Most Efficient .5 Ton While Towing

[FishOnOne]

Enjoy...

Link

[VernDiesel]

This post wasn’t about the cost effectiveness of RVing. As titled it’s about the most efficient .5 ton while towing. What’s wrong with people discussing that?

While towing 1/2 ton appropriate loads I’m sure it will be either the Ram Ford or coming GM 3.0 diesel. Don’t want a diesel then it looks to be the new GM 6.2 10 speed. At least while towing a 7k enclosed trailer at 70 mph and of the three compared. All 3 are fine trucks that I would be enjoy driving.

I know a fella who towed a 7k ish enclosed trailer daily. He was an independent contractor for a private pkg delivery service that served industry in the Salt Lake Provo Utah area. He chose a 3.0 diesel .5 ton truck and was a tinkerer that did multiple videos about his truck. I would also if it meant getting 13 or 14 mpg instead of 8 or 9. He put on 190k in less than 3 years before passing on. I’m sure it improved his profit margin.

In the RVing world choosing the right pick up it might make towing to a further away better location affordable with the limited discretionary funds of a young family.

[Lantley]

goducks10 wrote:
Used to be a car dealer in Portland Oregon (Scott Thomason) that had a slogan.
"If you don't come and see me today I can't save you any money".
Buying big gas hog tucks to tow RV's is not the way to save money. You can only tweak the parameters a little to make it seem like you're doing something positive.

That's my point. RV'ing is costly. The fuel used to pull an RV will be a substantial expense, There is not: a special gadget, an options package, an engine configuration or swap, or even a new fangled truck
that is going to make RV'ing inexpensive.
Don't get me wrong I value my money as much as the next guy.
I value the relaxation and enjoyment I get from RV'ing. RV'ing is worth every penny I spend on it. However the fuel used to RV is a sizable expense and always will be. The cost of fuel is just a part of playing the RV game. Other than slowing down and traveling at 55 MPH there is not much else one can do to significantly reduce the cost of fuel.
Now I do believe there are other things in life one can do to save money and divert those funds into RV'ing. But once your hooked to the trailer there is no way to keep the tank full without emptying the wallet.

[Groover]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
I used to worry about every cent I spent, worked well I guess cuz I don't worry anymore!!!

I have always found it easier to stay ahead than to catch up. I am glad that it worked out for you.

[goducks10]

Used to be a car dealer in Portland Oregon (Scott Thomason) that had a slogan.
"If you don't come and see me today I can't save you any money".
Buying big gas hog tucks to tow RV's is not the way to save money. You can only tweak the parameters a little to make it seem like you're doing something positive.

[Cummins12V98]

I used to worry about every cent I spent, worked well I guess cuz I don't worry anymore!!!

[Lantley]

1320Fastback wrote:

Lantley wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:
I just look at the money saved while towing is that much more ammo I can buy.

You saved money vs. what?.....
There is no savings to be had other than not towing at all.
If you tow a RV trailer fuel cost will be substantial no matter how you rationalize it.

This is true it is substantial. On this trip we are on right now I budgeted $2,500 for diesel and will save over $550 on fuel driving my truck vs one of these listed. That money when I get back home is going to fund a hobby.

I agree not RVing is the answer if you want to save. I do want to save too but don't mind spending what I have too to see America. If I don't have to spend all of it great!

It's all how you rationalize. I don't really budget for fuel maybe I estimate but It doesn't impact my plans.
You claim you saved $550.00 I see it as you spent $2000.00 OK $1,950.00.
All the calculating estimating,budgeting and discussion doesn't change the fact that it cost a hefty $2K figure for fuel.
And Guess what? Your next trip will cost a substantial figure in fuel.
If you would have budgeted $3000.00 vs. $2500.00. Would you have saved even more:@

[1320Fastback]

Lantley wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:
I just look at the money saved while towing is that much more ammo I can buy.

You saved money vs. what?.....
There is no savings to be had other than not towing at all.
If you tow a RV trailer fuel cost will be substantial no matter how you rationalize it.

This is true it is substantial. On this trip we are on right now I budgeted $2,500 for diesel and will save over $550 on fuel driving my truck vs one of these listed. That money when I get back home is going to fund a hobby.

I agree not RVing is the answer if you want to save. I do want to save too but don't mind spending what I have too to see America. If I don't have to spend all of it great!

[Groover]

MFL wrote:

blt2ski wrote:

MFL wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


The GM 4.3 is about as solid as they come. I even preferred these over the older I6 equivalents.

Just to be clear, you are talking about/comparing to, the OLD GM I6, not the legendary 300 ci I6 from the Ford early days...right?

Jerry

Having driven the GM 250/292 I6, a Ford 300 a few times. Also having owned a 4.3 TBI and vortex versions in an Astro and Safari van. Those 4.3s were better setup for mileage pulling power and speed etc than the three I6 rigs mentioned. As I am typing, I also.learned to drive in a 3 in tree 225 or there about.
Yes those motors were good in the day. No different than a 440/454/460 V8s of yore. Good at the time, but current motors are better.
I suspect current 4.3 will be on par with son's 4.8 V8, and similar to my vortex 350 in 2500.

Marty

While the carbed versions of the Ford 300 I6 were a bit slow, and not real fuel efficient, the later FI 300s were much improved for power, both towing and not towing. Yes, the new gas engines are much improved! Even the 4 cyls are putting out lots of power, plus great economy, and lasting for many more miles than the ones of yesteryear.

Jerry

We need to keep in mind the technology of the era, during that time all engines were slow and not very efficient by today's standards. But, to my knowledge for quite a few years the 300 I6 was the only engine available designed specifically for truck use and was said to be torquey and quite rugged. And some friends of mine who had a farm and owned both a 300 I6 and a 454 at the same time said that the 300 I6 was stronger and only burned half as much fuel. They used the 300 I6 to pull their heavy trailers. That was in the early 70's and I was too much younger than they were to question anything about the situation. The 300 I6 was pre-emissions and the 454 was post emission control. In the late '90s I had two friends with 300 I6's and those two engines dissapointed me with their power.

[MFL]

blt2ski wrote:

MFL wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


The GM 4.3 is about as solid as they come. I even preferred these over the older I6 equivalents.

Just to be clear, you are talking about/comparing to, the OLD GM I6, not the legendary 300 ci I6 from the Ford early days...right?

Jerry

Having driven the GM 250/292 I6, a Ford 300 a few times. Also having owned a 4.3 TBI and vortex versions in an Astro and Safari van. Those 4.3s were better setup for mileage pulling power and speed etc than the three I6 rigs mentioned. As I am typing, I also.learned to drive in a 3 in tree 225 or there about.
Yes those motors were good in the day. No different than a 440/454/460 V8s of yore. Good at the time, but current motors are better.
I suspect current 4.3 will be on par with son's 4.8 V8, and similar to my vortex 350 in 2500.

Marty

While the carbed versions of the Ford 300 I6 were a bit slow, and not real fuel efficient, the later FI 300s were much improved for power, both towing and not towing. Yes, the new gas engines are much improved! Even the 4 cyls are putting out lots of power, plus great economy, and lasting for many more miles than the ones of yesteryear.

Jerry

[MFL]

FishOnOne wrote:

MFL wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


The GM 4.3 is about as solid as they come. I even preferred these over the older I6 equivalents.

Just to be clear, you are talking about/comparing to, the OLD GM I6, not the legendary 300 ci I6 from the Ford early days...right?

Jerry

I'm talking about any and all light duty I6 gas engines including the slant six, legendary status or not.

Just so you know the original 4.3 was basically a Chevy 350 excluding 2 cylinders and was originally offered with a 4 barrel carb and was the first of the Chevy engines to have the vortec designed heads.

"I'm talking about any and all light duty I6 gas engines including the slant six"

Well thanks for clearing that up. While broad/sweeping statements are often not the most accurate, a forum is a collection of opinions, and others experience. I agree the Vortec V-6 was a good engine, likely one of the best V6s IMO.

Jerry

[Cummins12V98]

Had a 68 Dart “5” cylinder 225 slant 6.

Same engine on the pea viners I used to operate in the Summers.

[Groover]

"I'm talking about any and all light duty I6 gas engines including the slant six"

While not powerful the slant 6 was actually a pretty heavy duty motor. I saw several used in commercial equipment like forklifts and small train engines for inside the factory use. The engine was designed to be made from aluminum but Chrysler decided to save money and build them out of cast iron, resulting in a way overbuilt engine. Someone who knew what they were doing could get some pretty serious horsepower out of them but most only came with a small 1 barrel carb and a mild cam. I have seen pictures of some that were built for the 4 liter class of sprint racing actually made of aluminum and sporting a 4 barrel carb. It was said that these engines were very competitive.

[FishOnOne]

MFL wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


The GM 4.3 is about as solid as they come. I even preferred these over the older I6 equivalents.

Just to be clear, you are talking about/comparing to, the OLD GM I6, not the legendary 300 ci I6 from the Ford early days...right?

Jerry

I'm talking about any and all light duty I6 gas engines including the slant six, legendary status or not.

Just so you know the original 4.3 was basically a Chevy 350 excluding 2 cylinders and was originally offered with a 4 barrel carb and was the first of the Chevy engines to have the vortec designed heads.

[blt2ski]

MFL wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


The GM 4.3 is about as solid as they come. I even preferred these over the older I6 equivalents.

Just to be clear, you are talking about/comparing to, the OLD GM I6, not the legendary 300 ci I6 from the Ford early days...right?

Jerry

Having driven the GM 250/292 I6, a Ford 300 a few times. Also having owned a 4.3 TBI and vortex versions in an Astro and Safari van. Those 4.3s were better setup for mileage pulling power and speed etc than the three I6 rigs mentioned. As I am typing, I also.learned to drive in a 3 in tree 225 or there about.
Yes those motors were good in the day. No different than a 440/454/460 V8s of yore. Good at the time, but current motors are better.
I suspect current 4.3 will be on par with son's 4.8 V8, and similar to my vortex 350 in 2500.

Marty