Wanna tow Scamp 16' with Subaru Forester

[John McMillin]

I'm not an expert on current Subaru models. There might be some pertinent upgrades that come with the 6 cylinder engine, so do your research (I like edmunds.com for lists of features, by model). Be aware that the good ol' boy's habit of counting cylinders to judge engine output is outdated and irrelevant: the Subaru 2.5 liter four is the same displacement as many V6'es, and its 177 ft.lbs. (aka: "torques") are impressive. Sixes are smoother than fours, but their extra power is offset by extra weight and maintenance costs.


If you really want more power where you need it, up in the mountains, get a turbo.

I've thought about how my towing experience would be different if I had the turbo XT Forester. I could pull up I-70 at 10 mph faster, but the 45-60 mph I can do now isn't so shabby. Either way, other drivers would be passing me constantly. There's something about seeing a trailer up ahead that makes you want to pass it, no matter how fast it's going. We expect trailers to be slow, and we hate to get stuck behind one. I don't think it would make any difference if I was towing at 75mph. With the Audi Allroad I've just bought, I guess I'll have a chance to test this theory.

All Subaru models will comfortably tow their rated weight, I'd say. When you pick your engine consider what you's prefer to drive everyday, unhitched. When I bought a Forester in '04, turbos got much worse mileage. Consider that issue with the six.

There's something oddly amusing about pulling a ton with a smaller engine. It feels like race driving. RPMs, shift points and anticipation play a large role. You rarely get a chance to use a car's full potential these days, and it can be fun. But others would hind it stressful, if not humiliating. They just want to push the right pedal and GO NOW. If you're one of those, you should know to put the biggest horses under the hood.

[Mike Magee]

It looks like you have the tongue down almost to the ground to weigh it. When the trailer is not level, it changes the weight distribution. In other words, you have a little more weight on your reading than you will when the trailer is level.

[mcbrew]

John, that is so true about people wanting to pass trailers. I have had many people pass me and then drive slower. It's obvious when you have to turn off the cruise control.

[Carol H]

I have towed a 16 Scamp side bath with no Ac with a 4 cylinder Outback for 5 years over thousands iof miles & I can assure you it is safe & fine. Admit thought that occasionally more power would be nice but that's less than 3% of total tow time.

[MyronL]

Clearly, a traditional, solid frame structure connecting all four wheels is the best tow vehicle design. Trucks excepted, seems that the new "unibody" design has taken over. Doesn't that pose problems for us? If chances of the back end of a tow v. separating from the rest of it are nil ---wouldn't the subsequent decreased sharing of stress result in a greater proportion of "minor" stresses? Wouldn't that, over time, increase the chances of leaky windows, gaps at seams, mis-allignments, twisting and skewing? I wonder just how good for towing unibody construction really is.

[honda03842]

Myron,

Both Carol H and I, and others I'm sure, have towed extensivelly with our unibody vehicles. I know that Carol and I have not had any issues what so ever. I have over 160,000 miles on my Honda CRV and have been towing 5 years like Carol.

We both get very good mileage, have had excellent reliability, and I suspect would buy the same or similar vehicles again. We both have Scamp 16s and our vehicles tow them vey well.

I'm not saying a heavy, rail constructed truck is not stiffer than our vehicles, it may be the case. I will say our vehicles have proven themselves to be stiff enough and cost effective for our Scamp 16s.

[Thomas G.]

I worked in the auto industry as an engineer for 27 years and part of my responsibility was body stiffness. A unibody is inherently a lot stiffer than a body on frame. More recently, pickups have boxed frames, but if you look at an older one parked on an uneven surface, you can actually see the box twist relative to the body.

That said, this argument seems to be a tempest in a tea pot. Body stiffness, in of itself, is not critical in trailer towing other than that a very loose body/frame handles poorly, trailer or not. Overall stiffness is very important in ride quality and sensitivity to chassis and power train vibration.

[John McMillin]

I agree with Thomas G. Think of it this way-- a box, of the same materials, is stronger than a platform. A vehicle frame is pretty much a two-dimensional structure, with little resistance to twist.

My Subaru and Audi have subframes-- beefy chassis structures at key points, supporting engine, suspension and bumpers, so they're carrying thicker steel where it counts. Crash safety regs have contributed to this. Though the body sheet metal may seem thin in places, there's serious steel underneath. I reckon that accounts for about half the reason why my VW New Beetle weighs almost twice what an original Beetle weighs.

Full-framed construction is needed for really heavy loads, and it's handy for swapping in various bed lengths, cap styles, etc. It also speeds construction when you can install most everything on a bare frame and drop the body on last. But I don't think it's necessary for towing a Scamp or Casita.

Once again, folks, remember the world these egg trailers were born into. SUVs didn't exist, and pickup trucks were scarce, mostly used as work vehicles, not personal transportation. Thus, these little trailers were intended to be towed by cars. Am I wrong?

[Thomas G.]

Originally Posted by John McMillin

........Am I wrong?

Exhibit "A", a convertible yet.

[MyronL]

Many many thanks, all - my concerns about choosing a new tow v. are narrowing down considerably. Less engineering-critical, more now about price, convenience, comfort, versatility, economy, and what momma likes

[honda03842]

We're near the Coronado National Forest. It has a marvelous campground named Sunny Flats. Today there were two Scamp 13s. As well there has been a Trillium and a Casita at Rusty's RV Ranch.

I spoke with the owner's father and he said RV travel is way down, particularly the larger rigs.

This week I've seen the most small rigs I've ever seen other than rallies.

The chat is always about our tow vehicle; it's ability and now particularly it's mpg. One of the Scamp 13 owners towed with a 4 cylinder Rav 4 and plans to move up to a Scamp 16.

Neither owner knew about our web site.

Here's a picture from the mountains.

[BCDave]

Originally Posted by John McMillin

Once again, folks, remember the world these egg trailers were born into. SUVs didn't exist, and pickup trucks were scarce, mostly used as work vehicles, not personal transportation. Thus, these little trailers were intended to be towed by cars. Am I wrong?

No you are not wrong. you are 100% correct! They were meant to be towed by cars. Cars with a separate frame and body - rear wheel drive, V8 cars.

If you have a rear-wheel drive, V8 Body-on-frame car, great - that's what these were built to be towed behind. I use a rear wheel drive, V8 body-on-frame tow vehicle. In today's world - that's a pickup. And that's one of the many,many reasons why the largest-selling single models from ANY domestic manufacturer are the pickups! The F150 is the largest-selling vehicle in N America, followed by the Silverado/Sierra twins and the Ram series.

[honda03842]

Bolers are the parents of all Scamps and Casitas. My recollection is that the Boler was capable of being towed by a VW. At least that's what I heard the goal was and not some monster V8.

Is this true Boler fans?

Looking for historical accuracy here.

[Donna D.]

Yeah Norm, it is. The first Boler also were under 1,000 pounds. Since then, all brands have gotten heavier.. some by a lot based on what people stuff into them. Airstream even has a picture of one being pulled by a bicycle... wouldn't want to do that either. Isn't history a wonderful thing, especially when viewed with rose colored glasses

[mcbrew]

Originally Posted by honda03842

Bolers are the parents of all Scamps and Casitas. My recollection is that the Boler was capable of being towed by a VW. At least that's what I heard the goal was and not some monster V8.

Is this true Boler fans?

Looking for historical accuracy here.

From the story I read, they were designed to be towed by air cooled VW beetles.

Airstreams were towed by rear wheel drive V8 sedans. I find it more than a bit silly that anyone thinks you need a body-on-frame car with a V8 to tow a Scamp. I imagine this is an attempt at humor.

My Scamp towed well behind a subcompact Toyota with a 1.8 liter engine... Tows like a dream behind my mid size Subaru with a 2.5 liter engine. My unibody van is crippled by its design... Only able to tow a measly 9,000 pounds. Of course, it has a HUGE 2.7 liter engine to get it all moving.

[BCDave]

Originally Posted by honda03842

Bolers are the parents of all Scamps and Casitas. My recollection is that the Boler was capable of being towed by a VW. At least that's what I heard the goal was and not some monster V8.

Is this true Boler fans?

Looking for historical accuracy here.

I' cannot recall ever seeing a bug tow ANYTHING (and how would you put a hitch on one - given where the exhaust was - remember that appearance of a pair of 50 cal machine-guns exiting the middle of the crossways muffler under the back?) - but I digress

The comment had been to the effect that "when these trailers were developed" or similar wording that I do not have in front of me now - Pickups were worktrucks and vans etc were not common either - that it was CARS that towed them. I agree. Cars towed them. And in the 60's and 70's very few of those cars were unibody cars, virtually all were rear wheel drive, and the most commonly encountered cars were large body-on-frame sedans , most commonly with a V8. Think Ford Galaxie, Plymouth Fury, Dodge Polara, Chev Biscayne & Caprice, Pontiac Parisienne or Catalina etc. The (not so common) unibody cars were still rear wheel drive - the Valiant comes to mind. The very few front-wheel drives were huge V8's - Olds Toronado, Cadillac ElDorado. It was not until 1978 that domestic makers began to downsize in any serious fashion, and begin to use fwd and unibody as a common build practice.

Yes, I know, some imports were unibody long before 1978.

Circa mid-60's VWs barely had enough power to get up a hill solo, never mind tow anything. My '63 (university commuter) could not hold 65 mph on level ground. It went like H*** in first & second - was a terror at the stoplights - but it wasn't really safe to drive on the highways around Winnipeg - where the Boler was born and where traffic generally moved at a cool, calm and relaxed 70-80 mph.

[GeorgeR]

The car which I did not see in Fiberglass TV discussions is Volvo S60 with 3,307lb towing capacity. New one costs over $31K.

The All-New 2012 Volvo S60 Sedan

Since 2010 Volvo is owned by a Chinese company so they will likely stop utilizing Ford’s components soon and God knows what will happen with prices. Perhaps Harbor Freight will start carrying Volvo replacement parts.

George.

[John McMillin]

Concerns about the lack of proper body-on-frame construction keep cropping up here. OK, educate me. Has anybody experienced structural failure of a unibody car towing an egg trailer? No?

I believe some of you have an outdated view of vehicle design, as obsolete as an aging exhibit I saw in the Detroit Museum of "How a Car is Made." You can watch as the body shell of an '80s Impala is lowered onto its frame. Today, that's how a truck is made. Trucks are necessary for many heavy duties, but IMHO, not for towing a fiberglass trailer.

Let's look at unibody SUVs, like the VW Toureg. The tow rating, with TDI engine, is 7700 lbs. It could tow my Scamp 16 three times over, if that were any kind of a practical setup. Should the lack of discrete frame rails running from bumper to bumper cause me to fear towing a class of trailer that tops out at half the tow rating?

My Forester has shown limitations in the tongue weight I can use, but it's never creaked or groaned, let alone broken in half. So I'd say that rear suspensions are the critical limit, not frame strength.

[GeorgeR]

Originally Posted by John McMillin

Concerns about the lack of proper body-on-frame construction keep cropping up here. OK, educate me. Has anybody experienced structural failure of a unibody car towing an egg trailer? No?

I believe some of you have an outdated view of vehicle design, as obsolete as an aging exhibit I saw in the Detroit Museum of "How a Car is Made." You can watch as the body shell of an '80s Impala is lowered onto its frame. Today, that's how a truck is made. Trucks are necessary for many heavy duties, but IMHO, not for towing a fiberglass trailer.

Let's look at unibody SUVs, like the VW Toureg. The tow rating, with TDI engine, is 7700 lbs. It could tow my Scamp 16 three times over, if that were any kind of a practical setup. Should the lack of discrete frame rails running from bumper to bumper cause me to fear towing a class of trailer that tops out at half the tow rating?

My Forester has shown limitations in the tongue weight I can use, but it's never creaked or groaned, let alone broken in half. So I'd say that rear suspensions are the critical limit, not frame strength.

Unibody issue is if you plan to use weight distribution system. Attachment of WD hitch to unibody sheet metal and unibody strength in the load for which they were not design for would likely be key issue. Without WD system there should be no difference in reliability of towing with unibody or framed design.
George.