Some food for thought - or complete dismissal?

rockylizard · Guru

Some food for thought - or complete dismissal?

woolman · Guru

Seems reasonable to me, but the older "experts" probably wouldn't change their mind though.

Neil

Dickodownunder · Guru

I noticed in the article that the author recommended that the trailer being at least 25% less weight than the listed capacity of the vehicle.
This would mean that your everyday variety of tow vehicles with a towing capacity of 3500kg in this country would be towing units that have a maximum of 2625kg ATM
Many thousands of combinations of caravans and tow vehicles operating as I type would not fall into this specification.

The topic certainly emphasised that the improvement to internal combustion engines is ongoing and, to me at least, the developments have been absolutely amazing in my lifetime.

-- Edited by Dickodownunder on Wednesday 18th of April 2018 12:26:30 PM

rockylizard · Guru

Dickodownunder wrote:
I noticed in the article that the author recommended that the trailer being at least 25% less weight than the listed capacity of the vehicle.
This would mean that your everyday variety of tow vehicles with a towing capacity of 3500kg in this country would be towing units that have a maximum of 2625kg ATM
Many thousands of combinations of caravans and tow vehicles operating as I type would not fall into this specification.

The topic certainly emphasised that the improvement to internal combustion engines is ongoing and, to me at least, the developments have been absolutely amazing in my lifetime.

Gday...

Yeah - noticed that too - good advice as well. Unfortunately not heeded much by the majority.

My vehicle rated to 3,500Kg but I tow 2,680Kg over the scales (ATM 2,700Kg). Does it very easily, and safely.

I am sure it would do heavier but definitely stretching abilities beyond safety I think.

Cheers - John

SouthernComfort · Guru

This car/trailer weight ratio could be managed if caravans were built lighter. With the current high strength steels and alloys available to industry, this could be achieved without compromising structural strength. The auto industry is already achieving it with lighter yet stronger vehicles, and when the local 'van industry comes out of the dark ages (believing it must be heavy to be strong), then all this becomes possible. It is already the case with European vans.

-- Edited by SouthernComfort on Wednesday 18th of April 2018 12:52:18 PM

Dickodownunder · Guru

Yes Rocky L,

I agree if only many people could realise that the weight ratio between the trailer and the tug plays an important part in safety.

A good read though on engine development...

Dougwe · Chief one feather

Hey Rocky mate, does that mean I have to use milk in the tank now confuse

PeterD · Guru

Dickodownunder wrote:
I noticed in the article that the author recommended that the trailer being at least 25% less weight than the listed capacity of the vehicle.

Where did you read that?

On page 65-66 I see where it says "If you're towing, choose a car that has a rated tow load at least 25% greater than the maximum your trailer will weigh," That equates to "at least 20% less than the rated capacity of the tug." Your suggestion would equate to choosing a tug that is 33.3% greater capacity than the weight of your intended trailer.

rockylizard · Guru

Gday...

STRUTH ... one really does have to pedantically careful when making any comment - gotta be millimetre correct. cry

In fact the full response being quoted as being inaccurate also said "This would mean that your everyday variety of tow vehicles with a towing capacity of 3500kg in this country would be towing units that have a maximum of 2625kg ATM"

2,625Kg is 75% of 3,500Kg ... so where was the 33.3% calculation alluded to ?

Cheers - John

-- Edited by rockylizard on Thursday 19th of April 2018 08:33:03 AM

Dickodownunder · Guru

PeterD wrote:
Dickodownunder wrote:
I noticed in the article that the author recommended that the trailer being at least 25% less weight than the listed capacity of the vehicle.
Where did you read that?
On page 65-66 I see where it says "If you're towing, choose a car that has a rated tow load at least 25% greater than the maximum your trailer will weigh," That equates to "at least 20% less than the rated capacity of the tug." Your suggestion would equate to choosing a tug that is 33.3% greater capacity than the weight of your intended trailer.

For a start PeterD, it was not my suggestion.

It was quoted from the article and I re quoted it as was my interpretation.

I did the maths as I understood the author alluded to.

Your agenda in many posts on this forum is quite disturbing and probably annoying to many.

Any further comments from me about your rude replies and mis quotes would mean me breaking the rules of this forum.

Tony Bev · Guru

It is food for thought Rocky, so thanks for that link

It showed (to me), that a smaller modern engine, with better match gearing (especially electronic operated automatics), is as good as some older larger engines with wider spaced gearing

On the other hand, (being slightly over 35), it has been known by some of us that a larger capacity engine, as compared to a smaller capacity engine, with the same gearing, was better at towing over the hills

yobarr · Guru

Dickodownunder wrote:
PeterD wrote:
Dickodownunder wrote:
I noticed in the article that the author recommended that the trailer being at least 25% less weight than the listed capacity of the vehicle.
Where did you read that?
On page 65-66 I see where it says "If you're towing, choose a car that has a rated tow load at least 25% greater than the maximum your trailer will weigh," That equates to "at least 20% less than the rated capacity of the tug." Your suggestion would equate to choosing a tug that is 33.3% greater capacity than the weight of your intended trailer.
For a start PeterD, it was not my suggestion.
It was quoted from the article and I re quoted it as was my interpretation.
I did the maths as I understood the author alluded to.
Your agenda in many posts on this forum is quite disturbing and probably annoying to many.
Any further comments from me about your rude replies and mis quotes would mean me breaking the rules of this forum.

Although I am not at all interested in stupid little 2 litre engines,I had a quick read of a couple of posts,and the various responses regarding weights.Seems that the maths have confused some,so I will attempt to help,with this simple equation. If a 4000kg car tows a 3000kg caravan,the van is 25% lighter than the car.(4000kg x.75=3000kg),BUT,doing the maths another way,the car is 33.33% heavier than the van! (3000kg x 1.33=4000kg).Hope this helps! Cheers.

yobarr · Guru

Tony Bev wrote:
It is food for thought Rocky, so thanks for that link

It showed (to me), that a smaller modern engine, with better match gearing (especially electronic operated automatics), is as good as some older larger engines with wider spaced gearing

On the other hand, (being slightly over 35), it has been known by some of us that a larger capacity engine, as compared to a smaller capacity engine, with the same gearing, was better at towing over the hills

Hi Tony......You are,of course,quite right about that.Perhaps it is because the big engines are all torque,while the little engines are all talk?Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Thursday 19th of April 2018 05:10:53 PM

-- Edited by yobarr on Thursday 19th of April 2018 09:45:55 PM

Dickodownunder · Guru

Apart from my unfortunate reference to weights (Oh Hell! I shoulda known better) biggrin

Here is some more info on Johns intended subject.

https://www.aanddtech.com/engineDev.html

Leo · Senior Member

I go with the herd. Also pay attention to resale values.

People with deep pockets might save a mite of fuel with claimed sophisticated engines and drivetrains, engine turning off when stopped and so on. But the real test for most of us lies in the sweet spot somewhere in the mix of dependability, durability and economic running cost overall.

Getting bailed up even once by a vehicle sure takes any shine off years of claimed miserly fuel consumption.

Frankly though, from the sad servicing that you see of quality high end German vehicles in Australia (and it has been going on for years, hence the low resale values), you would wonder about ever letting the spanner twirlers near anything high tech. -No offence to the better mechanics, but none can be better than the training they (don't) receive.

Dickodownunder · Guru

Hi Leo
I think as consumers great technology is let down by poor support based on total lack of knowledge by some employed within the service and maintenance area.
The cost of vehicles are relatively high and this cost is reflected in many service divisions of vehicle retailers but unfortunately many of these people are employed on an ever decreasing wage based on nothing but profit to the dealer.
They all boast great service but very few can actually deliver in this area.
Poor training has a fair bit to do with it...

Leo · Senior Member

Geoff,

I believe you have identified the problem better than I did (your second sentence).

kesa32 · Senior Member

Once had a VW Golf 2.0 tdi , great car , had it from new and had 10 hassle free years from it , then it developed electrical issues, no auto electric in town could figure it out just by connecting to their diagnostics, even VW were stumped ( they were hopeless )

I did a lot of research ( on forums of course ) and discovered our model had a door loom issue , whereas the flexing of the door looms between the body and door would over a long time , break wires and cause all sorts of weird ( intermittent) stuff like headlights going off and on, wipers etc.... all due to that ( computer wasn't happy with these shorts l guess )

Modern vehicles are beyond a lot of mechanics etc , especially one off random stuff ( hard for anyone) , until problems surface that are common and known, then it's usually a straight in fix

That being said, most vehicles these days if looked after will give a great service life