Towing comfortably isn't just about having a vehicle heavy enough, or having enough bhp on paper.

All the bhp in the world is of no use at all if the engine has no low engine speed grunt, or maybe better put as stall speed torque, and many small Diesels now are almost devoid of low revved torque, below about 1800 rpm.

Couple lack of low engine speed grunt with high first and reverse gears and you've got a major problem, some cars can barely get themselves moving without lots of throttle and at least partial clutch slipping on an incline let alone trying the same with a caravan on the back.

Size matters, engine wise, hence our OP having no trouble towing with a decent 2 litre but finding a 1.5 Diesel all but useless, Bromp's Berlingo seems to be coping but thats basically a proper van and a good one at that and has low enough first and reverse gears to get the combination moving easily, plus i found all vans like this to be mapped better than cars with the same engine for low rev torque.

The above mention of Honda CRV would be as good a recommendation as any, but you'll surprised how well they hold their value (with good reason) for a reasonable mileage well maintained example, the 2.2 Diesel is a strong puller with decent low speed grunt and its a nice drive to boot.

Other alternatives, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Santa Fe.

I've not suggested Mitsi Outlander/Pug 4007/Citroen C Crosser (basically the same car), as despite having a very powerful 2.2 Diesel i found first gear a shade too high, but if one was available for test driving locally it might be worth having a go in one and trying a few hill starts to see how you get on with one, nice car otherwise....earlier Outlander had 2.0 litre and i found that worse still at stall revs.

Ideal world would be, as Marlow above, a Landcruiser or similar with a 3.0 litre 4 cyl engine but these are expensive motors and heavy on fuel at all times, as you would expect from something over 2 tons shaped like a brick with a heavy transmission to drag round continually.

Edited by gordonbennet on 03/11/2014 at 09:34

80 pound feet per ton

How can you have a weight x distance / weight unit of measure - that's just a distance - it's doesn't stand up to proper mathematics or physics

Of course it does. It's amount of torque per ton you are trying to shift.

What isn't explicit in xtrailman's post is that the relevant weight is the train weight, i.e. not just the towed weight.

The pound in 'pound feet' is actually pounds force, not a weight., with dimensions of mass,length and time squared. The 'ton' is a mass, with a dimension of mass only.

So the formula does not just give a distance. (My old physics teachers used to go mad if we weren't clear about the difference between pounds force and pounds mass.)