Why a pickup?

[jfkmk]

We have a 17' TT that we tow with a mid sized body on frame SUV and it tows great. It's not going to win any drag races towing the trailer, but I've never been in a situation where it significantly slowed on any hills, and with the wdh and sway, never had sway problems.

That being said, were looking at replacing our current TT with something in the low 20' range. I don't want to overload the SUV, so I'm going out today to start shopping for a half ton. I'm really not interested in anything bigger than a half ton, as the low 20' range is the biggest TT we would get. We've been camping/rv'ing for years, from tents to pop up to class c to our current TT, so we know what we want in a TT.

The question is this. As I've read the posts on this forum, whenever someone mentions they are/want to tow with a SUV, everyone warns about the dire lack of payload. Yet whenever someone mentions towing with a 150/1500, unless the trailer is over 30', the general consensus is "no problem".

For example, in a recent post regarding a Durango, someone stated the Durango only had a 1600# payload capacity, and they were going to run out of capacity almost before they start. Yet from the inventories I've seen on line for the F-150, with the tow package and 3.5eb, the payload is typically 1680#. So why would 1680 be ok, but not 1600?

Additional, some recent posts regarding the Ram, folks post "you'll be fine" without even asking about payload. Another recent post shows payload for a Ram 1500 at about 1400#. So a Durango with 1600# gets dire warnings and a Ram with 1400 gets the thumbs up?

I'm not knocking anyone's responses to posts, this forum is usually a wealth of information. I'm just trying to understand the true advantage of the pickup if the payloads and tow capacities are similar. I fully understand body on frame v unibody construction, I would not tow with the latter.

Thanks!

[Grit_dog]

mike-s wrote:

Powerdude wrote:
Well, I can tell you for sure that with less electronics and less power, and less gizmos, vehicles were easier to diagnose and repair than newer vehicles.

Good thing, because they had to be diagnosed and repaired much more often.

Bingo!
Powerdude I agree with every one of your reasons above.....totally.
And I also remembered tune ups at 30k and changing alternators etc a lot.

I put 16 new park plugs in my wife's car at over 100kmiles just because it was time?
None were fouled or not working. The brakes might be expensive but they are the easiest thing in the world to work on. Literally 2 small pins to pop out and replace brake pads. Calipers even squeeze in by hand.
I love me some square body K20 pickup truck but I'll take a new one for putting the miles on, thank you.

[2DHoop]

No better way to understand or feel the differences between two things like tow vehicles, RVs, etc. than with real world comparative test drives.
Tow your intended RV with the SUV and document/record your experience and then do the same with the truck. Do this multiple times in varying conditions and you will start to form an impression of the differences so you can make a decision.

Opinions and words only go so far. Have a go at it and see how each feels.

[mike-s]

Powerdude wrote:
Well, I can tell you for sure that with less electronics and less power, and less gizmos, vehicles were easier to diagnose and repair than newer vehicles.

Good thing, because they had to be diagnosed and repaired much more often.

[Jarlaxle]

harmanrk wrote:

colliehauler wrote:
Actually car based utility vehicle's are CUV'S regardless that people call them SUV'S.

Crossover Utility Vehicle, is term that has been with us since 2008, when it was first introduced as a marketing term. Unibody SUV's were available several years before that. I know as early as 2001 the Escape/Tribute were Unibody SUV's

Try 1984, with the Jeep Cherokee!

[harmanrk]

Powerdude wrote:
Well, I can tell you for sure that with less electronics and less power, and less gizmos, vehicles were easier to diagnose and repair than newer vehicles.

One NOx sensor can knock out an entire emissions system, and put a vehicle in limp mode now. You need a tow just to get home.

Alternators used to be simple to replace and were usually $69 bucks, and one belt to change. Fuel filters and/or most fuel pumps used to be in line on the fuel line. 10 minute job to change if you had a clog or bad gas. Now you have to drop the whole tank to change a fuel pump.

You could pull the distributor off, clean the points with a little sandpaper, and be on your way. Not anymore if an ECM module goes out, its $799 just for the part.

I'm not that old either, but I do remember buying a distributor cap for $5.99 and swapping it out in the parking lot. 10 minute job and I was on my way.

Were they easier to work on in the past, sure, because they had to be. Many of those repairs you listed were every 30k or less.

My daily driver is a 2006, with 212K on it, and has needed none of those repairs (Or their modern equivalent).

[Powerdude]

Grit dog wrote:

Powerdude wrote:
The problem is that the manufacturers cheapen everything year after year, in an effort to cut costs.

So what once was considered good enough to tow something, is now automatically suspect, and what was once considered heavy duty, is now barely enough.

So now you have to spend more $$, or at least do some serious research, before you buy something as complex as a tow vehicle.

SUV's are supposed to fill a market niche, and that market niche is "family car".

That niche does not tow as frequently as truck people, and so the "family car/SUV" market research shows that, and thus it does not get the heavier duty components that trucks use (most of the time, not necessarily all of the time). So, you have to do your research.

Idk, I'm not that old man, but I must have missed the "quality" years back in the good old days. But what I remember is engines that lasted 100-150k tops, transmissions that lasted less miles than that and things like drum brakes and c rap rusted together.....or apart.
Not sure how a run of the mill _______(insert your favorite half ton pickup or SUV) with huge 4 wheel disks, 6-10 speed transmissions, 400hp and a chassis that is light years stiffer than any old "quality" pickup could be considered cheaply constructed.
Really, what was considered good enough to tow _______back in the day now suffers from a bunch of internet experts that never really worked vehciles to their breaking points and now have a wealth of knowledge and specifications and opinions at their fingertips to either tout or gripe about.

You give me a new Chevy Tahoe and you take a perfect factory condition 1978, 88 or 98 K10 suburban and guess which one will tow safer and with more authority up and down the hills.

Well, I can tell you for sure that with less electronics and less power, and less gizmos, vehicles were easier to diagnose and repair than newer vehicles.

One NOx sensor can knock out an entire emissions system, and put a vehicle in limp mode now. You need a tow just to get home.

Alternators used to be simple to replace and were usually $69 bucks, and one belt to change. Fuel filters and/or most fuel pumps used to be in line on the fuel line. 10 minute job to change if you had a clog or bad gas. Now you have to drop the whole tank to change a fuel pump.

You could pull the distributor off, clean the points with a little sandpaper, and be on your way. Not anymore if an ECM module goes out, its $799 just for the part.

I'm not that old either, but I do remember buying a distributor cap for $5.99 and swapping it out in the parking lot. 10 minute job and I was on my way.

[mike-s]

Grit dog wrote:
Really, what was considered good enough to tow _______back in the day now suffers from a bunch of internet experts that never really worked vehciles to their breaking points and now have a wealth of knowledge and specifications and opinions at their fingertips to either tout or gripe about.

The Long, Long Trailer (~36 ft, ~6000 lbs) was towed by a 1953 Mercury Monterey convertible with a 125 HP flathead V8 engine, except over the mountains, where they used a 205 HP Lincoln. Fortunately, there was no Internet, and no self-righteous weight and speed police, at the time.

[Grit_dog]

Powerdude wrote:
The problem is that the manufacturers cheapen everything year after year, in an effort to cut costs.

So what once was considered good enough to tow something, is now automatically suspect, and what was once considered heavy duty, is now barely enough.

So now you have to spend more $$, or at least do some serious research, before you buy something as complex as a tow vehicle.

SUV's are supposed to fill a market niche, and that market niche is "family car".

That niche does not tow as frequently as truck people, and so the "family car/SUV" market research shows that, and thus it does not get the heavier duty components that trucks use (most of the time, not necessarily all of the time). So, you have to do your research.

Idk, I'm not that old man, but I must have missed the "quality" years back in the good old days. But what I remember is engines that lasted 100-150k tops, transmissions that lasted less miles than that and things like drum brakes and c rap rusted together.....or apart.
Not sure how a run of the mill _______(insert your favorite half ton pickup or SUV) with huge 4 wheel disks, 6-10 speed transmissions, 400hp and a chassis that is light years stiffer than any old "quality" pickup could be considered cheaply constructed.
Really, what was considered good enough to tow _______back in the day now suffers from a bunch of internet experts that never really worked vehciles to their breaking points and now have a wealth of knowledge and specifications and opinions at their fingertips to either tout or gripe about.

You give me a new Chevy Tahoe and you take a perfect factory condition 1978, 88 or 98 K10 suburban and guess which one will tow safer and with more authority up and down the hills.

[mike-s]

jfkmk wrote:
The question is this. As I've read the posts on this forum, whenever someone mentions they are/want to tow with a SUV, everyone warns about the dire lack of payload. Yet whenever someone mentions towing with a 150/1500, unless the trailer is over 30', the general consensus is "no problem".

Comes down to this. Those chrome hitch testes look out of place on an SUV, but deliver a healthy dose of testosterone to pickup drivers.

Seriously, work out the weights and ratings - that's all that matters.

[Powerdude]

The problem is that the manufacturers cheapen everything year after year, in an effort to cut costs.

So what once was considered good enough to tow something, is now automatically suspect, and what was once considered heavy duty, is now barely enough.

So now you have to spend more $$, or at least do some serious research, before you buy something as complex as a tow vehicle.

SUV's are supposed to fill a market niche, and that market niche is "family car".

That niche does not tow as frequently as truck people, and so the "family car/SUV" market research shows that, and thus it does not get the heavier duty components that trucks use (most of the time, not necessarily all of the time). So, you have to do your research.

[harmanrk]

colliehauler wrote:
Actually car based utility vehicle's are CUV'S regardless that people call them SUV'S.

Crossover Utility Vehicle, is term that has been with us since 2008, when it was first introduced as a marketing term. Unibody SUV's were available several years before that. I know as early as 2001 the Escape/Tribute were Unibody SUV's

[colliehauler]

Actually car based utility vehicle's are CUV'S regardless that people call them SUV'S.

[burningman]

And those categories are what creates these artificially-low payload ratings, when the truck is entirely capable of more, safely even.
I consider that extra weight of a Suburban or Excursion a good thing when pulling a trailer, it's always iffy when the trailer is the heavier thing.
I've towed something really heavy and put ballast weight in the back of my truck just to make sure it wins the fight about which direction we go.

[Gdetrailer]

burningman wrote:
You just have to pay attention to what you're talking about when you say "SUV".
That tag gets slapped on everything from unibody econobox compacts to Excursions that are 3/4 trucks with a roof over the bed.
If you specifically mean towing with a truck-chassis "SUV", they're fine.
I wouldn't use an SUV based on car drivetrain parts.

I also don't like towing trailers (other than 5th wheel or gooseneck) that are bigger and heavier than the truck pulling them. Some rainy day in a curve some screwy thing will happen and you'll see why.

Excursions are a LOT MORE than a "3/4 with a roof over the bed".

That roof also includes a lot of HEAVY glass windows, extra carpet, extra seats along with the extra steel weight of the roof..

All of that "extra roof" adds considerable amount of weight to the curb weight of the vehicle.. Every bit of that extra weight takes away from the available CARGO weight.

SUVs WILL have LESS available cargo weight no matter if it is based off of a "car" chassis or a "truck" chassis when compared to a open bed truck..

The reason?

Vehicles are broken down into weight classes, based off the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating).

1/2ton or less will have a class of 1 or 2 meaning the max GVWR will be 8K lbs or less.

3/4 ton trucks can be class 2 or 3 with a max GVWR of 9900 lbs..

1 ton trucks can be class 3 or 4 with GVWR of 9900 lbs up to 14,000 lbs or so..

Curb weight is subtracted from the GVWR to give you the available cargo weight rating (although the new yellow stickers take into account the driver and fuel).. The more curb weight you have the less cargo weight you will have to use.

That IS the main problem with ANY modern "station wagon" which now days is called a "SUV"..

Nothing wrong with them, if you like them and they have the capacity that you NEED..

But, it is more about the "right tool for the job", if you need more cargo weight, the only way to go is move up to a heavier class vehicle.. Be it a 1/2 ton truck, 3/4 ton truck or 1 ton and above, selecting one that gives you the needed payload is always best..

[burningman]

You just have to pay attention to what you're talking about when you say "SUV".
That tag gets slapped on everything from unibody econobox compacts to Excursions that are 3/4 trucks with a roof over the bed.
If you specifically mean towing with a truck-chassis "SUV", they're fine.
I wouldn't use an SUV based on car drivetrain parts.

I also don't like towing trailers (other than 5th wheel or gooseneck) that are bigger and heavier than the truck pulling them. Some rainy day in a curve some screwy thing will happen and you'll see why.