Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-30-2008, 10:00 PM   #71
4 Rivet Member
 
dpandorf's Avatar
 
2000 34' Limited
Somewhere in Western , North Carolina
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 252
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Just wanted to know from those that are towing with the Tundra, are you still running the Passenger rated tires that come with the truck or buying LT rated tires after the fact?

Just didn't see LT tires as an option on the Toyota website.
__________________

__________________
Duane Pandorf
-----------------
Blog | Google+

Air# 16888 | 2000 34' Limited | 2008 Ford F250
dpandorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 01:26 AM   #72
2 Rivet Member
 
tetstream's Avatar
 
2007 19' Bambi
Somewhere , Between the Tetons and the SF Bay
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 77
I going to guess here, but I suppose the 31' a/s weighs in at 6000 lbs ('cause my little 19' is about 4100 lbs). And the Tundra weighs about the same or less, right.

Why would anyone want to have an equal mass pushing them from behind that is only under the power of momentum and has no steering control ??

( I skimmed this thread , so if the true weights are in there, my apologies. But you get my drift)

I owned a 2003 Tundra for 3 years. From about month 3, I found it to be under rated. It had trouble doing light work, and I only pulled a 12' tanden axle cargo trailer with it. The suspension was soft, and it went thru brakes. Plus, it only got 12 mpg, with no load. I was disappointed but suffered with it for 3 years.

I would never want to pull even my 19' with it. I prefer to be heavy in the TV department. Better safe than sorry, and no white knucke driving.

Wife and I went for a 3 nighter last weekend and I commented to her that I sure was glad to have the heavy truck. SHe is too. It handles beautifully. We had to navigate about 30 miles of twisty two laner with no or little shoulder, and it was no sweat, literally.

Besides, my Duramax gets 16 mpg in town, and that's a daily weight of 7500 lbs.

Get a 3/4 ton truck, whatever brand. You won't be sorry. Diesel is great.
__________________

__________________
TT: 2007 Bambi 19' 75th Anniversary Special Edition, David Winick
TV: 2006 Chevy HD2500 Duramax 6-speed manual
tetstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 02:35 AM   #73
_
 
. , .
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetstream View Post
I going to guess here, but I suppose the 31' a/s weighs in at 6000 lbs...
thats close for a 10-15 year old unit.

new 31s are 7050 dry, with a 2950 carry capacity, so 10,000lbs max.

that's a LOT of trailer.

the rest of your post is a good report of what works for you.

seldom is too much truck an issue WHILE towing.

cheers
2air'
__________________
all of the true things that i am about to tell you are shameless lies. l.b.j.

we are here on earth to fart around. don't let anybody tell you any different. k.v.
2airishuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 11:08 AM   #74
2 Rivet Member
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2airishuman View Post
'ninja stirred d pot (without any actual facts, but preaching 'bout others misusing them...pot-kettle-black) imo...

he is years or a long time from buying any 'stream but right now likes 25s...
2air -- You're obviously well respected and an old hand around here, and I value your input re: the hitch weights and WD equipment.

However, I take exception to your statement that I offered no facts. Like Mustang, I reserve the right to defend myself, and when several others were throwing around things like "shortwheelbase, lightweight.." and so on, I actually provided numbers that illustrated that the trucks were very similar.

Also, I'm (I assume it's me you're referring to) hardly "years from buying any 'stream." We got our truck in anticipation of a purchase within the next few months, if all goes to plan. And I like the Flying Cloud 28s, although the 25s aren't bad, either.

I'll freely admit that I don't have the experience towing Airstreams that you and many others here do, but I know uninformed statements when I hear them, and it's unfair to others who might be reading this thread to let them go unchallenged.

Not all of us have the resources to have a separate TV from our daily driver, and I'd venture a guess that MOST of us don't want to be dealing with a HD truck for our daily driver. That makes it really important that we cut through the "mine's better" and "Jap Crap WHINING" BS and talk about actual facts and capabilities, not just busting on something because of its manufacturer's home country.
__________________
macninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 11:10 AM   #75
2 Rivet Member
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetstream View Post
I owned a 2003 Tundra for 3 years. From about month 3, I found it to be under rated. It had trouble doing light work, and I only pulled a 12' tanden axle cargo trailer with it. The suspension was soft, and it went thru brakes. Plus, it only got 12 mpg, with no load. I was disappointed but suffered with it for 3 years.
The 2008 Tundra is completely new, MUCH LARGER, and a more powerful truck.
__________________
macninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 11:47 AM   #76
1 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Marietta , Ohio
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6
Toyota Tundra

Traded in 2008 Tundra 5.7 4x4 for 2008 GMC Sierra 2500 4x4 Duramax Diesel, Allison Tranny. No comparison, Toyota makes a great reliable vehicle, just not capable of pulling the stated tow capacity. The payload should be VERY carefully looked at; my insurance will not cover our truck or unit if we are 75% or greater of stated payload and towing capacity. The Toyota looked like it was about to drag on the ground and we felt like our ride was on a pogo stick. The Sierra is more truck and of course a 3/4 ton. Has stronger springs, hard ware and is in my opinion a truck Toyota will never be able to produce for the same price. I am a huge Toyota advocate, have had five prior Toyotas, however the new generation Tundra is a total let down, not to mention our local Toyota dealers have a "we have the vehicle and you will pay what ever we ask" attitude. GMC was much easier to deal with and Onstar and XM are awesome as well. We still have a 2004 Land Cruiser, but I would never tow the AS with that. Engine, trans just not up to it and the wheel base is too short to safely tow. I could go on and on, we live in large hill, small mountain area with many graded climbs, the Sierra can and does do these very easily.
__________________
Toothpuller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 11:55 AM   #77
1 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Marietta , Ohio
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6
PS - I use my HD 3/4 ton for daily driving, it handles the same as the tundra, in fact, I feel it handles better and it is very comfortable.
__________________
Toothpuller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 12:04 PM   #78
_
 
. , .
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by macninja View Post
... I take exception to your statement that I offered no facts...
'ninja...

didn't post u offered no facts.

i suggested you stirred the pot, without facts.

reporting correct wheelbase info, published towing specs and so on can be done without stirring.

no one wins with the political babble, the nationalist rants or name calling.

perhaps the suggestions that others get their facts right was simple enthusiasm,

but it does invite others to nit pik at your offerings. do you really want that?

defend what ever u like or just pass over it and the irrelevant/offensive post soon gets buried.

often the best reply to ANY incredibly dumb, misinformed or totally wacked post (or poster) is nothing.

the blank spots and no-replies are often LOUDER than arguing non-facts.

there are SEVERAL other threads here on the many virtues of the 'yota.

perhaps u wanna read them and add your experience where the debate isn't so OFF TOPIC.

here are 3, but search the key term in the "TITLES ONLY" and lots of recent/useful threads will be found.

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...dra-36040.html

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...0-a-36718.html

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...dra-20576.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by macninja View Post
Anyway, we're years from buying an Airstream yet, but I'm already planning for it by researching which ones we might want so that when the time comes to replace our car I can buy a truck that will tow the Airstream we will ultimately wind up owning...
my reference to timing and size selection is yours, just one year ago.

if the search for a stream has moved ahead, GREAT!

we can soon welcome you to the owner collective.

so it would appear you already HAVE the truck?

i looked excitedly at the 'yotas when the new model appeared.

with friends that have connections to the brand i wanted one.

but driving, inspecting bits, looking at the spring stack, receiver attachements, rear diff, frame and so on, curbed the enthusiasm.

i also didn't care for the interior fit/finish on the early models (the newest ones are much nicer) or the bed size on the largest cab models...

it's an adequate entry in the full 1/2 market, those suggesting it's more like a 3/4 are smoking rope.

those are just PERSONAL opinions, if ne1s keeping score.

the 05 diesel ford (my 1st non german/asian/italian/french/swede vehicle) is just SO MUCH better for the task of towing.

yes that's just another personal view, based on 60k towing with it, and with a "me in a ford?" mindset...

so tell us all about your 'yota love and just ignore the haters.

get the biggest heaviest 'stream on your wish list and tow the hell out of it...

then share the pictures, performance, pleasure and party shots...

we LOVE seeing silver roll behind any mule.

cheers
2air'
__________________
all of the true things that i am about to tell you are shameless lies. l.b.j.

we are here on earth to fart around. don't let anybody tell you any different. k.v.
2airishuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 12:21 PM   #79
Rivet Master
 
mustang's Avatar
 
1986 31' Sovereign
Kent , Ohio
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 803
I hate my name being dragged into this (macninja). I keep deleting this thread, and it keeps comeing back in my email and I click it forgetting where it has gone. (south). With out the risk of repeating my self. I tested alot of vehicles before I made my choice. GMC, Ford and Mopar.Where what I narrowed it down to. Something about keeping my fleet uniformed is what I like. Ford has a great trailer tow package. Truely complete. The original thread was a gentelman inquireing about a tundra and a 31 foot Airstream if I remeber. 1/2 ton trucks are very capable to a point. I have a 31 foot airstream. I have towed it with a 1/2 ton truck. My 3/4 is a world of differance. Simply stated. I tried not to slander anyone with this statement if I did, I appologize. But I would not give advise that I wouldnt apply to myself, or my family.
__________________
mustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 12:23 PM   #80
RLS
Rivet Master
 
RLS's Avatar

 
2004 25' Classic
Prescott , Arizona
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 608
Quote:
my insurance will not cover our truck or unit if we are 75% or greater of stated payload and towing capacity.
Now that's a very interesting statement! Got my attention. Guess I need to go find my policy and do some reading. I would hate to think what problems that could cause a whole bunch of RV'ers.
__________________
RLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 01:01 PM   #81
Rivet Master
 
Ray Eklund's Avatar

 
2014 25' International
2006 23' Safari SE
Currently Looking...
Boulder City , Nevada
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,365
2006 small Tundra vs 2008 boat Tundra

I have an equalizer hitch when towing our 23 foot Airstream with two links hanging... if you use equalizers. The 2006 4.6L 4x4 was an excellent tow vehicle on and off the pavement. Plenty of power and low gears if needed. I am not sagging at the hitch, drive level and the front wheels have never left the ground at any time. With the Airstream in tow, even on I-80 in Wyoming, I never have needed my sway bar!

The 2008 is a boat like the Fords, Chevrolets and Dodges. The interior is not as nicely trimmed as the 2006 and earlier models, but I get better gas mileage with the 5.7L engine than the 4.7L. Probably in the 20% to 30% improvement comparing highway and off road mountain camping. I have a feeling that with the "green movement" the days of these large pickups will be coming to a close, like the 428 Shelby Mustang and 454 Corvette era. A 6 cylinder 1960's XKE Jaguar will still out run a 327 mid-1960's Sting Ray Corvette in the quarter mile, and both vehicles needed to carry a tool box to keep from falling apart. A 440 Charger would out run a 427 1968 Corvette on the highway, but neither party wanted to change their preferences. My 1957 Ford Pickup would dig a hole with the right rear tire on a gravel road and not move an inch, but I did not think less of it for doing so. But I have drifted off the reason for blathering...

The Goodrich tires on the 2008 Tundra are P rated. P275 65R 18 inch M/S, which I was disappointed to discover (with the TRD 4x4 option). The spare tire is a street tire Michelin, which I had to pay extra to have a mag wheel and tire to match the four that were being used. That was being a bit cheap, but so did Airstream with the spare tire on the 2006... it is a black steel wheel which could use lug nuts that are fitted to it as a spare. The mag lug nuts are tooled differently than what is needed for a steel wheel, which for a big dollar trailer, does not say much as well.

So there is always something that a manufacturer does to cut corners. I expect to get 24,000 towing/not towing miles on this set of Tundra tires before getting some LT Goodrich All Terrain 6 ply M/S which ride rough, but never gave me any trouble on the 2006. I just hope an 18 inch tire option is available in Goodrich. I now use Michelin and Goodrich tires and a guy was making the point they were a French company... I may pay more, but I will not be at a dealership needing to make a warranty replacement negotiation.

I am not a Union supporter or non supporter, which seems to be lurking behind the brand choices some people are making. The last time I looked this is still a free country and use to be capitalistic. If you check out sources of parts used for any trailer or vehicle, you might be surprised many components are not made by union people, nor made in the USA. Well, be surprised. I also think the employees of Toyota, assembling vehicles in the USA, would take offense of being called Japs or building Jap Trucks. When someone resorts to name calling, they have already lost the argument.
__________________
Ray Eklund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 05:38 PM   #82
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
More facts

I just looked at my tires and they are "P" not "LT". They are C load range. I never noticed because I was looking at other things on the tire. My experience is that Toyota puts cheap tires on their trucks (though not necessarily the 4Runners) and the good thing about that is that they wear out fast and I replace them with those French (often made in Ireland) Michelins. I have always had excellent performance and wear from Michelins. I will use D rated at least and I doubt these Goodyears will last much past this winter. So far (10,000 miles) the tires have performed fine.

So far as transfer of weight via weight distributing hitches and receivers, I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I have to try to figure out what better informed professionals have to say. There's extensive debate elsewhere and if I recall correctly, some mechanical engineers commented on the fact (or maybe factoid) that such an assembly does distribute weight. But, 2air, I know you are very well informed though not a mechanical engineer, so it puts a little doubt in my mind, but not too much.

I am surprised about Toothpuller's report: "The Toyota looked like it was about to drag on the ground and we felt like our ride was on a pogo stick." Our Tundra with a heavier trailer is perfectly even. I've checked it with a tape measure and with a level. Perhaps your hitch wasn't set up correctly. I have an Equalizer and towing is easy (or as easy as towing can be). As for the pogo stick problem, it is true when the trailer goes over a bump, we can feel it—3 bumps instead of two—but I would worry if I didn't have good road feel. I imagine that a softer suspension would absorb those bumps, or a heavier truck might dampen them. Nonetheless, I don't experience anything like a pogo stick and the bumps have to be pretty big ones.

And to the person who got 12 or 13 mpg with a 2003 Tundra. I had a 2002 and got 16-17.5 mpg and that's at altitudes of 5,000-8,000' for the most part. Something had to be wrong with at 2003 in the computer or fuel injection. The 2007 5.7 L engine gets about the same mpg (all not towing).

And, finally, seeing the Northern Lights in Alaska. I've seen them in Canada's Northwest Territories (Yellowknife) and just south of the Arctic Circle in Yukon Terr. in mid September. They are more often further south in Canada than Alaska and that's why we went looking there. Something well worth seeing, though it's supposed to be better in winter, but I didn't want to drive north then even in a Toyota.

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 06:32 PM   #83
_
 
. , .
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
...such an assembly does distribute weight...
but REdistributing weight at the ground contact points (the axle/hub/wheel/tires) does NOT change the tongue mass.

w/d gear FORCES the steering axle downward and reduces the load on the drive axles,

this effect is not like wheel barrel handles (as often suggested)

but akin to moving the tongue load forward on tv frame, with TORQUE in the frame.

the concept of 'lifting' at the ball is not simple lifting UP. the forces are rotational/torque in nature & EXCEED the tongue wt.

but it doesn't follow (regardless of the temptation) that the tongue mass is reduced.

the tongue still weighs whatever it weights. one cannot just calculate that a 1000 lb tongue is now 'effectively' lighter.

it isn't and trying to do so will make trouble for who ever tries this.

for example if one is using a receiver or hitch RATED to 1000 lbs with w/d gear, a 1200lb tongue is OVER that limit.

if the trailer tongue beams are limited to a given load w/d gear doesn't raise that limit.

and BACK ON TOPIC, if the 'dra payload iimit is 1500 lbs that does NOT change with w/d gear.

in fact to the extent that payload limit is frame rail related (not knowing HOW they get2ratings) ,

w/d gear may stress the the structure MORE than simply loading manure into the bed.

class 4 receivers are usually limited to ~1200lbs WITH w/d gear.

class 5 receivers go upto 1500 lbs. these are and can be used on the LARGER fords, dodges, and ge'ems.

CAN a class 5 (V) receiver be used (to the limit) on a halftondra? i don't think so.

as for TIRE UPGRADES on the 'yota...

were the O.P. to try towing a new 30/31 or any HEAVY 'stream, E rated truck tires would be useful...

cheers
2air'
__________________
all of the true things that i am about to tell you are shameless lies. l.b.j.

we are here on earth to fart around. don't let anybody tell you any different. k.v.
2airishuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 08:03 PM   #84
4 Rivet Member
 
dpandorf's Avatar
 
2000 34' Limited
Somewhere in Western , North Carolina
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 252
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Frame differences

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2airishuman View Post
.....

for example if one is using a receiver or hitch RATED to 1000 lbs with w/d gear, a 1200lb tongue is OVER that limit.

if the trailer tongue beams are limited to a given load w/d gear doesn't raise that limit.

and BACK ON TOPIC, if the 'dra payload iimit is 1500 lbs that does NOT change with w/d gear.

in fact to the extent that payload limit is frame rail related (not knowing HOW they get2ratings) ,

w/d gear may stress the the structure MORE than simply loading manure into the bed....

cheers
2air'
I don't expect those that already have the Tundra care but those that may be considering that option may want to review some comparisons to what a competitor has been doing for a while now in that size/class vehicle.

I'm not smart enough in the structural engineering field looking at the video to say its completely true, but another place on this site also show the major differences between how the frames are made. There is a difference and to me when you start hooking up a big trailer and you're transferring weight between the two via the frame I think it matters.

The Truth about Trucks | Ford Vehicles
__________________

__________________
Duane Pandorf
-----------------
Blog | Google+

Air# 16888 | 2000 34' Limited | 2008 Ford F250
dpandorf 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2007 Toyota Tundra V8 4.7 6700LB OutsideSuppl Tow Vehicles 1 01-22-2008 06:09 AM
2007 Toyota Tundra CanoeStream Tow Vehicles 78 03-30-2007 05:59 PM
Toyota Tundra kontiki Tow Vehicles 19 11-24-2006 10:48 AM
Toyota Tundra RV mirrors Cornfred Tow Vehicles 7 10-16-2005 09:26 PM
Toyota Tundra 7 pin connector Bonitafarms Lights - Interior & Exterior 13 02-09-2005 06:14 AM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:51 AM.


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.