Horse before the Cart

[CarlosGee]

Hi All... I am about the join the caravanning fraternity in the next few months and need to start at the front end...wondering if anybody has experience of these potential tow vehicles.. HONDA CRV 1.6DTEC AUTO; NISSAN X TRAIL 1.6D XTRONIC; TOYOTA RAV 4 2.0LITRE FRONT WHEEL DRIVE.. I am looking at something upto a couple of years old and around the 20k mark..can`t go much above that otherwise the potential caravan would have to be downgraded to a tent!!...It seems that the 1.6litre engines on the first two may appear to be a bit too small but reading reviews they seem to have more BHP than the 2.0l models they replaced..The car will be used a lot for work without the caravan as I cover around 20,000 miles each year so can`t really go with a big engined motor and need a happy affordable reliable medium... As per the heading we haven`t yet got "the cart" as it will have to match it to" the horse".. All the above 3 cars are around the 1700kg kerbweight so at 85% we are looking around the MTPLM OF 1450KG which is fine for the type of caravan we will be looking at (single axled 4 berth fixed bed)..likely MIIRO of 1290kg... Anybody any experience, views or suggestions ?
Thanks in advance

 

[otherclive]

Wil those autos tow 1450kg with the car loaded? You should check the towing specification for each model. At one time both Honda and Nissan autos were considerably less capable than the manual versions.

 

[CarlosGee]

Thanks.. will have to check.. all this is a minefield for a newbie :

 

[Martin24]

If you're going to stay on grass pitches more than hard standings then you may find that RWD is better than FWD as you get better traction pulling of damp grass.

The 1.6's may produce better figures than the older 2.0's but the engine is going to have to work harder to get to those figures so 20,000 p/a may in the long run wear things out more quickly.

Just a couple of thoughts to chuck into the confusion.

 

[CarlosGee]

ok .. so a bigger engine may be better .. any views on the MAZDA CX -5 2.2d

 

[LizziePope]

Hi and welcome to the forum – and to caravanning!

Our Tow Car Editor is a fan of the Mazda CX-5 2.2d, that's for sure. Any reason for not going for four-wheel drive? Ultimate traction on muddy pitches and it's heavier, which improves your matching ratios.

And make sure you check out our tow car reviews and also our Tow Car Awards website which has reviews and data going back to 2007.

Hope that helps.

 

[audiorob]

I guarantee I have no contact with either company, but visiting Lowdham Caravans (Notts Brach) recently for a coffee and a browse they now have SsangYong cars for sale. The smallest model, theTivoli, in the showroom was from about £14000 and could tow up to 2000kg. Certainly when I come to trade my current Ford I think the brand would warrant further research to see if this was a better-to-buy new at that sort of price than a used other model.
Good luck with all your choices- there's fun in the hunt too!

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

The smallest model, theTivoli, in the showroom was from about £14000 and could tow up to 2000kg.

It might be certified to tow a trailer up to 2000kg, but that trailer certainly wouldn't be a caravan! You have to be very careful of all the sales hype.

 

[Craigyoung]

Audiorob ,
Have a read of the tow car test from Practical Caravan , it was between 12oo and 1322kg for towing dependent on the model that you wish to get, not quite 2ooo kg though !

Craig

 

[SamandRose]

I second and emphasise Woodlandscamper's comment above. The manufacturer's maximum towing limits are just that - maximum limits. It's not always sensible or safe to tow up to those limits any more than it is to always drive at the national speed limit on rural B roads. They're determined using trailers and not high-sided caravans which will behave very differently. Both caravanning clubs recommend limiting the towed weight to no more than the car's kerb weight even if you have experience, and to roughly 85% of the kerb weight if you're new to towing.

Back to the OP; If you're main concern is high non-towing mileages - and mine is too - do you really need to consider an SUV at all? Around £20k should buy you a 12-18 month old 2.0 diesel Passat estate (which we like so much we're on our third), Ford Mondeo or if you go a year or so older, BMW 5-series or Audi A6. All of which should be capable of comfortably towing up to around 1400kg and offer substantially lower fuel bills and road tax.

 

[SamandRose]

CarlosGee - another thought but when did you get your licence? If you passed your driving test after 1997 you'll need an extended test for a B+E licence to tow the sort of weights you're talking about.

 

[otherclive]

I second Samandrose's comments. My first tow car was a rwd Marina estate, others have included fwd Mondeos and Saab. In all that time I've only ever been stuck twice, and both with 4wd. First time in a CL at Penrith that we'd used several times before. But the owner cut the grass and it rained. The three dimensional slope didn't help but the Sorento with BFG AT tyres just wouldn't pull the van around and the farmer gave the van a tow out. The second time at another CL near Penrith and after shed loads of overnight rain the XC 70 with its OEM Continental tyres (m&s marked) was going nowhere and gave us a good demonstration that all four wheels were being driven. I used grip track to excricate it onto the farm track. As for the caravan I used grip track and the mover to move it backwards up the slope to the track. My wife took the weight of the nose wheel by standing inside the van as a counterweight.
My current car is 4wd but it's tyres are road orientated so I don't expect much traction in anything but benign conditions. Although today I've just put two new Cross Climate+ on the back.
The other thing with 4wd is tyre requirements. My Subaru required all tyres to be within 1mm tread depth. The Kia required all to be the same or if not the least worn tyres on the rear. Haldex systems seem more tolerant but even they require equal tread depth across axles. If you have a non repairable puncture you would be looking at two tyres, or if a Subaru four tyres........ ouch.
In our forthcoming trip to Scotland we might be giving Penrith the miss as an overnight stopover! No point in tempting fate.

 

[CarlosGee]

hi SamandRose.. test passed way way way before 1997

 

[CarlosGee]

If things weren`t getting complicated enough what about MANUAL OR AUTOMATIC transmission ?

 

[otherclive]

I go for automatic these days as its so much easier and relaxed. If I wasn't towing then it would be manual.

 

[Martin24]

Automatic all the way. You can always knock it down a cog or two as needed.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I would not be so concerned as some appear to be about 1.6L engine, and the current power outputs.

Just consider that in the 1970, many car engines may have been 6 cylinders of 2.5 to 3litre capacity yet only produced less than 100bhp and diesels were even less, now there is plenty of evidence that 2.0L engines can reliable produce up to and over 200bhp, without significant reliability issues.

There is no reason why smaller engines (properly designed and tested) could not reliably produce 100 to 150bhp or more.

VW have 1.4L turbo petrol that is well regarded and produces 140bhp

 

[otherclive]

2.0 tsi from VAG has 280bhp. Just look at the Octavia Estate tow car award performance. Quite astonishing almost Audi RS 4 territory. The negative is low mpg though. Friends of ours have a Fiesta 1.0 eco boost and until I went for a ride in it with four adults in the car I wouldn't have believed the "pull" that this engine has. So previous conceptions of engine performance are being rewritten with this latest generation of engines.

 

[ProfJohnL]

2.0 tsi from VAG has 280bhp. Just look at the Octavia Estate tow car award performance. Quite astonishing almost Audi RS 4 territory. The negative is low mpg though. Friends of ours have a Fiesta 1.0 eco boost and until I went for a ride in it with four adults in the car I wouldn't have believed the "pull" that this engine has. So previous conceptions of engine performance are being rewritten with this latest generation of engines.

Thank you for your comment,

This is yet another example of simply relying on traditional values is no longer enough, you have to be prepared to look and evaluate new realities.

Its about time the caravan industry looks again at its caravan weights guidance in the light of far more precise information being available about tow vehicles, etc

 

[seth1]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

 

[CarlosGee]

Now I think I have settled on either a Skoda superb estate 2.0l auto or Mazda CX 5 2.2 l auto.....just trying to ascertain actual kerbweights of these vehicles as there seems to be an abundance of differing info for the same vehicle...PS going 2 wheel drive so may have to ask for a push......or pull hmy: :silly:

 

[otherclive]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

I would be interested to see the reliability statistics. Do you have a link(s)?

 

[ProfJohnL]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

Unless something has changed with the the way Horse power is measured, a 1.6L 140Hp engine will have the same hill climbing ability as 3L 140Hp engines assuming all other things are equal. However I would agree all other things are not necessarily equal but never the less provided the engine is kept in its power band there should be no difference between the hill climbing ability. to claim otherwise is a scientific absurdity.

 

[DrZhivago]

in the 1970, many car engines may have been 6 cylinders of 2.5 to 3litre capacity yet only produced less than 100bhp and diesels were even less, now there is plenty of evidence that 2.0L engines can reliable produce up to and over 200bhp, without significant reliability issues. ... VW have 1.4L turbo petrol that is well regarded and produces 140bhp

Turbocharging or supercharging to increase power is nothing new, but was unusual in 1970's cars. Apart from that, your 100 hp for 2.5-3.0 litres sounds low; I once had a Ford Granada with the 2.3litre V6 "Cologne" engine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine#2.3, unsupercharged, designed in 1967, and it produced 125 HP .

These things are partly influenced by vehicle taxation regimes, and not just our own in the UK.

All other things being equal, a slow plodding engine with a low power for its capacity and weight is more reliable than a supercharged high revving one. On the owners' website for my own car it is apparent the second biggest cause of engine problems is the turbocharger and its associated paraphanalia (beaten only by the ECU - something else you did not need to worry about in 1970). Racing car engines have insane power/capacity ratios but need stripping down after every race.

Similarly I knew a guy who ran a river pumping station in the Fens. He had a couple of big plodding marine diesels for constant daily work, and two further pumps driven by high performance engines (think big speed-boat type) for overload situations. Although the latter ran only occasionally, they were the bigger maintenance workload, and less fuel efficient for it too. In general. the amount of wear is proportional to the distance moved by its moving parts, which is greater in a high-revving engine.

Now that we are taxed in the UK on emmissions and not capacity, there is no great reason to prefer a high-revving smaller engine over a larger capacity slower one of the same power and combustible gas throughput.

 

[otherclive]

in the 1970, many car engines may have been 6 cylinders of 2.5 to 3litre capacity yet only produced less than 100bhp and diesels were even less, now there is plenty of evidence that 2.0L engines can reliable produce up to and over 200bhp, without significant reliability issues. ... VW have 1.4L turbo petrol that is well regarded and produces 140bhp

Turbocharging or supercharging to increase power is nothing new, but was unusual in 1970's cars. Apart from that, your 100 hp for 2.5-3.0 litres sounds low; I once had a Ford Granada with the 2.3litre V6 "Cologne" engine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine#2.3, unsupercharged, designed in 1967, and it produced 125 HP .

These things are partly influenced by vehicle taxation regimes, and not just our own in the UK.

All other things being equal, a slow plodding engine with a low power for its capacity and weight is more reliable than a supercharged high revving one. On the owners' website for my own car it is apparent the second biggest cause of engine problems is the turbocharger and its associated paraphanalia (beaten only by the ECU - something else you did not need to worry about in 1970). Racing car engines have insane power/capacity ratios but need stripping down after every race.

Similarly I knew a guy who ran a river pumping station in the Fens. He had a couple of big plodding marine diesels for constant daily work, and two further pumps driven by high performance engines (think big speed-boat type) for overload situations. Although the latter ran only occasionally, they were the bigger maintenance workload, and less fuel efficient for it too. In general. the amount of wear is proportional to the distance moved by its moving parts, which is greater in a high-revving engine.

Now that we are taxed in the UK on emmissions and not capacity, there is no great reason to prefer a high-revving smaller engine over a larger capacity slower one of the same power and combustible gas throughput.

My last car a 2.0 petrol NA developed its max 150 bhp at 6300rpm whilst the 2.0 turbo diesel developed its max power around 3000 rpm along with 2/3 more torque. For towing the diesel would have been a more relaxed drive.
I would question your comments about racing engines being stripped down after each race. F1 limits each driver to four engines per season and an engine consists of six sub system. So in effect only four sub system failures can be accepted without a penalty. These are 1.6 litre 15000 rpm limited units. MotoGP has similar restrictions on engine usage too. The engines themselves are very reliable with most problems coming from the electronics and energy recovery systems. For the motor bikes which are simpler there are rarely any reliability issues. I had " slow plodding engines" in my Velocette Matchless and Triumph. Used to scoff at these buzzy Japanese things. Best bikes I ever owned were Japanese. But "all things were not equal" as the engineering quality of Japanese engines and attention to detail far outstripped my British ones in all respects.