Expedition vs. Durango?
I have a 27' TT, 5200# dry, estimated 6,000# loaded, 650# tongue weight empty. Have a Reese WDH. Plan on going across the Rockies. Bought a 2008 Expedition with 9,000# tow capacity, duh, doesn't fit i...
Forum Discussion
mileshuff wrote:
For me the question isn't whether something will break or not. I agree, engineers will take care of that. My issue is in handling of the load. How much body and frame flexing? I prefer live axles and a stiff frame over independent suspension and unibody. In vehicles I've towed with I see a big difference in how they handle the load.
Valid concerns once again; let's dig up some engineering data on torsional rigidity (all units N-m/deg):
http://youwheel.com/2014/04/25/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/
Chrysler Durango (not the latest generation) 6,800
Jeep Grand Cherokee (WK2, 2010-) 23,000
Since the modern Durango is built on the Grand Cherokee / ML platform, we can assume it's closer to 23,000 than 6,800 (which may be a gen 1 Durango).
Contrary to popular belief, unibody chassis can be, and are, typically stiffer than body on frame. And it's not hard to see why. Go twist an aluminum ladder, and then try twisting an aluminum tool box, see which is harder to twist and bend!
On that page, you'll see some of the highest values are generated by unibody monocoques:
SUVs - GMC Acadia, VW Touareg, BMW X5, etc.
Cars - BMW 5/7 series, Mercedes S-Class, VW Phaeton, etc.
