2005 toyota highlander yes or no?

[Glenn Baglo]

I have asked etrailer by email why those class III hitches they advertise are not "rated" for WDHitch. Also asked which class III hitches they sell are rated.
Awaiting response.
Took my RAV4 in for recall and service and asked the service manager if he could find out why Toyota says a WDHitch is "not recommended". He is looking into it for me.
I think one of the issues on this forum is that people take words like "not recommended" and turn them into "absolutely forbidden". And then, etrailer uses the term "not rated" for WDHitch, which means exactly what?
Anyway, will post results of my enquiries.

[Francesca Knowles]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

And then, etrailer uses the term "not rated" for WDHitch, which means exactly what?
Anyway, will post results of my enquiries.

W/D is a system of levers that uses the hitch/ball/tongue combo to create enough force to literally "lift" the rear of the vehicle, thus restoring weight to the front tug axles. Forces involved are greater than those on a simple hitch ball system and require more substantial design and means/points of attachment.

I think this principle is very well expressed in the following quote from this Airforums link:
(Post #12; "load equalizer" is another term for W/D)

In simplest of terms, a load equalizer hitch lifts the back of the tow vehicle to remove weight from the rear axle and transfer it to the front axle. Think of inserting a long steel bar into your hitch receiver and lifting up.

This lifting twists the receiver vertically at its attachment points. If the attachment points or receiver are not strong enough something will tear and break.

Once those principles are understood, it seems obvious to me why the Highlander hitches sold by E-trailer are unsuitable for such heavy duty use. In addition to the mere six attachment points, all to the unibody underside, the three hitches on offer have that "curve" that wraps around the muffler (see below). Completely wrong for leverage purposes.

[War Eagle]

Bass fishing and water skiing are big here in the Southeast, and it seems like half of the vehicles on the road here have a hitch for hauling boats of one type or another up and down the road to the next river or lake. So I just did a very unscientific walking survey of a large parking lot nearby, and it's amazing the variety of hitches out there. Overwhelmingly 2"x2" receivers. It's pretty evident that over the last 3-4 years, vehicle manufacturers have tried to make the hitches and electrical connectors blend in more stylishly with the bumper - some even having "skirts" to cover the receiver hole in the bumper when the hitch is not in use. But before that, it's amazing how many hitches out there incorporate that 2" to 3" drop from the frame or undercarriage to lower the receiver below the bumper. But with all the hundreds of boats (some of them pretty darn big!) being hauled hundreds of miles around here every weekend, I don't think I've ever heard of a wreck caused by hitch failure. Excessive speed and reckless lane changing, to be sure. But hitch failure, not that I've heard of. So maybe the physics behind that 2-3" hitch drop works out just fine.

[War Eagle]

Francesca, When using a weight distribution hitch, is it a 100% transfer of weight off the rear axle of the TV onto the front axle of the TV? It seems like some portion of that weight redistribution would be born by the axle of the trailer. Taken to the extreme, where the rear axle of the TV is lifted completely off the ground, leaving only the front axel of the TV and the trailer axle to bear the entire weight, surely more of the total weight would be born by the trailer axle. So it seems that even a little WDH lift off the rear axle would shift some fraction of that weight to the trailer axle. Any idea what the physics might be behind that? Still just curious....

[Francesca Knowles]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

Any idea what the physics might be behind that? Still just curious....

I'm smilin' because that very same curiosity has led me into some VERY technical discussions on this subject, much of which have proven difficult for my poor math-challenged self to grasp.

Here's an answer to at least part of your above question, as posted during one such question-and-answer session. Quote is from this RV.net discussion in a forum there populated by some very knowledgeable- and very patient- folks!

Posted By: Ron Gratz on 02/06/14 03:50pm

With no weight distribution applied:
1) the ball coupler pushes downward on the ball,
2) the TV's rear axle serves as a fulcrum, and
3) the TV's front axle gets "lighter" (load is removed).

If the distance from the rear axle to the ball is equal to one-half the distance from the rear axle to the front axle, the load removed from the front axle will be equal to one-half of the tongue weight.

With weight distribution applied, each lift chain might be tensioned to 1000#, giving a total tension of 2000# for two chains. This means a downward force of 2000# is applied to the TT's A-frame about 30" behind the ball coupler.
With the ball coupler acting as a fulcrum, and assuming the distance from coupler to TT's axles is 240", the 2000# downward force acting 30" behind the ball would be countered by an added force of 2000#*30"/240" = 250# acting upward against the TT's tires.

Now, the TV's rear axle becomes a fulcrum, and the added force acting upward against the TT's tires causes an added upward force to act against the TV's front tires
If the distance from the TV's rear axle to TT's axles is twice the distance form the TV's rear axle to front axle, the amount of load added to the front tires will be equal to twice the load added to the TT's tires.

In other words:
4) the tension in the WD bar lift chains exerts a downward force on the A-frame,
5) the downward force on the A-frame (with ball acting as fulcrum) causes an upward force on the TT's tires (load is added),
6) the upward force on the TT's tires (with TV's rear axle acting as fulcrum) causes an upward force on the TV's front tires (load is added), and
7) the upward force on the TT's tires (with TV's front axle acting as fulcrum) causes load to be removed from the TV's rear tires.

The load removed from the rear tires, via application of WD, will be equal to the sum of the loads added to the front tires and TT's tires.

Ron

[War Eagle]

Ya, that's kinda what I was thinkin', too!

[Glenn Baglo]

etrailer has responded and posted info on Highlander after-market hitches that they offer. You can find the page at: Why are Hitches for a 2005 Toyota Highlander Not Rated for Weight Distribution | etrailer.com

The answer basically rules out using a WDH with any unibody vehicle, which doesn't leave much.

Toyota service has email in at Toyota Canada and is awaiting response. My RAV4 got clean bill of health, including the underside.

[Glenn Baglo]

I asked a follow up question regarding that most SUVs are unibody and got this response:

More and more of them are.

All I can tell you is what the folks at Cequent Performance Products (parent company of Draw-Tite and Hidden Hitch) and Curt told me.

The 'frame' structure of the Highlander started to flex during the W/D portion of the hitch testing. The companies weren't pleased with that, so they don't recommend using weight distribution.

[Glenn Baglo]

Just looked up Class III Hidden Hitch for my 2008 RAV4 and got the following information. It appears the issue is with the Highlander and you can't apply "no WDH" generally.

[Glenn Baglo]

And, I looked up 2014 Highlander. WDHitch is not a problem.

[Francesca Knowles]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

And, I looked up 2014 Highlander. WDHitch is not a problem.

Presumably you looked up the hitch. Since specs given by Toyota link for the 2014 Rav 4 limit towing capacity for all models to 1500 pounds, it's hard to imagine why one would want/need to use W/D at all on this car.

Also, per your particular 2008 (Canadian?) model, and in keeping with your well reasoned assertion that one must avoid generalities:
At least according to this carefully researched discussion, all Canadian model Rav 4's at least through 2008 came equipped with a tow prep package that included some kind of reinforcements at the hitch attachment points. This is/was an option-only on U.S. models.

Make sure you know what you have before you buy, folks!

[Glenn Baglo]

I didn't look up the 2014 RAV4 because I know it is useless as a tow vehicle. I looked up my 2008 ( isn't that what I said? ) and I looked up 2014 Highlander ( isn't that what I said? ).
As for the tow prep package I have often warned U.S. members that several items were optional in the U.S. and standard in Canada so they need to check their specific vehicle.
Now what do you want to argue about?

[Francesca Knowles]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

I didn't look up the 2014 RAV4 because I know it is useless as a tow vehicle. I looked up my 2008 ( isn't that what I said? ) and I looked up 2014 Highlander ( isn't that what I said? ).

My bad...sorry!
BUT
The (unsourced) specs you listed look to me to be specs for a hitch, not the vehicle itself.

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

And, I looked up 2014 Highlander. WDHitch is not a problem.

For the 2014 Highlander , Toyota lists capacities from 2,000 to a maximum of 5,000 pounds depending on model; and only those with the following standard equipment are capable of the uppermost limit:

Heavy-duty radiator with engine oil cooler, 200-watt fan coupling, supplemental transmission oil cooler and 150-amp alternator

And the following language is also included:

40.
Before towing, confirm your vehicle and trailer are compatible, hooked up and loaded properly and that you have any necessary additional equipment.
Do not exceed any Weight Ratings and follow all instructions in your Owner’s Manual
. The maximum you can tow depends on the total weight of any cargo, occupants and available equipment.

I call that "follow all instructions" language pretty strong; if indeed such instructions include language against the use of W/D surely they should be given more weight than the specs/opinions of an aftermarket hitch supplier.

[Glenn Baglo]

Still waiting for a response from Toyota HQ.
As I have pointed out before, the sentence that says a WDHitch is not recommended is just one sentence, in black on white, like most of the rest of the manual.
All the important warnings are on a yellow field and some are also boxed with "WARNING".

[Francesca Knowles]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

All the important warnings are on a yellow field and some are also boxed with "WARNING".

The owner's manual is a book of instructions.

And on page 350 of the instructions at this link for your 2008 Rav 4, it says very plainly:
Use only a weight carrying hitch designed for the total trailer weight.
That's an unambiguous statement. To dismiss it as unimportant simply because it's not contained in a yellow field strikes me as ludicrous since by that logic, one can simply ignore virtually ALL the instructions in the book.

[Glenn Baglo]

Would that be in the third photo that I posted?
Just keep at it Francesca. Keep going.

[MC1]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

I asked a follow up question regarding that most SUVs are unibody and got this response:

More and more of them are.

All I can tell you is what the folks at Cequent Performance Products (parent company of Draw-Tite and Hidden Hitch) and Curt told me.

The 'frame' structure of the Highlander started to flex during the W/D portion of the hitch testing. The companies weren't pleased with that, so they don't recommend using weight distribution.

No doubt. In order to build a receive/platform they need to be designed with a larger spread especially in the forward direction that should reach to the rear axle of the vehicle. My dad's 1964 Dodge Polara was a unibody with a huge long overhang and that is how the hitch builder installed the receiver/platform 50 years ago. Worked great with a WDH.

Bottom line: Run of the mill designs today are made to fit in a box for ease in shipping and are inadequate in many cases. Not

[Bob Miller]

Hmmmm... In the last three years I have purchased three hitches, two of which were approved for WD use, and none of them came in a box, all three came bare naked with an instruction envelope and shipping tag attached, but one had a small separate box with hardware enclosed

And I am sure some may be inadequate when not used within the specifications set by the the hitch & vehicle manufacturer.

[MC1]

Originally Posted by Bob Miller

Hmmmm... In the last three years I have purchased three hitches, two of which were approved for WD use

Yes Bob, and we see them all the time. You were perhaps one of the lucky chaps who got a good one. Even used within spec, many are less than marginal.

[Bob Miller]

The exception can always be found. Somehow I don't that that the picture, which suggests that it is proving a point, is of a current production major name hitch. Judging by the vehicle I can guess that it is Chinese or eastern European and may be at least 20 years old.

Again, when used within design specifications, modern hitches are, for the vast majority of us, all good ones.