Can only Internet analyze it so much without benefit of spec's and drawings... :(
Possible options would be to:
Just live with the 1,000 lb WD tongue rating
OEM spec be danged and just go with it over the limit (not my kind of metric, just throwing it out there...but you need to decide if you believe in spec's/ratings/limits/etc). This one will break sooner than later
Modify an aftermarket and this is what I'd do
Still like the Curt a lot, but BigToe is right...these newer designs has every ounce of margin squeezed out...knew that when still working and saw one of our customers using our super computers designing their next gen high end bicycles and at a Ford design center. Management dictates that every penny be squeezed out
So, the Curt type of design is for my Sub's generation frame...where it needs less force distribution and can be kept on a smaller foot print
The Reese is better for your or these latest frames where the rear portion is really not made for towing heavy. Plus, IMHO, think the designers no longer know enough about towing heavy...just CAD jockey's and we coined them "Red/Green Light designers"...design it...run the simulation and fix whatever vectors the super computer says to...then done...
By having a longer end flange, it moves more of the forces forward towards the frame/axle arch
On that, since a 6,000 lb GAWR on the rear suspension...the spring perches should be designed for that specification and then some margin
Getting some or lots of the tongue forces into that area is the smart thing to do...
Key is to NOT weld on the frame and keep welding to a min on the receiver
Transition plate on the rear most flange of the receiver to frame web.
Ditto transition plate on the forward flange to frame and this one might have more room to box in the frame section...without cutting/welding/etc
Good luck...more later...off to buy the Easter Leg of Lamb
