Gcwr

[polarlyse]

Let's not forget that that mid '80's Chevy was not a unibody. It was a body on frame construction much like we see in the trucks of today. Power and gearing were big factors then as now but they were vastly different from the cars we see today. Not to say better but surely different. I'm sure that many miles were accumulated towing the Airstreams of the day with tow vehicles from all different manufacturers.

As stated above the lawyers may not be up on the GVWR's and the details of towing but you can count on the State Police commercial vehicle inspectors being on top of things. We are only likely to encounter them if involved in an MVA where a fatality is involved. Outside of that we non-commercial towers are rarely in their sights. But commercial towers beware.

[Gene]

Excellas in '86 and '87 dry weight was between 5,900 and 7,100 lbs. The 350, though derated, was available in 1985 because I inherited an '85 Toronado with a 350. Still a lot of power, but a terrible car with frequent brake problems.

I don't recall the Caprice having anything but a bad reputation as did most GM cars during that era. There was speculation GM would go bankrupt then, but they improved their cars (not enough) and made it through. The same lame GM kept losing market share and it took another 20 years to clean out the place and now their vehicles are far, far superior.

Was it safe? If you go with the standards of the day, maybe. By today's standards, no.

Were there more towing accidents back then? Maybe those statistics exist somewhere.

Gene

[rostam]

Originally Posted by andreasduess

So was Airstream promoting unsafe tow setups in their marketing materials?

Given that there are many voices on this forum who strongly opine that some of today's setups not involving trucks cannot be trusted, despite the fact that these vehicles are stronger and more capable than almost any vehicle available to the average family during the 1980's, this leaves me with two possible conclusions:

a: towing 30 years ago was inherently unsafe and a far riskier activity as it is today. They just didn't know any better and didn't have the technology available to do a better job. As with airbags and seat belt laws, we've moved on.

or

b: towing 30 years ago was inherently safe, the TVs performed fine under most circumstances. Considering the improvements in car design since the mid-80's, towing today is even safer than it was then, even with a family car.

I am not trying to be confrontational with this post, nor am I trying to change anybody's opinion, I am genuinely interested in people's thoughts on this.

Those old cars, with their limited horsepower/torque, could not pull those trailers very fast. So, probably, the setup was safe for the speed they were travelling. Not being able to go fast also meant stopping (more critical than pulling) was also easier.

I believe, in general, the safety standards have improved in the past 30 years (just compare the IIHS crash test of old vs new cars). Same for towing safety. I would argue a modern car can pull an Airstream more safely than a 30 years old car. I would also argue exceeding the published company ratings (towing capacity, GCVWR, axle weights, payload, and tongue weight), even with after market modification, is unsafe.

[DKB_SATX]

Time has absolutely marched on.

My car is a 2005 Subaru Legacy GT station wagon. 2.5-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder with a 5-speed manual transmission. The most exotic thing about it these days is probably the manual transmission.

It returns similar performance to the Ferrari 308 GTS from Magnum PI. A recent "entry-level" Ferrari (the F430) was measured as doing 0 to 60 and back to 0 in about the same time it took a 308 to just get to 60 (the 0-60-0 time for the F430 was 6.48 seconds, an '80 308 GTS is listed at 6.8 seconds 0-60.

The performance and refinement delivered by cars and trucks available to "regular-guy" first-world citizens is astonishing compared to the state of the art 30 years ago.

[RickDavis]

40 years ago, when I got my first AS most tow vehicles were Suburbans, International Travelall or Pick up trucks with a reasonahle number of large cars thrown in (Cadillacs or similiar.) At that time the biggest AS was the 31 footer. Some of the rigs were marginal, at least in the mountains. Go back a few more years and the Interstate highway system was not complete and a lot of towing was at slower speeds.
There has been dramatic improvement in towing capability, braking ,transmissions, and cooling etc. since then
Also keep in mind that the average vehicle was pretty well worn out at 50,000 miles and a 100k vehicle was rarity. ( my 99 Dodge cummins has 576K )
Hitches were usually fabricated by the local welding shop so who knows what you got.
Not sure when the WD hitch became available but they did exist in the 60's
Probably the worst tow vehicle today is better than 90% of what was used back then.

I am sure some on here remember the Axle hitch, vapor cool ,seide safety skids and other add on products

[rostam]

Originally Posted by RickDavis

At risk of being wrong, I believe I read in a recent (last 6 months) Turbo Diesel Register that the SAE did come up with a set of standards. I also recall it saying that Toyota is the only one following them at this time

SAE did come with a standard (0-60 in less than 30 secs, breaking, not heating up going up a mountainous road with AC on, etc), and only Toyota agreed to implement it. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all refused. Why? because their vehicles' tow ratings would take a hit (they surely would have implemented the standard if their cars/trucks were as capable as they advertised). So, take the towing capacity of the big 3 with a grain of salt. When Toyota says Land Cruiser can tow 8200#, it has actually passed a rigorous, standardized test. Not the same thing can be said about many other makers.

[Gene]

Those Ferraris are sure slow. I think a Tundra 5.7 L. engine with a Toyota supercharger has clocked 4.5 sec. to 60, though I don't know how quick it stops. For the price of a Ferrari I can get a bunch of Tundras. The Tundra stock engine is about 6.5 sec. to 60. I keep waiting for some kid to ask me if I want to drag.

Gene

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by Gene

Those Ferraris are sure slow. I think a Tundra 5.7 L. engine with a Toyota supercharger has clocked 4.5 sec. to 60, though I don't know how quick it stops. For the price of a Ferrari I can get a bunch of Tundras. The Tundra stock engine is about 6.5 sec. to 60. I keep waiting for some kid to ask me if I want to drag.

Gene

Compared to what's on the market today, yeah, the 308 is pretty slow. A $500 programmer will get my Legacy's 0-60 time down to around 5 seconds. I don't want that, I have a hard enough time keeping my foot out of it as it is.

I wouldn't recommend you running for pinks against an F430 when you're in the Tundra, blower or no.

[andreasduess]

Originally Posted by rostam

I would also argue exceeding the published company ratings (towing capacity, GCVWR, axle weights, payload, and tongue weight), even with after market modification, is unsafe.

While I agree with payload and axle weights, I'd argue that GCVWR and towing capacity are numbers arrived at by the marketing rather than the engineering department.

[RickDavis]

Originally Posted by andreasduess

While I agree with payload and axle weights, I'd argue that GCVWR and towing capacity are numbers arrived at by the marketing rather than the engineering department.

Anything the marketing department does will be more optimistic than the engineering department which normally will be fairly conservative. This was a constant battle where I used to work

[rostam]

Originally Posted by andreasduess

While I agree with payload and axle weights, I'd argue that GCVWR and towing capacity are numbers arrived at by the marketing rather than the engineering department.

I agree. That's why I believe exceeding the towing capacity/GCVWR is unsafe, because those figures have already been inflated by the marketing department (hence some people use the 80% rule in deciding the towing capacity). Until all car companies start using the same standard in determining the towing capacity (SAE standard is a good start), those numbers do not mean much. For example, Toyota Sequoia was rated at 10000# towing capacity. After SAE standards was implemented by Toyota, it towing capacity dropped to 7400#. Many other cars/trucks will follow suit if they implement SAE standards (hence their refusal to implement it).

[andreasduess]

It is my belief that both towing capacity and CVWR numbers have close to zero engineering backup. This belief is backed up by the observation that vehicles from one manufacturer using the same components, i.e engines, brakes, transmission etc, frequently have very different values assigned to them, depending on their intended use.

There's just too many inconsistencies for any of this to make any sense of any kind. For example, a 1999 Honda Odyssey, which is a totally different vehicle from a late gen Odyssey, has the exact same stated towing capacity, 3500lbs.

This despite the fact that drivetrain, engine, body, brakes, transmission, pretty much everything about the entire vehicle has been re-engineered, strengthened, improved during the last 15 years.

My suspicion? Nobody has even looked at changing the value, it just got transferred from the second gen Honda Odyssey onwards. (I believe the first gen stated capacity was 2400lbs)

Payload and axle weight count and should not be ignored. As a result, these are the numbers I care about.

[MrUKToad]

Back to the original point about GCWR, if you can't adequately pin down to how it was derived, measured and tested then you have no hope of using it in any legal argument.

[MrUKToad]

Originally Posted by rostam

I would also argue exceeding the published company ratings (towing capacity, GCVWR, axle weights, payload, and tongue weight), even with after market modification, is unsafe.

But to back your argument you will need evidence, both on the derivation of said ratings and to show that exceeding them is actually unsafe. I'm not sure that evidence exists.

[Denis4x4]

Adding the vehicle GWR and the actual trailer weight as opposed to the towing capacity should give you credible numbers for the GCWR. On the way to this campsite, I weighed the '13 GC and 25' Safari and it came to 12,182 pounds. If you add the GWR and the towing capacity as some here are doing, this combo would approach 14,500 GCWR. I've towed this Safari with an F-250 V-10, GMC 2500 HD and a Silverado 2500HD. Quite frankly, the GC is more comfortable, has better torque that the 6.0 liter GM products, stops better and is far more comfortable than any pickup.

In the early seventies, I experimented with ads in Trailer Life and Camper Coachman offering speed equipment redesigned for towing. This was an offshoot of a program designed to produce more power for racers traveling cross country with ramp trucks or tow trucks. This program was a hit right out of the box. My clients included makers of intake manifolds, electronic ignitions, exhaust headers, clutches/flywheels and cam grinders.

There were several magazine tests using a combination of these products that proved to vastly improve the towing performance of late sixties, early seventies passenger cars and pickups of the era.

In as much as emission controls were starting to become standard on cars of that era, several tests actually showed that in some cases that emissions were actually reduced. Sadly, brake performance never matched up to the improved engine performance.

I do keep a weight certificate in the glove box with the insurance card and registration.

[Gene]

I don't doubt the power of marketing departments in coming out with dumb claims. The power of marketing over engineering is what led US manufacturers down the road to poor quality and overstimulated marketing. Consumers figured it out and bought foreign made vehicles.

Toyota adopted the SAE standards. That is a good sign and US manufacturers will be forced to adopt them fairly soon as the market realizes what is happening. I always thought the Sequoia was overrated. It is heavier than the Tundra and has a softer suspension.

For those of us without engineering credentials and testing equipment, we have to accept that the ratings are fairly accurate and if we own a Toyota, more accurate than other manufacturers' claims. If involved in a lawsuit, you can say you saw the manufacturers' numbers and having no way to test them (unless you work in a testing facility), had no other way of knowing the scientific truth. If you derate the vehicle yourself—using the 80% "rule"—so much the better as a defendant. Your insurance company will handle the argument anyway because they have to provide you with an attorney, and they will probably settle to avoid litigation costs.

I and others have said before we want to see more testing of RV's. But the RV market is not big enough to attract the kind of money necessary to properly test RV's and tow vehicles. Some attention grabbing accidents with many children killed and intense media coverage might change that, but no one hopes for that outcome. The manufacturers don't have a good reason to do the testing as long as most people don't pay attention. The only thing that can make such testing happen is for the government to require it and there doesn't appear to much interest for that these days. We should congratulate SAE for trying to do something. I don't anticipate RV testing to happen any time soon and we will be forced to speculate and threads debating these topics will be a constant for the future.

Gene

[rostam]

Originally Posted by MrUKToad

But to back your argument you will need evidence, both on the derivation of said ratings and to show that exceeding them is actually unsafe. I'm not sure that evidence exists.

We in this forum are not automobile engineers. We have not been involved in the design and development process of the tow vehicles we drive. Nobody has evidence regarding the tow ratings of our vehicles, but the manufacturer. Hence, the ultimate authority on the towing specs is the car company.

You should call Toyota, tell them that you have modified your car (transmission cooler, beefed up the hitch, etc). Then ask them if it is safe to tow more than the 3500# Sienna is rated for. I bet you they will tell you its unsafe and you should not do it. I believe and trust what Toyota (the biggest auto maker of the world) says. But, to each their own.

[subfan1]

I'd like to tow our 20 flying cloud with a car but, we have a Tahoe because we live in the desert southwest and we need to climb out of the Los Angeles basin to get anywhere. The summers are hot and our Tahoe with our current trailer pulling a 7% grade, Grapevine, Cajon pass and others such as Sherwin summit out of Bishop, the Tahoe temperatures go up rather fast. The transmission tops out at 230F the collant tops at 250F the car is serviced when we get back because I'm afraid the fluids have degraded. The Tahoe has the factory tow package and is rated to tow 7500lbs. I could not see a car tow our 20 ft without major overheating it. I'd like to down grade to a Traverse for example but, I'm afraid I could get over these major climbs.

[m.hony]

Originally Posted by andreasduess

Borrowed from another poster, BradB, but worth posting here too - a 1987 Airstream brochure:

I wonder what the tow rating on this TV would be, happily married to a 34' triple axle. What I do suspect, strongly, is that my 2008 Honda is superior in any way to the car on the Airstream brochure - payload, engine, brakes.

(I didn't grow up in North America, so I have no idea what car this is. Perhaps somebody else can dig up the numbers)

That car is a Chevrolet Caprice Classic with a 105 horsepower 5.0 liter v8. It was as good a tow vehicle as any in its day. It was not out of place in its time as all cars were weak and underpowered.
Average v6 cars now have nearly double the horsepower and better brakes
I still don't think people should exceed the tow rating or payload of a vehicle.
The new Nissan Pathfinder commercial showing the Pathfinder towing a big old Airstream that is heavier than the tow capacity of the Pathfinder with no umbilical cord, no weight distributing hitch, and no sway control is a joke..

[m.hony]

150 horsepower...

Good ole floatin' boat.