Best tow vehicle?

Anyone out there tow a 560 with a Honda Pilot or Acura MDX?
AWD ~ 5,000 lbs
FWD ~ 3,500 lbs
Yes I know it's overkill - but that's my preference.
Thanks in advance, TOWBERT

 

I had an Outback with the 3.6 and it worked great. I got better than 20 when I was pulling my Drop.

 

I'm amazed at how well my 2.7L 4 cylinder 5 speed Tacoma does with our 560. Maybe it just has the right gearing, but I don't lose much mileage.
On our Rocky Mountain trip thru Colorado and New Mexico, we averaged 20.9 MPG over the course of ~2700 miles, including lots of high passes and shifting. We also have a heavy rack and 2 bikes on back of the trailer. Of course, that included probably 10% or so running around without the camper. I only get about 21.5 with mixed driving around town without towing.
It'll be interesting to see how the new 3.5L 6 cylinder motor performs with our toys.

 

Greeting from Virginia .

My wife and i just bought Dave and Dixie's 550 Ultra and can't wait to get out to Portland Oregon to bring her home. We are about ready to pull the trigger on a new Ford transit Connect to use as the TV and in speaking with Cary a few minutes ago , he suggested that I try and get in touch with Steve ( INN 42 ) to discuss this issue. The FTC has the 2.5 4 cyc. engine. I don't want to make a poor decision in the 2.5 rather then the 1.6 ecoboost as discussed by Steve in the above email transmission. I would love to talk with Steve (Inn 42) if possible just to pick his brain a little more on the FTC TV.
I can give you my phone number if necessary.

Will and Diane from Virginia.

 

I can understand a 4 cylinder Subaru being sufficient power for towing in the flats and hills. How well do they really perform in the West? Every direction of travel for me - east, west, south - means crossing mountains, typically the Cascades or Rockies. Opinions on a 4 cylinder Outback under mountainous conditions, towing a 550 with brakes? I just have bad memories of trying to get over the Rockies with my old Subaru Loyale (not towing) - foot to the floor and surely frustrating not only myself but the poor semis stuck behind me.

Are 4 cylinders in general truly sufficient for towing in the mountains? Rav 4, CRV? My last couple sedans have been peppy 6 cylinders, but with only a 1,000 lb. tow capacity. I like the ease of sedans, don't want to lose the pep, but would like to double that tow capacity. Any opinions on sedans or crossovers under $30,000, as a tow vehicle up and down mountain grades? I see the Ford Fusion EcoBoost has a 2,000 lb. tow capacity, but enough power? Better alternative? I was never really a fan of Fords.

P.S. The vehicle will also need to serve as my commuter vehicle (35 miles/day RT), so it's not JUST about the power, but I am admittedly concerned about mountain towing

 

Try the smaller jeep Cherokee with tow option. 6 cylinder and 4500 tow capacity. Drove our 560 in the mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota without any trouble.

 

I have a Honda CR-V - I think it comes up a little short on power when you get into hilly terrain. Plus tow capacity is 1500# - a loaded 560 is a little short of that - but close - I have moved over to using my jeep Laredo when it is going to involve a lot of hilly driving.

Bob

 

I think if you did the research that you would find that the Ford Fusion with the EcoBoost engine is one of the better gas 4 cylinder engines out there for towing. I've already blabbed about them, and an earlier post in this thread has a link to a Ford white paper that gives a better idea of why that is than I could ever do. But I'll toss a little more of our experiences with our Ford (the first we've ever owned). The vehicle comes with an oil viscosity sensor that tells you when it's time to change the oil (I think these are becoming commonplace on most vehicles). You replace the synthetic oil every 10,000 miles unless the sensor tells you to replace it sooner. About 8,500 of our first 10,000 miles was towing our Camp Inn, yet we didn't need to replace the oil until 10,000 miles. We currently nearing 18,000 miles with a very high percentage of those miles being towing miles. Again, the sensor hasn't tripped early. We had less mileage on a 2013 Mazda CX-5, which was clearly underpowered for towing, despite a 2,000 pound tow rating. You could see black residue on the tailpipe extensions, indicating that it was burning oil. As much as I love Mazdas, it was a poor choice for towing. The EcoBoost engine is amazing in the way that it can run at a very low engine speed while towing. Lower engine speed means less friction wear in the engine, which means it should last longer than an engine that is always running at higher RPMs under the same conditions.

If you really want a mountain torture test, try the Ozarks. The grades aren't as long as many out west, but they are a lot steeper. Our TC has done great. We've also towed through the Cascades and Rockies with no problem. There has always been more power there if we needed it.

 

Good advice, helpful tales of experience, and Jenn's perspective is of course right on the money. I've put many a mile on cars driving between the west coast I've called home for a couple decades and "back home" Midwest to visit family. But I've towed on that route only once, a small U-Haul the "uphill" direction, and my next vehicle will be the first purchased with towing in mind. I'll enjoy keeping my head in this amazing forum until decision time. My 550 will be a 2017 model, so I have some time to decide on a TV. Many thanks to those weighing in.

 

I do hear only good things about Tacomas, and if I was in the market for a truck, that's probably the direction I'd go. But I can't justify the waste of space in my situation, canopy or not.

 

Jenn -

My apologies for replying so late on this. Try bicycling "downhill" from the Rockies to the Mississippi and let me know how that goes. Each river drainage creates it's own set of hills. I think you'd be surprised how much elevation is gained going "downhill." It may be a bit less than when traveling in the "uphill" direction, but believe me, your body won't be able to tell the difference, nor will yourtow vehicle. And it probably won't cause a significant difference in your gas mileage (wind will have a much more noticeable impact) - after all, you are talking about a net elevation gain of somewhere between 7,000 and 11,000 feet (depending upon where you cross the Rockies) over several hundred miles (if starting in the Midwest). So over 500 miles, you'd be gaining an additional 10-22 feet of elevation per mile. With a 1% gradient you would be gaining 53 feet of elevation per mile - meaning it isn't a significant gradient. Check your gas mileage on a long 1% grade, a long 5% grade and a long 10% grade. That 10% grade will have a much bigger impact on both gas mileage and vehicle wear. Ride a bicycle up those same gradients and you'll understand why, without needing a physics lesson.

We joked about the fact that it was all downhill after crossing the Rockies, but that was definitely tongue-in-cheek - something to make light of the hard slog that we faced. That was partly because only the days with foul weather provided a tailwind. It was nice and sunny with a headwind most of the way. Which is why far more people abandon their cross country cycling ambitions on the plains - they are much tougher and longer than the short ride over the Rockies, and there is no scenic reward around every corner.

In the west I can only think a couple of really tough grades for towing. The interstate heading east out of Salt Lake City is one - steep and long. Likewise for the highway on the east side of the Sierras that leads to the east entrance of Yosemite. There are likely others (probably plenty that I've driven in the distant past, but forgotten), but by and large most freeways out west try to maintain a gradient of no more than 5%, and for short distances sometimes as much as 7%. Still, it is possible to invest in a tow vehicle that struggles on even those grades, hence this thread to help folks understand the issues and the options.

I think that most people who are short on time and have the money will likely opt for more cylinders and/or a large engine displacement. These don't always directly address their suitability for towing, but those sorts of choices reduce the odds of selecting an inadequate tow vehicle.

Folks who are short on money will want to take the time to learn what their options are, or risk ending up with a TV that fits their budget, but that is inadequate for their particular needs.

 

I had occasion to be waiting at a car dealer's showroom lately, and started browsing various car magazines in the waiting area. I found an article about a new engine in Mazda's CX-9, which has the same low rpm torque characteristics of the EcoBoost engine in my Ford. The crux of the article was that the engine was designed to provide power and torque that matches the needs of the average driver, rather than solely to produce a large horsepower or torque number for their marketing brochures (the typical Detroit approach).

I think there is a definite trend toward designing these types of engines, and anyone interested in a specific tow vehicle for their Camp Inn might be wise to visit the library to review some car mags to see if their preferred tow vehicle has this sort of engine as an option. In my mind they are far better suited to towing than any engines I've previously owned.

I have a theory about what may be causing this perceived trend: autonomous vehicles. To me, it makes sense that controlling an autonomous vehicle is likely much easier when the engine is operating at a low rpm with this sort of torque. It would accelerate more like an electric vehicle, which is probably a better choice for an autonomous vehicle, since it is a simpler design and weighs less. I could babble on, but there no real point. Hopefully this might help someone in their search for the best tow vehicle.

 

Thanks very much for adding this to the conversation!

 

I still vote diesel... I know VW isn't selling the Jetta Sportwagen right now till they figure out the emissions... but with a manual transmission it is awesome... great acceleration (with the trailer) - hills are not an issue... I forget the TD is back there. Maybe there are other diesel options out there - I know Chevrolet introduced a sedan last year... don't know... but torque *and* mileage is a good thing.

 

We use a Honda Ridgeline. We have a ton of room, added a bike rack to carry the bikes in the bed. The kind where you take the front wheels off and lock the forks to a bar by the cab.
The trunk is very spacious, and of course, there's room in the cab for more stuff. It does well on hills. We use a Kia Sorento when we don't take our bikes and when we are staying in flat Florida.

 

It's somewhat dependent on your mission.
If you are planning on some significant off road, snowy, or unimproved road use, it seems like the SUV route is a reasonable thing.
However if good 30+ MPG mileage, and using pretty much the established camp grounds at community, county, state, and federal camp grounds is what you plan, then the VW diesel works very well. They have a very good amount of trunk space, lot of torque for pulling, and have a comfortable ride. It has only been stuck once when we had a family reunion at my sisters, we had to drive thru their yard to a place to park, the grass was wet from a recent rain, and we were trying to go up an incline, stopped mid way, and couldn't get enough traction on the wet grass to get going again. A little push from the family got us to our destination.

 

Hello Steve, I'm very intrigued (and a little worried) about your Mazda CX-5 comments.

Hello Steve, I'm intrigued (and a little worried) about your Mazda CX-5 comments. I am a wannabe Camp-In trailer guy, and was anticipating using my 2014 Mazda CX-5 as my tow vehicle. It features a 2.5L 184hp motor, but I assume yours had the 2.0 155hp motor? I saw a comment elsewhere from Cary that the most popular tow vehicle for these trailers is a Subaru Outback, and I think most of those feature a 4 cylinder 175hp motor. So do you think my vehicle will be adequately powered and have some "get up and go"? Did you experience any handling problems, or a big impact on MPG? Thanks for any feedback you can furnish.

Steve Wilson
aka Seattle Steve

 

keep in mind that the vehicle that may be adequate in Minnesota/Wisconsin/Florida/Texas/etc. may not be adequate in the mountainous west. Long uphill grades with the AC on in the summer may be difficult for some of the 4-cylinders out there, despite the low weight of our TDs, especially when the TV is loaded with coolers, etc.

-Al

 

Hi!

We did have the under-powered 155 hp engine. Mazda realized it was under-powered and subsequently used the larger displacement engine later in the model year. My main concern with Mazda's high-compression SkyActiv engine is that the torque was too high up the power curve, meaning when torque is needed to get up a hill the engine was revving quite high. The same hills in our Ford TC rarely sees the tach go above 2,500 rpm (it has to be really steep or we need to be driving above 60 mph for it to go higher). Hopefully Mazda has a white paper out there somewhere that might tell you more about the torque profile for your engine (and perhaps it is possible to compare that against the profile for the engine that we had). But there will be no handling problems. Your gas mileage is likely to be around 23 mpg overall - better on flat ground with a tailwind, worse in very hilly terrain.

Keep in mind that a very high percentage of the miles that we put on our van are while towing (and we've traveled 37,000 miles in 18 months). For occasional towing in summer, with perhaps the one big two week trip every year, the Mazda will probably do just fine.