So we are the proud owners of a 2015 Camplite 11 FK. We previously had a Coleman popup that rang in at about 2700 lbs but it had a low line to it. With the higher roof line on the regular trailer our Toyota Sienna has asked us to find a younger someone to pull this with. We have been looking used - prefereably 2012-2014 - and at the Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot. From reading and perusing the internet it sounds like these would work for this trailer but I should have the two package and I am assuming that I can get that put on after market. It has been hit and miss finding them with a tow package already on them. We don't really want to go into a truck since your gear carry area is wide open and we just like the SUV style better.
Any opinions, ideas, oh nos, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. A little information overload from the internet and some hands on experience from anyone would be great!
Thanks!
[font size="3"]If you go with the Pilot be sure it's the 4X4 (AWD) model. The tow rating is 4500# vs 2000# for the front wheel drive version. It also includes a transmission cooler and a few other things helpful for towing. I towed an RPOD, slightly heavier than the 11FK, and it did great. You'll like the Honda.
[/font]
Things you typically find in "tow packages" depending on the vehicle:
1) Wiring harness. Meh. Big deal. Makes it easy, but your hitch dealer can do this from scratch if necessary.
2) Brake controller. Full size pickups may even have it factory integrated, which is easy and sweet. But again something that is easily aftermarketable.
3) Transmission cooler. This is an extra radiator for the transmission fluid, keeps it from overheating and breaking. May POSSIBLY be added aftermarket, but...oy. Big deal.
4) Heavy duty alternator. Probably not all that important. Don't think this is a simple add.
5) Lower gear ratios in the transaxle. Kind of important. Choose between towing power vs. fuel economy. Not a simple add.
Thanks charliem. Good information. I didn't really realize that between the 2WD and AWD. Looking at a couple now. I really do like the styling of the Pilot.
[font size="3"]We really love the Pilot and still use [/font][font size="3"]it for trips without the trailer. [/font][font size="3"]It's a 2010 and it's my wife's car. IIRC the 4WD model has the transmission cooler (a necessity) and the HD alternator. However the 7-pin Bargman harness doesn't quite make it to the rear bumper. It requires the extension and the 7-pin connector itself. Don't know why Honda did that, but they did. No real problem. No built in brake controller.
[/font]
We towed a 2013 16DB with a 2003 Honda Pilot and had no real problems. We had Honda install the transmission cooler and extra fan for cooling. U-haul installed the hitch, wiring harness and brake controller. Think we had >$1000 in all the upgrades for towing. The 16 was right at the max for towing but we watched our weights and did fine. I picked it up in Indiana and towed it back to Reno getting about 12-13 MPG empty. We averaged around 10 MPG when towing loaded to campsites. The longest trip we took was to the Grand Canyon and had no issues. The Pilot is an excellent choice if set-up correctly. Still have the Pilot in the garage with 87K miles.
Still capitulating about this tow vehicle for the 11 FK. Overthinking this I am sure. Looked at a 2013 Pathfiner last night. Has the factory installed 7-pin and hitch receiver and these show a 4500 lb. tow rating.
Our Sienna had 250 HP with its 3.3 V6 and you could tell it was working hard pulling that trailer on the highway at 60 MPH. The Pathfinder has the 3.5 V6 with 266 HP and wondering how much of a difference that might make with that trailer loaded. We are estimating right now about 2500-2700 lbs....
The other one we are looking into is the Chevy Traverse which also has the 3.5 V6 and 286 HP. Seems to have some good reviews as well.
Wondering if anyone has any tow experiences, opinions, thoughts on either of these vehicles?
We test drove and almost bought a Pilot but decided it had too many bells and whistles and the ride and comfort were just not there for a long trip. And pricing on something in the Tahoe range is just more than we really can justify paying for a vehicle.
Appreciate any insight/thoughts/comments.
[font size="3"]I'm surprised you found the Pilot lacking in ride and comfort. Ours is the preferred vehicle for road trips without the camper and it certainly pulled the RPOD for thousands of miles, but I'm working from a 2010 basis. On other vehicles, be cautious interpreting engine HP ratings. All manufacturers are increasing their HP specs by increasing the RPMs at which they are rated. For example the Traverse is rated 281 HP @ 6300RPM! It's still a 3.6L engine! They're doing this to meet the mandated fuel economy requirements. IMHO an engine shouldn't turn that fast and certainly my ears start to complain as we approach 5000RPM. I guess I'm old school ;)
[/font]
I was OK with the Pilot and I liked sitting up a little higher. But my wife was not comfortable in the seat and thought the Pathfinder was more comfortable. And she will probably be the one pulling the trailer on longer trips during the summer since she is a teacher.....
Yes, the whole RPM numbers have me scratching my head... The Pathfinders HP numbers are at 6400 RPM according to Edmunds. That just sounds insane IMHO...
The Pilot comes in at 250 HP but at a little more respectable 5700 RPM, which still seems to be skewed a bit high.
And the quest continues...
We pull our 16TBS just fine with a 2013 Pathfinder and no WDH. That model is rated for 5,000 lbs and the 16TBS is about 3,500 so plenty to spare. The 2013 was the first model of the Pathfinder with a unit body and a continuously variable transmission. I was a bit leery of the CVT, but after 40,000 miles and almost 5,000 miles towing it is still going strong.
The max rpm is really a non issue. We tow at 60 mph turning about 2,300 rpm with tow mode off. Maybe more with it on. When pulling up an 8% grade I slow down to about 40 mph and then engine is hitting about 3,500 rpm, probably near its peak torque value. I have never revved it past 4,000.
The Pilot should do fine for your 11FK, but a little light for the 16TBS.
David
[font size="3"]Mathematically HP is force times distance divided by time. So, with some simplification, HP=Torque X RPM. If torque stays essentially constant over a short interval an engine can increase RPM and HP until it blows up. For this example the Pilot engine, rated 250HP @5700RPM would put out 276 HP @6300RPM (250*6300/5700). Can you hear the metal wearing?
[/font]
[quote source="/post/18150/thread" timestamp="1454094973" author="@david"]We pull our 16TBS just fine with a 2013 Pathfinder and no WDH. That model is rated for 5,000 lbs and the 16TBS is about 3,500 so plenty to spare. The 2013 was the first model of the Pathfinder with a unit body and a continuously variable transmission. I was a bit leery of the CVT, but after 40,000 miles and almost 5,000 miles towing it is still going strong.
The max rpm is really a non issue. We tow at 60 mph turning about 2,300 rpm with tow mode off. Maybe more with it on. When pulling up an 8% grade I slow down to about 40 mph and then engine is hitting about 3,500 rpm, probably near its peak torque value. I have never revved it past 4,000.
The Pilot should do fine for your 11FK, but a little light for the 16TBS.
David[/quote]
David, thanks for the information. I was questioning that CVT transmission as well but I also sometimes think the majority of the reviews you are going to see are the people who are complaining about a particular issue. Folks as a general rule are less likely to take the time for positive reviews - at least that has been my experience.
Your 16TBS is a good 1200-1300 LBS heavier than the 11FK dry it seems so your information there gives me a little more drive to move on that Pathfinder. It was a nice riding vehicle for sure.
[quote timestamp="1454095726" author="@charliem" source="/post/18152/thread"][font size="3"]Mathematically HP is force times distance divided by time. So, with some simplification, HP=Torque X RPM. If torque stays essentially constant over a short interval an engine can increase RPM and HP until it blows up. For this example the Pilot engine, rated 250HP @5700rpm would put out 276 HP @6300rpm (250*6300/5700). Can you hear the metal wearing?
[/font][/quote]The problem with applying that formula is that manufacturers rate the horsepower at the peak of the horsepower curve. If you look at this dyno graph for a 2009 Pilot you can see this:
Horspower peaks at 250HP and rapidly drops off from there as RPMs approach redline.
For towing what really matters is the torque curve, not the horsepower curve. In that graph you can see that the Pilot has a pretty broad and flat torque curve (90% of peak torque at just off idle), which is very desirable for towing.
[font size="3"]Billmoore,
I agree my example is a simplification intended to make the point that increased HP can often be obtained by increasing RPMs. I qualified by saying "If torque stays essentially constant over a short interval an engine can increase RPM and HP....". In the real world torque is not perfectly flat which leads to the HP peak. The Pilot engine will probably not produce more HP, but the same size engine will if designed to run at a higher speed. My basic point is, IMHO, manufacturers are sacrificing engine life for HP ratings with small engines. That said, we probably agree on the basics :)
On the subject of torque and HP there is a common impression that torque is more important than HP for towing. I take issue with that. Torque will move a trailer, but HP will move a trailer up hills and against wind at a desired speed. With a small engine you can always get the trailer rolling and can eventually get it up the hill, just not very fast. Given a choice I would chose a higher HP engine, assuming a reasonable RPM to achieve it, rather than a higher torque lower HP engine. The torque curve can be accommodated with gearing; max HP cannot. Again I suspect we agree on the fundamentals ;)
Camp on!
[/font]
OOH charts and graphs charts and graphs!!!
[quote source="/post/18160/thread" author="@billmoore" timestamp="1454107959"]
Quote from: @charliem" timestamp="1454095726" source="/post/18152/thread[font size="3"]Mathematically HP is force times distance divided by time. So, with some simplification, HP=Torque X RPM. If torque stays essentially constant over a short interval an engine can increase RPM and HP until it blows up. For this example the Pilot engine, rated 250HP @5700rpm would put out 276 HP @6300rpm (250*6300/5700). Can you hear the metal wearing?
[/font]
The problem with applying that formula is that manufacturers rate the horsepower at the peak of the horsepower curve. If you look at this dyno graph for a 2009 Pilot you can see this:
[img style="max-width:100%;" src="http://hondanews.com/media_storage/GIF/6_09Pilot_Pwrtrn3.gif"]
Horspower peaks at 250HP and rapidly drops off from there as RPMs approach redline.
For towing what really matters is the torque curve, not the horsepower curve. In that graph you can see that the Pilot has a pretty broad and flat torque curve (90% of peak torque at just off idle), which is very desirable for towing.
wow.... what did I start?.. :) I am a lowly Texas History/music education major. My brain hurts now! Went out and drove the Traverse and the Durango this evening and really liked both of them. The newer Durango really has some good giddy up and go. Going to have to go back tomorrow in the daylight and drive all of them next to each other and try to make a decision before I am too old to drive![/quote]
I know people that have the Durango, as well as the related Grand Cherokee, and love them.
[font size="3"]Either the Traverse or Durango should be fine for the 11FK, even with the 3.x liter engine. The AWD versions would be best, but my second choice would be the Durango because their two wheel drive version is rear wheel drive. The Traverse (and Pilot) is front wheel drive. For towing the rear wheel drive is preferable to front wheel drive. Of course if you could find an AWD 5.7L V8 Durango, but............ ;)
[/font]
Charlie:
That is an interesting thought, that if you only have 2WD then for towing it is better if it is RWD. Some thoughts on a lazy Saturday morning:
FWD vehicles are almost always front heavy, but they are engineered for it. Adding weight in the trunk, or on the hitch will help to balance it out. RWD vehicles are often more balanced front to back. So it would seem that for balance a FWD vehicle might be better.
But climbing traction is a different story. Unless you always camp in city park like RV campgrounds, you will occasionally be in situations where you need to climb out of a steep back in campsite and will need lots of traction.
Our normal FWD, but with 4WD capability Pathfinder does sometimes spin its front wheels when climbing a grade of gravel while towing. There is less weight on the front wheels while climbing and that is when you need the weight for traction. So that is a problem if you only have 2WD. I shift into 4WD when that happens and climb right up. But if I only had RWD, I don't think I would have a problem climbing.
David
[quote source="/post/18182/thread" timestamp="1454174187" author="@david"]Charlie:
That is an interesting thought, that if you only have 2WD then for towing it is better if it is RWD. Some thoughts on a lazy Saturday morning:
FWD vehicles are almost always front heavy, but they are engineered for it. Adding weight in the trunk, or on the hitch will help to balance it out. RWD vehicles are often more balanced front to back. So it would seem that for balance a FWD vehicle might be better.
But climbing traction is a different story. Unless you always camp in city park like RV campgrounds, you will occasionally be in situations where you need to climb out of a steep back in campsite and will need lots of traction.
Our normal FWD, but with 4WD capability Pathfinder does sometimes spin its front wheels when climbing a grade of gravel while towing. There is less weight on the front wheels while climbing and that is when you need the weight for traction. So that is a problem if you only have 2WD. I shift into 4WD when that happens and climb right up. But if I only had RWD, I don't think I would have a problem climbing.
David[/quote][font size="3"]David,
As usual you're right and I really like the climbing argument. Your thoughts totally support my standard position that I will always own 4X4. Even on dry pavement I've dropped a wheel off the side of a campsite and popped into 4WD to get back up. AWD would do the same. Your thought on balance is valid, but consider that adding the trailer adds weight to the rear and subtracts weight from the front (driving) wheels. Unless you use extreme WDH [ :( ] you're taking weight off the traction wheels and putting it on the unpowered wheels with FWD.
Have a good lazy weekend.
[/font]
I pull my 13QBB with a '97 4Runner with only 183 HP and it does fine and averages 10 MPG. Above 60-65 MPH the wind resistance does make itself known, but I rarely have a need to exceed that speed regardless. So I think you'd be fine with the 11FK with any of those tow vehicle choices.
Graham
I think all the vehicles mentioned so far will tow the 11FK just fine. I think you're on the right track to take good long test drives in each to look at all the travel/use factors; safety, ergonomics, comfort, efficiency (when not towing), reliability, and dealer quality. After you've picked out a couple that you really like for the above reasons, let the deciding factor be the one with the greatest engine low-end torque!
Thanks for all the information. We finally have decided on the 2013 Nissan PF with the tow package and "tow mode" switch. Really like the ride and the room in it though I think the gold color may clash with our pretty yellow trailer. May have to paint one or the other...!
Looking forward to our next outing now!
Good choice!!
With regard to the tow mode switch, we don't bother with it on our 16TBS. Like I said before, with it off, we pull at about 2,300 rpm at 60 mph and get 13+ mpg. For comparison, with no trailer, the vehicle only revs to 1,700 at a steady 60 mph. So the CVT senses the increased load of the trailer and increases the ratio. Just as you would expect to happen.
I can't remember the numbers but I would expect that the tow mode would increase the rpm further at 60 mph. The higher rpm for the same speed will reduce the torque and therefore the engine stress, but since the trailer pulls nicely at 2,300 rpm and 60 mph, and seems to have plenty of additional torque at that point for acceleration, I think that we are fine pulling the 16TBS with the tow switch off.
Your trailer should be even easier to tow, but not much. Frontal area which is the same between your and my camper is more important than weight and rolling resistance at 60 mph.
David
[quote source="/post/18343/thread" author="@gogreen" timestamp="1454537788"]Thanks for all the information. We finally have decided on the 2013 Nissan PF with the tow package and "tow mode" switch. Really like the ride and the room in it though I think the gold color may clash with our pretty yellow trailer. May have to paint one or the other...!
Looking forward to our next outing now![/quote]Please keep us updated on your first outing with your "new to you" tow vehicle & CL 11 rig!
We like towing our Mighty 11 with a 2013 Nissan Frontier 4.0L crew cab pickup with Leer shell. Will eventually move up to a 5.7L Toyota Tundra to tow a Toy Hauler.
[quote timestamp="1454542087" author="@david" source="/post/18344/thread"]Good choice!!
With regard to the tow mode switch, we don't bother with it on our 16TBS. Like I said before, with it off, we pull at about 2,300 rpm at 60 mph and get 13+ mpg. For comparison, with no trailer, the vehicle only revs to 1,700 at a steady 60 mph. So the CVT senses the increased load of the trailer and increases the ratio. Just as you would expect to happen.
David[/quote][font size="3"]David,
With conventional transmissions the function of the tow/haul switch is to lock out the overdrive gears and prevent excessive shifting. But with the CVT I wonder what the T/H function is accomplishing. Seems like the CVT does all that seamlessly. Thoughts??
BTW, with the CVT are we slowly returning to the 1950's Buick [strike]Dynaflush[/strike] Dynaflow??
[/font]
[p]Charlie:
My room mate in college had a Buick Dynaflow. The engine input shaft was very loosely connected to the output shaft on that transmission. I haven't a clue what was in between. Maybe just a big torque converter. I had a Chevy with a two speed automatic and a torque converter. I bet both of them dumped a lot of horsepower as heat into the transmission.
The Nissan CVT uses a steel belt drive. Two pulleys with a hydraulically controlled diameter (by opening or closing the spacing between the side plates) are connected with a steel belt. It also has a torque converter, but that locks up at 20-30 miles per hour. So the transmission is very fixed but has a variable ratio. Depending n how hard you press the accelerator it choses a drive ratio to suit. It is very smooth, but does feel weird driving it initially.
So, I assume that the non tow ratio of 1,700 at 60 mph not towing and 2,300 rpm while towing goes higher with the tow mode on. That increases (numerically) the drive ratio, lets the engine speed up a bit, and lowers the torque on the engine at the same speed. I also noticed that the coasting ratio stays high, which provides more engine braking than with tow mode off.[/p][p]
[/p][p]Based upon its feel while towing: <3,500 lbs and 60 mph max, I think that I am not stressing the engine in non tow mode. It has plenty of available torque which means I am operating well below the maximum power curve.
I don't remember specific rpm figures when I towed with it on, but I did notice a 1 mpg drop with it on.
The transmission does have a low mode, separate from the tow mode. You select that just like a step ratio transmission with the shift lever. It works similar. It keeps the ratio high (numerically) and won't "shift" upward as you speed up. I use it for downhill braking and it works just like downshifting a normal automatic.
The CVT improves gas mileage because its computer can select the optimum ratio for the load and speed. I think it may be the wave of the future. Nissan has had some "chudder" problems with it at low speeds, probably with the torque converter not locked. Mine did it very occasionally, but not in the last year or so.
David[/p]
[font size="3"]David,
Interesting experience. The Dynaflow was just a torque converter with a two speed +R gear set.
[a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaflow"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaflow[/a]
I remember seeing variable speed V-Belt drives, both preset and adjustable, so I know what you're describing. It does sound like they have a future. [/font][font size="3"]It also sounds like the tow mode just puts a software bias in the ratio vs HP curve to get higher on the torque curve.[/font][font size="3"]
BTW my college roommate had a brand new Model A. I think his name was Henry ;)
[/font]