It looks to me as the upper bracket started to crack right about the receiver. Cracked above the weld and tore about 1/2 through to the back. The weight then bent the receiver downward, braking the rest of the weld portion and also braking the weld along the top.
But, it is hard to say - you could be right. I would have thought though that if the weld broke first, you would not have seen the tearing through the front part of the bracket.
Either way - I don't like GM design either. If its not covered under warranty - I would get an aftermarket unit.
"I swung wide to make the turn and am halfway turned with the truck/TT at about a 45 degree angle to each other waiting for oncoming traffic to stop. Light changes, stopping oncoming traffic, ... forcing me to jam the brakes. Given low speed and angle of trailer, TT brakes may not have activated allowing momentum of TT to force hitch to the right. This is a drawback of the Hensley Hitch, the cams will allow some of this lateral movement if TT brakes don't activate soon/hard enough during a stop."
----
Based on this and others comments, it appears that there may be some potential issues with the receiver. However, you state that the TT brakes may not have applied. Since the HA lengthens the hitch bar by about a foot (i.e. the application point of any lateral force is a foot further from the hitch), could the added moment due to the 45 degree angle have exaggerated the problem?
For example, if one put a 100 foot solid bar in the receiver, one could apply just a few pounds of force on the end of the bar and the torque at the truck would easily tear (twist) the receiver right off - mechanical advantage (or disadvantage in this case). So, could this be a combination of two problems and not just a receiver issue?
(I'm not hitch bashing. I just don't think we should get in a frenzy saying that GM uses lousy receivers when in fact this particular case could be combination of issues.)
I understand what everyone is saying....but.... I saw (personally with my own 2-eyes) a hitch with the same failure on a 2500HD, towing a 7500lb TT. That failure was from the TT dealer to home; TT dealer paid for the new receiver BTW.
Something is wrong here; I am keeping a good eye (at least one) on my receiver!
Cheers,
Cheers, Doug
2001 Tahoe (5.3L; 3.73 rear; Mobil 1 fluids; BFG T/A AT)
Wester's Garage Custom Tune
Ranch Hand Bull Nose bumpers (F&R) w/ LightForce 170mm Lights on front
Air Lift air bags in the coils
Putnam Class V Hitch
2001 Prowler 27H
Hensley Arrow
I wonder if the Hensley Hitch contributed to the problem (by the way, I own a Hensley and a Suburban so I'm not trying to pick on it).
Its not the side to side movement, but the length of the tow bar. Your hitch receiver is rated at 1,500 lbs tongue weight (with WD)? But remember, that is with a normal length tow hitch. The Hensley is like a large extension hitch. I looked at the 18" extension bars for hitches, and the all say that they significantly reduce the weight carrying capacity of the receiver (I think they said by 1/2).
I've wonder about my hitch before, although my tongue weight is about 300 lbs less than yours I going to check it closely.
Did the failure that you are referring to appear to be in the horizontal direction? Based on the pictures posted for this failure, it appears (at least to me) that the failure was due to motion in the horizontal plane. In other words, there is not a whole lot of deflection down. I would think that horizontal loading would be less than any loading in the vertical direction, such as due to bouncing up and down while going down the road. Perhaps I am missing something. Maybe if the stopping time it very quick, the lateral loads due to any angle can exceed the limit (or cause a bad receiver to show it's ugly head). Any thoughts on this?
Rust on the left gusset weld indicate it had broken some time prior to the final failure which appears to be from side load. I'm not familiar with the Hensley system. Is there something about it that side loads the receiver more in turns than with other systems? These short reciever designs just don't seem to be as robust as the old long receivers with an additional cross vehicle brace at the front of the receiver. It would seem with this design that the force on the load leveler bars would be transmitted into rotational torque right at the receiver attachement point. With the long receiver designs it is primarily downard force at the rear of the receiver. The long receiver designs are not as compact and probably detract from the appearance of the vehicle more, but are inherently stronger.
Like ph39 noted above, there is an increase in the torque at the receiver due to vertical loading. This increase is also observed for horizontal loading. So, yes the increased length will produce a larger horizontal torque (or force at the tip) on the receiver when there is braking at an angle and the trailer is not sufficiently advanced in braking. My guess is that it is this loading that exaggerated the problem and caused the ultimate failure. So, it may not be fair to completely blame the receiver.
Quote: Like ph39 noted above, there is an increase in the torque at the receiver due to vertical loading. This increase is also observed for horizontal loading. So, yes the increased length will produce a larger horizontal torque (or force at the tip) on the receiver when there is braking at an angle and the trailer is not sufficiently advanced in braking. My guess is that it is this loading that exaggerated the problem and caused the ultimate failure. So, it may not be fair to completely blame the receiver.
Note two things.
#1) The weld let go right at it's junction to the sheetmetal gusset. If it was a "good" weld, and penetrated, the gusset would have torn and not the weld because the weld/gusset would have had larger cross sectional area...the smaller cross section would have gone first (the gusset material).
#2) Other receivers do just fine with same WD setup. Why not this one? I'd get aother brand known to handle this type of hitch and weights, rather than let GM put another one of same design but with "new" gussets on.
Personally blame the receiver for faulty welds and poor design. Pot holes, rail road crossings, rough roads, etc are common enough in all parts of the country that any manufacturer of this type of equipment should have specifications to handle & survive, IMHO.
-Ben Picture of my rig
1996 GMC SLT Suburban 3/4 ton K3500/7.4L/4:1/+150Kmiles orig owner...
1980 Chevy Silverado C10/long bed/"BUILT" 5.7L/3:73/1 ton helper springs/+329Kmiles, bought it from dad...
1998 Mazda B2500 (1/2 ton) pickup, 2nd owner...
Praise Dyno Brake equiped and all have "nose bleed" braking!
Previous trucks/offroaders: 40's Jeep restored in mid 60's / 69 DuneBuggy (approx +1K lb: VW pan/200hpCorvair: eng, cam, dual carb'w velocity stacks'n 18" runners, 4spd transaxle) made myself from ground up / 1970 Toyota FJ40 / 1973 K5 Blazer (2dr Tahoe, 1 ton axles front/rear, +255K miles when sold it)...
Sold the boat (looking for another): Trophy with twin 150's...
51 cylinders in household, what's yours?...
Quote: Isn't the GVWR for a Suburban 2500 8600 lbs? Your weight slip shows 8940 - 340 lbs overweight. I don't know how you were loaded then but it looks high to me.
......
bigRazor
The numbers you quoted are for the 1/2 ton with the small engine. With BurbMan's 3/4 ton and 8.1, he is rated at 12,000 lbs.
Good luck BurbMan. Glad to hear that neither the TV nor TT were damaged.
Scott
2006 F250 CC PSD w TowCommand
2004 KZ Coyote 23CT
That is an awfully flimsy looking Class V receiver. I've had Class III and IV receivers that bolt to the truck frame rails that are more substantial than that piece of crap. I would certainly question the rating of that receiver.
Offline
