CanamRV...Attention Weight Police!

[dufferin]

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

What I find particularly interesting is that while the perception is that Americans typically want big, big, big, the Canadians are on the far opposite to that.

not sure about that... and as already said some other reasons could lead that perception to a fact.

[dufferin]

Originally Posted by lewster

I'll jump in for a quick observation:

In one of the 'high-end' RV Resorts here in Naples that I service on a regular basis, I saw a fairly new 34' Classic sitting on a lot with a Hensley, and a Dodge Magnum sitting in front of it.

My first reaction was 'I wonder where he is storing his TV, as he surely isn't towing that beast with a Magnum'. Well, a couple of weeks later, the trailer was gone from the lot and so was the Magnum. I happened to be headed for a nearby RV park when I sew a really big Airstream being towed by what looked like a reeeaaallly small TV.

Yup, you guessed it! It was the 34 being pulled by the Magnum. Canadian plates.

The next time I was in that RV Park, I stopped by and asked the owner who set up his trailer and TV and how he liked it. He said it was done at Can AmRV and he towed it from north Ontario to Southwest FL every year for the past 3 years and loved the way the set-up worked.

Just thought it made for an interesting observation to this thread .YRMV

I know them really well, they are first kind of neighbor as we live 45 min away and we are in the same unit.
The first time I met them I was amazed by that combo. But they do travel a lot, long distance, don't care about the climb and they do it without problem. And actually the combo is quite neat. I may have a pic somewhere on my computer.

I know Andy, the 28' come from CanAm and I had some chat with him about TV. The guys knows. Well.
I have a F150 4.6 and he told me that the biggest problem I would have would be the tires. Too small rim for too high profile tires. If I wanted to improve the feeling I would better go with low tires profile and new rims.
And as I was on my way for BC and as I had to go through the Rockies I was worried even though he told me not to be.
And he was right. I never had a bit of problem.
And BTW this guy not only know about TV he knows a lot about AS and vintage. He could diagnostic every problem my vintage could have and why.
And I also liked the fact that he experiments with good level of knowledge.
The post is really interesting. I would love him to jump into the haha thread... I'll ask him.
And he is in AS and other trailer business since at least 1970... not a bad background.
And I haven't always be kind with CanAm. But since I had the chance to be in contact with Andy I have nothing bad to say.
And then and last words I appreciate when he answered my emails in the middle of the night...

[elolson]

Originally Posted by gowyn

One reason us Canadians opt for smaller is better is fuel prices. Stateside you're complaining about $3/gallon. That works out to about 75cents a litre, we're paying $1 a litre if not more.

On a side note, had an interesting conversion with a diesel mechanic, talking about folks wanting more and more power out of their diesel trucks. 500HP is not unheard of. Well the big rigs that run down the road for a living are usually running between 250HP and 350HP, funny how they can get by with a measly 250HP and we need more and more...hehe

This is a little misleading. Maybe single rear axle day cabs and such are running 250-350. But that is not the standard for most OTR trucks. Many are running dripoit series 60 for freight shakers, pansy builts run a lot of cats 3406a -e from 425 turned all the way up to 600 in some combos, acerts C-13 and C-15 are similarly rated. Cummins n-14 was a mainstay for many years and those run from low 400s well up to the signature 600hp versions, the red and black tops are in the middle of this mix. What is missing in all this is that these are different engine designs with much larger crank throws, the torque ratings will be 1600ft-lbs to 2250ft-lbs. That is 3x to 4x the torque that a pick-up with a similar horse power rating will have. Also, you are talking non-syncro transmissions with straight cut gears 10 or more speeds, 10, 13, 15, 18 are most common with probably 10 the most common and 13, 18 preferred amongst the O-O crowd.

Just saying that trying to compare commerical trucks with consumer vehicles is not apples to apples.

[Happycampers]

Originally Posted by Leipper

I'd like to know about these laws. I have yet to encounter any like this in my looking for them on the web.

CanAm RV does on the ground testing backed up by years of experience and good theoretical knowledge. From the various challenges I have seen (and these have been so vicious as to drive Andy off several forums, including this one), there is no reason to believe the dealer outfits rigs in any way that violates Canadian or US towing laws nor, for that matter, violates vehicle warranties.

You have a reputable dealer with a good track record and many satisfied customers. It is a dealer that actually puts their ideas to test out on the track before they offer them to customers. Despite this, look at the denial.

Skepticism is always a good thing but I think what has been seen here goes well past any reasonable level.

I have known Andy for most of thee 6 yrs. I have lived in Canada. Andy is very interesting to talk to and knows more about towing and trailers than anyone I have ever known. Bryan is right, it is a shame that Andy was treated the way he was in the different discussions about towning.

I am not saying Andy is right or wrong. I don't agree or disagree with most people I talk to. I take what I can use from the conversation if itworks for me. I don't condemn someone else for what they think. Just my thoughts on this. Marvin

[slowmover]

I'm having a hard time with why you all are having a hard time with Can-Am set-ups. Yes, the Intrepid doesn't appeal to me, but I dislike FWD cars for a variety of reasons. The 300/Charger/Magnum is a different beast, and little different from big cars of old, basically. Do you mean that RV'ers were dying or wrecking at rates far in excess of today solely due to TV?

The wheelbase, the weight (for those that get off on that), the power, the brakes are all similar or better than a full-sized car of, say, 1965-75 on the 300 platform. I'd be concerned with drive axle capacity, NOT brakes (it'd be better), NOT power (also better), NOT handling (again, better). Etcetera.

As to "frames", unibody is stronger. Period. Body-on-frame just means a lot of dead-weight. Good, perhaps, for a truck subject to carrying one-ton in the bed, but not for towing. About the only advantage for a b-o-f frame is the (potentially) better road isolation; it is not a performance/safety advantage. Otherwise, the million-pound Airbus 380 would have a frame, right? So would a 10,000-lb Airstream . . . .

The most oft-repeated objection I've seen is "Control". Why would a vehicle far more prone to rollover (pickup) be a better tow vehicle? Even in a 2wd version, the center-of-gravity is very much higher than on a 300. And brakes, why would stopping my 7,900-lb truck with 13" discs all around be better than the 300 with similarly-sized brakes but weighing 3,000-lbs less?

In short, (and no, despite the wording above, I am not trying to goad anyone), I don't see a problem with a 300 as tow vehicle (up to, say, 7,000 pounds) except as a question of vehicle longevity. But, as I've personal, close-up knowledge of some of those above-mentioned "old cars" (unibody) being fine tow vehicles in excess of 100,000 miles (some, full-time), AND few of us keep a vehicle much more than that, well, it may also be a moot point.

As to "weight limitations" no one I have yet read has pointed out case law or other that makes this a valid discussion point. It is a guideline.

[henw]

Having pulled with a 5.4L V8 SUV and now a 3/4 ton diesel truck, I can testify that either combination will work. However, the all around quality of the tow experience is night and day. Passing trucks barely sway things. Hills are a non-issue. Braking is strong. No worries about the transmission. I pile the truck up with whatever gear I wish. I feel rested after a long drive.
I suppose if you had to, you could even pull an AS with a team of horses.

[lewster]

Originally Posted by henw

Having pulled with a 5.4L V8 SUV and now a 3/4 ton diesel truck, I can testify that either combination will work. However, the all around quality of the tow experience is night and day. Passing trucks barely sway things. Hills are a non-issue. Braking is strong. No worries about the transmission. I pile the truck up with whatever gear I wish. I feel rested after a long drive.
I suppose if you had to, you could even pull an AS with a team of horses.

Or a bicycle...............w).........

[slowmover]

I'm sure both bicycle and horses or mules have been used at some point; I've think I've seen pictures. But the other comments are beside the point.

[scottanlily]

I will take a look at this discussion and give my obsevations as an automotive technician by trade and mechanic for the past 30 years . Ive also towed many trailers ,not only airstreams .I am looking at the vehicals mechanical abilities and NOT the only the hitch load . I read the posts from Andy about his ideas on transmission strength and the intrepid deal and so on. The windstar transmission strength analogy was interesting first of all
because his thoughts were that if it was the same as other ford products
that had larger engines it would be just fine to use .Well ,thats not how its
done . the windstar tow rating is the defining method of determining if the trans is capable to hold up .they are not all the same transmissions and have different shift points and internal parts and so forth ,convertor lockup and other differences come into play ,the idea that the intrepids engine has held up , doesn't make the case on that alone .Sure it has been done
,the question is ,should it have been done ? Many here on this forum do not
see this exercise in towing as the model for us to follow period. Lets take the Can Am Jaguar S type a shown as their towing model : first the tow capacity of the Jag is 1850KG or 4078lbs with the V-8 engine . The 34 classic weighs
in at about 6000 to 8000 lbs depending on the year . Right off the Jag is
NOT rated by Jaguar to tow anything remotely close to that .CanAM says
hey ,they don't know anything ,we can make it work ?So they hook up a trailer that clearly is way beyond the manafactures towing specs by a huge amount and WE on the forums don't know anything about towing cause they
did it anyway . Ill not even get into the v-6 town and country ,no point going
on going further with the comparison . I wanted to comment on Rednax post
as I believe it needs a response . I suggest anyone doubting the full frame
versus unibody construction go to their local wrecking yard and look around at crashed vehicals .While a unibody gets its strength from the unitized body
it is not stronger than a full framed vehical .First of all ,the body of a full framed vehical is welded together just as a unibody car is. it also then has
the added advantage of a full frame .No pickup trucks are unibody that I know of ,the cars of the 60s and 70s and station wagons were chosen as tow vehicals because of the strong frames . Today the Tow vehical choice
is the truck ,either a SUV or pickup .The vehicals brakes are of significant
importance to any tow vehical , CanAM is hoping the Jag or the minivan will NEVER need to rely on the TVs brakes in case of a trailer brake contoller failure or as has happened ,the hydralic contoller unit used in many airstreams today, has failed to operate . ANY intrepid or 300 that is towing and gets into
an accident most likely have not much left of the car compared to most any
full framed vehical .any 60s full frames full sized car certainly can and will
come thru an accident far better than any unibody .If you know 60s cars and
Ive owned many ,it is true .I don't think anyone is " getting off " on wheelbase or weight either,they are smart and know what they want and like and quite possibly what is SAFE for towing .The drivetrain stamina of any of the CanAm vehicals are all worth questioning ,Id like to know how Jaguar would respond on a vehical warranty where the car is exceeding its tow capacity by 4000 lbs right off the bat .For anyone here that defends the
CanAm pratice ,thats ok ,but don't dismiss the folks here that ALSO have many many years of towing experience and knowledge and DO in fact know what they are doing .This includes thousands online here on the forums .
I see that the defenders here of CanAm ,are not towing with intrepids or 300s
or S types or windstars ,but 3/4 ton trucks or the like ,for crying out loud .

Scott of scottanlily

[scottanlily]

You know i thought i would check chryslers website and others for tow capacity for a 5.7 300 .The stats were 1000 lbs for an 07 5.7 300 ,other sites
claimed 2000 max ,while another says 3800 ,but that one wasn't conclusive.
One said chrysler does NOT recommend towing anything with this car . so what gives ? Can Am has it towing an airstream . i realize that Can am changes tire sizes and goes on theory of what should work as Albert F has
pointed out as well .They add coolers and other things ,but we all add coolers and other things ,it does not immediately change the car into a vehical with an 6000 lb tow rating . I think i would at the very least ,go with a car that the manafacturers claim is supposed to be used to tow a trailer in the first
place , one that can tow more than 1000 lbs ,must be a reason chrysler corporation thinks this car isn't made for towing .Must be a reason .

Scott

[TomR]

Originally Posted by scottanlily

You know i thought i would check chryslers website and others for tow capacity for a 5.7 300 .The stats were 1000 lbs for an 07 5.7 300 ,other sites
claimed 2000 max ,while another says 3800 ,but that one wasn't conclusive.
One said chrysler does NOT recommend towing anything with this car . so what gives ? Can Am has it towing an airstream . i realize that Can am changes tire sizes and goes on theory of what should work as Albert F has
pointed out as well .They add coolers and other things ,but we all add coolers and other things ,it does not immediately change the car into a vehical with an 6000 lb tow rating . I think i would at the very least ,go with a car that the manafacturers claim is supposed to be used to tow a trailer in the first
place , one that can tow more than 1000 lbs ,must be a reason chrysler corporation thinks this car isn't made for towing .Must be a reason .

Scott

Hi Scott...while I am certainly not ready to run out and buy a Chrysler 300 to tow a 34' AS...I am open to continue to learn about what CanAM has been studying in the tow vehicle arena for what?...50 years? I just ordered a copy of an article in a Canadian RV magazine written by Andy at CanAM regarding comparative testing they have done...on a controlled course...I think.

Also. I wonder how they have stayed in business so long if they have directed their customers to go with tow set-ups that both put them at personal risk and destroyed the driveline of their nice new tow vehicles?

Something tells me the truth lies somewhere in the middle...it usually does.

I am intrigued by the concept of a tow vehicle with a low center of gravity, low profile tires, perhaps extra transmission cooling and a Hensley hitch. I does seem to me that all the big trucks have very high centers of gravity and need most of their power and braking just to stop their VERY heavy weight (before you add the tralier)...and that is many cases the trailer brakes actually assist in stopping the truck quicker than it stops w/o the trailer?

Also, the question of which part of the tow is unstable in an emergency causing roll over is an interesting one? The trailer has a low center of gravity vs the 4wd truck...maybe the truck goes first?...pulling the trailer with it?

I am intellectually curious and also very conservative...I am highly unlikely to follow what CanAM preaches...BUT...I will not dismiss the "CanAM tow vehicle theory" without more understanding.

Interesting.....Tom R

[scottanlily]

Well tom ,I would have to agree with your point, that CanAm has been able to perform these matchups .Certainly they are trying their best to engineer it with the low profile tires and low center of gravity .As for the 50 years thing ,thats doesn't quite make the arguement
that its fine to use extremely under rated tow vehicals .I completely understand what they are doing with the low profile tires and wheels ,1 ,they
have no sidewall flex ,so more stable , 2 , lower to the ground is good ,low center of gravity ,trans cooler ,no brainer there . smaller diameter wheels
and tires give the effect of a lower gear ratio ,better torque to the ground
and so forth ,yeah I know this stuff .Ive built street cars ,hot rods and many
canyon carver rides etc ,big sway bars ,50 series tires etc. It is the wheel
bearing sizes front and rear in the cars ,the size of the transmission components ,planetary gear sets ,the bands in the transmission .The brakes
are a big deal as is the size of the vehical .trying to claim that the intrepid will far exceed an f250 in braking or control is just not the case . if you got in over your head with the Jag and the 34 classic ,that trailer would throw that car around like a rag doll ,and the intrepid . yes ,the trailer stops the truck better obviousely than the truck alone and no trailer brakes ,BUT the intrepid ,nor the Jag or the minivan stands ANY chance without trailer brakes.
Andy's analogy that the car equates the truck ,and the car is the better choice ,cause the truck is really too heavy so it needs the frame and bigger brakes and so forth and the car can out perform it .low profile tires and a good trans cooler do not increase tow ratings by 4000 lbs ,and it looks to be 6000 in the 300 .Are the car manafacturers so dumb that they just don't have a clue as to what the vehical is capable of ? And well ,CanAm does ?.I understand their tow idea or theory ,its moving a mass of " said weight " with the previouse modifications Ive noted .Ive been involved with off highway 4x4 vehicals for years ,we spec out the differential gear ratios and the transfer case low range gear ratios ,tire size ,tire contact patch with the terraine and so forth ,all to be able to get a crawl ratio say in 1st gear low range where you could leave the vehical in 1st and be able to walk faster at a leisurely pace along side the jeep, scout or whichever it may be .The same thing applies in drag racing as well tire size,gear ratio and transmission gearing .
this is why we have 4, 5 and 6 speed trannies these days all to help with that said mass of weight ,get it moving .Its the stopping and control issues that are the big concerns ,and they should be.
not just flipping over and the idea of the car being better cause it lower to the ground .Why isn't everyone buying windstars and chryslers to tow their 34 classics ?? Again ,if your going to defend the practice ,you should be able to live it .Its not enough to say ,its ok for them ,but gee Id NEVER try that.
Why not is the question ? in the event of a crash ,would the 8000 lb trailer
flip the Jag or can the Jag stop the trailer .If the trailer brakes failed ,could the 300 stop the 8000 lb trailer down those canadian rockies ? i can stop my 24ft trailer without trailer brakes loaded to the limit with my 68 International
Travelall ,tried it, done it, down Donner Summit just to see if it has the
capability to do so ,it does ,if my brakes fade on the trailer ,the Travelall can
stop it . A truck needs big brakes to stop it ,it does ,but it can also stop the trailer too ,These cars cannot without the trailers help ,thats just the facts and the physics of it .What Im not clear of is how you overlook the fact that these cars are extremely over loaded in the first place ,oh and isn't it quite funny how CanAm is using a pickup truck to tow the fifth wheel in the demo ,hhhmmm strange....why would that be ??

Scott

[slowmover]

I wanted to comment on Rednax post
as I believe it needs a response . I suggest anyone doubting the full frame
versus unibody construction go to their local wrecking yard and look around at crashed vehicals .While a unibody gets its strength from the unitized body
it is not stronger than a full framed vehical .First of all ,the body of a full framed vehical is welded together just as a unibody car is. it also then has
the added advantage of a full frame .No pickup trucks are unibody that I know of ,the cars of the 60s and 70s and station wagons were chosen as tow vehicals because of the strong frames .

This is a mis-understanding of b-o-f versus unibody that is common. The engineering needed to construct a unibody is greater, but the old Chrysler Corporation did it. The production cost was higher, but the benefits were/are clear. (And, no, the idea that "a full framed vehicle is . . just as a unibody car" is flat wrong).

Yes, ALL passenger vehicles produced by that company from about 1960 were unibody, AND they were the preferred tow vehicle (on the road or at the campgrounds) by many, and they were the dominant police vehicle as well. Hard use, better construction, and no dead weight as represented by a frame proved itself time and again. The old Chrysler Corp had problems, but the engineering wasn't one of them.

Sure I can hit the boneyards and see all sorts of crushed vehicles. And I know that the old Imperial was banned from most demo derby competitions because it was "too strong", it would batter the b-o-f cars to death and keep running whether it was b-o-f or unibody. The structure was massive.

The point is that ten's of thousands of unibody, 300-hp full-size cars (120" wheelbase or better, 4,000-lbs or better) pulled thousands of trailers weighing MORE than the factory rated them for and did it for many tens of thousands of miles. Members of my family owned them, I've owned them and we all did very well with them.

I think it rather funny that the owners of a trailer, that features:

excellent weight distribution and lighter weight
low center-of-gravity
semi-monococque construction (unibody)
independent suspension
excellent aerodynamics

find that a tow vehicle that has all of these features is somehow deficient.

Does that then mean that my b-o-f Silver Streak is a "better" trailer? That it is "inherently" stronger, better able to absorb the punishment of many miles, rough roads and long years? That it will outlast a similar Airstream? Evidence is otherwise.

A matter of preconceived opinion. It isn't a question of being "right" as it is in being open to new knowledge (or, the revival of old ways). If Thomson is onto something then it behooves us to pay attention. No one is advocating selling a given tow vehicle for another. It would be smarter to go for a test drive and talk to owners of such rigs.

Can Am is already on my list of places to go, I'd like to see what they have to recommend for the hitch on my truck and trailer, to see if any improvements -- no matter how small -- can be made.

As to owning a truck, yes, I need it for business. And, no, you'll not ever see me running the roads at 70+, trucks are pigs. Unsafe compared to a regular car in far too many instances. They are NOT better to be riding in for the wrecks most likely to occur. The 300 is a far better choice for crash safety, and the statistics prove it.

Andy Thomson/Can Am RV is treated like a heretic, and, hey, this ain't a theology debate. If we don't have the tools to analyze then why the criticisms?

[gowyn]

Bottom line. Andy is an honest guy who knows he stuff with a family business of 50 years, a wife and two daughters.

He practises what he preaches running a 300 and a 24.

[05ModPod]

Just my two cents for stability....

I would to this day much prefer to be in my Kia Sorento Pulling either the 69 or the 63. It was a tighter ride - much better vehicle maneuverability.She had the weight behind her and the power to pull her off the mark better than the Yukon. But according to the label the payload was limited.....

Lets face it folks - how often do the trailer brakes fail! vs driver error in handling their vehicle or even anticipating??? With speeds of 70+ you are asking for trouble when uncontrolled situations happen.

We traded our Kia (with a lot of consideration taken from this forum and its members) to the Yukon however, it is a beast and dips, plunges and sways in a word - it is a sloppy ride (yes the PSI is up and fully maintained wheels balance and the works so don't throw that stuff my way either pls). Trucks in my own opinion are just as iffy - with very light back ends - can be pretty slick in fresh rain conditions. 4w or awd offers better traction.

Mountains are always tossed into these discussions - of which for most you travel what % of your over traveling??? and the flats too don't forget to pop that into the discussion....Unibody, framed body and then the big old debate on payload and weight distribution.... Yep then there are the hitch combinations....torque, wheelbase etc etc.

Sure I am from Ontario - but that is here nor there....It will be 4 years now since I have been on these forums and this is one topic that keeps coming up "CanAm/Andy - too many people here at times blubber and do not put their money where their mouth is...READ IT, TEST IT and see for yourself before you pass judgement.

Just as I see some of the trucks that people pull with as totally overkill - I am not inclined to pass my judgement on that persons preference in towing.

Accidents - with bad road conditions happen all the time and to say that one set up over another would have avoided it - is just plain silly.

As is comments like towing a fithwheel with a truck instead of a car - now can you see a nice caddilac convertible sporting a fithwheel hitch - come on stay with it on these topics....or would you like me to offer up a basket of tomatos.......to make the process of pelting Any's practices a little easier....

[TomR]

Originally Posted by scottanlily

oh and isn't it quite funny how CanAm is using a pickup truck to tow the fifth wheel in the demo ,hhhmmm strange....why would that be ??

Scott

Scott...I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was meant as a joke....Tom R

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by TomR

Scott...I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was meant as a joke....Tom R

With a hint facetiousness - yep I can see that too....

Not knocking personally here, cause I really don't have a yes or no on this topic. Right or Wrong But I would not discredit someone based on my opinion alone....

Why even the car manufacturers don't have a bonified weight rating system so how can we possibly base anything on fact....

[TomR]

Originally Posted by GT1963

With a hint facetiousness - yep I can see that too....

Not knocking personally here, cause I really don't have a yes or no on this topic. Right or Wrong But I would not discredit someone based on my opinion alone....

Why even the car manufacturers don't have a bonified weight rating system so how can we possibly base anything on fact....

I strongly agree...it would be great if there were emperical (sp?) evidence available...but I do not believe there is such?

I am far more respctful of posters with strong opinions but w/o the absolutes attached...or the finger pointing at Andy/CanAM. I wish other dealers were as interested and capable in this tow vehicle set-up arena.

And I repeat...I am intrigued and impressed with what CanAm has done over the years...but would need more "facts" to offset all the "conventional wisdom" on this topic...not to mention the "tow capacities" as published by the manufacturers. Plus...I am after all...a "bigger is better" American!

I will keep reading and looking...Tom R

[safari 28]

Hey this makes feel good about our 08 f150. After reading all the post on the need for 2500 series and greater alongside diesel I was wondering why this truck has worked so well. It shows the need for big is not always best when towin an AS.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by TomR

I strongly agree...it would be great if there were emprical (sp?) evidence available...but I do not believe there is such?

HAVE A LOOK AT ANY SET OF PICTURES FROM THE 1960'S AND 1970'S OF CARS PULLING TRAILERS OF THIS AND OTHER TYPES; THEY WERE ALL "OVERWEIGHT" UNTIL THE OEMS UPPED THE TOW RATINGS BY THE END OF THE 1970'S. THE OEM'S PRETTY MUCH ADDED TRANS, STEERING AND OCCASIONLLY ENGINE OIL COOLERS WITH SOME HEAVIER SPRINGS. THAT'S IT.

WAS THE ACCIDENT RATE HIGHER? I THINK NOT IF ONE FACTORS THE POOR TIRES OF THE DAY OUT OF ANY EQUATIONS.

I am far more respctful of posters with strong opinions but w/o the absolutes attached...or the finger pointing at Andy/CanAM. I wish other dealers were as interested and capable in this tow vehicle set-up arena.

YES, SOUNDS LIKE TALK RADIO.

And I repeat...I am intrigued and impressed with what CanAm has done over the years...but would need more "facts" to offset all the "conventional wisdom" on this topic...not to mention the "tow capacities" as published by the manufacturers.Tom R

THE FORD PANTHER PLATFORM (CROWN VIC) HAS BEEN IN PRODUCTION SINCE 1979. USED TO BE RATED AT 5,000-LBS CAPACITY. BUT IT IS NOT THE PROFIT LEADER LIKE THE F150 AND EXPLORER. SIMPLE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND I THINK, AS FORD DE-RATED THE C-V AFTER SALES OF THE OTHERS TOOK OFF.