Why is ford's GVWR so much higher?

[jimnance]

BHolm,

I'm not trying to argue with you, but I would only say that one should keep in mind that enforcement will vary from place to place and may also change periodically. I also have a fleet of commercial licenced pick-up trucks and we have been ticketed for being over GCWR. Now, this may not matter to you operating a business far from here, but it might matter to an RV'er planing a future Alaskan trip. That having been said, the RCMP have the official position that they don't target overweight RV'ers unless there is an obviously unsafe condition. Of course, the definition of "obviously unsafe" is left to the individual officer, but I haven't heard of any recent problems in this area.

This represents a change in policy since at least one detachment was targeting overweight RV's and used a portable weigh station, but that was several years ago now.





Dave

You know Dave, the local businessmen and government are not stupid. Tourism is big business in B. C. . If they begin targeting overweight RV's their will be a huge economic backlash. I don't think they want, or can afford to alienate this large group. Sure, the police need the ability to target vehicles that are obviously unsafe, weaving, squashed tires, etc. However, I think the threat to the RV industry is overblown. However, I am a commercial truck operator as well. The State Police have no mercy for us because they know the freight has to move, and in most cases re-routing to avoid trouble states is not practical.



I think the threat of litigation from being involved in a fatal accident should be a far bigger concern to RV'ers that are grossly overweight. Good judgement and sensible driving habits are far more important, IMO, than what it says on the sticker.

 

[DPelletier]

You know Dave, the local businessmen and government are not stupid. Tourism is big business in B. C. . If they begin targeting overweight RV's their will be a huge economic backlash. I don't think they want, or can afford to alienate this large group. Sure, the police need the ability to target vehicles that are obviously unsafe, weaving, squashed tires, etc. However, I think the threat to the RV industry is overblown. However, I am a commercial truck operator as well. The State Police have no mercy for us because they know the freight has to move, and in most cases re-routing to avoid trouble states is not practical.



I think the threat of litigation from being involved in a fatal accident should be a far bigger concern to RV'ers that are grossly overweight. Good judgement and sensible driving habits are far more important, IMO, than what it says on the sticker.

It took lobbying by the RV Industry to get the Province to ask the RCMP to back off (unofficially, of course). But common sense seems to prevail for the time being.



Dave

 

[LFalconer]

OTD, Thanks!



I too would like to have seen the exact metal failure areas, I understand that the QC LWB had stress cracks in the area right behind the cab, where the first bed mount [the tall one] is welded to the frame. [Info from Service Manager at DC dealership]



DC obviously had root cause and engineering analysis of the cracks to release the add on mounting kits, and to redesign the BOX off option, as well as the new Chassis Cab. That is typical engineering response to a failure mode.



I hope your Dodge gives you good service - I agree the Cummins / NV5600 is the best combination in a PU config. I'll see how the AAM axles work in the next years to come.



I can tell you that pulling a load [8K pounds] over a certain mountain that the Dodge would pull at 72 mph over that grade. Same load, 6. 0 L F250 would do 67 mph. Granted 4. 10 gears have an effect, but the dodge was gaining speed [limited by shift point and redline]. Dodge 2500 04, NV5600, 4;10 \\\ Ford 05 F250 6. 0l Torqshift, 3. 73.



In terms of "handling" this load - both are comparable - solid, and have ability to control the load in all situations. I do believe the dodge spring rates are higher than the Ford on the main springs, but my F250 does have the camper package, which has the overloads, which I like when pulling a heavy G/N with cattle on board - once on the overloads, the side sway is minimized as compared to the Dodge.



Although on the flip side, running the truck unloaded, the Ford is a more pleasant, less rpm experience at 70 mph - and fuel economy is better by 2 mpg. So as with all options, there are tradeoffs.



In terms of GVWR, I can see DC going up in 06 with the revised frame design coming on line, enabling the commerical industry to truly use this pickup. I would expect them to go head to head with Ford. All of us win then.



All of the Big 3 have a good product, each has it warts.



GOod Luck



Luke

 

[BHolm]

How does the DOT even know the GCWR of a truck? It is not a published number. The only published numbers that I know of are the GVWR and GAWR on the door frame and the tire rating marked on the tires.



There are plenty of posts on RV forums of members attempting to find the GCWR for their older vehicles, but they cannot find the numbers anywhere, including asking the dealers.

BINGO! The GCVWR is for ADVERTISING, my turbo diesel can tow more than your turbo diesel They don't know the ratings and don't care. Once again it is about have the rig licensed for the proper wieght, having tires that fit that requirement and functioning brakes signals etc.



Not only does it work in my area but after discussions with authorities in MN, ND, SD, NE and CO the story was the same. When I moved from MN to CO last year my shipping manager called all of these states to inquire about hauling my toys out to CO. The dually was at 28k, the QC was at 23k and my old d-max was towing the boat 4k because that is all it could handle :-laf Since we were not for hire they didn't even require us to stop at weigh stations, even with company logos on the trucks.



As far as California is concerned, I go there once a year for a week or so and visit my folks in Indio. No offense to residents, but CA just plain scares me on a number of levels I would never try and run a business there.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"Once again it is about have the rig licensed for the proper wieght"



Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you can "buy" licensing merely because you want a higher rating. I doubt the DMV would allow or grant me a license to haul 40,000 lbs with my truck just because I requested it and was willing to pay for it. It still comes back to structural issues on the truck as clearly stated on the registration for vehicles - and I think it's very innacurate to state or assume authorities "don't know and don't care" how any given overloaded vehicle is being operated.



Sure, drivers CAN get by operating outside the law and regulations much of the time - in some lightly traveled rural areas, you might run a stop sign on a regular basis, and never get caught - but the fact you MIGHT get by with it and treat the law with impunity doesn't erase the law, or make it invalid.



And SOME day, that carelessness indifference to the law MIGHT come back to haunt you in fines or loss of life and property...



I'm really not trying to preach here - or act like a do-gooder busybody - but I *do* get a bit nervous when someone steps up to the platform claiming some specific law, rating or control "really isn't important", or "doesn't matter" - it sorta reminds me of that famous line, "Here, hold my beer, and watch THIS!"

 

[klenger]

The concept of licensing the truck for a desired weight must vary by state because my truck's registration from CO and AZ has no weight rating. My current AZ registration shows "00000" in the field for weight. I guess my license is overweight even before I screw it to the truck. :-laf

 

[Dieselnerd]

Strange stuff indeed. Rules vary a lot from state to state. When I took delivery of my new SRW 3500 (in Minnesota) I was told I needed commercial plates since all 3500 vehicles must get a weight rated plate in this state. It has the 9900# rating but I was told that for the minimum price of $120 annually I could have a plate for 9000-12000 or for the same price a plate for 12000-15000! The 9000-12000 is the lowest plate they issue for a truck of 9000# or more. I chose the larger rating, what the heck? For more money, I could have an even heavier plate for the same truck. Doesn't make any sense at all but I see 3500 SRW trucks all the time with the 15000# plate. I don't understand the rationale behind it but I don't make the rules.

 

[BHolm]

See Gary, and I do not intend this to be as offensive as it is going to sound but, the problem is you don't KNOW, you are making assumptions. You can absolutely buy a tag over the rating. If people haven't noticed it is ALL about revenue at the government level. You might THINK they actually care, but my experience has proven just the opposite. What they really care about is the $$$$.



klenger and dieselnerd have it right. In MN you just buy the wieght tag you need for the load you intend to haul. There are a couple things to keep in mind. The trailer has a GVW and the truck has a GVW. I have a triple axle (three 7k) trailer licensed for 21k lbs, my dually is licensed for 12k lbs. My 28k lb load on this combo is COMPLETELY LEGAL in MN ( and ND,SD,NE,CO) even though it is beyond the GCVWR listed in the Dodge sales brochures. You most certainly could buy a trailer with two 20k axles, tag it for 40k, and pull it with up to that much wieght on it. Obviously that is extreme but it is true. That is exactly how the hotshots get away with a 40ft three car hauler. In CO niether my truck or trailers are licensed for wieght, strangely they want to know the empty wieght for registration and thats it, no tags by wieght here.



So on one hand Gary, you are correct. I could get in trouble if I licenesed a trailer for more than its GVW. I can however hook pretty much whatever I want to the truck and pull it legally as long as it is licensed correctly. It is not carelessness or indifference to the law. Contrary to what you assert, I am operating well within the laws of the states I have hauled in. I would be foolish to flirt with it, just as you infer. I have had this researched to ensure that I am obeying the laws, heck I even checked ahead for my trip to ensure I wouldn't have a problem.



I think the problem goes right back to the GCVWR question. I have yet to find a state that makes any mention of enforcing this, though I have certainly not checked them all. Seeing as how I am within the bounds of the law, the doom and gloom being preached about having an accident overwieght is a moot point. I may be over the GCVWR but as mentioned earlier, this is NOT what the various DOT's I have been involved with take into consideration. One more time, tags, tires, brakes. If they are right, and by all means check with your states DOT, you will be fine.



Sorry if that flys in the face of all that you wanted to believe but..... I'm pretty dang confident I have the facts straight.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"Sorry if that flys in the face of all that you wanted to believe but..... I'm pretty dang confident I have the facts straight. "



Sure sounds wierd to me, but too many examples to argue with - live and learn!

 

[surfbeetle]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I waded through the five pages of posts so far. Everyone has an opinion, having a California commercial Class B license, I know that weight ratings are an issue. I know that unfortunately it seems that the concern for public safety seems to be dwarfed by government desire for more revenue. Personally, my goal is to stay within the allowed limits as well as be as safe as possible while doing that.



Now as for the cracked frame issue, I can only speak about the 2nd gens, I posted photos a couple weeks ago showing the factory weld had cracked on my 95 reg cab 2500. It was at the junction of the of the front box section to the c portion of the frame under the driver's door area. My fifth wheel weighs in at around 6,000 pounds, when camping, I usually have firewood in the front two feet of the bed. The heaviest loads that I have hauled in the bed were a load of firewood in the entire bed and another time a few loads of dirt that were two bobcat buckets full. So I don't think that I have abused my truck, but stuff happens. I had the weld rewelded and so far it is holding. In one reply to that post, someone had said that it looked like that robot welder may not have gotten good penetration when doing the weld.



So no matter how safe I have tried to be, there could have been the potential for disaster if I hadn't caught that. Why make it worse if you are way over the limits? I guess my 2 cents has turned into a buck fifty.

 

[WOT]

Several people have said the '06 model (dodge) will have higher ratings than the current model. I have yet to hear this from a dealer (usually get the deer in the headlights look when I ask about specs). Are there any dealers our there that can confirm this (and when begginning, mid, end year)?



Thanks!

WOT

 

[jimnance]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I waded through the five pages of posts so far. Everyone has an opinion, having a California commercial Class B license, I know that weight ratings are an issue. I know that unfortunately it seems that the concern for public safety seems to be dwarfed by government desire for more revenue. Personally, my goal is to stay within the allowed limits as well as be as safe as possible while doing that.



Now as for the cracked frame issue, I can only speak about the 2nd gens, I posted photos a couple weeks ago showing the factory weld had cracked on my 95 reg cab 2500. It was at the junction of the of the front box section to the c portion of the frame under the driver's door area. My fifth wheel weighs in at around 6,000 pounds, when camping, I usually have firewood in the front two feet of the bed. The heaviest loads that I have hauled in the bed were a load of firewood in the entire bed and another time a few loads of dirt that were two bobcat buckets full. So I don't think that I have abused my truck, but stuff happens. I had the weld rewelded and so far it is holding. In one reply to that post, someone had said that it looked like that robot welder may not have gotten good penetration when doing the weld.



So no matter how safe I have tried to be, there could have been the potential for disaster if I hadn't caught that. Why make it worse if you are way over the limits? I guess my 2 cents has turned into a buck fifty.

My local dealer has seen a couple of older LWB trucks with cracked frames. They were all of the older C-channel variety, and they cracked near the bed-cab juction. They were all hauling pretty heavy stuff according to the dealer. So far he hasn't seen any hydroformed frames crack, but they haven't been out long enough for the typical owner to have abused them enough to see much at the dealer level.

 

[jlasich]

I find it interesting how people are saying that the Ford frame is so much thicker than the Dodge frame without realizing that it has to be since it's a C-channel. It would crumple if it was the same thickness as the Dodge boxed frame. Personally, I think it's just a lot of whoopla about nothing. Wouldn't NHTSA be all over this if there were frames failing? I'm also not worried about corrosion from the inside out. Also, does anyone know who gives slide-in camper certification? Is it the manufacturer or some other authority and what are the requirements for it? Looking on Ford's website, optioning for the camper package gets you auxiliary springs, heavy service front springs, rear stabilizer bar, and the certification which leads me to believe that the trucks without the camper package are also "not recommended for slide-in camper". Can anyone confirm or deny?



The "TowBoss" package equipped SD has a maximum trailer weight rating of 19200 pounds, the GCWR is 26000. In order to get that though, you have to have the following equipment: F-350 DRW 4x2, 4. 30 gears, 6. ohoh engine, and auto transmission. You can also get the TowBoss package in the supercab, crewcab and 4x4 versions which are of course progressively lower ratings (still higher than Dodge's though). Who in their right mind would want 4. 30 gears in these diesels? No thanks. As for the normal truck weight ratings, Ford's max payload is only 600 pounds more than Dodge's and when comparing the trailer weight ratings, I've noticed that some configurations only have Dodge beat by about 350 pounds and others by almost 2000. I applaud Ford for raising their ratings, as they desperately needed to because they've been in last place in these ratings since '03 and they needed something good to say about their trucks, just don't think for a second that GM and Dodge are going to sit quietly. The all-new GMs are due out next year and supposedly, the all-new Dodges in '08 or '09.



I'm very interested to see what is going to happen with the chassis cab. I believe Ford still owns that market because of the straight frame rails and the C-channel makes it much easier for the upfitters.



Sorry for the long post but I don't get on here much.

 

[SKargo]

My local dealer has seen a couple of older LWB trucks with cracked frames. They were all of the older C-channel variety, and they cracked near the bed-cab juction. They were all hauling pretty heavy stuff according to the dealer. So far he hasn't seen any hydroformed frames crack, but they haven't been out long enough for the typical owner to have abused them enough to see much at the dealer level.

They haven't been out long enough??? I have to say that I've seen quite a few 100K+ and evena couple 150K+ miles on some 3rd gens that we sold where I work. 80% of our sales are trucks, and most of our customers use them, and use them hard. There has been no issue thus far of cracking frames. I talked to our service manager, and we haven't had that problem show up at all.

Not even sure where this cracked frame rumor started?