Best Diesel SUV Tow Vehicles?

NinerBikes wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

horton333 wrote:
Here is a link to an older (less capable) GL towing a 30' Airstream.

Notice in the comments people using it to also tow in the mountains, and the one guy saying how it tows better than his 6.2L 2500 .....

Here is his video with high cross winds. Love is comment about the guy with a fiver tell him how bad it must be because his fiver is getting blown all over! LMAO got to love that fiver mentality :R

same GL in the wind enjoy all you naysayers!

That's all you need to know, told in that video, a quartering tail wind is not problematic. You don't know if the other driver in the 5th wheel was driving into a quartering HEADWIND, going the other direction, when he pulled in to fuel up also. Stupid video, without all the facts.

If he were a member here, and as angry as you, he'd likely say, "stupid post, without all the facts." :)

In all seriousness, the GL is full-size not midsize and it makes a perfectly good to vehicle for sub 10k loads. Good wheelbase, weight and safety aids.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

horton333 wrote:
Here is a link to an older (less capable) GL towing a 30' Airstream.

Notice in the comments people using it to also tow in the mountains, and the one guy saying how it tows better than his 6.2L 2500 .....

Here is his video with high cross winds. Love is comment about the guy with a fiver tell him how bad it must be because his fiver is getting blown all over! LMAO got to love that fiver mentality :R

same GL in the wind enjoy all you naysayers!

That's all you need to know, told in that video, a quartering tail wind is not problematic. You don't know if the other driver in the 5th wheel was driving into a quartering HEADWIND, going the other direction, when he pulled in to fuel up also. Stupid video, without all the facts.

Bionic Man wrote:
All the diesel SUVs are pretty similar in performance. They offer a 3.0 somewhere in the 240 HP range. Doesn't matter if you choose the Benz, BMW, Audi, or Grand Cherokee. All pretty much the same capability. And I agree, that all of those will be pushed to their limits to do what you are hoping to accomplish.

Or a Volkswagen Touareg. But don't plan on towing fast or over 60 with a TT behind you, unless you want to tear up and destroy the drivetrain and motor. Keep your tow weight to within 50 to 60% of the tow capacity on the german SUV's, because the TUV in Germany rates the CHASSIS capacity tow limits, not the motor or drive train tow limits, and in Germany, all these SUV's you can get a Turbo Diesel V8 package not available here in the states. So the CHASSIS is designed for the bigger motor and tranny package, but the 3.0L ENGINE and DRIVETRAIN packages in North America aren't designed for those towing weights, speeds, or levels of performance. So keep your speed, and weight and wind resistance values down with the 3.0L drive trains, they were NOT designed for hauling the mail. One look at the motor oil specs on any of these European small displacement V6 or inline 4 engines will tell you all you need to know, DPF filters with no clean outs, and LIGHT DUTY diesel engine oils... All C3 specifications.

Don't send a boy out to do a man's job. Get a smaller trailer, or a bigger cubic inch engine block. There is no replacement for engine displacement, when you need to get work done, and towing a trailer is a lot of work.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

I find the wording of your post interesting. You say I would never let any of our kids ride in an RV. This wording suggests you recognize that the kids would like to ride in the RV. (My kids loved riding in the RV) Then you say you wouldn't make your dogs ride back there. It seems like if we talk about what a child wants we have to ask the child and report honestly...."the child wants to ride in the RV". Because we can't ask the dog we get to assume the dog wants what we want him to want. So, my dog wants to ride in the RV with my kids.

Given the current events in this once great Country of ours, I'm going to do this a politically correct as I can.

My children did not dictate how things were done in our home. My wife and I did that! Nor would my dogs if they could talk :R. That would be what is wrong here in America, kids no longer are told "NO YOU CAN NOT DO THAT!" and if you do you will get an ass whooping! Sounds like maybe this is an issue up north with some people too!

I have recovered two RV's after they crashed the Motorhome did fair better than the TT did but still all as in everyone in both crashes went to local hospitals. The TT was a total loss with everything thrown all over the road. It looked like a tornado had picked it up and tossed it down the road.

Do RV accidents happen all the time? I do not have the statistics on how many crashes per say 100 RV's there are a year so I can't say. I do make anyone riding in my vehicles wear their seat belts. As a part time truck driver (having held a CDL all of my life) my accident rate per mile is extremely low. So by your way of thinking I should not need to wear a seat belt nor should my passengers right?

Sorry but the risk to reward is why too low IMO. BTW as a kid our Dad would let us ride in the fivir when traveling locally only. Mind you this was in 1973 in a 28' Lark fifth wheel and I have to say it was fun but there was no way you could sleep in it traveling down the road. Well maybe if you were dead tired you could.

Don

I would think your kids would be much safer in a crash with helmets on as well. My point is that we all draw the line a little different but I think my kids are much safer riding in the back of my RV in the middle of summer on a beautiful day with dry roads than they are strapped into the back seat traveling down an icy highway in the middle of winter. Or riding with no seat belt in the middle of winter on the school bus.

Seeing as we are off topic, I am with Don on this. Terrible idea to put pets (or people) in a towable RV. Also a terrible idea to leave them unrestrained in the back of a truck.

Carry on.

4x4ord wrote:

I find the wording of your post interesting. You say I would never let any of our kids ride in an RV. This wording suggests you recognize that the kids would like to ride in the RV. (My kids loved riding in the RV) Then you say you wouldn't make your dogs ride back there. It seems like if we talk about what a child wants we have to ask the child and report honestly...."the child wants to ride in the RV". Because we can't ask the dog we get to assume the dog wants what we want him to want. So, my dog wants to ride in the RV with my kids.

Given the current events in this once great Country of ours, I'm going to do this a politically correct as I can.

My children did not dictate how things were done in our home. My wife and I did that! Nor would my dogs if they could talk :R. That would be what is wrong here in America, kids no longer are told "NO YOU CAN NOT DO THAT!" and if you do you will get an ass whooping! Sounds like maybe this is an issue up north with some people too!

I have recovered two RV's after they crashed the Motorhome did fair better than the TT did but still all as in everyone in both crashes went to local hospitals. The TT was a total loss with everything thrown all over the road. It looked like a tornado had picked it up and tossed it down the road.

Do RV accidents happen all the time? I do not have the statistics on how many crashes per say 100 RV's there are a year so I can't say. I do make anyone riding in my vehicles wear their seat belts. As a part time truck driver (having held a CDL all of my life) my accident rate per mile is extremely low. So by your way of thinking I should not need to wear a seat belt nor should my passengers right?

Sorry but the risk to reward is why too low IMO. BTW as a kid our Dad would let us ride in the fivir when traveling locally only. Mind you this was in 1973 in a 28' Lark fifth wheel and I have to say it was fun but there was no way you could sleep in it traveling down the road. Well maybe if you were dead tired you could.

Don

DURABURB!

It's not a matter of being picky. I'm simply noting the lower final gear ratio is going to haul better, all other things being equal. If not for practical concerns of minimizing wear and tear and maximizing fuel use, extremely low final ratios would be the most common other than on the Autobahn.

horton333 wrote:
4x4ord - your two posts contradict each other, the SUV has a 7 speed transmission so the chance of the trivial advantage you outline that may happen is just not there in this case.
Lower gears are not a "minor" advantage, the major advantage is why they go to all that trouble of having transmissions.

The point I was trying to make in the second post is that gear ratios are important at the time of engineering, however, us RVers getting picky about gear ratios isn't really justified.

After considering the general use of a vehicle, engineers will design the power train. In the case of a towing vehicle, mating the torque curve of the engine to the gear ratios of the transmission and final drive is very important. So for instance, the F450, with its 4.30 rear end, is designed to run at about 1760 rpm at 60 mph in high gear. The truck is expected to be able to travel on level ground at 60 mph and seldom need more power than what is available at 1760 rpm. When it gets working a bit it can drop a gear and deliver a little more power to the wheels as the engine revs to 2260 rpm. As it comes to a hill it pulls down a bit more and the engine begins to slow down. It will drop to 4th gear and rev to 2800 rpm where 100% of its power is being transferred through forth gear, the most efficient gear ratio, and the truck is traveling 56mph. An F350 dually is equipped with 4.10 rear gears (or optionally 3.73) anticipating that it will be used for a little lighter loads. So it would be cruising 60 mph at 1680 rpm where it makes a little less power and gets a little better fuel economy. When it gets put to work it follows the same gear dropping program and ends up being able to deliver its greatest level of power to the rear wheels in 4th gear at 2800 rpm where the truck is traveling 59 mph. Now if the these two trucks are put in a race up a hill it will depend on the slope of the hill and the weight of the trailers which one is going to have the advantage. Obviously if the combination of slope and weight are such that the F350 is running pedal to the medal in 4th gear at 2800 rpm it will be able to out do the F450 with the little higher ratio rear end. A different load or different hill and the results might be different. So now for us, who don't know the torque curve of the engine or the exact weights we will be towing or the % slope hills we will be going up, to think that we can out guess the engineer is a little foolish. The GM engineers basically said lets not complicate things and they use the same 3.73 rear gears behind the Duramax regardless of whether they are building a 3500 dually or a 2500...and it seems like the Duramax is often the first one to the top of the hill.

4x4ord - your two posts contradict each other, the SUV has a 7 speed transmission so the chance of the trivial advantage you outline that may happen is just not there in this case.
Lower gears are not a "minor" advantage, the major advantage is why they go to all that trouble of having transmissions.