Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-19-2013, 09:05 AM   #57
Rivet Master
 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A , N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 995
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasduess View Post
Not for all vehicles in their lineup.

Also, to follow up on your suggestion, I did actually talk to people who work for Honda, the manufacturer of my vehicle. I tried and call customer service, they had no idea. I went up the line as much as I could - still no idea. I then talked to some of the people at my dealership who are usually well informed - they had no idea either. Their head engineer, with 30 years experience, did take a look at my hitch set-up and nodded in approval though. I asked him outright if he thought this would damage the car in any way, drive train, brakes, body. His response was "I can't see how".

In short, nobody could tell me just how the published tow rating had been arrived at. The best I got was from a private conversation with an automotive engineer who refused to be quoted but who said something along these lines:

" It's a mixture of what we know the car can support and what we assume the needs of the end user are. You may well be able to tow much more than we say you can, but it's not worth our while to figure it out."

I then talked to a lawyer friend of mine, who laughed and told me about idiot-proofing and risk vs. reward and made a couple of other interesting observations.

Nobody was prepared to go on the record, but the professionals who looked at my setup all thought it was well thought out, well put together and would do what CanAm says it does.



I also wanted to make a point about legal liabilities, which is frequently brought up.

The user manual of your vehicle has about as much legal clout as the user manual of your fridge - i.e. zero.

Unless there is a law in your state/province/country that states that it is an offence to exceed the published towing recommendation as stated in your user manual it is just that - a recommendation.

What a manual says is: Up to this point, we've tested and believe it to be safe. After this point, you're on you're own.
Based on this discussion (and the discussion on some other threads), I think its safe to assume there are (at least) two groups when it comes to tow ratings:

1) those who adhere to manufacturer's ratings, even though they know the process to come up with those ratings may not be perfect, and their vehicle may be able to tow more, and

2) those who do not adhere to manufacturer's ratings for a variety of reasons (manufacturer is lying to make a buck, 40 years ago a less capable cars towed the trailers, I exceeded the ratings and "I'm doing fine", etc.).

My observation has been that most people are in group 1 (I have seen a few individuals, mostly from Canada, and mostly CanAm customers, being in group 1). We cannot force each other to join the other group, and this discussion has become like a religious discussion (they never end with any consensus).

Laws in different countries are different. I would not recommend being in group 1 in the US. May be its different in Canada. But to each their own.
__________________

__________________
rostam is offline  
Old 09-19-2013, 09:13 AM   #58
Rivet Master
 
andreasduess's Avatar
 
1984 34' International
Toronto , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,496
Images: 5
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by rostam View Post
Laws in different countries are different. I would not recommend being in group 1 in the US. May be its different in Canada. But to each their own.
Not trying to be an ass, but that's incorrect. Manufacturer's recommendation for use are not part of the legal system, anywhere, unless specifically stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rostam View Post

2) those who do not adhere to manufacturer's ratings for a variety of reasons (manufacturer is lying to make a buck, 40 years ago a less capable cars towed the trailers, I exceeded the ratings and "I'm doing fine", etc.).
Or, perhaps, they did their homework and came to the conclusion that their vehicle is perfectly capable supporting the intended use based on sound engineering principles. This isn't a fly-by-night, wing-and-a-prayer setup, it really isn't.
__________________

__________________
andreasduess is offline  
Old 09-19-2013, 09:25 AM   #59
Rivet Master
 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A , N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 995
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasduess View Post
Not trying to be an ass, but that's incorrect. Manufacturer's recommendation for use are not part of the legal system, anywhere, unless specifically stated.



Or, perhaps, they did their homework and came to the conclusion that their vehicle is perfectly capable supporting the intended use based on sound engineering principles. This isn't a fly-by-night, wing-and-a-prayer setup, it really isn't.
I have a friend who was in camp 1. He told me exactly what I have been hearing on this forum on why it would not be a problem exceeding the tow ratings. His rig turned over in a highway, and his car and trailer were totaled. Thank god no one was seriously hurt. 100 yard down the road was a bridge. Had the accident happened there, it would be a different outcome. He bought a 1 ton van (which I think is an overkill for what he is towing). He was at one extreme before (seriously exceeding the rating), now he is at another extreme (seriously below the ratings). Wish everyone a safe towing.
__________________
rostam is offline  
Old 09-19-2013, 10:25 AM   #60
Rivet Master
 
mstephens's Avatar
 
2013 25' Flying Cloud
Cat City , California
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 854
In spite of any comments in an owner's manual, and in spite of any person's philosophical opinions about how tow ratings are derived, there is a physical reality involved which contains no mystery, no religion, no politics, just physics. Part A and Part B can be tested directly for various operational functions. For instance, that is how we know how to rate a resistor as 5W and not 10W. By testing them.

We know automakers are not testing vehicles for the limits on towing. This would be prohibitively expensive, and involve dozens of cars pushed to failure in a variety of circumstances in order to know the limits on axles, brakes, receivers, transmissions and all the rest. So they make estimates. And, it doesn't actually matter what the basis of those estimates are, they are simply estimates, not physical realities.

Who then tests vehicles for towing limits? The people who tow. It's as simple as that. If it works well, others follow suit. If it doesn't work well, the idea doesn't move forward. In this way the towing virtues of vehicles are determined. It may seem at first glance to be informal and inaccurate, but quite the opposite is true. It is very formal and very accurate. Real rigs are put to real tests, under totally real conditions and millions of miles are put on these vehicles. The data gathering? It is informal, and yet it is effective - word of mouth, forums, clubs, and other experts.

For example, we have been to a dozen rallies, met about 150 people who tow Airstreams, and I have yet to hear a single first hand account of a "broken axle" (pick your favorite failure) due to exceeding car maker's specs. Go ahead and hunt for the data. Prowl the trailer forums, towing forums, RV forums. Go to clubs, meet people, etc. I am not saying there is zero cases, but I am saying the number is very small. So small, there may be no statistical significance to the difference between towing failures with F-100 and towing failures with F-250. Did the tranny in that story fail because he was towing more than spec, or did it simply fail because of normal statistical failure rates?

"User Testing" is real, effective and is not leading to some massive safety crisis for the public. It is REAL DATA. And thus, it has far more weight over time than the ad hoc prescriptions in the manufacturer's handbook. Odd as it seems, that is the inconvenient truth here.

As an example, Andrew at Can-Am once described preparing a couple hundred of one particular vehicle (forgot which) as a TV. A vehicle many thought was inappropriate. But, his "real data" consisting of 100 cases is more data than all the manufacturers together have ever produced on "towing."

I definitely have no argument with people who want to follow strict manufacturer guidelines. Good choice for you! But, I do object to the claims of those same people saying that the others who use intuition, word of mouth, or other means of selection are "jeopardizing the public safety." That's a claim being made that is not supported by the data, and in fact contradicts the real data that exists. That's what tends to make the argument "religious".
__________________
mstephens is offline  
Old 09-19-2013, 11:19 AM   #61
Rivet Master
 
andreasduess's Avatar
 
1984 34' International
Toronto , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,496
Images: 5
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by rostam View Post
I have a friend who was in camp 1. He told me exactly what I have been hearing on this forum on why it would not be a problem exceeding the tow ratings. His rig turned over in a highway, and his car and trailer were totaled. Thank god no one was seriously hurt. 100 yard down the road was a bridge. Had the accident happened there, it would be a different outcome. He bought a 1 ton van (which I think is an overkill for what he is towing). He was at one extreme before (seriously exceeding the rating), now he is at another extreme (seriously below the ratings). Wish everyone a safe towing.
That's a correlation vs. causation argument.

Was the unfortunate fact that your friend was in an accident a direct result of his choice of tow vehicle, or merely a correlation, i.e. was the choice of tow vehicle not a deciding factor in whether or not the accident would have happened? Was it raining, icy, windy?

Did he exceed the ratings, i.e axle ratings or payload, or merely exceed the recommended tow capacity. Two very different things.

I am not saying that it is advisable to ignore the laws of physics. I am not saying it advisable to overload the axles or even exceed the payload. I personally respect all of these numbers. It's the recommended tow capacity that seems to me pulled out of thin air.

And just to throw some numbers in there, your risk of a rollover is statistically far higher in a truck than in a car or a van.
__________________
andreasduess is offline  
Old 09-19-2013, 11:41 AM   #62
Rivet Master
 
Road Ruler's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
St. Catharines , South Western Ontario
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,364
Images: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rostam View Post
I have a friend who was in camp 1. He told me exactly what I have been hearing on this forum on why it would not be a problem exceeding the tow ratings. His rig turned over in a highway, and his car and trailer were totaled. Thank god no one was seriously hurt. 100 yard down the road was a bridge. Had the accident happened there, it would be a different outcome. He bought a 1 ton van (which I think is an overkill for what he is towing). He was at one extreme before (seriously exceeding the rating), now he is at another extreme (seriously below the ratings). Wish everyone a safe towing.
Accidents are not fun.

Much more info is needed to come up with an opinion on this post.
__________________
Airstreams..... The best towing trailers on the planet!
Road Ruler is offline  
Old 09-19-2013, 12:00 PM   #63
4 Rivet Member
 
withidl's Avatar
 
2002 31' Classic
Houston , Texas
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 440
Images: 1
Very well stated!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstephens View Post
In spite of any comments in an owner's manual, and in spite of any person's philosophical opinions about how tow ratings are derived, there is a physical reality involved which contains no mystery, no religion, no politics, just physics. Part A and Part B can be tested directly for various operational functions. For instance, that is how we know how to rate a resistor as 5W and not 10W. By testing them.

We know automakers are not testing vehicles for the limits on towing. This would be prohibitively expensive, and involve dozens of cars pushed to failure in a variety of circumstances in order to know the limits on axles, brakes, receivers, transmissions and all the rest. So they make estimates. And, it doesn't actually matter what the basis of those estimates are, they are simply estimates, not physical realities.

Who then tests vehicles for towing limits? The people who tow. It's as simple as that. If it works well, others follow suit. If it doesn't work well, the idea doesn't move forward. In this way the towing virtues of vehicles are determined. It may seem at first glance to be informal and inaccurate, but quite the opposite is true. It is very formal and very accurate. Real rigs are put to real tests, under totally real conditions and millions of miles are put on these vehicles. The data gathering? It is informal, and yet it is effective - word of mouth, forums, clubs, and other experts.

For example, we have been to a dozen rallies, met about 150 people who tow Airstreams, and I have yet to hear a single first hand account of a "broken axle" (pick your favorite failure) due to exceeding car maker's specs. Go ahead and hunt for the data. Prowl the trailer forums, towing forums, RV forums. Go to clubs, meet people, etc. I am not saying there is zero cases, but I am saying the number is very small. So small, there may be no statistical significance to the difference between towing failures with F-100 and towing failures with F-250. Did the tranny in that story fail because he was towing more than spec, or did it simply fail because of normal statistical failure rates?

"User Testing" is real, effective and is not leading to some massive safety crisis for the public. It is REAL DATA. And thus, it has far more weight over time than the ad hoc prescriptions in the manufacturer's handbook. Odd as it seems, that is the inconvenient truth here.

As an example, Andrew at Can-Am once described preparing a couple hundred of one particular vehicle (forgot which) as a TV. A vehicle many thought was inappropriate. But, his "real data" consisting of 100 cases is more data than all the manufacturers together have ever produced on "towing."

I definitely have no argument with people who want to follow strict manufacturer guidelines. Good choice for you! But, I do object to the claims of those same people saying that the others who use intuition, word of mouth, or other means of selection are "jeopardizing the public safety." That's a claim being made that is not supported by the data, and in fact contradicts the real data that exists. That's what tends to make the argument "religious".
I APPLAUD THIS and your effort in composing it!
__________________
withidl is offline  
Old 09-20-2013, 12:51 PM   #64
Rivet Master
 
MrUKToad's Avatar

 
2011 28' International
Chatham , Ontario
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,372
Images: 17
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rostam View Post
They are the manufacturers of your vehicle. They definitely know more about the car than you or any other individual. Give them a call (I'm sure there is a 1-800 number) and just ask.

Also, they have implemented the SAE towing standards, so they should know about the limits of their cars like no other car company (Toyota is the only manufacturer that has implemented the test).
I've been tardy getting back into this thread but my point of view has been excellently laid out by MStephens and Andy in their recent posts.

I'm not going to call Toyota because I'll get the company policy, which is "abide by the specifications" and "no, we don't know how the tow rating was derived". It would take a more formal approach from someone in a prominent position (maybe the CEO of Airstream?) for Toyota to say anything else.

I'd also put my neck on the line and say that Toyota knows very little about how their non-truck fleet tows; how can they when they never test them? (My TV pre-dates the SAE guidelines but the tow rating for later models remains the same). I'm not knocking Toyota, either, because there's clearly no money in testing their fleet on the vast numbers of trailers and set ups out there; it's much easier, and more profitable, for them to push you towards buying a truck. There is, however, a huge repository of information about towing capabilities of specific vehicles out there, and it's in the hands of the people who actually tow with them. Even a handful of people using a given vehicle to tow will know far more than the manufacturer ever will.

Anyway, to echo what others have said, I'm very pleased for the people who stick to the manufacturer's tow ratings and I'm sure they will spend many millions of miles happily travelling with their Airstreams. Where I get a little bent out of shape is when people tell me that to exceed these manufacturer's recommendations is to endanger the the lives of those concerned and everybody around them when there's simply no evidence to back up that claim.
__________________
Steve; also known as Mr UK Toad

"You can't tow that with that!"

http://toadsoftowedhaul.com
MrUKToad is offline  
Old 09-21-2013, 08:07 AM   #65
3 Rivet Member
 
2003 25' Safari
Riverside , California
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstephens View Post
In spite of any comments in an owner's manual, and in spite of any person's philosophical opinions about how tow ratings are derived, there is a physical reality involved which contains no mystery, no religion, no politics, just physics. Part A and Part B can be tested directly for various operational functions. For instance, that is how we know how to rate a resistor as 5W and not 10W. By testing them.

We know automakers are not testing vehicles for the limits on towing. This would be prohibitively expensive, and involve dozens of cars pushed to failure in a variety of circumstances in order to know the limits on axles, brakes, receivers, transmissions and all the rest. So they make estimates. And, it doesn't actually matter what the basis of those estimates are, they are simply estimates, not physical realities.

Who then tests vehicles for towing limits? The people who tow. It's as simple as that. If it works well, others follow suit. If it doesn't work well, the idea doesn't move forward. In this way the towing virtues of vehicles are determined. It may seem at first glance to be informal and inaccurate, but quite the opposite is true. It is very formal and very accurate. Real rigs are put to real tests, under totally real conditions and millions of miles are put on these vehicles. The data gathering? It is informal, and yet it is effective - word of mouth, forums, clubs, and other experts.

For example, we have been to a dozen rallies, met about 150 people who tow Airstreams, and I have yet to hear a single first hand account of a "broken axle" (pick your favorite failure) due to exceeding car maker's specs. Go ahead and hunt for the data. Prowl the trailer forums, towing forums, RV forums. Go to clubs, meet people, etc. I am not saying there is zero cases, but I am saying the number is very small. So small, there may be no statistical significance to the difference between towing failures with F-100 and towing failures with F-250. Did the tranny in that story fail because he was towing more than spec, or did it simply fail because of normal statistical failure rates?

"User Testing" is real, effective and is not leading to some massive safety crisis for the public. It is REAL DATA. And thus, it has far more weight over time than the ad hoc prescriptions in the manufacturer's handbook. Odd as it seems, that is the inconvenient truth here.

As an example, Andrew at Can-Am once described preparing a couple hundred of one particular vehicle (forgot which) as a TV. A vehicle many thought was inappropriate. But, his "real data" consisting of 100 cases is more data than all the manufacturers together have ever produced on "towing."

I definitely have no argument with people who want to follow strict manufacturer guidelines. Good choice for you! But, I do object to the claims of those same people saying that the others who use intuition, word of mouth, or other means of selection are "jeopardizing the public safety." That's a claim being made that is not supported by the data, and in fact contradicts the real data that exists. That's what tends to make the argument "religious".
Well sorry but all this well thought out post is not 100% accurate.I don't follow passenger car testing due to my lack of concern.The trucks are another story.All of the big 3 do extensive testing at above max gcwr on their hd trucks.The Dodge line I am involved enough with to have seen improvements made when they have been pushed to the failure point and the resulting improvements.
That being said I give a wide berth to the few overloaded small tv's when I am towing through the mountains.
__________________
2003 25' Safari
2005 Ram 2500 4x4
1994 Ram 2500 4x4
2015 Toyota Tacoma trd 4x4
2000 Jeep Wrangler 4x4
Bob4x4 is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 04:26 AM   #66
Vintage Kin
 
slowmover's Avatar
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,599
Images: 1
And what is the HD truck "rating" worth when commercial operators of one-ton trucks exceed a 20k combined rating to use the truck for 300k miles with GCW of above 30k? It ain't worth much, in other words.

An Airstream is an easy-to-tow trailer due to design . . and the automakers do not acknowledge those advantages as they also do not test using high wall trailers. Wind loads and tripping hazards are more of a "threat" than any problem associated with weight, per se.

As to what rigs to avoid, the 4x4 with toyhauler as a class are the ones to watch out for: too fast, badly-hitched, and with lifted suspension, etc, the most rollover prone. Seen several just this year that got over onto the unpaved shoulder (tire failure presumed) and rolled them over into the median. On the Interstate. Conventional and 5'er. Doesn't take much steering correction to wind up with over-correction with the worst rigs by design and via bad owner modifications.

.
__________________
1990 35' Silver Streak Sterling; 9k GVWR.
2004 DODGE Cummins 305/555; 6-manual; 9k GVWR.
Hensley Arrow. 9-cpm solo, 15-cpm towing
Sold: Silver Streak Model 3411
slowmover is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 10:27 AM   #67
Rivet Master
 
mstephens's Avatar
 
2013 25' Flying Cloud
Cat City , California
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 854
All of the big 3 do extensive testing at above max gcwr on their hd trucks.
==============
I don't know what the details are of that. For example, do they attach trailers with 20% more tongue weight than is specified and then tow them for 10,000 miles? Or do they just put a static load on an axle until it breaks? From an engineering analysis viewpoint, any claims of "testing" have to be specific in order to be evaluated properly in the context of this thread because we have REAL DATA from the user's real tests to compare it to. We have thousands of TVs towing trailers for millions of miles, and have no reason to think the "over spec" people are having accidents at a rate higher than anyone else.

It's insufficient to simply "paint" disaster claims with a brush that says "they are doing testing." That's not an insult to you and your work, or your post. It's just a recognition that without more detail, the words "testing" is too vague.
__________________
mstephens is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 01:21 PM   #68
Rivet Master
 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A , N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 995
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstephens View Post
All of the big 3 do extensive testing at above max gcwr on their hd trucks.
==============
I don't know what the details are of that. For example, do they attach trailers with 20% more tongue weight than is specified and then tow them for 10,000 miles? Or do they just put a static load on an axle until it breaks? From an engineering analysis viewpoint, any claims of "testing" have to be specific in order to be evaluated properly in the context of this thread because we have REAL DATA from the user's real tests to compare it to. We have thousands of TVs towing trailers for millions of miles, and have no reason to think the "over spec" people are having accidents at a rate higher than anyone else.

It's insufficient to simply "paint" disaster claims with a brush that says "they are doing testing." That's not an insult to you and your work, or your post. It's just a recognition that without more detail, the words "testing" is too vague.
1) When you see a doctor and he says you have flu, do you trust his judgement or you think his opinion is biased by $ or legal implications? Do you request extensive research on how he came up with flu diagnosis?

2) When you are prescribed medications, would you take double the dose just because you think there is no research to suggest its unsafe? Do you request research docs from the drug company proving that doubling the dose is unsafe?

3) Do you think Boeing is over/under stating the capacity of their planes for financial gains or legal implications? Do you require research docs to prove that overloading the planes is unsafe? Do you overload your personal airplane?

and many more examples. If you are doing the above, then you are making life difficult for yourself and others. If not, why are you picking on the car companies only?

They have the developed the cars we drive. They build all the components (chassis, suspension, drive train, etc). They ARE the ultimate authority on its capabilities. They do have an R&D division and they do test their vehicles. They do some towing tests, but you need to realize tow vehicles are only a small % of vehicles they produce. They do not have the budget to do research on proving exceeding the ratings is unsafe (this is not how things work in the world we live in -- See the examples above). They have an engineering team though, which along with marketing and legal teams decide on the ratings (Sure, they do have $ and legal implications in their mind). But at the end of the day, they are the best to make the call. They may leave a margin for safety and durability reasons. Exceeding the ratings by 50# does not mean the rear axle will fail immediately. Stay within the ratings, and Toyotas, BMWs, and GMs of the world guarantee safety and durability.

And their ratings are not recommendations. If you exceed them, and god forbid you are in an accident, you are on the hook. All this arguments about car companies having no proof that exceeding the ratings is unsafe, is not worth a penny in a court. And accidents, unfortunately, do happen. I have 5 friends that tow. One has been in an accident. They are more frequent than we think, because those who are in an accident, do not rush to the forum saying they totaled their car/trailer, and by the way, they were exceeding all the manufacturer's rating. Stay within the ratings, and you are off the hook, the car manufacturer is.

To each their own.
__________________
rostam is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 02:15 PM   #69
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
I'll take Andrew Thomson's advice on towing combinations over what I'm reading here any day, because I want the best handling setup for my Airstream I can get. I don't care about ratings if it compromises safety, and I think it often does.

And when the ratings argument has little to no evidence to back it up, we get legal warnings which also has little to no evidence to back it up.

Yes there are many clumsy, over-sized towing combinations well within tow ratings we see on the roadway I give wide berth to. The ratings chart does not relieve us of responsibility to set up the best possible combination with whatever we have, not to mention using common sense.
__________________
Doug and Cheryl
2012 FC RB, Michelin 16, ProPride 1400
2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4X4 Ecodiesel 3.92 axles

The Truth is More Important Than the Facts
dkottum is offline  
Old 09-23-2013, 04:46 PM   #70
Moderator
 
Kevin245's Avatar

 
Vintage Kin Owner
... , ...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,390
Images: 9
Exclamation

< Mod Mode>>

In the span of nine days this thread went from a simple line of questions by the OP to a flaming name calling, country of origin bashing diatribe. Threads involving tow vehicle selection, hitch choices and hitch setup seemingly go hand in hand to RV’ing, yet the subjects many of us seek advice on seem to ultimately end up in the ditch so to speak. We all have our strong suits and this forum is blessed with an extremely knowledgeable membership base. You all have so much to offer and openly share your knowledge in a friendly accepting way when it comes to most other subjects. We are not sure why these threads heat up like they do but frankly we expect better behavior.

We have cleaned up the material in question and this thread is now closed. Going forward please consider a pause and re-read of your post. If you find that you can't post a differing opinion in a courteous and respectful manner then we strongly suggest you reconsider posting at all.

On Behalf of the Site Team
__________________

__________________

"You wouldn't worry so much about what others think of you if you realized how seldom they do."

Eleanor Roosevelt

Kevin245 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quick window question... daved20319 Windows & Screens 2 01-17-2012 05:44 PM
Steel / Aluminum wheel question polarlyse Wheels, Hubs & Bearings 12 05-29-2011 08:49 PM
EVAP Canister? question 8rmesse Classic Motorhomes 23 04-24-2011 07:41 AM
Blasphemous question woytovich General Repair Forum 15 04-09-2011 09:36 AM
Trailering Question Cracker Jacks, Stabilizers, Lifting and Leveling 14 01-02-2011 03:55 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.