what model can I tow with our 2009 V6 VENZA with tow prep?

[Mr. Adventure]

Toyota's towing guide

Look, I get it: There's a rule that if you live west of Kansas you can't go camping without 1500 pounds of stuff in the trailer and another 1500 pounds of people and more stuff in the tow vehicle, and for all that stuff you really, really need the biggest truck that you can get your wife to let you buy. And, it needs to be built on a proper steel channel truck chassis so that you could drill bolt holes in it anywhere you want to, not one of those sissy unibodies.

But that doesn't mean we all need big pickup trucks, just because it's what guys do out West in the mountains or the desert. I promise: I won't have a 600# tongue or a 4500# TrailManor on the road, and if I ever go off road with the TrailManor, it won't be intentional.

Here's what Toyota is saying about towing these days. This is different from a few years ago, and it provides a lot more detail (the term Gross Combined Weight Rating only occurs in the glossary).

One inference from how hard it is to get to the GCWR is that maybe Toyota treats axle weights, gross vehicle weights, and trailer weights as the important parameters and not the GCWR. We've seen them bend GCWR smoothly around that extra few hundred pounds for 4 wheel drive. GCWR is not marked anywhere on my vehicle, only buried deep in the owner's manual which, now in the scanner instead of the glove box, is no longer in the vehicle. The axle weights, on the other hand are stamped on the door post and are things anyone can measure at a truck scale without having to do any arithmetic.

http://www.toyota.com/pdfs/towguide_Part1.pdf
http://www.toyota.com/pdfs/towguide_Part2.pdf
http://www.toyota.com/pdfs/towguide_Part3.pdf

Here's the best advice to be giving people about tow vehicles, as quoted by Harvey from the Toyota website:
"Do not exceed any Weight Ratings and follow all instructions in your Owner's Manual."

 

[Joseph]

Hello 4Seasons . . .

As you can tell some of us subscribe to the less is more school of thought and some of us would pull our TM's with a tank if we could get away with it.... ( That would be me, the wife is a Marine and would understand....:new_usa: ) Someone who used to be on this forum said once that choice was what America was all about. I suppose one of the best comments made in this whole post is the one Mr Adventure has at the bottom of his signature.

" It's not how fast you can go, its how fast you can stop an RV that counts "

Remember, whatever the weight of the TM, and what ever the limits of your TV, that TM is going to be behind you every step of the way. Do your research. Be safe.

 

[PopBeavers]

All I can tell you is that my 2005 TM 2720 weighs 3380 at the axle. I did not weigh the tongue. Assuming 15 percent (conservative) then the tongue weight would be 507, for a total weight of 3887.

The dry weight is 2742.

That means that I carry 1145 of options and my personal stuff.

I carry 46 gallons of water. That is 384 pounds.

The fridge is very full. That is probable around 50 pounds.

We have clothes in the drawers and closet. That is probably 40 pounds.

Pans and dishes (service for 5) are probably around 25 pounds.

Stuff in the bathroom cabinet (shampoo, tooth paste etc.) I probably 10 pounds.

That is 509 pounds. If you don't take that stuff then that gets the weight down to 3378 with a tongue weight of 506 pounds.

That is still 536 pounds of options and stuff.

Eliminate the air conditioner will also save weight. I would not do that anywhere that gets hot and humid.

Taking only one battery instead of two (assuming you always stay in RV parks with shore power) will save about 80 pounds.

Take one propane tank instead of two. That will save about 30 pounds.

If you always have shore power and cook in an electric pan so that you never use the stove or oven and if you do not use the furnace then you can eliminate the the other propane cylinder, saving an additional 30 pounds.

The awning probably weighs about 30 pounds.

That is another 170 pounds. You are now down to 3208 with a tongue weight of 481.

Now if you can estimate what else I take that you will not take then that will give you some idea of total weight.

Dry and canned food is about 30 pounds for 5 adults for 4 days. Always eat in restaurants and you can save that.

This is for a 2720. If you get the 2619 that will save another 69 pounds.

If I had to strip it down that much I would see no point in going.

Hope that helps.

 

[ED-n-KEL]

As you can tell some of subscribe to the less is more school of thought and some of us would pull our TM's with a tank if we could get away with it.... ( That would be me, the wife is a Marine and would understand....:new_usa: ) Someone who used to be on this forum said once said that choice was what America was all about. I suppose one of the best comments made in this whole post is the one Mr Adventure has at the bottom of his signature.

" It's not how fast you can go, its how fast you can stop an RV that counts "

Remember, whatever the weight of the TM, and what ever the limits of your TV, that TM is going to be behind you every step of the way. Do your research. Be safe.

Joseph, I agree 100%.

As with most levels of any type of engineering, there should always be some type of "safety factor", "service factor", "margin of safety", "margin for error", etc, etc. This basically means that if you need 100HP to do a job, then put a 125HP motor to do it. Unfortunately, these days the train of thought is if you need 100HP, use a 75HP to save money. This is pretty much the reasoning that usually kills people and pollutes thousands of miles of water and land.

I wonder if people would get it if they were asked to put themselves and their entire families in a basket and hang this basket off of a 1000ft cliff.
Now, the family and basket weigh in at 4000 lbs... so we'll use a rope with a 3500 lb capacity. You could leave belts, shoes, clothes, behind to save a little weight.... Any takers?
Let's leave Jimmy and Johnny on land and reduce the basket weight to 3500 lbs.... and still use 3500 lb capacity rope. Still, any takers?

People, this is not a video game where when you crash you get to restart and all is well.
Anyone considering running down the highway with their vehicle maxed out and with their entire family inside should seriously reconsider and reevaluate their priorities.

BP didn't want to spend the extra money on the correct BOP for 5000ft of water. Where are their savings now?

 

[Wavery]

Joseph, I agree 100%.

As with most levels of any type of engineering, there should always be some type of "safety factor", "service factor", "margin of safety", "margin for error", etc, etc. This basically means that if you need 100HP to do a job, then put a 125HP motor to do it. Unfortunately, these days the train of thought is if you need 100HP, use a 75HP to save money. This is pretty much the reasoning that usually kills people and pollutes thousands of miles of water and land.

I wonder if people would get it if they were asked to put themselves and their entire families in a basket and hang this basket off of a 1000ft cliff.
Now, the family and basket weigh in at 4000 lbs... so we'll use a rope with a 3500 lb capacity. You could leave belts, shoes, clothes, behind to save a little weight.... Any takers?
Let's leave Jimmy and Johnny on land and reduce the basket weight to 3500 lbs.... and still use 3500 lb capacity rope. Still, any takers?

People, this is not a video game where when you crash you get to restart and all is well.
Anyone considering running down the highway with their vehicle maxed out and with their entire family inside should seriously reconsider and reevaluate their priorities.

BP didn't want to spend the extra money on the correct BOP for 5000ft of water. Where are their savings now?

But Ed.....BP has been doing this for many years and "Never had a problem".......Sound familiar?

It drives me crazy when I see people post that statement in these towing threads.........."I do it ....and I've never had a problem"........ In most cases, that statement is only made to help the poster justify his risky behavior and encourage others to help justify that behavior. In my opinion....that type of thinking is irresponsible.

If someone wants to do something risky, that's fine with me. I am one of the biggest risk takers on the planet. I've sailed around the world in a small boat...I was a deep depth scuba diver and a sky-diver.....would I recommend any of that to others? He!! NO.........However, when people come to me and ask how they can make doing it safer, I'm glad to help as long as their risk taking does not involve the safety of others........ Although I will absolutely tell them that they can die doing it and I have seen plenty of people die doing all those things.

In my sailing seminars, I did not advocate (nor did I use) the use of an EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon) or life rafts on sailboats that are making long ocean crossings without crew. My philosophy is that I have the right to risk my own like . I DO NOT have the right to risk the lives of those that my be involved in attempting a rescue. Many Coast Guardsman have died in rescue attempts on small craft. Just like many people have been killed in car accidents involving the risky behavior of others. I WILL NOT put myself in that position and I would NEVER recommend it to others..

As for the life-raft.....they are a joke on a small vessel. There have been many cases worldwide of empty life-rafts being found or sailboats being found (afloat) with the life-raft missing and never discovered and/or the raft being discovered with a dead body. The idea of dying in a life-raft does not appeal to me. I firmly believe that the time taken to deploy the raft would be much better spent saving the boat. If the attempt fails (which is actually rare), so be it.......I'm not spending the "rest of my life" in a raft, floating on the ocean. There have been very few cases, world-wide of small craft sailors being rescued from a life-raft.

 

[ED-n-KEL]

But Ed.....BP has been doing this for many years and "Never had a problem".......Sound familiar?

(Actually BP has had tons of problems, but that another story...)

A couple of phrases come to mind...

"Just because it CAN be done... doesn't mean it SHOULD be done."

"Just because someone else is doing it, doesn't make it's ok."

As you say, if you want to endanger your life by jumping off of a cliff hanging from a glidder, that's your business... but don't fly over a school yard full of kids when doing it.
Driving down an Interstate with an overloaded vehicle, surrounded by other families is totally irresponsible. You not only endanger everyone IN your vehicle, but everyone around you. When you're convicted on vehicular homicide or manslaughter because you were knowingly driving an unsafe vehicle and killed someone, then you'll have plenty of time to contemplate the value of your savings. You can then explain it to the grieving family. I'm sure they'll understand.

Driving a TV that is "more than capable" of towing a TM is not a "macho" thing. It's just plain good sense.
The more the "margin", the safer everyone is.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I don't recall anyone suggesting on this thread that anybody should be driving an overloaded or unsafe vehicle. Certainly not me.

I showed you that I am towing within the guidelines specified in my owner's manual, and all you guys want to talk about is BP and their out of control oil well, flying gliders over schoolyards, jumping off cliffs, or people hanging their families in baskets like it would be a better idea if you had a bigger rope.

Please try to remember a couple things for me, no matter what you're driving:
- Unloading your front wheels is dangerous. Even if it's only 5%, that's 5% less steering and braking while you're towing, when you need it most.
- The big V8 may be rated for more tow than the smaller one, but it doesn't rate any more "stop."
- RV's aren't intended to go 70mph in traffic.


Pop Beavers: Thanks for posting your list of items and weights. That's helpful to people trying to figure out where their expected trailer weights might come out.

M&M Hokie: The problem with the Sienna, the last time I worked through the calcs with someone, was that it was hard to keep it under Gross with the tongue weight.

 

[Wavery]

I don't recall anyone suggesting on this thread that anybody should be driving an overloaded or unsafe vehicle. Certainly not me.

I'm sorry if you took my ranting :new_cussi personally ......I was more reacting to the "BP Petroleum" post and relating it to other posts that I have seen (not thinking of yours at all).......

 

[Joseph]

Venza . . .

I think 4Seasons was interested in towing with a VENZA.... what he thought he could tow... we are sort of off track... just a little... maybe....

 

[PopBeavers]

Make sure you understand that some of the weights were measured (axle,water,propane, etc.), some were estimated (battery,tongue weight,etc.) and some were guesses (clothing,dishes,etc.).

I may have under estimated the weight of clothing. That closet is pretty hard to lift sometimes.

 

[rumbleweed]

- QUOTE" The big V8 may be rated for more tow than the smaller one, but it doesn't rate any more "stop."

This is not exactly true. A big V8 designed to tow 7000 lbs is equipped with a braking system capable of stopping 7000 extra lbs. A smaller TV with a lower towing capacity will have a lower stopping capacity. May not make a difference much of the time, but when the family of deer run in front of you even at 45mph you will be glad you have the big V8. Unless I am mistaken most of us tow our TM to places where we are more likely than not to see deer and other large animals in the road.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Brakes

It's very possible you're right, of course, but I won't be convinced until I see that they stock different part numbers for the brake parts for the same vehicle with different engines and therefore different tow ratings. When they figure this stuff for weight ratings, it's not just safety. It's also marketing, durability and warranties that are parts of the equation, hence the higher ratings for more engine power.

Think about it: stopping is road, tires, antilock braking sensors/software/hardware, and of course the common brake wear parts. What manufacturer would want to defend a personal injury claim if there was a perfectly compatible set of brake parts in the product line that's 30% better, costs them about the same, but which they decided not to use? How about the liabilities in a different case where some dealer puts the 6000# rated pads on the vehicle that needed the 8000# pads because they didn't notice some option group that went with the engine number (or happened to be out of the right ones, and these happened to fit)?

I'd bet that manufacturers use the same brakes in most versions of the same vehicle as much as they can, just to avoid these hassles and the extra part numbers to engineer, manufacture, and stock.

 

[Al-n-Sue]

maybe - but I know that my Durango with the trailer towing package has bigger brakes - I think 10" rotors instead of 9" - than the same model (i.e. same V8) w/o the trailer towing package. I also have a heavier duty battery, a higher output alternator, a larger radiator, and a tranny cooler. All these are specified as part of the trailer towing package. Other manufacturers may differ, but I've found this to be ture on several Chrysler models.
my .02 worth.
Alan

 

[Wavery]

It's very possible you're right, of course, but I won't be convinced until I see that they stock different part numbers for the brake parts for the same vehicle with different engines and therefore different tow ratings. When they figure this stuff for weight ratings, it's not just safety. It's also marketing, durability and warranties that are parts of the equation, hence the higher ratings for more engine power.

Think about it: stopping is road, tires, antilock braking sensors/software/hardware, and of course the common brake wear parts. What manufacturer would want to defend a personal injury claim if there was a perfectly compatible set of brake parts in the product line that's 30% better, costs them about the same, but which they decided not to use? How about the liabilities in a different case where some dealer puts the 6000# rated pads on the vehicle that needed the 8000# pads because they didn't notice some option group that went with the engine number (or happened to be out of the right ones, and these happened to fit)?

I'd bet that manufacturers use the same brakes in most versions of the same vehicle as much as they can, just to avoid these hassles and the extra part numbers to engineer, manufacture, and stock.

I can tell you that in GM products, this is certainly true and I would imagine it to be true in other manufacturers as well. The exception is when they have a "HD" (heavy duty) option. They may well include a larger engine and larger brakes. In that case, the parts catolog would list a HD or standard option when purchasing replacement parts.

My truck is an example of that. My truck was built with a "Fuel economy option" that include the smaller (4.8L) V8 as apposed to the std 5.8L. When I purchased brake pads, the only thing that was designated as an optional part was the "HD 1500". No mention of engine size.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The Toyota Tacoma is a perfect example, with about 15 different equipment choices for 2010, offering towing capacities ranging from 3500# to over 10,000#. But here's what's offered for front brake pads:
(source, one of many: https://www.toyotapartscenter.net/toyotatacomaparts.html)

Description Year Your Price
Front pads, tacoma 05-10 $50.39
(in other words, one set of front brake pads appears to fit every Tacoma made in the last 5 years)

Regarding the 2001 Dodge Durango, This looks like it might be one size fits all, but I really don't know the vehicle. If you need different brake pads for Durangos with tow packages, these people don't seem to be telling you about it:
http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/s...versal:0)&refType=Series&refValue=Performance)