Here piggy piggy (tow pig's)

I don't usually jump into these hotly contested threads, so go easy on me...

I thought that for the past 10-20 years tow ratings were purely marketing tools to get people to buy heavily optioned (read highly profitable) trucks and SUV's. My sole example that I can pull out of my butt without research is the Ford Crown Vic. One year it has a 5000 lb tow rating and the next it isn't rated for towing (forget the exact year but it was early 2000's). I think the only real change was the relocation of the brake master cylinder to fit the 4cam mod motor for the Mercury Maurader...

Tom_Spangler wrote:

curtis73 wrote: I'm just confused as to why you guys are so insistent that those numbers are ironclad fact. All I'm saying is that the numbers are generalized, altered to meet acceptable risk and market perception. Why is that so hard to grasp?

But you went further than that. You said that the tow ratings are "a fantasy number debated and decided by suits"

You're right, I took it too far to drive home the point. Apologies.

To me, the tow rating is a starting point. You do have to use common sense. My travel trailer weighs 6000lbs empty, so theoretically it could be towed by most midsize SUVs. But I wouldn't. My general rule of thumb is to stay under 80% or so of the factory rating to have something of a safety margin.

It is a starting point, but in some vehicles it is so vague and off the mark that it ruins its credibility. Its true that maybe the tow rating is spot on for some vehicles, but when you see some that are so far off, its what led me to say that I have zero faith in them. They could be accurate, or they could be off by 5000 lbs. That was my point.

secretariata wrote: I don't usually jump into these hotly contested threads, so go easy on me... I thought that for the past 10-20 years tow ratings were purely marketing tools to get people to buy heavily optioned (read highly profitable) trucks and SUV's. My sole example that I can pull out of my butt without research is the Ford Crown Vic. One year it has a 5000 lb tow rating and the next it isn't rated for towing (forget the exact year but it was early 2000's). I think the only real change was the relocation of the brake master cylinder to fit the 4cam mod motor for the Mercury Maurader...

This is the basic point of what I was saying. The committees meet and make numbers that drive sales within acceptable liability ranges. Several years ago, Dodge really upped the game by coming out with huge tow numbers for the new Rams. The next year Ford and GM upped their numbers as well without changing anything about their trucks.

In my experience at GM, the engineers come up with a set of numbers using R&D and testing. Let's say we're talking about a 1-ton truck. If it passes the testing at 17,500, (an exaggerated number) GM won't rate it for 17,500. The legal team will argue that the first accident a customer has while towing 17k will bring on massive lawsuits. Marketing teams will say that its too implausible. No one will buy a pickup to tow 17,500 so it has no niche in the market. So they instead pick a nice number that trumps the other guys but leaves room for increase later. Maybe they pick 12,500. Lower liability for happy lawyers, best in class towing for marketing, great choice.

On the flip side of the coin, lets say that same truck could only pass the testing at 7800 lbs because it overheats. The first step is to re-engineer (that means band-aid fix) the cooling system. Now it will pass at 9000. The marketers whine that they can't sell a 1-ton truck that only tows 9000 especially when Ford just announced 13k. So they do liability predictions and determine that raising the tow rating to 12,500 will keep the truck marketable and only raise liability 3.4%.

Now it is possible that the engineers build a truck that should be rated at 12,500, it tests at 12,500, the marketers like 12,500, the liability at 12,500 is low, so let's publish 12,500. In my experience however, that almost never happens.

Not to argue the validity of tow ratings one way or the other (I tow a 2200lb race car on a 1800lb flatbed trailer with a Sequoia, which is more than sufficient for the task, though I'm sure some here would say I need an F350 dually for that too, and others would say I could just tow that with my WRX, lol). But the one thing I notice in this debate is that it seems to focus almost exclusively on the Big Three US automakers, who have always been in an ongoing nuclear war when it comes to truck capabilities - and almost always focusing on each other (being the three biggest truck-builders out there). I kind of wonder whether the Japanese truck-builders look at things the same way - seeing as trucks are a much less significant part of their vehicle sales than the Big Three. The Japanese in general tend to be conservative in engineering, and I don't know what the corporate culture is there regarding "the suits" changing the numbers for marketing, liability, etc. I do know that the Japanese engineers I have worked with (on non-automotive things) seem to have a lot more "say" in things than their American counterparts, and are less frequently second-guessed by management. Could just be my perception. And since the Japanese companies aren't really building giant house-hauling diesel dually beasts, maybe it's a moot point. But one wonders if things like the Tundra and Titan are rated more conservatively than they'd be were they were the same trucks from the Big Three.

Just a random thought. I never have to tow more than about 5K (trailer/trailer load/tow rig load) so I don't often think about these bigger beasts.

Are we done?

This thread has gotten a bit lost in the woods, I do agree that some company's use some funny numbers (not just for towing) but I have no plans at this time to get close to the limit.

Wondering about a few things:

What about Ford vans, anyone use one for towing?

Anyone here have good luck with Government fleet (including police) trucks amd vans, I know they may have more engine hours than miles and this concerns me a bit or am I overthinking this?

Thanks, Paul B

As to Ford vans, Moxnix (Shawn) tows with an E350 van. They just towed from DC area to rally-x nationals in Iowa this weekend (open trailer with a Miata) and they seem to like it, but admittedly it's not a heavy load. They don't tow terribly fast I don't think. We usually catch up to them on the way home from local events (in the Sequoia towing an e30), and I'm generally running at about 65mph or so. But the van should have good power, and a long wheelbase.

irish44j wrote: Not to argue the validity of tow ratings one way or the other (I tow a 2200lb race car on a 1800lb flatbed trailer with a Sequoia, which is more than sufficient for the task, though I'm sure some here would say I need an F350 dually for that too, and others would say I could just tow that with my WRX, lol). But the one thing I notice in this debate is that it seems to focus almost exclusively on the Big Three US automakers, who have always been in an ongoing nuclear war when it comes to truck capabilities - and almost always focusing on each other (being the three biggest truck-builders out there). I kind of wonder whether the Japanese truck-builders look at things the same way - seeing as trucks are a much less significant part of their vehicle sales than the Big Three. The Japanese in general tend to be conservative in engineering, and I don't know what the corporate culture is there regarding "the suits" changing the numbers for marketing, liability, etc. I do know that the Japanese engineers I have worked with (on non-automotive things) seem to have a lot more "say" in things than their American counterparts, and are less frequently second-guessed by management. Could just be my perception. And since the Japanese companies aren't really building giant house-hauling diesel dually beasts, maybe it's a moot point. But one wonders if things like the Tundra and Titan are rated more conservatively than they'd be were they were the same trucks from the Big Three. Just a random thought. I never have to tow more than about 5K (trailer/trailer load/tow rig load) so I don't often think about these bigger beasts.

Have you seen any tundra commercials? Especially when they revamped it a few years ago? They were trying very hard to jump right into the towing battle mix in the half ton market.

neon4891 wrote:

At 2 mph for a couple blocks on perfectly flat ground. With the right gearing, even my old 4 cyl Pinto could do that. Doesn't make it the right tool for the job.

irish44j wrote: As to Ford vans, Moxnix (Shawn) tows with an E350 van. They just towed from DC area to rally-x nationals in Iowa this weekend (open trailer with a Miata) and they seem to like it, but admittedly it's not a heavy load. They don't tow terribly fast I don't think. We usually catch up to them on the way home from local events (in the Sequoia towing an e30), and I'm generally running at about 65mph or so. But the van should have good power, and a long wheelbase.

It all depends on how I feel about gas mileage that day. With the V10 the van will do any speed I want going up the hills around Cumberland but if I want decent mileage I go a little slower uphill. I bought the van just for towing so I don't care about non-towing mileage. It is complete overkill for the towing I do but that was what we wanted. Towing I get 10-11 MPG. My year is rated for towing 8600 lbs but can be rated for 10,000 lbs with a different rear end.

irish44j wrote: I kind of wonder whether the Japanese truck-builders look at things the same way - seeing as trucks are a much less significant part of their vehicle sales than the Big Three. The Japanese in general tend to be conservative in engineering, and I don't know what the corporate culture is there regarding "the suits" changing the numbers for marketing, liability, etc. I do know that the Japanese engineers I have worked with (on non-automotive things) seem to have a lot more "say" in things than their American counterparts, and are less frequently second-guessed by management. Could just be my perception. And since the Japanese companies aren't really building giant house-hauling diesel dually beasts, maybe it's a moot point. But one wonders if things like the Tundra and Titan are rated more conservatively than they'd be were they were the same trucks from the Big Three.

The Nissan Titan is (was) a much stouter truck overall than the big three back when it was released in 2004. There is a reason why it was truck of the year (we have a 2009 at work, and holy crap does it bring a new meaning to stump pulling. Off idle torque is amazing). Its rated at 9500lbs, which is reasonable, but not the highest out there for a 1/2 ton.

I think curtis' problem is he is looking at the 90's, which was (I dunno...) 2 decades ago. Get with the times brah.

HiTempguy wrote: I think curtis' problem is he is looking at the 90's, which was (I dunno...) 2 decades ago. Get with the times brah.

Nope. Some of the examples I posted are from 2012, some from 2008. Its still the same old numbers game