This came from a good friend of ours who is hosting the R-Pod Rally in Traverse City next month.  Thanks you for considering his question.  jato

Currently towing our 179 with a 2005 GMC Envoy SLT with a towing capacity of 5000 pounds. Looking at purchasing a 2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee 80th Anniversary model.

The 2021 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE has a base towing capacity of 3500 pounds.  However, when equipped with the Trailer Tow Group IV factory install, the vehicle’s towing capacity is increased to 6200 pounds.

We’re hoping the added JGC towing capacity of 6200 pounds, along with our Blu Ox weight distribution with sway control hitch, and our 1140 Curt Manufacturing electric brake controller will more than suffice for our needs.

Any thoughts?

Thank you very much in advance for sharing your perspective.

Brian

I would argue with that. Our 3.5L EcoBoost hits near maximum torque at ~~ 1800 RPM, and the torque output continues almost flat until redline. We tow at ~~ 1600 RPM most of the time, and when we climb the mountain it generally only downshifts one gear, and we rarely see over 2500 RPM. It's a towing monster. (and we do use regular gas most of the time; we only use premium when we are towing).

We burn regular gas [87 octane] for all uses.  I tried some premium on the way to the east coast a couple weeks ago, but noticed no discernible difference in the engine operation or power.  We don't use the 85 octane gas sold in some mountain states such as Utah, since the owner's manual recommends against it.

Another advantage to a turbo boosted engine is that it's a bit easier on gas consumption.  They deliver more power with less gas through more efficient combustion.  Certainly, they have their "issues," but in the end, they are better performing engines than naturally aspirated ones.

As for advantages of turbos for towing, they deliver a more powerful engine while using less fuel.  Certainly they are more complex engines, but the technology is well established and reliable.  It'd be nice to be able to tow with an electric vehicle or even a hybrid, but neither works well for that purpose.  

Yes, a naturally aspirated engine works alright for towing, provided you don't mind the 3% horsepower drop for each 1000 feet of altitude, but it is undeniable that turbo engines are more efficient when it comes to fuel consumption. 

As for lawsuits against Ford for the Ecoboost engine, yes, there are, but they don't concern the 2.7 and 3.2 liter engines.  There have been class action suits against all of the major manufacturers, including Toyota, and specifically the Prius.  So you already are a plaintiff in an ongoing class action suit that was reported in the spring of 2020.  

Both the 2.7L and the 2.5L EcoBoost engines are on their 2nd or 3rd iteration. yes, they're more complicated, but both have fewer reciprocating parts than a V8, so the concept of "more complicated" gets a bit gray in my mind. Almost all big rig diesels are turbocharged, and they are known for very high mileage capabilities (like several hundred thousand miles). Likewise, all the early turbo-related issues got dealt with back in the 1990s, and none of the EcoBoost engines, including the little 4-bangers, are having turbo-related issues.

As for turbo-lag, the tiny turbos used in the V6 EcoBoost engines spool up very rapidly because of their small diameter. I'd say the turbo-lag is a non-issue for ours.

I am intrigued about the hybrid 3.5L EcoBoost. I would consider replacing ours in a year or two after I've seen it proving itself.

The hybrid F-150 is has just barely come onto the market with an asking price of about $72K.  It really isn't a contender for the travel trailer market at this time.  And you certainly aren't going to tow much with a Prius.  When the F-150 becomes a significant part of the TV market, then hybrids will be relevant and will offer a good option for towing. ...but Ford appears to be using a turbo boosted engine to accompany the electric motor.  If I am still towing trailers when my current F-150 needs to be replaced, it may be a viable option, if electric options haven't replaced it.  

As for the Ford Hybrid, the onboard generator capability is fascinating. I would really like to see one. I don't like the price tag though.

Yes, there were some issues early on with the introduction of the Ecoboost engines, but that is true of many new, innovative engines and the problems have been addressed.  The reports turbo lag almost exclusively concern pre-2018 engines or come from those who believe that one must push the throttle with both feet as hard as one can at every start for maximum acceleration.  Under normal driving conditions, the problem has been fixed.

There are few 1/2 ton pickups that can beat the mileage of an F-150 Ecoboost, whether a 2.7 or a 3.5.  A comparable 2019 Toyota Tundra 4x4 gets 13/17 mpg compared to my F-150's rated at 19/24.  Our model also beats the mid-sized Tacoma -- 18/22.   I can say from personal experience that I routinely get 24 mpg when not towing.  We've just logged 3975 miles towing our 4400 GVW trailer and the onboard computer says we've gotten 14.8 mpg.  That's not bad for crossing the from effectively Reno to the beginning of US 50 in Ocean City, MD.  We'll see how we do when we return via NM and AZ.

Comparing your Highlander's non-towing mileage to a full size pickup is a non-starter.  Of course you get better mileage.  So does my CX-5 which is currently showing 29.8 as the average mileage.  It sounds like you have never driven an F-150 with an Ecoboost engine.  Maybe, before denouncing it, you should take a test drive.  You might be pleasantly surprised.

One you mentioned, which is aerodynamics.

Two is gearing. It is very likely that the gear ratios of the Highlander are more suited for economical driving. 

Trucks are geared to haul stuff. I have seen crew cab trucks with full length beds. More often than not, those are the ones with the dual rear tires. That would be way more than is needed for an RPod of any model available.For me, a crew cab pickup with a cap on the bed would be great. I have a hard tonneau cover on the Frontier. It limits the height of what I can have in the bed. I have the factory rails and tie-downs and the bed extender. I can haul some things, but the Frontier is not suitable for heavy hauling anyway.

All points are valid about engine choice. That is why we have options and are not locked into only one choice. Each of us gets to choose what is best in our individual situations. I prefer to keep any discussion about our choice, not to attack anyone else's choice.

As for the utility of a pickup truck compared to an SUv, that is a matter of personal choice.  You like what you chose, so that is a good thing.  Those of us who have chosen pickup trucks to tow our trailers and use for other purposes have also made a choice based upon our personal preferences.  I like being able to carry 6 passengers very comfortably in the cab and find the ability to carry large cargo items, such as 16' boards that would be too heavy for a roof rack, or a stove that wouldn't fit in an SUV.  It fits my personal preferences better.  Indeed, it all boils down to personal choice.  

That you chose older technology because you prefer it, does not mean that those of us who have chosen different or newer technology are wrong.  

The fact that it tows without sweat is just icing on the cake.

It's pleasing to me that on a forum about the modest little r-pod we get to talk about big honkin trucks to pull them with. Or even mid size SUVs....

This is not true in the real world. In the lab it might be, but the problem is the way we RATE horsepower and torque. I can absolutely guarantee you that a 400 hp, 400 ft/lbs (also pound/feet) 5.7 liter gas engine equipped pickup will NOT be able to drag 80,000 pounds over a high mountain pass any where near as fast as a 400hp 1600 ft/lb rated 15 liter class 8 diesel engine will. Both rated at 400 hp but there is a HUGE difference in total available towing power.

Its because of the way we divide total engine power into two measurable units: one is how FAST it makes power (while increasing RPM) one is how MUCH power it makes (during steady rpm).

Actually, it sounds impressive to use that word BUT...most modern, normally-aspirated gas engines with fuel injection will enrichen the fuel mixture during a hard climb at high altitudes to help cool the pistons and cylinders and help to keep the exhaust temps within a 'normal' range. Meanwhile the catalytic converter is drinking a LOT of unburned gasoline and converting it into heat. Lots of it. Which means that yes, they are much less efficient at high altitudes while also under a heavy load, compared with the same engine equipped with a turbo. You can't cheat physics, and it's the very reason that turbo equipped engines tend to perform so well (for a given displacement) when the going gets tough and the air gets thinner. 

Back in the 'olden days' (or golden days?) before tight emission controls, this was evident in most diesels and some gas engines, as you would see them 'rolling coal'....which is nearly always the result of a rich mixture and wasted fuel. 

As for building materials, the last thing I want to do is to have to hassle with a horse trailer or a utility trailer to load stuff.  I can easily load sheets of drywall or osb panels without doing anything except opening the tail gate.  If I have long elements, I have a rack that I can put onto the truck in about 5 minutes that allows me to carry all the materials I may need for a project.  

We just crossed the country and set the cruise control at 60 and couldn't have been more comfortable, even in nasty head and cross winds.  I hardly noticed I was towing a trailer, except for the occasional passing where I had to accommodate for the extra length.  As far as my experience is concerned, I couldn't ask for a better balanced TV & trailer rig in power, comfort, stability, economy, and efficiency. 

As I've repeatedly said, each person should do what fits best, but don't knock the experience of others until you've tried it.  You may be pleasantly surprised.

Actually, it sounds impressive to use that word BUT...most modern, normally-aspirated gas engines with fuel injection will enrichen the fuel mixture during a hard climb at high altitudes to help cool the pistons and cylinders and help to keep the exhaust temps within a 'normal' range. Meanwhile the catalytic converter is drinking a LOT of unburned gasoline and converting it into heat. Lots of it. Which means that yes, they are much less efficient at high altitudes while also under a heavy load, compared with the same engine equipped with a turbo. You can't cheat physics, and it's the very reason that turbo equipped engines tend to perform so well (for a given displacement) when the going gets tough and the air gets thinner. 

Back in the 'olden days' (or golden days?) before tight emission controls, this was evident in most diesels and some gas engines, as you would see them 'rolling coal'....which is nearly always the result of a rich mixture and wasted fuel. 

For longer items, we have a TracRac, which also holds our kayaks, and I've put 12', even 16' lumber on the TracRac (our kayaks are 17' long). If I have tall stuff to load, the TracRac uprights slide all the way to front, or if I need the full length, I can slide the uprights off the back, and stow them in the back seat.

The thing is a bit of a pain to make U-turns, but I've gotten used to it. It's just a bit over 20' long.

According to the instructions, the rack will hold 350 pounds and extends from the hitch receiver.  I got it at a local truck store.  Personally, I don't think it'd be good idea to test the weight limit with a big load of green doug/fir 2x8's but for kiln dried trim/base stock, you can get more than I'd want to put on an SUV roof rack.  And for plywood or drywall, the limit is the payload capacity of the truck bed (2,470# with my whimpy 2.7), a bit better than most SUV's.  And, I made a convenient platform to fit behind the front seat with the back seats folded up, giving me about 45 cu.ft., where I can securely load all my tools when we're off to Reno to work on a Habitat house.  We put our bikes inside the passenger cabin for our trip east, but it's been so rainy and cold that we haven't used them.