Yikes! Rockey mountain special

BenK wrote:
Personally wouldn't...understand the engineering aspects of CanAm in transference
of forces to a larger portion of the monocoque (unibody) and say the weak link
is the automatic tranny of any mini van. Mine is considered the weakest of the
mini vans (Odyssey)...of course factored by sizing (not just weight, but frontal
area of the trailer)

Lower CG is always the better way to go

I'd like to know where else CanAm transfers the forces to on the monocoque pan

I had concerns about this too...

I have heard prospective horror stories from people talking about how the receiver would rip out of the unibody under WD etc.

However, earlier this year my wife was rearended sitting still and the car that hit her was going about 45 MPH.

The 2 inch class II receiver took the brunt of the hit...you would expect the receiver to have ripped off the sheet metal unibody....it did not!

The receiver was bent and mangled but the body endured. The twisting force applied to that receiver, which was then applied to the unibody was exponentially more than any WD hitch could have applied.

(Ya know, 3500 lb car hitting a sitting 5000 lb car in the receiver at 40 MPH, not sure of the math, BenK can you translate that into force mathematically?)

In the end, the force from the hit torqued the receiver to the ground (literally bent it down) and this force torqued the body of the Kia just enough to have to be put on a frame straightening machine.

All in all, the WD forces are transmitted through the entire unibody. Can-Am's receivers do a better job of transmitting the torque forward because their receivers do not bend under WD...

Thanks!

Jeremiah

dodge guy wrote:

Carluvr wrote:
The weakest link is the transmission in these vans. I can't imagine towing anything more than a pop-up with one of these! I've owned two in the past.

:S OMG, really! it`s been 20 years since they had transmission issues!

No it hasn't. I dumped my 03 Town and Country when it was only four years old with 60k on it because the tranny kept acting up intermittently and kept leaving us stranded only to work fine once it was towed home. They made that bodystyle with the same tranny through '07. It was supposed to have been an improvement over the earlier models but it clearly wasn't.

Personally wouldn't...understand the engineering aspects of CanAm in transference
of forces to a larger portion of the monocoque (unibody) and say the weak link
is the automatic tranny of any mini van. Mine is considered the weakest of the
mini vans (Odyssey)...of course factored by sizing (not just weight, but frontal
area of the trailer)

Lower CG is always the better way to go

I'd like to know where else CanAm transfers the forces to on the monocoque pan

dodge guy wrote:

Carluvr wrote:
The weakest link is the transmission in these vans. I can't imagine towing anything more than a pop-up with one of these! I've owned two in the past.

:S OMG, really! it`s been 20 years since they had transmission issues!

Agree, the Chrysler vans ALL started getting HD transmission coolers in about 2008 when they upgraded the whole line.

The new Chrysler vans are not like the old ones.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Carluvr wrote:
The weakest link is the transmission in these vans. I can't imagine towing anything more than a pop-up with one of these! I've owned two in the past.

:S OMG, really! it`s been 20 years since they had transmission issues!

Thanks for the info Marty,

Chrysler is strange on these new vans. My 14 Town and Country is about 40 lbs over the front GAWR with a full tank of gas, my sons middle row, my wife and I in the front row NOTHING ELSE in the van.

However, we are WAY under the tire ratings....

Ironically we are way under the rear axle rating.

And yes I weighed my van at a CAT scale.

I am under the opinion that most Chrysler Vans are pretty much running at GVWR for the most part based on how I see them loaded. However, the tire capacity on these vans is 1760 lbs per tire. So there is more than enough tire capacity to carry the loads.

Is the Van in the picture over GVWR? Probably...

But it's also highly likely to be way way under the tire ratings. That's the rating that I am very concerned about on any TV... Especially the half ton range payload vehicles. But there just my humble opinion based on experience.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Jspence,

At least in the states, generally speaking, the manufacture GVWR and ESPECIALLY GCWR are really nothing more than warranty denial figures. Go over, warranty can be denied.

At least where I am at, if a rig is used as a truck, license is paid as a truck. The minimum GVW you buy is tare, ie empty wt times 1.5 to the next higher ton. So as an example, my old 05 dually, Tare is 7300 times 1.5 = 11K, up to next higher ton is 12K. That is the GVW wt tag I bought. That is how heavy I could run down the road at legally. My 2000 C2500 is 4800 lbs tare. So 7200 up to 8000 lbs gvwr. That is all I have on that truck. I do not get the 8600 lbs on the door sticker. If I want the 8600, I literally go into the DOL and buy a 10K plate for all of about $10 more than I pay now. I would be legal to 10K. I actually had a 14K plate on my dually.

I've been pulled over in weigh scales in commercial mode. No issues being over manufactures ratings. The local SP etc do not enforce those wts. ONLY what you have paid for, as long as you are not over the road bed design load ratings. IE 20K per axel, which can be limited to as little as 500 lbs per inch width of tire. If under these amounts, with a proper paid for tax/license/registration. I am legal! Not saying this is smart etc.........

So the person in your photo is legal as I understand the how over weight rigs are enforced. Chrysler may think otherwise, but from an LEO stand point, the person is legal.

Marty

jerem0621 wrote:

TXiceman wrote:
Not a good combo. And I do not care what CanAm says about towing so much with so little tow vehicle.

Ken

there is nothing little about a Chrysler minivan. They have more interior room than a Tahoe.

You can discount the 30 years of experience Can Am brings to the table. That's fine. However, there is NOTHING unsafe about that rig. It pulls, handles, and stops great.

It's not an accident waiting to happen. Andy and crew have thousands of Minivan haulers set up on the road with millions of safe miles under their belts. Many of their customers are on their second and third minivan set up.

Just because it's not 3 ft in the air and doesn't have a bed doesn't make it a bad tow vehicle. Many would be surprised just how well these vehicles tow when set up properly and matched properly to the correct trailer.

Not all trailers work for a rig like this. There is so much more to safe towing than weight.

Thanks

Jeremiah

How do they deal with gvwr and gvwr?

Ok an update. It was setup by canam for an 18' hybrid he used to own and he upgraded to this trailer. The only issue he had was overheating in the mountains.

The weakest link is the transmission in these vans. I can't imagine towing anything more than a pop-up with one of these! I've owned two in the past.