Subaru 2005 towing MacGregor 26M?

[Markintosh]

Ahoy, Mac sailors:

A couple of months ago we bought a new 2005 Subaru Outback with a 3.0 liter, six-cylinder, 250 hp engine. One of the (many) improvements with the new model is increased towing capacity: our old Subaru was limited to 2,000 lbs; the new one can supposedly handle 3,000.

I have been interested in investing in a MacGregor sailboat ever since I spent a day on the water in an older 26 several years ago. The new 26M looks great to me, but --alas!-- I now see that they have added weight to the boat with 300 lbs of permanent ballast. By my calculations, the new boat (empty) weighs 2550 + the trailer 710 = 3,260, i.e., 250 more than our new Subaru's towing limit.

Am I just S.O.L here? Maybe I'll have to look at some other kind of trailerable sailboat (Hunter?) that keeps its weight under 3,000 lbs, or simply try to find an older MacGregor model. Harrumph.

Needless to say I am discouraged that MacGregor has added that extra ballast, even though I understand that the new 26M hull design merits it for stability. But why not simply include a second water-ballast tank with a valve that fills (and empties) automatically whenever the boat is in (and out of) the water? Permanent ballast seems to thwart the very idea that MacGregor came up with for trailerable sailboats in the first place!

I really like the new 26M... but I LOVE our new Subaru: it is by far the best car I have ever driven --and our second car is a BMW Z3! In short, I am not about to give up our everyday vehicle for what would amount to a couple of weeks of recreation in the summer.

I thought I would check with you other MacGregor sailors, however, since you seem to circulate stories about pulling the boats with Escapes, Highlanders, Civics, and other cars with smaller engines than our Subaru.

Thanks,

Markintosh

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

Even the older X's are well over 3500 lbs. Don't forget to throw in 200-300# for a motor. Add more for fuel, gear, water, food in coolers etc. I doubt many X's or M's weigh in at under the 3500 the trailers are spec'd for. I think my X is certainly over 4000#.

While macs have been towed in the past with lower rated vehicles such as the Outback, you won't find me towing with anything less than a real truck. Even my wifes Dodge Caravan which is rated for 3500# is not good enough in my opinion. It has plenty of power, but the suspension and brakes are not up to the task. I can't recommend anything less than a true truck or full size SUV. Not only wouldn't I want to use anything less, but I wouldn't want to be on the same highway as someone who was. It's not just about you and your tow vehicle, it's about the safety of all those on the road around you.

[Moe]

"Towing capacity" isn't a rating. It's a marketing thing, calculated by subtracting the weight of a stripped version of a particular model, with one 150 pound driver, from the vehicle's gross combined weight rating. Read the fine print, if you can find it, and you'll find the weight of additional options, passengers, and cargo in the vehicle must be deducted from the "towing capacity."

There's not much point in buying a 3260 pound MacGregor powersailer unless you add a minimum of a 210-270 pound 50HP outboard, and for that you'll want at least one, preferably two, 80 pound 12 gallon fuel tanks, and a 50 pound battery to start it with. And are you really going to leave all that storage empty? No 20 pounds of ice and 20 pounds of drinks in the cooler? No food? No 40 pounds of water in the sink jug, or 25 pounds of water in the Sani-Potti? I could go on and on.

This is a 158" wheelbase, 7' tall 4WD 3/4 ton truck in front of our X. Imagine what a little Subaru would look like in front of it.



--
Moe

[Jack O'Brien]

Yo Markintosh:

I'll get in trouble again from the good folks who mean well but sometimes one can bend the "rules" a bit and do just fine.

We used a 1997 Outback wagon for two years to tow my 2000 X with a standard Mac trailer. I did fit stainless disk brakes to the trailer and a transmission oil cooler from Pep Boys I installed myself. Never a problem with the car.

On boat ramps or highway we never needed more power (165 HP) or traction or braking and the car was "rated" at 2000 lbs towing capacity. We generally used 3rd gear to "play safe" and often used cruise control. We drove carefully and had no close calls or accidents or incidents. We never left flat Florida and tried to climb mountains. We usually drove 55 - 60 MPH as over 55 the standard Mac sway got worse. I once drove 20 miles through city and tollway traffic with a forgotten pin in the trailer brake actualizer which prevented the trailer brakes from working and did not realize it, using only the car brakes.

You don't "need" a big truck, gas guzzeling V-8 and a red neck to tow a Mac. But, the heavier vehicle is undoubtedly more safe with more braking traction, more resistance to the tail wagging the dog and more power will certainly climb hills better.

Towing "capacity" ratings are more about warrantees and probabilities of overstressing drive train components. Some European cars identical to US models have higher towing ratings there than here. And Europeans are more likely to have smaller engines and lighter vehicles because of the cost of fuel.

I think my '97 Japanese Outback was a superior vehicle - engineering wise - compared to a comparable? domestic vehicle. Your 2005 model is rated higher and is more powerful so there is no doubt it will tow your boat. Just be careful your trailer brakes work well, try to avoid idiots and inflate rear car and trailer tires to the maximum pressures shown on the sidewalls. Use a bathroom scale to measure tongue weight when loading the boat and aim for 250 lbs - 300 lbs maximum. Fill your water and fuel tanks after you get to your destination.

We just traded in the Outback (107,000 miles) on a 2004 Honda Pilot with 240 HP which is towing rated at 3,500 lbs or 4,500 lbs for boats (less wind drag). Compared to the Outback it is 27% heavier, has 45% more HP and torque and has a 15% wider track. I do feel more comfortable towing the boat.

When I made an offer to buy my Mac it was contingent upon a trial to ensure the Outback was capable of pulling it up a ramp and at highway speeds. I need not have worried.

Go for it and God Speed.

[Jeff S]

I think my '97 Japanese Outback was a superior vehicle - engineering wise - compared to a comparable? domestic vehicle.

Uh oh- a can of worms has been opened. My F-150 (93) with a 5.7L engine has 203,000 miles on it (same engine)- it starts right up and just drove from AZ to NC pulling a boat and with the bed full of stuff without any problems. Not saying the Subaru isn't a decent car...but if inferior engineering is getting me 200k+ miles trouble free I am a happy camper. (And it tows nicely too). Having said that I am seriously thinking of a new truck and may go diesel for the better gas mileage.

Jeff

[Chip Hindes]

Having said that I am seriously thinking of a new truck and may go diesel for the better gas mileage.

Talk about a can of worms. Before you opt for a diesel, make sure you take all factors into account. Depending on which diesel you buy, based on better mileage alone, it can take literally hundreds of thousands of miles driven to pay for the additional cost of the diesel option. Also, don't forget to factor in increased oil change frequency.

[Moe]

When the pro-gasoline crowd looks at diesel, they usually point out the MSRP of the engine and heavy-duty transmission option that has to be made up in fuel savings. They forget that savvy shoppers usually pay dealer invoice pricing for options, and that most of what's actually paid for buying the diesel will be returned at trade-in or selling used time. There's a high demand for used diesel trucks.

Frequency of oil change is much better on modern diesel engines. I change at the same 4,000 mile interval I did on gas engines, but admittedly, it's a 15 quart oil change on mine. I get the oil and filter at Wal-Mart for $35, and the local oil change place charges $15 to change it.

It isn't about saving money with diesel, which is usually cheaper, but can cost as much as unleaded regular at some places.

The 20 mpg on the highway, below 70 mph when not towing, and 14 mpg on city streets is affordable, at least for me. But where it really comes into play is giving as much as 50% greater range towing on the highway. This is especially useful in this day of crew cab, short bed trucks, which have a smaller fuel tank than the long beds.

The other thing that's nice on the Ford diesels is the large filler that can take the big high-speed nozzles at the truck islands, running wide open. And not just for filling quickly. We're 57' long with the Airstream, and there's more room to manuver there, as opposed to even the RV islands at FlyingJs, which can be close to the store front. We also don't have to worry about gasoline fumes, and shutting off the propane refrigerator (which isn't close to the big truck pump anyway).

Finally, towing with the diesel is much more relaxing. Our 1600 rpm torque peak occurs about 56 mph in OverDrive, and the 2600 rpm horsepower peak occurs at 65 mph with OverDrive off, for climbing hills. In both cases, the torque converter is locked and not generating heat. Contrast that with a gas engine, climbing the hill one gear below Drive with the torque converter unlocked, and the engine screaming in its high rpm powerband.

Both gas and diesel will do the job. I just like the way diesel does it better.

--
Moe

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

It's more than just the warranty you are putting at risk. Using a vehicle in a way that exceeds the manufacturers recommendations also opens up the possibility that your insurance company will leave you SOL when you need them most. Their lawyers will have a field day when you make that accident claim and you could lose a lot more than your car and boat.

[Moe]

BTW, I'm not saying you NEED a 3/4 ton diesel to tow a MacGregor. I posted that picture just for size comparison. Our truck also tows our Airstream, which is 9,800 lbs GVWR out of 12,000 lb "towing capacity" and the whole rig is under 80% of the 20,000 lb Gross Combined Weight Rating.



I would, however, recommend a half-ton based vehicle with V8 and towing package, for a Mac. Be careful when selecting an SUV rather than a truck. The body and all the luxury options eat up a lot of the capacity, and the softer suspension and mushy passenger car tires aren't nearly as stable as the truck setup.

--
Moe

[Frank C]

Nice-lookin' rig. I have a GMC Sierra half-ton 5.3L. I wanted to get a Duramax (diesel), but it's not available w/quadrasteer, which I like a lot. But with leather, upgraded wheels and QS, the truck was $45,000 and only gets 12mpg around town, 16 on the highway. I understand the OP's desire for everyday vehicles when towing is only occasional.

A friend's Duramax crewcab just traveled from West coast to ST.Louis and back - only delivered 15mpg overall - not too impressive.

[Moe]

Thanks, Frank. I made a mistake about the percentage... it's under 90% of the GCWR, not 80%. Under 18,000 lbs out of 20,000.

--
Moe

[Dimitri-2000X-Tampa]

Geez Moe, it must feel like you are towing a feather when you hitch up your Mac after that Airstream.

Let me just add my editorial 2 cents worth to this discussion. This board is obviously dominated by (well meaning) people who use big trucks to tow their Macs around. Probably trucks that are way overrated for the task. A lot of people (myself included) actually bought a Mac because it could be towed by a class2 tow vehicle. My class2 Honda Odyssey mini-van tows superbly with its long wheel base and 3.5L Vtech engine which you can't even tell if it is running cause its so smooth and quiet. In fact, I'll bet it tows as well or better than all but the largest SUV's. I do fear ragging it out prematurely and I don't do lots of heavy duty towing so far, but let me just say that this Honda is a hull of a lot tougher vehicle than the Dodge Caravan which it replaced....and...I get 25mpg on the highway when I'm not towing. Frankly, that Dodge was a piece of junk...even though it is supposedly the first U.S. minivan ever built (I guess global honors go to the old VW bus as the first ever minivan - and no, I would not want to tow anything with a 60's era VW bus let alone even getting up a hill with 6 people on board).

I'm not saying that you should ignore any manufacturers recommendations or anything like that, but many of us Americans really don't have a clue about how much global resources we are wasting. When you buy a big gas guzzling truck which gets terrible gas mileage 99% of the time when you are not towing, you are not exactly doing the environment or your grandchildren any favors. Now, I'm not saying that I'm any sort of environmental saint here...I've owned my share of gas guzzling cars and boats (and I'm window shopping large SUV's myself - 4 kids ya know), but its just some food for thought. Foreign dependence on oil could shatter the U.S. economy one day....and the U.S. doesn't quite have the pull that it once had now that the E.C., China, and India are becoming bigger buyers too. Not only that, but there is a lot of uncertainty (likely deception) about how much oil is really in reserves. Face it folks, the price of gas is not likely to ever come significantly back down again.


If you wanna see how it "looks" Even has power sliding doors.

[Chip Hindes]

this Honda is a hull of a lot tougher vehicle than the Dodge Caravan which it replaced....

Whoa; talk about setting up a straw man to knock down. Even so, I'm sure you've already offended someone

[Moe]

Dimitri, many (well-intentioned) people make the same mistake with RVs, as you did with the Mac. They buy a certain trailer, fifth wheel, or camper for its advertised base weight, and a tow vehicle that is barely rated to tow that much.

When they go to the scales, they're shocked to find that with all the options they added, and batteries, water, propane, and all their gear, the RV weighs a lot more than their vehicle is rated to carry, even with just a driver on board.

And it's often those who've bought a minivan or small SUV for a family, especially a big one, who find their vehicle weight, with everyone and their gear aboard, is so close to the ratings that there wouldn't be enough left for the RV even if it had come in at base weight.

Some of them bite the bullet and trade for a larger tow vehicle, with some of those regretting they didn't get the bigger RV they really wanted, but didn't get because of the too-small tow vehicle. Others develop a defensive attitude, trying to justify their overloaded rig.

Roger might have made the case that the 26X was (right at) 3500 pounds Class II, with the trailer, a 160 lb carbed 2-stroke outboard, and its rigging, single battery, two so-called 9 gallon fuel tanks (7.5 gal), 10 gallons of water, and with options of surge brakes, spare tire and mount, porta-potti (w/3 gallons), alcohol stove, and roller furling, and still have 50 lbs left for anchor and safety gear. AS LONG AS ALL THE STORAGE COMPARTMENTS AND COOLER ARE EMPTY. He did, however, cover his ass a bit with tires rated for a whopping 3680 lbs, giving you 180 lbs for upgrades, ice, food, drinks, and gear.

Have you weighed your 26X with that heavy four-stroke, loaded as you tow it? Is it anywhere NEAR the tire rating, much less the 3500 lbs of a Cat II hitch or an Odessey wth just a driver? How much do you carry in the Odessey while towing, over and above a 150 lb driver?

It's good to hear you're considering fixing the problem with a larger tow vehicle. Consider the factors I've mentioned, and look at GVWR, GCWR, and GAWR specs when shopping. The way many of us well-intentioned owners of adequate or more tow vehicles see it, one might not have grandchidren to worry about global fuel problems, if a marginal or overloaded rig takes away their children.

To end this, I wonder how many of us here, especially those of us with four-strokes, should be fixing the trailer tire problem with a second axle or larger tires?

--
Moe

[Dimitri-2000X-Tampa]

Whoa; talk about setting up a straw man to knock down. Even so, I'm sure you've already offended someone

Chip, notice that I said "that" Dodge van...not necessarily meaning that they are all bad. But mine was most certainly a lemon. That thing was in the shop every other month for the first year I owned it (brand new) compared to the Honda that has never had a single problem in 3 years.

One problem on the Dodge (exhaust manifold donut) had to be replaced every 6-12 months until I sold the POS.