Tow Vehicle - MacGregor Description

[Simon]

300 #'s of torque is what I think is a safe amount for towing a Mac

What torque is your engine rated at? Do go up long high hills?

Thanks

S

[Terry]

Simon,
My woefully inadequate Chevy Blazer only had 260 lbs/ft of torque and 195Hp and I had no problems on hills. They may not have been hills that stretch several miles but they were long enough to make the engine heat up a bit, nothing serious though. It had plenty of muscle to do the job even pulled the Mac out with full ballast, it just lacked weight & wheelbase for highway travel.
My current larger Trailblazer has 275HP & 275 lbs/ft of torque and I have no problems (likely because I am not paying attention cause it feels like it is not there. ) I suppose 300 Lbs/ft would be better but I have to ask myself if it is really necsessary. In my case I was restricted to looking at SUV's because the admiral would not drive a truck and the black Trailblazer really appealed to her, and hey it works just fine.

[Simon]

I suppose 300 Lbs/ft would be better but I have to ask myself if it is really necsessary. In my case I was restricted to looking at SUV's because the admiral would not drive a truck and the black Trailblazer really appealed to her, and hey it works just fine.

Thanks Terry

I am just thinking of the "ideal" amount of torque for long hill climbs and high altitude issues. But thats great if you can tow the mac with 275 lbs/ft

Thanks

S

[Simon]

Oh one other thing....

The more RPM the engine does to make torque the more wear on the engine.
It would be nice to have an engine that makes it s full power around 2500 rpm, this is also very good for cooling when the outside temp goes over 30C.

Thanks

S

Sorry... I am big fan of more cubes and BB's

[Terry]

Curious.
When I look at the specs for a given vehicle eg. Trailblazer, they often provide the specs for a base model and engine. Sometimes they provide specs for the optional V8 as I have the inline 6, but I don't recall any changes if the axle ratio is different. For instance the standard Trailblazer has a 3.42 axle ratio and the torque attained at a given rpm would be for that ratio. So what happens when one orders the tow package that includes the 3.73 axle ratio.Would the same vehicle now develop the same torque but at a higher rpm? I know that when it involves speed the 3.73 requires higher rpms to match the same speed as my Lincoln with 3.08 ratio. There is 3-400 rpm difference at the same 60mph. I don't know the answer but it does make me curious.

[Frank C]

Engine power & torque are measured at engine rpms. That's revolutions per minute of the crankshaft & flywheel. Changing the axle ratio simply varies the road speed at which the power or torque ratings are applied to the driving wheels, and of course, to the load you're pulling.

[Simon]

Curious.
When I look at the specs for a given vehicle eg. Trailblazer, they often provide the specs for a base model and engine. Sometimes they provide specs for the optional V8 as I have the inline 6, but I don't recall any changes if the axle ratio is different. For instance the standard Trailblazer has a 3.42 axle ratio and the torque attained at a given rpm would be for that ratio. So what happens when one orders the tow package that includes the 3.73 axle ratio.Would the same vehicle now develop the same torque but at a higher rpm? I know that when it involves speed the 3.73 requires higher rpms to match the same speed as my Lincoln with 3.08 ratio. There is 3-400 rpm difference at the same 60mph. I don't know the answer but it does make me curious.

Good question

3.73 will make the same torque at lower rpm (in terms of pulling power not in terms of max engine torque) , good for hills bad for flat highway travel. (3.73 is not a very low ratio, 4.10 with a high overdrive is better)

I think the lincoln may have have diferent tranny gear ratios?

S

In my opinion as an very amature machanic... more cubes are better than lower ratio difs...... "there is no replacement for displacement"

[Catigale]

MEasly 181 Foot pounds for my VW, but it pulls my 2002 X great on the flats

On hills, I back off to 55-60 mph, and drop it into 3rd gear to prevent hunting. It will hold 55 or 60 on any hill between Boston and Buffalo, which is my cruising area

[Simon]

MEasly 181 Foot pounds for my VW, but it pulls my 2002 X great on the flats

On hills, I back off to 55-60 mph, and drop it into 3rd gear to prevent hunting. It will hold 55 or 60 on any hill between Boston and Buffalo, which is my cruising area

What would be your total trailer weight?

Sounds good your VW......


Thanks

S

[Frank C]

I weighed my nearly new 26X at about 4,000#, very lightly loaded, no spare tire, no fuel, and the DF-60. That meant it was about 3,700 net axle weight when towing, exactly at the max tire rating. After loading it up with half fuel, ice chest, bedding, clothing, water, etc ... it's gotta be close to 4,500 gross towing weight.

I think that's a good benchmark for most of our loaded 26Xs, and probably a good target for choosing a tow vehicle. Since the factory installs 14" tires (max 3,700# rating) the typical vacation-bound rig will be overtaxing the standard-issue tires. It's no surprise that numerous owners have reported tire failures to this forum.

I upgraded to 15-inchers to gain their 4,500# capacity. Many others have added a second axle. Either way is vastly better than the Macgregor standard.

[Terry]

The newer trailers for the have 15" tires and I noticed on the reg. plate that it is rated for 5000# on my 2003 trailer.