Towing with a 200-series Toyota Land Cruiser

[skrypj]

I agree that such a trailer would have more margin to handling some weight at the rear.

There are limitations to this when we're talking about longer and larger trailers. One major variable in a scientific study on sway is the angular momentum of yaw for various trailers. Intuitively, larger trailers can create more yaw / lateral force. The momentum and force of trailer yaw can't exceed what the tow vehicle can control. Putting weight at the rear of a trailer can further amplify these forces. Then the large slab sides of a trailer in yaw at speed can catch some serious wind that translates that to yaw forces. In the wrong conditions, the start of sway can really get amplified with seemingly small factors. Compounded with speed.

Just saying it's always best to load heavy items over the trailer axles. And generally don't want to play the game countering tongue weight with more weight at the rear because that increases the moment of yaw. If tongue weight is too high (not necessarily a bad thing if the TV can handle it), best to lighten the tongue rather than counter at the rear.

Even as we stay within tongue weights and payload, these other criteria and thresholds can bite too.

The axle setback on that particular trailer looks kind of aggressive though. Like they designed the trailer with rear loading in mind.

Every toy hauler ever with a 2000 lb RZR in the back would also be in serious trouble if this was that big of an issue and the trailer wasnt designed for it but they seem to work.

 

[TeCKis300]

The axle setback on that particular trailer looks kind of aggressive though. Like they designed the trailer with rear loading in mind.

Every toy hauler ever with a 2000 lb RZR in the back would also be in serious trouble if this was that big of an issue and the trailer wasnt designed for it but they seem to work.

I probably missed it but which trailer are we talking about again?

Yes, I agree with you if that's what the trailer was designed for. Just saying that the 200-series with a short wheelbase shouldn't try to handle is something like a 30' travel trailer with e-bikes hung out the back.

 

[LX Cruiser]

I probably missed it but which trailer are we talking about again?

Yes, I agree with you if that's what the trailer was designed for. Just saying that the 200-series with a short wheelbase shouldn't try to handle is something like a 30' travel trailer with e-bikes hung out the back.

26’ Lance 2185

 

[linuxgod]

The axle setback on that particular trailer looks kind of aggressive though. Like they designed the trailer with rear loading in mind.

Every toy hauler ever with a 2000 lb RZR in the back would also be in serious trouble if this was that big of an issue and the trailer wasnt designed for it but they seem to work.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I think Lance assumed people are going to load up the storage area which is in back under the bunks, so they set the rear axle pretty far back. That makes TW high to start with, but as you load stuff in there (or just keep the black tank full which sits behind the axle) it has a strong impact on TW without introducing too much sway.

 

[skrypj]

Also, I’m pretty sure what I am looking at is pan temps, not converter temps. I don’t believe OBDLink app has the PID for the converter temp for my 2018, just AT oil temp 1.

Is your thread saying you saw 266F torque converter temps but you were 230 pan temps while that happened? Because I’m pretty sure my pan temps have been up near 250. I was pulling into a 30-40 mph headwind at one point on my trip back in February and was running in 4th at 60 mph near WOT and my temps got up pretty high without even hitting a hill. Then I hit a big hill and I think that was when my AT oil temp 1 hit 249 or something.

There is an AT oil temp 3 in OBDLink but it’s screwy and scaling is def not right because it reads -40 when you start the truck.

so just circling back to this, I ended up buying a Launch X431 scan tool so i could have all the fancy dealer level capabilities for my LX and my Chevy Bolt. It turns out that the Launch also only has AT Oil Temp 1 and 3 for my truck, just like OBDLink. And AT Oil Temp 3 also reads at a super low temperature on the Launch when the truck is just sitting in the garage off. Like -40.

Looking back at some screen shots form the first time I towed, AT Oil Temp 3 did actually come up and pass AT Oil Temp 1 and showed 249F when AT 1 showed 242F. So it seems the scaling is off or something.

I am wondering if anyone has used any other software to look at these two temps on a 2016+ truck? It seems weird that both OBDLink and Launch would both be wrong in the exact same way on this one PID.

 

[eatSleepWoof]

It seems weird that both OBDLink and Launch would both be wrong in the exact same way on this one PID.

An explanation for that could be that both of those software are following a standardized documentation which defines that particular PID as being one thing, but Toyota used it for something else (contrary to the established/publicized standard).

 

[skrypj]

An explanation for that could be that both of those software are following a standardized documentation which defines that particular PID as being one thing, but Toyota used it for something else (contrary to the established/publicized standard).

Agree'd. Wondering if someone with techstream and a 2016+ might have better insight.

 

[linuxgod]

Pulled the trailer out for spring maintenance. I took a few height measurements that I figured I’d record for posterity. All measurements are “top of wheel to fender”, so add ~9”-9.5” for the more common center-of-hub-to-fender measurement.

Unloaded: 13” front, 14” rear
Hitched, no WD: ~14” front, 12” rear
Hitched with WD: 13.5” front, 12.5” rear

Wish I could get another ~150-200# of WD active since I’d like to balance another 1/2” of weight off the rear but I’m already at the top of my WD setting so I’ll have to settle for stuffing crap in the rear of the trailer.

I’m unimpressed by my recent alignment and will likely take it to a real shop. The place that did my LCAs set caster the same left and right and gave me about 0.3* positive camber. I need higher caster on the P/S as the truck otherwise has a bit of a pull to the right which annoys me on long trips, but I definitely need less camber as I can absolutely tell when loaded that camber is increasing which combined with all the rear axle weight leaves me feeling less controlled than I normally am when there’s some wind or people passing me closely at high speeds.

 

[skrypj]

Im planning to do a regear at some point once I get my 315/70R17's mounted and ready to go, but I am contemplating whether I should go 3.91's or 4.10's in combination with my 8 speed. Even 3.91's are plenty of gear to accommodate the 35's, my math puts the ideal ratio to realign to the to stock tire/gear combo at a ~3.60, so 3.91's would give me another 10% or so to account for added rolling resistance or weight.

But then there is the fact that this thing will like be used for towing or offroad 90% of its miles. Since I bought it at 51500 miles, I have put 3500 miles on and 2500 of those miles were with my trailer attached, and that's kinda how I expect it to be. Since the truck currently spends virtually no time in 7th or 8th towing, and wont spend time in higher gears offroading, I am wondering if maybe going to the 4.10's might actually be a good idea as it may open up 7th gear to be more usable.

My rough math says my 315/70's with 4.10's would put the engine at 2375 rpm at 70mph in 7th. Right now with the stock setup I am running ~2050 in 7th at 70mph. So 4.10's, even with the 35's, would give me an extra 300 rpm and put it almost at the same speed as 6th gear currently does. This would probably make 7th gear somewhat functional giving me 7 ratios to mess with while towing instead of just the 6.

The other thing it would do is put me at 3500 rpms in 5th at 70mph which means I might be able to stay out of 4th more and keep the transmission temps down.

 

[TeCKis300]

Im planning to do a regear at some point once I get my 315/70R17's mounted and ready to go, but I am contemplating whether I should go 3.91's or 4.10's in combination with my 8 speed. Even 3.91's are plenty of gear to accommodate the 35's, my math puts the ideal ratio to realign to the to stock tire/gear combo at a ~3.60, so 3.91's would give me another 10% or so to account for added rolling resistance or weight.

But then there is the fact that this thing will like be used for towing or offroad 90% of its miles. Since I bought it at 51500 miles, I have put 3500 miles on and 2500 of those miles were with my trailer attached, and that's kinda how I expect it to be. Since the truck currently spends virtually no time in 7th or 8th towing, and wont spend time in higher gears offroading, I am wondering if maybe going to the 4.10's might actually be a good idea as it may open up 7th gear to be more usable.

My rough math says my 315/70's with 4.10's would put the engine at 2375 rpm at 70mph in 7th. Right now with the stock setup I am running ~2050 in 7th at 70mph. So 4.10's, even with the 35's, would give me an extra 300 rpm and put it almost at the same speed as 6th gear currently does. This would probably make 7th gear somewhat functional giving me 7 ratios to mess with while towing instead of just the 6.

The other thing it would do is put me at 3500 rpms in 5th at 70mph which means I might be able to stay out of 4th more and keep the transmission temps down.

Simple answer - balance. Don't over gear and compromise the broad competency of your rig. You'll have so much excess gearing down low that it'll be a constantly shifting.

Little known fact - gearing doesn't create HP. It creates wheel torque. Wheel torque is important to get off the line. Once underway, it's all HP and plenty of gears to select from to get the engine into its powerband. The 8-speed has oodles of low end gearing stock. The 5.7L has tons of low RPM torque and will tow just about anything even with compromised gearing.

There's also torque converter lockup logic, heat, and drivability concerns. You want gearing about back to stock. Maybe a 3-5% more for a really heavy rig.

There's integration aspects too. The top speed limiter is defined by transmission shaft output speed. Not the ABS wheel speed. A 3.3 to 4.1 change is ~20%. You'll take off about that much from the 113mph top speed limiter plus back your tire size.

 

[linuxgod]

Im planning to do a regear at some point once I get my 315/70R17's mounted and ready to go, but I am contemplating whether I should go 3.91's or 4.10's in combination with my 8 speed. Even 3.91's are plenty of gear to accommodate the 35's, my math puts the ideal ratio to realign to the to stock tire/gear combo at a ~3.60, so 3.91's would give me another 10% or so to account for added rolling resistance or weight.

But then there is the fact that this thing will like be used for towing or offroad 90% of its miles. Since I bought it at 51500 miles, I have put 3500 miles on and 2500 of those miles were with my trailer attached, and that's kinda how I expect it to be. Since the truck currently spends virtually no time in 7th or 8th towing, and wont spend time in higher gears offroading, I am wondering if maybe going to the 4.10's might actually be a good idea as it may open up 7th gear to be more usable.

My rough math says my 315/70's with 4.10's would put the engine at 2375 rpm at 70mph in 7th. Right now with the stock setup I am running ~2050 in 7th at 70mph. So 4.10's, even with the 35's, would give me an extra 300 rpm and put it almost at the same speed as 6th gear currently does. This would probably make 7th gear somewhat functional giving me 7 ratios to mess with while towing instead of just the 6.

The other thing it would do is put me at 3500 rpms in 5th at 70mph which means I might be able to stay out of 4th more and keep the transmission temps down.

Go with 3.90. Bonus is you can get Toyota gears.

4.88s are 25% over stock gears on my 2013. Even on 35s it’s more gear than I probably need on the highway. They’d be perfect gears for a truck on 37s. I think you’ll regret 4.10s when towing.

 

[skrypj]

Simple answer - balance. Don't over gear and compromise the broad competency of your rig. You'll have so much excess gearing down low that it'll be a constantly shifting.

Little known fact - gearing doesn't create HP. It creates wheel torque. Wheel torque is important to get off the line. Once underway, it's all HP and plenty of gears to select from to get the engine into its powerband. The 8-speed has oodles of low end gearing stock. The 5.7L has tons of low RPM torque and will tow just about anything even with compromised gearing.

There's also torque converter lockup logic, heat, and drivability concerns. You want gearing about back to stock. Maybe a 3-5% more for a really heavy rig.

There's integration aspects too. The top speed limiter is defined by transmission shaft output speed. Not the ABS wheel speed. A 3.3 to 4.1 change is ~20%. You'll take off about that much from the 113mph top speed limiter plus back your tire size.

Yeah makes sense. 3.91's are already a bit aggressive for 35's and even are slightly short for 37's so I guess going 4.10's is probably just overkill.

The speed limiter issue can be fixed in the tuning. VFTuner has inputs for both tire size and axle ratio. I dont know if that corrects the speedometer but it should at least correct any calculations done by the PCM for the shifting logic.

 

[skrypj]

Go with 3.90. Bonus is you can get Toyota gears.

4.88s are 25% over stock gears on my 2013. Even on 35s it’s more gear than I probably need on the highway. They’d be perfect gears for a truck on 37s. I think you’ll regret 4.10s when towing.

4.10's are also Toyota gears. The 4.6L Tundra with the Tow Package came with them.

My understanding is that the 2016+ LC rear axle with the 3.31's are actually different carriers due to a different offset for the ring gear. From talking to some of the local Toyota experts, I actually have to borrow the 3rd member from the Tundra due to differences in the actual housing to be able to run the 3.91's, I can't just swap them into my 3rd it doesnt sound like. So I think my plan is to pick up a used Tundra 4.6L 3rd and have it refreshed if the gears look like they are in rough shape or anything.

 

[TeCKis300]

4.10's are also Toyota gears. The 4.6L Tundra with the Tow Package came with them.

My understanding is that the 2016+ LC rear axle with the 3.31's are actually different carriers due to a different offset for the ring gear. From talking to some of the local Toyota experts, I actually have to borrow the 3rd member from the Tundra due to differences in the actual housing to be able to run the 3.91's, I can't just swap them into my 3rd it doesnt sound like. So I think my plan is to pick up a used Tundra 4.6L 3rd and have it refreshed if the gears look like they are in rough shape or anything.

Or find someone here with a pre-2016 200-series that has locked and re-geared and buy their diff assembly. I wonder if Slee has any to sell.

 

[FrazzledHunter]

So I've become convinced I need a locking hitch pin. The best one, at least the most expensive one, seems to be the ones made by Amplock. I like the locking mechanism and that the cotter pin goes through the lock AND the pin. But I'm wondering if it will fit the closed in area of the receiver and if it does, whether it will it interfere with the chains.
So are any of you running with these locks?
Or, you got some other brand/model you like?

Amplock:
https://www.amplock.com/product/hlp58/?hitch-lock

EDIT: here's the hitch receiver we all know and love:

 

[2021 LC200]

So I've become convinced I need a locking hitch pin. The best one, at least the most expensive one, seems to be the ones made by Amplock. I like the locking mechanism and that the cotter pin goes through the lock AND the pin. But I'm wondering if it will fit the closed in area of the receiver and if it does, whether it will it interfere with the chains.
So are any of you running with these locks?
Or, you got some other brand/model you like?

Amplock:
HLP-58 - AMPLock - https://www.amplock.com/product/hlp58/?hitch-lock

EDIT: here's the hitch receiver we all know and love:
View attachment 3629360

My chains hookup well below the area of my lock, so I do not think you will have an issue.

Does seem to me you are overthinking this. My experience is that the locking pin does not move sideways at all towing a travel trailer thousands of miles. The lock is there to prevent theft, not really to hold the pin in place. So either a clip or lock works, you do not need both.

 

[FrazzledHunter]

My chains hookup well below the area of my lock, so I do not think you will have an issue.

Does seem to me you are overthinking this. My experience is that the locking pin does not move sideways at all towing a travel trailer thousands of miles. The lock is there to prevent theft, not really to hold the pin in place. So either a clip or lock works, you do not need both.

Got it. The main question was whether or not this particular lock's cylinder, which is larger than most, would fit. I was hoping someone that had one or had tried one could tell me that.

 

[TeCKis300]

So I've become convinced I need a locking hitch pin. The best one, at least the most expensive one, seems to be the ones made by Amplock. I like the locking mechanism and that the cotter pin goes through the lock AND the pin. But I'm wondering if it will fit the closed in area of the receiver and if it does, whether it will it interfere with the chains.
So are any of you running with these locks?
Or, you got some other brand/model you like?

Amplock:
HLP-58 - AMPLock - https://www.amplock.com/product/hlp58/?hitch-lock

EDIT: here's the hitch receiver we all know and love:
View attachment 3629360

I use a similar lock and the lock barrel on it can be a bit tight against the plastic. I can't tell exactly, but the Amplock barrel, especially with cover, might be similar or larger in diameter which could make it be a problem? You'll have to try.

If I were to get another locking pin, I think I might try one without a bent end. Overtime with lots of towing, the bent end can distort the metal on the receiver.

 

[Polecat]

So I've become convinced I need a locking hitch pin. The best one, at least the most expensive one, seems to be the ones made by Amplock. I like the locking mechanism and that the cotter pin goes through the lock AND the pin. But I'm wondering if it will fit the closed in area of the receiver and if it does, whether it will it interfere with the chains.
So are any of you running with these locks?
Or, you got some other brand/model you like?

Amplock:
HLP-58 - AMPLock - https://www.amplock.com/product/hlp58/?hitch-lock

EDIT: here's the hitch receiver we all know and love:
View attachment 3629360

I use this one. Both locking and anti-rattle. Compatible with the unique design of the receiver. Rated to 10k IIRC.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000T5BI8Y?tag=ihco-20

 

[Ratchey]

So I've become convinced I need a locking hitch pin. The best one, at least the most expensive one, seems to be the ones made by Amplock. I like the locking mechanism and that the cotter pin goes through the lock AND the pin. But I'm wondering if it will fit the closed in area of the receiver and if it does, whether it will it interfere with the chains.
So are any of you running with these locks?
Or, you got some other brand/model you like?

Amplock:
HLP-58 - AMPLock - https://www.amplock.com/product/hlp58/?hitch-lock

EDIT: here's the hitch receiver we all know and love:
View attachment 3629360

I use this one Hitch Locking Pin - Weigh Safe - https://www.weigh-safe.com/product/hitch-locking-pin/
It's a tight fit but I can barely get the key in and pull the lock out.