Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Opinions on 2WD V6 Work Truck Silv.1500/F150 etc.

trucks truck camper four wheel camper 2wd v6 work truck

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 natetripsus

natetripsus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 04 March 2020 - 09:58 PM

Here I go again with the research but the on-going discussion is really helpful and might be to others.

 

So I want a full size pick up (work truck) and an FWC shell model. But realistically, I will be using it 90% city driving, 20% camping (until the apocalypse then 100% camping).  I see that the F150 XL base V6 (long or short) and Silverado 1500 base V6 both have fairly high payload ratings, 1960 (1990 short bed), 2250 respectively.   So daily driving with just me, some work tools, and and the mostly empty FWC Grandby shell (~1100lbs) would be under the GVWR (plus suspension upgrades).  For camping trips I would add gf and two dogs plus stuff but this is occasional.  I expect to travel solo much of the rest of the time.

 

This kind goes back to my other threads and I'm sorry to go over it again.  Cost is a major concern and I just want a basic work truck regular cab for my daily needs and can maybe use the FWC as a mobile office.  I am leaning 2WD for this reason, lower cost, higher payload, better mpg, maintenance etc. and most places I want to travel are places an ordinary RV can go. 

 

What would it be like to drive around a base work truck 2WD V6 with about 1200lbs payload all the time? I have never owned a full size truck, just compacts, so forgive my lack of experience. Would it be efficient? How would it perform? There is nothing I can find on the internet that helps me visualize this. 

 

That Silverado Work Truck with its 2250 paylaod rating looks pretty appealing, good value.  The short bed Ford with a Hawk would be nice too, kinda look like a Bronco with a camper. Might be able to get new under $30k, used around $20k. 

 

 


  • 0

#2 Vic Harder

Vic Harder

    Get's a "charge" out of camping!

  • Members
  • 3,056 posts
  • LocationCalgary, Alberta

Posted 05 March 2020 - 01:56 AM

Sounds like you are "experimenting".  So, I would go lowest cost while testing the waters.  Used truck of whatever size you want/need.  Put the camper on it when you need to get out of town and into the woods.  Air bags and e-rated tires will mitigate most of the bad/unwanted handling of overloading your truck.  Live with the issues for a while and see what you really need to address before spending $$$ on a new truck and finding out that it STILL isn't quite right.


Edited by Vic Harder, 05 March 2020 - 01:57 AM.

  • 0

2006 Silverado 3500 ext cab 8' bed LBZ

2012 ATC Puma Shell build - https://www.wanderth...012-puma-build/

Power considerations thread - https://www.wanderth...e-power-scotty/

 


#3 natetripsus

natetripsus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 05 March 2020 - 02:28 AM

Thanks for the reply, Vic.  I guess I'm trying to justify the lower cost truck for the FWC I want.  Yeah I already know, the bigger the better for hauling.  I suppose a base F250/GM2500 could be had for the same money in a work truck config. I'm just afraid of using it as a daily driver. The other argument is that people put these campers on small trucks and make it work.  Even the base 3.3 v6 F150 has more hp and torque than the Tacoma's 3.5. and the curb weight's of the trucks are F150 4095lbs. and Tacoma like 4220lbs. So, by the specs the base f150 is bigger yet lighter, and the base V6 is a little more powerful than the Taco. The GMs base V6 is a little less hp than the Ford but higher payload. So why wouldn't this work?

 

Man, I need to stop looking at spec sheets.  Maybe I should just get a smart car and a stay in motels. 


  • 0

#4 natetripsus

natetripsus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 05 March 2020 - 03:11 AM

I should add that, since it will be a daily driver, city, mpg does matter to me.  I found this pretty good work truck comparison test https://news.pickupt...k-for-2017.html   Looks like the F250 V8 gas did 15mpg empty and 14.4 mpg with a load of 2200lbs in the bed. I read all sports of things with the F150s with their various engines some getting better mpg with these ecoboosts and whatnot and an FWC on it.  Too many choices. Can't brain. 

 

Correction: F250 got 15mpg in the test, not 25


Edited by natetripsus, 05 March 2020 - 05:27 AM.

  • 0

#5 Vic Harder

Vic Harder

    Get's a "charge" out of camping!

  • Members
  • 3,056 posts
  • LocationCalgary, Alberta

Posted 05 March 2020 - 03:39 AM

Saving $10-$15K on a used truck buys a lot of gas.


  • 0

2006 Silverado 3500 ext cab 8' bed LBZ

2012 ATC Puma Shell build - https://www.wanderth...012-puma-build/

Power considerations thread - https://www.wanderth...e-power-scotty/

 


#6 Kolockum

Kolockum

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 509 posts
  • LocationWashington

Posted 05 March 2020 - 04:47 AM

I prefer work trucks to be 2wd as the bed seems to be noticeably lower than the 4x4 versions. Makes a difference when loading and unloading. If I was to buy a truck now it would be a F-150 with the ecoboost.

 

I would recommend buying used. You save a bunch of money and all of the recalls have (hopefully) been fixed.


  • 0

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2017 Toyota Tacoma with 2000 FWC Eagle

 

"the nut behind the wheel is the most important one." John D


#7 Beach

Beach

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 658 posts

Posted 08 March 2020 - 03:59 PM

I bought a 06 Tundra with a 4.0 six in it because all the specs said it would get better mileage than the V8. If I had it to do over I to get a small V8 or maybe an eco boost 3.5. That small 6 cyl. works hard and the fuel savings just isn't there. Side note: the bigger motor can/will allow you to run a little taller rear gear also, adding to the fuel economy.


  • 0

#8 klahanie

klahanie

    Senior Member

  • Validating
  • 932 posts
  • LocationSW BC

Posted 08 March 2020 - 07:01 PM

I think you'll be fine with a 2wd, save the money where you can.

 

On the Ford engine, no experience here, only speculation... 

 

I do like idea of the 2.7eco up grade for $1,000. Compared to the 3.3 it gets you the 10 speed and a motor that reaches peak HP at a lower rpm and max torque at a much lower rpm (2,750). I'm thinking if babied and kept out of high boost most of the time a driver would have more chance to minimise fuel consumption. Ford quotes the epa, rating it 1 mpg better then the 3.3. Fuelly shows pretty consistent results with about 30 times more data points than for the 3.3 which shows higher but spotty mpg. Plus you'd have more power for the mountains and highway passing.

 

The F250 link illustrates the argument that a larger motor may take a load with little mpg penalty but for sure there will be a city penalty for larger vs smaller motor and you stated 90% city use. Another factor for mpg is aero and overall frontal area on the highway, camper vs bricks in the bed like link. Mpg is very subjective. You and your neighbour can have an identical rig but she might do better - like it or lump it. Many online reports are for empty or towing. We do have some on here incld this 2.7 one from your earlier thread

 

The other plus for a 2.7 is the available upgraded payload package for $1,345. On the RCLB it gives a big payload and RAWR increase and all of that can go on the rear axle. In fact about 90% of the total payload can be carried by the rear axle vs ~75% for reg payload. The heavier rear springs should lessen the the need for aftermarket. And there's a Elocker. You know all this and you're not looking to spent more money but I see a value there for camper use and for resale - selling a work truck with 8' box and 2400lb payload.

 

Used, SCSB might be more common and you seemed set on that config before. Have you changed your mind on the long box ? Are you seriously considering a RCSB ?


Edited by klahanie, 08 March 2020 - 07:05 PM.

  • 0

#9 oldhotrod

oldhotrod

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 18 March 2020 - 04:12 AM

Mpg v6 to v8 is not enough of a difference to justify so go v8. Also, there are a lot of reg cab Silverado and Sierras on the market that were former rental trucks with low miles. These trucks can get 17-20 combined, heck my reg cab, long bed 2016 sierra with camper gets 17
  • 0

#10 natetripsus

natetripsus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 01 April 2020 - 11:58 PM

I think you'll be fine with a 2wd, save the money where you can.

 

On the Ford engine, no experience here, only speculation... 

 

I do like idea of the 2.7eco up grade for $1,000. Compared to the 3.3 it gets you the 10 speed and a motor that reaches peak HP at a lower rpm and max torque at a much lower rpm (2,750). I'm thinking if babied and kept out of high boost most of the time a driver would have more chance to minimise fuel consumption. Ford quotes the epa, rating it 1 mpg better then the 3.3. Fuelly shows pretty consistent results with about 30 times more data points than for the 3.3 which shows higher but spotty mpg. Plus you'd have more power for the mountains and highway passing.

 

The F250 link illustrates the argument that a larger motor may take a load with little mpg penalty but for sure there will be a city penalty for larger vs smaller motor and you stated 90% city use. Another factor for mpg is aero and overall frontal area on the highway, camper vs bricks in the bed like link. Mpg is very subjective. You and your neighbour can have an identical rig but she might do better - like it or lump it. Many online reports are for empty or towing. We do have some on here incld this 2.7 one from your earlier thread

 

The other plus for a 2.7 is the available upgraded payload package for $1,345. On the RCLB it gives a big payload and RAWR increase and all of that can go on the rear axle. In fact about 90% of the total payload can be carried by the rear axle vs ~75% for reg payload. The heavier rear springs should lessen the the need for aftermarket. And there's a Elocker. You know all this and you're not looking to spent more money but I see a value there for camper use and for resale - selling a work truck with 8' box and 2400lb payload.

 

Used, SCSB might be more common and you seemed set on that config before. Have you changed your mind on the long box ? Are you seriously considering a RCSB ?

 

 

Sorry for the late reply, so much craziness happening these days.  I am considering the regular cab because I want the shortest wheelbase for urban use. I like the way they look too. 90% of my driving ill be just me.  The NA V6s have higher payload numbers, it drops on the 2.7 with F150, unless you get the heavy payload pkg.  Payload drops on the Chevy/GMC with the V8 but goes up on the F150 long beds. 

 

Also thinking about the FWC Project M Topper at about 420lbs might fit nicely on a base F150 RCSB v6 w/ 1990lbs payload. A short econo rig.  Kinda pricey for what it is (the Topper) and no heater option =(.  Would work good for my contracting work/mobile office/shop set up. Can write if off as equipment. Lots of these trucks for sale used at attractive prices. 

 

Assuming I get to resume work in the normal way when the pandemic subsides.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: trucks, truck, camper, four wheel camper, 2wd, v6, work truck

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users