A very hot tow vehicle

[J. Morgan]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

Edditing error. Sorry.

Let me try again. Who here can say that the Camaro combination made up by Andy at Can Am won’t outperform their 3/4 ton setup concerning stability, acuity, and stopping ability?

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

Let me try again. Who here can say that the Camaro combination made up by Andy at Can Am won’t outperform their 3/4 ton setup concerning stability, acuity, and stopping ability?

Well, there are some pretty ambiguous words in your question. Test parameters and data would be needed after proper engineering standards were set as a benchmark. Also you left out durability and reliability. For these reasons, I have no answer for you, as an industry professional and manufacturer rep.

[J. Morgan]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

Well, there are some pretty ambiguous words in your question. Test parameters and data would be needed after proper engineering standards were set as a benchmark. Also you left out durability and reliability. For these reasons, I have no answer for you, as an industry professional and manufacturer rep.

So, really, anyone who would say that the Camaro setups abilities are substandard or poor would be “supposing” that to be so.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

So, really, anyone who would say that the Camaro setups abilities are substandard or poor would be “supposing” that to be so.

No, not at all. The manufacturer says it is not designed nor intended for towing. They obviously have information which encompasses engineering reasons for such a position. They are the authority. Everything else is not objective from the info we have. Andy's assessment is by "feel". Where is the yaw and accelerometer (etc) data? Where is the long term durability data for chassis, powertrain, etc data. This is a fruitless conversation with any subjective speculation beyond published printed statements.

[J. Morgan]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

No, not at all. The manufacturer says it is not designed nor intended for towing. They obviously have information which encompasses engineering reasons for such a position. They are the authority. Everything else is not objective from the info we have. Andy's assessment is by "feel". Where is the yaw and accelerometer (etc) data? Where is the long term durability data for chassis, powertrain, etc data. This is a fruitless conversation with any subjective speculation beyond published printed statements.

So how the vehicle actually handles the trailer, vehicle stability, and stopping ability are meaningless then?

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

So how the vehicle actually handles the trailer, vehicle stability, and stopping ability are meaningless then?

No, "how it feels" to one person experiencing it for a relatively short drive time is not empirical engineering data, which includes long term durability testing and data, long term systems performance data, specific safety data and destructive "test to failure point" data, just to name a few.

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

Let me try again. Who here can say that the Camaro combination made up by Andy at Can Am won’t outperform their 3/4 ton setup concerning stability, acuity, and stopping ability?

I can say it.....but it doesn't meen anything.

"It won't be better than our 2500"

Bob

[Tom_T]

You folks are way over thinking this car as a TV thing!

With all the techno talk - auto/truck manufacturer MARKETING, PROFIT & CYA reasons are suspiciously left off the table so far.

For example - why else would've Chrysler dropped the 300 sedan's tow rating from something like 5000-6000 lbs. at the intro & first several MYs - then mysteriously reduce it to 1500 lbs. in later years with no changes to the drivetrains & unibody construction to justify same!?

1. It drives sales to their far more profitable Trucks & SUVs,

2. It's a CYA to have an out to not cover warranty repairs, as they struggle financially,

3. They can more clearly market trucks/SUVs as tow capable.

Ford, GM, & all the others USA & foreign do the same.

Also - the Airstream & all of it's vintage kin were designed to be tow by CARS - NOT just trucks - & the cars in the 1940's - 1970's were generally not even rated for towing capacity - although many offered towing packages/option for a HD radiator (AT cooler), HD springs/shocks, etc. - but then so were the pick-ups with the same options!

The AS/Kin were designed to be lighter, lower & more aerodynamic & easier to tow with cars, than were comparably sized "Canned Hams" (Shasta, etc.), & justified their relatively higher prices for that advantage. Yes, we've probably most seen the Desi Arnaz & Lucille Ball "The Long Long Trailer" movie, which just shows that common sense is a necessary element for towing.

But buying into the car/truck manufacturers' BS about only using pick-em-ups & SUVs for towing is just total BS - since they're either picking arbitrary numbers at tow limits &/or not testing them at all under the current testing proceedures. Why should they bother with cars - when they can make double or more profit on trucks/SUVs!?

So - would this Camaro SS pass an official SAE tow rating test if properly subjected by GM - probably so, & with it's big brakes, high HP/TQ engine & matched drivetrain, wide tires, low CG, relatively wider track (than trucks), shorter rear overhang (receiver to rear axle vs. trucks), etc., etc.!?

Absolutely IMHO! And would probably be rated to about 5000-6000 lbs or so, about the same as on any base level 1/2 ton truck in the industry!

Can GM deny warranty - of course - that's why they prohibit towing in the manual - but only to save them money, NOT for lack of comparable towing capability as their base 1/2 ton trucks!

Can the insurance companies deny coverage - possibly, but at the risk of serious consumer legal & governmental regulatory challenges & kick-back.

Any smart insurance lawyer could subject another car to the same accepted SAE tow rating test to come up with the fact that it can tow the above AS & comparable AS & other trailers, introduce that in court & shoot down either/both manufacturer &/or insurer false claims of misuse. And they'd probably do it as a class action for their maximum legal fees profit, so we'd be seeing those ubiquitous TV ads with the Blonde Gals selling their services & inviting us to all call!

So pooh-pooh it if you want, & keep on overpaying for trucks & SUVs which you may not need - unless you truly need the cargo & utility of them for other reasons than just towing - &/or unless you're towing a larger trailer exceeding reasonable limits for smaller vehicles.


Have Fun Trailering with Whatever TV!
Tom
///////

[dznf0g]

I believe you would find that SAE (since you made presumptive comments about them) j2807 prescribed the reduction in the 300 tow rating reduction.....which should tell you something.

[PKI]

IMHO, the forces to tow are likely less than the forces generated by the performance driving that GM promotes for the Camaro. The latest 1LE out performs the Corvette. Wonder if that is the justification for some type of change, like moving the engine location. But back to towing.

Not many folks tow at 8-10/10s? Suspect 5/10s or less is likely. Climbing a 6-10% grade will require mid-range revs and the descent will be under modulated braking. A track day is 5000-redline revs, massive braking and tire shredding corner loads. Which do you think is harder on components?

Will reliability be less in a towing application than in a daily commute application, yes. However, not all performance cars get commute use. The nice looking used car that was driven only on weekends by a little old lady who waxed all commers is the classic example and there are a lot more hot rod guys/gals than little old ladies. Note - GM now races to sell cars. The days of "we only do that out the back door" are over.

Tires were defined to be suspect. However, a 4000lb car with a 1000lb on the hitch is 5000lb total. A set of performance tires will rate 1500lb or more per tire for a total capacity of 6000lb. That provides a good safety margin. No need for 80 psi truck tires to shake the rig and occupants. The low profile provides the lateral resistance required for stability.

Chassis - the articles I read supose that stiffer is better for performance applications; stiffer is better for comfort applications; and stiffer is better for towing applications. So GM has this covered, but as a well run company, they do not spend engineering resources to prove an application that would negatively impact their marketing. Trucks are for towing - Ponys are for performance - don't get confused.

You might question CanAms hitch install approach, but no one reports a high frequency of failure. What I read from those who tow with a CanAm upgrade is quite positive.

So - Andy, thanks for sharing. Very cool project. Pat

[dznf0g]

So, would you say that the chassis and suspension stresses are the same, towing and not towing. Show me the engineering data. I tell you they are not the same.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

So, would you say that the chassis and suspension stresses are the same, towing and not towing. Show me the engineering data. I tell you they are not the same.

No one is going to get engineering data on modifications. Of course the stresses are greater when towing. 10 years from now people will be stuffing 800 horsepower engines in those Camaros and no one will worry about warranty claims.

Remember, a lot of the improvements to cars started with hot rodders. I remember my dad saying "you'll kill yourself in that thing" when I put the cop motor in that Galaxie with drum brakes and bias tires. It's still on the road and his 8 year old car is in the junkyard.

[dznf0g]

Cb59, this isn't just a modification. It is introducing a completely different set of higher loads and duty cycle requirements for which the car was never conceived to fulfill.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

No, not at all. The manufacturer says it is not designed nor intended for towing. They obviously have information which encompasses engineering and/or marketing reasons for such a position. They are the authority. Everything else is not objective from the info we have. Andy's assessment is by "feel". Where is the yaw and accelerometer (etc) data? Where is the long term durability data for chassis, powertrain, etc data. This is a fruitless conversation with any subjective speculation beyond published printed statements.

Fixed it for you ;-) In the absence of engineering information that it can't tow safely, marketing and/or cost control reasons are equally likely. See the earlier post about another manufacturer who made a similar declaration about not designing for towing, but changes their position based on where one lives. Perhaps they designed the same car twice.

It could be as simple as a decision not to offer a hitch, based on not thinking they would sell many, so it not being worth developing and testing on.

If it can't tow, why isn't there a warning in the manual about not towing? It simply says they didn't design it for that. They avoided the question, they didn't answer it. Not blaming them at all, it is likely a reasonable commercial decision to make. But it is speculation to declare that the decision was for engineering reasons, in the absence of such info.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by jcl

Fixed it for you ;-) In the absence of engineering information that it can't tow safely, marketing and/or cost control reasons are equally likely. See the earlier post about another manufacturer who made a similar declaration about not designing for towing, but changes their position based on where one lives. Perhaps they designed the same car twice.

It could be as simple as a decision not to offer a hitch, based on not thinking they would sell many, so it not being worth developing and testing on.

If it can't tow, why isn't there a warning in the manual about not towing? It simply says they didn't design it for that. They avoided the question, they didn't answer it. Not blaming them at all, it is likely a reasonable commercial decision to make. But it is speculation to declare that the decision was for engineering reasons, in the absence of such info.

Please do not make my words for me. In this case marketing has nothing to do with it. When a vehicle is in the conception phase, it is all brand managers and engineering. This vehicle was conceived as a 2 door sport coupe with both economy and street performance in mind, as well as a design pointed to It's 1969 heritage. But with modern technology, safety and convenience. The mission was never to design it as a tow vehicle, so from CAD through launch, design and material selection was not considered with the stresses of towing in mind.

[jcl]

I understand it wasn't conceived as a tow vehicle.

That doesn't mean it can't tow safely. It very likely means that the manufacturer doesn't have engineering data on that aspect, since it wasn't a design objective. Why would they?

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by jcl

I understand it wasn't conceived as a tow vehicle.

That doesn't mean it can't tow safely. It very likely means that the manufacturer doesn't have engineering data on that aspect, since it wasn't a design objective. Why would they?

Ya know, if we were discussing a very light pop-up, I might give you some.....some latitude there, but not when we are discussing a 5 -6000 loaded weight trailer.

[J. Morgan]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

No, "how it feels" to one person experiencing it for a relatively short drive time is not empirical engineering data, which includes long term durability testing and data, long term systems performance data, specific safety data and destructive "test to failure point" data, just to name a few.

With all due respect, how it feels, is pretty much the goal of a well set up combination. How it feels will encompass how it pulls, steers, stops, and overall vehicle stability.

How it feels is always what I shoot for. I want it to feel good, comfortable and safe. I really don’t need a team of engineers to help me with that. ‪

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

No one is going to get engineering data on modifications. Of course the stresses are greater when towing. 10 years from now people will be stuffing 800 horsepower engines in those Camaros and no one will worry about warranty claims.

Remember, a lot of the improvements to cars started with hot rodders. I remember my dad saying "you'll kill yourself in that thing" when I put the cop motor in that Galaxie with drum brakes and bias tires. It's still on the road and his 8 year old car is in the junkyard.

I get the part about hot rodders making improvement to their cars; I used to do that kind of thing myself. It was almost always an attempt to increase some performance parameter by installing better, stronger, or more efficient parts than what the manufacturer used.

The question that jumps out at me is, besides finding a place to bolt on a hitch, exactly what improvements have been made to the Camaro to make it a suitable TV for a 25' AS? Given that GM specifically recommends against using the Camaro to tow anything at all, that seems like a relevant thing to be concerned about.

[J. Morgan]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

I get the part about hot rodders making improvement to their cars; I used to do that kind of thing myself. It was almost always an attempt to increase some performance parameter by installing better, stronger, or more efficient parts than what the manufacturer used.



The question that jumps out at me is, besides finding a place to bolt on a hitch, exactly what improvements have been made to the Camaro to make it a suitable TV for a 25' AS? Given that GM specifically recommends against using the Camaro to tow anything at all, that seems like a relevant thing to be concerned about.

And the folks who have made it their job to make these kind of tow combinations for decades haven’t considered these things?