3500 SRW Towing 18K Concerns

[RustyJC]

Please show a law that states it's illegal, or stop preaching it. It either exists or it doesn't, let's try to stick to facts and not opinions when talking about active laws and illegal activity.

See post #31. That's one way the scenario would play out. There's a whole other world out there beyond the DOT, whether you want to recognize it or not. Is it "illegal" to cut down a tree in your own yard? No - until it falls onto your neighbor's car parked in his driveway. Welcome to the world of tort (civil) law!

Rusty

 

[Bohemian]

Laws almost never fill out the details. They leave it up to the regulations. The regulations do not fill out every detail. That is left up to the agencies interpretation of the regulations. Then they are argued in court and expanded/clarified by decisions. Generally they follow industry standards. If not, then they would have to set a new standard which they are reluctant to do. If they did it would be part of the standard, regulation, or agency interpretation, or left as court precedent.

Actual "laws" can actually mean the complete opposite of what they literally say by decision of the court. Most often the legislature will not write a new law to clear this up as it is settled is court and now already part of the law.

 

[NC Hauler]

What are the guesses??

Why is 12K on a SRW more wear on the axle, frame, and suspension than a DRW? They are the same components.

How does that effect durability?

What is unsafe about operating withing design specs?

This is the common misunderstanding, the basic 2500 and 3500 DRW have more parts in common than most people realize and especially the 3500 SRW vs DRW in 13+ since the 2500 has a different suspension. There are actually very few differences.

The engineers have stated their ratings, those ratings are then decreased for a SRW door sticker. SRW's do not have door stickers based on engineer ratings, for years SRW's stopped at 9,900 for DOT reasons not for engineering reasons.

Different Rear axle between the 3500 SRW and the 3500 DRW trucks, leaf spring packs are more robust, (more leaf's on the DRW than the SRW truck) . Rear axle on the 3500 Dually is rated to carry more weight than on the 3500 SRW truck, it's there for the research, AAM manufacturer...Both trucks that come with same weight rated 17", E rated tires, and the 3500 dually is rated at 9750#, the 3500SRW rated at 7500#, and the 2500 even less than both of those..The basic ?? 2500 and 3500 dually have same frame set up, front and rear axles are different between the 2....The so called 9900# is now higher than that. My truck has a GVWR of 14,000#, GCWR is 37,500#...I need no special license, I'm towing my 5er for my own personal use...some laws vary state to state. In NC, you have to pay for "total amount of truck and what you tow"...ie, GCW...if pulled over to be weighed, all one would have to show is registration covering GCW, if your over...ouch...if your under you're "good to go"..that's it... Most don't use GVWR anymore, they do use RAWR...and it is based on tire weight carrying designation, but when you have E rated tires on a 2500, a 3500SRW and a 3500 DRW, all with close to, if not exactly the same weight carrying capacity, and the 2500 is less than the 3500 SRW and the 3500 SRW is less than the dually ( duh, 4 wheel's), then they are not "alike"...no matter how badly one wants to believe it.

All ratings on all these trucks are under rated to an extent...Most manufacturers don't want to have to fend off lawsuit after lawsuit for those that may have an accident due to overloading their truck...but, at what point of going over the recommended weight ratings do you become unsafe or start wearing components out on one's truck earlier than normal? I'm an Engineer and I don't know...Nor will I push the limits...If a 2500 is the same as a 3500 dually, then I could have saved a pile of money for a TV, but I purchased the right truck for the job...if a 2500 and a 3500 Dually have all that much in common, then why have a 2500, 3500 SRW and a 3500 DRW truck, all with different gear offerings, transmission offerings, GVWR's, GCWR's, FAWR and RAWR's'? No, it's there for the research...The 2500 and 3500 DRW do not have more parts in common then one would think, but that's what makes America great, some have one opinion, some have another. I'll tend to err to the side of safety, do the math, use some common sense and try to match the right TV up to what I'm going to be towing and enjoy the peace of mind. I figure the design and production Engineers know more about their product and it's expectations and limitations than I do..

 

[Cummins12V98]

Different Rear axle between the 3500 SRW and the 3500 DRW trucks, leaf spring packs are more robust, (more leaf's on the DRW than the SRW truck) . Rear axle on the 3500 Dually is rated to carry more weight than on the 3500 SRW truck, it's there for the research, AAM manufacturer...Both trucks that come with same weight rated 17", E rated tires, and the 3500 dually is rated at 9750#, the 3500SRW rated at 7500#, and the 2500 even less than both of those..The basic ?? 2500 and 3500 dually have same frame set up, front and rear axles are different between the 2....The so called 9900# is now higher than that. My truck has a GVWR of 14,000#, GCWR is 37,500#...I need no special license, I'm towing my 5er for my own personal use...some laws vary state to state. In NC, you have to pay for "total amount of truck and what you tow"...ie, GCW...if pulled over to be weighed, all one would have to show is registration covering GCW, if your over...ouch...if your under you're "good to go"..that's it... Most don't use GVWR anymore, they do use RAWR...and it is based on tire weight carrying designation, but when you have E rated tires on a 2500, a 3500SRW and a 3500 DRW, all with close to, if not exactly the same weight carrying capacity, and the 2500 is less than the 3500 SRW and the 3500 SRW is less than the dually ( duh, 4 wheel's), then they are not "alike"...no matter how badly one wants to believe it.

All ratings on all these trucks are under rated to an extent...Most manufacturers don't want to have to fend off lawsuit after lawsuit for those that may have an accident due to overloading their truck...but, at what point of going over the recommended weight ratings do you become unsafe or start wearing components out on one's truck earlier than normal? I'm an Engineer and I don't know...Nor will I push the limits...If a 2500 is the same as a 3500 dually, then I could have saved a pile of money for a TV, but I purchased the right truck for the job...if a 2500 and a 3500 Dually have all that much in common, then why have a 2500, 3500 SRW and a 3500 DRW truck, all with different gear offerings, transmission offerings, GVWR's, GCWR's, FAWR and RAWR's'? No, it's there for the research...The 2500 and 3500 DRW do not have more parts in common then one would think, but that's what makes America great, some have one opinion, some have another. I'll tend to err to the side of safety, do the math, use some common sense and try to match the right TV up to what I'm going to be towing and enjoy the peace of mind. I figure the design and production Engineers know more about their product and it's expectations and limitations than I do..

Sounds like me shoulda gots me one of dem 2500's and just put me sum uv dem training wheels on it and saved me sum money!

 

[NC Hauler]

:-laf 'at wuz a gud un thar Ron...

 

[AH64ID]

Different Rear axle between the 3500 SRW and the 3500 DRW trucks, leaf spring packs are more robust, (more leaf's on the DRW than the SRW truck) . Rear axle on the 3500 Dually is rated to carry more weight than on the 3500 SRW truck, it's there for the research, AAM manufacturer...Both trucks that come with same weight rated 17", E rated tires, and the 3500 dually is rated at 9750#, the 3500SRW rated at 7500#, and the 2500 even less than both of those..The basic ?? 2500 and 3500 dually have same frame set up, front and rear axles are different between the 2....The so called 9900# is now higher than that. My truck has a GVWR of 14,000#, GCWR is 37,500#...I need no special license, I'm towing my 5er for my own personal use...some laws vary state to state. In NC, you have to pay for "total amount of truck and what you tow"...ie, GCW...if pulled over to be weighed, all one would have to show is registration covering GCW, if your over...ouch...if your under you're "good to go"..that's it... Most don't use GVWR anymore, they do use RAWR...and it is based on tire weight carrying designation, but when you have E rated tires on a 2500, a 3500SRW and a 3500 DRW, all with close to, if not exactly the same weight carrying capacity, and the 2500 is less than the 3500 SRW and the 3500 SRW is less than the dually ( duh, 4 wheel's), then they are not "alike"...no matter how badly one wants to believe it.

All ratings on all these trucks are under rated to an extent...Most manufacturers don't want to have to fend off lawsuit after lawsuit for those that may have an accident due to overloading their truck...but, at what point of going over the recommended weight ratings do you become unsafe or start wearing components out on one's truck earlier than normal? I'm an Engineer and I don't know...Nor will I push the limits...If a 2500 is the same as a 3500 dually, then I could have saved a pile of money for a TV, but I purchased the right truck for the job...if a 2500 and a 3500 Dually have all that much in common, then why have a 2500, 3500 SRW and a 3500 DRW truck, all with different gear offerings, transmission offerings, GVWR's, GCWR's, FAWR and RAWR's'? No, it's there for the research...The 2500 and 3500 DRW do not have more parts in common then one would think, but that's what makes America great, some have one opinion, some have another. I'll tend to err to the side of safety, do the math, use some common sense and try to match the right TV up to what I'm going to be towing and enjoy the peace of mind. I figure the design and production Engineers know more about their product and it's expectations and limitations than I do..

As this is a generic towing thread some years need to be input into your post, as researching the info is useless without the proper year. The 9750 AAM 11.8" axle didn't exist until 2013, so some clarification is needed to keep things accurate. To simply say the DRW axle is rated to carry more isn't always true.

In 2003-2009 the 3500 SRW had more leaves than the 3500 DRW, and both used the same axle. Aside from some early 03 trucks all diesels use the same alxe, SRW or DRW and that axle is rated for more than any Dodge RAWR in any wheel configuration. The 3/1 leaf pack that the DRW uses (03+) is rated for a minimal 7% more weight than the 4/1 leaf pack the 2500 (03-13) and 3500 SRW (03-09) used. The overloads on 03-09 3500 SRW's and all 03+ DRW's is the same. The suspension differences between 2500 and 3500 DRW, 03-13, are not the reason for the 50% increase in carrying capacity.

The 3500 SRW in 2013+ is only rated for 7,000lbs, not 7,500lbs.

The 2500 and 3500 run the same front axle from 2003 thru current, with the exception of the 2013 2500 as it used the 2012 front axle and the 2013 3500 used the new axle/suspension. The 3500 DRW axle uses bolt on spacers for the width, remove the spacers and it's a SRW front axle.

The 3500 DRW wheels actually have a stamped wheel rating, and are the weakest wheel used in the entire HD lineup. Not that it matters, but it is interesting.

The latest 4th gens contain the biggest difference in 2500 and 3500 in history, which I think is great. The 3500 should be a more robust setup, but 2013 is the first time that it really has been (aside from tires) in Dodge HD history.

There is a reason that SRW 1 ton's haven't always been part of the lineup for Dodge or GM, they are a 2500 with different badging and little (I mean little) suspension massaging. It's a marketing thing (and this has been talked about by GM, people think 3500 SRW's are better than 2500's.. hence a LOT of these threads), the same marketing thing that keeps the 2500 rated lower. The upper overloads on my 05 3500 SRW are useless with OEM tires, they don't even contact in a static position until above 6,500lbs on the rear axle and only 6,390lbs of OEM tires.

In the end this has turned into the SRW vs DRW contest with all the usual people with all the same blinders on (SRW and DRW alike). DRW is needed for certain loads, and in stock form does MUCH better in many applications than SRW, but not all. There are just some places a DRW can't, or shouldn't, go. A SRW can safely and legally, with some common sense, be modified for loads much greater than it's OEM form. If a DRW is underrated, then those components on a SRW are very underrated.... IMHO don't exceed the highest rating the components received from the factory in any application.

Remember it wasn't all that long ago that a SRW was rated to tow more than a DRW of the same configuration... is that always the best way?? Heck no, but to those people that preach specs and DRW it gives one something to think about. A 2014 SRW is rated to tow more than a 2010 DRW, with lower RAWR and GVWR on the door sticker.

 

[Bohemian]

It seems like some have lost the purpose of this thread. How do we know we are towing safely and legally. The answer is very simple. Stay within the specs. That is why there are specs. Anything else is pure speculation and increase in wear, decrease in reliability, decrease in durability, decrease in safely, increase in legal expose.

You can argue all you want, but no one here wants to test dubious legal arguments by hiring an attorney to defend their irresponsibility.

 

[NC Hauler]

It seems like some have lost the purpose of this thread. How do we know we are towing safely and legally. The answer is very simple. Stay within the specs. That is why there are specs. Anything else is pure speculation and increase in wear, decrease in reliability, decrease in durability, decrease in safely, increase in legal expose.

You can argue all you want, but no one here wants to test dubious legal arguments by hiring an attorney to defend their irresponsibility.

agree...I myself tend to figure the designers and manufacturing Engineers know the capabilities and limits of the trucks they design and manufacture better than we do...I will try to adhere to their recommendations to err to the side of safety and for as much as we pay for these trucks I really don't want to see how far I can go to push their limits or prematurely wear out other components on the truck...thus the reason I state, some common sense and simple math can make one's towing experience so much more relaxing, knowing you're not pushing the limits of the truck and haven't pushed safety measures built into the truck passed what they can handle in an emergency circumstance.

 

[Kirwin]

My 97 2500 5 speed was rated at 16,000 GCWR. It weighed 7600 itself. Now that's underrated. Part of the issue is manufactures have continued to increase the tow ratings of these LIGHT DUTY trucks into the stratosphere! My 89 had 400 lb-ft of torque. Nearly unheard of in a light duty truck in 1989. Not we are at 865 lb-ft of torque. We can pull 30,000 lbs with a light duty truck, with light duty brakes, and light duty licensing. So you have to expect that the layers are going to notice this when there is a crash with a heavily loaded light truck! My $0.02. Ken Irwin

 

[RVTRKN]

It's getting too serious, so I thought I'd lighten it up a little. :-laf:-laf:-laf:-laf

 

[NIsaacs]

It seems like some have lost the purpose of this thread. How do we know we are towing safely and legally. The answer is very simple. Stay within the specs. That is why there are specs.

I think it is more about public perception/profiling than specs.

If I were at the top of Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado, stopped, doing an inspection of my truck and load ('01 2500 Ram towing a 25' gooseneck with a load of drill stem) Say...25k GCW...Ram says I can tow 20k, so I am 5k over. Drill stem is heavy so my load is about a foot high.

Parked right behind me is a 2014 3500 dually, towing a 30' 3 axle dually gooseneck loaded with hay, to Ram specs...37,500. The load is 8.6 wide, 14' tall and 30' long....the driver is an 18 year old.

You are broke down and need a ride to the next town, who ya gonna ride with?:-laf

Nick

 

[RVTRKN]

The Hotshoters do this day in and day out, but you have to realize they are insured for a lot more than your standard Toyota Corolla. I don't remember what I was insured for but I sure remember the $2500 annual premium cost.

 

[RVTRKN]

Not really true. The axle used on a 2500 CTD and 3500 DRW is the same and has the same rating and the same brakes. There are 3 different Dodge RAWR's on door stickers. So tires are not fitted to an axle rating in the case of SRW HD pickups. The same axle/tires has 2 different ratings based on 2500 or 3500 SRW, neither of which are the tire limit or axle limit, or suspension limit. The SRW limit is close to tires, but not at tire limit like it is on some older pickups.

So it's very grey on SRW HD pickups.




It's only fixed by the laws you have not been able to provide. DOT legal yes, but where is it illegal.


Please show a law that states it's illegal, or stop preaching it. It either exists or it doesn't, let's try to stick to facts and not opinions when talking about active laws and illegal activity.

I was referring to trailer axles, they are designed first, then tire ratings are researched.

 

[Bohemian]

It's amazing how some people know more than the engineers. How they can identify "THE" single point that needs to be upgraded is such a complex system that has been unit tested and system tested to come up with these ratings.

 

[RVTRKN]

Manufactures must indemnify their product, and is the reason they have been tested for far greater ability than published.

 

[SnoKing]

You know hot shot drivers laugh at RVers and their weight police! Don't exceed your tire ratings, is all I have to say!

Washington State licensed my 8800 GVWR 2001.5 at 12K!!!!

SNOKING

 

[SnoKing]

It's getting too serious, so I thought I'd lighten it up a little. :-laf:-laf:-laf:-laf

Smart car has a MaxBrake controller!!! SNOKING

 

[AH64ID]

I was referring to trailer axles, they are designed first, then tire ratings are researched.

Gotcha... but I'll still play

I replaced the wheel bearings in my 5200# axle this summer. In ordering bearings I learned that the same bearings were used on 5200-7000# axles, the only difference being the hub for 6 or 8 lugs and the spring pack. Even the brakes are the same from 5200 thru 7000. This was on Al-Ko, and I did a quick search on Dexter and found the same.

I understand your point, but realize that using common parts that meet the highest rating (and it's test standards) for several weight ratings simply saves money.

Listen to some people in this thread and my 5200# axles with the 7000# springs and 8 lug wheels/tires with 3500#/ea and I'd be unsafe above 5200#....

It's amazing how some people know more than the engineers. How they can identify "THE" single point that needs to be upgraded is such a complex system that has been unit tested and system tested to come up with these ratings.

How is it knowing more than the engineers when the engineers are the ones that set the limit??

Open your eyes, the world is not black and white.

You know hot shot drivers laugh at RVers and their weight police! Don't exceed your tire ratings, is all I have to say!

Washington State licensed my 8800 GVWR 2001.5 at 12K!!!!

SNOKING

And don't be stupid

I'm licensed to 26K here in Idaho.. with that all mightily can't ignore (and legally binding according to some) OEM GCW of 21K. Idaho doesn't register your vehicle based on GVW, just GCW.

 

[SnoKing]

Gotcha... but I'll still play

I replaced the wheel bearings in my 5200# axle this summer. In ordering bearings I learned that the same bearings were used on 5200-7000# axles, the only difference being the hub for 6 or 8 lugs and the spring pack. Even the brakes are the same from 5200 thru 7000. This was on Al-Ko, and I did a quick search on Dexter and found the same.

I understand your point, but realize that using common parts that meet the highest rating (and it's test standards) for several weight ratings simply saves money.

Listen to some people in this thread and my 5200# axles with the 7000# springs and 8 lug wheels/tires with 3500#/ea and I'd be unsafe above 5200#....



How is it knowing more than the engineers when the engineers are the ones that set the limit??

Open your eyes, the world is not black and white.



And don't be stupid

I'm licensed to 26K here in Idaho.. with that all mightily can't ignore (and legally binding according to some) OEM GCW of 21K. Idaho doesn't register your vehicle based on GVW, just GCW.

I think a little research will show that the tube wall thickness changes with 7K axles verses 5200/6K axles. Also check the magnets on the higher rated axles and you may find that they are rated as stronger. And all hot shot drivers are stupid?????? We could get into federal bridge weight laws, but no pickup truck comes close to those laws that are enforced at the chicken coops, and I quit driving the 80K GCWR gasoline tanker back in 1979, so I am rusty.

SNOKING

 

[AH64ID]

I think a little research will show that the tube wall thickness changes with 7K axles verses 5200/6K axles. Also check the magnets on the higher rated axles and you may find that they are rated as stronger.

SNOKING

The research I did showed that the axle tubes were the same from 5200-7000. The magnets are also the same part numbers, literally the only difference that effected rating was springs. The hub difference just allows for the properly rated wheel and tire combo.

http://www.al-ko.us/download/5200-7000IbLeaf.pdf

And all hot shot drivers are stupid??????

SNOKING

Not what I meant, or said... quite the opposite. My little experience with them is they know what they are doing to be safe and make the most money, but as with anything I am sure a few can give most a bad name... but not my intent.

My point was you can't put a set of 19.5's on a DRW 3500 and load the rear axle up to 18K lbs and think everything is going to be okay, even if your within tire limits. Legally, well yes you are fine but that goes a little above a common sense load.