17 suburban pull a 17 m235?

[bamaboy]

1 hour ago, RyanB said:

To me, there is a spectrum of adherence to the tow ratings.  There are those that swear you should only go to 80% of the tow rating.  And there are those that think if you can hook it up, you can pull it.  It is up to each individual to decide where they stand.

This is so true.  My FIL pulls a 10,000 lb car hauler with a 2004 Ford Ranger.  He has pulled crap like that his whole life with tiny pickups.  Pretty much everyone where I live does.  And I have never heard of anyone having any issues.  

 

Would I do it?  Absolutely not.  I'm far too OCD.  But to each his own and my personal opinion is these vehicles can probably handle quite a bit more than we typically throw at them.  

[carguy79ta]

fugettaboutit. I have an RI 257 on order.  about the same weight.  dry from hauler to dealer they are about 9200 with trailer.   once you load fuel etc you will be over 10000.  buy a 3/4 ton diesel and be done with it.  I bought a 13 Ram diesel.  800 ft lbs of torque.  I pulled my Dads skidsteer about 11500 effortlessly. can't wait for my boat.

[Cole2001]

12 minutes ago, bamaboy said:

My FIL pulls a 10,000 lb car hauler with a 2004 Ford Ranger. 

Pics or it didn't happen

[spikew919]

21 hours ago, maliboobie said:

5.3 and 3.42 ratio.  and the 6200 is dry weight. 

I have an m235, and just hauled on slick wet roads headed to smith in several traffic jams and people merging due to road work. I would not do the suburban. I have a ram 2500 and even with Jake brake and trailer brakes, which on Malibu's 3 axel trailer don't seem as good.

Maybe for short trips but definitely need air bags in rear to level and keep back end up if you lift it for sure. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by spikew919

[Rednucleus]

What about a 3/4 ton sub; and is there a diesel option still available?

[Cole2001]

Just now, Rednucleus said:

What about a 3/4 ton sub; and is there a diesel option still available?

Quick google and the 2017s are only available for fleets and can only tow 3k

[jjackkrash]

Driving over loaded isn't a big problem as long as everything goes as planned.  Its the emergency/unexpected situations where s**t goes south in a hurry when you are too heavy.   

[nyryan2001]

2 hours ago, RyanB said:

I don't know what the Tundra hitch capacity is, but just because the truck is rated to tow 11,800 pounds does not mean that the standard hitch is as well.

GM lists the 2017 Yukon XL with a tow capacity of 8300 pounds, but the hitch isn't rated for that weight unless you go WDH.  I would bet dollars to donuts that the Tundra is the same.

 

 

you do know a WDH uses the exact same and only receiver.... whether in weight carrying or in WDH config right?  All the WDH does is a hard tilted crank on the ball mount to transfer some of the tongue weight to the front tires vs 100% on the rear tires. A WDH isn't a different or additional hitch (different ball mount maybe), WDH means 60/40 rear front tongue weight.

 a hitch is rated to the max whether in weight carry or WDH.  The receiver doesn't care what the config is.

The truck and suspension are what make the difference between weight carry and WDH config.  Not the hitch receiver.  Various trucks may have it stamped on the receiver, but the receiver hitch itself is rated to a max weight period regardless of config.

and backup 2yrs, it was me who broke this on TMC about ~5k weight carry limits on 1/2 tons.  Guys on here were in tears over it.  Ram owners will chime in theirs doesn't require it.  Welcome to the show.

 

 

[jjackkrash]

1 hour ago, bamaboy said:

But to each his own and my personal opinion is these vehicles can probably handle quite a bit more than we typically throw at them.  

Its not as big a problem if the driver slows down and exercises extreme caution realizing that more weight is more risk.  But it also seems like the guys towing real heavy also drive like the rig's not loaded.  

[jjackkrash]

2 minutes ago, nyryan2001 said:

and backup 2yrs, it was me who broke this on TMC about ~5k weight carry limits on 1/2 tons.  Guys on here were in tears over it.  Ram owners will chime in theirs doesn't require it.  Welcome to the show.

My buddy's F250 is 5k without weight distribution or bed mount.  That's what I don't get.  

[nyryan2001]

Is it an older one? I thought the newer SRW 3/4tons were ~7700lbs weight carry rated.  Except 1 or 2? have higher ratings because they still are not SAE J2807 compliant.

its not till 1 ton dually that you see 8000lb+ J2807 rated weight carry tows.

i would happily be in violation ~1000lbs overloaded in a 3/4ton.

[RyanB]

17 minutes ago, nyryan2001 said:

 

 a hitch is rated to the max whether in weight carry or WDH.  The receiver doesn't care what the config is.

 

Sorry, but that statement is false.  Go to etrailer, and do a search on aftermarket hitches.  Every one of them has a different rating for weight distribution vs non weight distribution.

Here are the options for a 2003 Suburban.

https://www.etrailer.com/hitch-2003_Chevrolet_Suburban.htm

Why would an OEM hitch be any different?

If you would like, I'll go out and take a photo of the sticker on my Yukon.  It has different weight ratings based wether you use WD or not as well.  And the WD number is higher than the Yukon itself is rated for.

 

[jjackkrash]

2 minutes ago, nyryan2001 said:

Is it an older one? I thought the newer SRW 3/4tons were ~7700lbs weight carry rated.  Except 1 or 2? have higher ratings because they still are not SAE J2807 compliant.

its not till 1 ton dually that you see 8000lb+ J2807 rated weight carry tows.

i would happily be in violation ~1000lbs overloaded in a 3/4ton.

Yes, its an older one.  

My '16 GMC 2500 is supposed to be J2807 rated at 13,500 weight carrying.  (Some models as much as 14,500).

http://media.gmc.com/media/us/en/gmc/vehicles/sierra_hd/2016.html

http://www.gmfleet.com/content/dam/gmfleet/global/master/nscwebsite/en/Home/Resources/02_pdf/GMTB15CT200-2016-gmc_tailering_guide.pdf

 

 

[jjackkrash]

Check that, looks like 13k without weight distribution from that chart.  

[JeffK]

I towed a friend's vlx with a tahoe that had that a similar setup and was very disappointed (gearing was higher, but I am also referring to the weight and handling, not just torque).  I upgraded to a yukon with the 6.2L and it did much better, but ultimately the transmission started to show issues at 95K.  I am now in a silverado 2500 hd and couldn't be happier.  I think for a boat that size, you will be much happier with something comparable to an allison drivetrain and a diesel.  Lots of sales going on this weekend to boot.

[ilovetrains]

15 hours ago, RyanB said:

I don't know what the Tundra hitch capacity is, but just because the truck is rated to tow 11,800 pounds does not mean that the standard hitch is as well.

GM lists the 2017 Yukon XL with a tow capacity of 8300 pounds, but the hitch isn't rated for that weight unless you go WDH.  I would bet dollars to donuts that the Tundra is the same.

Back on topic, the 2017 Suburban is rated to tow only 6300 pounds.

I am not the weight police (far from it actually), so, back to the OP's question, just make sure you go into this with your eyes open.  The manufactures tow ratings are only a number, and a balance between the marketing team's desire to push for something like "best in class" vs the bean counters wanting to limit exposure (mainly warranty).

Before someone brings up misinformation, I am unaware of any state that gives any legal standing to the manufactures tow rating.  You won't get a ticket if you are pulled over.  And your insurance won't deny coverage if you are in an accident.

To me, there is a spectrum of adherence to the tow ratings.  There are those that swear you should only go to 80% of the tow rating.  And there are those that think if you can hook it up, you can pull it.  It is up to each individual to decide where they stand.

For the record, my secondary tow vehicle for my 23LSV is a 2011 Yukon XL Denali.  It towed the boat horribly until I upgraded the trailer tires.  Now it does OK.  My boat can drag the Yukon down the boat ramp.  I would think a heavier boat like the M235 would make things worse.

I hate to be that guy, but they can, and will deny in certain situations.  Your insurance will have a clause they they do not have to indemnify for willful or wanton unsafe acts.  The specific language will differ from state to state.  Some states infer a criminal negligence standard, which can be really high.  My only point is that it is fact possible.  I worked a case about 10 years ago that was pretty nasty, girl was left para for life.  Insurance denied all coverage as they determined that what they were hauling so heavy it was an inherently unsafe act.  IIRC it was an older Range Rover with a 3k rating, towing a multi-horse trailer that was estimated (could not weigh it, they destroyed the horses after she jackknifed it on I-70) at around 9K.  The HP gave a depo that if she had hit someone (it was a single vehicle accident) they would have charged her with criminal negligence.  She was pretty young, family was into horses and said they saw people tow like that all the time.

I see guys rolling down the road and think about that 20-something girl, half her skull crushed, unable to close her mouth and her family devastated with no insurance.  Some people think life is cheap.  Sorry for the downer, some cases stick with you.

[malibu2004]

You need a 3/4 or better gas or diesel to pull that boat safely any distance with gear and people for the day. Anything less and your putting yourself and the people that ride with you are risk. You have to remember when you add people and gear in the suburban that takes weight away from what you can pull.  

[carguy79ta]

my dealers GM tows a M235 with a 3/4ton gasser.  he told me he needs a diesel.

[RyanB]

4 hours ago, ilovetrains said:

I hate to be that guy, but they can, and will deny in certain situations.  Your insurance will have a clause they they do not have to indemnify for willful or wanton unsafe acts.  The specific language will differ from state to state.  Some states infer a criminal negligence standard, which can be really high.  My only point is that it is fact possible.  I worked a case about 10 years ago that was pretty nasty, girl was left para for life.  Insurance denied all coverage as they determined that what they were hauling so heavy it was an inherently unsafe act.  IIRC it was an older Range Rover with a 3k rating, towing a multi-horse trailer that was estimated (could not weigh it, they destroyed the horses after she jackknifed it on I-70) at around 9K.  The HP gave a depo that if she had hit someone (it was a single vehicle accident) they would have charged her with criminal negligence.  She was pretty young, family was into horses and said they saw people tow like that all the time.

I see guys rolling down the road and think about that 20-something girl, half her skull crushed, unable to close her mouth and her family devastated with no insurance.  Some people think life is cheap.  Sorry for the downer, some cases stick with you.

Going further off topic, but I will push back some here.  It sounds like you are well versed in the subject, so I do appreciate your insight.

I worked for a non-standard auto insurance company many years ago.  And a good buddy of mine is an Independent Agent.  From my memory, and what he tells me, it is incredibly difficult to deny coverage unless there is a stated policy exclusion.

The one you mention is probably in all policies, and I am sure that in extreme circumstances could be used to fight coverage, but I think with as broad as it is, insurance companies could use that in many circumstances - which makes it much more difficult to defend in court.

For example, wouldn't you argue that an accident caused by a drunk driver could be willful or wanton unsafe acts?  Or if you were speeding say 20 + MPH over the posted speed limit (which in Colorado is reckless driving, by definition a willful unsafe act).  I am unaware of either of those being reason to deny coverage.

Perhaps my statement of insurance not denying coverage due to being over weight was too absolute.  I think it would be easier to argue coverage denial if someone in a Smart Car was towing a M235.  But using the assumption that someone was over a manufactures tow rating as the sole reason for denial of coverage is going to be a tough sell in court.

Regardless, your story is something I wouldn't wish upon anyone.  That would be rough.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RyanB

[shawndoggy]

Public policy favors having the insurance company pay for the stupid acts of their insureds.

What's more wanton, wreckless, and definitely criminal than an injury resulting DUI.  Ever hear of that not being covered by the driver's insurance?

[shawndoggy]

btw I tow a 50' trawler with a smart car.

[carguy79ta]

pics.. shawndoggy...pics

[Bozboat]

2 hours ago, shawndoggy said:

Public policy favors having the insurance company pay for the stupid acts of their insureds.

What's more wanton, wreckless, and definitely criminal than an injury resulting DUI.  Ever hear of that not being covered by the driver's insurance?

Assume I am dwi downhill in my vintage S-10, drum brakes, with a million liability, towing a 40' box trailer on 12" rims at 80 mph in a cross wind, am I more likely to get denied if I am making a claim on my policy vs you making a claim on my policy?

[shawndoggy]

14 minutes ago, Bozboat said:

Assume I am dwi downhill in my vintage S-10, drum brakes, with a million liability, towing a 40' box trailer on 12" rims at 80 mph in a cross wind, am I more likely to get denied if I am making a claim on my policy vs you making a claim on my policy?

I think it depends.  Do you have neck or face tattoos?

[oldjeep]

regardless of insurance and the law, who wants the possibility of a problem caused by an undersized tow vehicle.  Id be more worried about the ability to get boat out of water, roasting trans or busting rear end than the possibility of crashing into a bus load of nuns and if insurance would cover it.