Towing a 6000 lb trailer with a Taurus?

i've always wondered why Can-Am is the only place i know of, that advocates these kind of setups.
and without claiming industy conspiracy theories.

kinda like how certain cults are that claim they are the correct path and everyone else doesn't know the True Way!:R

mooky stinks wrote:
How do you close your trunk with the 7 way lead going in it? Mines about 1" in diameter! Lol

There's plenty of give in the weatherstripping to accommodate the cable very easily.

How do you close your trunk with the 7 way lead going in it? Mines about 1" in diameter! Lol

Hybridhunter wrote:
That is all fine and great. But a lot of those setups will not be legal in many states.
And warranty is out the window if the dealer finds out what a vehicle is being used for. And on an SHO with a class III hitch and a 7 pin wiring setup.

Interesting. Can you validate your claims? Please cite the sources.

That is all fine and great. But a lot of those setups will not be legal in many states.
And warranty is out the window if the dealer finds out what a vehicle is being used for. And on an SHO with a class III hitch and a 7 pin wiring setup.

CKNSLS wrote:

Road Ruler wrote:
jerem0261 pretty much summed it up in a previous post and I have to agree with him. He is very much aware when it comes to TV capabilities.

Folks get all excited about the high tow ratings of full frame vehicles but in reality they have many short comings and leave a lot to be desired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjTbiYo3x0

Few Tundra owners come across the same exact conditions that caused the bounce of the bed on the Tundra as in the video example. Doesn't Ford use/or have used the same open "C" channel frames on their heavier truck models?

Yes, my F350 Dually, with a 12,000 GVWR has a C-Channel frame. Simply put, Tundra is a very capable and comfortable truck. If I were in a crisis driving situation and had my choice of trucks, it would be a Tundra.

The Dually is wonderful for doing what it was designed to do, carry monster loads on its chassis. However, it is NOT my vehicle choice for an evasive maneuver.

We talk about GVWR and payload etc. my wife's Kia Sorento has more payload than some F150's I've seen. But the American ideal that you MUST have a TRUCK to pull a trailer is pure fantasy.

Say what you want about Can-Am RV and Andy. They don't sit behind keyboards and make empiracle statements. They put things to the test, the do slolam testing, they spend 8 plus hours setting up one TV properly and they pay attention to the details.

For instance, how many of us think about our 7 blade connectors? Some do, others don't. Andy will only use (at least as of a few years ago) a metal bodied 7 way plug. Is your 7 way out in the elements? Mine is, why? Because I have a truck. But the cars and SUV's Andy sets up are in the TRUNK out of the weather until its time to pull.

All of his set ups are under the GAWR of the vehicle. A little over the GVWR maybe, but under all axle ratings. (Lots of owners on this forum adhere to the same rule, but that's ok because it's a truck)

His company custom fabricates the hitches and uses multiple attachment points that stretch close to the rear axle.

If more dealers took the time like Can-Am does with their TV's (cars, vans, SUV's , and trucks) and trailer combos there would be much safer combos out there.

To answer the question about stopping power, if I take a car that can stop 25% faster than a truck, add 6000 lbs worth of airstream to both car and truck, set up the brake controllers properly, and then test both in a panic stop, which will stop faster? My bet is on the car, after all the trailer brakes itself. (Lose trailer brakes in a car or a truck and you are going to have a very bad day)

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Road Ruler wrote:
jerem0261 pretty much summed it up in a previous post and I have to agree with him. He is very much aware when it comes to TV capabilities.

Folks get all excited about the high tow ratings of full frame vehicles but in reality they have many short comings and leave a lot to be desired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjTbiYo3x0

Few Tundra owners come across the same exact conditions that caused the bounce of the bed on the Tundra as in the video example. Doesn't Ford use/or have used the same open "C" channel frames on their heavier truck models?

jerem0261 pretty much summed it up in a previous post and I have to agree with him. He is very much aware when it comes to TV capabilities.

Folks get all excited about the high tow ratings of full frame vehicles but in reality they have many short comings and leave a lot to be desired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjTbiYo3x0

Road Ruler wrote:


Many have come to realize many cars have made and can make great TV's.

Any comments, Road Ruler, on the SHO "towing not recommended" advice from Ford?
Or being 5000lbs over the GCWR on the Taurus SEL?
Older cars like the one in that picture had a substantial tow rating. The author pretends that trucks don't exist for a reason...

Hybridhunter wrote:
Anyhow, I looked up the SHO. Fords towing guide lists the SHO "not rated for towing".
There must be a reason.

Yes, the profit margin is much smaller.

Why would ford sell you a car to tow with where they only make hundreds when they can sell you a "truck" that they can make thousands with. Lol

Yea, a 1970's car with a wobbly frame, Flemsy brakes, terrible suspension, zero real safety features, and maybe 175-250 hp makes such a better tow vehicle than a modern SHO.

Geeze....

Take my 00 Town Car for example, it's got a 2000 lb tow rating. Same car in 94 was nearly 6000 lbs. what changed? The spare tire. That's all.

Thanks,

Jeremiah