Are They Meaningless? Tow Limits, Payload and Axle Load

[camp-n-family]

Originally Posted by DewTheDew

This is where I violently disagree. People throw these statements out as if it is common knowledge, while ignoring the fact that there are very good reasons for these numbers. I cannot imagine a truck or SUV manufacturer reducing max towing or max payload for marketing purposes. As for "safe and out of court", I would also like to stay safe and out of court. They have figured in a factor of safety and that 's what they use. I see no reason to go against the recommendations of the people who designed and built the vehicle. I see many reasons why some after-market people have an incentive to want you to do so, however. For everyone saying this, please provide a concrete, documented case where the number is downrated for the vehicles of interest (not HD). Thank you.

Not for marketing purposes but when it first came out in 2007 the Toyota Tundra (not counting the smaller model before that) was rated at 10,500 max tow and had measly payload ratings. Less than all the big 3 trucks even though it had the heaviest rated axles (even after being d-rated), best gearing, and largest brakes. It’s numbers are well under rated. When Toyota became the first manufacturer to apply the new SAE standards the numbers dropped significantly more. Same truck but less capable on paper. Sales hurt because they couldn’t market “best in class tow rating”. This is why I suggest it’s the lawyers setting the ratings, not the engineers.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by Bruce B

Forgive me but this is silly. They profit not only from selling trailers to people who otherwise would not consider ownership because they did not want or could not afford a truck to tow with. Their service department is busy charging for their services that include setting up vehicles to tow.
His “advice” and magazine articles fall into the category of marketing...
I have zero doubt that Can Am is excellent at what they do. I’m sure that everyone towing could benefit from their services.
Suggesting that it is somehow done for reasons other than good old business is just wrong.

You guys are funny. CanAm has set up all 3 of my big pickups to tow. Sure I see a few smaller TVs in there but it’s mostly pickups for towing. They are an excellent shop to do business with.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by JimCT

Would you please share a documented case where that happened? Not just conjecture or hearsay?

They cover drunk drivers and distracted drivers. They won’t cover you if you crash while committing a felony. I wish people on here would just read their policies instead of making up scare stories.

[Bruce B]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

You guys are funny. CanAm has set up all 3 of my big pickups to tow. Sure I see a few smaller TVs in there but it’s mostly pickups for towing. They are an excellent shop to do business with.

I don’t see why you are laughing. I admitted that Can Am is excellent at what they do and that anyone would likely benefit from their help. That includes pickups.
You also conceded my point that they profit from setting up smaller tow vehicles, something they speak about freely.
My point is that I object to Andy’s contention that towing standards are suspect and that they are somehow driven by profit.
It is an argument that reminds me of the pot calling the kettle black...

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

If you are referring to CanAm, you are ignoring the fact that they don’t charge for their advice. I found them to be generous in this regard. No purchase required. I would call your comments libellous.

No malice was intended. I would call it an effective generic marketing strategy applicable to many organizations.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

You might not be able to change the rules of physics, but you can change the equation. I can lift xx pounds, but give me a lever and I can raise a lot more. Same physics. But that is an example of changing the equation.

The change in the equation for towing is the use of WD equipment, properly set up. Without WD, an F150 is rated to tow 5000 lbs IIRC. I suspect the GM and RAM are similar. But with WD each can tow more per the manufacturer.

This approach isn’t common with the Euro manufacturers. They are not allowed to use WD, so are not familiar with it nor do they tend to recommend it for use in markets such as North America where it is legal, so as a result, they don’t apply those equations. Typically, they will grudgingly accept that one can use WD with their vehicles, but they say it doesn’t change the rating. If they don’t supply a receiver that can accept WD torques, it is fully understandable.

I don’t think many understand that without WD, many mid sized Euro SUVs are rated to tow more than half ton pickups, and in fact more than some 3/4 ton pickups.

So don’t try and change the rules of physics, but take the opportunity to use the equipment that physics has shown to increase capabilities. The right tool for the job.

Some would recognize this as working smarter, not harder.

WD can redistribute weight and prevent rear axle overload. A minority of 1/2 ton trucks can benefit and tolerate higher tongue weights but in so doing rear axle cornering stiffness is also reduced. When the vehicle is already suffering from oversteer as is the case for many midsized and smaller performance SUV's how can a hitch correct that unsafe situation?

[KK4YZ]

Originally Posted by jcl

If you are referring to CanAm, you are ignoring the fact that they don’t charge for their advice. I found them to be generous in this regard. No purchase required. I would call your comments libellous.

LOL Libelous? I think you’re getting carried away....

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by camp-n-family

Not for marketing purposes but when it first came out in 2007 the Toyota Tundra (not counting the smaller model before that) was rated at 10,500 max tow and had measly payload ratings. Less than all the big 3 trucks even though it had the heaviest rated axles (even after being d-rated), best gearing, and largest brakes. It’s numbers are well under rated. When Toyota became the first manufacturer to apply the new SAE standards the numbers dropped significantly more. Same truck but less capable on paper. Sales hurt because they couldn’t market “best in class tow rating”. This is why I suggest it’s the lawyers setting the ratings, not the engineers.

In the first years of the standard, the criteria for overhung hitches was more stringent, also Toyota didn't play the "find the easiest to haul trailer" game as effectively, thus their ratings were geared more to trailers with heavier tongues. Such is life.

[DewTheDew]

Originally Posted by jcl

Y
This approach isn’t common with the Euro manufacturers. They are not allowed to use WD, so are not familiar with it nor do they tend to recommend it for use in markets such as North America where it is legal, so as a result, they don’t apply those equations. Typically, they will grudgingly accept that one can use WD with their vehicles, but they say it doesn’t change the rating. If they don’t supply a receiver that can accept WD torques, it is fully understandable.

You keep claiming that Euro manufacturers are unfamiliar with towing in the US. When pressed you used an example from 15 years ago. You make an assumption that you know better than they do about the capabilities of their vehicles. I find that interesting. Do you similarly think they are unaware that it gets very hot here, or that the Japanese are unaware that it gets much colder in Minnesota than Tokyo? I would suggest that any engineer who was in charge of tow ratings for hitched vehicles for sale in the US and was "not familiar" with WD hitches should be fired.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by CanyonMan

Originally Posted by BayouBiker
Back in the real world where physics rules the day, trailer inertia can only be held back with bulk and size. It's why football teams go with size over braun for linemen. It's why Collyn's general guideline to chose a tow vehicle with a GVWR greater than the GVWR of the trailer is such good advice. You can wax eloquently for days and it won't change the rules of physics.

We are going to have to get, literally, all of the semi-trucks off the road and soon, for the reason you state. Have you forgotten about trailer brakes?

Canyon

Wow Canyon, last time I checked Semi's don't use overhung hitches nor do they use traditionally designed tow vehicles. They formally call them Semi-tractors for a reason. In the world of logic they would call your analogy a fallacy.

To your previous question about insurance and liability, I honestly don't have a horse in that race. I was simply trying to be helpful and steer you to an answer to your question without having to do the heavy lifting myself. If you don't believe the cases exist, so be it.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

WD can redistribute weight and prevent rear axle overload. A minority of 1/2 ton trucks can benefit and tolerate higher tongue weights but in so doing rear axle cornering stiffness is also reduced. When the vehicle is already suffering from oversteer as is the case for many midsized and smaller performance SUV's how can a hitch correct that unsafe situation?

1/2 ton trucks, and in fact 3/4 ton trucks, at least the ones I looked at, all had manufacturers recommend WD equipment over a certain tongue weight (5000 lbs seemed to be a common one). Your RAM2500 is in that category. Surely you believe that if the manufacturer is recommending it, and since they are deemed to know the vehicle best, WD is a benefit to safe and comfortable towing. And for more than simply "a minority of 1/2 ton trucks" as you suggest.

When you claim that midsize SUVs are more prone to oversteer than other vehicle types, that doesn't fit my experience. I have found that manufacturers tend to design vehicles to understeer (solo), as they deem it to be safer. What is the basis of your claim? Since you say "already" you seem to be referring to solo (unhitched) operation. Help me understand.

Do you suggest that the tendency to oversteer is inherent in vehicles having a covered rear storage area?

[bono]

BMW engineers (where the car is designed) and sales people who sit in Germany do not care about the US users who want to tow. Most of BMW sold in the US do not even have the factory option for hitch. At the same time, Europeans are using these vehicles to tow trailers in Europe.

Should they fire these guys in Germany? I have my option on this, but they do not care about it either.

Originally Posted by DewTheDew

You keep claiming that Euro manufacturers are unfamiliar with towing in the US. When pressed you used an example from 15 years ago. You make an assumption that you know better than they do about the capabilities of their vehicles. I find that interesting. Do you similarly think they are unaware that it gets very hot here, or that the Japanese are unaware that it gets much colder in Minnesota than Tokyo? I would suggest that any engineer who was in charge of tow ratings for hitched vehicles for sale in the US and was "not familiar" with WD hitches should be fired.

[jaybauman]

Originally Posted by jcl

1/2 ton trucks, and in fact 3/4 ton trucks, at least the ones I looked at, all had manufacturers recommend WD equipment over a certain tongue weight (5000 lbs seemed to be a common one).

GM recommends no WD for 2500HD/3500HD models, up to the maximum towing capacity.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DewTheDew

You keep claiming that Euro manufacturers are unfamiliar with towing in the US. When pressed you used an example from 15 years ago. You make an assumption that you know better than they do about the capabilities of their vehicles. I find that interesting. Do you similarly think they are unaware that it gets very hot here, or that the Japanese are unaware that it gets much colder in Minnesota than Tokyo? I would suggest that any engineer who was in charge of tow ratings for hitched vehicles for sale in the US and was "not familiar" with WD hitches should be fired.

Not unfamiliar with towing, but unfamiliar with WD equipment, which isn't legal where they live and work. How would they be familiar with it?

When a Euro manufacturer introduced a vehicle with a 7700 lb tow rating to North America, they made no reference to WD equipment. When asked, they said you can't do that. When pressed, they said OK, you can do that, but the same tow rating applies (which is somewhat illogical) They shipped out new labels and modified owner's manuals upon request. Obviously, it is just something that they had not included as a consideration.

It is somewhat theoretical though, since they didn't provide for any means of connecting electric trailer brakes (which also weren't used where they lived and worked) but which are legally required over a certain trailer weight in many jurisdictions where the vehicle was sold in North America.

More recent versions of this class of vehicle have included hitches that detach from a socket. Hides the hitch from view. Looks good to some. But no potential for using WD equipment. Solved that problem.

Temperature? They well understand hot and cold, since they have thermometers as well. They may have come here for testing, but ambient temperature was well understood. Conversely, there was no reason that they would understand WD equipment. Their design manuals didn't address it. And legally, they didn't need to address tow ratings. They aren't a legally controlled thing in North America, unless we are referring to commercial carriers (and generally these vehicles were intended for commercial carrier operation).

[jcl]

Originally Posted by jaybauman

GM recommends no WD for 2500HD/3500HD models, up to the maximum towing capacity.

Thanks for that. I just knew Ford and RAM. I see for the 1500, they allow up to 7000 lbs without WD, 2000 lbs more than Ford, and similar to many SUVs under discussion, at 7700 lbs. For the HD models, if it is not required, why do they list a FALR figure? Do they recommend but not require it?

[camp-n-family]

Originally Posted by 2008AS

Can Am lost me when he suggested using what has turned out to be one of the worst trucks ever produced.

The engine that is likely better suited to RV towing is the 5.0 litre Cummins that is in the Nissan Titan.

Amazing that someone made this guy god of towing.

What are you basing your statement that it’s “one of the worst trucks ever produced” on? Do you have anything to back that up? Just because it didn’t sell well and it was ugly to most people’s eyes doesn’t qualify it as the worst truck for towing. Andy’s suggestion of it being a good tow vehicle was backed up with verifiable evidence. Heavier duty components than a half ton, diesel power and a more stable independent suspension make for a good tow vehicle, not sales numbers and image.

[CanyonMan]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Wow Canyon, last time I checked Semi's don't use overhung hitches nor do they use traditionally designed tow vehicles. They formally call them Semi-tractors for a reason. In the world of logic they would call your analogy a fallacy.

To your previous question about insurance and liability, I honestly don't have a horse in that race. I was simply trying to be helpful and steer you to an answer to your question without having to do the heavy lifting myself. If you don't believe the cases exist, so be it.

OK, while my semi example may have been, according to you a "fallacy, how about 5th wheels, if that is more to your liking. How many trucks outweigh even the lightest and smallest 5er's? Are we to believe that they are all unsafe and should be banned from the road? Your premise does not hold water for so many reasons regarding tow vehicle weight to trailer wight ratio. Your assumption of less than 1:1 would leave many RVer's without a trailer. Even my 6K# trailer outweighs my 1/2 ton PU by ~300#



I actually wasn't looking to be steered to an answer about the weight police because private, specifically non-commercial rigs used for non-commercial purposes, are not governed the same way as commercial rigs. In AZ I don't believe the ADOT police have the authority to check my weight and all of our weigh stations say commercial vehicles only. I believe this is the case in all states. My question was absolutely rhetorical as I have looked far and wide for something like an attorney or insurance company denying coverage or claiming negligence of an RV owner and have never found any. Not saying it hasn't happened, just saying I haven't found an instance of either of those things happening. Even in obvious overload situations like we see on YouTube, like an SUV towing a 30'+ trailer I can't find an example of the driver being charged with a crime or the insurance company denying coverage.



I stay within the limits of my rig for the safety of my wife, myself and others on the road and I hope others do the same.

Canyon

[DewTheDew]

Originally Posted by bono

BMW engineers (where the car is designed) and sales people who sit in Germany do not care about the US users who want to tow. Most of BMW sold in the US do not even have the factory option for hitch. At the same time, Europeans are using these vehicles to tow trailers in Europe.

Should they fire these guys in Germany? I have my option on this, but they do not care about it either.

BMW sold 10,000 more X5's in the US in 2019 than they did in all of Europe according to carsalesbase.com I am pretty sure the German engineers have been here. Pretty sure they tailor vehicles for here. Not sure if you are aware but X5s are BUILT IN THE USA. To claim that these people are ignorant and dismissive of our huge market is pretty bold and I would want some backup on that.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

1/2 ton trucks, and in fact 3/4 ton trucks, at least the ones I looked at, all had manufacturers recommend WD equipment over a certain tongue weight (5000 lbs seemed to be a common one). Your RAM2500 is in that category. Surely you believe that if the manufacturer is recommending it, and since they are deemed to know the vehicle best, WD is a benefit to safe and comfortable towing. And for more than simply "a minority of 1/2 ton trucks" as you suggest.

I just looked through both the manual and the towing guide. Ram did not provide the WD guidance you claim for my vehicle. I do see they affirm it is SAE J2807 compliant. I also see they affirm maximum tongue weight in any configuration is 1,730 lbs WD or not (make ones wonder how to reconcile that with a supposed 5000 lb limit for no WD). I see this is the case for many years for many models. Unless you say otherwise I will conclude you don't know why the OEM recommends WD for some subset of configurations.

When you claim that midsize SUVs are more prone to oversteer than other vehicle types, that doesn't fit my experience.

Performance SUV's do when towing oversized trailers, please don't move the goalpost. What experience do you have testing understeer gradient at various speeds and lateral forces while towing trailers over their documented weight limit?

I have found that manufacturers tend to design vehicles to understeer (solo), as they deem it to be safer. What is the basis of your claim? Since you say "already" you seem to be referring to solo (unhitched) operation. Help me understand.

No, I have provided the range of typical understeer gradients for these vehicles unhitched in other posts. They have issues with oversteer when towing large heavy trailers.

Do you suggest that the tendency to oversteer is inherent in vehicles having a covered rear storage area?

When towing over their OEM towing limit many performance SUV's indeed do.
Rather than obfuscate, perhaps you have information to demonstrate I am in error.

[DewTheDew]

Originally Posted by jcl

Not unfamiliar with towing, but unfamiliar with WD equipment, which isn't legal where they live and work. How would they be familiar with it?

When a Euro manufacturer introduced a vehicle with a 7700 lb tow rating to North America, they made no reference to WD equipment. When asked, they said you can't do that. When pressed, they said OK, you can do that, but the same tow rating applies (which is somewhat illogical) They shipped out new labels and modified owner's manuals upon request. Obviously, it is just something that they had not included as a consideration.

It is somewhat theoretical though, since they didn't provide for any means of connecting electric trailer brakes (which also weren't used where they lived and worked) but which are legally required over a certain trailer weight in many jurisdictions where the vehicle was sold in North America.

More recent versions of this class of vehicle have included hitches that detach from a socket. Hides the hitch from view. Looks good to some. But no potential for using WD equipment. Solved that problem.

Temperature? They well understand hot and cold, since they have thermometers as well. They may have come here for testing, but ambient temperature was well understood. Conversely, there was no reason that they would understand WD equipment. Their design manuals didn't address it. And legally, they didn't need to address tow ratings. They aren't a legally controlled thing in North America, unless we are referring to commercial carriers (and generally these vehicles were intended for commercial carrier operation).

You have discussed this 2005 example. This is 2020. Has it occurred to you that they have thought about it and do not want you to do this rather than just being ignorant after more than 15 years of building X5's in the US? You think no one has told them about WD hitches in all this time while they were in South Carolina? If I thought the BMW engineers were that stupid I'd never have bought one in the first place.