I know this has been rehashed a number of times here, but I'd like to get some opinions.
BTW, I'm a newbie to the board, but I've been pop-up camping for many years, and trailering various things for decades.
I have a 93 Coleman pop-up, I think it's a 6ft box. 995lbs is the dry weight, so it's fairly light. We camp, only 4 or 5 times a year, so I really only do very light duty towing.
In the past I towed it with a 94 Taurus wagon, 1500lb towing capacity. This car did okay. You could feel the weight, and stopping distances were a bit long. With a family of 4 (2 pre-teen kids) and about 200-400 lbs of gear I was probably at about the limit of what this car could handle. We did that for several years without misshap. It worked well enough.
I then we switched to an 02 VW Eurovan, 4500lb capacity. Great tow vehicle! Horrendeously unreliable and expensive piece of garbage! It's gone.
So I'm in-between tow vehicles!
I threw a hitch on my 04 Chrysler Sebring Convertible, 1000lb towing capacity, but it's not cutting it. I'm sure I'm overloading it, and the brakes are weak to begin with. We towed the camper twice like this last summer, but It's not safe.
So, I'm looking at 2 cars to replace the Sebring, and I'm curious if anyone has direct experience with these cars, or something very similar:
(BTW, I'm really only looking at Toyota's and Honda's. I know they don't make the best tow vehicles, but I have my reasons)
My preference would be a Toyota Matrix, manual transmission. I know this is a small car with a 4 cyl engine, but the tow rating IS 1500lbs. If it tows at least as well as the Taurus I may go for this. It fits the majority of what I want out of a car (fits my lifestyle the best), but is probably marginal on towing. If I get this we may use 2 cars to camp. Put the gear and kids in one car, and lug the camper empty with the Matrix.
Probably a better option for towing is a Toyota RAV4. I would be looking at a used, 04 or 05 with a manual tranny and 2.4L 4 cyl. The tow rating is still only 1500lbs, like the Matrix, but it has better cargo capacity, GVWR, and bigger brakes. The disadvantage here is I tow so infrequently that I have to live with lower gas mileage all year long, just to go camping a couple times a year.
So ... comments? Suggestions?
Big trucks, pickups, and large SUV's are just out of the question.
You probably should stick with a 6 cylinder vehicle in terms of towing. You could try a Honda Accord V6. That should do the job. If you are concerned with braking, you probably should invest in brakes for the popup and a brake controller.
Quote from: edwardr132You probably should stick with a 6 cylinder vehicle in terms of towing. You could try a Honda Accord V6. That should do the job. If you are concerned with braking, you probably should invest in brakes for the popup and a brake controller.
Thanks for the suggestion, but no for the V6. Like I said I tow very infrequently and I don't want to pay the gas mileage penalty all year long.
Power is really not the issue for towing. Especially with a trailer as light as this. It may require slowing down, and gearing down on longer hills, but I'm okay with that. I should mention I live near Boston and camp in NH ... so I don't encounter very many hills of significance.
It's really the braking capacity, and to some extent the internal cargo capacity of the car. Trailer brakes are a good suggestion. I'll have to look into that if I go with a smaller car.
Sedans are also really out of the question. I do need the cargo space of a wagon type body, even when not towing. If Honda still imported the Accord Wagon though ...
Also, you couldn't give me Honda with an automatic transmission. I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning. I can count 5 people I know who have Accords with automatic transmissions which have failed, some multiple times. I'm a big Honda fan, but I wouldn't touch thier automatic trannies.
So, Manual transmission is an absolute requirement, no matter what car I get.
I should also mention that minivan's are out too. Just too big for daily use.
I'm really focusing on the smallest vehicle I can find that's capable of doing the Job. So that's why I'm looking for folks with some direct experience on these 2 vehicles.
I hope I don't sound too closed minded about this, but I'm 90% decided on one of these 2 vehicles, and I'm looking for some input to make sure I have'nt overlooked something.
The standard trans is probably a good choice.
There are things that you can do to make your brakes safer. Look into to some HD metallic brake pads that are made for towing. Also slotted and chamfered disc brake rotors will eliminate heat faster and decrease the event of brake fading. Brake fade is the #1 danger in towing. It must be considered when towing with a passenger car.
Quote from: waveryThe standard trans is probably a good choice.
There are things that you can do to make your brakes safer. Look into to some HD metallic brake pads that are made for towing. Also slotted and chamfered disc brake rotors will eliminate heat faster and decrease the event of brake fading. Brake fade is the #1 danger in towing. It must be considered when towing with a passenger car.
hmmm ... this kind of differs from what I'd read on various internet sites about brakes?? From what I've read slotted rotors only channel off water better, but do nothing for heat dissipation? Also, metalic pads tend to hold heat and glaze. (perhaps I was reading some marketing lies, and not real facts ???)
I upgraded the brakes on my Chrysler to race grade ceramic pads. The semi metalics I was using did tend to glaze. The ceramics perform much better. I did not put on slotted rotors, but have considered it.
Now, what's a chamfered rotor?? That's a new term on me.
Since I really could use the wagon type vehicle anyway, and this Chrysler also an unreliable car, Im not going to upgrade the brakes on this vehicle ... but It's a possibility for the new one. Although I would hope not to have to.
Towing approximatly 1000lbs really isn't all that much weight. Most vehicles should be able to do this without too much trouble ... I hope. ;-)
I did a quick search on wikipedia for chamfered. I see this term associated with brake pads to reduce squealing ... but not rotors.
BTW wavery I looked at your webshots pages. Nice camper. I'd say mine is 1/2 that size. Your brave to tow that with an LH! ;-)
A member of our fishing group pulls a small 8' box Jayco with a base weight of maybe 1100 lbs (plus he thinks maybe 300 lbs additional cargo), with a 4 banger/5 manual tranny, Subaru Forester. I think he told me the Forester has a tow rating of 2000 lbs here in the USA (which he says is controversial as it's rated higher in places outside the USA). Anyway, what is important, is that he pulls the little Jayco up some mountain passes to always show-up where we are at with our larger tow rated engines! I've rode in his Subaru, without it being hitched to the popup, to travel to some fishing spots or ride into town. Think he said it has all wheel drive ... but I'm impressed (what I call the little station wagon) with the general performance. Good gas mileage, walks right up some steep inclines and not all that uncomfortable riding!
Fly
Yes, I looked at a Forester. Definatly an option. They're pretty beefy little cars.
The RAV is slighly larger inside, and has better predicted reliabilty, but other than that they should be comparable. I guess I should give that one a second look.
Quote from: flyfishermanA member of our fishing group pulls a small 8' box Jayco with a base weight of maybe 1100 lbs (plus he thinks maybe 300 lbs additional cargo), with a 4 banger/5 manual tranny, Subaru Forester. I think he told me the Forester has a tow rating of 2000 lbs here in the USA (which he says is controversial as it's rated higher in places outside the USA). Anyway, what is important, is that he pulls the little Jayco up some mountain passes to always show-up where we are at with our larger tow rated engines! I've rode in his Subaru, without it being hitched to the popup, to travel to some fishing spots or ride into town. Think he said it has all wheel drive ... but I'm impressed (what I call the little station wagon) with the general performance. Good gas mileage, walks right up some steep inclines and not all that uncomfortable riding!
Fly
Fly beat me to mentioning the Subarus. I know that you haven't listed them, on the other hand, you said you were considering Hondas and Toyotas, yet nothing was mentioned about the Honda model you were considering.
They (Subaru) supposedly have the towing capacity, but from my families expensive experiences with several of them, I'm not sure that I would want to buy one. No one in the family has them anymore.
Quote from: rtt108hmmm ... this kind of differs from what I'd read on various internet sites about brakes?? From what I've read slotted rotors only channel off water better, but do nothing for heat dissipation? Also, metalic pads tend to hold heat and glaze. (perhaps I was reading some marketing lies, and not real facts ???)
I upgraded the brakes on my Chrysler to race grade ceramic pads. The semi metalics I was using did tend to glaze. The ceramics perform much better. I did not put on slotted rotors, but have considered it.
Now, what's a chamfered rotor?? That's a new term on me.
Since I really could use the wagon type vehicle anyway, and this Chrysler also an unreliable car, Im not going to upgrade the brakes on this vehicle ... but It's a possibility for the new one. Although I would hope not to have to.
Towing approximatly 1000lbs really isn't all that much weight. Most vehicles should be able to do this without too much trouble ... I hope. ;-)
The "Chamfered rotors" have holes drilled in them to reduce heat. They are very popular in racing. Have a look here:
http://www.brakeco.com/Brake%20rotors,%20brake%20pads.htmI originally installed ceramic brake pads but I was told that they may not take the weight of towing. If you look at websites, all of the ones
that I have found state, "Not for towing". That concerned me so I pulled the ceramics off and installed a semi-metallic pad that IS recommended for towing. I have the box in my garage. I'll go down later and check out the brand and type. I did a lot of research at the time but I didn't save it. Please research it carefully and make your own decision.
Thanks wavery! I thought they were called cross-drilled rotors, which is usually done for weight. But I also thought I had read they reduce braking ability and make the rotor more fragile??? Like you , I did this research some time ago, and didn't save any information. But you're right, I probably didn't research this specifically with towing in mind. So perhaps the hardware I have currently is not ideal.
wynot, I also have concerns about the reliability of supergoos. On paper they look like an ideal car. I know a couple of folks who love them. I also know 2 people with the Legacy Outbacks who have had catastrophic engine failures! So I think I'll have to do a lot more research on them.
As for Honda, the CRV and Element are about the only possibilities, but I think I'd go with a RAV4 first.
Of course I'll need to eat a ton of crow at work if I show up with an SUV! :(
Quote from: rtt108Thanks wavery! I thought they were called cross-drilled rotors, which is usually done for weight. But I also thought I had read they reduce braking ability and make the rotor more fragile??? (
Actually, cross-drilling has little to do with weight reduction. It is mainly for heat dissipation. Heat build-up in road racing vehicles is a serious problem, just like in towing. The ounce of material that is removed by drilling the rotors would mean nothing if it jeopardized the safety of the car and/or driver.
I have also read about the possibility of these rotors cracking and/or warping. However, when I read statements from actual users, I saw none of this mentioned.
The fact is, it makes more sense that the heat dissipation would help to discourage warping. I can just tell you that I have had them on for 20K miles now and I find them quite effective on
MY car.
This won't directly answer your questions, but, wth.
Don't worry about the 4-cyl - 6-cyl issue. I towed my 3,000lb camper all over the country with a 4-cyl Toyota Previa (supercharged) for years. No problems.
I don't know much about the Rav4, but I'm a Toyota man all the way. The Highlander is a towing champ. I know that the way Toyota reports the towing capacity is different than the way other manufacturers do. With Toyota, if they say 1500 lb, it's 1500 lb of trailer. You don't have to subtract the weight carried in the vehicle. So, my guess is that you'd be very happy with the Rav4.
-Speak
If that's true about Toyota ... I could just get the Matrix 8-) I'd prefer driving that most of the time anyway.
I'm going to drive a RAV tomorrow, and maybe a Forester just for grins.
Too bad I can't bring the trailer and hook it up!
A slight correction on what I said earlier (before I get flamed).
You do have to count the trailer's tongue weight against what the vehicle can carry. So, if your vehicle weight capacity is, say, 900 lb and your tongue weight is 200 lb, now you only have 700 lb left for passengers and gear.
-Speak
Back to the ceramic brake pad question: I installed ceramics on my front brakes of my Durango last year. Like Wavery, I was a bit concerned about using them for towing applications (and PMed with Wavery about it). From the research I did via the Internet, the only warning against using ceramics for towing came from the Bosch website. I couldn't find any other brake pad manufacturer claiming that, and Bosch didn't say anything about why.
I posted questions about it on several different boards, and nobody really had an answer as to why Bosch says don't use ceramics for towing. Everything about ceramics would seem to point in favor of using them for towing. So I went ahead and put them on. After one summer's worth of towing my pup with them (nearly 2,000 miles total), including lots of mountain driving, and no brakes on my pup (please don't flame me on that one!), I can report that the ceramics are great. They stop well. No overheating. No squealing. And little/no brake dust on your wheels.
So unless someone has some concrete reasons against using ceramics for towing, I would recommend them.
Quote from: mountainrevBack to the ceramic brake pad question: I installed ceramics on my front brakes of my Durango last year. Like Wavery, I was a bit concerned about using them for towing applications (and PMed with Wavery about it). From the research I did via the Internet, the only warning against using ceramics for towing came from the Bosch website. I couldn't find any other brake pad manufacturer claiming that, and Bosch didn't say anything about why.
I posted questions about it on several different boards, and nobody really had an answer as to why Bosch says don't use ceramics for towing. Everything about ceramics would seem to point in favor of using them for towing. So I went ahead and put them on. After one summer's worth of towing my pup with them (nearly 2,000 miles total), including lots of mountain driving, and no brakes on my pup (please don't flame me on that one!), I can report that the ceramics are great. They stop well. No overheating. No squealing. And little/no brake dust on your wheels.
So unless someone has some concrete reasons against using ceramics for towing, I would recommend them.
The only reason I would have against using brake pads like that is that they will wear out your rotors a lot quicker. Those brake pads are made with a very hard compound and will literally eat your rotors. I stick with oem pads right from the dealer-they are made for that vehicle by the manufacturer of that vehicle. I work on cars for a living, 3 years at an independent shop, 6 years at a Ford dealer, and now 2 1/2 years at a Lexus dealer. I speak from experience-I have replaced a lot of rotors due to this. Just my 2 cents!
Dave
I drove the RAV4. Very trucky feeling, and it felt underpowered, even compared to the smaller Matrix. Not impressed.
I drove the Forester, and it seemed really good on power and space. Seems like a good option. A friend is selling an 02 Outback wagon with the same engine. Only problem is that it's an automatic.
I then did a little searching on the net and find a lot of reports of head gasket failures on the Subie 2.5L, and very high repair costs. That's not a good sign.
So I'm still kind of back to square 1. No decent small wagons that can tow!
Quote from: mach8274The only reason I would have against using brake pads like that is that they will wear out your rotors a lot quicker. Those brake pads are made with a very hard compound and will literally eat your rotors. I stick with oem pads right from the dealer-they are made for that vehicle by the manufacturer of that vehicle. I work on cars for a living, 3 years at an independent shop, 6 years at a Ford dealer, and now 2 1/2 years at a Lexus dealer. I speak from experience-I have replaced a lot of rotors due to this. Just my 2 cents!
Dave
Give the choice between replacing my rotors now and then, and rear-ending someone because the brakes on my car are so horrible ... I think I'll replace the rotors. My Sebring can barely stop itself empty. The OEM brakes are the absoulute worst I've seen since my 1965 Buick with 4 wheel drums!
Besides, changing brake rotors is really a pretty easy job on the car's I've owned.
Quote from: mach8274The only reason I would have against using brake pads like that is that they will wear out your rotors a lot quicker. Those brake pads are made with a very hard compound and will literally eat your rotors.
Dave
Sorry to hijack this thread and morph it into a discussion on ceramic brake pads, but...
I'm confused. I'm certainly not going to argue with your experience, Dave. You're a professional, and I'm just a shade tree mechanic (and a very poor one at that!). But what you have experienced with ceramics seems to contradict what I've read about rotor wear.
Here's what Tire Rack says:
"These pads use ceramic compounds and copper fibers in place of the semi-metallic pad's steel fibers. This allows the ceramic pads to handle high brake temperatures with less heat fade, provide faster recovery after the stop, and generate less dust and wear on both the pads and rotors..."
"According to durability tests, ceramic compounds extend brake life." Another brake pad retailer says:
"Since the ceramic composition of the pads produces far less dust than other types of pads, your wheels and tires stay cleaner, and brake rotor wear is greatly reduced."Obviously, they're trying to sell ceramic pads, so I suppose one should take their claims with a grain of salt. But it would seem to me that it would be logical for ceramics to be more friendly to rotors: Less dust, less abrasion on the rotors.
I guess time will tell with my current brake set-up.
I've experienced the "less dust" part for sure. There is a huge difference!
And, no problem about hi-jacking the thread. It didn't seem to be getting me very far.
It appears that I'm the only lunatic in the world who want's to tow a tiny trailer with anything less than an F350 dualie.
I just want to avoid this type of thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7K1bBhjkY
O.K. then, back to the original topic...
I don't think you mentioned the model of Coleman you have, but we used to have a '92 Coleman Pioneer Sedona, which was under 1000 lbs. dry weight, IIRC. We pulled it with a 3.8 liter Grand Voyager, and were never happy. Underpowered, and more importantly, undercooled. It didn't have the tow package, but was still rated at 2,000 lbs. But it wasn't happy at all pulling that little pup! It did much better once we got out of the mountains, however.
You don't mention where you live or where you plan to pull your pup with a small vehicle, but if you stay in the flatlands, then you might possibly get away with a 4 banger. But if you are going to pull in the mountains, I believe you will not be real happy with a Matrix.
Quote from: mountainrevO.K. then, back to the original topic...
I don't think you mentioned the model of Coleman you have, but we used to have a '92 Coleman Pioneer Sedona, which was under 1000 lbs. dry weight, IIRC. We pulled it with a 3.8 liter Grand Voyager, and were never happy. Underpowered, and more importantly, undercooled. It didn't have the tow package, but was still rated at 2,000 lbs. But it wasn't happy at all pulling that little pup! It did much better once we got out of the mountains, however.
You don't mention where you live or where you plan to pull your pup with a small vehicle, but if you stay in the flatlands, then you might possibly get away with a 4 banger. But if you are going to pull in the mountains, I believe you will not be real happy with a Matrix.
Actually I think I listed everything you ask in my first 2 posts (#1 & #3) ... except perhaps the specific model of camper. It's a 93 Coleman Roanoke Destiny ... 995 lbs dry.
I think I'm leaning toward getting the Matrix anyway, and perhaps setting up some good electric brakes on the camper.
Quote from: waveryActually, cross-drilling has little to do with weight reduction. It is mainly for heat dissipation. Heat build-up in road racing vehicles is a serious problem, just like in towing. The ounce of material that is removed by drilling the rotors would mean nothing if it jeopardized the safety of the car and/or driver.
Small nit. Heat dissipation would benefit more from more "heat sink" mass - larger rotor, vented rotors. Drilling is used to let the gasses escape from the brake pad during the heavy braking process. Now whether the gasses is a byproduct of friction, or temperature, or trapped in the brake material itself - I have no idea.
Certain types of brake material are discouraged from towing or routine road use, because they don't achieve their full braking performance until they reach a certain temperature - easy on a track or road course where heavy braking is routinely applied, but not so easy in daily driving.
Quote from: rtt108I then did a little searching on the net and find a lot of reports of head gasket failures on the Subie 2.5L, and very high repair costs. That's not a good sign.
So I'm still kind of back to square 1. No decent small wagons that can tow!
Subaru 4 bangers have two owners -those that have had their head gaskets replaced and those that haven't. Usually if you make it to 100,000 miles, you won't have a problem ever. The problem is - many don't make it there without new head gaskets.
Most cars today are not designed to tow much of anything especially any distance. If you really are considering towing with the smallest vehicle possible you are also playing with a smaller margin of safety. But that's your choice.
Have you consider a Ford Escape as a good tow vehicle that also get very good gas mileage. I have the V-6 4X4 model (18 city 25 highway mph) and have towed a 2500 lb PUP over the Rockie Mountains and home during a 6,500 mile trip without ANY problems. The Ford Escape is also available in a 4 cylinder 2X4 or 4X4 model. But remember that when you down grade in even the same vehicle it's not just the smaller engine your getting but also smaller brakes, tires, suspension etc.......... all that matter VERY much when trying to tow safely.
Now to address the semi-metallic vs ceramic brake debate. Semi-metallic brakes are usually standard on most newer vehicles. Ceramic pads are really a option for reduced brake dust and reduce squealing not additional braking power.
If your looking for additional braking power (less brake fade) you should consider carbon-metallic brake pads and upgraded rotors. Replacing them yourself would cost less than $150 or about $300 at a reputable garage.
I must clarify myself. I have heard that ceramic pads do last longer and all that. The info that I posted in the previous reply has to do mainly with the lifetime warranty pads you buy at Auto Zone, Advance etc. They are made of a super hard material which causes less brake dust but eats your rotors. The ceramics may not do that to the extent that the others do, but if they are a harder compound than oem, then they will wear rotors faster.
rtt108, I guess I'm just used to working at a dealer for so long. If you, based on your own experience, upgrade your brake system to make it operate more efficiently, by all means do so. I'm just used to my truck (F150, not F350 dually) and trailer combo. I have the heavy duty towing package on my truck and brakes on the trailer. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you make it so that your combo is safer for you, your family and all of us who are driving around you, than kudos to you because I've seen a lot of poeple towing trailers with unsafe vehicles and or not hitched properly.
I will agree with Billy Bob on the Ford Escape thing. That is what my wife drives and we love it. Approx 19 mpg in the city and it is a V6 4X4. Towing rating of 3500 lbs. Haven't towed with it except to transport the pup from the back yard to the front. I guess that really wouldn't be considered towing though.
Good luck with your tow vehicle search.
Dave
Quote from: Billy BobMost cars today are not designed to tow much of anything especially any distance. If you really are considering towing with the smallest vehicle possible you are also playing with a smaller margin of safety. But that's your choice.
Have you consider a Ford Escape as a good tow vehicle that also get very good gas mileage. I have the V-6 4X4 model (18 city 25 highway mph) and have towed a 2500 lb PUP over the Rockie Mountains and home during a 6,500 mile trip without ANY problems. The Ford Escape is also available in a 4 cylinder 2X4 or 4X4 model. But remember that when you down grade in even the same vehicle it's not just the smaller engine your getting but also smaller brakes, tires, suspension etc.......... all that matter VERY much when trying to tow safely.
Now to address the semi-metallic vs ceramic brake debate. Semi-metallic brakes are usually standard on most newer vehicles. Ceramic pads are really a option for reduced brake dust and reduce squealing not additional braking power.
If your looking for additional braking power (less brake fade) you should consider carbon-metallic brake pads and upgraded rotors. Replacing them yourself would cost less than $150 or about $300 at a reputable garage.
I installed the carbon-metallic brake pads. They work great (so did the ceramic). The carbon metallic sure make your wheels dirty.
I read that some manufacturers don't feel comfortable enough with the adhesives used to secure the ceramic pad to the steel backing plate, to recommend them for towing. I'll try to find the article and post it.
Okay, let's talk specifically tow ratings. You folks mention the Ford Escape which is rated at 3500lbs, correct? (and other vehicles have been suggested too)
Now certainly using a vehicle rated to tow more weight will give me more stopping power. But at some point you have diminishing returns. Using a 3500lb rated vehicle to tow something that's maybe 1200lbs fully loaded is over-kill. I wouldn't mind that, but for the fact that it also means I'm burning a lot more fuel every single day, just to tow something 6-8 times a year! That's wasteful and costly.
So, how much is enough without compromising safety?
I understand the American mentality of more is always better, but it's not necessarily so easy. I want to consider cost effective as well.
I realize you folks don't know me, but I'm VERY conservative with machinery. I don't overload a vehicle, and I'm very very careful about towing and how my trailer is hooked up.
Every vehicle I've used to tow has had sufficient capacity to tow safely with the exception of this Chrysler. I didn't plan to get into this situation, but through a series of unplanned events I wound up without a good tow vehicle. I gave it a try, towing with the Chrysler because technically I'm AT the limits. On paper the car should be able to handle this trailer, but I'm not comfortable running that fine line.
SO ... here I am, willing to trade in a fairly new car (an 04) and take the depreciation hit, to get a safer tow vehicle.
My assumption is that a vehicle with 1500lbs towing capacity should be able to tow 1200lbs safely. I found a worksheet at one point to help calculate the stuff. It covered GVWR, GCVWR, TW ... all the goodies.
So here's what I consider the bottom line:
IF ... My combined passenger weight, plus gear, plus 200lbs max tongue weight is LESS than GVWR ... AND my loaded trailer is less than the tow rating of the vehicle (and the loaded trailer does not exceed the GVWR of the trailer) ... AND ... (here's the piece of data I can't yet find) The total weight of loaded vehicle and trailer does not exceed GCVWR!!! I'm good to go.
Now, from my experience with the Chrysler, I know I don't want to be AT the limits for any of these numbers. I'd like some margin of safetly. Perhaps 10% ??
I'm trying to find the GCVWR for the Toyota Matrix, This is not commonly listed for passenger vehicles.
Does this sound logical and reasonable??
Quote from: rtt108Okay, let's talk specifically tow ratings. You folks mention the Ford Escape which is rated at 3500lbs, correct? (and other vehicles have been suggested too)
Now certainly using a vehicle rated to tow more weight will give me more stopping power. But at some point you have diminishing returns. Using a 3500lb rated vehicle to tow something that's maybe 1200lbs fully loaded is over-kill. I wouldn't mind that, but for the fact that it also means I'm burning a lot more fuel every single day, just to tow something 6-8 times a year! That's wasteful and costly.
So, how much is enough without compromising safety?
I understand the American mentality of more is always better, but it's not necessarily so easy. I want to consider cost effective as well.
I realize you folks don't know me, but I'm VERY conservative with machinery. I don't overload a vehicle, and I'm very very careful about towing and how my trailer is hooked up.
Every vehicle I've used to tow has had sufficient capacity to tow safely with the exception of this Chrysler. I didn't plan to get into this situation, but through a series of unplanned events I wound up without a good tow vehicle. I gave it a try, towing with the Chrysler because technically I'm AT the limits. On paper the car should be able to handle this trailer, but I'm not comfortable running that fine line.
My assumption is that a vehicle with 1500lbs towing capacity should be able to tow 1200lbs safely. I found a worksheet at one point to help calculate the stuff. It covered GVWR, GCVWR, TW ... all the goodies.
So here's what I consider the bottom line:
IF ... My combined passenger weight, plus gear, plus 200lbs max tongue weight is LESS than GVWR ... AND my loaded trailer is less than the tow rating of the vehicle (and the loaded trailer does not exceed the GVWR of the trailer) ... AND ... (here's the piece of data I can't yet find) The total weight of loaded vehicle and trailer does not exceed GCVWR!!! I'm good to go.
Now, from my experience with the Chrysler, I know I don't want to be AT the limits for any of these numbers. I'd like some margin of safetly. Perhaps 10% ??
Does this sound logical and reasonable??
Technically, yes. But for those of us who have towed the the "max limit", there is no way I would want to repeat it. Unibody cars/minivans/whatever, just aren't great tow vehicles, especially with FWD. I personally think that 3,500 lbs is about 1,500 lbs too high for some of these as tow vehicles.
You mention being conservative with machinery. If you run something at near full capacity, which isn't designed for it - technically you may be right on, but I suspect that you would have a higher number of early failures. These days, things are NOT overbuilt - transmissions fail, CV joints fail, brake rotors warp. Cars, minivans, and crossover SUVs are designed as people movers first and just happen to have tow ratings.
Just my couple of thoughts.
So your saying that vehicles "just happen to have tow ratings" and they (the manufacturer) really don't mean the vehicle can actually tow that much?
You wrote "If you run something at near full capacity, which isn't designed for it ..."
Huh?
I would have thought that the definition of the towing capacity is that this is how much the vehicle IS designed for?
If this were not so I would think the auto makers would open themselves up for huge law suits!
I agree that running at that limit or exceeding it can cause damage to the vehicle, or worse, could get you killed.
But if a vehicle has a published towing capacity of 1500lbs, and I plan to tow between 66% and 80% of that (depending on if I stow gear in the trailer or in the vehicle) ... , shouldn't I have a reasonable expectation that I'm not doing something unsafe?
I guess I have been basing my whole thinking on the assumption that published to ratings are reliable.
Would you say that's not so?
Quote from: rtt108So your saying that vehicles "just happen to have tow ratings" and they (the manufacturer) really don't mean the vehicle can actually tow that much?
You wrote "If you run something at near full capacity, which isn't designed for it ..."
Huh?
I would have thought that the definition of the towing capacity is that this is how much the vehicle IS designed for?
If this were not so I would think the auto makers would open themselves up for huge law suits!
I agree that running at that limit or exceeding it can cause damage to the vehicle, or worse, could get you killed.
But if a vehicle has a published towing capacity of 1500lbs, and I plan to tow between 66% and 80% of that (depending on if I stow gear in the trailer or in the vehicle) ... , shouldn't I have a reasonable expectation that I'm not doing something unsafe?
I guess I have been basing my whole thinking on the assumption that published to ratings are reliable.
Would you say that's not so?
From observation and research, I can state that most vehicles have more exceptions to the "published" tow rating than don't. If you have an owner's manual or brochure which prints a tow rating, you may have a vehicle which as equipped has a lesser tow rating. Often there are two tow ratings, one with a braked trailer (higher), and one without (lower). Guess which one people latch onto?
Factor in rig combined weights, axle max weights, tongue weights, cargo weights - and it gets complex real quick.
I can state that most passenger type vehicles are designed to expect the weight of a person (usually figured at 150 lb per person) plus some amount of cargo. I don't weigh anywhere near 150 lbs, so in effect, if the full occupancy of the vehicle were reached with that number of me, I could be overloaded if I carried the amount of weight the manufacturer figured in for cargo.
So, does the vehicle fail with that overload condition? Probably not, because the chance of the same load being there mile after mile isn't there on a routine basis for the life of the vehicle. Which is what you are saying with 6-8 times per year. But don't try to get warranty claims, or insurance claims if you are technically overloaded when it breaks.
Trailers add a dynamic into the condition that I think sometimes gets glossed over by a quick glance at the tow rating. I've watched the tow ratings from the perspective of someone who sells RVs for a living AND tows themselves. I can't count the number of times someone has looked at a camper that has a UVW of less than a 100 lbs below the PUBLISHED tow rating and said, I can tow that, no problem. And then herds the 3 kids, 2 out of work in-laws, and themselves into a minivan which is already dragging the rear without a trailer.
It kinda works like speed limits, no matter what it is, folks think that they can exceed it because it applies to someone else. I'm not saying that you can't do what you want regarding tow ratings - I once watched a customer load a 24,000 lb (unloaded) 5th wheel onto the back of a Ford rated at 17,000 lbs max - but you can be assured that it didn't leave the lot without several signed notarized releases of liability, notification that they were knowingly in violation of the law (overweight vehicle), and warranty releases on the trailer for damage sustained while towing with this tow vehicle. Had it been an in-state deal, it couldn't have left the lot, but they lived 300 miles away. The customer insisted that they would eventually upgrade their tow vehicle, but that they had towed several times well in excess of their tow rating. That poor Ford's duallies were half flat and the hood was sitting high in the air at the top of the shock travel.
You make one very good point that I have not checked specifically. I'm using the marketing number of 1500. I'll need to verify that this is for an un-braked trailer. In fact a co-worker has a Matrix in the parking lot. I can check his manual at lunch today. So, I will check the owners manual on this today. I would buy the car with a factory towing package, and make sure there are no exceptions in the manual. That obviously would be a problem if the vehicle was not "really" rated for 1500, un-braked.
So, rather than talking in vague generalities, lets do the specific numbers for the Matrix. It's not very complex as I see it ... unless I've just completely missed something ... which I may have.
BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative ... and I do appreciate the discussion. It forces me to really think through this and make sure it's okay before I make the purchase. So thanks! This does help. It sounds like your professionally involved in RVs? Thanks for taking the time to educate me on all this.
Matrix GVWR is 3847, Curb weight is 2679. So 3847 - 2679 = 1168. Subtract 200lbs max tongue weight, 96 lbs for 12 gallons of fuel. That leaves 872. I'm 195 soaking wet, and the wife is say 155. Kids are growing so I'll allow 100lbs each, even though they are currently half that. That puts me within 325 lbs of GVWR. I figure we carry about 200lbs of gear. Most of that is food.
If the towing capacily is really 1500lbs, I can put perhaps the 200lbs of gear in the trailer. Trailer is 995 + 200 ... call it 1200lbs. I forgot the GVWR for the trailer, but I know 1200lbs does'nt even come close, so I'm good there.
I'm very close to the limit, but not over. (hmmm ... actually I'm closer than I thought ... but I did over estimate every weight above, so I'll go with it for now)
I sent a question to the dealer to see if they can look up GCVWR for the car. I can't find a listing for that. But if that number is greater than 4800lbs I should be okay?
The examples you gave of the mini-van, and the 5th wheeler sound like people who have completely disregarded any type of weight calculations. I don't think I'm doing that, do you?
So, for the specfic set of numbers above, do you think I would be overloading the vehicle?
My missing pieces of information so far would be to verify GCVWR is > 4800lbs, and veryify that the 1500lb towing capacity is un-braked.
Also keep in mind that I'm buying this car pretty much as a commuter vehicle that has to do rare towing duty. I want to make that trade-off between buying a small efficient car for daily use, but making sure it can tow a light pop-up without being a danger.
Again, thanks. I do appreciate you challenging me on all this. I want to make sure I'm not making a big mistake with this. And certaily for insurance coverage, and legal issues, I want to make sure I'm operating withing the specifications of the vehicle.
Have I missed any critical part of the calculation?
Okay, thanks very much to wynot for making me examine this more closely!
The Toyota manual says the max trailer weight without trailer brakes is only 1000lbs. So I would have to put all cargo in the vehicle, which puts me pretty close to GVWR, plus I'd be at the limits of the cars towing capacity.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
back to the drawing board :(
How many MPG does the Matrix get? You might want to consider a Highlander. The 2-wheel drive would work for you. You probably could even go with the 4-cyllinder model.
I have a 4-wheel drive, v-6, and it gets about 22 MPG for daily use. The smaller engine would certainly do a lot better, and it would still have (I think) plenty of towing capacity for you.
You mentioned the clunky ride of the Matrix. The ride of the Highlander will please you. I had to rent a Ford Escape once, after having the Highlander for almost a year. I couldn't wait to return the Escape because of its clunky ride.
Just some thoughts.
-Speak
as discussed previously, manual transmission is a must have.
My in-laws have a Highlander. I agree it's a nice vehicle, but
I can't afford one, and no stick shift is available.
I'm pricing out used Foresters. Seems like this is about as close as
I'll get to what I want. And I should be able to afford one a couple
of years old.
Thanks for all the input, and help on this.
Quote from: rtt108as discussed previously, manual transmission is a must have.
My in-laws have a Highlander. I agree it's a nice vehicle, but
I can't afford one, and no stick shift is available.
I'm pricing out used Foresters. Seems like this is about as close as
I'll get to what I want. And I should be able to afford one a couple
of years old.
Thanks for all the input, and help on this.
Do you want a manual for the sake of fuel economy or something else? Both Mercedes and Toyota have stated that they can actually make automatics that are more efficient on average than most cars driven with a manual transmission. (In other words, the normal driver will get as good or better than gas mileage with an automatic vs manual in at least Mercedes' and Toyota's research.)
The Subarus I mentioned with problems were all Foresters. Keep in mind, I know very little about Subarus - I've never owned one, just worked on the family's.
Quote from: rtt108Okay, thanks very much to wynot for making me examine this more closely!
The Toyota manual says the max trailer weight without trailer brakes is only 1000lbs. So I would have to put all cargo in the vehicle, which puts me pretty close to GVWR, plus I'd be at the limits of the cars towing capacity.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
back to the drawing board :(
Sorry about that. You've got a great sense of the details, it is just that your restrictions (not judging them, btw), really limit your choices.
In a nutshell, you want-
- A fuel efficient car
- A Toyota or Honda
- A manual tranmission
- Space for 4
- Enough cargo room to put your stuff in the car
- A relatively inexpensive car
- A safety margin of 10% or better
At least one of those points is in jeopardy.
Quote from: wynotSorry about that. You've got a great sense of the details, it is just that your restrictions (not judging them, btw), really limit your choices.
In a nutshell, you want-
- A fuel efficient car
- A Toyota or Honda
- A manual tranmission
- Space for 4
- Enough cargo room to put your stuff in the car
- A relatively inexpensive car
- A safety margin of 10% or better
At least one of those points is in jeopardy.
I want a manual just for drivability. I just prefer to shift myself. I find automatics really annoying. They never shift at the right time.
Yes, you've summed up my dilema exactly. ... actually you left off 1500lb towing capacity ... but, yes there's almost nothing on the market that does everything I'm looking for.
I'm going to take more time to drive a couple of Subaru's, maybe another RAV and a CRV ... maybe an Element.
I'm still concerned about going with the Forester. I mentioned I was looking at these to a co-worker yesterday and I got the same horror stories. They've had 3 Outbacks ... 2 cars blew head gaskets, the other had the 2.2, and 2 cars have had clutches replaced. One of them is on it's third clutch ... because of excessive chatter. Not good. Thier oldest Subaru was good, so they bought the next one. It was trouble. They bought the third thinking the other was just an oddity, and it was trouble too? This is why I'd limited myself to Honda and Toyota in the first place.
I looked in my Northern Equipment catalog last night at trailer brakes. I didn't see anything that would work on the little 8 inch rims that my Colman uses. So I don't think I can add trailer brakes.
The only way I think I can make the Matrix work for me at this point is if we just put all the passengers in my wife's Civic, and I use the matrix to tow the empty trailer, and perhaps the bulky stuff like coolers and sleeping bags. But that's not really ideal.
I'm just a dump truck driver, what kind of empty trailer has this kind of specs?
customer load a 24,000 lb (unloaded) 5th wheel
I pull a tri-axle, 28 ft, 1/2round enddump made out of 1/4in steel with a GVWR of 110,000 that weighs about13,500.
I don't want anybody riking life but I think that I could move a house with what some poeple on this board would think somebody else would need to have "safty margin" tow a Fleetwood Avalon.
If you are only going to make a few short trips towing each year why not put wife, kids, and other gear in the other car on the way there? Sure you use more gas that weekend but you would save the rest of the year.
Quote from: ScoobyDooI'm just a dump truck driver, what kind of empty trailer has this kind of specs?
customer load a 24,000 lb (unloaded) 5th wheel
I pull a tri-axle, 28 ft, 1/2round enddump made out of 1/4in steel with a GVWR of 110,000 that weighs about13,500.
I don't want anybody riking life but I think that I could move a house with what some poeple on this board would think somebody else would need to have "safty margin" tow a Fleetwood Avalon.
If you are only going to make a few short trips towing each year why not put wife, kids, and other gear in the other car on the way there? Sure you use more gas that weekend but you would save the rest of the year.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. The Matrix is not off my list. It may just require 2 cars for camping as you say. This becomes more of a pain on longer trips. It's nice to ride together.
I'm researching the Subaru Forester's reliability as best I can. If it's not going to be a money pit, maybe I'll go that way. I know I'd prefer the Matrix the other 355 days of the year.
Quote from: rtt108I...I'm going to take more time to drive a couple of Subaru's, maybe another RAV and a CRV ... maybe an Element.
I'm still concerned about going with the Forester. I mentioned I was looking at these to a co-worker yesterday and I got the same horror stories. They've had 3 Outbacks ... 2 cars blew head gaskets, the other had the 2.2, and 2 cars have had clutches replaced. One of them is on it's third clutch ... because of excessive chatter. Not good. Thier oldest Subaru was good, so they bought the next one. It was trouble. They bought the third thinking the other was just an oddity, and it was trouble too? This is why I'd limited myself to Honda and Toyota in the first place.
...
Statistically Subarus are pretty good. They have had a couple problems- the 2.5 liter motor had head gasket issues for a couple of years starting in '95. Clutches can be finicky but our '96 (with 2.2 motor) is still on the original. Being an AWD vehicle it's quite expensive to replace the clutch since there are 3 drive shafts to remove.
We have an auto trans 2004 Forester XT (Turbo). It is an awesome tow vehicle except for having too much engine for the radiator. The non-turbo models shouldn't have this problem.
I strongly suggest upgrading your trailer to include brakes.
Quote from: JimQPublic.....
I strongly suggest upgrading your trailer to include brakes.
I didn't see any trailer brakes that would fit on the little 8" wheels on my camper in my Northern Equipment trailer catalog. I'm not even sure I've ever seen brakes on something that weigh's less than 1000lbs unloaded.
Putting brakes on this little 6 foot box trailer kind of falls into the category of ScoobyDoo's post ... don't you think?
Years back, I think about '75 we built a trailer for a brother to pull with his hog. First trip he discovered HD brakes were not up to the task. We built surge brakes to work on the 8in wheels. I don't remember what we used, but if a bunch of stoned, drunck bikers could make it work it should not be very hard.
Quote from: rtt108I'm still concerned about going with the Forester. I mentioned I was looking at these to a co-worker yesterday and I got the same horror stories. They've had 3 Outbacks ... 2 cars blew head gaskets, the other had the 2.2, and 2 cars have had clutches replaced. One of them is on it's third clutch ... because of excessive chatter. Not good. Thier oldest Subaru was good, so they bought the next one. It was trouble. They bought the third thinking the other was just an oddity, and it was trouble too? This is why I'd limited myself to Honda and Toyota in the first place.
QUOTE]
My co-worker's Forester just got diagnosed with a head gasket failure - today, just told me about it 5 minutes ago. Just turned over 80,000 miles, has an aluminum block, so it is one of the newer ones.
Quote from: ScoobyDooI'm just a dump truck driver, what kind of empty trailer has this kind of specs?
customer load a 24,000 lb (unloaded) 5th wheel
It was a 2006 model high end 5th wheel, 40' long, triple axle. I don't want to identify the brand or dealership. These trailers are usually sold to full-timers who have medium duty trucks for tow rigs, or an F-550 Super Duty. These folks put it on a F-350 Super Duty.
Ouch. What year is the Forester? I thought they had fixed those problems by about 2000. Our Forester has the STI engine but runs at much less boost, torque, and HP so I'm not worried.
On trailer brakes- In my world 995 advertised dry weight isn't "less than 1000 pounds". It's a bit more. Ford says it best in their towing guide- which covers everything up to trucks with 33,000 pound combined weight ratings: "Remember, the braking system of the tow vehicle is rated for operation at the GVWR, not GCWR." In other words if the trailer is too heavy to carry ON your vehicle with all the other loads, it needs brakes.
Flat ground, short distances, low speeds, light traffic make it more reasonable to push this envelope than mountains, heavy traffic, high speeds, etc.
On brakes for 8" rims- you're may be out of luck. I know that you can get the 7-1/4" electric brakes with 4 lug on 4" spacing hubs, but I don't know if your wheels would work with the drums.
WYNOT If that 40ft tri-axle is 24,000 mt you better not hang it on a F-550. The company has one, GVWR=19800; GCVWR is less than 25000.
Quote from: ScoobyDooWYNOT If that 40ft tri-axle is 24,000 mt you better not hang it on a F-550. The company has one, GVWR=19800; GCVWR is less than 25000.
Well, I wouldn't hang it on anything, since thankfully, I don't have that kind of job anymore. But the (trailer) company rep recommended at minimum F-550 Super Duties for most of their units. That was prior to the new trailers coming out - even heavier.
When trailers are listed at $130,000+, not too many buyers!!!
Quote from: JimQPublicOuch. What year is the Forester? I thought they had fixed those problems by about 2000. Our Forester has the STI engine but runs at much less boost, torque, and HP so I'm not worried.
QUOTE]
2003, he just asked me if I was interested in buying it...
Have you considered adding VW diesels into your mix of tow vehicles to consider? There's a couple of guys over on popupexplorer who tow medium-sized campers (e.g., Fleetwood Yuma) with itty-bitty Jettas and Passat TDIs. Apparently those diesels have incredible torque. Their Euro specs give them way high tow ratings. Do a Google search on TDI's and towing.
A friend of mine has a Jetta TDI wagon. He doesn't tow with it, but that sucker pulls up the high passes in the mountains at speed limit, and it gets 40 to 50 mpg. They apparently aren't marketing them in the US in '07, but there are plenty of used ones out there (although they seem to command a pretty high price).
Just a thought.
Quote from: mountainrevHave you considered adding VW diesels into your mix of tow vehicles to consider? There's a couple of guys over on popupexplorer who tow medium-sized campers (e.g., Fleetwood Yuma) with itty-bitty Jettas and Passat TDIs. Apparently those diesels have incredible torque. Their Euro specs give them way high tow ratings. Do a Google search on TDI's and towing.
A friend of mine has a Jetta TDI wagon. He doesn't tow with it, but that sucker pulls up the high passes in the mountains at speed limit, and it gets 40 to 50 mpg. They apparently aren't marketing them in the US in '07, but there are plenty of used ones out there (although they seem to command a pretty high price).
Just a thought.
I'm not certain, but I don't think they have a tow rating, or if they do, I think it is low. I believe only the Toureg (why do they pick these names of winds in other lands??) diesel was tow rated. Jetta TDIs were stopped a couple of years ago. VW is not offering diesels in 2007 in the US because of the new ultralow sulfur diesel specs, but was continuing 2006 models. Mercedes is the only new passenger diesel manufacturer in 2007.
I know my Rabbit diesel never got lower than 53 mpg in the 104,000 miles I drove it.
Latest on the 2003 Subaru, they're dropping the engine and replacing the head gaskets on my co-workers car today.
I guess I should update this thread. I bought an old 1996 Subaru Legacy Outback, 2.2L 5-spd manual. 130K miles. It in great shape and runs very well. I figure it'll do for a couple of years until I decidce what I really want.
I havn't towed the camper yet, but I spent last weekend hauling firewood in a 4x8 trailer. I figure I was pulling at least 2000lbs loaded. The car handled it great!! So much better than the Chrysler. The 2.2 has plenty of torque. I know the 2.5 would be much better still, but the 2.2 handled it fine. The clutch is fine. It feels like a fairly heavy clutch, and it gets the weight moving without any complaints at all.
The brakes were adequate for the job, but I still need to pusue a surge brake of some kind on the trailer.
So, thanks for all the input.