Opinions on towing with a turbo - Page 2 - Fiberglass RV
RV News RVBusiness 2021 Top 10 RVs of the Year, plus 56 additional debuts and must-see units → ×


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-12-2018, 07:54 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Name: David
Trailer: 2013 Scamp 13 S1 BB
IL
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by trainman View Post
One thing about this forum is that many who post here are owners on 13' model trailers and their trailer pulling needs are less then others with larger trailers. Many like myself have other trailers to pull beside a travel trailer, which requires a larger towing vehicle, so what works for one may not work for others, thus causing a discussion over two different needs.

trainman
This is true, but the OP, specifically asked about the turbo ford ranger which i see is rated at 1,860 payload and 7,500lbs towing which is not a small number.

Ford as well as GM are both offering turbo 4 cylinder engines in their small trucks. I assume since the op didn't say he was towing a work trailer every day he is only getting the pickup to tow the scamp on occasion. Especially in that case, i think the turbo engine is better, because it can handle towing while also not hitting you with the low fuel mileage penalty when you are not towing.

Now if you are doing a lot of other towing, the turbo engine may not be for you because it may actually use more fuel in the long run only because the smaller engine does have to work harder than the bigger one at the end of the day so you can not have a free lunch.
Gompka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 10:56 AM   #22
Member
 
Trailer: Miti Lite 1987
Posts: 75
Piston aircraft have had turbos forever. I got my first turbo vehicle in 1985, second in 1989, and my conclusion then as now is all piston engines should be turbocharged. Power when you want, and economy when not needed. The new twin scroll turbo design is impressive. Modern truck turbo engines are designed for longevity under full power, meaning the turbo working to the max. The old axiom of "there is no substitute for cubic inches" has been eclipsed by turbocharger evolution. The only drawback to turbo engines is fuel requirements as most require premium grade. Non turbo can use regular.
I would buy another turbo vehicle in a heartbeat if I needed one.
Peder_y2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 01:12 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
bobnjudy78748's Avatar
 
Name: Bob N Judy
Trailer: Escape 5.0TA
Texas
Posts: 23
It's the bed for the hitch mount...

that's the issue, not the tow power. Almost any modern pickup can tow a Scamp 19. It only weighs 3200# and bed weight will be about 450#.
If the Ford has an aluminum bed then that may be the qualifier for another truck. Scamp will attach your hitch rails at the factory to just bed of your pickup with big washers to the underneath side. They did that to my '15 Canyon.
When I went to a 5.0TA Escape and an Andersen Ultimate hitch the Scamp hitch mount system was all taken off because when towing a heavier camper it needed to be attached to the chassis.
Also, on the Scamp hitch set up, trying to lower that 2" receiver exactly on the 2" ball was problematic in that you'll be in/out of the truck several times to make that 1/4" acceptance.
So, verify with Scamp how they'll attach your rails. Their customer service at installation is exceptional.
bobnjudy78748 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 02:02 PM   #24
Member
 
Name: Tom
Trailer: Casita
CA
Posts: 51
So.. long haul truckers have used turbos for years as standard equipment. Turbos can be designed for moving heavy loads. Granted, in car culture, turbos tend to be seen as "make more power, blow up the engine quickly" devices. But if we are talking about pickups with tow ratings, even with gas engines, I would think they would work.
TomE11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 05:25 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Name: Ron M
Trailer: Escape
British Columbia
Posts: 9
I towed our Escape 17B last winter with a Hyundai Santa Fe 4 cyl. turbo. It did the job... but just. I have since moved to a 2018 Nissan Frontier V6 Crew Cab, Long Box and the difference is amazing. I did my homework... and the Nissan seemed the best value. I often have to check the rear view mirror to make sure the trailer is still behind the Frontier. Never had to do that with the Santa Fe... you always knew it was back there.
rmullinsbc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 08:02 PM   #26
Junior Member
 
Name: R
Trailer: Escape
Illinois
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcs02d View Post
I'm thinking of getting Frontier 6cyl (260HP) (possibly the long bed crew cab) from the coming scamp 19.


I see Ford has the 4cyl Ranger coming soon which has more (270) HP.


Thoughts on towing with the 4cyl turbo assuming I can get the hitch mounted in the truck bed?
And
The issue is not horsepower. The issues are towing capacity, pay load, and torque.

Towing capacity is the weight of everything you are hauling - passengers, tongue weight, other toys, the dog, etc. It is a single number that will be determined by such things as springs and shocks, breaks engine and transmission, etc.

Payload is a single number that will tell you if the tow vehicle can pull the weight. It includes all passangers, the trailer tongue weight, toys, the dog, etc. it is determined but many of the same things that determine towing caoacity

Torque can effect the towing capacity and payload. Most important it provides “zoom” -(a technical term that I made up). It is the thing that allows you to pull your trailer into traffic on a short ramp or go up a steep hill ar at 60 mph. The Ford brochure on their Eco Boost engine provide a nice graphic on its Torque curve. It should be noted that if you take the turbo route it is not actually eco and boost; it is eco or boost.
Little Richie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 10:17 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: Escape 21, behind an '02 F250 7.3 diesel tug
Mid Left Coast
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Richie View Post
It should be noted that if you take the turbo route it is not actually eco and boost; it is eco or boost.
indeed, I had a Volvo 850 turbowagon that could cruise at 28-30 MPG or slurp 8 MPG lead footing from stoplight to stoplight. 2.3L inline 5-cyl, with 230HP and 250 ft-lbs.

note I would not use that particular vehicle to tow more than a light skiff or a hobiecat.
John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 04:05 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Raspy's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: Black Series HQ19
Smith Valley, Nevada
Posts: 2,372
The amount of power you can get out of an engine is determined by how much air you can get into it. Without a turbo, atmospheric pressure of 14.7 PSI at sea level is the force that pushes air into the engine. The turbo is simply a pump that raises the pressure going into the engine to force more air in. So, if a given engine will produce 150 horsepower with no turbo, then boosting it's intake pressure from 14.7 atmospheric to 29.4, or twice atmospheric, will make it produce about 300 horsepower (HP).

Another way of looking at it is a 200 cubic inch displacement engine, with a turbo, will produce what a 400 cubic inch displacement engine, without a turbo, will produce. Turbos makes smaller engines do what bigger, non turboed, engines do.

The smaller engine can be much lighter, have much less internal friction and have less intake vacuum to overcome while working. So the smaller one will get better mileage. But boosted, it will produce the same HP as the larger one. Best of both worlds. Better mileage and a lot of power.

Torque is simply a twisting force, not a speed. RPM is a speed, not a force. It takes both, RPM X torque to make HP. If engines produce their best torque at a low RPM, they are more pleasant to drive. Diesels really shine here because they work best at lower RPM and can handle high internal loads well. Typical gas engines used to have to rev up to high RPM to make a lot of power because they did not have turbos, or because they could not run at high levels of boost without pre-igniting the fuel/air mixture (pinging).

The latest gas engine designs have overcome the pinging problem by using direct injection, similar to diesels. This means there is no fuel in the combustion chamber until just before the engine is ready to burn it, so it can't pre-ignite like earlier designs. They also have variable valve timing which leads to less waste, better torque characteristics and a way to control the affective compression ratios. Excellent computer controls and programming, along with variable valve timing and turbocharging allow engines to put out a lot of power for their size and allow the maximum torque to be spread over a very wide RPM range.

It's not torque that does work, it's horsepower. Torque is only part of the equation. Engines that produce a lot of torque at low RPM are able to do a lot more work at a lower RPM than an engine that must rev way up to produce power. For instance, a 385 HP Cummins diesel will pull happily at 1,600 RPM all day and be very nice to drive, but a Hellcat with 707 HP will pull a load up a grade faster even though it has 200 ft lbs less torque.

Eco-boost engines look good because they can run along efficiently when lightly loaded, but still pull as hard as a large V8 when pulling a trailer. And they are tuned for a wide torque band, so they are nice to drive and, in theory, don't have to rev up to 6,000 RPM to do a lot of work.

Bottom line: It's not the turbo that does the work. A turbo just pumps more air into an engine so more power can be produced. Horsepower is what does the work, the higher the horsepower, the faster you can go up a grade, or the more weight you can pull up the grade at the same speed. Good low end torque means more efficiency and better manners. This comes from engine tuning and good boost down low in the RPM range. A hard working gas engine cannot get as good of mileage as a diesel engine producing the same amount of horsepower because diesel has more energy in the fuel. Gas engines cannot be boosted as high as diesel engines because of pre-ignition problems. Fast acceleration and the ultimate speed that can be reached on a grade, is the result of horsepower. If you want a given amount of torque at the driving wheels, you can either have a slower turning, high torque engine, or a faster turning low torque engine running in a lower gear. Either way you achieve the same driving torque at the wheels.

Turbos are great on either diesels or modern gas engines with direct injection and variable valve timing. But boosting smaller and smaller engines, to higher and higher outputs, stresses them closer and closer to their material limits. It leaves less and less room for any error and requires high octane fuel to produce the full output.

However you want to look at it, it takes a certain amount of energy to produce a certain amount of work, or get a trailer and tow vehicle up a long grade. The thing we are trying to do is make piston engines more efficient, meaning trimming the waste that is such a big part of the game. The power delivered only represents about 35%-45% of the energy in the fuel. The rest is wasted. Everyone should choose the performance level that best suits their needs. You don't need a Cummins to pull a 13' Scamp, but you may not want a two liter engine to pull a fifth wheel either. If you only pull your trailer once a year on flat ground, you can get away with a smaller engine than if you are full-timing in the Sierra Nevada or the Rockies. You may not want an aluminum engine running at high boost and high RPM when you can have a larger iron engine running with much less stress. Or you may see the value of a slow turning engine that is less tiresome to listen to. Try to get real world mileage numbers from owners of the one you are considering. They may be much different than you expect. While doing all of that, research the reliability and initial cost of the power plant you are considering. The more recent the design, the better (probably) is it's efficiency, but the less proven is it's reliability. Modern small gas engines are very light for the work they do and they have a lot of sensors and computer controls. Modern diesels have very complicated emission systems and a high initial cost. A Ram with a 5.7 liter Hemi is an excellent choice if you are considering a pickup. They are cheaper then a diesel, very well proven, lower stress with an iron block than the 3.5 Ecoboost, no turbo so they will produce their power with 87 or 89 octane gas, have simple emission equipment and have plenty of power for our fiberglass trailers. But they may not get quite as good of mileage when unloaded as an Ecoboost.
__________________
I only exaggerate enough to compensate for being taken with a grain of salt.
Raspy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 06:07 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Name: Don
Trailer: Shopping
Alabama
Posts: 108
Thanks for all the replies. I'm familiar with turbos as a commercial pilot that flew big piston turbo engines. It's easy to explode the engine on takeoff or in a descent with 'over-boost' and you have to manually manage fuel flow to keep cylinder temps in check. It makes sense that with a computer doing all that you can eliminate the lag and problems with high temperatures.


I would guess that if I floor it going up a big hill towing that the Ranger might suck down fuel to keep engine temperatures in check so the towing fuel economy might not be any different between the Frontier and the Ranger.


In any case it seems this will come down to the hitch install. I'll have to see which one can have the racks in the truck bed mounted to the frame.


I don't like the 'bolts under the truck bed method' at all.
dcs02d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 02:01 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: Escape 21, behind an '02 F250 7.3 diesel tug
Mid Left Coast
Posts: 2,203
if I was pulling a big fifth wheel, I would want the hitch bolted through to the vehicle frame, not just the sheet metal bed. for the little fiberglass 5th wheels, its not such a big deal.
John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 08:03 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Name: JD
Trailer: Scamp 16 Modified (BIGLY)
Florida
Posts: 2,109
One benefit of the turbo is that the power in the mountains is better as the boost controller will give sea level power.
redbarron55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 07:35 AM   #32
Member
 
Name: t
Trailer: Phoenix
California
Posts: 55
As a guy on another forum long ago put it, "We buy Horsepower, but we drive Torque."


I'm sure that a turbo gasser can do the work, but how much effort do you have to put into driving it for it to do that work? If it is effortless on your part then I'd say go for it. If you have to alter your driving specifically to make the vehicle tow well (I'm not talking about altering driving for towing vs. not towing - that's a given) then I'd look for something else.
__________________
Cross-Threaded is tighter than Lock-tite
ntsqd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 09:15 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,794
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntsqd View Post
As a guy on another forum long ago put it, "We buy Horsepower, but we drive Torque."


I'm sure that a turbo gasser can do the work, but how much effort do you have to put into driving it for it to do that work? If it is effortless on your part then I'd say go for it. If you have to alter your driving specifically to make the vehicle tow well (I'm not talking about altering driving for towing vs. not towing - that's a given) then I'd look for something else.
You clearly have not driven anything with an EcoBoost engine.
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 09:54 AM   #34
Member
 
Name: t
Trailer: Phoenix
California
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
You clearly have not driven anything with an EcoBoost engine.
Exactly why I phrased my comment the way that I did, but why so confrontational?

In my experience turbo gas engines are great for getting somewhere and not so good at doing serious work. However, that could have changed and I'm open to that in spite of my ~30 years experience Ford Repair Tech friend telling me not to buy an EcoBoost if I'm going to work it hard. Just because I don't want one doesn't mean that they aren't ideal for someone else.
__________________
Cross-Threaded is tighter than Lock-tite
ntsqd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 10:03 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Name: David
Trailer: 2013 Scamp 13 S1 BB
IL
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntsqd View Post
Exactly why I phrased my comment the way that I did, but why so confrontational?

In my experience turbo gas engines are great for getting somewhere and not so good at doing serious work. However, that could have changed and I'm open to that in spite of my ~30 years experience Ford Repair Tech friend telling me not to buy an EcoBoost if I'm going to work it hard. Just because I don't want one doesn't mean that they aren't ideal for someone else.
I don't think Floyd is being mean here, unless otherwise stated we are assuming the original poster is only going to be towing his trailer a few times a month at the maximum. He did not say anything about additional work or working the truck heavily. In this case i think a turbo engine makes more sense because its more efficient when not towing (the majority of the time). I do agree with you for heavy work, a turbo gasoline engine has more to go wrong, however at those levels of work we would probably all be looking at a turbo diesel engine.
Gompka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 10:34 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,794
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntsqd View Post
Exactly why I phrased my comment the way that I did, but why so confrontational?

In my experience turbo gas engines are great for getting somewhere and not so good at doing serious work. However, that could have changed and I'm open to that in spite of my ~30 years experience Ford Repair Tech friend telling me not to buy an EcoBoost if I'm going to work it hard. Just because I don't want one doesn't mean that they aren't ideal for someone else.
Not confrontational at all, simply suggesting you go drive one and be ready to be amazed. Lots of power, smooth acceleration under a load, the best fuel management systems ever devised.

Fact is EcoBoost engines actually respond better to spirited driving.


Clean oil and tier1 fuel have always been an important part of good maintenance and they are admittedly even more important today than they were with grampa's carbureted 4.9L I-6.


Gompka;
Thank you, no meanness intended.

I am a retired fleet mechanic with experience in diesels from small light plants to V-16 Cats.

I can see some of the small Diesels doing fine, but my choice until further developments is gas... for power, drivability and yes economy... of both maintenance and fuel.


Whether it is turbo or normally aspirated, gas or diesel... fuel management will continue to get more complex under the demand for cleaner emissions, more power and better fuel economy.


The EcoBoost is admittedly on the leading edge with its multifire direct injection,variable valve timing, twinscroll turbos etc,etc.
All of this can be a bit daunting and send some of us scrambing for a bullet proof, shadetree mechanic friendly, 300CID 6CYL Ford... Only to find that for all practical purposes they are gone forever.
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 02:50 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: Escape 21, behind an '02 F250 7.3 diesel tug
Mid Left Coast
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
....All of this can be a bit daunting and send some of us scrambing for a bullet proof, shadetree mechanic friendly, 300CID 6CYL Ford... Only to find that for all practical purposes they are gone forever.
I really should clean up the 1965 F100 thats sitting under the oak in the back corner of the driveway and sell it... 300 CID I6, 3-on-the-tree, bench seat absolute base model, still almost entirely stock. I don't think I've started it in 5 years, but I bet I put some fresh gas in it, and a new battery and kapoppa-kapoppa,-chug-chug-rurururururrurur, it would fire up again. the tires are like 20 year old Firestones, eek

at this point, its a restoration project for someone.
John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 03:28 PM   #38
Member
 
Name: t
Trailer: Phoenix
California
Posts: 55
I guess that I read that wrong. No worries.

Whether it is amazing to drive or not, I don't want one. I know that only applies to me and I know that I'm very much the curmudgeon about such things. There are a lot of things in the world that are neat, interesting, or impressive that I've no desire to own. Clearly others do want them and even if I could I'd not try to steer them away from such things without a valid scientific rather than emotional reason. Which is to say to re-direct Floyd's statement to the OP, Drive one and try it out. See if it feels like it will do what you need it to do in the way that you'd like it to do so.

I'm still driving my grandfather's '73 Chevy short-bed, step-side. It is about to get a fresh engine and TBI, but as-of right now it is very stock and the engine is very tired. That and a decent coat of paint will make it a pretty nice truck.
__________________
Cross-Threaded is tighter than Lock-tite
ntsqd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 03:36 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Jon in AZ's Avatar
 
Name: Jon
Trailer: 2008 Scamp 13 S1
Arizona
Posts: 9,761
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz View Post
I really should clean up the 1965 F100 thats sitting under the oak in the back corner of the driveway and sell it... 300 CID I6, 3-on-the-tree, bench seat absolute base model, still almost entirely stock. I don't think I've started it in 5 years, but I bet I put some fresh gas in it, and a new battery and kapoppa-kapoppa,-chug-chug-rurururururrurur, it would fire up again. the tires are like 20 year old Firestones, eek

at this point, its a restoration project for someone.
I remember seeing an ad a few years back for a Scamp 19/pickup combo somewhere in the CA desert region. The truck was a rust-free F-150 extended cab with the old straight six and four on the floor, late 80's or early 90's I think. Around $10K for both. Oh, how I wanted that rig!
Jon in AZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 03:53 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
rdickens's Avatar
 
Name: Ray
Trailer: 2017 Scamp 16 Deluxe
Missouri
Posts: 675
Opinions on towing with a turbo

From my research, I think turbo engines and diesel engines are best for towing. Both produce high torque at low RPM.

Torque moves a rig at a steady pace. Horsepower is needed/used to accelerate (i.e. passing on a 2 lane road and/or merging into traffic from an on ramp.)

We towed a Scamp13 with a 2014 Escape 2.0L EB (4cyl) with 22mpg and no problems in mountains.

We now tow a Scamp16D with an F150 with 2.7L EB. No problems.

YMMV!

Good luck & safe travels to all!



Ray
rdickens is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbo MaxxFan Gerry Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 7 11-17-2008 02:53 PM
Samsung Turbo 3000 Cell Phone Sharon Herman Jokes, Stories & Tall Tales 3 05-09-2008 10:24 AM
Turbo Cooker Legacy Posts Camp Cooking, Food & Recipes 12 10-29-2002 04:26 AM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.