. Period. But it will not be as smooth for a daily driver.
The F150 ecoboost can handle it. But it is easy to exceed payload, if you carry much in your truck.
If your primary function is towing, go 3/4 ton.
brick

Hi there,


I've been following this post and see you have a 2018 international serenity. I'm looking at getting the same, a 27 footer! I was wondering what you tow with. I'm looking at getting the F-150 3.5L Ecoboost. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance?

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by jklotz13

Hi there,


I've been following this post and see you have a 2018 international serenity. I'm looking at getting the same, a 27 footer! I was wondering what you tow with. I'm looking at getting the F-150 3.5L Ecoboost. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance?

I tow my 28’ with F 150 XLT super crew max tow haul 3.5 ecoboost. Not problem at all with power. I did put Propride hitch on which helps with stability in heavy traffic. Did use Blue Ox for awhile.

[David2638]

Is any one towing a 27FB with a GMC 1500 6.2 4x4 crew cab short bed with max tow? What is your experience and satisfaction level?

[Deeno]

I have the Signature 27fb and GMC 1500 crew cab with 6.2 and 4x4. No problems for me. I tow at 60-65 mph on highway and get 13 mpg average. I chose the 6.2 because I wanted the most torque available without going to diesel. This engine has the grunt to hold speed up the mountains. I use the 4x4-lo range for backing the trailer on grass; it minimizes wheel spin which tears the turf. The only thing I do have to watch is additional cargo; I'm very close to the payload limits when "trip" loaded, but the truck has the power to get to 80mph if I need to, and the gas mileage is just a little less than the diesels get.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by Deeno

I have the Signature 27fb and GMC 1500 crew cab with 6.2 and 4x4. No problems for me. I tow at 60-65 mph on highway and get 13 mpg average. I chose the 6.2 because I wanted the most torque available without going to diesel. This engine has the grunt to hold speed up the mountains. I use the 4x4-lo range for backing the trailer on grass; it minimizes wheel spin which tears the turf. The only thing I do have to watch is additional cargo; I'm very close to the payload limits when "trip" loaded, but the truck has the power to get to 80mph if I need to, and the gas mileage is just a little less than the diesels get.

And your payload max weight is what?? I really liked the 1/2T 6.2 8speed GM also, but payload just was not there with nicer trim levels....we carry kayaks, generator, extra propane bottle, and camp gear in back. Tongue weight on our AS scales at 1100lbs. Could not find a GM nor F150 4x4 without special ordering and sacrificing some trim level stuff above 1500lbs...plus, as I mentioned earlier, the 3/4T D is more than capable with the larger AS's. If I go back down to a 25', which is likely at some point few years from now (when they put in the U shaped dinning), I would likely go to the GM 6.2 or the Ford EB EB again. For now, for our driving in the Rockies, you couldn't convince me to give up the 6.7D.