small tow vehicle?

[mountainrev]

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.

[mach8274]

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.

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

[rtt108]

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!

[rtt108]

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

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.

[mountainrev]

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.

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.

[rtt108]

I've experienced the "less dust" part for sure.  There is a huge difference!

[rtt108]

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

[mountainrev]

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.

[rtt108]

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.

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.

[wynot]

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.

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.

[wynot]

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!

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.

[Billy Bob]

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.

[mach8274]

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

[wavery]

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 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.

[rtt108]

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??