Tow longevity

[Grumpaw]

This has confused me under weight for some time.

The equipment, I think, includes 70 lbs for a hitch. If you have a 100 lbs hitch, do you only add 30 lbs hitch weight to payload and allow 70 lbs to tongue weight or is it still all 100 lbs to hitch weight and payload?

If your referring to the hitch head/shank assembly it's weight is added to the truck once you slide it in to the receiver. Thus, it becomes "payload" weight.
So, example...if your cargo/payload limit is 1000 lbs, and your hitch head/shank assembly weighs 70 lbs, your usable payload is now 930 lbs.
Anything added to the truck is payload. Anything added to the trailer affects tongue weight. If payload is added forward of the trailer's axle tongue weight goes up....if added behind the axle, it will usually decrease the tongue weight.
The tongue weight of the trailer, when hooked up to the truck also becomes "payload" and must be subtracted from the trucks carrying capacity.
So, if you have a tongue weight of 300 lbs, you subtract that from your 930 lbs and you now have 630 lbs usable payload.

Sponsored

 

[Cmar]

If your referring to the hitch head/shank assembly it's weight is added to the truck once you slide it in to the receiver. Thus, it becomes "payload" weight.
So, example...if your cargo/payload limit is 1000 lbs, and your hitch head/shank assembly weighs 70 lbs, your usable payload is now 930 lbs.
Anything added to the truck is payload. Anything added to the trailer affects tongue weight. If payload is added forward of the trailer's axle tongue weight goes up....if added behind the axle, it will usually decrease the tongue weight.
The tongue weight of the trailer, when hooked up to the truck also becomes "payload" and must be subtracted from the trucks carrying capacity.
So, if you have a tongue weight of 300 lbs, you subtract that from your 930 lbs and you now have 630 lbs usable payload.

Exactly, something that quite a few "Grey Nomad" travelers over here have not paid sufficient attention to, although also partly Toyota's fault. This is because these cashed up retirees buy the Land Cruiser wagon beloved of this crew, but the top of the range model, which already decreases the carrying capacity by way of the fact that Toyota loads the fruit in but doesn't change the base design which already lowers the payload.
They then add roof rack, long range tanks, snorkel, bull bar, fridge, cargo barrier, 12 volt battery setup and 300 Kg of tow ball download from the caravan and then end up with a set up that technically can't legally even hold your lunch as payload!

 

[ctechbob]

Exactly, something that quite a few "Grey Nomad" travelers over here have not paid sufficient attention to, although also partly Toyota's fault. This is because these cashed up retirees buy the Land Cruiser wagon beloved of this crew, but the top of the range model, which already decreases the carrying capacity by way of the fact that Toyota loads the fruit in but doesn't change the base design which already lowers the payload.
They then add roof rack, long range tanks, snorkel, bull bar, fridge, cargo barrier, 12 volt battery setup and 300 Kg of tow ball download from the caravan and then end up with a set up that technically can't legally even hold your lunch as payload!

Just about the same over here. Take a good look at an F150 'Platinum' or 'Limited' and they are so chock full of crap that they'll have sub 1500# payloads. Add a bunch of crap in the bed and 4 'Americans' and you are shit out of payload for anything else. But hey, I've got a truck and I can tow this 30 foot camper.

See them all the time dragging their ass down the interstate, while I cruise on past properly loaded.

 

[Devil6]

If your referring to the hitch head/shank assembly it's weight is added to the truck once you slide it in to the receiver. Thus, it becomes "payload" weight.
So, example...if your cargo/payload limit is 1000 lbs, and your hitch head/shank assembly weighs 70 lbs, your usable payload is now 930 lbs.
Anything added to the truck is payload. Anything added to the trailer affects tongue weight. If payload is added forward of the trailer's axle tongue weight goes up....if added behind the axle, it will usually decrease the tongue weight.
The tongue weight of the trailer, when hooked up to the truck also becomes "payload" and must be subtracted from the trucks carrying capacity.
So, if you have a tongue weight of 300 lbs, you subtract that from your 930 lbs and you now have 630 lbs usable payload.

Thanks, and that’s what I believe. I’ve seen online where some people interpret that SAE J2807 allows for around 70lbs of hitch to be taken off of payload (because it’s factored into the standard), it’s confusing.


In this article, Myth 7 is what I am referring to: https://askthervengineer.com/the-big-7-misconceptions-about-weight-distribution-hitches/

 

[Grumpaw]

I read myth #7 and it is a bit confusing...their just adding or subtracting weights depending on the hitch head weight, tongue weight, and a lot of "what if's ".
Just remember, anything added to the truck is always considered "payload", and anything added to the trailer goes to trailer weight, and adds to the tongue weight.
Additionally, some think that using a weight distributing hitch will eliminate some tongue weight being transferred to the truck....it does not. The tongue weight is still there, in full. It is that some of the weight is being "transferred" to the front and center of the truck, and still must be considered as "payload".

 

[Devil6]

I read myth #7 and it is a bit confusing...their just adding or subtracting weights depending on the hitch head weight, tongue weight, and a lot of "what if's ".
Just remember, anything added to the truck is always considered "payload", and anything added to the trailer goes to trailer weight, and adds to the tongue weight.
Additionally, some think that using a weight distributing hitch will eliminate some tongue weight being transferred to the truck....it does not. The tongue weight is still there, in full. It is that some of the weight is being "transferred" to the front and center of the truck, and still must be considered as "payload".

And, the author of that says he is an RV enginerd which caused me to question myself.

 

[ProtonDecay]

Just chiming in to note that we've now towed our 6,000 lbs trailer (fully loaded) for 45K miles with no issues. 1,150 of that was the Dempster Highway, which is not steep, but definitely takes a toll on the suspension and underside of the truck (and trailer). Non "Fn Ranger" people continue to bag on this truck....I just continue to be impressed. Just had a discussion yesterday with a friend who tows his 8,000lb trailer with a 250 Tremor. We get about the same fuel mileage at 10-11 miles per gallon between 55-62, but agreed that I can get my rig (shorter truck and shorter trailer) into way tighter spots. He doesn't use a WDH, I do, but remove once we go off-road. Here we are at the summit of Salmon Glacier in BC and on the tidal flat in Dyea AK.

 

[BryanJay]

Just chiming in to note that we've now towed our 6,000 lbs trailer (fully loaded) for 45K miles with no issues. 1,150 of that was the Dempster Highway, which is not steep, but definitely takes a toll on the suspension and underside of the truck (and trailer). Non "Fn Ranger" people continue to bag on this truck....I just continue to be impressed. Just had a discussion yesterday with a friend who tows his 8,000lb trailer with a 250 Tremor. We get about the same fuel mileage at 10-11 miles per gallon between 55-62, but agreed that I can get my rig (shorter truck and shorter trailer) into way tighter spots. He doesn't use a WDH, I do, but remove once we go off-road. Here we are at the summit of Salmon Glacier in BC and on the tidal flat in Dyea AK.

Just curious how much extra gas you carried to get you between fill-ups, especially on the Dempster? Sounds like an awesome trip.

 

[ProtonDecay]

Just curious how much extra gas you carried to get you between fill-ups, especially on the Dempster? Sounds like an awesome trip.

We always carry two 5 gallon harbor freight cans on the back of the trailer, plus I have a 2.5g that I use to fill the generator. Of that, while we did use fuel from the jerry-type cans from time to time for convenience in the north, the only time we really needed it was, as you expected, the run between the start of the Dempster (two fuel stations there) and Eagle Plains, which is about 230 miles. After Eagle Plains the fuel stations are close enough for our 18-19g tank to make it with the trailer.

Re towability - even with the excellent turning radius that the Ranger provides, we do occasionally get into someplace where we have to unhitch and spin the trailer. Here we are just south of Destruction Bay on Kluane Lake.

 

[Cmar]

I find this interesting to see, as the ecoboost engine was never offered as even an option over here, you choices were the 3.2 litre I5 diesel, the 2.2 i4 diesel both with the 6R80 auto or a six speed manual, or (later) the 2.0 biturbo i4 diesel with the 10R80 auto.

I have the 3.2 five cylinder - I believe the same engine saw some service over in the US in Transit vans for while.

On a recent trip from where we live, to Birdsville in far western Queensland we traveled ~ 1700 Km or 1056 miles each way, towing our 2400Kg (5300Lb) Jayco outback, my fuel consumption went from its normal average of 9.5-10.0 L/100 km or about 25 US MPG, to 13.5-14 MPG.

This entailed traveling on a mix of tar roads at about 100-110 Km /Hr - say about ~60-67 MPH, to about ~30-50 MPH on a 330 mile dirt stretch.

I might add after a weather system went through whilst we were there - which is rare in the desert, that same dirt stretch turned into a washed out, rutted, slippery, mud bog with some quite deep water crossings needing 4x4, which dropped out return trip on that same stretch to an average of about 20MPH! This interestingly used about the same amount of fuel, I guess the reduction in speed and wind resistance, was offset by slippage, the use of 4x4 and the need to constantly slow and accelerate.

 

[Grumpaw]

I find this interesting to see, as the ecoboost engine was never offered as even an option over here, you choices were the 3.2 litre I5 diesel, the 2.2 i4 diesel both with the 6R80 auto or a six speed manual, or (later) the 2.0 biturbo i4 diesel with the 10R80 auto.

I have the 3.2 five cylinder - I believe the same engine saw some service over in the US in Transit vans for while.

On a recent trip from where we live, to Birdsville in far western Queensland we traveled ~ 1700 Km or 1056 miles each way, towing our 2400Kg (5300Lb) Jayco outback, my fuel consumption went from its normal average of 9.5-10.0 L/100 km or about 25 US MPG, to 13.5-14 MPG.

This entailed traveling on a mix of tar roads at about 100-110 Km /Hr - say about ~60-67 MPH, to about ~30-50 MPH on a 330 mile dirt stretch.

I might add after a weather system went through whilst we were there - which is rare in the desert, that same dirt stretch turned into a washed out, rutted, slippery, mud bog with some quite deep water crossings needing 4x4, which dropped out return trip on that same stretch to an average of about 20MPH! This interestingly used about the same amount of fuel, I guess the reduction in speed and wind resistance, was offset by slippage, the use of 4x4 and the need to constantly slow and accelerate.

How about a photo of your "down under" rig.....

 

[Cmar]

How about a photo of your "down under" rig.....

Happy to oblige you sir! This is us parked up in the Birdsville common on the way out to the Big Red Bash music festival at the edge of the Simpson Desert- proudly promoted as the World's most remote music festival. This was BEFORE it got dirty.

Sponsored