Need a new tug

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

Speaking of testing, under the new J2807 towing standards, tow ratings are tested using a low profile box trailer with a frontal area of only 20 sf (<2000#) and 30sf (<3500#). A Trillium is more like 40 sf, so that's another reason to have some extra margin in the tow rating. A stiff headwind can make a 1500# egg-type trailer feel like much more. Been there...

."

Oh there are other standards in J2807 which are outright farcical. For instance...
Arbitrarily setting every tongue weight at 10% of the tow rating is ludicrous on its face, especially since the manufacturer often recommends "between 10 and 15%." This means that J2807 sets both the minimum and maximum at the same weight when towing at the rating.
(Actually it only means that's what they used for their test)

Further, this silliness often results in tongue weight being based on engine size alone. There are many cases in which two vehicles are exactly identical in every respect except for the engine. The one equipped with the more powerful engine is rated at 3500/350, the weaker at 2000/200. Same chassis , same hitch.
The chassis is the true determining factor for tongue weight, not the engine. this is the equivalent of testing the two and setting the tongue ratings based on paint color.

..J2807 is a performance standard and not a set of engineering standards.
It does in fact conflict with manufacturer's guidelines in some cases.
Tongue weight as related to tow rating being one of those.

It reminds me of the old ET standards at the drag strip.
While acceleration is a fair comparison point, drag racing with a trailer should be avoided.

If you want to compare performance between makes, J2807 can be of some use, which was SAE's stated purpose.
Unfortunately, it says very little about drive train or chassis strength,so don't rest on your laurels, imagining that SAE has solved your problems when choosing a tow vehicle, Even if you allow for your own arbitrary margins.

Years ago we spec'd out a group of fleet trucks, 3/4 ton chassis with 4:10 gears and 4.3L engines. These were strong trucks with big brakes yet slow enough that I am sure they would fail J2807 on acceleration, while exceeding other reasonable parameters.

[John in Santa Cruz]

I wouldn't want to tow anything much bigger than a dingy with a FWD car, and that includes AWD cars that are primarily FWD.

17' eggs are in the 3000-3500 lb range, I'd want a RWD/4WD body-on-frame vehicle like an honest pickup truck, or a 'real' SUV (such as the Toyota 4Runner, which is built on a platform similar to the Tacoma pickup) or a Ford Expedition (F150 based).

[Jon in AZ]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

I wouldn't want to tow anything much bigger than a dingy with a FWD car, and that includes AWD cars that are primarily FWD.

17' eggs are in the 3000-3500 lb range....

This particular thread is about a tow vehicle for a 13' Trillium, which are in the 1300-1800 pound range.

[MAP 56]

Jeep Disel 3l or dodge Eco Disel 3l Ford Eco bost toyotoTundra Honda ridgline .And lits not forget the size of Budget,driveway size and grage + colour of TUG LOL Love you guys safe summer .Ps let us know what you got .Happy Trails Mike

[PamD]

Hi! I don't know what a "Trillium" is, but I have the 13 foot Scamp and pull it with my '08 Subaru Outback. The Outback is a very versatile "car" and does great off road, besides when on the highway you don't even know it's back there!!

[Gorky]

I would avoid new cars altogether, anything 2007 or later, or $8000 or more, because whatever it is you're still towing with it and that will potentially wear out all the parts faster. So on top of the rapid depreciation you get from a new car you're also going to face the same repair bills as an old one before long, and it's harder to find mechanics on the road for new cars that they're not all experienced with yet. Plus all those dam touch-screen controls that end up breaking down in a few years (I may be biased here).

Of used cars I see everywhere that will work great, I'd recommend:
• 6-cyl Chevy Astro / GMC Savannah (1997 - 2004 ish). They're usually rock solid, 300,000 mile vehicles, will tow the weight easily, give you a ton of additional storage, most have AWD, and they're in the 13 / 20 mpg range for towing / not towing.

• 6-cyl or 4-cyl Toyota 4runner, 1997-2003 ish. All of the above, 4-cyl may get better mpg (but will be slower). Even more solid than the Astro, better interior features, and higher clearance for off-road but less cargo space.

By my quick calculations, at $4.5/gal you would need to save about 2666 gallons of gas driving a $18000 vehicle to cover the cost against a $6000 vehicle. So if new vehicle gets 28 mpg (2015 CRV) and old vehicle gets 18 mpg (2000 4Runner) you'd need to drive the CRV like 135,000 miles before better mpg begins to offset the higher initial price. Ratio is similar for towing; about 20 mpg for CRV vs 14 mpg for 4Runner = 123,000 miles or so before you start saving. But of course that's ignoring losses from depreciation and potentially far more expensive repairs for a newer vehicle.

Just spent $100 to change a light bulb on an 09 chevy, they had to take the whole bumper off, not impressed.

[John in Santa Cruz]

4runners generally have lower tow capacity than tacomas, and the 4 cyl ones aren't rated to tow much of anything. the tacomas also have a lot less 'junk' in them, my 2008 has analog gauges, no touch screens, etc. pretty sure the headlights are real easy to swap bulbs on, but I've not had to do that yet. tail lights are easy, as I have had to swap one of those.

my 4.0L V6 tacoma does a nice enough job towing even a 4000+ lb Escape 21 foot, BUT its gas mileage is pretty much awful (10-13 MPG towing at speed on interstates). I don't particularly care about the price of the gas, but having to stop for fuel every 180-200 miles on a long distance road trip, ugh!

[Gorky]

Yep, can't speak much for the 2004+ 4Runners but the 1998-2003 models are solid. The 2.7 4-cyl is rated for #3500, so would handle a Trillium fine and get closer to the MPGs the OP is probably looking for. As long as you can get up the hills the important are bits the chassis and transmission, which are some of the most reliable ever made whatever engine you pick.

A good argument could be made for the Tacoma too but I find if I want one with an extended cab or topper to keep my cargo dry they'll cost almost twice as much as a 4runner of the same year / mileage. Kids or pets might be a deciding factor if you do find a good price and a standard cab.

[John in Santa Cruz]

for some silly reason, there are far more gen2 (2005-2015) Tacomas with the doublecab than there are with the access cab. me, I like the access cab, you get a 6' bed, AND you get sufficient space for dry storage of stuff, dog, etc.

the gen 1 (1995-2004) tacomas were a lot smaller, and the extended cab version didn't have back doors. the gen2 access cab has half doors that open backwards, very convenient for loading.

[greenghost45]

We have pulled our Boler 13 about 30K kms with our 2006 Outback 4 cyl; across Canada and to California and Arizona. The Outback has delivered very good fuel mileage averaging about 11-13 litres per 100 km. The Outback 4 cylinder is adequate but not overkill (that would be my other vehicle; Dodge 3500 dually with Cummins diesel). Good luck with your hunt!