Do people really care if their truck, when towing, goes from 0-40 in 12 seconds or 16 seconds? What's next 1/4 mile times with a 5er? sheesh
Problem with that argument is you can turn it the other way: do people care about 16 vs 20 sec? 20 vs 25 sec? 25 vs 30 sec?
Next thing you know we have a truck with 90 hp. Where do you draw the line?
Myself, given the choice, would rather take progress and go forward a bit at a time.
Toy haulers start with a higher ratio for pin weight, to compensate for the heavy toys behind the wheels. Once loaded, the pin weight will be closer to normal.
Bingo. More often than not, the pin weight of a toy hauler actually drops with a fully loaded cargo bay.
Either way, the most important thing to look for is not going over the axle capacities. GVW itself is more arbitrary, which is the reason commercial DOT only look at the sum of GVAWs, and not some magical GVW.
I'd say for the OP, the truck is more than enough in terms of safety. You won't be passing people uphill at 70, but you shouldn't be to begin with!
Hmmmm, beats the heck out of my brand new F150 at 1199 lbs. :(
You just bought the wrong door sticker. Mine says 2197 lbs, nicely equipt. And the rear windows go down the whole way, not just tip out.:B
Either way, you guys are laughing. Go check out the Ram forums! There's a guy showing his Hyundai Sonata with greater payload than his 2013 Ram, and that Sonata was rated at 880lbs ...
Now, if my honest judgement as an engineer myself, I do not believe the Ram really is THAT limited. But it's definitely a deterrence when purchasing.
I'm considering a full-size van for a tow vehicle. Right now, all we have is a popup, but hope to upgrade to a 28'-32' with a GVWR in the #7,000-9,000 range. I gave up hope searching for a 3/4-1 ton truck due to the cost, but then I stumbled upon Chevy Express vans that have tow ratings of near #10,000 for much less cost. I'm finding 2012 vans with the 6.0L and 6 speed for around $20,000 with less than 20,000 miles.
I'm still several months away from making the purchase and am trying to learn what I can before committing. I'm not interested in Ford vans (too many REALLY bad experiences with Ford in the past), which leaves me with Chevy/GMC.
I'm pretty committed to the 6.0L, but am confused about the 2500 vs. the 3500. Since they have very similar tow ratings and I don't tow often, I was thinking about the 2500 for the better ride quality empty. However, I've read that the 2500 has more body roll (even empty) and seems to be somewhat undersprung in the suspension.
This caused me to start looking for the differences between the two, unfortunately the GM website doesn't offer a lot of detail. What's the real difference between the two(2010+ model year)? Same chassis? Same rear-end? Same transmission?
So, far the only differences that I have found is that the 3500 has an extra leaf on the rear axle, slightly heavier axles and slightly larger brakes. Is that it? Is there something I'm missing? Thanks!
Like all modern vans, there're very few differences between 3/4 and 1 ton models. You're looking at an extra rear leaf on the 3500, and that's honestly just about it.
FYI, with the Fords, even the E150 rides on the exact same chassis / axle as the E350, since 2007. The GM 1500s does have a seprate chassis though.
Both the 2500 and 3500 have the 3.42 rear end, paired up with the excellent 6L90 6 speed auto. The deep 1st gear makes anything over 3.42 unnecessary. Drive both and see which one is sprung the best for your needs. But compared to even a 3/4 ton Suburban, these vans have much superior carrying capacity, so I really can't see them being under-sprung.
Any vehicle with 6 cylinders moving a similar amount of weight will get about the same mpg. Doesen't matter if you have one turbo, twin turbos, or no turbo.
The eco-boost just means you have the option of much more power, can burn much more fuel, and all in the same vehicle.
Well, I'd even go as far as saying that given a displacement and # of cylinder, adding turbos almost always LOWER you fuel economy, due to the aggressive (rich) fueling of turbo engines.
3.5 EB vs 3.7
Subaru WRX vs regular Impreza
BMW 335 vs 328
GTI vs regular Golf
Focus ST vs regular Focus
Other then the DI Chrysler has had that technology. GM did try cylinder deactivation years ago but it was a flop. Now that computer technology is what it is today you no longer feel the deactivation and activation.
Again, if you take a single component out of a design, and say: has someone done it before? And if they have, then the design is junk and unimpressive.
Then, just about everything fails that test.
8 speed, turbo, DI, hydroformed frame, coil sprung rear, you name it, someone has done it.
I give Ram mad props for putting a quality 8 speed in the 2013 Ram. But, for every other bit of the truck, someone has done it. Does that mean the truck sucks? Hell no!
But has been used years before GM tried.
What *consumer* level V8 had direct injection? The only one I can think of is the Tau V8 in the Hyundai Genesis, which is pretty unrelated to the market we're talking about.
Besides, a technology is not impressive just because some guy tried it before? By that argument you can take the latest Ferrari 458 and make it sound like ****:
- direct injection? tried it before
- variable valve timing? tried it
- super high revving V8? tried it
- carbon fibre? tried it
- IRS/IFS? tried it
- dual clutch? tried it
- giant ceramic brakes? tried it
- active damping? tried it
- launch control / stability / traction control? tried it
Give GM credit when it's due. A pushrod V8 with variable cam phasing, direct injection, and cylinder deactivation is damn good technology for an average Joe truck!
Please tolerate this question. I'm sure it has been asked, before. Considering a used van for towing a 25ft TT, about 8-9000 lbs, total. Would like shorter wheel base. Cargo van is fine, don't need the passenger seats. Would appreciate advice regarding chassis/brand/rear ratio,anything else, etc. Thank you!
Like everyone's been saying, get a post-2010 GM HD van with the 6 speed auto. The 6L90 is a nicely geared transmission, and absolutely bullet proof at the power levels these vans are making. Hell, it'll support a detuned Duramax under commercial duty cycle!
Most on the market will be the 4.8, which is adequate for most tasks. 290 hp and the ability to use the power at any road speed (due to the 6 speed) is plenty. If you tow A LOT, then look for a 6.0L. But where I am they're rare.
Like I said, it could be done, but highly unlikely whilst remaining within all ratings. A tt with only 10% tongue weight wouldn't be good for towing either. The average/recommended 13% would put you at 1500lbs as it is. Close to, or above most 1/2 ton payloads without HD packages. Don't know any that have receiver ratings that high. The only thing I could see working is a boat.
Boat, or the few owners who might use their 1/2 ton for heavy hauling (bricks, shingles, etc) with a dump trailer. The shorter and heavier the trailer, the less you have to rely on tongue weight to reduce sway. a 10k, 20' dump trailer full of rocks would be dead stable at 10% tongue.
With RV trailers, I guess you can use a Hensley, which would drastically reduce the need for tongue weight - you can be at 9% and have zero sway.
In the end, I do agree that 11,000 lbs is too much for non-hd 1/2 tons. Funny as some people says nay to a Suburban towing 7000 lbs, even though they have the same payload as a pickup.
what da know?
Thinking while I was typing to above post - so I googled 'turbo compounding'
man! Lot of hits
Seems they install a second turbo downstream and couple it to the transmission.vola free power.
I know I know no such thing as a free lunch.But I like better then a lot of the weird looking aero stuff.
Yeah the Detroit DD series had it since the start, but I believe only on the DD15, and not DD13.
The downside is that when you're under light load, you're actually less efficient, as the turbine can't be de-coupled from the drivetrain. So you're wasting engine power spinning up a turbine.
I am a little confused with some of these posts.
Shocks are intended to 'dampen' the bounce when driving, but the springs carry the load. I know that some shocks come with springs to provide additional lift, but that is hardly a standard shock. And gas-filled shocks might provide an additional 25 pounds or so of lift, but that is hardly the purpose of the gas.
How can a shock absorber change the attitude of a standing truck?
I totally agree with you unless they install a load leveler type shock..regular shocks dampen but do not support load..ho. Jb
95%+ of shocks do not have any effect on vehicle leveling, as their primary purpose is damping. The gas charge (to reduce fluid bubbling) can create a slight spring effect, but I bet it's so minimal that it's pretty much negligible.
There are, however, some exceptions. The OEM shocks on my Vette have enough pressure in them to lift the front end 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Then you have the various types of air shocks that can provide significant leveling.
For most of the examples brought up here, I doubt either of the above two cases apply.
I would not be surprised at all, because I've done lots of towing too heavy with small manual transmission vehicles. It's fine on the flat, and once the clutch is out there are no issues. It's miserable to get rolling on a steep hill and brutal on the clutch. If these cars had a "granny" gear it would help, but my Jetta's first gear is too tall for easy hill launches empty. A TDI has a lot more low end torque but it's not designed to get that weight rolling on a hill. If you mostly lived and traveled in a region that is flat (like the Midwest) that doesn't matter much. Where I live, my first criteria in a tow vehicle is will it launch on a steep hill towing what I need to tow with no drama.
And you make a perfect valid point - if one's towing indeed involves lots of steep hills, then a manual Jetta is NOT the way to go. But as I've mentioned, many of the AWD large sedans with ZF6/8 speeds can generate more tractive effort most pickups.
Keep in mind many commercial vehicles are faced with the same problems. Try driving a 34,000 lbs coach with a 318hp 8V71 and 4 speed spicer - you can barely get moving on flat ground.
Yet, thousands of them are converted into RVs that camp all over the country. My old Prevost is blessed with a 6:1 granny 1st.
As for the unibody comments, your speculation does not agree with my personal experience.
See, the thing is, people unfairly attack unibody when it comes to cars and minivans. Yet, nobody mentions the numerous unibody SUVs that have high tow ratings. Range Rover, Durango, Grand Cherokee, VW Toureg, Porsche Caynne, all over these have 7000+ lbs tow ratings.
Back when the SRT-8 Cherokee only had a 3500 lbs tow ratings, I claimed it was stricly a marketing decision, as the center mounted tailpipes only allowed a Class II hitch. A couple guys argued with me till red in the face, about sport suspension, engine tuning, blah blah blah.
Fast forward 5 years, The SRT8 jumped up to 5000 lbs, and recently a staggering 7400 lbs. All unibody, with "sport tuned suspension". Hmm, I wonder where the arguments went?
Fact is, we don't need the OEM to tell us every little step on what's right and wrong. Analyze logically:
If a Jeep is upgraded with stiffer suspenion, more hp, tougher transmission / transfer case, and a world class braking system (15" Brembo fronts now), all with the same payload and axle capacity. Does it make sense to have a LOWER tow rating?
Another quick fact GIJoecam, this one I do have numbers for you:
A gen 2 Explorer (Ranger based) was rated to tow 5500 or so in V6 2wd trim.
A gen 4 Explorer (the last body on frame) has a chassis that's 440% (not a type) stronger in torsional regidity, a payload that's 400llbs heavier. It's stronger and safer is every single way as per crash tests.
The 4.0 has slightly more power, and the 5R55S has better ratio and is stronger than the first 5 speeds.
And guess what, not a single pound increase in tow rating.
Could it also have been that the designers and engineers decided that in the interest of increasing CAFE numbers, they needed to make the car lighter, so they sacrificed weight out of the frame and body which reduced its strength and, therefore its towing capacity? Nobody at our end will likely ever know...
The Panther chassis hasn't changed in years...
But, we can extrapolate some info from crash tests. The curb weight of Crown Vic has increased, yet crash tests have improved over the years. Almost impossible if the chassis was weakened.
As well, I can guarantee no OEM would make an identical model lighter, with no re-design, solely for CAFE - totally unsafe. This is one area where engineers do have veto power! If you can find an example, I'd like to see it.
Does the Honda have some different components? More sound deadening material for a better ride? More sheet metal and carries more passengers, therefore reduced capacity?
Based on the Odyssey's higher payload, no, it does NOT have reduced capacity. Don't forget if you nit-pick on that level, I can find you a million things that goes against the MDX / Pilot:
Higher CG - deduct some weight. Longer suspension travel, higher suspension roll-center, AWD system weight, and driveline vibration / resonance. At this point, we're just making up random things.
Or could it be that the new design was designed TO tow 3500 lbs because that's what marketing determined their target customer base wanted? Could they have designed it to tow more? Probably. But there's likely a reason they didn't...
You nailed it!
If tow ratings are 100% engineering simulations and calculations, then market wouldn't matter.
Also, a 1990 Caravan also has the same ratings as a 2012 Odyssey, hmm, mere coincidence? Dodge and Honda must use the same market, I mean, material stress analysis software...
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. I would agree that performance could be one of the issues, as could durability, and the overall design of that powertrain combination. It's entirely possible that the chassis is identical to the euro-spec version and, therefore, capable, but the drivetrain may not be up to the task. It's also entirely possible that the US-version has a different chassis and while it may look identical to the naked eye, it could use a different structure that makes it lighter and, therefore, less suitable for towing. My guess is that it's a combination of a number of different factors, any or all of which may not be visible to the naked eye.
The problem with that argument is that it's totally based on assumption. I can just as easy say, the US version is actually strengthen, but looks the same to the naked eye. And marketing crippled it on purpose...
Or we can say, based on logic, since the Transit Connects are all assembled in Turkey, and shipped over, there's ZERO difference.
I'm not quite at that end of the spectrum, but I do tend to side with the engineers who designed, tested, and devloped the vehicles. Contrary to what some here preach, the numbers published in the manuals are not pulled out of thin air by marketing. I've seen vehicles on the test rigs being subjected to towing fatigue cycles... There's far, far more involved than just picking a number out of the air.
The challenge is we don't have a direct line of communication to the engineers. We have to filter through Marketing and Legal. How do we know what decision were actually made by the engineers?
Some people choose to believe that 100% of the specs on a sales brochure are based 100% on engineering calculations. I, as a professional engineer myself, do not believe that. Therefore, I am using examples of LOGIC to prove otherwise.
It may not be a performance issue at all. It may simply be that a particular engine and drivetrain combination is designed for a particular duty and life cycle under a certain load, and adding the weight of and drag of a trailer to that particular vehicle might compromise the durability of that powertrain beyond acceptable levels. Everything on a vehicle is a series of trade-offs, some of which are deemed acceptable, and some of which are not. But those decisions are not arrived at without significant consideration.
Again, not a safety concern. I do not expect Ford to warranty my car if I tow 6000 lbs with it. I (and folks like Caddy) choose to taken 100% of responsibility for our drive-trains.
The problem is guys who feel this setup is "unsafe" by design.
That has already been done with the 4-wheel disc brakes starting in 1999 and the much larger rotors starting in 2011.
Where there is a gap in the GM lineup is in not having anything to compete head to head with the Ford Ecoboost trucks.
Oh, you mean they're lack an engine that's super bad on fuel when towing and mediocre when not? :p :D
Now to switch to miles....New York City to Honolulu, Hawaii is about 4968 miles, Melbourne to Perth, Australia is about 1690 miles, Victoria BC , Canada to St. John's Newfoundland, Canada is about 3146 miles.
All...really big distances.
Hell, with the kind of crappy roads we have in BC, every mile should count as two!
Compared to western Australia, where you can set the cruise and go take a nap in the back.
Recommend the LTX as well, specifically, the M/S2.
Having said that, it does have relatively soft sidewalls. However, the tread is very good, steering is effortless yet plenty of feel at speed. Tracks dead straight, no wandering what so ever.
If you tow heavy though, E rated should be considered not for load bearing, but sidewall stiffness.
In my opinion the Crown Vic decreased it's tow rating about the time GM ended production of the CV's prime competition.... the RWD Chevy Caprice and mechanical twin the Buick Roadmaster.
If memory serves me correct both the Chevy and Buick had tow ratings of 5000 lbs....as did the RWD Ford Crown Victoria.
I think GM stopped production after the '96 model...and the CV decreased it's tow capacity in a model year shortly after that.
Another benefit Ford accrued as a result of GM dropping the RWD Caprice...was to take over the police package car market. Up to the '96 model year the RWD Chev Caprice police package dominated the police car market.
That's a good point. And I think it further proves that a lot of the tow ratings were strictly market driven, whether internal or from competitors. If the 5000 lbs rating was a pure, high-precision engineering calculation, it won't budge no matter what the market situation is.
Regarding the GMs, the Cadillac Fleetwood with the HD towing package was rated at 7000 lbs! It had a mechanical vs electric cooling fan, among other changes. The 9C1 Caprice and Impala SS had the toughest steering components.
So if an out of date Fleedwood can tow 7000 lbs, why can't a modern large sedan that's more powerful, much better braking, and stronger chassis? Sure there's no frame or solid axle, but neither does a 54,000 lbs tour coach (18,000 lbs IFS)...