Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-23-2013, 08:08 PM   #61
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,657
Images: 5
Andy,
Specs are still derived in the same manner they were then......believe it or not. There is absolutely no logical reason why auto manufacturers would lie to the short side on vehicle capability. It defies logic. QRD (Quality, reliability, and durability) are light years ahead of those old beasts. BUT, capacities are still capacities...or else durability suffer greatly...and some rigs I have seen definitely flirt with, and border on the unsafe.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 08:41 PM   #62
4 Rivet Member
 
crisen's Avatar
 
2012 25' FB Eddie Bauer
Fairbanks , Alaska
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 268
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasduess View Post
Not sure I agree - today's cars are, typically, heavier than their cousins from the 80's and 70's, not lighter. As an example, a 1995 Honda Odyssey weighs in at 3,459 lbs. The 2013 model comes in at 4613lbs for the Touring trim, 1300lbs more.

With better brakes, stronger transmissions, more powerful engines, stiffer bodies (body on frame is not automatically stronger than unibody, quite the opposite, especially with narrow frames).

What I am reading in some posts in this thread, not trying to single anybody out, is that today's vehicles are better in pretty much any old way than the vehicles of yore (yore being the 1980's in this particular example).

And while it was fine to use those inferior vehicles for towing 30 years ago, it's not ok to use much superior vehicles for towing the very same trailers today.
Well you are welcome to disagree but the fact is, excess weight from vehicle components has been removed due to CAFE. Your example is only comparing nameplates not vehicle components. Is the 1995 Honda exactly the same wheelbase, track width, overall length, width and height of a 2013. Does it have the same driveline, the same equipment? The fact that consumers have again demanded vehicles with more more power, more room, more bells and whistles, doesn't negate the validity of my statement.

This growth of size and weight in almost all vehicles is common. A new model is introduced then it gets bigger and heavier as consumers or the market wants more and more and it adds weight. Then a new smaller vehicle is introduced to do the same basic job to maintain CAFE average.
__________________
Rick
"When you find yourself in a hole - quit digging!"

2012 1/2 Eddie Bauer, 2016 Ram Laramie 3500 SWB 4x4 6.7L Cummins 68RFE
crisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 09:34 PM   #63
Rivet Master
 
Moflash's Avatar
 
2007 28' International CCD
Springfield , Missouri
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,423
The mfg tow rating for this 2014 Honda Odyssey you refer to is 3500lbs maximum which is not bad for a mini van.Peak horsepower and torque do not develop till 5700 RPM so she needs to be wound up to work on pulling.This is common on small displacement passenger cars these days.
Moflash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 06:04 AM   #64
Rivet Master
 
andreasduess's Avatar
 
1984 34' International
Toronto , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,499
Images: 5
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moflash View Post
The mfg tow rating for this 2014 Honda Odyssey you refer to is 3500lbs maximum which is not bad for a mini van.Peak horsepower and torque do not develop till 5700 RPM so she needs to be wound up to work on pulling.This is common on small displacement passenger cars these days.
Thing is, you don't need peak horsepower. The Odyssey comes with an overhead 6 cylinder cam engine, 3.5 litre, that develops 240hp. 3.5 litre isn't small displacement - at least not outside the US where small, powerful engines have been the standard since the 1950's. When I first moved to North America I was shocked by how little power manufacturers got out of huge eight cylinder engines.

But here's the thing: Steve (MrUKToad) has measured horsepower output during towing and the highest he could get it was 110hp (if I remember correctly) during sharp acceleration, with the average output during towing 80hp. Steve tows a trailer with his Sienna that's heavier than mine.

I was in a situation yesterday where I wanted to accelerate sharply (no trailer in tow) to merge into fast moving highway traffic. There was an 18 wheeler coming up from the back and I didn't want to get stuck behind it.

The Honda's engine revved up smoothly to 5500 to get me up to speed, fast. This didn't put undue stress on the engine, it's been designed to do just that. Once on the highway it settled to a steady 2000rpm at 60mp/h and switched two of its six cylinders off, going into eco mode, where it stayed for the next two hours.

Earlier that day I needed to tow my trailer from a lot into traffic. I waited for a suitable gap and then accelerated smoothly into traffic - the engine never revved above 4500 and then again did what it always does - settle happily at 2500rmp at 60mp/h. It rarely goes into eco mode when towing but that's understandable.

Nobody has yet addressed the fundamental question: People used to tow with vehicles that were less powerful, less capable, had worse suspension, terrible brakes. Yet, they did so without an epidemic of accidents and cars getting destroyed in the process.

Had that been so, Airstream would be out of business by now.

I've heard a multitude of opinions ranging from "cars were over-engineered" which, having driven cars from the 80's myself have an incredibly hard time agreeing with to "it didn't matter, everybody was slower those days" which is incorrect - if anything, the average highway speed has dropped during the last 30 years. The "body on frame is stronger" argument lost validity some twenty years ago (for passenger cars) when the Europeans and Japanese showed the US car industry just how strong a unibody vehicle can be.

My observation still stands.
  • Today's passenger cars are far more capable than passenger cars from 30 years ago - and I don't think anybody could argue differently.
  • People used these cars for towing with little ill-effects.
  • So, it follows, for me, that a more capable vehicle should have even less of an issue.

I am not trying to be argumentative, or changing anybody's mind, just looking at this as an interesting observation.

It's probably also worth mentioning that I understand that my personal setup isn't right for everybody. Our average trip (one way) is less than 200 miles. We go away for the weekend, perhaps a week here and there, we're not full-timers.

Were that the case I still would not purchase a truck, but I'd get a vehicle with higher payload capacity and more torque.
andreasduess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 08:14 AM   #65
"Cloudsplitter"

 
2003 25' Classic
Houstatlantavegas , Malebolgia
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 20,000
Images: 1
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Bob....I'll give you that. It was an art thing back then.
I'll give you that Rich, there is definitely something about the look back then.
Especially with something like the Loewy designed 1953 Stude Commander Coupe. Way ahead of it's time. Dad had three, plus a 58 Golden Hawk.


Our Victoria won't match it with style. But makes up for it in originality.


Bob
__________________
I’m done with ‘adulting’…Let’s go find Bigfoot.
ROBERT CROSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 01:00 PM   #66
Rivet Master
 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A , N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 989
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasduess View Post
Nobody has yet addressed the fundamental question: People used to tow with vehicles that were less powerful, less capable, had worse suspension, terrible brakes. Yet, they did so without an epidemic of accidents and cars getting destroyed in the process.

Had that been so, Airstream would be out of business by now.

I've heard a multitude of opinions ranging from "cars were over-engineered" which, having driven cars from the 80's myself have an incredibly hard time agreeing with to "it didn't matter, everybody was slower those days" which is incorrect - if anything, the average highway speed has dropped during the last 30 years. The "body on frame is stronger" argument lost validity some twenty years ago (for passenger cars) when the Europeans and Japanese showed the US car industry just how strong a unibody vehicle can be.

My observation still stands.
  • Today's passenger cars are far more capable than passenger cars from 30 years ago - and I don't think anybody could argue differently.
  • People used these cars for towing with little ill-effects.
  • So, it follows, for me, that a more capable vehicle should have even less of an issue.
If we were following the safety standards of 40 years ago, yes, your setup (with a minivan more powerful than the automobiles of the 70's and 80's) would have been great. Yet, the safety standards have improved tremendously in the past 30-40 years. Just because something was safe 30 years ago, does not mean that it is safe now. Just because you can, does not mean you should.

The ultimate authority on the tow rating of a vehicle is its manufacturer. They are the one who designed it, developed it, and know its capabilities and limitations the best. If Honda/Toyota rate their minivans as 3500#, then like it or not, that's the towing capacity. Are they being conservative? Maybe. But it does not change the fact that it is rated for 3500#. Nothing good comes out of exceeding the ratings of a vehicle. At best, you put a load on your vehicle that it was never designed to take, and it will wear out quickly. The worst case scenario, god forbid, you'd be in an accident.

Now a days with the focus on fuel economy, many cars and trucks are losing their capability to gain better fuel economy. This is the tend. The RV industry does not seem to be following this trend. They should design light RVs, that can be pulled with small/midsize SUVs and/or minivans (not everyone can/want to buy a truck).

Airstream had the Argosy line in the 70's that were really light (For example, 1979 30 ft with 4200 dry trailer weight and 405 dry tongue weight). Also Argosy's were cheaper than other Airstream products (Think Buick vs Cadillac). I would think there is a (growing) market for lighter/cheaper Airstreams. Besides the Sport model (which are very small, not good if you need a more spacious trailer), there are no light or cheap Airstreams. I really hope they revive the Argosy line or something similar. I cannot believe why they can't build lighter trailers with all the advances in technology in the pst 30 years.
rostam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 06:06 PM   #67
Site Team
 
GCinSC2's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic S/O
Somewhere , South Carolina
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,436
I really don't have any hard facts or serious comments tonight, I'm just sitting by my campfire surfing.

Here's what I can say. I bought my 05 Dodge Ram 2500 5.9L Cummins 6 speed manual before I ever even gave an Airstream a passing thought.

I think I should wax and detail it just to say good job Dodge Ram. We'll be hooking up pretty soon and you can do what you were built for, solid towing performance.

Be safe.

Gary
__________________
S/OS #001 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 5.9L 6 Speed
16" Michelins, Hi Spec Wheels, Max Brake, Dexter 4 Piston Disc Brakes, Carslile Actuator, Equal-I-Zer, Dill TPMS. Campfire cook. BMV-712. DEMCO 21K Lb Cast Iron coupler
GCinSC2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 07:26 PM   #68
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,657
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS View Post
I'll give you that Rich, there is definitely something about the look back then.
Especially with something like the Loewy designed 1953 Stude Commander Coupe. Way ahead of it's time. Dad had three, plus a 58 Golden Hawk.


Our Victoria won't match it with style. But makes up for it in originality.


Bob
These are the ones I long for....along with a late 50s or early 60s AS. Someday.........





__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 07:29 PM   #69
Rivet Master
 
SteveSueMac's Avatar

 
2012 27' Flying Cloud
W , New England
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post

These are the ones I long for....along with a late 50s or early 60s AS. Someday.........
Can't GM just wrap one of those bodies over a 2500 Duramax?? :-)
SteveSueMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 07:34 PM   #70
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,657
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveSueMac View Post
Can't GM just wrap one of those bodies over a 2500 Duramax?? :-)

Well, I'd bet a detuned Duramax with a 4l90e and upgraded rear end could be put in, given no budget. Of course I'd keep the original engine, all rebuilt and painted up in my future man cave to set the beer on and the painted up original axle as an ottoman.

I wouldn't really do it though. Pulling a 1960 25ish footer would be pretty light.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2013, 10:18 PM   #71
4 Rivet Member
 
Garfield's Avatar
 
2001 25' Safari
London , Ontario
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 299
Images: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Rick, we're actually not that far apart. GCWR,GAWR, etc ARE valid engineering established (with a small safety margin built in) numbers that, if exceeded regularly will, at a minimum, result in shortened lifespan of vehicle components.
With respect, have to disagree with this. I've never seen any evidence that regularly exceeding the tow rating shortens the life of a vehicle PROVIDED it's properly maintained, which usually just means changing the fluids more frequently.

As for GCWR, athough it "looks" official (like GVWR and GAWR which ARE official and in fact are the only numbers written into towing laws in North America for non-commercial vehicles), from my experience GCWR is simply arrived at by adding the GVWR and tow rating together. The real question is and has always been: how is the tow rating arrived at? Based on the tow ratings I've seen on different vehicles from various manufacturers, it doesn't appear to be a number that's based solely on engineering, that's for sure.
__________________
Gary & Debbie
2001 Safari 25 SS
2011 Chevy Traverse 3.6L AWD • Hensley • DirecLink • McKesh
Set-up by Can-Am RV
Garfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 06:22 AM   #72
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,657
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield View Post
With respect, have to disagree with this. I've never seen any evidence that regularly exceeding the tow rating shortens the life of a vehicle PROVIDED it's properly maintained, which usually just means changing the fluids more frequently.

As for GCWR, athough it "looks" official (like GVWR and GAWR which ARE official and in fact are the only numbers written into towing laws in North America for non-commercial vehicles), from my experience GCWR is simply arrived at by adding the GVWR and tow rating together. The real question is and has always been: how is the tow rating arrived at? Based on the tow ratings I've seen on different vehicles from various manufacturers, it doesn't appear to be a number that's based solely on engineering, that's for sure.
And I also, respectfully disagree, after 29 years in the biz. This mindset is why I am not going to waste my time with the lengthy explanation of the process for all the specs. Please understand, I am not singling you out at all....this subject just starts to feel like a hitch thread. No sense in wasting my time.

If ay of your REALLY interested, enroll in this course....the technical one, not the sales one.

http://tmitraining.com/LT/ChevyLight.html

In addition to my undergrad, and professional GM training, I completed this coursework up through class 8 (back when GM had class 5 - 8).
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 11:33 AM   #73
1 Rivet Member
 
2013 30' International
etobicoke , Ontario
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Images: 1
hello fello streamers

This thread has devolved into the same old dichotomy, so my 2 cents are:

Powerwise, an f-250 diesel with 800lb ft of torque obviously has no problem tugging a massive 5th wheel TT with slide-outs, such as a Cougar 333mks, for example. Indeed, when manufacturer engineers determine towing capacities for publication, they must think about Joe Q Public who tows a big, square, top-heavy box using a pick-up without any of the features or design advantages mentioned below.
But, before insisting on reciting these published manufacturer tow numbers here on airforums (which seems kind of ironic to me) as the be all and end all and clinging to the “it has to be a pick-up” mantra, this promotional video (provided by airstream)
should be considered.

The video reveals the advantages of towing an airstream with a lower slung sport SUV with a powerful engine, using a class 4 weight distributing anti-sway device with an electronic brake controller. Most anyone would prefer one of these set-ups, if they could only afford it (not to sound snobbish), as compared to a more common pick-up and box trailer combo.
And with a higher centre of gravity, added drag and poorer handling, it seems to me that pick-ups will compromise safety and efficiency at the front of a set-up, in much the same way that a box trailer does at the back. By using a pick-up, it will somewhat offset or reduce some of the very advantages that an airstream has to offer.
In the past year, our family travelled to disney, the gaspe region of quebec, and around Ontario. We passed through the Appalachians on the way to florida and quebec, with hills in the gaspe hitting 12 – 14 degrees (the steepest 15 degrees) and drove in adverse weather conditions. The airstream design, based on improved aerodynamics, low centre of gravity and solidity of construction, seems to match up very well with our car (an 2005 Infiniti Q45), which has also been designed with those same airstream principles, to provide a safe (and thus enjoyable) all round rv travel experience.
aimcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 12:24 PM   #74
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,657
Images: 5
I am not advocating a PU. As long as the trailer specs conform to the auto manufacture's specs and recommendations, I'm fine with anything pulling anything.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 01:56 PM   #75
Rivet Master
 
andreasduess's Avatar
 
1984 34' International
Toronto , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,499
Images: 5
Blog Entries: 1
I think one of the points aimcom made is that the car manufacturer's specification look at the lowest common denominator, i.e. box trailer with no weight distribution, brake controller, etc.

If you'd believe everything the manufacturers say, we'd still be selling the Ford Pinto.
andreasduess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 02:04 PM   #76
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,657
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasduess View Post
I think one of the points aimcom made is that the car manufacturer's specification look at the lowest common denominator, i.e. box trailer with no weight distribution, brake controller, etc.

If you'd believe everything the manufacturers say, we'd still be selling the Ford Pinto.
And I maintain, from experience, no they don't look at lowest common demonitor. And yes product quality, materials, manufacturing processes, safety standards, etc have moved light years since those days....and so have the correlating specs. Not a valid argument, nor a reason to go any further beyond current specs on current product any more than a reason to go beyond old specs on an old products. Not a valid argument IMO.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 05:04 PM   #77
1 Rivet Member
 
2013 30' International
etobicoke , Ontario
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Images: 1
the thing is...

my car is rated at 1000lbs. I imagine the infiniti engineers who calculated that number would be intrigued by my setup, which is just a tad heavier
aimcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 05:08 PM   #78
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,657
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by aimcom View Post
my car is rated at 1000lbs. I imagine the infiniti engineers who calculated that number would be intrigued by my setup, which is just a tad heavier
I would guess that "intrigued" would not be the response, if your implication is received correctly by me.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 01:18 AM   #79
1 Rivet Member
 
2013 30' International
etobicoke , Ontario
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Images: 1
no, actually i just mean "intrigued" in the most basic sense

because, i can't imagine they have airstreams and hensleys in japan.

on the other hand, if they saw our ever more super-sized pick-up trucks over here, towing these ungainly box trailers (that pretty much convert into full sized houses) down our highways and then watch as someone glides past in a tidy car/airstream combo...they'd cotton on pretty darn quick, after all -- improved aerodynamics, low centre of gravity, build quality -- these are fundamental design principles that the Japanese have been using for many years to successfully export their vehicles to us here in north america and around the world...and the beauty of comprehending design aesthetics is inherent in all of us.

In a bigger sense, I can't help but reflect how fortunate we are here in north america to be able to experience and enjoy nature's vast, open, pristine and "serene" beauty in all of it's glory. I'm sure our Japanese friends would really appreciate that also.

happy streaming everyone!
aimcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 06:07 AM   #80
Rivet Master
 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A , N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 989
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasduess View Post
I think one of the points aimcom made is that the car manufacturer's specification look at the lowest common denominator, i.e. box trailer with no weight distribution, brake controller, etc.

If you'd believe everything the manufacturers say, we'd still be selling the Ford Pinto.
This is incorrect. A quick call to your car manufacturer will verify this.
rostam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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



Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.