"Not Recommended For Slide- In Camper" disclaimer...

[DPelletier]

Dave, what I was "getting at", was that many of the larger overhead campers, fully loaded for a trip, plus passengers (unless you typically camp alone... ) will often exceed the stated load rating of the 3500's - and while the truck might NOT know the difference between a camper, and a load of BS, an OVERHEAD camper WILL tend to focus additional load to the FRONT of the truck due to the overhang - just food for thought.



Just visualize the applied inertia applied by a larger overhead camper in heavy braking, as the carried weight - much up at a relatively high center of gravity (unlike the load of BS!) tends to transfer weight forward and DOWN upon the frame and suspension...



And As to the "self-contained" bit, I wanted to level the playing field, and stress that the area of concern IS on the heavier units, and sorta deflect the guys with simple canopies and actual lightweight slide-ins - some of which are pretty minimal in terms of self-containment and added weight...



Personally, I suspect there IS a valid concern and reason for prudent caution, as expressed by DC in their disclaimer, at least where heavier slide-ins are concerned.

Gary, thanks for the clarification. Now that I know what your (mis)conception(s) are, I can deal with them one at a time;



- The center of gravity on most campers is slightly forward from the rear axle and within 3' of the camper floor. Although this may seem incorrect when you look at the camper, you need to keep in mind that the stove, hot water tank, furnace, batteries, fresh/grey/black tanks are all located at or near the floor. Propane tanks, sinks, etc are also within the 3' area. The "structure" of the camper is lighter than the appliances, holding tanks and what have you.



- To be clear, Dodge would never RECOMMEND carrying anything that would be over your payload capacity (GVWR). I do believe that a very large percentage of slide in campers carried in pick-up trucks are over GVWR, but that's a different issue and for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming that we are referring to slide-ins that don't put a truck over its GVWR.



- I guess we will "agree to disagree" on whether or not there is a valid concern behind the "not recommended" paper. As I have said in this thread and others, I think its a simple risk management tool and has many potential reasons behind it other than the elusive "frame issue".



FWIW, I'm smiling as I'm writing this Gary, I AM enjoying the discussion and always enjoy your perspective on things (whether I happen to agree with you or not), so please take this post in the spirit it was intended.



Sorry, gotta go and check my frame again! :-laf



Dave

 

[fkovalski]

I think it's got everything to do with the fact it's a SRW and not a DRW. The wider footprint of the DRW decreases the chance of a rollover with all that weight up high throwing the CG off.

Post #19 per owner states: "My new 05 dually came with the same warning sheet. ... "



************

I am thinking it may have more to do with the Long Bed Q-cab?



Maybe a poll is in order

 

[JRG]

If you look at the quote:



"GVWR = 12,000 lbs. Front GAWR - 5,200 lbs. Rear GAWR = 9,350 lbs.

Truck-Camper certificated weight rating of 3,204 lbs. "



one may see a problem. My camper weighs about 4500#. That would mean that there is not a 1500, 2500, or 3500 avaible to carry it. I would have to dig out the actual weight on each axle to see if it is even within the GAWR of a DRW.



JRG

 

[DPelletier]

If you look at the quote:



"GVWR = 12,000 lbs. Front GAWR - 5,200 lbs. Rear GAWR = 9,350 lbs.

Truck-Camper certificated weight rating of 3,204 lbs. "



one may see a problem. My camper weighs about 4500#. That would mean that there is not a 1500, 2500, or 3500 avaible to carry it. I would have to dig out the actual weight on each axle to see if it is even within the GAWR of a DRW.



JRG

Your camper would put my DRW over GVWR by 838 lbs (assuming your 4500lbs is loaded weight). My camper weighs 2713 loaded dry and 3213 lbs wet. With a truck weight (incl. me, a full tank of diesel, bed mats, tie-downs, running boards, etc. etc. ) of 8,338 lbs, my 12,000 lbs GVWR only gives me a real payload of 3,662 lbs. If I want to take the wife, kids and dog, I have to deduct thier weights from the available payload.

Bottom line: most trucks you see carrying campers are over GVWR and I think that is the most likely reason for the disclaimer.



Cheers,

Dave

 

[JRG]

My point exactly.



JRG

 

[Dieselnerd]

We can keep guessing what Dodge meant but unless they actually come out and give the real reason we'll never know for sure. My dealer didn't know, "Ask Dodge" wasn't concerned and I see campers on third gens all the time. I was a lot more overloaded on my second gen 2500. It weighed 9600 pounds with the same camper I now use on my third gen 3500. BTW it has all the goodies, bathroom with shower, air conditioning, microwave and real wood paneling and cabinets. It has an actual (weighed) weight of 2248 pounds. It's a Northern Lite and it lives up to it's name.

 

[fkovalski]

If I want to take the wife, kids and dog, I have to deduct thier weights from the available payload.

AHhh. . just leave 'em at home... well... maybe take the dog (Just kiddin')

... most trucks you see carrying campers are over GVWR and I think that is the most likely reason for the disclaimer.

I would like to believe this is the case. I just wish that Dodge would clarify it to phrase it some thing like this:

"Camper loading shall be per diagrams shown. It is up to the owner to insure proper GVW and GVAW for proper and safe operation of this vehicle within it's limits. "



The disclaimer that I alluded to in the original thread post just seemed very odd- especially for a 1 ton.

 

[fkovalski]

Latest poop...

I just got a call from the service person at the dealer. He stated (after getting feedback from higher up on the flag pole) that it is a 'center of gravity' issue not a weight issue so long as it is kept within allowable ratings. The disclaimer is for 'all 3500 Q-cab, long bed trucks. ' I pressed him further to ask if this included dually's of the same description to which he replied: 'all 3500 Q-cab, long bed trucks. '



I further inquired to ask if this included 3/4 ton trucks. He said that those are not in the list as quoted above so then Chrysler did not have an issue with putting a camper on those models. He further more went on to say that because of the extra springs on the 3500 it raises the overall height to where DC has a concern of a higher center of gravity. It is a liability issue for DC. One can put a camper on at thier own risk, but it is not *recommended. *



I vented some frustration on him saying that while I understand that weight is not an issue it seems illogical that this "warning/ recommendation" happens to a higher rated truck when compared to a 2500! He agreed.



I further went on to say how underhandily DC was at sneaking this in and not posting it on the sticker as the "snow plow" disclaimer is there.



Nothing towards frame cracking was discussed or brought up.



SOooo... . I hear they make after market rear sway bars for these models... I'll have to do a search on this. Please feel free to provide links to any known discusions on this topic!

 

[klenger]

I'm guessing that the reason the disclaimer does not apply to 2500's is because the GVWR is so much lower that you cannot load a slide-in camper on it w/o exceeding the GVWR anyway. As to the extra springs on the 3500 raising the truck, this is not true. The 3500's have overloads that do not affect height until the truck is loaded to the point where the overloads make contact with the spring pack.



It's good to see that Dodge is at least responding to the questions. Maybe they will actually publish something on this someday. Yea, right.

 

[KCJackson]

The CoG issue makes some sense... it would also explain why there's no MegaCab long bed. All that extra cab weight is probably skewing the potential CoG there, too.

 

[RustyJC]

... it would also explain why there's no MegaCab long bed. All that extra cab weight is probably skewing the potential CoG there, too.

The more likely explanation is that a MegaCab long bed would require a new frame. The MegaCab short bed uses the same frame as the QuadCab long bed. Since a new frame is required for a MC LB, some of us 5th wheel pullers are hoping that Dodge will step to the plate and uprate the thing so that a future MegaCab long bed dually would have competitive (or better) GCWR and GVWR with the Ford TowBoss to handle today's heavy 5th wheels. I don't know how Dodge would look at the long span between the axles in terms of a slide-in camper application, though.



Rusty

 

[fkovalski]

... some of us 5th wheel pullers are hoping that Dodge will step to the plate and uprate the thing so that a future MegaCab long bed dually ...

When I saw the MegaCag at the auto show a couple of months back in NYC, the Dodge 'expert' at the display said that Dodge will not produce a Mega in this configuration. According to thier 'research' there is not the consumer demand for such a product. But... that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[RustyJC]

When I saw the MegaCag at the auto show a couple of months back in NYC, the Dodge 'expert' at the display said that Dodge will not produce a Mega in this configuration. According to thier 'research' there is not the consumer demand for such a product. But... that's a whole 'nother story.

Then they'll lose a lot of sales to the Ford and GM crew cab long beds, but, as you say, that's another topic. [/thread hijack]



Rusty

 

[KCJackson]

The more likely explanation is that a MegaCab long bed would require a new frame. The MegaCab short bed uses the same frame as the QuadCab long bed. Since a new frame is required for a MC LB, some of us 5th wheel pullers are hoping that Dodge will step to the plate and uprate the thing so that a future MegaCab long bed dually would have competitive (or better) GCWR and GVWR with the Ford TowBoss to handle today's heavy 5th wheels. I don't know how Dodge would look at the long span between the axles in terms of a slide-in camper application, though.

I know they'd need a new 180. 5" wheelbase chassis regardless. My point was, if they're having trouble with the center of gravity on the 160. 5 with a long bed, they're probably having a world of trouble coming up with a 180. 5 that has a stable center of gravity.

 

[fkovalski]

... they're probably having a world of trouble coming up with a 180. 5 that has a stable center of gravity.

... Just make it 18" wider than an H2 :-laf

 

[Ol'TrailDog]

Thanks fkovalski for bringing some clarification. Now we will only have to beat this dog a few more times before resolved. Now the harbingers of "cracked frames" can move on to finding something else to panic over. :-laf

 

[231jasonS]

2500's too

I just got a call from the service person at the dealer. He stated (after getting feedback from higher up on the flag pole) that it is a 'center of gravity' issue not a weight issue so long as it is kept within allowable ratings. The disclaimer is for 'all 3500 Q-cab, long bed trucks. ' I pressed him further to ask if this included dually's of the same description to which he replied: 'all 3500 Q-cab, long bed trucks. '



I further inquired to ask if this included 3/4 ton trucks. He said that those are not in the list as quoted above so then Chrysler did not have an issue with putting a camper on those models. He further more went on to say that because of the extra springs on the 3500 it raises the overall height to where DC has a concern of a higher center of gravity. It is a liability issue for DC. One can put a camper on at thier own risk, but it is not *recommended. *



I!

I got the same notice in my 2500 QC short box 4x4... ... . there goes that explanation.

 

[steved]

Gary, thanks for the clarification. Now that I know what your (mis)conception(s) are, I can deal with them one at a time;



- The center of gravity on most campers is slightly forward from the rear axle and within 3' of the camper floor. Although this may seem incorrect when you look at the camper, you need to keep in mind that the stove, hot water tank, furnace, batteries, fresh/grey/black tanks are all located at or near the floor. Propane tanks, sinks, etc are also within the 3' area. The "structure" of the camper is lighter than the appliances, holding tanks and what have you.



- To be clear, Dodge would never RECOMMEND carrying anything that would be over your payload capacity (GVWR). I do believe that a very large percentage of slide in campers carried in pick-up trucks are over GVWR, but that's a different issue and for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming that we are referring to slide-ins that don't put a truck over its GVWR.



- I guess we will "agree to disagree" on whether or not there is a valid concern behind the "not recommended" paper. As I have said in this thread and others, I think its a simple risk management tool and has many potential reasons behind it other than the elusive "frame issue".



Dave

Sorry to bring up such an old thread



One thing EVERYONE seemed to overlook is how the "weight" rating of a pickup is done... IIRC, to get the ratings, they have the weight within 13" of the front of the bed... the weight of the load is right behind the cab!! Not spread out over the entire floor of the truck... albeit a slide in does place weight towards the front of the truck because of the overhang... it still adds some weight clear at the back too.



I agree with the later statements about the COG issue... I think it is simply a "safety" thing to prevent someone from flopping their rig over onto it's side... but I have one and just this weekend drove by a corvette that was upside down... hmmmm... maybe we shouldn't worry about the truck as much as we should worry about the driver???



I think you hit it one the head... most of the newer campers are just too heavy for even 3500s (going by paper), but they carry them just fine...





steved

 

[fkovalski]

Sorry to bring up such an old thread ...

Glad you brought it to the top.



I am getting closer to actually getting a slide- in. Thanks to the many on the RV forum I have some further clarification (as was mentioned in this thread) that the tie- down hardware may be why the disclaimer from DC.



Because of the several camper mounting options, a 'HappiJack" or similar setup could cause bed cracking problems. I could see where DC would not want to warranty thier bed if a camper was used and the mounting fasteners added to the problem. Hence- a 'global' camper disclaimer.



I am getting closer to purchasing a "pop- up" slide in camper, not because of the concerns brought up here. But, rather it fits my camping and off roading lifestyle better than the BIG Lance type units. I am going with the TorkLift framemount fasteners even for a smaller pop- up.

 

[steved]

Glad you brought it to the top.



I am getting closer to actually getting a slide- in. Thanks to the many on the RV forum I have some further clarification (as was mentioned in this thread) that the tie- down hardware may be why the disclaimer from DC.



Because of the several camper mounting options, a 'HappiJack" or similar setup could cause bed cracking problems. I could see where DC would not want to warranty thier bed if a camper was used and the mounting fasteners added to the problem. Hence- a 'global' camper disclaimer.



I am getting closer to purchasing a "pop- up" slide in camper, not because of the concerns brought up here. But, rather it fits my camping and off roading lifestyle better than the BIG Lance type units. I am going with the TorkLift framemount fasteners even for a smaller pop- up.

I agree with the mounting... my slide in is an 8footer... I figure around 1500#s at most... I'm currently using the "pocket"-style tiedowns (it is a light camper), but I have seen that i need to improve on certain things... reinforcing bases inside the bed and move the tiedown points on the camper itself (so I can actually pull down on it more).



I have several thousand miles on mine without issues... I think it moves around a bit much since it's on a dropin bedliner now (need more tiedown force or pull the liner out).



Other than I can hardly see around it, I hardly know it is there...



steved