Visit our Popular Forums

DasAir · 04-04-2008, 09:20 PM

Folks,
I'm fairly new to trailering and looking to buy a new tow vehicle in the next few months. I've been reading all I can find here, but I have one nagging question. It seems that all the recommendations for vehicles are based on trailer length rather than weight. I have a 27ft '78 Soveriegn with GVW of 6,200lbs. I noticed that a 2008 of the same length is 1,400lbs heavier! My AS is a remodel and will probably come out even lighter than the factory spec. The empty and dry weight is about 4,500lbs. So shouldn't the weight be the determining factor? With such variation in weight between models, does length really mean anything?
Then the next part is, if I end up with a trailer with an over the road weight of about 5,500 lbs, is the new Tundra 5.7L enough truck to handle mountainous towing? Anybody with a similar rig? The factory specs say it should be fine, but I've seen many posts listing a 22ft trailer as about max for that size truck. Am I missing something?

Thanks
David

Fyrzowt · 04-04-2008, 11:38 PM

David you're absolutely right, go by weight, not length. But, as a general rule, the longer ones do weigh more, the newer ones also weigh more than older, especially more than vintage.
Don't use the dry weight as your determining factor. That is the weight without water, propane, camping equipment, etc. Many folks figure an additional 1000# over dry weight, although I think could shave some off of that.
The best thing to do is weigh your trailer to see what actual weight is.
Good luck,
Dave

SteveH · 04-05-2008, 05:07 AM

For what it's worth, I agree with Dave...the weight is the biggest factor, however the weight is something that is easy to underestimate, and like Dave says, the only way to really know is to take it to the scales. About the truck...it is my "opinion" a lot of people on this board tend to dismiss the capabilities of the newer 1/2 ton trucks unfairly. I have an '07 GMC, have driven pickup trucks since 1960, and the newest generation of 1/2 ton trucks are really in another class, especially if it is equipped with a towing package and HD suspension. Just my 2 cents on the matters.

Steve

**azflycaster** · 04-05-2008, 05:18 AM

I tow a 75 TW with my 07 Tundra with the 5.7 motor. The trailer is just over 5K when loaded and the truck has no problems with the mountains.

wahoonc · 04-05-2008, 06:21 AM

Weight to me is the controlling factor, the length will come into play if you plan on towing with a very short wheel base vehicle. It has to do with the distance from the hitch to the axles, and it's leverage effect on the tow vehicle and the overall stability.

Aaron

DasAir · 04-05-2008, 08:39 AM

Good points all, thanks. If I do get the Tundra, I'll get the LWB with the tow package (lower axle gears, tranny cooler, etc). The point made about the power of newer vehicles matches my experience too. The power from some of these smaller engines is really something. I was wondering about the length of the tow vehicle compared to the trailer length. I'm sure that factors in. I have access to a scale at the local land fill so I plan to weigh the trailer and tongue at a couple points along the remodel to make sure I'm good. I'm trying to keep it as light as possible within reason.
Just an observation, but back in the day, you saw a lot of good sized trailers being pulled by the family car. Remember airshocks in the rear?

People used to pull 40ft trailer houses with pickups. We are lucky today to have so many really good pullers available IMO. I guess the reason newer trailers are so heavy is because we can pull them now, and people want all the gingerbread. I like things simple (and light).

David

slowmover · 04-05-2008, 09:11 AM

My rule of thumb is 7,000#. Yes, a half-ton will do it, and probably quite well for someone not full-timing. Above that, the three-quarter ton feels better about doing the job, ESPECIALLY for the full-timer carrying a bunch of junk along with him.

The "family cars" that used to pull trailers had to work fairly hard on the grades: WOT for twenty minutes up some of the Colorado Rockies passes. These cars were hindered not by engine size but by gearing that was generally 2.90 to 3.23 (and 28 to 30 inch tires [pre-radial]) with fairly loose torque convertors and only three-speed automatic transmissions. "Hindered" only as we would look at it today.

Could I have one of those cars with a motor optimized for todays low-power gasoline, and EFI, a four or five speed transmission and better gearing (plus the advances in suspension and braking to be found on a modern 1/2T) then I'd jump right on it.

For a trailer of under 7,000-lbs. Not full-timing.

That's my two cents.

DasAir · 04-05-2008, 11:54 AM

Rednax, Yea and a lot of them were pulled over with boilovers as I recall

AzFlycaster, Does your Tundra have the "towing package", ie lower gears etc ?

**azflycaster** · 04-05-2008, 12:19 PM

I have the Double Cab 4x4 SR5 with the tow package.

DasAir · 04-05-2008, 03:11 PM

Thanks Richard, that's exactly the truck I'm considering.

FilmGuy · 04-05-2008, 05:35 PM

It's also worth a mention that those family cars were heavier and were built on frames. Today's cars are unibody construction designed to be light-weight for gas mileage. So they don't have the mass or the stiffness to resist a trailer's sway forces.

Rollertoaster · 04-05-2008, 07:54 PM

My parents had a 22' Silverstreak which they towed with a 1959 Mercury wagon. My dad still talks about the time, in 1959, when we went over Ebbets Pass in the Sierras, heading east. He got a brake job for the car and the trailer
in Reno.

Terry

2airishuman · 04-06-2008, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DasAir

...It seems that all the recommendations for vehicles are based on trailer length rather than weight...

hi das'

i'm not sure i understand this thought...

EVERY common tow vehicle comes with a 'rating' for...

towing, payload, gcwr, axles, tires, receiver/hitch, tongue mass and so on...

and EVERYONE of these parameters is based on WEIGHT.

NO vehicle supplier provides towing recommendations based on trailer length or wheelbase or rear overhand or other 'length' parameters...

rv sites and magazines and enthusiasts may mention the length/wheelbase parameters, but only as general guides.

weights and length and wheelbase and overhang are ALL important.

the truck/trailer combo u are considering fits both the manufactures weight guides, and the general length guides...

once properly set up (including adequate tongue mass) the combo should tow fine.

a 9000 lb 23 ft trailer might tow MUCH better than a 5000 lbs 32 ft trailer depending on where IN/ON the trailer length the mass is located...

longer trailers have the potential to generate greater YAW forces on the tv rear axle/suspension/tires...

and longer wheelbase tow vehicles help reduce this influence IF all other parameters are equal...

cheers
2air'

Road Ruler · 04-06-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmGuy

Today's cars are unibody construction designed to be light-weight for gas mileage. So they don't have the mass or the stiffness to resist a trailer's sway forces.

I think that was proven to be a Myth, wasn't it?

FilmGuy · 04-06-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road Ruler

I think that was proven to be a Myth, wasn't it?

Was it? I hadn't heard that before. It always made sense to me when I thought about the Plymouth Fury wagon my father drove compared to most of the cars around today. But I could certainly have that wrong.

AlbertF · 04-06-2008, 10:38 AM

If the Plymouth Fury wagon was built in the 1960s or 1970s, it was a unibody.

Unibodies are far stiffer than frames. It's like comparing the strength of an engineered roof truss to a floor joist. The roof truss will do a far better job of resisting deflection due to load.

SteveH · 04-06-2008, 02:18 PM

I don't think the problem with unibody cars pulling trailers is stiffness, it's attaching the hitch to them, as even the strongest sections of them are made from very light guage sheet metal. Frames on the other hand, are made from much heavier sheet metal. Just my thoughts on the matter.

AlbertF · 04-06-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveH

I don't think the problem with unibody cars pulling trailers is stiffness, it's attaching the hitch to them, as even the strongest sections of them are made from very light guage sheet metal. Frames on the other hand, are made from much heavier sheet metal. Just my thoughts on the matter.

A good point. Hitch installation often requires some creativity. It's easiest when manufacturers design the attachment points in, such as Chrysler does with the 300/Magnum. (Have a look under these cars, and you will find pre-threaded holes.) This can be augmented with attachments to other points, such stamped or cast independent rear suspension components.

Another consideration - high strength steels are now used to build cars, and the thin sections may be a lot stronger than they look.

Fyrzowt · 04-06-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Unibodies are far stiffer than frames. It's like comparing the strength of an engineered roof truss to a floor joist. The roof truss will do a far better job of resisting deflection due to load.

Until fire hits them, then they fail quickly.

Road Ruler · 04-06-2008, 05:23 PM

Steve has made a good point about the sheet metal VS frame rails.

I have seen a number of custom, pro built receivers on uni-bodies that get around the sheet metal issue and are in fact much stronger and flex resisitant than a conventional bolt on type of receiver.

With some luck form member Andrew T will chime in to explain as he has successfully figured out the formula.