Towing with a 3.0 L Touareg TDI diesel

Not enough hitch or suspension/payload for the Touareg towing a 7k pound TT.

NinerBikes wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Not sure how you get 16.5 mpg towing a full sided TT, but if you are, then find a way to patent it and you'll be rich! But, just because you are in Germany, how does that make your mpg's that high?

Simple; you just type it. :B

Let me give you an example:

My Duramax gets 25 mpg towing my 28' TT. :E

See how easy that was? :B

Are you butthurt by the truth? Get over it.

What? You don't believe my Dmax gets 25MPG towing my TT? :B I'm hurt beyond belief! All I can say is my numbers are every bit as accurate as your numbers! :W


Speaking of numbers. Sounds like Ram needs to talk to VDub or you to find out what they are doing wrong. Linky



Ram's little 6 banger oil burner tows a TT about the same size and weight and Ram gets 12.6 to your 16.5 to 19 MPG for your VDub!!!!!

Logs to keep you honest. 2013 VW Touareg TDI Sport Fuelly Logs

I am not sure what that link is supposed to indicate. Seems Touareg and Ecodiesel get the same avg mpg but the Touareg gets that much more towing?

Our Mercedes got 15mpg towing a 6x12 enclosed trailer with 3 motorcycles and other******in it at 75 on the interstate. I believe him about his Toureg.

mich800 wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Not sure how you get 16.5 mpg towing a full sided TT, but if you are, then find a way to patent it and you'll be rich! But, just because you are in Germany, how does that make your mpg's that high?

Simple; you just type it. :B

Let me give you an example:

My Duramax gets 25 mpg towing my 28' TT. :E

See how easy that was? :B

Are you butthurt by the truth? Get over it.

What? You don't believe my Dmax gets 25MPG towing my TT? :B I'm hurt beyond belief! All I can say is my numbers are every bit as accurate as your numbers! :W


Speaking of numbers. Sounds like Ram needs to talk to VDub or you to find out what they are doing wrong. Linky



Ram's little 6 banger oil burner tows a TT about the same size and weight and Ram gets 12.6 to your 16.5 to 19 MPG for your VDub!!!!!

Logs to keep you honest. 2013 VW Touareg TDI Sport Fuelly Logs

I am not sure what that link is supposed to indicate. Seems Touareg and Ecodiesel get the same avg mpg but the Touareg gets that much more towing?

Raw data, embrace it. Quite clear when I am trailering, when I am driving in city traffic, when I am on freeway or open road. Interpret as you see fit.

Going away from the MPG love fest, and back to the original topic.

Isn't that within the Touareg's tow ratings (even if on the high side)?

In regards to the motor, I would ask the question of what is more important; output or displacement? The 3.0 V6 diesels have very similar output to the vaunted 2nd Gen 5.9 CTD and the 7.3 Powerstroke. I hear very few people saying that those motors aren't powerful enough to use for towing, but put those same HP and torque numbers into a modern 3.0 diesel with twice the gearing, and they are suddenly inadequate. That doesn't make sense to me.

Personally I would not want to be towing a 7000 pound RV with that size of a tow vehicle, but if it is within the manufacture ratings, their engineers/marketing people think it is acceptable. They are the ones that will have to budget to fix it if it breaks during the warranty period. I would hope they know more than I do about the whole package.

Bionic Man wrote:
Going away from the MPG love fest, and back to the original topic.

Isn't that within the Touareg's tow ratings (even if on the high side)?

In regards to the motor, I would ask the question of what is more important; output or displacement? The 3.0 V6 diesels have very similar output to the vaunted 2nd Gen 5.9 CTD and the 7.3 Powerstroke. I hear very few people saying that those motors aren't powerful enough to use for towing, but put those same HP and torque numbers into a modern 3.0 diesel with twice the gearing, and they are suddenly inadequate. That doesn't make sense to me.

Personally I would not want to be towing a 7000 pound RV with that size of a tow vehicle, but if it is within the manufacture ratings, their engineers/marketing people think it is acceptable. They are the ones that will have to budget to fix it if it breaks during the warranty period. I would hope they know more than I do about the whole package.

Think about the load bearing surfaces for making that torque and HP from a 444 Ci 7.3 L diesel, how much piston surface, block bore surface, bearing surface, the size of the wrist pins and connecting rods, etc, to get the same horsepower... that's a mere 181 cubic inch, 3.0 liter motor. Ask a mechanical engineer to do the stress loads on all the parts for the amount of work done. You have to run 2.5x the amount of fuel and air or more, due to VW using the turbochargers boost to air cool the motor also, volume wise to a 3.0L to a 7.3 motor.

The little motor, is working much, much harder, with much less material, for the same amount of work being done. Guess which motor will wear out quicker and fail sooner?

My 3.0 will pull 8th gear on flat ground at 57 to 58 MPH at 1600 rpms with trailer in tow, no problem. Add in a slight grade and it will drop to 7th or 6th gear right quick. Someone getting 9 MPG at 65 MPH is burning 7 gallons of fuel per hour in a 3 liter motor. Count the calories and amount of heat to be lost doing that.

NinerBikes wrote:
Overloaded? Enough motor to do the job, with that kind of poor MPGs? Stress on the drive train doing so?

Yes, yes, and yes. But I suspect you knew that when you posted this, so not sure what the point is? Of course many of the negative effects on longevity can be overcome with maintenance. The fuely log is only piece of the puzzle, we need a maintenance log also.

NinerBikes wrote:
Think about the load bearing surfaces for making that torque and HP from a 444 Ci 7.3 L diesel, how much piston surface, block bore surface, bearing surface, the size of the wrist pins and connecting rods, etc, to get the same horsepower... that's a mere 181 cubic inch, 3.0 liter motor. Ask a mechanical engineer to do the stress loads on all the parts for the amount of work done. You have to run 2.5x the amount of fuel and air or more, due to VW using the turbochargers boost to air cool the motor also, volume wise to a 3.0L to a 7.3 motor.

The little motor, is working much, much harder, with much less material, for the same amount of work being done. Guess which motor will wear out quicker and fail sooner?

Good points, but playing devil's advocate, look at the history of automotive engines. Displacement continues to shrink while output continues to rise, yet engine longevity also continues to rise. 40 years ago most engines wouldn't make it 100,000 miles without a rebuild. The excellent TDI motor in your Passat when compared with VW's first car diesel has over twice the power output, better fuel efficiency, and will last probably twice as long, all while moving a much heavier car.

rjstractor wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:
Think about the load bearing surfaces for making that torque and HP from a 444 Ci 7.3 L diesel, how much piston surface, block bore surface, bearing surface, the size of the wrist pins and connecting rods, etc, to get the same horsepower... that's a mere 181 cubic inch, 3.0 liter motor. Ask a mechanical engineer to do the stress loads on all the parts for the amount of work done. You have to run 2.5x the amount of fuel and air or more, due to VW using the turbochargers boost to air cool the motor also, volume wise to a 3.0L to a 7.3 motor.

The little motor, is working much, much harder, with much less material, for the same amount of work being done. Guess which motor will wear out quicker and fail sooner?

Good points, but playing devil's advocate, look at the history of automotive engines. Displacement continues to shrink while output continues to rise, yet engine longevity also continues to rise. 40 years ago most engines wouldn't make it 100,000 miles without a rebuild. The excellent TDI motor in your Passat when compared with VW's first car diesel has over twice the power output, better fuel efficiency, and will last probably twice as long, all while moving a much heavier car.

The passat makes 10 to 12 HP all day long on a 2 liter motor traveling at 60-65 mph, based on fuel consumption. Burning 8+ gallons of diesel towing per hour at 9 to 10 MPG is having a 3.0 liter motor running a lot of boost on the turbo charger at all times, and using 85 to 100 HP to tow down the road. That's about a 40-55% load, on flat ground. Add in hills or mountains, and that percentage climbs fast, leaving not much margin when towing, on the whole drive train.

The chassis may handle 7700 pounds for towing, day in and day out, but the motor and drive train is light duty diesel. VW Audi runs these motors in a lot of sedans in their line up, VW is not really in the heavy duty SUV or truck business. It's my belief they engineer their motors accordingly.

rjstractor wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:
Think about the load bearing surfaces for making that torque and HP from a 444 Ci 7.3 L diesel, how much piston surface, block bore surface, bearing surface, the size of the wrist pins and connecting rods, etc, to get the same horsepower... that's a mere 181 cubic inch, 3.0 liter motor. Ask a mechanical engineer to do the stress loads on all the parts for the amount of work done. You have to run 2.5x the amount of fuel and air or more, due to VW using the turbochargers boost to air cool the motor also, volume wise to a 3.0L to a 7.3 motor.

The little motor, is working much, much harder, with much less material, for the same amount of work being done. Guess which motor will wear out quicker and fail sooner?

Good points, but playing devil's advocate, look at the history of automotive engines. Displacement continues to shrink while output continues to rise, yet engine longevity also continues to rise. 40 years ago most engines wouldn't make it 100,000 miles without a rebuild. The excellent TDI motor in your Passat when compared with VW's first car diesel has over twice the power output, better fuel efficiency, and will last probably twice as long, all while moving a much heavier car.

I am not an engineer, but I don't think that the argument holds water either. HP is HP. It doesn't care wether it comes from a 360 cubic inch engine, or a 180 cubic inch engine. The output measurement is the same.

Look at one of the more popular engnies - the 3.5 EcoBoost. That has competitive power to the old 6.8 V10, and is likely (I haven't looked at the numbers) rated to tow as much or more than the V10 was in trucks 10 years ago.

I hear complaints about the EB, but not very many regarding it's towing abilities, and I have not seen anything about regular failures of the engine caused by those duties. If the weakness of the engine was it's size, I don't think Ford would have shrunk it and come out with an even smaller engine to use in the same segment.

My guess is the 3.0 is the same way. If VW didn't think it could do the job, they likely wouldn't rate it to tow that amount of weight. Warranty costs would just be too high.