Visit our Popular Forums

Jay_Iski · 06-22-2002, 02:45 AM

Dear Sirs:
Greetings. I am learning about Airstreams travel trailers for purchase in the near future. I was hoping to get a new Bambi 19' and (per Airsteam advertising) tow it with an SUV. I have looked at Jeep Cherokees and Libertys. Jeep adnertising shows a tandem axle Airstream behind a cCherokee. Jeep claims they can meet tongue weight and GTW specs. but I am wondering if performance would be acceptable and not strain the vehicle to destruction. The Jeeps weigh approx 4000 lbs. and the Bambi is GTW 4500 lbs. I have very little towing experience an wonder if it would be safe on the highway. I intend to use at least an equalizer hitch with sway control. I do not like large vehicles and would oprefer something smaller than a suburban if it is reasonable. If anyone has an opinion about suspected performace it would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Jay Iski
Jayiski@airmail.net

Chuck · 06-22-2002, 05:57 AM

You'll probably be fine w/ such a small trailer....but check out the Dodge Durango. These are deceptively powerfull for their size. It looks like a small suv, but they use the same powertrains as their full-size truck cousins. I used to own a Dakota, which is what the durango is based on, (and this was before they had v-8's), and I can tell you, its a full size truck in a small package. Fully loaded, it handled just the same as when it was empty. (that's the rear-end, mostly....). Anyway, I just checked, and the dodge website says that the durango can tow "up to 7500 lbs", which is actually a little more than my full-size pickup. Its good to have extra in your tow vehicle, rather than max-out a smaller one. you never know...you might want to upgrade your trailer some day.....

Jay_Iski · 06-22-2002, 06:33 AM

Chuck,
Thanks for the reply. I have not yet looked at Dodge but I did get their 2002 towing booklet for salesman training. Your comments (from an actual equipment user) are valued more than the advise of young and possible inexperienced sales people. I cannot financially afford to make a bad decision. I am already looking at trucks as an alternative. The SUV does have appeal to me but carrying an Onan that could start an A/C package is an idea I am entertaining as well. Somewhat disabled, I can no longer tolerate extreme heat as I did in the engine rooms of the submarine and aircraft carrier so it would be a great relief to start up an A/C package at least for a limited time. It would also be more convenient than getting in the vehicle and running the A/C especially after I push myself to the point of collapse when chasing trout or back country hiking.

Again, thanks Chuck for the valued response.
I am very happy that I found this forum. It is a wonderful asset. I already wonder what I internet service is available to the RV. I have seen advertising for RV Parks that claim " modem friendly" but do not yet know the implications.
Jay Iski (Fort Worth, TX.)
Jayiski@airmail.net

Pahaska · 06-22-2002, 07:10 AM

I agree that the Durango is a good towing choice. I have towed several trailers a lot of miles with my former Dakota with the 5.2 L engine and I think the Durango with either the 4.7 L (replaced the 5.2) or the 5.9 L would pull the Bambi in great style. I wouldn't hesitate to pull my 5000# International with one.

Personally, I don't think the Jeep or most other SUVs of that size are suitable for towing, regardless of what the advertising says. Too little wheelbase and too narrow for safety.

Chuck · 06-22-2002, 07:32 AM

Well, the other thing about the Durango is that it is the largest of the "small" suv's....so it also has a pretty good amount of cargo capacity. Don't know how big those generators are, though, or what it takes to heft them around.

A friend of mine signed up for Verizon wireless, because they have a special deal that combines a cellular modem with the same cell-phone account. I guess all the others require you to have a seperate cell account to use a wireless modem, with its own monthly charge and access fee. With this one, the special phone that he had to buy (80 bucks) acts as the modem, connecting directly to the laptop, and 'net access shares the same plan minutes as the phone. You could blow through those minutes quickly during the daytime, but the "night/weekend" minutes are some huge amount.....if you do most of your surfing at night or on the weekend, it would probably be fine. Its some sort of digital connection...faster than a 56k analog (I think 144k...not sure). He's been pleased with it. I guess the coverage area is pretty decent, too. might want to check that out......

Jay_Iski · 06-22-2002, 09:33 AM

Thanks guys.
I have been up all night and read about the 4.7 liter design and will logoff, shower and go to the Dodge dealer.
I had Sprint and a cable that put 14k baud on my cell phone thru the serial port (without using the modem) but I cancelled it because I never used the phone because it would not work in most areas. I was able to pull over at a road side and get weather maps on the way to Mcdonald Observatory but could not recieve on top the mountain at the telescope. Everone else was calling home from the mountain so I had the wrong service.

Thanks guys. I feel like I now have reasonable expectations of the small modern engines and will compare wheel base of the vehicles.
Thanks guys. Ya'll should get a commission from Dodge!
Jay

davidz71 · 06-22-2002, 09:38 AM

While the Dodge Durango would make a better tow vehicle than the Liberty or Cherokee, don't rule out the 4 door Yukons or used 2 door models which are getting harder to find. If you decide to go new vehicle, either of these will be fine. One issue i'd also like to mention, once you get a Bambi started with the Liberty/Cherokee, does it have the brakes to stop it. I tow a 31' Excella 500 with a 2500hd and last year someone lost a couch off the back of a pickup truck on Interstate 40 through Nashville, TN. I saw appx. 10 vehicles in the left lane to me at a stop. Some guy was coming up fast on my left hindquarter and didn't realize what was going on. I hit the brakes applying increasing pressure as he locked up his tires. I gave him just enough room to swerve in front of me and miss the last stopped vehicle in his lane. I have the old hydraulic-vacuum 4 wheel disc braking system of the 70's and they performed just as they were designed, great.

Pahaska · 06-22-2002, 09:56 AM

I agree that Sprint coverage is not the best although I do have a Sprint two-mode (digital-analog) phone. I find it goes to roaming and/or analog mode far too much of the time. I recently changed the service to "Emergency only" at $5 per month and $1 a minute. I save $25 a month and a breakdown probably wouldn't cost that much to get the road service out.

Ona trip, a few years ago, a big Sprint billboard reminded me to call home, so I pulled off the road right in front of the billboard. You guessed it, the phone went to roaming! Not much of an advertisement for Sprint coverage.

My truck came with a year of free OnStar, but I won't renew it. They charge way, way more than the service is worth. In one year, I made a total of 3 checks right before major trips for a total of maybe 45 seconds of connect time. If their prices were more reasonable, I would continue the service. I would much rather see a low charge per month (like my current Sprint phone) and a charge for using the service.

Chuck · 06-22-2002, 10:17 AM

yeah, you'd think I should get a commision from Dodge; ironically, I actually did sell dodge trucks for a few months after I graduated from college....wouldn't ya know, I couldn't sell to save my @$$. go figure....I guess the thing is, nobody trusts "car salesmen", but they will listen to an unbiased, friendly voice on a message board...

I'm getting fed-up w/ sprint, too...thinking of changing. Its fine if you're in a metropolitan area, or if you're a businessman flying from city to city. I've used the phone in SF, chicago, couple of places in FL....and its cool that it can work in those places without paying big-bucks to roam.....but the coverage sucks once you get "out of town". I can't use it in my house, but I can use it outside. Now that I have a TT, I'm planning on spending more time in northern new england, where there is no sprint coverage AT ALL. I figure if I'm paying for the damn thing, I oughtta be able to actually use it.

National "no-roaming" plans are coming down in price, so that's where I might go. Cingulair seems to have the best deal in that arena right now, but that could (and probably will) change again....

Jay_Iski · 06-22-2002, 01:43 PM

Gentlemen,
I went to a monster DFW Dodge dealership to look at a Dakota. However, I test drove a RAM 4x4 truck. I was impressed. It was not as much fun as a Landrover but it definitely would be a better application as a tow vehicle. The salesman tried to talk me into taking a 5.9 Liter (360 ci.) 4x4 crew cab Ram truck with tow package home for the weekend but I declined. I will have to consider these vehicles.
It has been years since I drove a big truck but I am quickly realizing that proper equipment is necessary for safe, reliable and enjoyable travel with an RV. Dave’s "war story" has put the fear of God in me and I am thankful. Like flying, I would rather learn from the stories in the back of "Flying" magazine rather than from personal experience ( though I usually said "Yep, that's exactly how it happens".

By the way, my Sprint service would not work inside my home either. The expensive Motorola flip phone and internet cable were definitely not worth the money I paid for a year. Ma Bell screwed me on my service before that. So, I will be very savvy with my next service. I had a nice network/modem combo card installed in the IBM ThinkPad that was never used because Sprint used the serial port and I know it takes a fancier card for PCS type service. But that was last year. I don't plan to keep up with technology any longer. I will settle for plugging into a phone line occasionally when an RV park has phone service to upload a photo of a trout or to post a "nightmare" story on Airstreamforums.com about using the brakes to slow my new RV.
Jay Iski (Fort Worth, TX.)
Jayiski@airmail.net

InsideOut · 06-22-2002, 03:20 PM

We tow our 19 ft '64 GlobeTrotter (dry weight 2890 lbs. & tongue weight 385 lbs) with a Jeep Cherokee.

It does fine on the flats...but in the mountains it really has to work hard. (i.e. 30mph over Berthoud Pass - elevation 11,307') I wouldn't recommend it...on paper it's fine, in actuality...aaaargh! Slow going...

Just my two-cents...

Shari

"Just One of the Guys"

P.S. FYI we intend on upgrading soon to a Surburban or ??? ...who knows!

davidz71 · 06-22-2002, 04:16 PM

I never thought about this until Inland RV Andy mentioned it, you can go overboard on a tow vehicle and actually make it too stout. He has posted that you shouldn't add additional springs to 3/4 ton trucks because it makes it hard on the rivets on the Airstream i.e. rivets will pop at a higher rate than with a vehicle more forgiving. The Ram crewcab whether 1/2 or 3/4 ton shouldn't have problems towing the Bambi but the 5.9 is not known for getting the best gas mileage in truck circles.

davidz71 · 06-22-2002, 04:52 PM

I just saw where mwilleford posted in the airstreamphotos a 20' 1978 Argosy towed with a Dodge Dakota. You might email them and ask how they feel about their tow vehicle. If a Dakota can do it then the Durango is a cinch.

Pahaska · 06-22-2002, 05:04 PM

The off-road trucks like my Silverado actually have softer suspensions and much larger shock absorbers than standard models. My off-road Z71 rides much better than most trucks, darned near as good as my Buick. An off-road model should be a lot easier on the trailer, as well. If I were to go to a 3/4 ton, I would definitely get the off-road model.

davidz71 · 06-23-2002, 06:23 PM

I can tell you for a fact that '92 Z71 4X4's shortbeds have thicker torsion bars up front and ride stiffer than standard 4X4 Chevy 1500 models of that year. I spent a lot of time on logging roads in both vehicles and you can tell the difference especially on stairstep rock outcropings. Both models were stock, running LT265-75-16 tires, except for my Amsoil dual bypass oil filtration system and Jacobs Electronics Ultra Team ignition. I imagine that the Bilstein shocks attributed to part of the stiffness and were going strong when this truck was rolled by my son at 143,000 miles. I have not compared my '01 2500hd 4X4 ext. cab with the '90 4X4 1500 Chevy Sport that replaced the '92 so that my son had a truck to drive to college this year. That truck with its 8.1 and Allison transmission has stiffer ride than any of the 3 previously mentioned vehicles.

Pahaska · 06-23-2002, 06:47 PM

I only know that I was told by the dealer that in addition to the Billstein shocks, the off-road model has a softer suspension. My 2001 1500 4x4 truck definitely has a soft suspension. The shocks keep it from being wishy-washy, though, and it tows the trailer beautifully.

I actually hate to drop off the trailer as the truck is less stable and a lot more wind sensitive without the trailer. The truck always feels strange for a few miles.

**Andy R** · 06-23-2002, 09:17 PM

It is small and has a huge v6 that puts out 270 hp. They are going to produce a model with an extended wheel base that has a 3rd row of seats.

http://www.chevrolet.com/trailblazer/

FYI - I towed my 1961 Bambi 1000 miles from Boise to Colorado with a 1998 Jeep with an in-line 6 cylinder. I have an aftermarket JET chip, aftermarket air filter & spark plugs. I felt the setup to be very adequate for my small trailer. I have a Reese weight equalization hitch & expereinced no sway when 18 wheelers passed.

davidz71 · 06-24-2002, 07:33 AM

According to my latest issue of 4Wheeler magazine, the Trail Blaizer extended length model will be available with the all aluminum 5.3 V8 producing 280 HP. Also, I thought the new 270 horse 6 was an inline 6 not a V6.

John, it could be that the public has asked for softer suspension for the newer models of 1500 4X4 with Z71 packages. Z71's seem to be the latest fad in addition to the new 2500hd. I have to admit that the decals caught my attention but even more, the skid plates offer the kind of protection I need on some of the logging roads I occasionally travel. The new 2500hd has lower ground clearance than what I would like but since I tow a 31' I don't want to go to taller tires due to the cost of the front and rear ring and pinion gears plus labor.

Jay_Iski · 06-24-2002, 10:03 AM

David,
I saw the Dodge dealer had 20" model 4X4 1500 trucks. I do not understand the advantage and reason except clearance. It seems with large wheels the higher gear ratios are made less effective.
Your comment about cost of ring and pinion? Did you mean to change equipment or repair due to stress?

I too thought the 2002 Dodge 1500, 4X4, regular cab suspension with 20 in. tires felt soft on a test drive. But it did ride smooth. I had not started thinking about the coimpromise of gear ratio and tire size till I got home. Also, I noticed a slight forward / aft "galloping" at 70 mph on smooth level road

Jay

davidz71 · 06-24-2002, 12:31 PM

Jay,
The move from 14" rims of the 60's to the 15" rims of the 70's/80's and then to the 16" rims of the late 80's, 90's and the last several years I guess was done to increase sidewall stability. The heigth of the tire is what is important when talking gear ratio changes. The 17" rims allow larger diameter disc brakes and I think I saw an advertisement for Brembo (sp.) drilled disc brakes where you had to use 20" rims to fit over the discs. I'm sorry but I wouldn't want any part of 20" rims. The 16" rims on my 2500hd do a perfectly good job of stopping my one ton truck. Tire prices for the 16" rims are still higher than perfectly good tires fitting 15" rims. Why go to 20" rims? Could you imagine the price on these when it comes to replacing them?

Anyway, LT265-75-16 are about the same size/heigth as the old 31-10.50-15 i.e. 31 inches tall. Going to a 32" or 33" tall tire is going to affect the rear end ratio. An LT265-75-16 with a 3.73 rear is good for a lighter trailer and a 4.11 rear is OK for the heavier/longer Airstreams. Going to an LT285-75-16 which is about the biggest you can fit on Chevy stock aluminum rims would be too much for the 3.73 for my 31' Excella 500. I now run LT245-75-16 tires, appx. 30.5" tall on stock Chevy rims and a 3.73 rear end. The 8.1 (496 cu.in.) engine has gobs of torque and can pull the trailer fully loaded without problem. Going to an LT285-75-16 might make it a dog on hills. So you see, tire heigth has more to do with it than rim size (heigth). Rim width is another issue I won't even begin to discuss.

Match the tire heigth with the rear end to find a happy medium you can live with. The 3.73 gives me great pulling power when towing the trailer and 15 mpg on the highway without A/C. A 4.11 would have given me even better towing ability but the mileage would have been slightly down in my opinion. Talk with these Suburban guys like Jim Wilkerson, think that's right, with their 4.11 rear ends and see what size tire they run (don't forget heigth) and how they feel about towing the heavier trailers. You won't have a problem with a medium size trailer, medium size engine and 3.73 rear unless you spend most of your time in the mountains. What do you think guys? Tell him about your combination and how you feel about it.