Tow vehicle 2WD or 4WD

[mizterwizard]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

If you mean me, I have lived in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona for 35 years and owned numerous 4WD and AWD vehicles over the years- there's one in the driveway now. I took my '87 Toyota 4x4 and my '98 Nissan 4x4 (manual tranny and transfer case with low range & manual hubs) on all kinds of snowy and muddy roads just because... it was fun. I also enjoyed getting out to ski downhill or cross-country before the roads cleared and the crowds came.

When my commute included 20 miles of curvy, snow and ice covered mountain roads with a 2000' elevation change from home to work, a '93 Subaru Legacy AWD never failed me in 12 years and 210K miles, and I left more than a few 4x4 trucks in the ditch. For highway winter conditions- packed snow and ice, the Subaru was much more sure-footed than either truck.

So, please don't patronize. I just don't find 4WD a necessity for travel trailer towing. I have taken my low-clearance Scamp and 2WD Pilot down some pretty steep, gravelly, and rutted back roads. It takes a bit more care to be sure. I'll admit I no longer enjoy overnight camping during extended bad weather, though there is always the unexpected. The Boy Scout motto is good, and I am an Eagle Scout, but it can be taken to absurd extremes. I was just looking at the "Zombie Apocalypse RV"...

I would never stop anyone from buying a 4WD vehicle if needed or desired for your particular climate and towing conditions. I just don't consider it necessary for everyone.

I didn't mean anyone in particular. Arizona is the archetypical sunny dry location. It is the snowbird destination in the west as far as I can tell. Suppose I had said So Cal or New Mexico. Would you still feel offended? Didn't I say that you can live a pretty nice life without 4WD?

And by the way, I would have never attempted a secondary road on the day I got stuck on the freeway. I just figured being an interstate they would keep it clear. I figured wrongly. It usually takes several mistakes to get into real trouble. With 4WD it takes even more or bigger mistakes but people are pretty ingenious when it comes to screwing up so 4WD is no blanket guaranty of RV success.

[Jon in AZ]

Fair enough... peace! Not all Arizona is desert, and I guess I get a little testy when folks assume Arizonans know nothing of winter or 4WD.

I am grateful I now live at a lower elevation where snow is an event rather than a season.

And yes, life is good in AZ, with or without 4WD.

[mizterwizard]

I've got a story to tell about driving through the mountains of western Arizona but I'll forbear. Suffice it to say that I know there is cold and snow in Arizona. It just isn't what you think of when people say Arizona though.

Actually I have it on good authority from the radio in the stall of the guy I used to work next to (5 freaking times a day for 3 months) that there is no Arizona.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bm9mLKkIek

[Paul O.]

I thought we made several trips to Arizona. Maybe I was dreaming, but it was a beautiful dream!

[Kenny Strong]

have a 4runner. In low 4 wheel drive, I can back up a steep driveway with very little throttle. usually just a little braking.

[Alf S.]

Originally Posted by Raz

Hi Alf. Why did you get rid of the Frontier? Any issues? My 2017 now has 12k miles.

Hi: Raz... The 2010 Fronty had almost 173,000 on it. Even in Krazy miles that's a lot. The EcoDiesel does the same thing at 1/2 the rpms and at least 10 mpg's better economy too.
Alf S. North shore of Lake Erie

[John in Santa Cruz]

huh, my daily driver (1993 mercedes convertible), my wife's daily driver (1994 mercedes wagon), and our F250 (2002 diesel) all have at least 250k miles on them. as long as the vehicle is well maintained, and the interior hasn't gone shabby, i'd never consider 170k miles as reason to replace.

[Ed Harris]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

huh, my daily driver (1993 mercedes convertible), my wife's daily driver (1994 mercedes wagon), and our F250 (2002 diesel) all have at least 250k miles on them. as long as the vehicle is well maintained, and the interior hasn't gone shabby, i'd never consider 170k miles as reason to replace.

Me too,I have bought them with that many miles on them!

[Raz]

Originally Posted by Alf S.

Hi: Raz... The 2010 Fronty had almost 173,000 on it. Even in Krazy miles that's a lot. The EcoDiesel does the same thing at 1/2 the rpms and at least 10 mpg's better economy too.
Alf S. North shore of Lake Erie

Sounds like you got your moneys worth. Good luck with the new tow.

[Raz]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

huh, my daily driver (1993 mercedes convertible), my wife's daily driver (1994 mercedes wagon), and our F250 (2002 diesel) all have at least 250k miles on them. as long as the vehicle is well maintained, and the interior hasn't gone shabby, i'd never consider 170k miles as reason to replace.

Originally Posted by Ed Harris

Me too,I have bought them with that many miles on them!

I'd love to run a vehicle for 250k miles. Unfortunately unless I don't drive in the winter the road salt makes that impossible.

[Ed Harris]

Originally Posted by Raz

I'd love to run a vehicle for 250k miles. Unfortunately unless I don't drive in the winter the road salt makes that impossible.

I do give them the underbody blaster in salt season!

[mizterwizard]

To me, after 5 years or 100,000 miles, miles don't count for much. As a professional mechanic I see totally used up vehicles with less than 150,000 miles on them and clean fine running vehicles with 300,000 miles.

On a used vehicle it is condition that makes the most difference to me. I typically shop for used vehicles in the 100,000 mile range that look like 20,000 miles. I'm not a body man so the body has to be perfect. I don't do upholstery so the interior, especially the dash needs to be good. Anything else that goes undetected I can fix, if the price is right.

I can appreciate that most people can't look at it this way but I'd still recommend a higher mileage tow vehicle that has had good care over a low miles vehicle that has been abused.

[Steve Carlson]

Interesting, the new Honda Passport is rated at 3500 in 2WD versions, and 5000 in AWD versions.

[mizterwizard]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlson

Interesting, the new Honda Passport is rated at 3500 in 2WD versions, and 5000 in AWD versions.

I don't understand Honda resurrecting the Passport name. There was never a less lamented Honda model than the Passport when it was replaced by the Pilot. Maybe they think it has been long enough that people don't remember how below Honda's standards the Isuzu Rodeo derived Passport was.

The new vehicle, of course, is nothing like the original Passport, which is a good thing.

Concerning the tow ratings, it is not the first time I have seen a 4WD out tow the 2WD equivalent. It isn't the norm but it happens some times. I think it would be worth considering for an FGRV.

Typically it is a good idea to wait for a model year or two before buying a totally new vehicle but the industry take on Honda is that they are good to go from the start. I think it is worth a look

[John in Santa Cruz]

OTOH, the Passport, like the Isuzu Rodeo, was an emminently offroadable vehicle, something no other Honda can claim.

[mizterwizard]

All I can say for sure is that it was a warranty nightmare. It was so different from real Honda models that the specialized mechanics in the dealerships didn't know what to make of it. Nobody in the shop liked them and we were all glad when they went away.

I agree that it could be a good offroader, if you could keep it going.

It is my opinion that Honda and Toyota make the best Asian vehicles. I also think they are the best value for the money bar none. I'm sure others have a different point of view.

[mizterwizard]

It seems to me that the whole point of FGRVs is that they are light and easy to tow. If you need a full sized pickup to pull them then they have failed in their basic promise. Sure it is nice to have lots of safety margin but the original question was if a certain vehicle could tow a certain trailer. The OP didn't ask if a Kenworth could tow the trailer or if he should go with a Volvo. There is always a better solution but will the solution he was contemplating work?

I think the answer is that with the right equipment it will and it wouldn't be difficult to add any missing items. It would seem that the right equipment includes the right color paint for some reason.

[Jon in AZ]

I think we're confusing two threads. In this one the OP is planning to purchase a Ram 1500 5.7L and was debating 2WD vs. 4WD.

Some molded trailers are designed to be lightweight, but not all are. The OP is anticipating a future purchase of one of the heavier ones, so a truck makes sense.

Honda came into the discussion because someone observed that with crossovers, 4WD often increases the tow rating. With trucks, however, the opposite is usually true: 4WD reduces the tow rating a little due to the weight of the 4WD components.

[thrifty bill]

Originally Posted by mizterwizard

It seems to me that the whole point of FGRVs is that they are light and easy to tow. .

I do not consider that the whole point at all. Many like myself are attracted to FG trailers for their durability. Light and easy to tow never entered my mind (although it certainly does enter others).

The Oliver Elite II, the 25 foot Bigfoot, and several more are not what I would call light, but they are great trailers and very durable. Meanwhile, stick built hybrid trailers are pretty light.

I tow with my V8 F150, not because that is what it takes to pull my Escape 19, but instead because that is what I own. I have owned a full sized pickup of one brand or another since the early 1980s. FWIW, my F150 gets better fuel economy than the Nissan Pathfinder SUV we used to own. The new EB F150s get mileage that rivals many SUVs and would probably be higher than my wife's Honda Element.

[mizterwizard]

I'm often confused.