VW Touareg V10 TDI - Tows Boeing 747!

[neanderthal]

Nope. Not at all. I'm saying that it doesn't have any weight placed squarely on the rear suspension alone. Like when you actually pull a trailer. Which this does not simulate. At all. And its tonnes. Not tons.

first things first; theres two different spellings of ton. one has two "n's." one is a short ton, one is a long ton. the short one commonly used in the US and one is a long ton. commonly used in the UK and other countries. i didnt grow up here. i used the spelling for the version that is commonly used in the US where one ton is equal to 2000lbs. but i used the poper calculation for the ton which is 2200lbs. just as there are two different measurements of gallons. and there are two different measures of ounces as well, the troy ounce and avordupois.

more importantly, arguing the semantics of punctuation or spelling is usually the bastion of those who have a weak argument. im pretty sure you were one of the people who said that in another thread. i could be wrong.

No, it really isn't. That thud should be the sound of you crashing into the reality wall, because I would go so far as to guarantee that one-ton American trucks and SUV's have been able to do this exact thing for at least two decades. They just didn't feel the need to attract the attention of people who fall for such PR bull.
Oh, look at me! My SUV can pull a Boeing 747! Yay. And the rear suspension may collapse if I towed a really big trailer or boat with it, but oh well.

fine. prove your guarantee. as far back as two decades. thats 1986, or model year 1986. walk your talk.
and as far as i know, no one makes a one ton SUV. the excursion was a medium duty truck and therefore not privy to the classifications if my information is correct. so which one ton SUV are you referring to? unless you delve into the world of buses and other medium duty vehicles of that ilk im pretty sure you wont find one. but i dont speak in absolutes about things im not sure about, so, again, i could be wrong.

i would think that the fact that 4.3 tons of direct weight didnt collapse the rear suspension more than speaks volumes for the suspensions strength. but for some reason you dont see that. tell me, does a 10000 lb boat riding on a tandem axle trailer exert 4.3 tons of weight on the tongue/ tow-hitch? or is most of the mass carried by the trailer itself.
if you answer correctly, then whats the difference?

I didn't say anything regarding the ballast they added to the vehicle, because it is irrelavent (and may even have helped the Toaureg tow the airplane, not to mention how they could have distributed it equally across the vehicle, or even more frontward to cancel out any potential weight gains that the plane hitch may have added). Just like towing an airplane is irrelavent in any and all practical applications.

here i concede to an extent. we dont know how the weight was planted. that i give you. and it did help to tow the plane. otherwise im not sure the traction would have been sufficient. but whether or not it did or didnt, the vehicle still pulled a 155 ton plane when it had a 4.3 ton payload. so how is it irrelevant. it still had to move that mass. its placement is secondary unless you are talking strictly about towing capacity in which case payload is moot.

I'm glad it has a stiff chassis. So does this:

Can it pull an airplane? Really, chassis stiffness (perhaps you meant rigidity?) has little to do with actual real life towing so much as chassis type does.

this is where you are completely off the deep end. a "weak" chassis (less rigid to use your pedantically correct term) will bend and twist when forces are exerted on it from the drivetrain and the mass/ inertia of the item being towed. this results in less than optimum towing, with forces being spent in areas that arent central to towing. it might buckle at the locations connecting the suspension to the frame. it might bend wherever the weakest point of the frame is. it might snap if thats the location of the mount for the tow-hitch to the vehicle. you of all people on this board should know better than this folly, this farce of an argument 👎

and to answer the question, it probably could, if equipped with the right drivetrain and axles. as long as its chassis/ frame/monocoque was sufficiently stiff/ rigid.

Again, I fail to see why you are centering on the payload capacity when it has nothing to do with pulling an airplane. In fact, it may have helped the pull occur by giving it traction.
And either way, your assertion over the VW's payload capacity over the trucks from the big three is mute, as the Touareg's payload is rated at a paltry 1000 pounds, or 1/6th (on average) the petrol versions (!) of the one-ton American trucks. That alone should tell you that the Touareg pales in comparison to a dedicated towing vehicle. In addition, these petrol trucks are also rated to tow twice as much at least when compared to the Touareg, with the F-450 Super Duty diesel being rated to tow over 3 times as much.

you obviously didnt get the point, which was that no light duty vehicle sold in the world today has a payload capacity of 4.3 tons. none. not one. does that mean there arent any vehicles that can carry 4.3 tons. obviously not, as VW has ably demonstrated. and as you so brazenly claim above. does this mean you can carry 4.3 tons with your run of the mill touareg? only if you are an idiot bent on destroying your vehicle.

and in no way was i trying to hint/ intimate/ assert/ imply that the VWs payload was higher than that of the big threes vehicle. but im sure thats how you took it, based on your response.

Hell, despite being 747 worthy, it gets its ass kicked by pretty much everything:
And maybe I'm just being mean, but when your payload ratings are exceeded by the worst SUV ever, a mid-size SUV with an inline-6,

myself, id argue for the suzuki X90 as worst SUV ever. but its a personal preference. id like to know how the chevy trailblazer compares unfavourably to the X90 in your estimation. other than the obvious fuel economy gambit

a van running a diesel with far less than half of the torque;

payload capacity is about carrying capacity. torque has very little to do with the carrying capacity of a trailer. its tare might come into consideration when you have to actually move something with it, but a trailer by itself can carry stuff with no torque involved.

and when your payload and towing capacities are exceeded by a compact truck which hasn't changed in nearly 10 years with 210 BHP, you may think VW would actually try to make the vehicle better instead of just doing stupid publicity stunts:

better is such a subjective world isnt it.
id say the seating capacity of the VW bests the ford ranger easily. especially for four or five full sized adults.
same for turning circle.
range (although the VWs milage is not listed its pretty much a lock to be better than the 312 miles for the ranger, with that 26.4 gallon tank. fueleconomy.gov lists it as 17 city, 23 freeway for the diesel for the 2004. im not going to do the math for you. but lets just say the VWs EPA city range is higher than that of the ford for the freeway.
this site lists the Cd of the ranger as .40 vs the VWs .38.

i could go on, but i think ive ably demonstrated that i can argue semantics just as well as you can. we all have that inner pedant who cant let go of the minutiea of certain things.

Also, before you (or Poverty, as well) come back into this thread spouting off random crap about how the Touareg isn't being treated fairly, keep in mind I am not attacking the car. I am attacking this stupid stunt that really isn't an accomplishment at all for many reasons, not the least of which being that it is irrelavent to any and all real life applications where there are still better things to use for tasks than the Touareg.[/SIZE][/FONT]

granted.

 

[stumpydino]

id almost favour it over an old land rover almost

 

[skip0110]

Late in this discussion, but I saw a Banks-equipped Dodge Ram pull a full loaded semi, without fancy harnesses, just chains to the tow hook.

 

[neanderthal]

most semis have a 80000lb capacity so thats a lot of weight. and that 80000 isnt including the weight of the rig which isnt a flyweight 2200lb miata

i could do what someone else did and downplay that, saying "its not what the vehicle was built for and it couldnt do it everyday. its just a publicity stunt for banks engineering. it doesnt speak to the engineering of the vehicle by daimler chysler or the modifications perfomed by gale banks and his crew in anyway. mercedes diesels have been able to do that for twenty years" or something. but im not gonna hate. why.

its a hell of an achievement. period. stunt or not.
ive been in my car when it was full of people and noticed a measurable decrease in acceleration and braking. even felt the wheels rub when i turned. thats only 600lbs more weight that when its just me; my three cousins and a baby. with me in the mix, youd have to multiply that by 133 times to get to 80000lbs. 800*133= ~80000lbs. or in easier terms to think of, at least 500 people

 

[Danny]

You know what? I just now realized that I was looking at the Audi Q7 in my magazine. So, basically, everything I've said is rubbish. I've also realized that I know nothing about the VW, which is what we're talking about. The Audi has the 5.9, not the VW. The Audi makes the 738 lb-ft, not the VW. So I guess the Audi would haul a plane even better. Sorry for making mysel feel like and idiot. I'll just crawl back into my Rumble Strip quietly...

AN idiot.

 

[retsmah]

This is just a publicity stunt, the ability of a modified touareg to get a 747 moving a 5mph doesn't really mean much to the average person who needs to tow a heavy trailer at 60+mph. As has been said before, you could take an old pickup, mess with the gearing and get it to pull the plane around.

 

[Eric.]

Guys, you need to realize that the payload ratings aren't necessarily what the vehicle can carry, but what it could safely carry while doing any normal driving on the interstate or anywhere else. I don't think that those ratings mean that one more pound over will result in a collapsed vehicle. Instead, it suggests that the vehicle would be unsafe for driving.


Also, where did it say that they changed the gear ratio? You may be mistaking it for putting it in low range as the article says.

 

[Vonie]

Ebiggs:
http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/1363/

 

[neanderthal]

This is just a publicity stunt, the ability of a modified touareg to get a 747 moving a 5mph doesn't really mean much to the average person who needs to tow a heavy trailer at 60+mph. As has been said before, you could take an old pickup, mess with the gearing and get it to pull the plane around.

stunt or not its an impressive feat for, axle ratios aside, an otherwise unmodified vehicle. a semi generally only pulls 40 tons. this was almost four times that.

 

[Jay]

a semi generally only pulls 40 tons. this was almost four times that.

Sure, but they could pull much much more if they tried.

Some Aussie semi's regularly haul 190 tons


Hey thats about the weight VW want to test the Touareg with next isnt it?

 

[retsmah]

There's really not much to moving 155 tons, assuming you don't need to move it very fast. I would assume you need less than 7 tons of force to get the plane moving, give me a big hydraulic jack and I could move it with my bare hands, it's no problem for a truck motor.

The trickiest part is getting a set of tires on a 3 ton vehicle to apply 7 tons of force, of course they got around that by just making the vehicle heavier. Then the only other thing you have to worry about is parts braking, based on my limited car design experience I'd be most concerned about the halfshafts and maybe some of the suspension components if the guy hits the brakes hard.

The air suspension seems to work well though. And it does look neat with how much larger the plane is than the truck.

 

[Tornado]

more importantly, arguing the semantics of punctuation or spelling is usually the bastion of those who have a weak argument. im pretty sure you were one of the people who said that in another thread. i could be wrong.

Nope, you're right. I was the one that said that. The difference is, though, that Doug was just being an ass, and I legitimately was confused over what you were trying to say for a minute.

fine. prove your guarantee. as far back as two decades. thats 1986, or model year 1986. walk your talk.

I'm pretty sure anything with a Detroit Diesel, Cummins B5.9 or International Harvester IDI wouldn't have too much problems with such a task.

and as far as i know, no one makes a one ton SUV. the excursion was a medium duty truck and therefore not privy to the classifications if my information is correct. so which one ton SUV are you referring to? unless you delve into the world of buses and other medium duty vehicles of that ilk im pretty sure you wont find one. but i dont speak in absolutes about things im not sure about, so, again, i could be wrong

Nope. You're right. Ihad meant to say 1/2 ton SUV's, but whatever.

i would think that the fact that 4.3 tons of direct weight didnt collapse the rear suspension more than speaks volumes for the suspensions strength. but for some reason you dont see that. tell me, does a 10000 lb boat riding on a tandem axle trailer exert 4.3 tons of weight on the tongue/ tow-hitch? or is most of the mass carried by the trailer itself.if you answer correctly, then whats the difference?

Depends on the setup of the trailer. And the difference is that when pulling a large trailer, all of the unsupported weight of the trailer becomes concentrated on both the rear suspension and the location on the chassiswhere the hitch is attached. 4.3 tonnes of ballast could be spread evenly (for all we know) enough over the chassis so the wieght gains are less intense in any one place than when towing a large trailer.

and in no way was i trying to hint/ intimate/ assert/ imply that the VWs payload was higher than that of the big threes vehicle. but im sure thats how you took it, based on your response

Okay. That clears things up for me. Thanks.

myself, id argue for the suzuki X90 as worst SUV ever. but its a personal preference. id like to know how the chevy trailblazer compares unfavourably to the X90 in your estimation. other than the obvious fuel economy gambit

I was talking about the X5, not the Trailblazer. The Trailblazer was the one with the I6. The X5 was the worst SUV ever.

better is such a subjective world isnt it.id say the seating capacity of the VW bests the ford ranger easily. especially for four or five full sized adults.same for turning circle.range (although the VWs milage is not listed its pretty much a lock to be better than the 312 miles for the ranger, with that 26.4 gallon tank. fueleconomy.gov lists it as 17 city, 23 freeway for the diesel for the 2004. im not going to do the math for you. but lets just say the VWs EPA city range is higher than that of the ford for the freeway.this site lists the Cd of the ranger as .40 vs the VWs .38.

Oh, undoubtably it is a better vehicle all around. I meant to say better at being a tow vehicle. But this goes back to my original point: Achievement or not, pulling a plane is useless when it is outclassed in real life trailering ability by such a piece of garbage as the Ford Ranger.

you of all people on this board should know better than this folly, this farce of an argument

Yes, I did over-react. I admit it. I'm sorry.

 

[neanderthal]

There's really not much to moving 155 tons, assuming you don't need to move it very fast. I would assume you need less than 7 tons of force to get the plane moving, give me a big hydraulic jack and I could move it with my bare hands, it's no problem for a truck motor.

The trickiest part is getting a set of tires on a 3 ton vehicle to apply 7 tons of force, of course they got around that by just making the vehicle heavier. Then the only other thing you have to worry about is parts braking, based on my limited car design experience I'd be most concerned about the halfshafts and maybe some of the suspension components if the guy hits the brakes hard.

The air suspension seems to work well though. And it does look neat with how much larger the plane is than the truck.

what???? "give me a big hydraulic jack and i could move it with my bare hands?" if we are talking about a plain pump jack like they sell in stores, how are YOU going to apply the 7 tons of force you said was necessary? even with the longest pole ever you couldnt apply seven tons of force to that jack.

im pretty sure that even if you applied the jack against a wall or some other immovable object to assist you in moving it, BY YOURSELF, you would not be able to apply that much force. if you are sure you could, please enlighten me. i really dont see how.

in principle i understand what you're saying, but i will call you out on the braggadicio.

 

[neanderthal]

stuff...

you are a bigger person than most on this board. which is why the punctuation jab kinda threw me. and it kinda went downhill from there.

anyway i agree that the ranger is a piece. as for the diesel engines, im not sure about the others, but i think the cummins was only availble after 1989 as a 1990 model. the other diesel engines i'd say were of questionable toughness/ integrity/ durability/ some other word that im looking for but cant think of right now. the cummins really really moved the game on for people who were serious about towing. that one i can agree with. which is why i insisted on 1986!!!!!

thats not to say the detroit and IDI couldnt do it. just that the cummins is certainly robust enough and the others im not sure of.

 

[retsmah]

Yes, what I mean is I apply 50 lbs, the jack applies 7 tons. The point is that my arms alone are capable of producing enough power to move a 747. The jack does not produce any power, it just changes the force/distance ratio.

Of course, the minuscule amount of power my arms can put out would move a 747 very, very slowly. Just like the relatively tiny amount of power a V10 car motor puts out will move a 747 very slowly.

Thats why I said it's not that impressive, it's the same thing as someone thousands of years ago using a lever to lift a heavy object. It's just the presentation that makes it look kinda impressive.

 

[neanderthal]

for some reason that didnt enter my thinking at all. you dont apply the force. the jack applies the 7 tons. cue bright light.

mah bad.

 

[retsmah]

New idea for a commercial: Two trucks on either side of a 747 rip it's wings off. Now that would be sweet.