 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / February 2006E-350 fuel economy
I'm considering a e-150 or 350 to pull a small pop up on extended trips. We have a new minivan and the weights will put us at about 75% of gross, assuing lots of junk in the van, so we are safe enough with the van, but I'm concerned about transmission life. In any event, I see both the 150 and 350 ford vans at very good prices in almost new condition. I'm wondering how much of a decrease in real-world highway mileage I would see with the 350 model and the base (5.6 I think) engine as compared to the 150 with the 4.7. Either one would be perfectly fine for our use, I'm just wondering what my fuel costs would be for the other 95% of my driving I do without a trailer on the back. "fred_hack" <roden.john@gmail.com> wrote in news:1139164152.641537.258790 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > I'm considering a e-150 or 350 to pull a small pop up on extended > trips. We have a new minivan and the weights will put us at about 75% [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > costs would be for the other 95% of my driving I do without a trailer > on the back. The differences between a E-150 and E-250 are much more than powerplant options. The GCWR of the two different lines can be hugely different, and the ride and handling of the 150 versus the 350 will also differ noticeably. For example some of the 2000 tow ratings [grouped by engie type] are as follows: Econoline Van E-150 4.2 V-6 5,100 (c) Econoline Van E-250 4.2 V-6 5,200 (d) Econoline Van E-250 4.6 V-8 5,700 (e) Econoline Van E-150 4.6 V-8 6,600 (c) Econoline Wagon E-150 4.6 V-8 6,100 (c) Econoline Van E-150 5.4 V-8 6,900 (c) Econoline Wagon E-150 5.4 V-8 6,500 (c) Econoline Van E-250 5.4 V-8 7,500 (d) Econoline Van E-250 5.4 V-8 NGV 4,500 (d) Econoline Van E-350 5.4 V-8 6,500 (c) Econoline Wagon E-350 5.4 V-8 6,000 (c) Econoline Van E-350 6.8 V-10 9,300 (d) Econoline Van E-350 6.8 V-10 10,000 (e) (c) Requires 3.55:1 axle ratio. (d) Requires 3.73:1 axle ratio. (e) Requires 3.98/4.09/4.10:1 axle ratio. I personally have a 1978 ClubWagon [E-250] with the 460 cui V8 (5.7 liter). So ow does it do pulling my popup? I can't even tell it is there, versus trying to stop in a hurry using my mini-van as the TV. Mileage? Well, when pulling the pop-up I am on the highway mostly, so that means I am looking at 10-12MPG versus the 8 MPG city I get when not towing. Would my mileage on the highway be higher when not pulling the pop-up? Probably 1-2 MPG difference, but then again the way the thing is geared I doubt it (as long as I can cruise at just under 70MPH which seems to be this engine/trans/rear diff sweet spot). When it all comes down to it, I would be comparing the mileage a E-350 gets pulling the pop-up (or not) on the highway versus my mini-van on the highway --- in my present situation that is about 19MPG for the mini-van combo and 11-12MPG for the 28 year old E series full size van with close to double the cargo space; if I had a newer one with a working A/C and adequate seating that is what we would be using for the long hauls. >I'm considering a e-150 or 350 to pull a small pop up on extended >trips. We have a new minivan and the weights will put us at about 75% [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >costs would be for the other 95% of my driving I do without a trailer >on the back. Not sure about the 150, though if you're talking full size van it should be no problem... a 350 is big-time overkill for a popup.. maybe that's a typo and you meant f-250?? mac Please remove splinters before emailing I guess it was the 250, in fact. The first year depreciation on those things is amazing, I was looking at vans with 10K miles or less, priced in the mid teens, even the 250 with the extra seat. I'm just doubtful that it would make much of a daily driver and I'm guessing I'd pull down low teens MPG with the larger v-8 in the 3/4 ton van, which is just excessive. I may try using the minivan with a WDH for some longer trips and see how it goes, it does have a long wheelbase and disk brakes all around. I'm sure people go through this all the time, the vehicle that is good for towing is kind of excessive for driving to work and the supermarket. It's almost tempting to get something used and older just for towing, but after losing a ton of value in the first 10 seconds off the lot, these vans seem to hold a decent value on past the 100K mi range where you just know a transmission replacement is in the cards soon. Maybe a mid 90's caprice wagon might fit the bill just fine. > I guess it was the 250 I was wondering about that. A 350, even a SINGLE-rear-wheel model, is one big, honkin' pickup. I'm just doubtful that it would make much of a daily driver CO$T aside, why not? Check out my sig and see what *I* drive to work and back, four miles each way. It's a GREAT ride. For what I PAY to do it, it ought to be. > I'm guessing I'd pull down low teens MPG with the larger v-8 > in the 3/4 ton van, which is just excessive. Low teens is excessive? I'd love to see 12 mpg. <sigh> Welcome to the world of large vehicles. They take a LOT of fuel to go. > I'm sure people go through this all the time, the vehicle that is good > for towing is kind of excessive for driving to work and the > supermarket. Yeah, I'm learning that. I may eventually wind up with a motorhome and just tow a little "PG rollerskate" behind it. > Maybe a mid 90's caprice wagon might fit the bill just fine. Mid 90s is all you're gonna get. They quit making them in what... 1996? A great popup-towing vehicle (I had a 1992) but there's probably very little left out there with fewer than a ZILLION miles on the clock. Good luck!  Signature:) JR 2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 I'm also tempted by an Astro, but my last one was a never ending saga of idler arms, brake rotors, cooler lines and finally the sun gear that broke the camel's back. Nice driving van but seemed a little light on the engineering, especially that darn transmission. I just can't rationalize a daily driver with a big block when I do so much drivng around alone with nothing more than a pencil for cargo. We use road salt here (Near Buffalo) so our selection of older vehicles for use as a dedicated TV is complicated by the rotten bodies of most. > I'm also tempted by an Astro, but my last one was a never ending saga > of idler arms, brake rotors, cooler lines and finally the sun gear that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > use road salt here (Near Buffalo) so our selection of older vehicles > for use as a dedicated TV is complicated by the rotten bodies of most. GM dropped the Astro/Safari line this year. That is the end of the rear drive configuration of the so called mini-vans. > I just can't rationalize a daily driver with a big block Aw, heck. NO one can rationalize a daily driver with *ANY* V8 beyond "It's there when I need it!". Look at all the moms shuttling kids and groceries in a $50k 1500 Suburban. Many of them may never USE the trailer hitch. Like they "NEED" such a vehicle?!? No, but it's THEIR choice to make and I'm all for that. For the up-front CO$T of the vehicle, combined with the 12mpg it gets, it provides a LOT: Relatively superior crash protection for its occupants and, with Auto-Trac, automatically engaged 4-wheel-drive as needed. > We use road salt here (Near Buffalo) so our selection of older vehicles > for use as a dedicated TV is complicated by the rotten bodies of most. Hmmmm... Not caring for vehicles might be a little more prevalent there than in fly-over country. I believe we do not get as much snow as you get, but we get PLENTY of it and lots of ice. Trust me: We use road salt here - in MASS quantities. Our roads are usually down to dry pavement within a day of the end of most storms. However, they are then WHITE with salt residue for days or weeks afterwards. There is NOT an abundance of rusted-out vehicles here - and we don't have a vehicle inspection law. Then again, you might be referring to MUCH older vehicles than I am thinking of. As for your Subject (above), the word "economy" is not appropriate in any discussion of the F350's appetite for fuel. Any "full-size" vehicle with anything but the very smallest V8 is going to deliver MPG in the very-low-teens as a daily driver. It's part of the "price" you pay for being able to haul a full sheet of plywood - not something you can readily do driving a 40mpg motorized rollerskate. Ideally, we would have a highly-efficient vehicle for our daily needs and the big, gas-guzzling tow vehicle waiting back with the RV. Unfortunately, with the price of TAXES and insurance what they are, for most folks, it is not feasible to own and maintain such a luxurious choice. Leslie and I have the next, best thing: She drives the wheels off of her Toyota Corolla to/from work (commutes MUCH further than I), and I use her car when available for errands and other trips into Omaha. This has spared my pickup (51-months old w/only 45k on the clock) for my daily commute (~8 miles/roundtrip) and, more importantly, to effortlessly tow my camping trailer. So far, it's been worth the price. The Silverado is a GREAT ride ANY time. Signature:) JR 2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 > <snip> > For the up-front CO$T of the vehicle, combined with the 12mpg it gets, it > provides a > LOT: Relatively superior crash protection for its occupants... > <snip> I think that particular claim has been refuted in recent studies. SignatureChris Cowles Gainesville, FL >> Relatively superior crash protection for its occupants. > I think that particular claim has been refuted in recent studies. I have heard those claims but didn't examine the details. It is based on my knowledge of basic physics and my ignorance of the DETAILS of the negative crash test results that caused me to include the qualifier "relatively". I could be wrong, but I believe that getting t-boned at xx mph by xx vehicle would result in a greater LIKELIHOOD of injury to someone riding on that side in a Honda Accord vs a Suburban. Motor vehicle crash safety tests are a lot like political polls: Raw data can be meaningless. It's how you manipulate that data to achieve the desired outcome that really counts. <sly grin> Heck, all we have to do is buckle-up and, by that simple act, we have SLASHED the odds that, in an accident, we'll be hurt or killed. In a bad accident, passive restraints, safety cage passenger compartments and crush zones improve your odds of survival by a little; safety belts by a LOT. (That's your auto lecture for today. Tomorrow we'll discuss the difference between using the "10 and 2" position for holding the steering wheel or the newer, increasingly popular "9 and 3". I can't wait.) Signature:) JR > >> Relatively superior crash protection for its occupants. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would result in a greater LIKELIHOOD of injury to someone riding on that side > in a Honda Accord vs a Suburban. That's true. But another factor includes the likelihood of the Accord being able to avoid to accidence than the Suburban. Manuverability, stopping power, etc. >From what I've read and if I recall correctly, the Suburban is a darn safe vehicle. But some of the SUVs manage to kill their occupants in single-vehicle roll-overs at a fairly high clip. We love our E-150 conversion van. The power train has the now-obsolete 300 I-6, now-obsolete C-6 automatic, and 3.55:1 differential. The engine and transmission are as reliable as tomorrow's sunrise! Highway milage is 15 MPG (it would be better with a 3.08:1 differential), but it gets 11-13 towing the pop up. What's more....I don't have a van payment! Check it out.. http://members.pathway.net/harmonicat/camping.htm George >engine and transmission are as reliable as tomorrow's sunrise! Highway >milage is 15 MPG (it would be better with a 3.08:1 differential), but >it gets 11-13 towing the pop up. What's more....I don't have a van >payment! Check it out.. >http://members.pathway.net/harmonicat/camping.htm George: I read an article somewhere about gas mileage and differentials. IIRC, there was very little difference in mpg between a 3.55 rear and a 4.10--something like 1-2 mpg. The lower gears like a 4.10 allow for better acceleration from a stop. Happy Camping! Mark Filice >>engine and transmission are as reliable as tomorrow's sunrise! Highway >>milage is 15 MPG (it would be better with a 3.08:1 differential), but [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Mark Filice I think there is a lot more difference than you think. My F350 with 7.3 PSD and 4:10 gears gets 14 on it's best day, unloaded. A friend has 3:73 gears, same truck and tranny and gets almost 20, unloaded. BIG difference. His engine operates almost 1000 rpms lower than mine. It depends also a lot on the engine, how it's tuned and where it's power band is. But you will still see a pretty significant jump between 3:55 and 4:10. SignatureFrank Tabor >I think there is a lot more difference than you think. My F350 with >7.3 PSD and 4:10 gears gets 14 on it's best day, unloaded. A friend [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >power band is. But you will still see a pretty significant jump >between 3:55 and 4:10. I don't know what to think. I did a little Google Search, and came up with a bunch of links that tell stories that give differing viewpoints: http://tinyurl.com/c3rtw Some say 1-2 mpg, others say 5 mpg. I do remember reading in one of the trailer or motorhome magazines that the difference wasn't very much. I just can't recall the specific article. Mark >>I think there is a lot more difference than you think. My F350 with >>7.3 PSD and 4:10 gears gets 14 on it's best day, unloaded. A friend [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Mark All that theory is nice, but I gave you what my real world experience was. I also had a '97 F250 with the PSD and 3:55 gears with the 5 speed manual. I got 21mpg unloaded and 12-14 towing the same trailer I have now that weighs 12000 lbs. With the F305 and 4:10 gears I get 14 unloaded and 8-10 towing. The automatic probably has a little to do with the mpg, but not a lot. SignatureFrank Tabor >All that theory is nice, but I gave you what my real world experience >was. I also had a '97 F250 with the PSD and 3:55 gears with the 5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >With the F305 and 4:10 gears I get 14 unloaded and 8-10 towing. The >automatic probably has a little to do with the mpg, but not a lot. If you had bothered to look over the links I pointed out to you, a lot of them were "real world experience", also. But I found the article in Truck Trend that I was looking for: http://www.trucktrend.com/features/consumer/163_0406_opt/index3.html I guess if Roger Clark, the Senior Manager of GM's Energy Integration and Fuel Economy Learning Vehicles Program disagrees with you, he is wrong, too. Mark "Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't" >>All that theory is nice, but I gave you what my real world experience >>was. I also had a '97 F250 with the PSD and 3:55 gears with the 5 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Mark >"Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't" I never said they were wrong. I just gave you my experience. It's worth exactly what you paid for it. If you think that gear ratios won't make much difference in your fuel mileage, then by all means, go for it. SignatureFrank Tabor >I never said they were wrong. I just gave you my experience. It's >worth exactly what you paid for it. > >If you think that gear ratios won't make much difference in your fuel >mileage, then by all means, go for it. I you think your gear ratio makes a big difference in fuel economy, then by all means, continue on with what you are doing. I know that I can't change your mind in 4 posts that you have believed for the last 40 years. So I will quit trying. Mark "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". --Mark Twain I changed the gear ratio on my "95 Dodge Ram 2500 from 3:55 to 3:92. The gas mileage is about the same but I have better acceleration in the city and less shifting from overdrive to third on hills while on the road. Jim Mackay 1995 Dodge 2500 Conversion Van 318 ci 2004 Aliner Expedition LXE > I changed the gear ratio on my "95 Dodge Ram 2500 from 3:55 to 3:92. > The gas mileage is about the same but I have better acceleration in the > city and less shifting from overdrive to third on hills while on the > road. You're the second person I've heard say that. On the Dakota forums a guy swapped 3.55's to 3.92's with the same results. Korey That's an interesting article--I wonder how these people on the internet are quoting an MPG of 20-21 on a newer E-150 van when the bulk of the world seems to get in the mid teens, I'm guessing that the EPA figure of 19 highway on that van is pretty optimistic. It's amazing to see those in an 06, maybe 3000 miles selling for $15,000--they basically lose over 40% of their value in the first couple months of ownership, it's hard to rationalize purchase of one of these vans brand new. > >All that theory is nice, but I gave you what my real world experience > >was. I also had a '97 F250 with the PSD and 3:55 gears with the 5 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Mark > "Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't" > I wonder how these people on the internet are quoting an > MPG of 20-21 on a newer E-150 van when the bulk > of the world seems to get in the mid teens That's easy: They don't. C'mon, think about it. These are the same brainless twits that don't know what a turn signal is, ride your bumper through a construction zone, and blow red lights with complete abandon. I would no more trust their ability to do the less-than-simple math to ACCURATELY measure fuel economy than the man in the moon. When I got my big block, I eventually encountered a person that claimed he was getting AT LEAST 4-5 MPG better than I. This, of course, was revealed after I told him how LOW my MPG was. > I'm guessing that the EPA figure of 19 highway > on that van is pretty optimistic. I agree. I thought the EPA was gonna get "realistic" with their stupid car stickers. > it's hard to rationalize purchase of one of these vans brand new. Tell me about it. My WonderWagon is now mine. (I got the pink slip, Daddy!) Bought brand new, I must now KEEP IT until the wheels fall off. Signature:) JR 2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 I hope that none of these sly remarks were directed at me, regarding my comment of former a Ford E-150 that got 23 MPG highway. Trust me, it got 23 MPG. On the other hand is the one I own now....it gets 15 MPG highway. The difference....no payment book on the one I own now. > I hope that none of these sly remarks were directed at me Without having quoted anything, it's difficult to determine WHOSE <ahem> SLY remarks you are referring to. > regarding my comment of former a Ford E-150 that got 23 MPG highway. > Trust me, it got 23 MPG. OK. I read it on the internet. It MUST be right. <big grin> For the phone company, I was the sole driver of the following vans: 1983 Dodge RAM 350 318cid (5.1L?) V8 3-speed AT 1991 Ford Econoline E250 300cid (5.0L?) I6 4-speed AT 2001 Ford Econoline E250 5.4L V8 4-speed AT I am currently driving the 2001. In all these years I have NEVER calculated the MPG. I'm rather "afraid" of how low the result would be. Regardless, after many years of putting gas into a vehicle, the driver gets an idea of just how "thirsty" the vehicle is. They got DISMAL MPG. Maybe, just for fun, I'll track the MPG for the 2001 I'm driving. If I do, I'll report back here with figures that are as reliable as the medium that distributes them. (the internet) > On the other hand is the one I own now....it gets 15 MPG highway. A full-size van? That's not too bad. > The difference....no payment book on the one I own now. It's a GREAT feeling, isn't it? Signature:) JR 2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 Hi Mark, Long time, no chat.... I have had many Ford Econoline Vans and you're right pretty much, however there are some combinations that work very well together. I've gotten as high as 23 MPG highway from a full-size Ford Van--1995, E-150, 300 I-6 EFI, E4OD, 3.55:1. The E4OD has an output of 0.85:1 in 4th gear (OD). The final ratio in OD was 3.01:1. I've found a 3:1 ratio seemed to be the sweetspot for many engines. Higher (2.75:1) and the engine lugged too much, lower (3.55:1 or 4.10:1) and the engine RPMs ran too high at highway cruising speed (65). Like I said above....I love what I have because it doesn't have a payment book. Yes the lower the gear ratio is better for acceleration as well as heavy loads and trailer towing. But I don't drive to accelerate fast. I accelerate like grandpa. What I want more than acceleration is fuel economy. So the higher final ratio is what I'm looking for. That is why I'm looking for a 3.08:1 for my current van with the C-6, which has 1:1 output in 3rd gear. George >>engine and transmission are as reliable as tomorrow's sunrise! Highway >>milage is 15 MPG (it would be better with a 3.08:1 differential), but [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Mark Filice I've talked to several folks that have done that gear change in dodge trucks... Most reported 1 to 3 mpg less on the highway but picked up a mpg or more in city driving because it took less grunt to get the truck rolling.. YMWV Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >Look at all the moms shuttling kids and groceries in a $50k 1500 Suburban. >Many of them may never USE the trailer hitch. Like they "NEED" such a >vehicle?!? No, but it's THEIR choice to make and I'm all for that. For the >up-front CO$T of the vehicle, combined with the 12mpg it gets, it provides a >LOT: Relatively superior crash protection for its occupants and, with >Auto-Trac, automatically engaged 4-wheel-drive as needed. My wife simply LOVES her 1999 Suburban 2500 4x4 (7.4L). We bought it about 2 years ago and then went shopping for our current TT. She had been driving a Mitsubishi Eclipse--so this was a quantum leap in vehicle size for her. When my daughter was little, we could travel in comfort in my little Ford Ranger extended cab towing the popup. But kids grow--fast. By the end of the 2003 camping season, we had enough of either cramming all 3 of us in the Ranger or taking 2 cars to go RVing. I, like you, have a 4-mile commute to where I get on the train. My 1990 Ranger had about 105K on the odometer when I sold it early last year. So it really wasn't being driven that much outside of camping trips. I now drive a 2000 Dodge Ram 1500 back and forth to the train station. I use the Dodge to tow my TT from time to time when I can't use the Suburban. I'm putting very little mileage on the Dodge, as we use the 'Burb to travel as a family because we love the room it gives us. I do hate spending $80-$100 filling up the beast. But I'll bet I'm saving $$ over having to take 2 cars to RV like we used to.... Mark Filice 2004 Homestead Settler 255RS 1999 Chevrolet Suburban 2500 2000 Dodge Ram 1500 > > Maybe a mid 90's caprice wagon might fit the bill just fine. > > Mid 90s is all you're gonna get. They quit making them in what... 1996? Yep, and only a few in 1996. I think they only made 500-something. But the Buick Roadmaster Estate of that same year is more common. > A great popup-towing vehicle (I had a 1992) but there's probably very little > left out there with fewer than a ZILLION miles on the clock. Good luck! I have a 91 Olds Custom Cruser, basically the same car as the Roadmaster or Caprice. I've got the 307 throttle body fuel injection. Starting in 92, they switched to the LT-1 350 with direct port injection. Much nicer engine. Good highway mileage, too. I have about 170,000 on mine. Second engine. With the tow package, it's rated for 5,000 pounds. I love it, it's a great car. If someone really wants one of those, you can find them listed on ebay motors or cars.com. >>> Maybe a mid 90's caprice wagon might fit the bill just fine. >> Mid 90s is all you're gonna get. They quit making them in what... 1996? > Yep, and only a few in 1996. I think they only made 500-something. I HATED to see Chevy drop its last, rear-drive passenger car. I special-ordered an all-but-loaded Caprice Classic station wagon in 1982. It had the 305cid (5.0L) V8 with a 4-barrel carburetor. Despite it's rather tall rear gears, it towed our new Starcraft popup beautifully. Many, MANY good times and adventures were had driving this car. <sigh> By 1992, the wagon was getting old and I was looking for something new. I bought another new, even-more-loaded 1992 Caprice wagon. This one had a fuel-injected 350cid (5.7L) V8 and shorter gears. It was an even more capable tow vehicle. To me, it was a less-attractive car (uglier) than the previous style of my '82. I mean... Drag coefficient? Who cares with a V8? Sheesh! :) Given what Rich said, there's probably still some (few/any?) NEW Astro/Safari minivans out there. If not, there are surely some almost-new ones to be had. They may have had their problems but, as a REAR-drive minivan, it is a capable tow vehicle for even the largest folddown trailer, properly equipped and driven. The kicker is that, when SOLO, the thing can get *almost* decent MPG. Signature:) JR 2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 >> I guess it was the 250 > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >A great popup-towing vehicle (I had a 1992) but there's probably very little >left out there with fewer than a ZILLION miles on the clock. Good luck! when we had out tent trailer, I was looking for a Camry wagon... nice looking, v-6 power, room for people and junk without being huge... would have bought one if we hadn't gone to the dark side first.. mac Please remove splinters before emailing > I'm considering a e-150 or 350 to pull a small pop up on extended > trips. We have a new minivan and the weights will put us at about 75% [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > costs would be for the other 95% of my driving I do without a trailer > on the back. I've got an E-150 with a tow package and a 5.4. I'd go with a small v-8 for a pop-up. those vans really eat the fuel which was one reason I got rid of my hybrid. Towing I went from 15 to 8. Or 7.5 mpg. john I read through lots of posts on that van and someone claimed to get over 20 mpg w/ the small v8, I really have to wonder about that. I'm guessing it's mid teens empty with the smallest v8. Should have never sold that 71 Marquis w/ the 429, that would have towed the wheels off my trailer. I guess I'm going to try a WDH on the minivan in the spring and see how it goes. If needed I may see if I can find a used guzzler for a dedicated TV, though it gets expensive every time I sit down and figure it all out. They never exactly detail all these issues down at the camper store... <snip> > If needed I may see if I can find a used guzzler for a >dedicated TV, though it gets expensive every time I sit down and figure >it all out. > >They never exactly detail all these issues down at the camper store... We sort of did that... Have an 01 Dodge Dakota with the 4.7L v-8 that we love and didn't want to tear it up towing our TT.. Got lucky and found a 99 ram with the 5.9L towing engine at a great price and traded in the old 91 Cougar in on it.. I work at home and the wife commutes, so she drives the Dakota and I use the Ram on the few trips around town that I make... Ram is mostly used for towing..(at 8 - 9 mpg) mac Please remove splinters before emailing >I read through lots of posts on that van and someone claimed to get >over 20 mpg w/ the small v8, I really have to wonder about that. I'm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >They never exactly detail all these issues down at the camper store... What kind of mini van? If there is no frame under it, a WDH isn't going to work. SignatureFrank Tabor It's a new model quest (it is unibody), towing a small jayco--I thought the WDH distributed the load onto the frame of the trailer, not the vehicle--am I mistaken? >It's a new model quest (it is unibody), towing a small jayco--I thought >the WDH distributed the load onto the frame of the trailer, not the >vehicle--am I mistaken? Yes, it distributes the weight back to the frame of the tow vehicle. In effect it tends to lift the rear of the tow vehicle and move the weight forward on to the front wheels. If you have a Unibody, there is no frame to mount the WDH to. SignatureFrank Tabor Well, that saves me $300 I guess. Perhaps there will be a Roadmaster in my future. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.