Towing at Max

BenK wrote:
'Engineer' from my background covers a tremendous amount of territory...The old 'righty-tighty
and lefty-loosely...

Funny, I'm often a bit loose :)

PE

more than a few years on automotive mechanical component design
a few years in safety related mechanical structures
quite a few years in complete vehicle development
last few years focused on powertrain

Funny you should mention plant environment, there is nothing I enjoy more than the plant floor, and yet none of my jobs has that been a primary responsibility. One trip I'm watching an assembler use a ball peen hammer to assemble these two parts together. Looked at the stamped part, the die roll was designed into the wrong side of the stamping and prevented the parts from just sliding together. I knew the tool was coming up for re-tooling, so changed die roll to the other side and life was good after that.

As I said before, when I look at the over simplified provided force diagram, it's missing the T load through the hitch. It is not a straight vectored load path.

I am working from the benefit of having more than a passing experience with structures, and looking at exactly how the system is designed and how Chrysler reinforced the structure in that area.

What I don't have is the factual reason of why Chrysler limited towing to 2k in their manual, and yet allowed 3.8k with the Mopar hitch. Per Andy Thomson discussion with Chrysler, they never considered that anybody would tow something bigger and couldn't be guaranteed that somebody would use load leveling/weight distribution equipment. He's successfully towing a 34' airstream with both a 300c and Charger.

Getting back to my assessment, unassisted cantilevered braking forces are likely the weak link in the system.

While challenged on the point of rationalizing, this discussion has made me look harder at the system and how everything will interact, and doing further research. The proof will be in the pudding during my short 30 mile excursion.