ohlode
Boise, Idaho
Senior Member
Joined: 03/27/2005
View Profile
|
I'll look closely at the Wolf Pup 17B and other smaller TT's. The Wolf Pup looks like a very nice rig although I want to try to stay with a dual axle. Weight wise, it would be fine; weighs less than my Pop up did which presented zero problems.
|
DerekandRachel
Central Alberta
Full Member
Joined: 01/31/2010
View Profile
 Offline
|
Just my two cents. We have a 4-Runner V6 and we picked up a Funfinder X210WBS. We can tow it just fine, when we aren't in the mountains. After our recent honeymoon in the Kootenys (sp?), we have decided that we need more truck. So, you may want to consider a smaller TT than the X210. Which is a shame, because it is one AWESOME trailer!
Happy Travels!
Derek
2010 Fun Finder X210WBS
1996 Toyota 4Runner V6
Derek, Rachel and Tucco (black lab)
Blue Ox Sway Pro WDH
|
Ron Gratz
full time RVer
Senior Member
Joined: 12/27/2003
View Profile
|
So far, the "poll" results (with my opinions added to the previous) are:
Never Consider the TT's Dry Weight = 1
TT's Dry Weight is a Key Number = 3
Always Use the TT's GVWR = 2
Do Not Use the TT's GVWR = 3
It's no wonder people get confused when they ask for advice and comments.
IMO, Step 1 is to load your Pathfinder approximately as it would be used for camping (including the WD hitch) and take it to a scales to determine the TVGVW. Then subtract the TVGVW from the GCWR to get the "Capacity available for towing" as referred to in the Owners Manual.
Step 2 is to subtract the TVGVW from the TVGVWR to get the amount "Available for tongue weight" as referred to in the Owners Manual.
Step 3 is to estimate the camping-ready TTGVW for the candidate TT. You can ignore the TT's GVWR if you do not intend to load it to that value.
Step 4 is to estimate the amount of vertical load which the TT will add to the TV after WD is applied. You can ignore the assertion that you must use 15% of the TTs's GVWR for this figure. First of all, you don't plan to load the TT to its GVWR. Secondly, the relatively short and light TTs you are considering do not need 15% TW for stability. Thirdly, some of the TT's TW will be transferred to its axles by the WD system. IMO, a reasonable estimate for the added vertical load for the TT's you're considering would be around 10% of the TT's estimated GVW.
If the estimated TTGVW from step 3 is less than the calculated "Capacity available for towing" from Step 1, and the estimated added vertical load from Step 4 is less than the "Available for tongue weight" from Step 2, you should have a viable candidate.
The GAWRs also should be considered; but they usually are not a governing factor.
And, as always, it's up to you to decide how much margin you want to have versus the ratings.
Ron
|
ohlode
Boise, Idaho
Senior Member
Joined: 03/27/2005
View Profile
|
Great and helpful discussion! I know towing always starts a lively debate.
The 1996 4Runner really is a different comparison. 183hp v. 266hp on my Pathfinder. I believe the 1996 4Runner had a towing capacity of not more than 5000 lbs, if it has the towing package. 3500 lbs. without. (the newer 4Runners are 6500 lbs. with towing package I believe)
In 2003 I had a Tacoma D cab, 3.4 V6 and it had a mere 3500 lbs. towing capacity. Came with a 2" receiver hitch BUT not the 5000 lbs. rated towing package. Found that out after I bought it...
BTW: You have a very nice rig in The Fun Finder x210.
The step by step method above is about as close as I'm going to get I suspect. I will figure in everything and then see how it handles. Not in any hurry...
Thanks, again to everyone.
|
E&J push'n wind
San Diego CA, The best climate on earth!
Senior Member
Joined: 12/21/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
ohlode,
I could be wrong on this one but I'd check on your tow rating again. I believe the tow rating you are refering to is for the V8 Pathfinder. The V8 Armada non-tow is rated at 6500, I'd be surprized to see the V6 Pathfinder rated almost the same as the V8. Again I could be wrong, worth looking into.
Edit; O.K. I should have looked before I leaped, the V6 is rated at 6K as you say, the V8 is rated at 7K. Impressive for a V6!
* This post was
edited 09/01/10 10:28pm by an administrator/moderator *
Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know much, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
|
|
|
SteveRankin
Sequim, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/05/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
Ron Gratz wrote:So far, the "poll" results (with my opinions added to the previous) are:
Never Consider the TT's Dry Weight = 1
TT's Dry Weight is a Key Number = 3
Always Use the TT's GVWR = 2
Do Not Use the TT's GVWR = 3
It's no wonder people get confused when they ask for advice and comments.
So very true, Ron. However, the data set is so small the statistical comparison is useless. Rather than basing a decision on the score of the responses, I’d suggest basing a decision on the merit of the responses.
For example. No one tows a trailer at its Dry Weight. Sheeesh, you can’t even buy a trailer at Dry Weight because that figure doesn’t include the usual mandatory options that add 200 or more pounds. OTOH, many folks load their trailer to and beyond GVWR. So, my suggestion is to use the GVWR because you won’t go wrong, while if you use the Dry Weight you are very likely to overestimate the ability of the tow vehicle to tow the trailer in question.
Ron Gratz wrote:
IMO, Step 1 is to load your Pathfinder approximately as it would be used for camping (including the WD hitch) and take it to a scales to determine the TVGVW. Then subtract the TVGVW from the GCWR to get the "Capacity available for towing" as referred to in the Owners Manual.
Step 2 is to subtract the TVGVW from the TVGVWR to get the amount "Available for tongue weight" as referred to in the Owners Manual.
Step 3 is to estimate the camping-ready TTGVW for the candidate TT. You can ignore the TT's GVWR if you do not intend to load it to that value.
Step 4 is to estimate the amount of vertical load which the TT will add to the TV after WD is applied. You can ignore the assertion that you must use 15% of the TTs's GVWR for this figure. First of all, you don't plan to load the TT to its GVWR. Secondly, the relatively short and light TTs you are considering do not need 15% TW for stability. Thirdly, some of the TT's TW will be transferred to its axles by the WD system. IMO, a reasonable estimate for the added vertical load for the TT's you're considering would be around 10% of the TT's estimated GVW.
Whoa! You’re suggesting that a TT is going to be stable with just 10% tongue weight? I disagree.
I don’t understand how you figure that a short TT is more stable than a long TT. That’s quite counter intuitive to me since large/long vehicles are generally more stable than small/short vehicles. True, the longer TT will have a greater effect on the tow vehicle than a short TT when it does sway, but we’re talking about the tendency of the TT to sway in the first place.
I’ve owned a passel of TT’s and every one of them ran at 14% tongue weight +/- less than 1%. Well, there was one exception. Last summer our Arctic Fox was so loaded with spare gear that our tongue weight was only 10.8% and it towed like******even with the vaunted PullRite hitch. It towed fine previously when the tongue weight was 13.9%.
Second, since the OP’s TV is a short-wheelbase SUV that is inherently less stable than a comparable weight sedan or truck, the TV in question is less capable of dealing with trailer sway on its own.
Therefore, it seems to me that the wise thing to do is to recommend a conservative approach and suggest that the OP do his math based on 14% tongue weight.
Ron Gratz wrote:
If the estimated TTGVW from step 3 is less than the calculated "Capacity available for towing" from Step 1, and the estimated added vertical load from Step 4 is less than the "Available for tongue weight" from Step 2, you should have a viable candidate.
The GAWRs also should be considered; but they usually are not a governing factor.
And, as always, it's up to you to decide how much margin you want to have versus the ratings.
Ron
My suggested method goes like this . . .
First, calculate maximum tongue weight as this is the biggest problem for most folks:
A. Ignore the TV’s published tow rating. It’s often inflated and based on a stripo version of the TV.
B. Ignore the TT’s Dry Weight. It’s usually 200# less than the actual weight of the trailer delivered with mandatory options. And the trailer will never be towed empty. The LP tanks & hot water heater will alone will add another 100# or more to the weigh to the empty coach.
C. Assume that sooner or later the coach will be towed at or near its GVWR. RV’s are like people, they seem to get a little heavier every year as we add gizmos and leave stuff on board. If you are buying a coach that has an unusually large carrying capacity AND you happen to be one of the few that always travel light, then make some appropriate adjustments. FYI, we’ve found that we carry a little over 1500# when we’re intentionally traveling light; 2-3,000# when traveling on a long highway trip, and just under 5,000# when traveling on a long backwoods trip. Obviously, the smaller the trailer the more difficult it is to carry a lot of stuff/weight. The flip side of that is that the larger RV’s are EASILY overloaded because they generally have much more room for stuff than they have capacity to carry weight.
D. Weigh your TV with all the people and stuff you expect to carry. Don’t forget cribbing, wheel chocks, tools, lawn chairs, BBQ, the dog, etc. Don’t forget to include the trailer hitch. If you don’t have the trailer hitch yet, then add 100# for a hitch. This is your TV’s GVW.
E. TV-GVWR minus TV-GVW = MAXIMUM tongue weight your TV can carry.
F. Guesstimate 14% of the TT’s GVWR as the probable tongue weight. If you have a legitimate reason to know your GVW will be less then GVWR, then use 14% of your best guess GVW.
G. Which number is larger? The answer to “E” or “F”. If “E” is larger than “F”, you are OK so far. If not, then the tongue weight is too much for your TV to carry. This is Achilles Heel of ½-ton trucks and SUV’s.
Second, calculate the maximum TT GVW:
H. TV-GCVWR minus TV-GVW = MAXIMUM weight of TT your TV can pull.
I. If the TT’s GVWR (or GVW if you have a good real world estimate of the GVW) is less than “H” then your TV’s power train (engine and transmission) should be OK for towing this weight. The Pathfinder’s GCVWR = 12,570#.
Third, consider the frontal area of the TT.
J. Determine the maximum frontal area your TV is rated for. The Pathfinder is rated for 60 sq ft. That means the trailer can’t have a frontal area (width times height) of more than 60 sq ft. Since most TT’s are 8’ wide, that means it can’t be over 7.5’ tall. Even if you credit it with 1’ ground clearance, you’re still looking at a TT that’s only 8.5’ tall.
Fourth, consider the length of the TT compared to the length of the TV’s wheelbase.
1. Short wheelbase vehicles make poor tow vehicles because they don’t have the inherent stability to deal with the effects of sway. While longer TT’s aren’t any more prone to sway than shorter TT’s the long TT’s do have a greater effect on the TV when they do move.
2. There are two unofficial rules of thumb:
a. Divide TV wheel base (inches) by 5.5 to get TT length in inches.
b. TT couple to TT axle distance must be less than twice TT wheelbase.
While these are just rules of thumb and not official ratings, they do have merit.
This may sound complicated, but it really isn't. A tow vehicle needs to:
A. Have the ability to carry the tongue weight of the TT. This is related to the cargo capacity of the TV and how much other stuff is carried.
B. Have the ability to pull the weight of the TT. This is related to the strength of the drive train (engine and transmission) of the TV.
C. Have the ability to pull and control the combined weight of the TV & TT. This relates to a combination of TV abilities
D. Have the ability to deal with the aerodynamic drag of the TT. This is also related to the strength of the drive train (engine and transmission) of the TV.
E. Have the ability to resist the effects of trailer sway. This is a function of TV wheel base, TV chassis weight & stiffness, TT length & loading. Friction sway control hitches attempt to dampen trailer sway while 'premium hitches' (Hensley, ProPride & PullRite) reduce the effects of sway by reducing the leverage the TT has on the TV.
If you address all of these factors and select a TV and TT that comply with every rating and guideline, the result will be a suitable combination that should work well together. If you chose to ignore any of these factors, then the resulting combination will be less than ideal.
Steve & C. J.
"Gracie" Rough Collie
"Bo'sun" Bichon Frise
"Marli" Lab/Golden Retriever
2009 Arctic Fox 24-5N
2010 Dodge Ram Laramie 3500 4X4, Cummins 6.7, Crewcab SRW LB
PullRite Super 5th / 5th Airborne
Our Arctic by RV trip
Our Beaver motorhome Technical page
|
Ron Gratz
full time RVer
Senior Member
Joined: 12/27/2003
View Profile
|
Quote:Does GVWR matter - sure. But, IMHO, to use it as a universal basis for determining towable weights is shortsighted.--- Thanks for providing a real-life example of the major differences in CCCs and GVWRs.
The GVWR "guideline" is based on the flawed premise that everyone will use 100% of the CCC. Even when someone says he will not use 100%, and appears to know what he is talking about, some of us adamantly insist that he will.
I find it amusing that some of the people who insist you should not tow at 100% of any rating are the same ones who insist that you will load your TT to 100% of its GVWR -- regardless of whether its CCC is 1245# or 3904#. As I pointed out in my previous post, it seem they would rather have you towing at 100% of TTGVWR versus 86% of TTGVWR -- and they call this "conservative" 
Ron
|
Mickeyfan0805
SE Mass
Senior Member
Joined: 11/26/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
Just to add my own fuel for the fire. I don't have ANY experience towing a TT - we're still in the process of exploration. However, the GVWR argument has never made sense to me. Let me through out these two examples:
Keystone Bullet Premiere 31BPHR:
-6,355 pounds 'dry'
-1,245 pound ccc
-7,600 pound GVWR
-34'5" long
Heartland North Country NC24RKS
-6,496 pounds 'dry'
-3,904 pound ccc
-10,400 pound GVWR
-29' long
If using GVWR rating to evaluate towing, the Bullet could be calculated as towable by an Expedition with a 9,200 pound capacity. Meanwhile, the Heartland, which starts at the same weight and is 5' shorter, would require a 3/4 of not 1 ton vehicle to meet the GVWR consideration.
Does GVWR matter - sure. But, IMHO, to use it as a universal basis for determining towable weights is shortsighted. I might suggest, in these two cases, that the Heartland, based on start weight and length, would require LESS vehicle than the Bullet. Dry weights are useless, that's clear, but many GVWR's aren't much better.
|
Wishin
Grand Rapids, MI
Senior Member
Joined: 10/03/2008
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
I'm going to agree with Steve Rankin here. Mickeyfan0805, I think that would fall under Steve's rule of "If you have a legitimate reason to know your GVW will be less then GVWR, then use 14% of your best guess GVW."
I think Steve described very well how to figure out exactly what your limits are. Slightly complitcated if you've never done it but not real hard if you follow it step by step.
My personal trailer is at or beyond its GVWR unfortunately. I would tend to use GVWR of the trailer rather than dry weight unless you really think you won't ever hit it. Advertised dry weight is meaningless much of the time. If you are actually looking at the trailer and it is newer it will state the actual weight on the side of the trailer with tank weights as well if you fill them. Pretty nice. Older trailers, there is no way to know without weighing them or just assume GVWR.
1996 Buick Roadmaster Wagon
2000 Shasta 2547 Bunkhouse
|
Ron Gratz
full time RVer
Senior Member
Joined: 12/27/2003
View Profile
|
SteveRankin wrote:---However, the data set is so small the statistical comparison is useless.--= Steve, the "poll" was not proposed to be scientifically correct. I guess my placing the word, "poll", within quotation marks was too subtle. However, the "poll" was useful in demonstrating (once again) that a group of RVers, when asked for opinions about weights and ratings, is unlikely to reach consensus
Quote:---Rather than basing a decision on the score of the responses, I’d suggest basing a decision on the merit of the responses. I fully agree. And, IMO, a key requirement for a meritorious response is that the response should address the parameters and conditions which the OP has specified.
Quote:---So, my suggestion is to use the GVWR because you won’t go wrong,--- IMO, you can go wrong. Let's assume a person's loaded TV is capable of towing 6000#. The person's "dream" TT has an empty weight of 4000# and a GVWR of 7000#. The person is confident the loaded weight of this TT would not exceed 6000#.
The "second choice" TT also has an empty weight of 4000# and a GVWR of 6000#. The person is confident the loaded weight of this TT also would not exceed 6000#. If the TTGVWR "guideline" were imposed, the person would be forced to accept the second choice.
IMO, the person would be going "wrong" if the dream TT were passed up simply because it had an extra 1000# of CCC which the person had no intention of using. By opting not to follow the TTGVWR "guideline", the person also would be towing at 86% of TTGVWR versus 100% for the second choice TT.
Quote:---while if you use the Dry Weight you are very likely to overestimate the ability of the tow vehicle to tow the trailer in question. As stated earlier, IMO, the response should address the parameters and conditions which the OP has specified. The OP has a background in aviation and is a "weight & balance stickler." Based on his posts, I would guess that the OP fully understands what is involved when using the Dry Weight and, IMO, it is very unlikely he would load a TT beyond the TV's towing capacity.
Quote:Whoa! You’re suggesting that a TT is going to be stable with just 10% tongue weight? I disagree. Steve, please re-read my Step 4 which you quoted correctly. Specifically, re-read the part which says, "Thirdly, some of the TT's TW will be transferred to its axles by the WD system." The "10%" figure is not an assumed tongue weight. It is based on an assumed TW of 12.5% with 20% of that being transferred to the TT's axles leaving 10% of the TT's GVW to be transferred to the TV.
Quote:I don’t understand how you figure that a short TT is more stable than a long TT. I didn't say that. I did say, "Secondly, the relatively short and light TTs you are considering do not need 15% TW for stability." There is an optimum TW% for a given TT which is a function of body length, A-frame length, and yaw moment of inertia (among other things). The moment of inertia is a primary factor and tends to be less for shorter and lighter TTs. In general the optimum TW% decreases as length decreases.
Quote:Last summer our Arctic Fox was so loaded with spare gear that our tongue weight was only 10.8% and it towed like******even with the vaunted PullRite hitch. Again, the response has nothing to do with the OP's situation -- unless he opts to tow with the TW at four percentage points below what it should be.
Quote:Therefore, it seems to me that the wise thing to do is to recommend a conservative approach and suggest that the OP do his math based on 14% tongue weight. There are various ways of introducing "conservatism". IMO, the more rational way is to estimate TT-induced weights on the basis of maximum likelihood parameters and then compare the resulting weights with the TV's ratings.
Quote:My suggested method goes like this . . . IMO, much of your suggested method does not really address the OP's situation. However, it might be a useful guide for people who know very little about weights and ratings. I'll restrict my comments to a few specific points.
Quote:C. Assume that sooner or later the coach will be towed at or near its GVWR. I think the OP can disregard this.
Quote:E. TV-GVWR minus TV-GVW = MAXIMUM tongue weight your TV can carry. Strictly speaking, this is correct ony if you are not using weight distribution. If you are using WD, the vertical load added to the TV (which is the parameter of interest) is not equal to the tongue weight.
Quote:J. Determine the maximum frontal area your TV is rated for. The Pathfinder is rated for 60 sq ft. That means the trailer can’t have a frontal area (width times height) of more than 60 sq ft.--- No, it does not mean the frontal area cannot exceed 60 sq ft. It only means the tow rating is based on that area at some (usually) unspecified speed. Aerodynamic drag is a function of speed cubed. If the assumed speed, for the rating, is 70 mph and the actual area is 80 sq ft, you can compensate for the added area by reducing your towing speed to about 64 mph.
Quote:2. There are two unofficial rules of thumb:
a. Divide TV wheel base (inches) by 5.5 to get TT length in inches.
b. TT couple to TT axle distance must be less than twice TT wheelbase.
While these are just rules of thumb and not official ratings, they do have merit. Even when the obvious typo in (a.) is corrected ("TT length in inches" should be "in feet"), this, IMO, does not have merit. I believe there would be (for example) many owners of 130" WB Suburbans (especially the 3/4 ton models) who would not agree they should be limited to towing 23.6 ft trailers. OTOH, they probably would agree with ROT (b.) which would "allow" them to tow TTs up to about 35'.
Getting back to the OP's situation -- ROT (b.) would "allow" him to tow up to about 28' which is longer than anything he's considering.
Ron
|
|
|
|
