Fantasy Tow Vehicle - May the Forces Be With You

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by mstephens

"Canadian Low Riders"

I really loved that expression Steve H. I just read it in Road Ruler's link. Cool.

Ok, I wanted to add one more thing. I haven't sold the Suburban yet, and it is looking like I will have both TVs for a period of overlap. So, if it turns out the Chrysler doesn't cut the mustard, I can bail out of it and just keep driving the Suburban. I would be out a few grand, but it won't be the end of the world.

That "expression" was in no way intended to insult either Canadians, or Low Riders, but just that the look comes to my mind when any vehicle is loaded to, or beyond maximum of manufacturer's design, and seems to be most popular in Canada.

All vehicles simply go down when loaded that heavily.

[mstephens]

I didn't see it as an insult. I thought it was clever and humorous. Makes a nice short reference compared to, "guys who follow the Canadian method of using lighter vehicles for towing."

[rluhr]

mstephens:

I don't usually get into these towing threads, but I have to say that your introduction in post #1 is the clearest explanation I have ever read of why it's important to discuss "alternative" tow vehicles. Your post #58 is the best explanation I've ever seen of why some of us are looking beyond the manufacturer ratings. Excellent work at clarifying a complicated topic.

Some people aren't comfortable with empirical evidence, and you will hear from those people at every gas station and campground you visit. Be ready for that. Even now I still get comments about our Mercedes GL320 towing an Airstream Safari Bunkhouse 30, like this:

"Do you really tow that big trailer around with that little car?"
[No, I pulled it here to the gas station with a rope in my teeth and then hooked it up to the car just for show.]

"You must be getting blown all over the road with that thing!"
[No, that's your giant white square box and high-profile truck you're thinking of.]

Keep in mind that my rig is below the manufacturer's ratings for GVWR and trailer weight (but we run at about 95% of both ratings). It doesn't matter. Lots of people evaluate tow vehicles based on size and perceived brawniness. It's harder to understand the vehicle dynamics you can't see readily, like live axle vs. independent suspension, overhang percentage, transmission design, etc.

Seeing that you are going to do all the diligent things necessary to hitch up your Airstream properly, I think you'll find the Chrysler to be a surprisingly good performer.

Still, the "fantasy tow vehicle" of this thread is a highly individual thing. I've driven Andy T's Chrysler 300M with a 34-foot Airstream. We drove it down Autoroute 20 in Quebec at high speed. I've driven his Jetta towing a 23 footer, and his Ford Taurus SHO with a 25-footer. All of them are absolutely amazing in their performance, handling, and braking. I like them but my general objection is the lack of cargo capacity (compared to a SUV or truck) and occasionally the stiff ride.

No question, they aren't for everyone, but the demonstration of these vehicles benefits everyone. Andy T has led the way in talking about why some vehicle characteristics are better than others, and if this results in trucks that handle better because they have adopted four-wheel independent suspension, decreased overhang and center of gravity, etc., then even the "bigger is better" crowd will owe him a debt — and we'll all be a bit safer.

So talking about "fantasy tow vehicles" is a great exercise. My fantasy tow vehicle is not the Mercedes GL diesel that I currently use but it's as close as I can come in the real world given our needs. It goes off-road very well, and it hauls 7 people when I need it to. If I were a single guy, I might be towing with a Corvette!

The point is, to those who only trust authority, none of these options exist. For those who are willing to explore further, there are a lot of interesting options that have empirically been demonstrated to work.

[m.hony]

Originally Posted by mstephens

Because you didn't like it? Or? Tell me about it! I am only considering it because of the round bars.

It was a great hitch. I have an Equal-i-zer now- less steps/parts and easier to hitch up. I kept it for a while thinking I might use it again someday, but got tired of stepping over/around it in the shed.

[Andrew T]

Here is a picture of the hitch on a 300S. Hemi's are slightly different due to exhaust routing. By spreading the hitch loads over a large distance you acheive a very strong installation. In this case we start with a bolt on receiver and add the center bar to absorb the torque from the torsion bars.

Andrew T

[mstephens]

Rluhr- --

Thanks for the comments, and good wishes. I'd be nuts if I said I wasn't a shade nervous about all this. But also excited. I have the car home and I am crawling all over it trying to see what I actually bought! First good news is that on the 50 mile trip home, which includes 0 to 2700 to 0 elevation change, I got 34.9MPG doing 65MPH most of the way.

Andy has sent me loads of pics and details on the hitch, suspension and more - what a guy! And what a resource here!

[Chuck]

Just remember: it didn't happen without pictures.

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by mstephens

Oh that's nice! How many miles have you towed with the G35?

We had Can Am set it up in 2005. Since then we have had it out about 35 times. Many trips to Northern Ontario and some down into New York State. Will guess about 15,000miles of towing. Not a lot considering there are a number of cars that have towed Airstreams many, many, times that amount.

[rodsterinfl]

Fantasy is a correct term here. One of the most common discussions on this forum is about tow vehicles. About a month ago a teacher friend of mine and I were talking about this and I mentioned the forum - about people posting that you can alter vehicles to tow just about anything, etc. Paul laughed and shared his story of their Honda late model Odyssey that was altered to tow their first RV - a trailer they purchased and how it destroyed the Honda on their first trip out west leaving them stranded. He paid a lot for the special altering of their van and hitch. He brought me a DVD video that he got afterwards (RV Video Training Series from RVTV & RV Education 101) I watched it just last month. There is a section that specifically addresses choosing a tow vehicle. The important factors are all the weight tolerances and tow limits. The weight limits he speaks of are axles ratings, payload capacity, power tolerances (transmission, etc). When you get all the way through it the gist is that the vehicle from production must be designed to work with the weight you are wanting to work with to be safe. Anything less is making it unsafe for you and others on the road. Where opinions flourish is how so and so can make it tow this or that BUT I would counter it with the fact that the tranny, the frame, the hitch, the engine ALL have to be able (designed) to do it to tow anywhere for trips etc.

When I first purchased my Airstream I had a 2010 VW Sportwagen TDI that I used as a daily driver -30mpg in town. I sold it to drive my F150 that has gotten 15mpg in town at best; however, the difference I pay in fuel is almost exactly what the insurance premium was for the VW so I am ahead at least in removing depreciation, operating costs and freed up cash. The ecoboost is on my list and will probably be in my next truck. I believe we will be seeing a 25% increase in mpg with Ford at least in the next year - they are all but guaranteeing it. That should put 70 mph highway mileage around 26-27 mpg or so (minimal) not towing. BTW, Paul and his wife now have a motorhome! The bad advice they received did not scare them away from camping but it did alter their choice of RV. I ride a mid sized scooter, recently purchased, to work often. It gets 95 mpg and I can use it camping too!

The manufacturers publish towing guides for their products. These are a good reference. What is being suggested is that "authoritative" data be overridden for another source- someone in business a long time because it supports the desire to circumvent established guideline. Unibody vehicles today have a cage for passengers but do not have a frame per se. That is why they are lighter and cannot tow much by design.

[ROBERT CROSS]

We can do anything, what a team.

[mstephens]

No. Authority is NOT being replaced by another source, it is being replaced by empirical testing. This is how every scientific advance in history has been made. It is called the scientific method. It is very strict. There must be sucessful observable results at each stage in order to proceed.

Thus far, aside from claims that the authority must be obeyed, there has not been a single dissenting opinion containing any data or any evidence defining what the failure will be. "It can't be done," is not a useful claim in a technical or engineering context. It tends to sound like an argument that one is about to sail off the edge of a flat earth, only with fewer specifics. My question remains, how do you account for the hundreds of vehicles and millions of miles of success?

I was in university when we went to the moon. I often wonder how we totally lost that can-do spirit and became mezmerized by authority.

[Andrew T]

"how it destroyed the Honda on their first trip out west leaving them stranded"

It is interesting how we form opinions based on what is really very little information. We have been setting up Odysseys since they were first introduced in 1999 and have now set up several hundred plus a number of Ridgelines, Pilots and Accura's that all have the same basic platform and drivetrain. The Odyssey is the best tow vehicle of all these even though it has the lowest tow rating. The Odyssey rating was set by Lee Ioccoca from Chrysler fame.

One of our customers currently has a 2002 Odyssey that he has been towing a 2002 30' Classic extensively for 11 years now and has over 200,000 miles on it. Certainly if they were dropping like flies we would no longer be recomending them to customers.

In your friends case we do not know the year make and model of trailer, how it was connected, which was likely wrong. Odysseys without the factory tow package need a transmission cooler added etc. We also don't know if he was given any education on how to drive it. You get out west on a 7 mile grade with a box trailer and 30 mph headwind you need to slow down and let the engine run in its powerband not lugging or screaming.

There are a lot of really bad towing trailers out there. We have a 17' 2800 pound square trailer on our lot at the moment. So often the education with a customer that arrives driving an Odyessy or something similar is "no you cannot tow that one" "I know we said you can tow the 5000 pound Airstream and you can"

Remember they don't build square Airplanes with 12" deep steel frames.

Andrew T

[andreasduess]

I am one of Andy's customers who tows with an Odyssey. Our trailer is a 34' International. I can confirm that in our experience the Ody is a terrific tow vehicle, stable, powerful and capable.

I've said this a number of times before, but it bears repeating. I've got an OBDII reader installed that, amongst other things, measures the hp developed at the wheel. The highest output ever registered was 141hp when going from a standing start on a steep hill. Towing on the highway asks for about 50hp, when level and with no headwind.

It doesn't take much power to tow an Airstream. It's nice to have, and torque is even nicer, but you do not need a huge monster of an engine especially when most of it isn't used to lug the TV around.

[mstephens]

I think there is a general misconception arising that since trucks have BOF construction, and cars have unibody construction, the truck must be "stronger" simply by virtue of having a body on frame. Not necessarily true.

Crawl under your unibody car and look carefully at how it is formed. It's not a simple eggshell with some holes punched in it for mounting parts. The frame is literally folded and rolled into the chassis. This unibody chassis idea is used on cars with 600 HP motors. How is that possible if the chassis is not incredible strong?

Let's consider for a moment the Chrysler 300 which has been under scrutiny in this thread. Using the same unibody shell, it comes in many flavors of engines - V6, and two V8s. Let's look at the big 6.2L V8 mounted in this car, and churning out 470 HP and 470 ft.lbs of torque. Same "unibody" that I have with a V6. What might we want to change on the car if we went from a 300 horse V6 to an almost 500 horse V8? How about the suspension components - springs, shocks, brakes and the bits holding them? Imagine punching that bad boy off a dead start. Are the wheels going to fly off the body? Will the body twist up like a pretzel? I don't think so.

Unibody design allows for building the strength parts - e.g. beams, braces, gussets - directly into the body. Folded/welded metal box beams in a unibody will do every bit the work of a closed box steel beam frame member. It's only a question of design, not fundamentals. If this were not true, the racing world would have ended 100 years ago.

The place for scrutiny then, is the parts they attach to this chassis. And this is true for either BOF or unibody. It's certainly fair to question whether the tires, wheels, brakes, shocks, springs and such are "good enough" for this towing application. I think that is the actual engineering question to solve for. One could say, how do I increase my GVWR or my GAWR? And within reasonable ranges, it may simply be some suspension components. Or, maybe it is as simple as distributing the weight. Consider that in the above example of the V6 and V8 Chrysler, there is a difference of 375 pounds of curb weight on the same chassis.

Let's consider safety. The 2012 Ford F-150 gets a 4-star rating, while the 2012 Chrysler 300 gets a 5-star rating. Inherently then, built into the original design, is a higher safety rating for the smaller vehicle? How is this possible in the bigger is better model? It's made possible because good design is not a simple matter of mass or brute force.

You can't judge a book by its cover. Looks can be deceiving. Are there more cliches to toss in? What counts is how a thing is designed, not how it appears outwardly. I think a chassis designed for 470 horsepower motors is an inherently strong design. What remains is to examine the bits that might need changing, and to properly arrange the hitch. And we mustn't exaggerate what is being done. I am not going to add 2000# of payload to a car with a 1000# spec. I am perhaps going to add 1000# to a car with a 1100# spec which may get raised by some added bits to say 1300#. That's the nature of the task here.

[mstephens]

And, one more time, let's talk about the manufacturer's tow rating of this car. It is 1000# stated. How was that specific number determined? Let's look at the possibilities. First, it might have been determined by test. If so, it raises some obvious questions. How did it come out to a round number like 1000, just like dozens and dozens of other cars not marketed as tow vehicles? Why wasn't it 700? or 1300? Next, why isn't it closer to the 3500# or 5000# rating on other vehicles that use similar chassis and components, like minivans and crossovers? Again, look under the cars and study the components. And finally, if it was actually tested, where are the results found? Can anyone produce a test report of any kind? Well, I realize these would be company confidential of course, but the point is, no one can show any DATA regarding the low numbers on cars not marketed for towing.

Another way of assigning the number is to use arbitrary marketing decisions. As Andy T. pointed out in his radio interview, makers are always taking a risk with tow ratings because they only control 1/3 of the towing equation: the car. The hitch and trailer are out of their purview. So, if they are going to take a risk by offering a tow rating like 9000#, they will want a reward to offset that risk. The reward is more sales of those vehicles. Tow rating is a major top 10 spec for selling trucks. Since almost no one considers a sedan for towing, there is no reward available by raising the tow number. It won't sell enough additional units to offset the risk and the cost of testing and conformance.

When you see all sorts of different sedan chassis made by many different makers, and they all carry a "1000#" tow rating, the best assumption is that this is an arbitrary value assigned with no testing, and no particular thought about the usefulness of a towing spec. And it makes perfect sense for them to do that. I would do the same thing, unless I was going to specifically try to aggressively market a sedan for towing. Then I would test it, and then make TV ads showing the car towing the trailer or boat and really sell it. But, I think they know people love trucks for that action, and so they don't bother trying to convert a few hundred people who might like the idea. Mass marketing is always about following the crowd.

[andreasduess]

It is incorrect to assume that BOF vehicles are automatically and inherently stronger than unibody vehicles. The opposite is often true, especially for twisting resistance. A narrow frame will twist far easier than a wider unibody vehicle of similar weight.

I suspect that this perception has to do with the visibility of the frame - it looks strong - vs the invisibility of the built-in strength of unibody construction.

Unibody vehicles are routinely designed for far higher speeds than BOF vehicles and, outside the US, are routinely driven at these speeds. In Europe, it is far from unusual to see cars travelling at 120mph and faster. All of these cars are of unibody construction and have zero issues dealing with the resulting demands, be that on the drivetrain, the body or the brakes.

[Denis4x4]

mstephens has made the case for thinking outside the box. After 25 plus years, I came to the conclusions that there are better alternatives to a 3/4 ton PU to pull a 25' AS. Before setting up my '13 Grand Cherokee, I put it on the lift, took photos and sent them to Andy at CanAm. The way the receiver hitch is bolted to the unibody is impressive. When I ordered my ProPride hitch, I had the actual hitch sent without a hole so that I could get it as far into the receiver as possible. Probably moved the hitch an inch and a half or two inches closer to the rear axle.

We've had a lot of RV's and several sailboats over the years and have made a conscious effort to leave a lot of stuff in the garage that, it turns out, we really didn't need anyway! I've had a half a dozen big tow trucks over the years and we really enjoy the ride, comfort and economy of the Grand Cherokee with a factory tow package, six speed auto and a hemi. As I've mentioned in past threads, the Jeep has more HP and torque that the 2012 Chevy 2500 I traded in.

There are a lot of reasons to use a truck to pull your AS, but there are just as many reasons to think outside the box and look at alternatives to those trucks and big SUV's.

[mstephens]

Denis---
Congrats on the Jeep. Now, do you mean you move the hitch ball closer to the body by drilling your own hole in the shank? I know that was something Andy mentioned that one should get the ball as close to the body as possible.

I am not yet planning (yet) on a ProPride, but I assume the same would be possible with any hitch I choose. It definitely makes sense to get the ball close.

Nice to hear your story with the Grand Cherokee - thanks for posting it.

[Chuck]

Is the 3.6 that they put in the 300 the same one they put in the mini-vans?

Here's a fantasy combo: Hemi in a Caravan. Then you'd really have something!

[Road Ruler]

Close to the back bumper is a good thing no matter what the TV is.....