tow vehicle for our Camplite 11 FK

[gogreen]

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!

[charliem]

[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]

[pinstriper]

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.

[gogreen]

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.

[charliem]

[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]

[ammobob]

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.

[gogreen]

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. 

[charliem]

[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]

[gogreen]

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...

[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

[charliem]

[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]

[gogreen]

[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. 

[billmoore]

[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.

[charliem]

[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]

[mitch]

OOH charts and graphs charts and graphs!!!