Tow Rig/Daily Driver/Weekend Toy thoughts?
 

So, in my other thread, I lamented that I've got the wrong truck. I failed to fully consider my input conditions (size of family, need for not-tent accommodations, etc.) and hit a payload/tow rating limitation due to how Ford rates the M5OD-equipped 2nd Gen Explorer. Swapping in an auto and lower gears won't change the ratings attached to the VIN.

As a result, I am researching for another vehicle. It'll be a while, because I sunk all my "toy money" in this Explorer and can't get much of it back out, but that just gives me time to refine the plans more.

Requirements:
4 seatbelt positions for adults (One kid is 13, the other is 9, they'll be "full size" soon...).
4*/4* or better NHTSA crash rating (or equivalent).
Low-range equipped transfer case.
Tow rating of ~4,000lb or better.

And the hard part: Minimum 1600lb payload capacity (including driver, passengers, etc.)

You may ask where the payload capacity comes from:
~450lb trailer tongue
~100lb weight distributing/anti-sway hitch stuff
~750lb total of driver and 3 passengers (only a bit of room for growth on the kids with this number)
~300lb skidplates, rock rails, beefier tires a few sizes taller than stock - no winch or lift.

There's not much room there for "personal belongings inside the cab for during the drive" either. Or the 75lb dog and her crate if we want to take her. Or Grandma if she wants to come along, too.

This to tow a modest 16-17' travel trailer to a campsite and go play on off-road trails, plus commute to work the rest of the year. So I'd prefer not to have a 3/4-ton or 1-ton fullsize (though the payload number basically is pointing directly at that, so I may be adding to the ranks of our fullsize tow-rig hypermilers...)

It's pretty crazy trying to figure out how much something can actually tow, once you factor in the tongue weight against the payload rating and the weight of the passengers, etc. 10,000lb GCWR doesn't matter much if there's no payload left for the tongue! Check the specs on a 2008+ Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited, for example: Payload of 980lb, Tow Rating of 3500lb. It can't fit my family and tow that much trailer.

If anyone has tips on compact/popup travel trailers 3500lb or less GVWR that have 3 separate sleeping positions (one ~Queen for us parents, two ~Twins for the kids) a toilet with a door, a shower that doesn't require sitting on the toilet, a microwave, small range, mini-fridge, furnace and A/C I'm all ears. Likely max stay of just under a week without moving, so having to do pumpouts/refills not so bad. Hard-side is *definitely* preferred - there's a good chance that if it takes 20+ minutes to set up a tent-type folding popup in the rain it'll get vetoed by the rest of the family that have to sit in the tow rig while I set it up. Plus all it takes is one rainy week in which it can't dry out after one rainy weekend camping and having to fold it up/drive home with the canvas all wet and it'll be a mildew-fest in there.

If you can recommend one that's 1800lb or less fully loaded for camping (full water tank/LP tank, sheets, kitchen supplies, etc.) and is known to "dry out well", that'd drop the payload requirements a fair bit, too. Basically an 1800lbGVWR popup camper that meets the above needs. That might possibly be towable with the Explorer, maybe need to put the spare in the trailer though.

Dont get bent out of shape about the load rating. My F150 has a rear axle rating of about 1,100, with a max trailer weight of about 3K. I max out the axle and have double the trailer, no problem, just have to slow down a little.

Keep in mind most load ratings have a safety factor of at least 3-4X, sometimes more, you can easily run double "capacity" and be fine.

Sorry, trying to stay legal here.
 

Hello Shaneajanderson,

I'll be polite about this, because it's the first reply and is the most common response I run across when searching for more information on this topic. Next most common is "the tow rating is the tow rating, a weight distributing hitch makes the tongue weight disappear".

I'm sorry, my insurance company (and the insurance company for whomever else might be involved in a potential accident) won't accept either argument. Neither will the cop at the scene. I've towed over-gross before - it was not fun, and it was not a good idea. I do not care to do it again unless it's a very temporary situation involving getting a vehicle to a repair facility or similar.

Also, in general, to head off other similar ideas: no, there's no way to add load-carrying capacity to a given vehicle unless you are a registered up-fitter. Airbags and such just make the existing rating (minus the weight of the airbags and such) ride/handle better.

Extreme Lightening ideas, though, go for it! Tubular space-frame (full roll-cage, basically) cab with fiberglass sheet panels, for example.

Note: I already did some preliminary figuring for carbon fiber rock sliders with UHMW wear strips. They'd only weigh 10 pounds or so each but would cost over $900 in materials alone... Aluminum or carbon fiber skidplates, aluminum rims and skinnier/lighter tires, etc. all are fair game. Bonus points for links to places that already make them.

That sort of idea can offset the "off-road mods" weight.

Only trouble is, if it takes forever to fabricate, it won't get made. I've pretty much proven to myself that long-term projects just don't happen anymore. :(

I think you will find that towing anything with off road tires 2 or three sizes larger than stock is the deal breaker. I have always driven to the play spot and then installed the off road tires. I towed my big trailer with my winter tires one time and never again. The tall tread wiggles and then the trailer goes where it wants.

Hello me and my metro,

Good to know! Given that most of my miles will be commuting anyway, I'll probably be leaning towards the all-terrain side of the "beefy tire" equation. Maybe a hybrid like a Wrangler Duratrac or Cooper Discoverer STT.

Taking the "fun tires" (like some bias-ply Super Swampers) along to swap out for the trails would add to the trailer load and tongue weight. Something else for me to factor in. Hmm - that could also mean shorter tires for towing/commuting, and just rely on low-range to handle the taller tires off-road.

You can pick your tow car based on your camper or pick your camper based on your tow car... and you're already committed to the tow car. So you're asking too much from your hypothetical camper: tiny (lightweight) but with an enclosed bathroom that isn't stacked inside its shower?

Decent space with light weight means a pop up, which means a fake (if any) bathroom. We made our own: we have a Coleman camping toilet in the nook to the right of the door and run a shower curtain across to close it off as needed. The bed areas have their own curtains too. It's us in the king, one kid in the double, one in the dinette. The dog can come too.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...2&d=1561510945

And looking at this page, my camper's a lot lighter than I had thought. Good news, because we fill it and have boats strapped on everywhere.

I was going to leave this one be, but I have to speak up.

An Explorer is not the best tow vehicle. They are quite sloppy on the road and are top heavy. I would suggest new shocks/sway bar links/bushings if they are older. Good brakes are a must. The transmission is not a strong point, being an R1 series.

You can upgrade your rear springs for some extra payload. The tires may have to be upgraded as well to carry the extra weight. I suggest running rear tire pressures of at least 45 lbs when towing. They will track better and you will have better control. Trailer brakes, trailer brakes.

I'm going to disagree about the up-fitter comment. Increasing a vehicle's capacity (by ~300-800 lbs) is not very difficult for most people. It involves primarily suspension, tire, sway bar, brake, and sometimes transmission upgrades. I am a firm believer in upgrading these things if the vehicle is going to tow/carry much of anything because of the poor build quality for weight management. Vehicles squat under a load, and this makes it handle in unwanted ways. Eliminating squat/roll is a huge step in making a vehicle more safe. I know I left a lot out, and I am not suggesting that anyone try to double their load capacity, but there are very easy ways to make a vehicle more safe when carrying weight.

Don't over do it with tongue weight. A decent amount goes a long way.

The latest Explorer is light years away from its predecessors. And would make an excellent tow vehicle if set up for street performance. The police-spec models are quite capable.

Trailer weight isn’t ever the burden. It’s trailer shape which matters. A fully aero travel trailer can handle the REAL problem of highway travel and that is adverse winds. Tow rigs are involved in loss-of-control accidents due to natural or man-made sudden gusts, AND the driver incorrectly dialing in too much steering. It all happens and is over in 2-3 seconds.

1). Step One

With driver only and gear kept permanently aboard (till the day it’s sold) Scale the vehiccke after topping off the fuel tank at a travel center. (CAT SCALE phone app). Go inside to the fuel desk for the paper copy.

Against the door sticker showing AXLE/WHEEL/TIRE limits, note the range remaining. (Post it)

From this info is how one sets a weight distribution hitch.

Example: a 800-lb trailer tongue weight will — after correct distribution — be relected on a scale reading as approximately under 300-lbs to the front axle; a little over 300-lbs to the rear axle and 200+/lbs to the trailer axles.

But, no, despite acres of ignorance this IS NOT about “Payload”. Load the vehicle as you will with 800-lbs and the scale will show the bulk of it o the rear axle. The only legal limits are the tire/wheel/axle Load limits. .

The “best” tow vehicles have a VERY short rear axle to hitch ball distance. As well, fully independent suspension and low center of gravity. All of which describes the current Explorer.

Agreed that the older ones were terrible in every role above 35-mph. Dump it for something worth using.

The current ones have more than enough power to pull a truly aero trailer up to 23’ or so without issues.

A pickup is nothing but a high risk vehicle.

There are plenty of trailer choices. An Airstream of 10-15 years of age has shed nearly all depreciation. From there, prices again start to rise. It shouldn’t need much of anything g given covered storage and regular maintenance. The other upmarket brands have been out of production 20-years or more, BUT will cost less and need less than any Airstream of comparable age & condition.

How the trailer will be used, the distances contemplated, are more to the point of what’s important. The tow vehicle is NOT very important as so many vehicles are fit subjects.

It’s the trailer that matters.

You’re seriously mistaken about insurance, hitch capability, etc. Or Payload, tow capacity, etc.

That you even THINK a 4WD offroad Exploder makes a suitable highway vehicle is depressing as hell.

With the right trailer a Honda Odyssey is a good choice.

Solo family duty precedes ALL OTHER SPEC

.

Slowmover everything you've said made sense, thank you. I also had never heard of insurance claims being denied, or people being ticketed for exceeding vehicle capacity in a private capacity; commercial operations are a whole different matter of course.

On the note of the Honda Odyssey: this makes sense. Before I knew about the extreme importance of aero I had a town and country, and with that same van I pulled a ~1,500 pound pop up camper which absolutely felt like it wasn't there. later I pulled a dunk tank which may have weight 200 lbs, though I doubt even that much, but was an aerodynamic horror, and the whole trip I had to run in direct drive and even then the van struggled. I've never made the connection before but with what you said now I know why the huge difference.:thumbup:

Now you've got me wanting to look for a more aero friendly camper that my current old holiday rambler that's a total brick, and just aerodynamically terrible in every way.

Gahh, this is what happens when I have the temerity to go to sleep for a night!
 

Y'all are all being really helpful, I want to stress that up front, ahead of the following wall-o-text reply. :o

Trouble is, y'all took the wrong chunk of my post to run ahead with. Sorry I wasn't more clear!:(

I *AM* ditching the current 2nd Gen M5OD-equipped Ford Explorer. I already know it *cannot* do the job. The only way it could possibly do the job would be if I found a hypothetical (Thanks Fat Charlie) sub-1800lb GVWR pop-up that filled all the needs I threw at the laundry list. Even then it would be marginal.

Now for a few specific replies.

I'm not committed to a tow car - I am looking for a better one. Yes, I am asking a lot of a popup. That ask was more in the "Did I miss anything in the extremely-light popup market that *might* let me use a lower-payload/tow rating vehicle?" Thanks for the layout of your current camper, too - that could work easily for our sleeping arrangements, and it is one of the fallbacks for a lower-investment plan where we pretty much rely on campground bathhouses.

I agree, my current 2nd Gen Explorer is not the best tow rig, see comment above about ditching it. If I do tow anything with it, it'll be a tiny popup. As for upgrading tow ratings, I disagree. No matter what I do I cannot change the GVWR and GAWR ratings printed on the sticker on the vehicle at the factory. I can increase the *physical* capacities of the vehicle, but not the *rated* capacities. Note the "I" there - I'm a bit of a stickler for the rules-as-written, though I don't intend to run right up at the limits without upgrades in any event. My comment about an up-fitter is that I'm pretty certain that they are the only places other than the OEM manufacturer that have the "authority" to change the nameplate GVWR/GAWR, etc. on a given vehicle. Typically they don't - they start with a chassis/axles that have the needed ratings - but there are those "floater" trucks that have double frames, etc. In effect, they actually become the manufacturer of record for the modified vehicle. At least, that is how I understand it. They certainly charge enough.

I definitely agree that the 4th Gen (through 2010 - 2011+ went CUV and lost low range) is a way better tow vehicle than the 2nd Gen I have right now. See above, I am dumping the 2nd Gen. It'll just take a while. No towing a fancy trailer until that rig is replaced with something far better suited.

The rest of your notes are very helpful. This is the sort of thing that I have run across after digging past the really wrong stuff I found before, and is generally how I intend to proceed. The RV dealer I went to was the one that said "a weight distributing hitch makes the tongue weight disappear" and "the tow rating is the tow rating, that's all you need to know". I disagreed, so I left with some brochures to do more research.

The GAWR limits are the mechanical limits of those two parts of the rig, never to be exceeded, yes. I agree completely that I need to make sure the vehicle and trailer are loaded correctly and the weight-distributing hitch is adjusted properly so as to not exceed any individual GAWR, as you described. I also can't put weeny tires on it with lower load ratings than the axles they are on and expect to load past the tire rating. Your description of how to get the actual as-it-sits curb weight/distribution are spot on.

The GVWR, however, is also something I wish to not exceed. That's where "payload" comes in. I'm not using the nameplate payload, I'm using the "weigh the truck, subtract that from the GVWR" payload. Every pound of armor, heavier tires, larger swaybars, upgraded tow hitch, etc. counts against that "payload" number. Your example of an 800lb tongue weight being re-distributed to about 600 vehicle/200 trailer still leaves me with 600lbs that counts against the GVWR/payload. If I have only 1200lb between the curb weight of the vehicle as-it-sits and the GVWR on it, ie a 1200lb "payload", and I hook up that theoretical trailer distributed as noted, and then my 700lb family sits in the vehicle, I go above GVWR. Someone has to stay home, or I need to cut weight, or I need a different tow vehicle or I need a lighter trailer. The axles may well be within GAWR limits, and the tires will be rated as high or higher than the axles, but virtually every door jamb sticker/factory rating chart I have looked at has shown a gap between the sum of the posted GAWR's and the posted GVWR, with the GVWR being the lower number.

Again, note the use of "I" here - I want to make sure *all* the numbers are correct. I don't want anything an insurance adjuster or cop can hang anything on to shove at me after an accident that will already have been bad. (Not that I plan to be in one, just that whole "plan for the worst" part of how I think.) I don't know what the legal force is behind the GVWR sticker on the vehicle beyond how the vehicle is classified for registration, etc., but it is a convenient number for someone to look at and say "you went above that, denied/you are at fault." so I plan to stay under it. If it's conservative, oh well, I bought a more capable tow rig/a lighter trailer so I end up using even less of the vehicle's capabilities.

I'm also not going to do some sort of weird weight distributing setup that gets me within all three axle limits, but has the thing so trailer-heavy it's a deathtrap. (Hey, the trailer has a 5000lb axle, and if I load everything towards the back, it'll actually pull 500lbs of load off the rear axle, and the weight-distributing hitch makes it look all flat and nice! :eek: )

I want a safe, easy to drive setup. I don't want a pickup that I have to intentionally load with dead-weight to keep it from spinning out on my daily commute in the winter.

Your notes on trailer aero are also very good. I'll look at some of the Airstreams or similar - I already knew "sail area" was something I should pay attention to, as well as frontal area. What's your opinion on the hard-side TravelManor type popup rigs? Not tall, still relatively wide, not very long, but quite square.

I get it, you don't want me to get myself and my family in trouble out on the freeway. That's my goal, too, and why I am asking here for more input. I learned enough in my own research to know that my current 2nd Gen Explorer is not suitable for the task - and that even a min/maxed put-together one would be marginal at best, ratings-wise. Since min/maxing one requires a different truck to start with, the hassle involved is not worth it, so I am looking for more suitable vehicles to start with that I can also go have fun off-road with.

I do not plan to lift this thing to the moon, and per me and my metro's point about wiggly tread, I'm planning on sticking with relatively mild tread patterns. I already know mud tires suck in rain and in the usual winter conditions that apply here in MN. No auto-locking or clutch-based LSD's for similar poor winter handling characteristics. Stick with 70-75 aspect ratio tires for a reasonable ride/handling/load carrying/off-road sidewall flex compromise. Avoiding wide tires because they do bad things when hitting the slush between lanes in the winter. Mostly I want to add armor and traction. My "gold standard" for off-road capability was a nearly bone stock 1979 FJ-40. Absolutely crap handling, safety, etc. but that was back when I was a teenager/20-something who hadn't done as much research as I have now and didn't have a family to protect/provide for. I know it'll take me a while to get good at driving off-road again, so my first add-ons will be skidplates and the like, so mistakes are less costly. Bigger tires cost a ton, too, and for a part-time toy it isn't worth the added wear and expense when I'm not off-road to run them. I am trying to be reasonable about this, but I'm fighting my younger self, so I need to throw data at him to get him to understand. A lift would only happen if I had to take the suspension apart to replace wear items, and I'm only interested in 1 to 2", and then only if it doesn't run the thing against the bumpstops/ruin the ride/make the alignment all wonky. No huge bracket-drop lifts, springovers, rear blocks, etc. So long as the lower point of the solid rear axle (if equipped) is equal to or higher than a stock FJ40 on 31" tires, that's all I "need". IRS vehicles already beat that, so it's more a matter of tougher tires (puncture resistance) with better than straight highway tread.

My comments on insurance, etc. are me trying to boil down the cacophony of info I've run across into something relatively simple. This is primarily to explain to those who want to tell me "Ah, you have a Class IV hitch, you can tow 7500lbs, 10,000 with a weight-distributing setup, you're good to go!" that I'm up against a recognizable "bad guy" in the form of a potential ticket or denied insurance claim, so please to be showing me the lighter trailers kthnks. Cuts the arguments in the store shorter, because they want to sell me the biggest thing on the lot - and that usually means they look at the "dry weight" and compare it to my "tow rating" and say I'm good to go, all other numbers be damned.

If you wouldn't mind explaining in more detail, I'm willing to read it. You tend to lay stuff out in an understandable, straightforward fashion - even when you're exasperated at the noob who looks like he's gonna get himself and his family killed. :o

I actually have looked at minivans. We'll be replacing my wife's 2007 Mazda 5 in a few years, and if we want to go camping somewhere that isn't an off-road adventure area, her replacement vehicle might be a better tow rig for that kind of trip. So I'll be doing this same sort of exercise with fewer limitations on the vehicle list since I won't need 4x4, low range, ground clearance, etc.

I vote 2001-2005 5.3 Yukon or Tahoe. I bet you'd be surprised at how close it is on economy to an earlier Explorer and how big a tire fits with just rasing the torsion bars a bit. Aftermarket galore, inexpensive repairs, low dollar entry point, very comfortable drive day to day.

I can’t help but think about the diesel light duty pickups out there. Ram Ecodiesel? Not sure they had that in a crew cab. F150 or maybe a Canyon/Colorado diesel would perhaps fit the bill.

If it absolutely must be an SUV, I don’t disagree with the Tahoe mentioned previously, but both the newer Explorer and Expedition might be worth checking out, and I don’t think a Chevy Traverse or GMC Acadia would really shirk that duty. Keep in mind that the Ford Ecoboost engines drink fuel like a sailor taking shots, but they ball that jack uphill, and stay quiet and refined inside. I think the Canyon/Colorado are out just due to the GVWR payload needs.

TFL Truck on Youtube might be helpful here. They do a test routine called “The Ike Gauntlet”, basically loading up trucks and SUVs to near max, and dragging them up the highest pass in the United States, on a route with the maximum allowable grade for a U.S. Interstate (7%) and also testing how they perform on the downhill. They grade for time, stability, and how many brake applications are needed on the descent.

I am a truck driver by trade, so your concerns about loading resonate with me. Keep in mind that tow ratings vary...the SAE fairly recently introduced J2807, aiming to provide a uniform standard for tow ratings, but to my knowledge, it’s not yet universal. IMHO your capability to slow down on a descent is the single most vital safety feature you can have in your towing setup.

I wouldn’t tow much with front wheel drive. When you take the weight off the front (drive) wheels, it will act funky. There’s a reason 18-wheelers are rear-drive, it will maintain better traction in bad conditions, and won’t mess with dynamics as much when loaded. That’s why I won’t tow with my wife’s minivan.

Good stuff, thanks!
 

Hello Hersbird,

I've looked at those, they are on my list of contenders - actually extending up to ~2013 or so as ex-Police fleet vehicles are starting to show up, and those usually have all the heavy-duty cooling/brakes options on them. I agree the 5.3 has reasonable economy numbers. So you consider the GMT800 to be a better bet than the GMT900? Any particular reason why? The AMT system, while it has its detractors, could prove a significant help in commuting fuel economy providing I can find one that was maintained properly.

In either case, though, they're among the widest of the options I looked at - not exactly desirable for the off-road toy part of the equation, nor for the daily driver commuter option. If that's what I need to do the towing safely, though, they are certainly otherwise quite good - and there's a whole subculture within the off-road world dedicated to cramming full-size rigs into places they never really should go. As you can imagine, it generally involves lots of body damage and/or armor. If I end up "needing" tires taller than about 32-33", I will need to re-evaluate things, as above that tire size towing becomes a real dicey proposition on a shortish wheelbase half-ton.

I'm also looking at similar vintage 2500 series Suburbans and Avalanches. Longer, but no wider, and with the 3/4 ton underpinnings they enjoy an extra bump in GVWR beyond the additional curb weight increase. The nice thing about the GMT800 is that the front frame section up to the driver's seat position, approximately, is the same cross section/shape as the 1500, according to virtually everything I can find. The newer ones into the GMT900 years apparently stuck with the torsion bar frontend, at least according to sites like Rockauto, so it would seem the front frame stayed consistent. Why is this nice? It's the same crumple zone design that got crash tested in the 1500 series GMT800 model. I'll of course need to take measurements to verify, but this info makes it worth tracking one down to do those measurements.

There's very little crash test data available for 3/4 ton and up vehicles, so this was a welcome find. The lack of extra off-road beef from a larger frame is irrelevant when I'm not looking to swap in a solid front axle and run 44" tires. I also found good crash test data for the 2006 design of the F250 Super Duty crew cab, so the years/models that shared that front frame configuration can be expected to perform similarly. That would put an Excursion into the "possible" category if it shares enough front frame dimensions, though they are unfortunately getting quite old and are piggish on fuel. The 6.0 diesel is better on fuel, but has its own problems.

Hello jcp123,

I prefer an SUV over a truck because I'm not looking to do 5th wheel towing, and pickups pretty much always end up longer overall than SUV's for a given passenger count. Less fishtailing in winter, too. I drove a 3/4-ton 1998.5 Dodge Ram 2500 SRW Quad Cab Longbed Cummins with the manual trans for a few years. The bed was occasionally convenient to have when moving stuff, but otherwise the sheer size of the thing was extremely inconvenient a lot more often. Any of the fullsize options will be more inconvenient than the midsize ones, but less so than a fullsize pickup. Not sure about the tradeoff between a midsize pickup and a fullsize SUV. Narrower vs. longer.

A lot of your vehicle suggestions up there are rather new - and thus rather expensive. I'm still trying to do this relatively inexpensively - though anything involving a camper and off-road fun can't be called "cheap" as a hobby. The Explorer up through about 2010 and the Expedition up until what I can afford do look interesting. The Explorer is preferable for size considerations, but the later Expeditions (I think starting in 2010?) start to reach parity with the 2010 and older Explorer for fuel economy, so that's a wash for commuting expense at least. There's a funky tradeoff between the V6 and V8 4th gen Explorers: the V8 generally ends up with lower net "payload" capacity, due to the extra weight of the larger engine and cooling system. For the same passenger, gear and off-road-armor loading, the V8 ends up with less tongue weight capability, so a lower "real" towing capacity. Not sure how I'll figure out which works better without bringing the family and a bunch of sandbags to a car dealership next to an RV dealership and doing a test drive past a scale...

Per your comments about tow ratings: yes, they do vary a lot. That's why I dig up GVWR, GCWR and "as tested" curb weights for the vehicles I am considering. Typically journalists get "loaded" test vehicles, so they are a bit heavy with options. That gives me a conservative "curb weight" starting point for figuring out whether I have sufficient passenger and tongue weight capacity along with the tow capacity. J2807 tested rigs would be *very nice*, but again, newer/more expensive.

I'll have to check that TFL Truck channel, looks interesting.

The minivans I would possibly be towing with will be 7 or 8 passenger, 6 passenger minimum. Not super small, but not a full-size passenger van either. Gotta have room for all the kiddos' friends (basically the Girl Scout Troop. No, I'll not be towing a camper with the whole Troop in the van - the camper won't be big enough, and that's a really wierd insurance situation.) and their stuff, but again, usually it's just my wife and one or two kids for most in-town trips. Modern ones with AWD often meet or exceed our FWD Mazda 5's fuel economy numbers, too. In either case, FWD or AWD, I'd likely hit a manufacturer requirement for a weight-distributing hitch somewhere around the 2-3000lb point. That seems to be where it hits on the car/minivan tow rating lits. That'd help re-load the front wheels. Realistically, though, if the rig I buy for my needs has enough room inside, we'll take it rather than the minivan. Especially if it is a more comfortable tow experience.

Given the steadily improving tech for various electronic vehicle dynamics aids - roll stability control, trailer sway control, traction control, general vehicle stability control, etc. - as well as improvements in efficiency, a newer rig may make enough sense that the cards tip in that direction. I've got some time before I get ahold of anything, so I have time to figure out whether bigger payments/longer time making them make sense in this application. Bolt-on armor stays the main thing to get for the vehicle if I want to do some mild off-roading while I'm still making payments/under warranty.

I'm seriously eyeing up the 2004+ Jeep Grand Cherokee. The older 5.7's suck fuel, but if I can find a 4.7 with the full Active Drive 2/Active Drive Lock package + tow package or a newer 5.7 with VVT they are quite attractive. One of the best OEM 4x4 drive system designs available, needing only a more aggressive tread design and (depending on model) some additional skidplating to go some surprisingly tough places. The Cherokee Trailhawk is also interesting in a smaller package, though at a higher complexity level due to the transverse front driveline and need to package the 2-speed "transfer case" functions coaxial to the front axleshafts. It already has skidplates, so it needs less armor to handle stuff I might want to do.

I may yet end up with something more like a Subaru, scaling back my off-road adventure plans to things that don't need low-range. It's a heck of a lot cheaper, and there's a lot more potential candidates out there - so long as they meet the tongue weight and tow weight needs. I'll just have to make sure I keep a thick skin if I decide to follow the "built rigs" some place I shouldn't go, and they end up having to drag my cute-ute/jumped-up station wagon/minivan with delusions of grandeur out of there over every little obstacle... :rolleyes:

Maybe you should buy this?

https://www.ebth.com/items/10637514-...gVtNsqjx_i__Ik

I mean, a4650 lb car, 6130 gvwr so about 1500 lbs capacity and a 6L torque monster.

Just lift it and be the only guy camping/offroading in a Rolls :p

Sam

Hello samwichse,

Hah! Without a driven front axle, sadly it doesn't meet my requirements. To fit one, I'd need to lift it in excess of MN's legal limits, too. I already asked: if I put the body on a 4x4 chassis, it's still registered as a car and the car height limits apply - I'd probably end up having to lower the suspension from stock on the 4x4 chassis to get within 6" of the car's stock height/under the maximum car bumper height limits. MN is a "VIN/title follows the body" state. So, no fun car on truck frame shenanigans for me, sadly. :(

Also there's a turn signal bulb out, so that one's no good. <turns up nose snootily>

I can't find it, but there was a movie involving mining where the lead guy cut the back off a Rolls or Bentley or similarly fancy car, put a back on it behind the front seats to enclose the "cab", and added a 5th wheel hitch to the exposed frame. Used it to haul an ore trailer. "You cut up the car!" "We needed a truck." "But you cut up the car!" "I can put it back later."

I run a 2001 2500 Yukon XL 4x4 with the 6.0 now. I bought it last winter for $3800 with 235k on it. I looked even up to 2011 models (they made the 2500 up to 2013 I think) but I didn't really see any huge differences considering those were more like $25,000. For under $4500 on my old 2001 GM will ship a brand new 365hp 6.0 off the assembly line complete from the throttle body on down to the oil pan to my door. The newer ones have a 6 spped as well, but the older HD 4 speed used in the 2500s is known to be pretty tough. Basically spending only $3800 leaves me all kinds of room for upgrades but it hasn't needed anything for where I've gone. It has a working factory G80 locker in the rear, and selectable 2wd, 4hi, 4 lo, something the 6.0s in the Denalis don't get.

As far as the diesel Excursions go you would be amazed how low the payload is on those things. Basically they have the same 9000 GVWR as a 2500 Suburban but the whole thing weighs over 1000 pounds more, all coming out of payload. That weight will also be terrible off road, get stuck and you will be STUCK! Why payload? Well throw a 8000 pound trailer with 1000 pounds of tounge and the Suburban can still handle 8 passengers and gear, the Excursion becomes a 4 passenger rig at that point or you exceed the payload rating. I have 2800 pounds of payload. I'm coming from a 3/4 ton Cummins and a 1st gen Subaru Forester, the Yukon replaced both. It rides way better than either the others, hauls the people now (we run 6 soon to be 7 and up to 3 full size dogs, it has nowhere near the beast torque of the Cummins, but will fly down a washboard dirt road at 65 mph better than the Subaru. The truck would have been uncontrolled at that speed with anything but a smooth road. Day to day the 6 speed manual was a huge pain, and my short commute was killing it as it never even heated it up. Paying insurance and tags on the Subaru was eating up and gas savings I had with it and sooner or later it was going to need a $2000 headgasket and timing belt... again.

Hello hersbird,

So you like the GMT800 platform, then. Honestly, the only thing (other than don't have the cash to buy it now, too many other things going on, etc.) keeping me from just tracking down and finding a decent 2500 series Suburban/Tahoe XL/Yukon XL is the sheer size of the thing. I haven't driven fullsize since that Dodge Ram, and kind of like fitting everywhere. Plus they're not exactly great on fuel - and I drive 10 miles one way in the dead of winter for my commute. A big cast-iron block will have issues with that. Block heater, sure, but still.

Good to hear it rides well on rough roads - that's one of the "should do this" things that I forgot to put in my wants/needs list.

There is a compelling argument for these GMT800/900 rigs, though: they are inexpensive to buy and repair as you note - if they have been serviced. A clean GMT400 is a possibility, as the '93-'94 Suburban actually did well in crash tests without airbags. Soft front end just folded up, protecting the passengers and driver like it should.

The 1500 version isn't too bad on "net payload" either - somewhere around 1700lb. All the 2500 stuff is bolt-on, and that torsion-bar chassis kept on through the 2013 2500's, even under the GMT900 body. So if the 1500 suspension wears out, bolt on 2500 stuff. Set of used knuckles, pair of axles, conversion U-joints, CV half-shafts, and then all the new bushings and upper control arms and tie rod ends and unit bearings, brakes, etc. that need to be replaced anyway due to wear. The 1500 4L60 transmissions apparently don't like towing, though, and the cooler lines like to rot out, starve the trans of fluid, and burn them up. (happened to my MIL, rebuilt trans has always shifted "funny" since...). Good for a "slow buildup as funds allow" kinda thing. Though the 2500 starts out with all that.

I read really good things about the LS engines in general - lots of 250-300k plus mile stories. Some caveats about the Active Fuel Management system having issues, though looking at TSB 10-06-01-008F it seems that these engines tend to keep their cylinder wall cross-hatching - and GM specifically recommends against honing when replacing pistons/rings if they got gunked up by an AFM issue. Dodge has their MDS system that does the same thing - turn off half the cylinders via regulating oil pressure to those lifters. They apparently don't have the same issues, so the GM bulletin about oil spray in excess quantities at high RPM (long empty highway drives at speed...) seems legit for a potential cause.

Another issue I found info on, though I can't recall the TSB, was early LS1 engine oil consumption. Proximal cause was similar - high-rpm light-load operation. In those engines, though, it was the low-tension rings going into a "flutter" situation. The fix there - for drivers that would refuse to modify driving habits - was a set of slightly higher tension oil and lower compression rings to minimize the flutter.

I'd heard that about the Excursion - they went rather soft on the rear springs to get a better ride, so the rear GAWR was limited by that, and hence the GVWR was limited. Being based on the Super Duty, they started out heavier, too. Not exactly an attractive combo, but the crash test info still holds at least.

I can get better commuting MPG from something like a recent Explorer or Jeep Grand Cherokee, but at a higher buy-in. Going from 13MPG to almost 20MPG would take somewhere over 7 years to pay off (at 10k miles/year) in fuel savings if the 20MPG vehicle is $5k more.

If I'm not careful, with that logic I'll end up with a big-block monster, and it'll sit most of the time costing insurance/registration while I drive a cheap beater for fuel economy because it just feels wrong to burn so much fuel. Even if it does take 7 years to break even on cost. Driving a cheap beater while the thirsty truck sits now, and I hate it. (Green truck is sitting, admittedly due to bad front axle, not MPG, but still.)

Too bad auto-stop wasn't available in either generation except on the hybrids. One of those would be really nice, but they are a *lot* less common than the standard variants, and they have a lot of aluminum parts and low-hanging plastic bits to counter the hybrid weight gain and to make the cD lower. All of that pretty plastic would get ripped off off-road, and I'm not sure how well aluminum bits would do under such a heavy beast.

Jeep Grand Cherokee actually makes the lower front fascia removeable, and there are a few OEM and aftermarket rock-rail setups that basically replace the plastic rocker panel trim. The 2014+ V6 has a reasonable tow/payload rating, and can be had with the high-end Active Drive 2 4WD system that is apparently super-effective - comparable to at least Eaton ECTED MAX lockers at both ends, but seamlessly integrated. For a "just drive it" option, with only a bit of armor, some tow points, and better tires, it might be a really good bet for the few times I'll get to go play.

Of course, I can get a 4th gen Ford Explorer a lot cheaper, and the brake-based traction control is apparently no slouch so long as you can keep a rock-steady accelerator position.

I'll probably have to just quick looking into this stuff (yeah right) for a while and get a bunch of honey-do stuff done, get backlogged projects done or sold off, etc. so I'm in a better spot to do something and my wallet recovers from the sunk costs of the Fords.

The 2008-2009 3.0 CRD Grand Cherokee would actually be my choice if we didn't have the need for more seats. I almost just bought one anyway, that or a 5.7 Commander. I couldn't find a 2009 or 2010 5.7 Commander close enough with the Quadradrive 2 system before settling on the 2500 Yukon XL (which really was a better deal for me anyway.) Then my sister in law ends up finding and buying the exact Commander I looked forever for, literally a mile from my house with low miles for $11,000. Anyway, if 5 seats were enough, I did find a few good 3.0 CRD Grand Cherokees with the Quadradrive 2 right around $10,000. That 4wd system is really the key. It gives electronic lockers front and rear along with a locking transfer case. Basically a Rubicon Wrangler without the ability to select the locking, it does it by computer inputs.

If money were no object, I'd certainly get a 2020 Gladiator Rubicon once they are available with the new 3.0 Ecodiesel that makes 480 fl-lbs. New ecodiesel is more efficient that the last which means it will probably score a 28-30mpg highway epa rating in the 4wd Ram

I think there’s a bit bit of over-analyzing goin on now. I still stand behind TFLTruck, but you can’t have it all. Pick a midrange tow vehicle, and go roll. If you gotta tow, I’d rather you go overkill than get killed. Towing is a kinda serious business.

Tow Vehicle

1). Fully independent suspension

2). Extra-short rear overhang.

3). Rack & Pinion Steering (or equivalent)

That’s it in a nutshell. HP, Brakes, etc are non-starters.

The ideal tow vehicle is one specified for solo family duty that can also tow a trailer.

The American family sedan is still that benchmark. Dodge V6 Charger. A minivan right behind it.

The trailer is the important choice. The tow vehicle is relatively UNIMPORTANT.

The game is road-going stability. Why an Airstream (aero, low COG and independent suspension) is best. More stable at speed than any solid-axle tow vehicle (when it’s towed by a better design TV).

A Honda Odyssey can handle a 23’ AS easily.

So, trailer & tow vehicle of the right spec are equal in importance. THIRD, the hitch rigging is equal to those two.

The reason you’re getting lousy info is because 95% or more don’t have a clue of how to set a hitch.

I don’t know who makes crank-up (pop-up) trailers any more, but it’s not their weight that matters.

With all combination RVs, adverse winds are the primary cause of loss-of-control accidents.

Can Am RV in London, Ontario is your place to start. Videos, articles, etc. Owner Thompson is consultant to both SAE and Airstream re Towing. That dealership has set up more than 12,000 tow combinations.

He’s codified (formulated) what works and why. No different from what Id tell you, but with far greater depth and breadth.

The “new guys” who’ve been towing trailers the past twenty years still ain’t got nothing but experience with the worst trailers, use pickups, and can’t set a hitch. But think themselves edumacated.

GVWR or GCVWR are guidelines. Don’t want customers too far from “normal” (as they’re thoughtless drivers in the first place).

AVION, STREAMLINE, SILVER STREAK are the old upmarket brands from entry-level Airstream. All tow beautifully. And cheaper to buy and will need less work than a comparable Airstream. (Expect purchase price plus $10k over time). These trailers have an indefinite lifespan. 250k miles or more.

Today’s worse than 1960s conventionals MIGHT last ten years or 70k.

And, “a husband & father” wouldn’t ever travel the highways with his family in a 4WD. Not at the speeds I see. Top heavy and trip prone.

Get a dedicated trail rig. Someday.

.

Bad advice is bad advice. Source unimportant. What sells pickups is what you’re reading.

The heavier and longer and taller the tow vehicle (etcetera) the worse the potential outcome.

It’s design that matters.

Unit body is superior to body on frame, for example.

Low profile wide tires beat narrow pickup tires any day. Etc.

The literal best tow vehicle is a Porsche Cayenne Turbo. The EcoModder choice would be the circa 2006 non-emission mid-size Mercedes turbodiesel sedan.

As before, fit the TV to the TT. Cart before the horse, in this sense.

.

.

You have too many variables right now to optimize to a solution. You are spot on about the legality and making sure the weight ratings and numbers are correct for what you are doing. People who don't wear the scars of something gone awry often don't understand. Things are different now than they were when I grew up.

For context I presently have:
2001 Chevy 2500HD 8.1L Allison 4x4 ECSB (heavy towing/hauling)
9200 GVWR; 22,000 GCVWR; 15K+ Tow Rating

1994 GMC K2500 Suburban 6.5L Diesel NV4500 4x4 (project)
8600 GVWR; 7500 Tow Rating

1999 4Runner V6 5spd 4x4
5000 Tow Rating

I am very happy with all of them, they each perform their functions well. I have "offroaded" all of them to some extent, nature of being out in the sticks needing to get things done.

If you really want 1600lbs+ payload you are looking at 3/4 or 1 ton. Good job for realizing you cant tow the max rating with tons of payload, that is lost on most people. You don't need the weight distributing hitch when towing with an appropriately sized vehicle.

Don't put too much stock in the crash test ratings for very large vehicles, as they discount mass by crashing into immovable objects. For the vast majority of situations mass is a big factor. All rear crash test data is performed without a tow hitch, adding a tow hitch (rigid frame connection) 100% renders all that data useless. (get a Superbumper)

If you are looking to do hardcore technical trails you should consider doing a tow pig pulling a toyhauler. Forest service roads and easy to moderate trails can be tackled by a full size.

GMT400 2500 stuff is not compatible with GMT400 1500 stuff. GM did produce a GMT400 2500LD (light duty) which means they took a half ton and called it a 3/4 ton. (I owned one.) Nothing special about it besides 7200 GVWR. Real GMT400 3/4 tons had 8600 GVWR. Had a 14 bolt semi float axle, but so did many of the half tons. IFS is exactly the same as half ton, not interchangeable with real 3/4 ton IFS.

In the Chevy/GMC world, GMT400 is at the bottom of it's depreciation curve. GMT800 is barely ahead of it. Parts are cheap. I find the NV4500 equipped trucks enjoyable to drive.

Whats the approximate budget? Newer trucks are having increased payload to meet the SAE towing requirements, older trucks not so much.

I don’t disagree, but as someone who tows for a living, go large, or go home. You want a trans, diff, and brakes which will stand up to the abuse. The powertrain is important, but you can’t have brakes on fire at the bottom of a mountain, no matter how it pulls a load on the uphill.

Your ability to descend a grade is maybe my most important metric. It’s why I put up with my truck’s otherwise idiotic automated manual trans: it’s absolutely brilliant at controlled descents.

Buddy, I got more miles backing a big rig thank you do going forward. And have been towing travel trailers close to fifty years.

The “science” isn’t difficult to set up a tow rig. It’s on par with an eighth grade education.

No, the hard part is getting past TV Ad brainwashing. Terms like Payload and Tow Rating are marketing. They have no force of law. None, zero.

The fact of pickups is that they are the highest risk vehicles on the road. But hugely profitable. If it isn’t carrying a CONSTANT heavy load, it was a bad choice.

Your first paragraph is wrong, friend. Dead wrong. You AREN'T informed of what is legal and what isn’t, and you aren’t alone. Solace is that it’s common as mis-conception.

Had you or friend/family with commercial experience in using pickups you’d know that ONLY axle/tire/wheel ratings must be observed.

Here’s an example: I did a stint in oilfield hotshot. The truck was “rated” 20,000-lbs Gross COMBINED Vehicle Weight. That’s truck and trailer. I rarely pulled a loaded trailer that itself was under 20k. Usually got above 32k combined (a CDL is required for 26k plus).

Think our commercial VERY HIGH LIABILITY insurance was concerned? Ha?

Neither was the new vehicle dealer. Warranty was warranty.

The OP figures out what travel trailer fits his budget and plans, finding a tow vehicle is unimportant, relatively. The specification is for family duty while solo. Where 75-80% of miles will be run. That the needs of trailer towing are also forecast may not change anything. Or may, somewhat.

The desired end result is the lowest risk combination for travel. AND lowest risk family vehicle. A pickup is neither. A pickup is for the working man who CANNOT carry goods, tools, equipment in a passenger compartment (as a van is a superior choice otherwise) as it’s a high COG, rollover-prone vehicle (worst with straight axles & 4WD)

The “bigger is better” crowd never answers when I ask if they think my 21,500-lb Peterbilt would be a more stable tow vehicle.

Here are the parameters:

1). Stability and crashworthiness isn’t increased above 4,000-lbs.
2). Wheelbase is a detriment to Steering/Handling/Braking once above 122”.
3). Tire contact patch & sidewall height has a limit versus vehicle spec.

There’s physics, and there’s magic. The above was worked out by 1962 for high speed American sedans. (California take a bow). Dodge even changed its wheelbase to accommodate fleet sales to agencies as a result.

What matters is Steering, Handling & Braking.

.

.

What you are missing Slowmover is the OP also wants to get up into the woods, meaning capable off road ability as well. A 1975 Dodge Monaco isn't going to cut it. They also suck in the snow of Minnesota no matter what your grandfather trys to tell you (No disrespect, I'm a grandfather too and drive a crappy rear wheel drive truck every day, 8+ hours, for work in Montana in all conditions). There is something 1000% better about camping way off the grid away from the majority of the beaten path, or just on the edge of it and then escaping into it in your tow vehicle. I love a tent, but not everyone in the family does and making everyone happy makes me happy.

I didn’t miss it. I agreed with the premise. But 4WD and stable highway travel are exclusive of one another.

As the majority of miles are commuting and/or local family transport, that’s Number One. Towing a travel trailer is Number Two. There is no Number Three.

As a family we covered the Lower 48, Lower Canada and a fair portion of Mexico with a 28’ trailer in tow. Five persons in a car. Roads mattered.

I’ve done plenty of remote hiking and camping. Walked there. Roads mattered not at all.

There are reasonable limits. This is one of those.

That, “others do it all the time” is the excuse Mom said no longer works past kindergarten. She was right. While a rollover is but 3% of accidents as to type, it is yet well north of 25% as to fatalities.

Risk matters or it doesn’t. (“Skill at the wheel” is laughable as an excuse. It’s an irrelevance statistically).

A pickup/Jeep etc is the LIKELY cause of that type wreck. Towing a trailer only worsens the outcome.

The physics of using a weight-distribution hitch is simple enough. So should be what is represented by a high COG vehicle not meant for highway travel.

The best layman’s discussion is still Fred Puhns’ tome on vehicle handling for familiarity with terms & concepts.

“Ackerman Angle” in a turn with a trailer. Trace the paths as no two tires are on the same line. Now, upset (trip) but one wheel of an unstable tow vehicle.

Just an unexpected road camber change in entering/leaving a temporary highway lane between jersey barriers at the posted speed is enough to total a brand-new pair of vehicles as the combo vehicle is pulled several directions at once. A very high dollar pickup and six-figure Airstream. Operator not at all new to this.

It’s too late to tell someone that the advisory speed is for solo cars. Not trucks or combination vehicles. Or that not being able to see the road surface may matter. And that the general stupidity of today’s drivers had several others pile into the rig as twenty feet of spacing is what they’ve been doing just forever.

They survived.

The OP will do as he will. I’ve seen too many RV wrecks to want to join that in-group.

.

That seems a bit aggressive? I want the OP to have a good rig, and I stand by having descent capabilities as a chief criteria. I don’t think I said anything stating that stated payload and towing capabilities were anything but marketing. That’s what the SAE J2807 standard is meant to address, to make towing and payload a much more apples/apples comparison.

I still think if you are gonna tow, go a bit overboard and be safe.

I’m not a truck guy in my non-professional life because I have no need for one.

But if you do the towing/hauling thing, the trucks are there to do that. Get something which will do the job safely, and we all win. Get something not suited to the duty, and you put yourself at risk. Take advantage of the engineering which is out there.

My friend, i believe you have misinterpreted my first paragraph. I am not stating one particular number is the magic number. I was rebutting the idea that a user modifying the vehicle "increases" the axle/gcvwr/ other ratings. E.g.overload air bags let you tow/haul more. Also i applaud the op for paying attention to any numbers most people dont.

Grew up around class A with hasmat. Family run business. Went a different path risk to reward equation has been messed up since the insurance spikes of 2001.

We always ran good equipment except for the pickup truck.

Unfortunately right and wrong in the eyes of the law is up for interpretation when something goes wrong and the lawyers come out. We probably will not agree on this point, i hope for your sake we never do.

I am personally making it a point to keep my vehicles withing axle, gvwr, gcvwr, and tow ratings for their planned uses. Overkill? Maybe. But it helps me sleep at night (literally). Thus i am better rested and therefore a better driver. ;)

I agree most marketing is just nonsense. But at a certain point i dont want the tail wagging the dog. I also grow weary of undersized components wearing out. Bigger isnt better, but better is better.

:thumbup: gotcha! From that perspective, you make perfect sense, not actually too far from where I land.

The payload capacity is gonna be the hardest to satisfy. I’m not that familiar with what pickups or SUVs are capable of, but 1600lbs is a lot, though certainly not unreasonable for a family + gear. I don’t think you want to undersize yourself. Math will help OP eliminate the underdogs (keeping in mind not everybody is yet playing by a universal rule book for those ratings, like the J2807 I mentioned), pick what you like from what’s left.

Also the payload can be played with by loading it properly in whatever you’re towing, which IMHO helps you leverage your tow rig’s capabilities.

So to add to the discussion, i was noticing in my wifes 2000 4runner brochure that a 3rd gen 4runner base 4x4 5 speed has 15xx payload and my SR5 4x4 5speed has 13xx payload. So a 3rd gen 4runner may be an option, just have to watch the added weight carefully.

Eh, stats say I'm on the right track.
 

Okay, so I went and did a deep dive on the IIHS website. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-...make-and-model

Statistically speaking, for 2008 and newer model years (and equivalents), midsize SUV's have about half the average deathrates per million registered vehicle miles vs either large or midsize cars, though the 95% confidence intervals do tend to overlap. SUV's also don't have a higher average rollover deathrate than cars. The IIHS noted that there has been a change since about the 2005 model year, cars were generally safer before then. Also, interestingly, except for the "very large" class, in SUV's the 4wd ones on average have a slightly lower overall deathrate and rollover deathrate than the 2wd ones.

Here's some excerpts for a few models I was interested in:
Name, Model Year, Registered Vehicle Years, Driver Deaths per Million Registered Vehicle Years (95% Confidence Interval), Multiple Vehicle Deaths, Single Vehicle Deaths, Rollover Single Vehicle Death Subset
2005-2008 MY
Dodge Charger V6 474,409 51 (44-59) 19 32 7
Dodge Charger V8 230,078 62 (50-74) 20 43 12
Combined 704,487 56.5 (44-74) 19.5 37.5 9.5
Jeep Grand Cherokee WK 2007-2008 220,974 11 (5-16) 0 11 5
Jeep Wrangler 2dr 2007-2008 156,747 20 (12-27) 10 10 5
Jeep Wrangler 4dr 2007-2008 110,521 17 (8-26) 0 17 0
Porsche Cayenne 101,189 28 (13-43) 14 14 0
Honda Odyssey 1,587,331 17 (14-20) 12 5 3
Nissan Xterra 4WD 2006-08 139,394 27 (17-37) 14 14 7
2008-2011
Dodge Charger not listed
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD WK2 2011 108,237 7 (0-21) 7 0 0
Jeep Wrangler 2dr 378,918 34 (15-52) 11 24 12
Jeep Wrangler 4dr 517,661 21 (7-35) 11 10 7
Ford Expedition 153,460 5 (0-15) 5 0 0
Porsche Cayenne not listed
Honda Odyssey 2011 100,518 0 (0-37) 0 0 0
Nissan Xterra not listed
2011-2014
Dodge Charger v6 513,315 40 (20-59) 15 26 4
Dodge Charger V8 130,623 35 (6-63) 12 23 12
Combined 643,938 37.5 (6-63) 13.5 24.5 8
Jeep Grand Cherokee Wk2 1,120,459 16 (7-24) 5 12 8
Jeep Cherokee 2014 101,931 0 (0-36) 0 0 0
Jeep Wrangler 2dr 452,036 35 (18-51) 14 20 13
Jeep Wrangler 4dr 813,929 27 (14-41) 7 22 17
Ford Expedition 132,011 23 (0-46) 12 12 6
Honda Odyssey 1,155,445 8 (1-15) 6 2 2
Porsche Cayenne 115,877 9 (0-48) 0 9 9
Audi Q7 102,362 0 (0-36) 0 0 0
Nissan Xterra 4WD 144,660 14 (2-50) 14 0 0

Picking through these numbers, it looks like the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Nissan XTerra show overlapping 95% confidence intervals for overall deathrate per million registered vehicle miles with Dodge Charger V6. Rollover numbers are similar within datasets. Rollovers for Wranglers are, as expected, higher than those of other models, but the overall deathrate again shows overlap for the 95% confidence interval.

So no, a Dodge Charger V6 is not safer than a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD or a Nissan XTerra 4WD when you look at actual deathrates across all drivers. Note that the Grand Cherokee prior to 2011, and all years of the XTerra, have solid rear axles. The XTerra is even leaf-sprung in the rear.

A Honda, Toyota or Kia minivan is safer than a Dodge Charger or an SUV for similar model years. The Chrysler minivans after 2008 or so are also in the same ballpark. Those are the ones we're considering to replace my wife's aging 2007 Mazda 5 as the usual family hauler. If we want to go camping where there's no off-road trails and the access road isn't a mud-pit, this would be the vehicle we'd choose, assuming the dealer's not going to gank us on the warranty for towing with it.

If I use GAWR instead of GVWR, the tow capacity (as determined by the lower of tongue weight at 12% of GTW or hitch rating) is enough to haul a 5000lb trailer, with enough leftover payload to handle some minor upgrades on the vehicle itself. The XTerra has the least "extra" capacity, the Grand Cherokee has the most - it doesn't need to exceed GVWR at all. In all cases the "rated" tow rating can be achieved even with ~12% or so tongue weights if the GAWR is used.

A 2014+ Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk is also quite interesting, due to a much better fuel economy rating, and they are starting to become available at the ~$10k-$12k price point, which is in range of what I can "justify" spending on myself. Would take about 8-10 years to pay off the price difference vs. a comparable mileage older Xterra, though, with fuel savings alone.

Anyone see an issue towing a ~4000-5000lb trailer with a 2.4L 4-cylinder, assuming the GAWR, brakes, and hitch are rated to handle it? Gains one or two mpg average for most of my commuting vs. the V6.

Comparing the Cherokee Trailhawk to the Nissan Xterra Off-Road or Pro-4X, they both have rear locking diffs, the Xterra has better ground clearance and probably better "beat-on-ability" due to having a separate frame, the Xterra can fit larger tires without a lift or heavy trimming, the Xterra has far more aftermarket support (so far), the Trailhawk has better traction control, but both have on-road stability control. Neither has automatic trailer sway control, but both have factory wiring for a 7-pin tow connector and brake controller. The Trailhawk is a lot harder to put a winch on - it's difficult to tell whether the factory crash absorption of the front bumper is compromized vs. stock. A come-along or "the other guy's winch" is fine for what I'm likely to want to do, though. The XTerra is probably easier to work on as it isn't quite as squished together - and the TrailHawk has a transverse engine vs. the XTerra's more conventional layout.

Anyways, I doubt this'll be bought this year, unless the White Car dies before I get the Green Truck driving again, or I find a "yeah, I'll buy your project trucks" person. I'm looking at ~$500 in parts and a lot of labor to get Green Truck ready to sell as a reasonable driver.