Towing Fuel Economy

[02Sled]

1 hour ago, Techdenis007 said:

My recent open deck 102" x 14' trailer was significantly harder to pull with the salt deflector shield on, than off. I removed it for the summer hauling quads, the difference was substantial. And the shield was only 2 feet high. Imagine an 8 1/2' full height trailer. 

 

As for trucks, engines, bigger is better. Its finding the balance between fuel economy when empty, and sufficient power to haul a trailer when needed, that is difficult. Lots of varying opinions out there. I now know that a 4.6L is NOT sufficient to check both boxes.

My 3.5 L 6 cyl with twin turbo has more hp and torque than my 5.4 l did. It also pulls much better. It has towed our 32 ft. 7,600 lb. 11.6 ft. high RV without any problems. You don't rocket away from a stop but what would.

[sledjunk]

First off, the title of this thread strikes me as an oxymoron.

 

42 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

If you're going to be towing a lot, especially heavy or driving a lot of km then diesel works out economically with the life span of the engine. For the average person occasionally pulling a boat, an RV or snowmobile trailer they aren't really financially viable.

 

That was my experience with my diesel.  I simply didn't use it enough to make up for the high maintenance costs.

 

[Ox]

re: Diesels

 

I never understood the whole "Maintenance costs" argument ???

 

In the last 20 years and >330,000 miles, I have put prolly $2500 (US) in "repairs" on my Cummins motors. 

280K miles on '99 from new, and the '06 from 145K to 195K. (So not 5 brand new motors)

An injector pump on my '99 and an injector on my '06.

 

I have heard of WAY higher repair bills for other motors, but not the Cummins.

???

 

Other than that - of course there is alternators and whatnot, but that's all the same anyhow.

 

Oil changes, folks like to fuss about that, but nothing says that you have to use the most expensive schidt that you can find on the shelf. Diesels have been running for >100 years on less. 

I run Rotella most of the time, but I have ran Mobile 1 if I think I'm gunna park in the bush @ -30* as the old '99 doesn't like to start that cold w/o being plugged in. She WILL start, but under a LOT of noted duress, so I put the thin stuff in for that porpoise. I still have that truck as it's my plow truck and my "yard truck" for my gooseneck around the farm/shop.

 

Sure, you use 2wice as much oil at change time, but you can run 2wice as many miles between, so ???

 

 

Now - with all that said - when I was looking for a "new" truck a few years back, I am pretty sure that I would NOT have bought another diesel as I'm just not puting that many miles on my truck currently, and I think that a bigger gas would be fine - compared to the $10,000 option upcharge for the big diesels. However - I ended up buying a 10 yr old Florida truck with another Cummins in it for 1/2 price. Now the motor will wear out about the same time that the salt takes the chassis. (maybe?)

 

 

Before that - I had an old '82 6.2 diesel, and yeah - I put a hole in the side of that block, but let's not count those production qty test mules eh?

 

Also - did pump the fuel tank full of prox 3 gallons of water once when I was on my way to go sledding. Dropped tank and changed fuel filter and all was fine. 

The Fords that filled up that day all lost 8 injectors each! I think the bigger Internationals (skewl busses) just needed drained and filter too?)

 

 

So - I would not buy a new one likely. The big Hemi seems to doo pretty good balance, but it's certainly not for maint costs, but the upcharge. It takes a LOT of miles to pay that upcharge back, and it's about the life of the truck at this point. 

 

 

.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Ox

[Sksman]

43 minutes ago, sledjunk said:

First off, the title of this thread strikes me as an oxymoron.

 

 

That was my experience with my diesel.  I simply didn't use it enough to make up for the high maintenance costs.

 

There is also a big difference between the 2500/3500 diesels and the new 1500 class diesels.

I am hearing some pretty good MPG numbers pulling and empty.   Way better economy then a 2500/3500 when empty.

 

And pretty good numbers when towing.  

[02Sled]

31 minutes ago, Sksman said:

There is also a big difference between the 2500/3500 diesels and the new 1500 class diesels.

I am hearing some pretty good MPG numbers pulling and empty.   Way better economy then a 2500/3500 when empty.

 

And pretty good numbers when towing.  

the diesel fuel costs more plus the higher price of the diesel engine option in the purchase means you need to drive a lot to get a ROI or break even.

[Baylaker]

Diesels are meant for towing heavy loads day in day out and making money. If your not making money with it, there’s no point in owning one unless you get a smoking deal on it. Jmo though

 

diesels do hold their value a bit better also.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Baylaker

[Sksman]

44 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

the diesel fuel costs more plus the higher price of the diesel engine option in the purchase means you need to drive a lot to get a ROI or break even.

Sorry 02. Not sure of your numbers.  

Factor in the higher resale at the end of the deal also.  People look at a diesel with 100,000kms different then a gas truck.

I bought a 1500 ram with hemi only because the US EPA had stopped Ram from shipping diesels for 8 months.  I wish I had the diesel.

 

Look at fuel economy numbers from Fuelly.com.  

 

Guys are reporting mileage with 3.0 diesel Ram.  10 - 11 l/100km vs 14-16 l/100km with the hemi motor. 

 

and compare your 3.5v6 Ford F-150 at 14 l/100 km.   

 

25 - 30% increase in fuel economy.  Then throw in towing a trailer and watch the savings change even more 

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Sksman
Spelling

[Strong Farmer]

2 hours ago, Techdenis007 said:

My recent open deck 102" x 14' trailer was significantly harder to pull with the salt deflector shield on, than off. I removed it for the summer hauling quads, the difference was substantial. And the shield was only 2 feet high. Imagine an 8 1/2' full height trailer. 

 

As for trucks, engines, bigger is better. Its finding the balance between fuel economy when empty, and sufficient power to haul a trailer when needed, that is difficult. Lots of varying opinions out there. I now know that a 4.6L is NOT sufficient to check both boxes.

I tow a tent trailer and my 102” by 12 foot aluminium enclosed. Tent trailer don’ even know it is there and fuel economy is close to driving around without it, around 17 L per hundred.My enclosed,  I average close to 25L per hundred km’s. Tows better when full too, less bouncing around behind truck. Gm 5.0, 2010 half ton. My 2002 Jeep can do same job on a similar amount of fuel too. So I don’t see a big difference, between two engines to be honest.  

[Lep]

Propane has been working quite well the last few yrs in the Ford product...3.5/5.0 work very well.

[revrnd]

3 hours ago, Baylaker said:

Diesels are great for towing heavy loads everyday, but the maintenance and costs of repairing a diesel can be expensive. I almost bought a new diesel, but went with the gas engine instead. The 6.0ls are tough as nails and it’s very rare they have any issues.

Exactly. Back in the 90s when pricing a truck the salesman said doesnt your company use diesels? I said no it's a personal use truck. It was optioned out w/ the plow pkg.

 

Out of curiosity I asked him about the guidelines for 'needing' a diesel. Turned out I didn't tow anything, didn't put enough miles on annually or keep my trucks long enough to make it economical.

 

And I'm pretty sure maintenance costs have really gone up in the last 20 years. No more 6 L of 5W30 & a filter like a gasser for a start.

 

Now you have DPF regens that kill fuel mileage & the DEF fluid to keep replenished.

[ZR SLEDHEAD]

1 hour ago, Sksman said:

Sorry 02. Not sure of your numbers.  

Factor in the higher resale at the end of the deal also.  People look at a diesel with 100,000kms different then a gas truck.

I bought a 1500 ram with hemi only because the US EPA had stopped Ram from shipping diesels for 8 months.  I wish I had the diesel.

 

Look at fuel economy numbers from Fuelly.com.  

 

Guys are reporting mileage with 3.0 diesel Ram.  10 - 11 l/100km vs 14-16 l/100km with the hemi motor. 

 

and compare your 3.5v6 Ford F-150 at 14 l/100 km.   

 

25 - 30% increase in fuel economy.  Then throw in towing a trailer and watch the savings change even more 

Part of the problem with the comparisons, many skew the numbers, either lowering diesel consumption or inflating consumption on the gassers. During fall cruise to see colors with my bride, straight hwy run across 401 to 35-115 n up into Haliburton saw the Ram hit 9 ltrs / 100 flat. Yes it was a relaxing cruise that is not typical of how I drive it but it sure is capable of great mileage if you give it a chance. As for the reported 14-16, even with my typical using remote start n short runs around the city, barely hit 16/100 city runs only. Open alum car trailer with a Mustang on back up to the Soo a yr ago,  hovered at 16.2 for the trip up, way back with a lighter Merkur on board, hit a hair over 15.

To me, fact it's just that much better on fuel n tows better vs my previous Sierra is a bonus, just plain like the truck so much it could be worse on fuel and I'd like it just as much. Even better, haven't had any of the one thing after another problems that plagued the GM. Keep in mind, coming from a guy that figured he'd always be driving something out of the Generals stable.

Quote

 

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by ZR SLEDHEAD

[Ox]

OK, using your ratios, I figgered out Mamma's 'Burban.

 

We took a trip through Da UP Eh! over Labour Day weekend. 

Up through the Mak, all over Da UP, and back down through that cheesehead state and back through Chi-Town....

 

We averaged 10.3 litres/100 on her (2013?) 'Burban with the 327 (I spose?) but it shuts off cyls when not needed. 

 

 

Many of the newer gassers are really good. My BIL had a 3/4 ton 4wd with the small hemi and got 15mpg (US) just around home.

And had plenty ass to pull race car.

 

 

I don't want to have anything to doo with all that smog schidt on the new diesels!

 

 

 

On contrast, I got 15.3MPG (us) with my dually empty this week round tripping Toronto (401) with the Cummins on winter fuel. 

That was way better than expected on winter fuel!

.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Ox

[ZR SLEDHEAD]

Cheap driving given the vehicle.

[Strong Farmer]

4 hours ago, Ox said:

OK, using your ratios, I figgered out Mamma's 'Burban.

 

We took a trip through Da UP Eh! over Labour Day weekend. 

Up through the Mak, all over Da UP, and back down through that cheesehead state and back through Chi-Town....

 

We averaged 10.3 litres/100 on her (2013?) 'Burban with the 327 (I spose?) but it shuts off cyls when not needed. 

 

 

Many of the newer gassers are really good. My BIL had a 3/4 ton 4wd with the small hemi and got 15mpg (US) just around home.

And had plenty ass to pull race car.

 

 

I don't want to have anything to doo with all that smog schidt on the new diesels!

 

 

 

On contrast, I got 15.3MPG (us) with my dually empty this week round tripping Toronto (401) with the Cummins on winter fuel. 

That was way better than expected on winter fuel!

.

I like winter diesel. Burns so much cleaner with higher kerosene content, but has less energy then summer fuel as a result. Barely tell it is a diesel now.

[Wildbill]

We tow a lot. Two hummin cummins no issues ever engine wise over a hundred dollars.  I get better fuel economy towing a 10000 lb boat than a certain buddy of mines Yota 5.7 . Truck starts everyday no matter how cold it is gets better traction in the slippery crap because of the heavy engine and easily lasts half a million working kms and 20 years. No regrets ever. We also own two Hemis that do not tow as much love these trucks they are very good on gas tow well when needed however they have the ability to beat up your drivers license they are rockets. Too each their own your bucks your say we have it both ways no regrets. As for the def fluid mine are older and do not need it future tier 5 Diesels will not need it either I am told.

[Sksman]

 

 

I track every tank in my 2017 Ram 1500 Sport with 5.7.  My best tanks ever were 11.31 l/100km.  Driving from Toronto to Kirkland Lake to Ottawa to Montreal and then back to Milton. And 11.95l/100km.   Lifetime average of 14.25l/100km. Based on Roadtrip app and almost every fill up recorded.  I missed one or two.  

I have almost every fill up recorded for last 8 years on my trucks.  I do it for business write off.  

 

 

While it’s great to say I got 9l/100kms on a trip once over the life of truck it’s not true especially if we are talking overall operating cost of vehicle.  If you are averaging 16 city and once got 9 your true l/100kms operating cost will be much higher.  Like 14 or 15 depending on you city/highway km ratio.  Calculating operating cost needs all km accounted for not your best day.

 

[manotickmike]

21 hours ago, ZR SLEDHEAD said:

Part of the problem with the comparisons, many skew the numbers, either lowering diesel consumption or inflating consumption on the gassers. During fall cruise to see colors with my bride, straight hwy run across 401 to 35-115 n up into Haliburton saw the Ram hit 9 ltrs / 100 flat. Yes it was a relaxing cruise that is not typical of how I drive it but it sure is capable of great mileage if you give it a chance. As for the reported 14-16, even with my typical using remote start n short runs around the city, barely hit 16/100 city runs only. Open alum car trailer with a Mustang on back up to the Soo a yr ago,  hovered at 16.2 for the trip up, way back with a lighter Merkur on board, hit a hair over 15.

To me, fact it's just that much better on fuel n tows better vs my previous Sierra is a bonus, just plain like the truck so much it could be worse on fuel and I'd like it just as much. Even better, haven't had any of the one thing after another problems that plagued the GM. Keep in mind, coming from a guy that figured he'd always be driving something out of the Generals stable.

 

Did you mention Merkur?

[ZR SLEDHEAD]

Yes customer has a XR4TI that needed a bunch of mechanical love to make reliable again.

 

Edited December 25, 2019 by ZR SLEDHEAD

[COLD BEER]

I went from a Triton XT101 12’ to a TC167 a few years ago. I don’t think that the fuel economy is any better with the TC167; it does feel lighter when pulling but feels heavier when stopping. 

My Sierra 5.3 gives me about 19 L/100 km  highway and about 22 L/100 km on 400 series highways when towing the TC167.

[02Sled]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 5:06 PM, Wildbill said:

We tow a lot. Two hummin cummins no issues ever engine wise over a hundred dollars.  I get better fuel economy towing a 10000 lb boat than a certain buddy of mines Yota 5.7 . Truck starts everyday no matter how cold it is gets better traction in the slippery crap because of the heavy engine and easily lasts half a million working kms and 20 years. No regrets ever. We also own two Hemis that do not tow as much love these trucks they are very good on gas tow well when needed however they have the ability to beat up your drivers license they are rockets. Too each their own your bucks your say we have it both ways no regrets. As for the def fluid mine are older and do not need it future tier 5 Diesels will not need it either I am told.

For the towing and amount of driving you do the diesel is an easy choice to make. If I were in your shoes it would be a diesel. For the average person not so much.

[revrnd]

3 hours ago, 02Sled said:

For the towing and amount of driving you do the diesel is an easy choice to make. If I were in your shoes it would be a diesel. For the average person not so much.

 

Other than to say they've got a Cummins or Dmax...

[Sksman]

3 hours ago, revrnd said:

 

Other than to say they've got a Cummins or Dmax...

That’s the good thing about vehicles.  People can buy and drive what pleases them.  Personally I would buy a 2500 Diesel truck long before I buy a corvette or Mustang.  Waste of money to say I have it?

 

i know one thing, in all the years I have owned a pickup I have had way more friends ask to borrow my trucks then the guys who own corvettes and mustangs. Go figure!!

[02Sled]

44 minutes ago, Sksman said:

That’s the good thing about vehicles.  People can buy and drive what pleases them.  Personally I would buy a 2500 Diesel truck long before I buy a corvette or Mustang.  Waste of money to say I have it?

 

i know one thing, in all the years I have owned a pickup I have had way more friends ask to borrow my trucks then the guys who own corvettes and mustangs. Go figure!!

The day you get a pickup is the day you find out how many friends you have that you didn't know you had 

 

[ZR SLEDHEAD]

1 hour ago, Sksman said:

That’s the good thing about vehicles.  People can buy and drive what pleases them.  Personally I would buy a 2500 Diesel truck long before I buy a corvette or Mustang.  Waste of money to say I have it?

 

i know one thing, in all the years I have owned a pickup I have had way more friends ask to borrow my trucks then the guys who own corvettes and mustangs. Go figure!!

Days like this makes the $$ I've got tied up worth it and then some.

[Sledguy74]

Dealers have plenty of stock, “friends” should go buy their own Pickups!