Trailer weight Vs length

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by Fyrzowt

Until fire hits them, then they fail quickly.

??????

[Fyrzowt]

Road Ruler,
The metal plates that hold trusses together heat up, charring the wood around the plates. These cause catastrauphic roof failures. Many of my peers have been injured, some killed over this design.

Now back to the thread, sorry for the detour.
Dave

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by FilmGuy

It's also worth a mention that those family cars were heavier and were built on frames. Today's cars are unibody construction designed to be light-weight for gas mileage. So they don't have the mass or the stiffness to resist a trailer's sway forces.

No, sir, the cars from Chrysler Corporation were all uni-body from 1957 and were probably the first choice among full-timers. A unibody vehicle is MORE resistant to TV-induced towing problems. In fact, some Chrysler cars were banned from demolition derby since they were indestructible by comparison to body-on-frame cars.

As to weight my old big block 1971 Chrysler was at 4,760# with full fuel, passenger and some trunk-junk. My half ton truck with a small block (same otherwise) weighed an additional 5-600#. (As were the comparable Oldsmobiles of the early 1970's). And got less fuel mileage than the big motor. We won't talk about acceleration, handling or braking.

As to boilovers, only on cars not maintained properly (I believe people are a little better about it these days). No one in our family experienced one, but the replacement of water pumps at around 70,000 miles was common.

Electrical problems then, and now, are the reason 80% of vehicles are in the shop.

Cars have a lower center of gravity, can handle abrupt manuevers safely that would put a truck in the ditch and have better power to weight ratios. Let's not overlook their qualities. There is no good reason NOT to consider a 120" wheelbase V8 car of today to tow.

[FilmGuy]

OK, so I guess I had that wrong. But if all this is true - and I accept that is is - why are we all towing with pickups and suvs? I think a Dodge Magnum would make a great TV for an AS!

[overlander63]

Originally Posted by FilmGuy

OK, so I guess I had that wrong. But if all this is true - and I accept that is is - why are we all towing with pickups and suvs? I think a Dodge Magnum would make a great TV for an AS!

I have been told by a reliable source that Chrysler is discontinuing the Magnum.

[cameront120]

Just for kicks, of the sedans/station wagons presently being manufactured, which of them would make good tow vehicles?

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by cameront120

Just for kicks, of the sedans/station wagons presently being manufactured, which of them would make good tow vehicles?

Just to start off, I would say all that are V8 engine equipped, and rear wheel drive. So then, how many are there? The only two that come to mind quickly are the Ford Crown Victoria and the Mercury Grand Marquis, which are basically the same car. Personally, I wouldn't consider any of the front wheel drive cars built today, but this is just my opinion.

[slowmover]

The Crown Vic has a shorter wheelbase than the 300/Charger. It is also IFS and live axle rear. A good bit of overhang. But, it has the advantage of being essentially unchanged since 1979. The incremental changes have made a superior fleet car. That is it's great advantage: long service life, reliable and well-known by service departments across North America.

I believe that it is underpowered for trailer pulling, but I'd use one if I had to up to about 5,000#.

The 300/Charger is based on on the E-Class Mercedes sedan of a generation or three back. Fully independent suspension, 120" wheelbase (the minimum, IMO) and plenty of power from the Hemi (or, the 3.5L V6 for lighter trailers). The AWD system is based on the very good Mercedes EMatic (name?).

I, too, think the Magnum would be a VG choice. It is likely in its last year of production.

The only "drawback" to these cars is their small fuel capacity. They don't have the 24 or 28 gallon capacity of yore. On the other hand, modern engine management offsets that with better fuel economy.

My grandfathers '68 Monaco (with 3.23 gears, B727 trans and 440 Magnum) had a 23 gallon fuel capacity. He recorded 10 mpg for all driving, pulling a 28' Streamline, therefore a reasonable range with reserve was about 200 miles.

A 300/Charger, with an 18-gal tank needs only to achieve 12 mpg to equal that range.

My Dad's '76 Cadillac got 7-8 mpg pulling his Silver Steak (bigger motor than the above but an inferior design for power and the usual 1970's emissions changes on top of that), so his 27.5 gal tank equalled about the same.

In other words, a car has about 200 miles of range versus a big diesel pickup having well over 400 with reserve (if you bought a Cummins, anyway).

Depending on the trailer, it's use and the owner, a car may well be the best double-duty vehicle, (with the inconvenience of more fuel stops). But, for trip planning purposes, being out of the vehicle every three hours or so is actually quite good for safety purposes (feeling rested).

As to unit-body, the only non-stressed items (non-load bearing) would be the hood, trunk lid and doors. Everything else is. Sorta like an Airstream. Or a Boeing airliner.

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by cameront120

Just for kicks, of the sedans/station wagons presently being manufactured, which of them would make good tow vehicles?

Off shore towing with smallish sedans and wagons with 4 to 8 cyl vehicles is very popular. Considering some are towing non aerodynamic TT's, upwards of 3,000+ lbs without a WDH is admirable. Saab's, BMW's, Volvo's, Nissan's, Honda's, Subaru's, Mercedes, etc., are popular. The tight suspension, low centre of gravilty, aerodynamics, and sticky low profile tires all work together to make it possible.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Good day Rednax... It is common to use and see modern sedans and some wagons towing in these parts. I have seen both the 300C, Crown Vic, and others towing Airstreams. Many are 6 cyl. Considering the power to weight ratio and the aerodynamic advantage many 6 cyl cars are as good or better than many of the larger, bulky V8 vehicles.