Mac trailer sway control

[aya16]

Diesels are just a heck of a lot better at MPG when pulling a load.

I love this mpg stuff, I love it when I read about out in our boats, our tow cars, and our lawn mowers. (I'm not picking on you mastred,I hope your laughing along with me) I just get a kick out of things that don't sort of fit to me. You have a close to a hundred thousand dollar tow car, and you check the mpg, (makes sense if you are on empty and you don't know where the next gas station is.) A diesel car, van truck, will cost thousands of dollars more than a gas powered one. Im not sure people can drive enough miles to make the savings, Diesel fuel is more expensive too.

I would love a diesel truck, and may get one some day, But I certainly would do just fine with a gas powered truck that could tow anything I wanted to tow.

MPG is the last of my worries in my truck, with my boat, with my dirt bikes, Range is what I like and having enough fuel is my main concern. Lucky the Macs can carry 24 gallons nicely, and will get me anywhere I want to go. A motor home like my old one will get about 8mpg's, I say about because it so bad I don't even check.
Not really looking to get excited about the day I might get 9 mpg's.

My ford ranger with a 5700 pound tow capacity, will get 12-13 mpg's towing my travel trailer or the mac. Well it has 4/11 gears lockers in the rear and that's why the crappy millage, but its a sweat 4x4, will go anywhere, has the power and gear ratio to really move, towing or not, so its a trade off. I wouldn't trade that bad gas millage for a dog of a truck that gets better mileage.

MPG is over rated, and I think people use it to much as a way to average out the cost of having fun. Why I think that is, no one talks about the money, savings they get in cold hard cash. Most talk about MPG as in range almost, and all you have to do is add another gas tank and get more range.

Fuel isn't the cheapest thing you will spend on a trip anymore, its a real chunk nowadays, but MPG that is very good will not save that much in the big pix of the trip over something that gets a few MPG less. We tow and get our MPG's on our trips a few times a year , we put gas in our boats a few times a year, so our fun factor isn't going to be determined by our gas millage, its hardly a bump on a log in the overall pix of our lives.

So plan for your trip don't worry what the tow car or boat will get in mpg (one less worry) toss a couple hundred bucks into the trip kitty for gas and have some fun.
Tip, if we sail our boats most of the time the overall MPG will drastically go way up....
Mike

[mastreb]

I completely agree that emphasis on MPG as if it's more important than total cost is silly. The >right< way to price a vehicle is the total cost of ownership over the period you own it:

Purchase price + finance cost + Maintenance cost + Fuel cost + Insurance cost + depreciation + taxes & fees - tax incentives (if you get them) - rebates (if you get them)
/ vehicle miles traveled or the mileage to which you would keep a vehicle.

You'll find that my $70K SUV (not $100) has a TCO very close to a $30K truck. Why? Because depreciation hits a chevy truck way harder than my SUV, because fuel cost is the same or higher and it actually dominates the equation, and because taxes, fees, etc. are all equal. At the end of the math, the cost to operate a vehicle

A lot of the time, MPG isn't going to change that calculus a lot. In this particular case, the Diesel saves $5K over the lifetime I expect to use it even factoring in the higher cost of Diesel #2 vs. gas because the MPG is substantially better than other vehicles in its class. But that's only $5K.

[seahouse]

Actually, on the list of the compromises I was referring to, MPG is not near the top. I’m talking performance and handling, baby! (and emissions). The less a vehicle looks and acts like a race car, the less capable it is in a non-towing situation. (Could have nothing to do with the fun to drive factor)!

And SUV’s, as far as they have come (and they have come a long way since their introduction), are a compromise in this department – high, big, heavy, slow, clumsy. All these terms are relative to a sedan or coupe, or even a crossover, of course. I have test driven many – and while every car I have owned has been considerably “better” performance-wise than the previous one, that will be changing when I buy the next tow vehicle. No matter how much I spend.

I’m familiar with the Bluetech urea system- great system - it works well in their sedans too. Quiet, no smell, fill the reservoir during oil changes, lots of torque- you wouldn’t know it was a diesel from the outside. Present technology (I forget who) is coming up with diesels that meet, or exceed the Bluetech’s low emissions, but without the need for urea. So far, AFAIK, the particulate emissions, though invisible, are still higher with a diesel than with spark ignition gasoline. But diesel engines are internally of much beefier construction than gasoline engines, to withstand the higher compression loads.

I’ve managed so far in my life to avoid pickups, mostly by having a heavy utility trailer with a flat bed just over 4’X8’. More weight capacity than a pickup (2000#, which can be upgraded if needed with a heavier axle) and easier to load (10” lift as opposed to 2’ height to load). Voila – all the performance of a nice sedan when not carrying the trailer, and more carrying capacity than most pickups when pulling the trailer.

As I’ve stated before, I feel the future for internal combustion gasoline engine lies in direct injection and twin turbo-charging. Just so happens that these two characteristics have been used in heavy diesel tractors for years!

It allows a smaller-displacement engine to put out a lot of torque when required (no turbo lag) for good performance when both towing and not, and give good fuel burn when the power is not needed. So really it’s win win, and as gas prices rise you’ll win win faster too.

But we are Mac owners. We own the “Swiss army knife” of boats. It’s only natural that we are also in hot pursuit of the “Swiss army knife” of automobiles, isn’t it?

-Brian.

[seahouse]

You'll find that my $70K SUV (not $100) has a TCO very close to a $30K truck. Why? Because depreciation hits a chevy truck way harder than my SUV, because fuel cost is the same or higher and it actually dominates the equation, and because taxes, fees, etc. are all equal. At the end of the math, the cost to operate a vehicle

Hey Mastreb - What is one of us missing here?

- Brian.

[Highlander]

You'll find that my $70K SUV (not $100) has a TCO very close to a $30K truck. Why? Because depreciation hits a chevy truck way harder than my SUV, because fuel cost is the same or higher and it actually dominates the equation, and because taxes, fees, etc. are all equal. At the end of the math, the cost to operate a vehicle

Hey Mastreb - What is one of us missing here?

- Brian.

This is what ur missing & will tow ur in overdrive 9600# Sweet meat & patatoes

[mastreb]

You'll find that my $70K SUV (not $100) has a TCO very close to a $30K truck. Why? Because depreciation hits a chevy truck way harder than my SUV, because fuel cost is the same or higher and it actually dominates the equation, and because taxes, fees, etc. are all equal. At the end of the math, the cost to operate a vehicle

Hey Mastreb - What is one of us missing here?

- Brian.

Sorry--went off to the Internet to justify my ranting and then got distracted by friends and dinner and posted without finishing. Anyway, my ultimate point is that the GL350 is as close as I've ever gotten to a "swiss army knife" vehicle. And it's made in the USA. Tow rating is 7500#--plenty!

Although I've not personally seen the new Durango, I recommend having a look being based on the GL.

[raycarlson]

Highlander if you ever towed your mac behind a dodge cummins turbodiesel youd be trading that little 1/2 ton in the next morning.

[Highlander]

Highlander if you ever towed your mac behind a dodge cummins turbodiesel youd be trading that little 1/2 ton in the next morning.

No thx
Have driven them brother inlaw has one for his 5th whler great trk to be sure but unless ur using it also for comercail use way to much $$$ outlet for a pleasure vehical I'll stick with what I got & use the extra $$$$ for other excursions

J
I'm almost as cheap as Crikey !! but not quite

[aya16]

Highlander, I like your truck, but needs a long bed, and more knobs on the tires for me, and rather have the extra cab doors

about the Mercedes, good choice, not only would it tow the mac fine, but the wife could go buy groceries in style, 70 grand, my choice f450 fx4 4x4, lockers, Diesel, extracab 8 foot bed, (wouldn't own a chevy) then have ten grand for fuel for the next few years, ohh and I would keep the truck at least 20 years, just like the rest of my crap....
Mike

[Crikey]

I'm almost as cheap as Crikey !! but not quite

I'll second that!

Hey, if I won the lotteries tomorrow I'd be outranking all of you with my glorious Hummer 1 (ok, now I am kidding!).
What I'm not quite seeing about the TCO argument is that if a $70k and a $35k vehicle are traded in after, say, five years for a new model - and both have lost half their value (for the point of argument), who's coming out ahead in using the mpg argument? All other factors remaining equal: parts, labour, tires etc, while obviously finance and insurance runs equivalently more on the big buck items.
Probably not a fair comparison, but I've seen many a Hummer that used to cost $80k plus going for way less than half price because of what? (one guess...) I can't pour fuel that fast and most of the highly optimistic consumption figures should be prefaced with the same statement my internet provider does to me: up to!
Packing my boat with enough beer to justify 7500lbs of tow weight capacity is probably illegal...
Ross

[mastreb]

Residual value is really tricky because it's about brand perception and only vaguely related to quality. Crikey, the simple answer to your question is that after five years both cars have not lost the same percentage of value. One has lost a little over half its value, and the other has lost nearly all of it.

For example, Subarus have near the best consistent residual value of major car brands. At about 4 years old a Subarus will be worth half its new price. A Hyundai that priced at the same new as an equivalent Subaru will have lost 80% of its value after the same period. Why? The Hyundai is not particularly lower quality and is no more likely to have had a mechanical repair at that age. But Subarus are in demand amongst three particular demographics who will pay a premium for them (lesbians, hippies, and Oregonians). Same with MB. Hyundai just doesn't have the brand loyalty. The more stable and consistent the resale market for a vehicle is, the more its residual value will be.

SUVs typically take a huge hit in resale value. A 4 year old Nissan Armada has lost 70% of its new value. So it's TCO is much higher. Trucks are similar. American brands typically lose a lot of resale value. Comparing a Cadillac's resale value after four years takes a 75% hit--they're essentially not worth selling.

The secret is this: Good lease deals, where the lease price is half what the "buy" price is for the same term, means that the car has a great resale value and therefore a low TCO. If you can't get a lease on a car or if the lease price is close to the sell price, it means the car has no residual value after the lease period. Avoid those cars UNLESS you intend to drive the vehicle for at least ten years.

For cars with high residual value like a Benz, BMW, or Subaru, the "break even" time for lease-vs.-buy presuming typical interest rates is nine years. That means that if you buy, it will be nine years before your monthly cost to own is the same as if you had leased. If you plan to own for less than nine years and your mileage fits in the lease program, leasing in this case would be the way to go.

All that said, I'm not going to claim that my SUV is as cheap to own as an F150 all said and done. I'm just saying that the sticker price isn't anywhere near the whole story, and that a TCO of $1.20/mi. vs. $1.35/mi. isn't that big of a deal. I was quite surprised by the results of TCO calculations when I started doing them, and it's why I drive what I do today.

It's especially valuable when you consider that I can have two cars instead of three: because one of them is a swiss-army knife capable of towing the Mac, going out on the town with friends, carrying the groceries, taking the kids to school, doing serious off-roading, and showing up to a client meeting all in a single vehicle you can see why I went the way I did. For a lot of people, a truck is a 3rd vehicle. The Benz SUV eliminates that 3rd car for me and in doing so it definitely gets below the TCO of any two other vehicles of the same age.

No single cost in the ownership proposition of a vehicle tells the whole story.

[Crikey]

Lot's of good points there Matt!

I can safely also affirm that I'm not a lesbian hippie from Oregon!

[Crikey]

Here's just one of the sites I was looking into when I started this post. While my Ford Escape will be replaced eventually, I would still consider adding a load levelling/sway reduction system to my next tow package (as well as a second trailer axle).
http://www.etrailer.com/Weight-Distribu ... 26002.html

[Tomfoolery]

Problem is finding one that will work with surge brakes and the pole tongue arrangement of the Mac trailers. Pole tongues can be handled with a single-bar load equalizing hitch, but sway control isn't so easy.

There are systems out there that will do both, but they ain't cheap.

http://www.etrailer.com/question-35167.html

[mastreb]

Look for a vehicle with Trailer Stability Program (TSP) or a similar system. They detect excessive sway from the trailer and then use the vehicle's brakes independently to counteract the sway. Works a charm.