Losing interest in my F250 - Land cruiser?

[slowmover]

A pickup is the safer choice. That’s a good one. Free beer to those who can prove it. Solo and towing.

First, though, you’ll want to actually learn how a WD hitch works. Miss that, and miss the rest.

A Land Cruiser might be okay off pavement. An irrelevant topic with these trailers.

Trying to blame Andy is genuinely funny. They’ve systematized what the rest of us did forty and fifty years ago. Better combinations than what you’ve got in using pickups. I’ve got decades of experience with both. It isn’t close. All you need do is ask about technical reasons for why one thing is better than another.

And, by the way, a unit-built car is stronger than body on frame. All Chrysler Corporation vehicles were unibody from 1957 and much the preferred TV as steering, handling and braking were superior to GM and Ford in the Golden Age. And then the drivetrain superiority.

Go back to arguing about interior appointments. Seat coverings. Stick with the irrelevancies.

Or, head over to other RV forums. They eddy-cate’cha on why aerodynamics don’t matter. Or why leaf spring suspensions are no downgrade. And, hey, YOU have the comparably “unit-built” trailer, not them.

And, ha, THEIR trailers are no more prone to problems than Airstream AND last as long . . its just maintenance.

[PaulnGina]

slowmover, you seem to get your feathers ruffled when someone expresses a preference that differs from yours.

Like I said, to each his own.... I'll stick with my truck.

[slowmover]

No, you just don’t read me very well.

“Preference” is between the otherwise comparable. But first comes the test or tests to establish vehicle class (design). Advertising copy isn’t that test.

The giveaway that a pickup is the bad choice is when there is no solo requirement. Not desire, but need. IRS-applicable miles. Department of Labor job classification.

Now it’s down to ego. Little boys and their toys. Irrational crap.

The trailers sure as hell don’t need it.

So, who’s feathers are ruffled?

[PaulnGina]

I don't usually let the IRS figure into what I drive.

It's simple, slowmover..... I LIKE my truck, because I LIKE my truck. It's not an ego thing.

And, it take a lot more than you to get my feathers ruffled, fer shur.

[slowmover]

Yes, sir. Feelz

Reason didn’t apply.

[PaulnGina]

Plenty of reason. I like it because it does a great job of towing our 34’ Avion. Reason enough? Probably not, I suppose. Maybe I should check with the IRS to see if it’s OK?

[matthewsx]

Two words.

Trailer steer

If you’ve experienced it you know why heavier is better when towing big stuff.

[pteck]

Originally Posted by slowmover

<snip>
And, by the way, a unit-built car is stronger than body on frame. All Chrysler Corporation vehicles were unibody from 1957 and much the preferred TV as steering, handling and braking were superior to GM and Ford in the Golden Age. And then the drivetrain superiority.
<snip>

slowmover, you're a funny one. More odd than funny really.

In regards to something being stronger, I don't believe you have correct understanding. Unibody design is stiffer, not necessarily stronger. You drive big rigs, I think you might be able to understand that these are two completely different things. Otherwise big rigs would adopt unibody construction.

Think soda can. Perhaps someone standing on it. It's stiff and strong... until it's not. Then it crumples like the wad of aluminum that it is. That's not much different than your typical unibody vehicle. It's stiff and strong, until it's not.

Body on frame vehicles and solid axle suspensions are strong and durable, and they are built with a lot of material to make it so. It may not have the stiffness of a unibody vehicle, but that's actually by design. Stiff structures don't take repeated loads well as the structure will fatigue and eventually fail, aka durability. Body on frame still exists because it's strong and durable in applications where that's important, e.g. towing.

[rmkrum]

“Is that funny, ha ha, or funny ‘peculiar’”—from Kukla, Fran, and Ollie.

Points to whoever can identify the character that delivered the line...which gets used in engineering and information technology shops far too often...

[pteck]

Originally Posted by matthewsx

Two words.

Trailer steer

If you’ve experienced it you know why heavier is better when towing big stuff.

I have to agree.

Wheelbase to rear overhang ratio is important. Power and brakes are important. But tow vehicle mass relative to the trailer is also right up there in importance.

Even more subtle, and to a point that slowmover likes to make, is that it's important to have mass also over the rear axle. Otherwise, the trailer can influence the TV as you point out.

Which gets into ballast. It's important that the TV have adequate mass, which can be augmented by "stuff" in the rear bed. Provided it's also within the suspension and axle capability of the tow vehicle.

Which is a double whammy to lighter weight cars/SUV's towing heavy trailers. Being lighter to begin with. Their low capacities make owners put more stuff in the trailer, further increasing the mass differential between the two. That's a bad recipe in my mind. It's almost better to load down the TV, even if that may exceed the design limits.

The newer F150s with intensive AL builds are actually pretty darn light weight @ ~4500lbs. While they have the power, I wonder if their lack of mass makes owners feel like they need to step up to a F250? Perhpas try more ballast in the bed?

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by matthewsx

Two words.

Trailer steer

If you’ve experienced it you know why heavier is better when towing big stuff.

Trailer design matters most.

TV weight isn’t independent of TV design. Intended purpose. It’s “advantage” is short-lived. With a high COG design it’s going to go over more easily than one better suited. The benefits of weight flatline at not much more than 4000-lbs. as a wheelbase last 120” usually accompanies the above, the slow steering response just makes the thing worse.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by pteck

slowmover, you're a funny one. More odd than funny really.

In regards to something being stronger, I don't believe you have correct understanding. Unibody design is stiffer, not necessarily stronger. You drive big rigs, I think you might be able to understand that these are two completely different things. Otherwise big rigs would adopt unibody construction.

Think soda can. Perhaps someone standing on it. It's stiff and strong... until it's not. Then it crumples like the wad of aluminum that it is. That's not much different than your typical unibody vehicle. It's stiff and strong, until it's not.

Body on frame vehicles and solid axle suspensions are strong and durable, and they are built with a lot of material to make it so. It may not have the stiffness of a unibody vehicle, but that's actually by design. Stiff structures don't take repeated loads well as the structure will fatigue and eventually fail, aka durability. Body on frame still exists because it's strong and durable in applications where that's important, e.g. towing.

BOF is cheap to build. It’s single virtue. The penalties outweigh any idea of “advantage” in this application. Yeah, unibody IS stronger. Lighter. The performance advantage solo is retained towing.

And you don’t seem to understand WDH’s too well. The load is spread when done correctly. 90% get it wrong. That you “think” it secondary shows basic misunderstanding.

And nearly all of you think “the problem” is the TT weight. It isn’t, it’s the TT shape and COG that matter. The suspension design second. These trailers are easy to pull. By design. Getting to speed is the only time “weight” is a “penalty”.

But as none of you load the TV to maximum for your daily driving — which would give a far better idea of HOW to drive — your comparison is an empty TV. Lack of experience and any realistic training. No way to understand HOW to time all the maneuvers. So, as the acceleration penalty is imaginary, so too was the pickup truck “solution”: making things worse.

[Moflash]

Actually a Unibody is much cheaper to build than body on frame vehicle thus it was adopted by automobile manufacturers as the go to build.It is also much less rigid and when tampered with by heating or the drilling of holes it weakens the entire structure as does rust.This is a benefit when creating controlled crumple zones for crash safety but a detriment when it comes to modifications.
Everything has plus and minuses.Unibody is a great platform for front wheel drive econo boxes and mini vans due to being lighter weight.
Crash safety is also one of its strong points as it crumples much easier and can be controlled.
Body on frame is designed to carry more load and is far more capable in doing so.This design also allows for torque flex created by high horsepower and massive torque required to pull heavy loads.The vast majority of automobiles built up to the mid 80’s were body on frame until the cost of fuel escalated changed everything.
This is also why semi tractor trailer units are not built to this day with a Unibody design and still retain body on frame.

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by slowmover

BOF is cheap to build. It’s single virtue. The penalties outweigh any idea of “advantage” in this application. Yeah, unibody IS stronger. Lighter. The performance advantage solo is retained towing.

Is there anywhere we can find written that a Unibody frame is stronger or "better" to tow with?

I seem to come across this mostly:

6. Chassis Design

There actually is a difference in chassis framework between SUV’s and trucks. A “body-of-frame” design on trucks and full-size SUV’s is a steel “ladder-like” design that shapes the base of the vehicle. This design will provide more strength when towing. The “unibody” design on cars and smaller SUV’s is where the stress of the vehicle is put on the body panels and spreads through different parts which are why towing is typically not recommended. Their bodies are just not strong enough.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by pteck

I have to agree.

Wheelbase to rear overhang ratio is important. Power and brakes are important. But tow vehicle mass relative to the trailer is also right up there in importance.

Even more subtle, and to a point that slowmover likes to make, is that it's important to have mass also over the rear axle. Otherwise, the trailer can influence the TV as you point out.

Which gets into ballast. It's important that the TV have adequate mass, which can be augmented by "stuff" in the rear bed. Provided it's also within the suspension and axle capability of the tow vehicle.

Which is a double whammy to lighter weight cars/SUV's towing heavy trailers. Being lighter to begin with. Their low capacities make owners put more stuff in the trailer, further increasing the mass differential between the two. That's a bad recipe in my mind. It's almost better to load down the TV, even if that may exceed the design limits.

The newer F150s with intensive AL builds are actually pretty darn light weight @ ~4500lbs. While they have the power, I wonder if their lack of mass makes owners feel like they need to step up to a F250? Perhpas try more ballast in the bed?

For me, the difference in towing my 28' with the F250 vs the F150 EB can be expressed easily in a test drive up and down the Rockies. More confidence and control due to weight difference and wheelbase, better braking with the engine brake in the diesel, and HP/Torque is there when you need it; not straining or engine whining like the EB when you step on it under load. (also, more payload) I know many folks who have driven both while pulling the larger 27'-30' AS's will agree. Others still seem to have their bias' and equations to argue if they choose; as was said earlier...try it you might like it better than this silly argument

[pteck]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

For me, the difference in towing my 28' with the F250 vs the F150 EB can be expressed easily in a test drive up and down the Rockies. More confidence and control due to weight difference and wheelbase, better braking with the engine brake in the diesel, and HP/Torque is there when you need it; not straining or engine whining like the EB when you step on it under load. (also, more payload) I know many folks who have driven both while pulling the larger 27'-30' AS's will agree. Others still seem to have their bias' and equations to argue if they choose; as was said earlier...try it you might like it better than this silly argument

That's great and all that it works for you. For the right individual, a 3/4 ton truck is absolutely the right answer. It's when one gets so caught up in their religion that they believe it to be the only possible answer. Even to dismiss specific needs others might have.

Since I'm putting myself out there... A truck doesn't work, for me, because I'm in the suburbs. Parking a 3/4 ton truck on the street would be an eyesore. I also need my vehicle to seat 8 when family comes, or 6 as my parents often join us on camping vacations. I prefer my vehicles to have some modicum of manners and luxury. A stiff legged ride, lumbering motions, and open bed are not my thing.

As I've heard plenty profess their 3/4 diesel truck religion, let me share mine. My 200-series Land Cruiser in Lexus LX570 guise, has a ride quality, quietness, and calmness that is only equaled by the most luxurious sedans on the market. When solo, and when laden and towing, because it has a fully dynamic, electronic over hydraulic, active suspension system. It has luxury appointments, 4-zone A/C, and an incredible Mark Levinson reference surround 5.1 stereo system that I and the family enjoy when traveling. Traction is never a question with full time 4WD, low range, and every software traction aid in the book. It has great suspension travel, with 3" on demand lifting, and significant articulation, that can take me over some of the most technical jeep trails. And ensure that I come back from that extreme off-road trail or vacation without a issue, as the Land Cruiser is recognized as one, if not the most, durable and reliable vehicles on the market. With its substantial body on frame construction and 25 yr design life, even when used in 3rd world countries. It's been an absolutely stable and strong tow vehicle and I never want for more power (or torque) up hills, even with my large 33" off-road oriented tires. I live in the west. I've gone over the windiest and steepest grades out there, and it's handled my 27FB with aplomb.

Tell me what I'm missing out on again?

[switz]

I started the Airstream towing experience in 2012 predicated on using a vehicle I already owned, my 2007 Mercedes ML320 CDI v6 turbo diesel that was ordered with the factory towing package. The factory recall welding was done when it was announced.

I was out of the USA at the time (September/October 2012) this idea was gelling and the Airstream literature numbers for the various trailers were being studied given the axle ratings and GVW of the SUV. I had not even been inside an Airstream at that time. I found that a 19' was within the parameters. I found and started reading the AirForums and the sections about tow vehicles. After finding discussions discussing Andy Thompson, I called and chatted with him and decided that getting the Mercedes receiver reinforced would be a good idea and I could up the ante to a large trailer. I switched the order to a 2013 25FB International Serenity.

The factory literature tongue weight morphed from 833 pounds to 1,150 pounds with the Hensley Arrow hitch, dealer installed street side and rear awnings, a 155 watt solar panel and it's associated equipment on the roof, full water and propane tanks and a Prodigy RF brake controlled on the hitch. No issues towing the unit from Los Angles to Phoenix on I-10 at b 55 mph and car was not staring going up the significant grade coming East out of Palm Springs by maintaining 55 in fourth gear and 3,000 rpm.

The reality for us changed after loading the trailer with lots of stuff, a new heavier mattress and with putting all the tools in the rear, the tongue weight got back to 1,175 pounds and the trailer scales 6,900 pounds. The Mercedes was straining on even slight inclines so I elected to acquire a 2012 2500HD Cummins which completely resolved all the towing issues with the 25FB and is now towing our 2014 31' Classic. The Ram is not a daily driver.

We now use the Mercedes to tow the 2015 23D International Serenity that scales 6,069 pounds and has a 962 pound tongue weight. When towing the 23D, the car usually is scaling around 6,100 pounds out of the 6,235 pound GVW shown on the door post. We still drive this rig at 55 mph for less stress on me and better fuel range (16.5 mpg towing).

In both of our towing situations, the tow vehicle and trailer weights are about equal on the smaller rig and the truck is heavier than the Classic. Works for us.

We even converted the two Honda 2,000 watt generators to propane to get away from carrying gasoline in the back of the Mercedes or the bed of the Ram.

Perhaps a Toyota LC could replace the Mercedes when the Mercedes gives up the ghost or we have a government mandated bio-diesel that would destroy the Mercedes diesel. (The 2012 Ram Cummins is also limited to a maximum of 5% bio-diesel just like the Mercedes engine) I don't have a crystal ball on what we could use if we have to swap out the Classic's tow vehicle in the future.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by pteck

That's great and all that it works for you. For the right individual, a 3/4 ton truck is absolutely the right answer. It's when one gets so caught up in their religion that they believe it to be the only possible answer. Even to dismiss specific needs others might have.

Since I'm putting myself out there... A truck doesn't work, for me, because I'm in the suburbs. Parking a 3/4 ton truck on the street would be an eyesore. I also need my vehicle to seat 8 when family comes, or 6 as my parents often join us on camping vacations. I prefer my vehicles to have some modicum of manners and luxury. A stiff legged ride, lumbering motions, and open bed are not my thing.

As I've heard plenty profess their 3/4 diesel truck religion, let me share mine. My 200-series Land Cruiser in Lexus LX570 guise, has a ride quality, quietness, and calmness that is only equaled by the most luxurious sedans on the market. When solo, and when laden and towing, because it has a fully dynamic, electronic over hydraulic, active suspension system. It has luxury appointments, 4-zone A/C, and an incredible Mark Levinson reference surround 5.1 stereo system that I and the family enjoy when traveling. Traction is never a question with full time 4WD, low range, and every software traction aid in the book. It has great suspension travel, with 3" on demand lifting, and significant articulation, that can take me over some of the most technical jeep trails. And ensure that I come back from that extreme off-road trail or vacation without a issue, as the Land Cruiser is recognized as one, if not the most, durable and reliable vehicles on the market. With its substantial body on frame construction and 25 yr design life, even when used in 3rd world countries. It's been an absolutely stable and strong tow vehicle and I never want for more power (or torque) up hills, even with my large 33" off-road oriented tires. I live in the west. I've gone over the windiest and steepest grades out there, and it's handled my 27FB with aplomb.

Tell me what I'm missing out on again?

Hey, I'm not sure your "missing out" on anything, given your driving needs and knowledge of your TV. I loved driving my MB ML350, my Tahoe before I got my F150 EB to pull my 25. that was a game changer for me in towing and carrying gear like kayaks, generator, firewood, bbq, etc. I also recently lived in SD for 3 years. While there we had several treks thru Vegas on way to/from MT and we also visited Borrego Springs couple times a month in winter from Rancho Bernardo. Both those drives can be challenging for any tow vehicle with a larger AS. What I am sharing is with my 28', I feel very confident with the 3/4T diesel for my needs. Your 570 Land Cruiser is certainly a very nice vehicle especially for daily driving and carrying more passengers. I don't have those considerations. Ideal may be to have both

[pteck]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Hey, I'm not sure your "missing out" on anything, given your driving needs and knowledge of your TV. I loved driving my MB ML350, my Tahoe before I got my F150 EB to pull my 25. that was a game changer for me in towing and carrying gear like kayaks, generator, firewood, bbq, etc. I also recently lived in SD for 3 years. While there we had several treks thru Vegas on way to/from MT and we also visited Borrego Springs couple times a month in winter from Rancho Bernardo. Both those drives can be challenging for any tow vehicle with a larger AS. What I am sharing is with my 28', I feel very confident with the 3/4T diesel for my needs. Your 570 Land Cruiser is certainly a very nice vehicle especially for daily driving and carrying more passengers. I don't have those considerations. Ideal may be to have both

I get it, your god is better than my god. And all SUV's must perform the same. The fact that your 3/4T diesel performs well, means nothing else can possibly also do a great job.

My LX570 is my 3rd vehicle and is the families beast of burden. I much prefer my 650 ft-lb torque, 3400 lb commuter rather than another barge.

Oh, and my 27FB is 1" longer than yours

Happy camping

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by pteck

I get it, your god is better than my god. And all SUV's must perform the same. The fact that your 3/4T diesel performs well, means nothing else can possibly also do a great job. :

Why do you take every comment as an attack?

He gave his experience of multiple vehicles then simply stated HE FELT MORE confident in his 3/4T truck. Did it hurt your sense of being?

Nor did he say “nothing else can possibly do a great job” as you belched.

This forum is for SHARING INFORMATION and your “greater than thou” responses gives it a horrible taste for others.

Get over yourself and contribute instead of looking for an in to attack someone’s comments. If you are “so smart” then use it effectively to influence an otherwise “poorly informed” member so they can make a better decision.

You obviously have a wealth of information, my suggestion is to share it, instead of throw it.

Moderator in 3,2,1...