Replacement tow vehicle

[yarcraft91]

I'm looking to replace my tow vehicle (95 Chevy Van). That old 5.7L cast iron V8 has done a great job towing my rig (about 3500 pounds), not so great with gas mileage. New vans don't fit under my garage door. Top candidate is a 2007 Suburban K1500. Wow- technology has changed! Does anyone have experience with these Flex-Fuel aluminum block 5.3L engines? Or comments on the new Suburban?

[Tom B]

I would be shocked if a Suburban would get better mileage than your van.

I have an Astro van. When it is time to replace, I'll get a full size van, probably a conversion.

Tom B

[RANGER]

Check out a Nissan Titan LE - Crew Cab with an A.R.E full topper. This is what I replaced my Durango with (after many, many, hours of research) and I absolutely love the thing. About the garage? You might want to check that out 'cause I'm at a loss here for that!!

[yarcraft91]

Gee- no comments from people who own the GM 5.3L Aluminum V8?

Tom- Re: gas mileage- you may be right, but consider my '95 van is EPA-rated at 12/15 and the new 4WD Suburban is rated at 15/20. My long-term gas mileage in the '95 is 14.4, and 11.0 when towing. I've seen the 5.3L in a late-model AWD full-size van do better and the new Suburban has better yet aerodynamics and even more fuel-saving technology, so I'll be surprised if it doesn't get better mileage than my old van.

Ranger- research is a good thing- what 2-3 things would you say are the top reasons you chose that Nissan over the competition?

[Bill Krejca]

Yar - you might do better on replies for info on a Sub if you put it in the title of the post. Should catch the attention of and generate some replies from those who have one.

Good luck,

[GDI]

I pull about 2000lbs with an 05 Sub at 65mph highway I can get 15 to 16 mpg. Short pulls to local lakes 1 to 1 1/2 hours away some stop and go I get 14 mpg. This is not the same engine thats in the 07s but maybe this will help

[bountyhunterss]

sounds like you already talked yourself into the new truck . just keep in mind those sticker mpg LIE . figure at least two mpg less than it says.

[yarcraft91]

I'm not talked into it yet. While the '07 Suburban has several things I like, here's what I'm not comfortable with: unfamiliar engine technology (reason for my post here), only rear door offered is a liftgate (prefer double doors), standard running boards that look too small to do the job, first-year of a GM re-design (always been a problem for me), no front hitch available on after-market (deal-killer, but may change in 3 months), no delete option for costly fluff like On-Star, fancy wheels and roof rack. If I'm going to spend the money, I want to be comfortable with the decision.

I'm comparing to other SUV's, domestic and foreign.

[Opti-Mist]

Sorry, but the EPA numbers do not lie. They are very accurate for the test conditions which generate them. We simply do not drive according to those conditions (which includes 55 mph on the highway).

[sub owner]

I've owned a 94, 99 and 04 sub. They keep getting better, that's for sure.

My 99 was 10 pulling, 14-15 normall, and 17-19 on a decent trip. The 04 is 12, 16-17, 20. IF I drive 58-60 I can get 22 mpg on hwy trips - seriously!

I have driven an 07 Tahoe a couple of times, even better than the 04 driving wise, very tight, very comfortable, nice engine. Haven't towed with one.

I see the base ones, which still has tons of stuff, for 34-35k in 07's advertised every week.

You can get an 04 or so with 30-40k miles for 22-24k in a LT or Z 71 if you look a little depending on DVD, Sunroof. If you want a cloth, you can do way better than that. Probably a 2006 cloth with 15k for low 20's. My area has a ton of suburbans though, not uncommon to see 30-50 used ones on some lots. Cloth is not selling, but a 06 has about everything you need in cloth anyway.

[Kubota]

Ok let's talk. Gas milage increases haven't changed much in 30 years when you talk about towing BIG 3500 plus pounds inspite of all the direst fuel injection computer controlled EPA garbage they have put on vehicles these days.

Case it point.

I have a 1986 23 foot class c motorhome weighing in at 9500 pounds loaded with a GVW of 10,600 and being pushed by a carburated Chevy 350M dual exhaust V8 engine coupled with a turbo 400 tranny without overdrive putting powwer to a 4.10 rear end dually.
It cruises at 60mph at 2950 RPMS and does it pretty effortelessly. MPG you ask? About 10.5 give or take without towing the boat and about 9- 9.5 with towing the boat at 1600 pounds. Maintaining speed between 55-60 is critical in getting your best mpg. Increase it to 65-70 and my MPG goes less than 9 and closer to 8 with the boat being towed.


Let's jump forward to 2006 with a buddy's 55,000 dollar brand new 24 foot class C Chevy powered by a 6.0 V8 overdrive computer controlled direct fuel injected NEW motorhome weighoing in at 9850 pounds. MPG you ask? About 10 pulling nothing and with his 2000 pound boat.... about 8-9 MPG. Another friend of his has a 27 foot motorhome with a chevy Big bnlock that get even less MPG


Don't let anyone including the car and truck manufactures kid you. V8 towing mpg gallon has stayed the same for the last 30 years. All the "junk" they add to your engine is just meeting the clean air EPA standards and does absolutely NOTHING to increase a tow vehicles MPG when pulling or moving BIG loads.

BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT.


You show me some person that is pulling a big 5th wheel, big boat, travel trailer or a motorhome that claims ANY MPG much much over 10 MPG and I will call him a LIAR to his face, IT JUST ISN'T happening guys. IF a person claims over 10mpg and says he can do it at 70 mph ...again I will call him a BF liar. Your best mpg WILL NEVER be AT 70MPH...PERIOD. Motorhomes OVER 27 feet I have found WILL NEVER get 10 mpg.

Diesels will get you, MAYBE repeat MAYBE 2-3 MPG more but with diesel fuel being more eexpensive and the diesel engines costing many $$$$s more money, a gas V8 is still more economical to run even if you go to anyone's BIG BLOCK V8 engine. Diesels will get you more power for pulling but at absolutely more cost.

[dave10]

Yar - I had a 97 Sub that towed my 2,500 pound rig great, but due to other problems, I dumped it last year at about 100K miles and got a Toyota Sequoia. I definitely get better mileage with the Toy (12 towing, 15 city, 20 highway, if I behave myself). However, to be honest, when towing with the Toy the ride is not as smooth and steady as in the Sub. In addition, I can't use cruise while towing very often (dealer says it's fine to do so, however), because with any grade, the transmission downshifts almost immediately. Still, I love the reliability of the new vehicle.

Good luck.

Dave

[Chad]

Flex Fuels....I would be on the side to not use the Ethanol. The price is cheaper but you get less mpg, less power and much more maintenance. It is the maintenance that scares me. It may actually cost you in the long run. I think a lot of people forget about the dded maintenance when calcualting their supposed savings.


ChadM

[Unlogged T-Mac]

I have the 5.3 aluminum in my Sierra 1500 ext Cab 4x4.
3:43 gears and 310 hp. I have gotten as high as 22mpg running downwind (east) across North Dakota and eastern Montana.
Towing my boat I get 11-12mpg on average. When towing my boat on trips, I run @ 67mpg in 3rd (about 2400rpms).
It tows fine. I own a Lund 2025, but also sell Rangers as well as Lunds and I tow numerous large boats quite frequently. It does the job. I burn regular.

According to what I have read on the subject - I was surprised to learn that flex fuel will get you more than 20% LESS mpg...(average).

[Burr]

Lotta good points. However, with a name like 'Kubota' you would think the expected service life of hard working diesel engines as compared to hard working gasoline engines would have entered your analysis.

If you work the vehicle this hard frequently, a diesel will cost less.

Real trucks rattle when they run.

[yarcraft91]

T-Mac- thanks for the feedback.

I've left the E85 fuel question out of my equation, since there's none for sale here in mid-Michigan. However, Flex-fuel engines have a bit more complicated control system and I'm hoping that doesn't mean "more trouble in the future". I'm not happy being forced to buy the complication with no opportunity for the benefits, whatever they might be.

[woods]

I get almost exactly 10 mpg towing my 1850 lund with a 5.3 Tahoe. It is the best towing vehicle I've ever owned. The owner's manual states NOT to use E-85 when towing.

[Kubota]

Ok....since you asked I will tell you. There are no compact utility tractors with 4 wheel drive and a diesel engines made in the United States. Kubota tractors are the number one selling compact untility diesels tractors in the WORLD. My Kubotas 4 cylinder 25 hp tractor can run for a long time on a 7 gallons of fuel. Unfortunately, a tractor engine is a completely different beast than what a diesel mad for pulling things at high speed. I will get many more dollars for my diesel 4 wheel drive tractor with front loader and 7.5 backhoe long after you FORD/Chevy/dodge doesel is in the scrap heap.

[FisHn2DMax]

How did we get out into the corn fields taking about tractors? LOL :confused:

Sorry Kubota but I have to disagree with you on MPG as it relates to todays modern motors. While you may have a point on limited gains in MPG, there has been a HUGE gain in HP/CI of most motors. Todays 5.3L chev has 310HP /325 ft lbs torque with EPA mileage rating on a new 1500 C/K chev truck (15/19)MPG. Roll roll back almost 20 years. 1988 Chev C/K 1500 5.7L/350 CI motor 235 HP /280 Ftlbs torque EPA rated 12/16 Mpg ( I still have the window sticker from this vehicle). A better comparision is to compare HP/ MPG. Todays' V-6 motors have more power and torque than most 15-20 year old small stock small block V8's.

The reason for perceived limited gains in MPG is due to the increased power HP/per Cubic inch, coming from today's motors. If you did an apples-to-apples HP/CI analysis, there has been a significant increase in engine efficiency.

We all want more& more power in our new vehicles, then we #### about the Mileage not getting better? :banghead:

[Kubota]

Sorry but you are wrong. My former 1989 4X4 Suburban throttle body fuel injected 5.7 V8 got 18 Mpg pulling NOTHING. ........roll ahead 18 years with your 5.3 V8 and NOT A DARN thing has changed. STILL THE SAME OLD 18 mpg without pulling "NUTTIN" and 10-12 pulling. I would never trade a 5.7 for a overrated 5.3. Remeber one thing. I don't give a darn how many Hp/lbs a motor has ...the basic rule of thumb in engime building is there is no substitute for increased cubic inches.

I could spend 1500.00 and put in an COMP RV cam, headers, new heads, highrise the manifold for the carb on my 1986 4 bolt main 350M and get the hp up to 350+ h.p or more from the curent 260 hp. 315 hp for a 5.3 ain't dog squat. Jegs is selling brand new Mr Goodwrench 350 Chevys that have stock 260hp so why is 315 hp on the 5.3 so much to brag about? Most people aren't looking for head jerking neckbreaking hp and torque. They want an acceptable powered engine that will safely pull there boat, camper or load down the road and get bettter than 10mpg and it hasn't happened in 30 years. PERIOD. Anybody that has owned a V8 engine since the 70s knows but somehow forgot what MPG they were getting 30 years ago doing the SAME. pulling they do today.

[Somethins_Fishy]

>Ok let's talk. Gas milage increases haven't changed much in
>30 years when you talk about towing BIG 3500 plus pounds
>inspite of all the direst fuel injection computer controlled
>EPA garbage they have put on vehicles these days.
>
>Case it point.
>
>I have a 1986 23 foot class c motorhome weighing in at 9500
>pounds loaded with a GVW of 10,600 and being pushed by a
>carburated Chevy 350M dual exhaust V8 engine coupled with a
>turbo 400 tranny without overdrive putting powwer to a 4.10
>rear end dually.
> It cruises at 60mph at 2950 RPMS and does it pretty
>effortelessly. MPG you ask? About 10.5 give or take without
>towing the boat and about 9- 9.5 with towing the boat at 1600
>pounds. Maintaining speed between 55-60 is critical in getting
>your best mpg. Increase it to 65-70 and my MPG goes less than
>9 and closer to 8 with the boat being towed.
>
>
>Let's jump forward to 2006 with a buddy's 55,000 dollar brand
>new 24 foot class C Chevy powered by a 6.0 V8 overdrive
>computer controlled direct fuel injected NEW motorhome
>weighoing in at 9850 pounds. MPG you ask? About 10 pulling
>nothing and with his 2000 pound boat.... about 8-9 MPG.
>Another friend of his has a 27 foot motorhome with a chevy Big
>bnlock that get even less MPG
>
>
>Don't let anyone including the car and truck manufactures kid
>you. V8 towing mpg gallon has stayed the same for the last 30
>years. All the "junk" they add to your engine is just meeting
>the clean air EPA standards and does absolutely NOTHING to
>increase a tow vehicles MPG when pulling or moving BIG loads.
>
>
>BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT.
>
>
>You show me some person that is pulling a big 5th wheel, big
>boat, travel trailer or a motorhome that claims ANY MPG much
>much over 10 MPG and I will call him a LIAR to his face, IT
>JUST ISN'T happening guys. IF a person claims over 10mpg and
>says he can do it at 70 mph ...again I will call him a BF
>liar. Your best mpg WILL NEVER be AT 70MPH...PERIOD.
>Motorhomes OVER 27 feet I have found WILL NEVER get 10 mpg.
>
>Diesels will get you, MAYBE repeat MAYBE 2-3 MPG more but
>with diesel fuel being more eexpensive and the diesel engines
>costing many $$$$s more money, a gas V8 is still more
>economical to run even if you go to anyone's BIG BLOCK V8
>engine. Diesels will get you more power for pulling but at
>absolutely more cost.
>
>
>
>
>

I completely disagree with you regarding diesels . I had a 1997 Dodge diesel dually with the 6bt Cummins engine . It would get 21 mpg empty and 16mpg pulling my 7000lb boat . And it did it going 65mph without breaking a sweat . No gas powered dually could come close to towing this kind of load with the ease and mpg of that truck .

I do agree with your rant about the lack of fuel economy with the new gas engines vs. the old, but you're wrong about diesels being no better IMHO .

[Kubota]

Curnfields???? Who said anything about cornfields? the poster made mention of my "Kubota" name and said I should consider durabilty and longevity in my engine equation. There are many more 30 to 50 year old hard working gas and diesel tractor engines still working as compared to 30-50 year old car and truck engines. The fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of average people, The % of vehicles doing heavy pulling as compared to just moving down the road without pulling is about MAYBY 10%??? What I mean to say is only 10% of your drive mileage is done doing any kind of so called "heavy pulling". My compact utility tractor is hardly a "cornfield" tractor but it will be around long after your gas engines plus Duramax, Ford and Cumminds diesels are long gone and in the scrap heap. The funny thing is too my Kubota will be getting excellent re-sale value and I don't think youcan say thatabout any car or truck in 50 years.. A Ford 8N sold for 500.00 on the 1950s. now they sell for 2500-3000. what is your Duramax going to sell for in 50 years????

[Kubota]

Yup you are correct. But my 5.7 V8 Suburban got nearly the same MPG as you reported on your CUMMIONS. I crused at 65 witht the air on and got 18-20 mpg. I pulled a bost and/or trailer and got between 9-12 mpg. How much extra $$$$ did the Dodge Cummins engime cost you over the gas engine? How much more is diesel fuel costing you over the price of gasoline? The extra you pay for the engine and the fuel can buy MANY gallons of gas for my former 5.7 gas engine getting less MPG. If your Cummins was coupled with a manual trnasmission all bet are OFF because the VAST MAJORITY of the American truck buying public WILL NOT buy an manual transmission in masse the way they buy automatic trannys. I will never buy a manual transmissions because there is no reseale for that tranny.....PERIOD. I look at your MPG clains at 65 mph with a jaded eye. I got friends with the Cummins turbo and their mileage claim don't come close your claims. My 5.7 Surburban pulled a 7000 pound 28 ft Holiday Rambler. While it was no dragster off the line it moved the load safely down the road and got the trailer where it had to be and I got maybe 9+ mpg. The % I drove it pulling was 10% so paying a ton of $$$ for a diesel and fuel would be really stupid. The payback for a diesel engine on cost and fuel just isn't there any more and the increased MPG is just not BIG enough. If I am wrong then why isn't there people standing in line to buy dieesl cars and trucks????? I suspect most guys drive privately owned non commercial light truck diesels becuase of pure EGO because the economy sure isn't there.

I did have a 1983 Suburban with a limp wristed underpowered 6.2 non tuboed GM engine that I ran for 450,000 miles. I got 27 mpg doing nothing and 18-20 pulling a 2200 pound boat. BUT....It came close to being dangerous with its underpowered characteristics, but it was good on fuel.

[Kubota]

Your mileage claims are right on the money. The chance of a SUburban driver or any other driverexcept the motorhome people driving 55mph is SLIM AND NONE.

[yarcraft91]

Hmm. My 1967 Barrracuda is worth about 5X what I paid for it, at least according to the guy who tried to talk me into selling it. I suppose it could lose all that value in the next 11 years, but I doubt it.

Could we get back on the original subject, please?

[must go]

we really need to see this one removed enough with it

[Somethins_Fishy]

>Hmm. My 1967 Barrracuda is worth about 5X what I paid for
>it, at least according to the guy who tried to talk me into
>selling it. I suppose it could lose all that value in the
>next 11 years, but I doubt it.
>
>Could we get back on the original subject, please?

Ditto, my 1968 GTX with it's original #'s matching drivetrain cost $3800 new (which was a lot in 68) is now worth $45k+ . Not sure what his point is ? :confused:

[Kubota]

We aren't talking about the so called "classic" cars dude. When was the last time you used your GTX or Brracuda or old Corvette to tow a 3500 pound load. The load pulling light trucks of the 60s are in the scrap heap while gas and diesel tractors of the 50s and 60s are still going strong. There isn't anything "classic" about a tractor is there? How much is your 1969 Chevy pickup truck worth today? The point I'm trying to make is there isn't any longeevity to today's trucks and pulling SUVs. They will be junk in 20 years or less and that is not the case with other gas and diesel tractors. I stand by what I said. The pulling mpg gains haven't changed in 30 years with diesel OR GAS powered trucks and a few diesel and gas powered SUVs. The upcharge for a diesel engine and diesel fuel represents a poor choice for the 20% pulling mileage that most people use to pull boats trailera and heavy 5th wheels.

[Somethins_Fishy]

>Yup you are correct. But my 5.7 V8 Suburban got nearly the
>same MPG as you reported on your CUMMIONS. I crused at 65
>witht the air on and got 18-20 mpg. I pulled a bost and/or
>trailer and got between 9-12 mpg. How much extra $$$$ did the
>Dodge Cummins engime cost you over the gas engine? How much
>more is diesel fuel costing you over the price of gasoline?
>The extra you pay for the engine and the fuel can buy MANY
>gallons of gas for my former 5.7 gas engine getting less MPG.
>If your Cummins was coupled with a manual trnasmission all bet
>are OFF because the VAST MAJORITY of the American truck buying
>public WILL NOT buy an manual transmission in masse the way
>they buy automatic trannys. I will never buy a manual
>transmissions because there is no reseale for that
>tranny.....PERIOD. I look at your MPG clains at 65 mph with a
>jaded eye. I got friends with the Cummins turbo and their
>mileage claim don't come close your claims. My 5.7 Surburban
>pulled a 7000 pound 28 ft Holiday Rambler. While it was no
>dragster off the line it moved the load safely down the road
>and got the trailer where it had to be and I got maybe 9+ mpg.
>The % I drove it pulling was 10% so paying a ton of $$$ for a
>diesel and fuel would be really stupid. The payback for a
>diesel engine on cost and fuel just isn't there any more and
>the increased MPG is just not BIG enough. If I am wrong then
>why isn't there people standing in line to buy dieesl cars and
>trucks????? I suspect most guys drive privately owned non
>commercial light truck diesels becuase of pure EGO because the
>economy sure isn't there.
>
>I did have a 1983 Suburban with a limp wristed underpowered
>6.2 non tuboed GM engine that I ran for 450,000 miles. I got
>27 mpg doing nothing and 18-20 pulling a 2200 pound boat.
>BUT....It came close to being dangerous with its underpowered
>characteristics, but it was good on fuel.
>

You can look at my mpg #'s any way you like . Actually, I got better than the conservative #'s I quoted, was just trying to give real world, average #'s . It wasn't uncommon for me to get 24mpg, just didn't do it on an average .

And yes, it was a manual . Why would I buy a truck to tow heavy trailers and get a car transmission put behind it ?

I also look at some of your claims and wonder . A 23' motorhome without OD with a 4.10 gear and a 350 gas engine getting 10mpg towing a boat ? I call bs .

Also, the day your gas engine was made after the rings set was the best it will ever be . My Cummins wasn't even broke in until it got 50k on it, and the milage continued to get better and better .

I worked for Chrysler and drove every model of diesel they made from 1989 (the first year the 6bt Cummins was put into a D series Dodge) thru the 2000 model year . We were given trucks to evaluate in this timespan and we towed tens of thousands of miles in them . The non-intercooled 1989 version with the mechanical pump could be played with and made to do even better . A single 4" straight pipe replacing the OE exhaust and a little pump manipulation and they would approach 30mpg with a 3.54 gear and a manual trans . They would also run 15 second 1/4 mile e.t.'s and still drag any trailer you wanted that was realistic for pulling by a non semi vehicle . The first truck that we were given, an 89 had been driven by 20 different people, beat to death any way you could think of towing and had never had a gasket broken on the engine at 500k miles .

There are huge differences in diesels and gas engines . If you choose not to see them, I can't help that . But that doesn't mean they aren't there . And as I said, at 150k miles your gas engine is done and is probably getting 5mpg and using as much oil as fuel, while the diesel is still as good or better than when it left the dealers lot .