New Vehicle - Towing Questions

What debate that turbo is "always" the most economical?  All that was said, starting with StephenH's comment about considering a turbo as a good alternative for mountain driving, was that it may be a satisfactory power plant for a TV.  No one ever said that turbos are always the most economical or even the best choice for all drivers under all circumstances.  Some of us, who actually own and have towed with an Ecoboost, found them to quite satisfactory for our towing needs.  Others, for a variety of reasons may choose to go with diesels or naturally aspirated engines.  

Two differences between the Highlander and the Pickup:

In these days of 8 and 10 speed auto transmissions I doubt gear ratios matter very much anymore. The ECU has so many options to choose from based on conditions and loading. You would need to compare unloaded non-towing engine rpm at freeway speeds and see if there is enough difference to effect efficiency, but I doubt it. All the manufacturers are trying to optimize fuel economy under those conditions because that is the EPA reporting requirement as well as one of the most common operating modes for any vehicle. It's what's created the push for all those trans speeds to start with.

You can for sure get full sized bed double cab trucks but those are really big trucks with long turning radii and not so great fuel economy. Lots of folks around here have them because they have the need to haul equipment and heavy trailers. Not ideal as a daily driver when you're not hauling stuff. They have smaller vehicles for that purpose.

A half ton pickup crew cab with a cap is in my view basically an SUV with a small cargo area which remains separate from the passenger space and isn't flexible in size by means of folding seats down. That's a fine choice if you're not hauling big stuff and/or you don't want what you are hauling in the passenger space. Just wouldn't work as well for me as an SUV and trailer combo.

I always state that my choices are my own and the pros and cons I see among the options. That is how people make decisions, everything has it's upsides and downsides, and those differ based on perspective, so it's fine to disagree about that. It's only when someone makes broad oversimplifications such as "turbos are more economical" where I will object.

LA, I already said (twice) that a turbo is going to produce more power if you frequently drive at high altitudes. That is a different consideration from efficiency, don't mix the two up. The normally aspirated engine is burning less fuel at altitude while it's making less power, as it's ECU is maintaining the proper stoichiometry.

Without a utility trailer of some type I agree that even a short box pickup would be better for hauling than an SUV.

Coincidentally I just picked up a 500 lb wood stove with my horse trailer and SUV. Wouldn't have got it out of the bed of a pickup without lots of help and back pain. Too high. I used my tractor boom pole and picked it right up.

How do you safely carry 16 ft lumber in a short box pickup? Did you add a lumber rack? I can slide heavier 16 ft lumber over the closed horse trailer ramp which leaves about 5 ft sticking out so it's stable. Lightweight stuff can go on the roof rack.

I never said there was anything wrong with choosing a pickup. Nor did I say that there was anything wrong with choosing a turbo over a normally aspirated engine, just more risk of having problems, which should be obvious. As for your inference that normally aspirated engines are "older technology" I disagree, there are all kinds of innovations going on with normally aspirated engines all the time, and there is nothing new about turbocharging. Looking at it another way, ICE tech is all "old school" now anyhow. EVs are the future, but not just yet depending on your application.

+ 1 to Glue Guy's last comment.