[VAC] Re: Towing With A Short Wheel Base Tow Vehicle

["Christopher H. Dow" <dow@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> "I found that towing a trailer
> > and driving a car are very different activities--the former being much
> > more stressful--and that might change the way you feel if one feels much
> > better as a puller."
> 
> I understand that Land Rover owners are just as fanatical about their choice
> of transportation as Airstream owners are about their choice of RV but I
> can't help but respond to the preceeding comment.
>
> Towing an Airstream, although it certainly requires a little more attention,
> should not be stressful and normally isn't.  The stress described above most
> often results from towing with less than adequate equipment.  A short wheel
> base tow vehicle will always be somewhat directionally unstable.  You will
> always feel some "tail wagging the dog effect" and frequent if not constant
> steering corrections will be required.  Another condition that causes stress
> and is tiring to the driver is towing with a relatively small engine.

I must confess that I was overstating the sitution in an attempt to
guide Greg away from the Range Rover and toward the Grand Wagoneer as a
puller for the airstream.  I didn't think about others reading it and
reaching the obvious conclusion that you did.  That was silly of me.

> Torque is required to tow a heavy load, not horsepower.  And torque is
> always associated with cubic inches of displacement, not high lift
> camshafts, fancy electronics, etc.  If you tow with a large displacement
> high-torque engine it will accelerate the load easier, maintain engine speed
> on a grade, permit remaining in a higher gear without frequent downshifts,
> provide better engine braking on a downgrade, and will actually produce fuel
> economy numbers as good as or better than a small engine laboring.  Higher
> numerical gears in the rear axle (or both with 4wd) will compensate with
> more torque multiplication and will buzz the engine in a higher rpm range,
> but a big engine will tow at 2000 rpm in overdrive without strain.  Lower
> rpm equates to longevity because piston travel is reduced significantly,

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.  Bigger is better and bigger
is safer.  

When we were looking for our Airstream, I drew a "line in the sand" at
20' because I felt that anything more would be too much for our
pullers.  Leslie looked at several which were bigger, but I would have
none of it.  

It is probably the case that we disagree on where the trailer size vs.
vehicle size line is, but I think we both have the same general
perspective.  If I had the ability to pick the most appropriate vehicle
for towing, I'd probably pick the Ford F350 or E350 with a powerstroke
deisel engine.  I've gone with friends to and from off-road events where
they were towing their Land Rovers, and that vehicle doesn't seem to
know that it's towing.  I'm sure that Dodge and Chevy make equivalent
vehicles, but I haven't ridden with people who have those.  I just have
to make a compromise somewhere, as we already have five vehicles, and
there is no room for six!  

The other thing for us is that the purpose of the Airstream is to have a
comfy place to sleep and cook when we're out with the Land Rovers.  A
motorhome is too big for the places we go, so the only alternative was a
light-weight Airstream which could be pulled by one of the Rovers.  

> My comments are not intended to blaspheme your beloved Land Rovers, I
> understand the addiction which is very similar to my A/S addiction.  And I
> am aware that a V8 Land Rover, 4 cylinder Jeep, and other small engine tow
> vehicles are in service all over the country today as I write this.  My
> daughter tows a 27' A/S with a new V8 powered Jeep Grand Cherokee, short
> wheel base and modest displacement (against my advice).  I also know that my
> comments will elicit a fire-storm of response but the point I wish to make
> is this:  A heavier, long wheelbase, pickup truck, van, or Suburban with a
> 350 cubic inch engine or, even better for larger trailers, a 454 or 460
> cubic inch big block or turbo-diesel, will tow more comfortably, perform
> with a much wider safety margin when conditions are adverse (strong and
> gusting winds, steep grades, wet road surface, etc) will deliver equal and
> sometimes better fuel economy, and the equipment will last longer with less
> repairs.
> 
> An SUV or pickup which gets excellent fuel mileage when running light is
> frequently geared for economy.  When a heavy load is attached, fuel mileage
> usually plummets.

I found that with the 110, I am getting slightly lower mileage in the
mountains and the difference on flat ground is not measureable.  I think
that's because the Airstream is light, aerodynamic, and weighs 1/3 of
the towing limit of the vehicle.  I usually go with a safety margin of
50%, but since towing is new to me, I felt that 1/3 as more
appropriate.  

Another factor that should be taken into account is judgement.  If
someone is truly willing to work with the limits of their vehicle, then
they can be safe.  My comments about using state highways instead of the
interstate were intended to reflect this.  I'm somewhat used to this
approach, since my 1965 Land Rover is very slow and burns out valves if
driven 70MPH for long periods of time.  I've chosen to drive with other
like vehicles or by myself (Leslie won't even convoy with me when I'm
driving it--she takes her 1997 D90 with it's fuel-injected V8 and zooms
off :-).  So, for the right person who is truly willing to give up the
"gotta get there" mentality, a smaller tow rig can be safe, but one
really has to be willing to take more time to get there, and most
aren't.

> For those who will dispute my statements, consider the reason eighteen wheel
> truck tractors use huge displacement, low rpm, high torque motors for towing
> rather than small displacement, "economical", high revving, high horsepower
> engines.
> 
> I'll step down off my soapbox now.  My comments are intended, not to
> criticise anyone's vehicle choice, but to promote discussion and
> understanding.  Those of you who are proponents of "smaller is better" may
> now feel free to attack what I have said.

I really do agree that bigger is better and--more importantly--safer,
but I think given the right attitude and understanding of a vehicles
limitations, a smaller vehicle can be well within the definition of
safe. 

I appreciate not only these comments, but the huge contribution you make
to both this list and the other one.

C