View Single Post
Old 06-28-2019, 09:56 AM   #14 (permalink)
cajunfj40
Lurking Eco-wall-o-texter
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: MPLS, MN area
Posts: 128
Thanks: 0
Thanked 65 Times in 45 Posts
Thumbs up Good stuff, thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
I vote 2001-2005 5.3 Yukon or Tahoe. I bet you'd be surprised at how close it is on economy to an earlier Explorer and how big a tire fits with just rasing the torsion bars a bit. Aftermarket galore, inexpensive repairs, low dollar entry point, very comfortable drive day to day.
Hello Hersbird,

I've looked at those, they are on my list of contenders - actually extending up to ~2013 or so as ex-Police fleet vehicles are starting to show up, and those usually have all the heavy-duty cooling/brakes options on them. I agree the 5.3 has reasonable economy numbers. So you consider the GMT800 to be a better bet than the GMT900? Any particular reason why? The AMT system, while it has its detractors, could prove a significant help in commuting fuel economy providing I can find one that was maintained properly.

In either case, though, they're among the widest of the options I looked at - not exactly desirable for the off-road toy part of the equation, nor for the daily driver commuter option. If that's what I need to do the towing safely, though, they are certainly otherwise quite good - and there's a whole subculture within the off-road world dedicated to cramming full-size rigs into places they never really should go. As you can imagine, it generally involves lots of body damage and/or armor. If I end up "needing" tires taller than about 32-33", I will need to re-evaluate things, as above that tire size towing becomes a real dicey proposition on a shortish wheelbase half-ton.

I'm also looking at similar vintage 2500 series Suburbans and Avalanches. Longer, but no wider, and with the 3/4 ton underpinnings they enjoy an extra bump in GVWR beyond the additional curb weight increase. The nice thing about the GMT800 is that the front frame section up to the driver's seat position, approximately, is the same cross section/shape as the 1500, according to virtually everything I can find. The newer ones into the GMT900 years apparently stuck with the torsion bar frontend, at least according to sites like Rockauto, so it would seem the front frame stayed consistent. Why is this nice? It's the same crumple zone design that got crash tested in the 1500 series GMT800 model. I'll of course need to take measurements to verify, but this info makes it worth tracking one down to do those measurements.

There's very little crash test data available for 3/4 ton and up vehicles, so this was a welcome find. The lack of extra off-road beef from a larger frame is irrelevant when I'm not looking to swap in a solid front axle and run 44" tires. I also found good crash test data for the 2006 design of the F250 Super Duty crew cab, so the years/models that shared that front frame configuration can be expected to perform similarly. That would put an Excursion into the "possible" category if it shares enough front frame dimensions, though they are unfortunately getting quite old and are piggish on fuel. The 6.0 diesel is better on fuel, but has its own problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcp123 View Post
I can’t help but think about the diesel light duty pickups out there. Ram Ecodiesel? Not sure they had that in a crew cab. F150 or maybe a Canyon/Colorado diesel would perhaps fit the bill.

If it absolutely must be an SUV, I don’t disagree with the Tahoe mentioned previously, but both the newer Explorer and Expedition might be worth checking out, and I don’t think a Chevy Traverse or GMC Acadia would really shirk that duty. Keep in mind that the Ford Ecoboost engines drink fuel like a sailor taking shots, but they ball that jack uphill, and stay quiet and refined inside. I think the Canyon/Colorado are out just due to the GVWR payload needs.

TFL Truck on Youtube might be helpful here. They do a test routine called “The Ike Gauntlet”, basically loading up trucks and SUVs to near max, and dragging them up the highest pass in the United States, on a route with the maximum allowable grade for a U.S. Interstate (7%) and also testing how they perform on the downhill. They grade for time, stability, and how many brake applications are needed on the descent.

I am a truck driver by trade, so your concerns about loading resonate with me. Keep in mind that tow ratings vary...the SAE fairly recently introduced J2807, aiming to provide a uniform standard for tow ratings, but to my knowledge, it’s not yet universal. IMHO your capability to slow down on a descent is the single most vital safety feature you can have in your towing setup.

I wouldn’t tow much with front wheel drive. When you take the weight off the front (drive) wheels, it will act funky. There’s a reason 18-wheelers are rear-drive, it will maintain better traction in bad conditions, and won’t mess with dynamics as much when loaded. That’s why I won’t tow with my wife’s minivan.
Hello jcp123,

I prefer an SUV over a truck because I'm not looking to do 5th wheel towing, and pickups pretty much always end up longer overall than SUV's for a given passenger count. Less fishtailing in winter, too. I drove a 3/4-ton 1998.5 Dodge Ram 2500 SRW Quad Cab Longbed Cummins with the manual trans for a few years. The bed was occasionally convenient to have when moving stuff, but otherwise the sheer size of the thing was extremely inconvenient a lot more often. Any of the fullsize options will be more inconvenient than the midsize ones, but less so than a fullsize pickup. Not sure about the tradeoff between a midsize pickup and a fullsize SUV. Narrower vs. longer.

A lot of your vehicle suggestions up there are rather new - and thus rather expensive. I'm still trying to do this relatively inexpensively - though anything involving a camper and off-road fun can't be called "cheap" as a hobby. The Explorer up through about 2010 and the Expedition up until what I can afford do look interesting. The Explorer is preferable for size considerations, but the later Expeditions (I think starting in 2010?) start to reach parity with the 2010 and older Explorer for fuel economy, so that's a wash for commuting expense at least. There's a funky tradeoff between the V6 and V8 4th gen Explorers: the V8 generally ends up with lower net "payload" capacity, due to the extra weight of the larger engine and cooling system. For the same passenger, gear and off-road-armor loading, the V8 ends up with less tongue weight capability, so a lower "real" towing capacity. Not sure how I'll figure out which works better without bringing the family and a bunch of sandbags to a car dealership next to an RV dealership and doing a test drive past a scale...

Per your comments about tow ratings: yes, they do vary a lot. That's why I dig up GVWR, GCWR and "as tested" curb weights for the vehicles I am considering. Typically journalists get "loaded" test vehicles, so they are a bit heavy with options. That gives me a conservative "curb weight" starting point for figuring out whether I have sufficient passenger and tongue weight capacity along with the tow capacity. J2807 tested rigs would be *very nice*, but again, newer/more expensive.

I'll have to check that TFL Truck channel, looks interesting.

The minivans I would possibly be towing with will be 7 or 8 passenger, 6 passenger minimum. Not super small, but not a full-size passenger van either. Gotta have room for all the kiddos' friends (basically the Girl Scout Troop. No, I'll not be towing a camper with the whole Troop in the van - the camper won't be big enough, and that's a really wierd insurance situation.) and their stuff, but again, usually it's just my wife and one or two kids for most in-town trips. Modern ones with AWD often meet or exceed our FWD Mazda 5's fuel economy numbers, too. In either case, FWD or AWD, I'd likely hit a manufacturer requirement for a weight-distributing hitch somewhere around the 2-3000lb point. That seems to be where it hits on the car/minivan tow rating lits. That'd help re-load the front wheels. Realistically, though, if the rig I buy for my needs has enough room inside, we'll take it rather than the minivan. Especially if it is a more comfortable tow experience.

Given the steadily improving tech for various electronic vehicle dynamics aids - roll stability control, trailer sway control, traction control, general vehicle stability control, etc. - as well as improvements in efficiency, a newer rig may make enough sense that the cards tip in that direction. I've got some time before I get ahold of anything, so I have time to figure out whether bigger payments/longer time making them make sense in this application. Bolt-on armor stays the main thing to get for the vehicle if I want to do some mild off-roading while I'm still making payments/under warranty.

I'm seriously eyeing up the 2004+ Jeep Grand Cherokee. The older 5.7's suck fuel, but if I can find a 4.7 with the full Active Drive 2/Active Drive Lock package + tow package or a newer 5.7 with VVT they are quite attractive. One of the best OEM 4x4 drive system designs available, needing only a more aggressive tread design and (depending on model) some additional skidplating to go some surprisingly tough places. The Cherokee Trailhawk is also interesting in a smaller package, though at a higher complexity level due to the transverse front driveline and need to package the 2-speed "transfer case" functions coaxial to the front axleshafts. It already has skidplates, so it needs less armor to handle stuff I might want to do.

I may yet end up with something more like a Subaru, scaling back my off-road adventure plans to things that don't need low-range. It's a heck of a lot cheaper, and there's a lot more potential candidates out there - so long as they meet the tongue weight and tow weight needs. I'll just have to make sure I keep a thick skin if I decide to follow the "built rigs" some place I shouldn't go, and they end up having to drag my cute-ute/jumped-up station wagon/minivan with delusions of grandeur out of there over every little obstacle...
  Reply With Quote