Is a GVWR of 3200 any worry for a car rated for 5000?

[Glenn Baglo]

Originally Posted by Joe Romas

For 2016, 2017 sales are not all in yet, Volks Wagon group was the worlds top seller.

Would that include all the vehicles they had to buy back?
BTW, my current vehicle is the first Toyota I've owned. Prior to this I had an Explorer, Subaru, Nissan and Datsun pickups, Fiat, Triumph TR3, VWs, Simca and a Pontiac ( shared with my mother ). I'm not a loyalist.
I wish I was young and cared about cars.

[Joe Romas]

Originally Posted by widgetwizard

Joe - are you sure? https://focus2move.com/world-cars-brand-ranking/

Here's 2016's results with 10th position on top and number 1 at the bottom.
VW group was 10.1 million vehicles and toyota was 9.94 vehicles.
https://www.drivespark.com/four-whee...47-020233.html

[WizWid]

Originally Posted by Joe Romas

Here's 2016's results with 10th position on top and number 1 at the bottom.
VW group was 10.1 million vehicles and toyota was 9.94 vehicles.
https://www.drivespark.com/four-whee...47-020233.html

Got it - the key bit being "group"
Thanks,
Jim

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

That's strange I've seen several / many Ford's in the local repair garages having rusted out brake lines replaced. I had a brake line rust out on my 1999 Ram after 14 years ,so I know it happens .

I was being sarcastic. the correct fix for those trucks (and really, anything else that uses steel brake lines) is to replace them with copper-nickel alloy tubing. its easier to bend, flare, seal, and will last for the life of the vehicle. we had a 1984 volvo 240 we bought new, always lived near the ocean, put about 500,000 miles on that puppy, never had to do anything other than change pads and rotors for the life of that car. volvo and mercedes pioneered copper-nickel in the 70s.

[RobTs]

Thanks for the replies, everyone!

The search has been narrowed down to a 2007-2009 4Runner with a V8, for more power up the hills and the solid reviews of those model years. I'm sure 5000 wouldn't be impossible, but the V8 is rated 6700 with the extra power, and I'd rather feel confident than anxious.

As always, I appreciate this forums advice and willingness to help out someone new.

[Mike_L]

Weight is always a concern however so is wind. I once pulled a 1500lb unit with a station wagon with a big V8. Lots of power. I could pass everything except the gas station. Unless I was traveling into the wind. My unit had all the aerodynamics of a brick. When the wind gusted, it slowed me down and there was nothing I could do about it. Mega effect!

[Civilguy]

Originally Posted by RobTs

When I first found these forums I really wanted to tow a Scamp with a Subaru but plans have changed

My wife and I are planning a three month trip all over the US to visit national parks and see as much was we can Jan-Mar of next year.

We initially were looking at fiberglass trailers for the weight and size, but ultimately decided to go a little bigger because we have two large dogs and I'm a pretty tall guy, and we may be more than two in the trailer sometime down the road.

Although this is a fiberglass forum, I really respect the courtesy and advice I got about towing the first time I posted here.

The trailer is a 2011 17' Forest River R-Pod with a GVWR of about 3200, and we don't have a towing vehicle yet, but the world of options is currently open to us.

Right now I'm favoring the idea of used 4WD Toyota 4Runners, because my family has always had great luck with Toyotas and I like the body-on-frame construction which I know makes towing an easier job than unibody cars.

Starting from 2010, 4Runners are rated for 5000. Is that enough of a gap to feel at ease, or since we plan to encounter a lot of mountains and potential winter conditions, should I think of something with more capacity?

The trailer does have electric brakes, and 4Runners 2009 and older have a higher capacity, but this car will be a daily/weekly driver when the trip is over, and most older 4Runners I can find are close to the 200k mile mark already. I should also mention that I'm only interested in SUVs. Trucks don't fit our lifestyle, and theres no room at my house to keep a third towing vehicle and a trailer.

Rob,

I'll add two points into the mix here.

First, while I favor having a "robust" rated capacity and agree with the idea of targeting a 5,000 lb rating, I do question whether body-on-frame offers additional, useful or necessary capacity for this application which cannot be achieved with a uni-body vehicle.

Certainly, this is the way that light-duty trucks are built. (And by "light-duty" I mean what are marketed as heavy-duty, super-duty, rugged, tough, job-site rated, and a host of other essentially meaningless marketing terms, but are classified as light-duty under federal regulations.)

Federal regulations define a light-duty truck to be any motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating (curb weight plus payload) of no more than 8,500 pounds (3,855.5 kg) which is “(1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or (2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use.”[1]

While a traditional ladder frame can offer benefit in some applications, another way to describe body-on-frame vehicles might be "simple but less efficiently engineered designs". Though probably irrelevant here, GM's X-Frame design was cited by many as a killer. So, all frames are not equal.

In the case of towing, there are plenty of unibody vehicles with tow ratings well above 5,000 lbs as rated by the companies that have to defend themselves against against any claim of failure. That said, I will leave you to make your own choice in this regard.

The second issue relates to aerodynamics. Many or most tow vehicles publish maximum frontal areas for trailers as part of the towing limitations in the operator's manual.

I once read a number of threads online that claimed a great deal of drag was encountered with R-Pods at speeds above 50 miles an hour or so. I don't know how much truth there is in this claim and will leave it to you to do your own research. However, if true, this might suggest some consideration of your tow vehicle's ability to deal with this additional load within the context of how you plan to tow as it sounds like you plan to go cross-country and into the mountains.

Also, if you are planning for January through March, you might want to look at the 70-degree road-trip map. And take a couple of extra sweaters! It sounds like a wonderful plan, I hope you have a great trip!

Brian B's Climate Blog: 70°F Road Trip

[Civilguy]

Speaking of light-duty trucks, anyone remember Dave Berry's column on truck ads?

Truck ads: Like a crock | Miami Herald

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

I was being sarcastic

Could have fooled me but then again does it really matter.?

[RobTs]

Originally Posted by Civilguy

Rob,

Also, if you are planning for January through March, you might want to look at the 70-degree road-trip map. And take a couple of extra sweaters! It sounds like a wonderful plan, I hope you have a great trip!

Brian B's Climate Blog: 70°F Road Trip

Thank you for this! I was trying to remember this exact thing and it likely would have slipped my mind until we tried to pull up a mountain in snow.

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by Civilguy

Certainly, this is the way that light-duty trucks are built. (And by "light-duty" I mean what are marketed as heavy-duty, super-duty, rugged, tough, job-site rated, and a host of other essentially meaningless marketing terms, but are classified as light-duty under federal regulations.)

that all said, there's still a significant difference between a 1/2 ton truck (f150, chevy/ram 1500) and a 3/4 ton (250, 2500) or 1-ton (350/3500) ....

the 1/2 ton trucks running gear isn't much beefier than that on a live axle RWD car from days of old, the heavier duty trucks have floating axles, much beefier brakes, transmissions, as well as being sprung for the heavier payloads.

live rear axle design is good for towing because the suspension is really simple, leaf springs so the heavy stresses of towing aren't being handled by a complex 5-way multilink IRS system or whatever. also leaf spring systems are easy to upgrade with airbags or helper springs.

frankly, those vintage RWD live axle tank cars of the 60s, 70s made pretty darn good towing machines, especially the wagons which often had significantly higher payloads than the equivalent sedans.