You gotta read this!! Mega-dually

[CUMMINZ]

I just left dealer in Macon, Ga. They have a 3500 Mega-Cab dually on the lot for sale. Nearly 50k like I have been preaching. Dumb-Dumb It has a GVW of 10,500#. The same front and rear figures as my QC dually. 5,200# front and 9,350# rear but only 10,500# GVW. What a worthless truck.

 

[klenger]

And the SRW has a GVWR of 9900 lbs. The dually has a 600# greater GVWR, but half of that is taken up with the added weight of the duallies, so for all the expense and hastle of a DRW, you gain a whopping 300# of usefull load. I suspect that the MC DRW has less capacity than my QC SRW.

 

[crobertson1]

So am I correct in saying that the only benefit of a MC dually is the added stability of the extra tires on the ground?

 

[GAmes]

I saw one on the internet that was a conversion (I think). It was a duelly with a short bed, I forgot to look if the front wheels were like a 2500 or 3500 SRW. I agree with the worthless part.

 

[CUMMINZ]

These Are My Thoughts

I really like the idea of a Mega-Cab dually with a short box. I would have used my superglide slider hitch. It would give me the great inside of cab that the Mega cab gives. It also offers a 23k towing GCVW. The real problem is with only a 10. 5k truck GVW you would be "by the book" overloaded if you carried more than 1500 pounds on the rear axle. WHAT was DC thinking?



CUMMINZ

 

[NoSeeUm]

And the SRW has a GVWR of 9900 lbs. The dually has a 600# greater GVWR, but half of that is taken up with the added weight of the duallies, so for all the expense and hastle of a DRW, you gain a whopping 300# of usefull load. I suspect that the MC DRW has less capacity than my QC SRW.

Not so sure about the reasoning in all of this.



I have a friend who just bought an 06 SRW 3500. The sticker says 9900 GVW, but the OEM tires were LT265/70 R17's (I believe) rated at 3195 lbms each. The sticker for rear axle weight (at 75 psi rear tire pressure) gives the truck a rear axle weight limit of about 5990 lbms. At 80 psi in the tires the truck could do 6390 on the rear axles.



My 02 2500 came with LT265/75 R16's rated at 3415 lbms each at 80 psi. That means the rear axle could do 6830 lbms with the OEM tires. Makes no sense at all to me.



The sticker on my truck is 8800 lbms GVW, and the 06 3500 SRW is 9900 lbms GVW. But they put on a less capable tires for some reason.



He wants to haul a slide in camper. His jaw just dropped when I explained the difference between what the sales brochure says and the reality of the capability of the tires on his truck. I did not tell him he has less effective payload capacity than my 2500 just based on tires alone. Thats because he is replacing his brand new tires with some better traction (sexy) and weight rated tires very soon anyways.



Go figure.



Jim

 

[klenger]

Antoher exampole of Dodge stupidity. A 3500 2WD has a GVWR of 9900 lbs. I can't remember the GAWRs, but when they add 4WD, the GAWR for the front axle is increased by 600 lbs to account for the 4WD, but they don't add anything to the vehicle GVWR. So, the load capacity of my 4WD is basically 600 lbs less than a 2WD even though they increased the front GAWR to make up the difference. If a 2WD can handle the additional load on the rear axle, why can't my 4WD?

 

[Mr.Goat]

Very interesting all these carrying capacity numbers, also as noted confusing to make sense of. When I ordered my 03 I distinctly remember that my reg cab long box has a greater payload than a quad long box. Because of the longer wheel base of the quad I suppose.

Ponder this, my 2500 is a 3/4 ton truck. Supposed to safely carry 1500 Ibs. Therefore a 3500 being a 1 ton truck should safely handle 2000 Ibs.

My slide in camper is the smallest they make and weighs in at 2450 Ibs. Now by the time I get all my gear, water and fuel on board and me, that is easy another 550 Ibs. So I'am now carrying at least twice the weight that supposidly I'am rated for. But the truck has hauled that camper all over hells half acre without a problem. Two trips west, 9 weeks last summer on the last one alone. I know from being over the municipal dump weigh scales the truck alone weighs about 6400 Ibs. I think without running outside to check that the GVW is about 9500 Ibs. So if you do the math from that perspective I'am running at the max.

Bottom line, I don't hold to much credability in the numbers. My present rig works for me, and works well. And that is all that matters. Pete

 

[GAmes]

That old 3/4 ton, one ton stuff is antique ratings carried forward to today. I do agree that GVWRs are confusing and arbitrary. My 97 has a gvwr of 10,500 and a gcwr of 20,000. If it was a 4X4 the gvwr would be the same but the gcwr would be 16,000.

 

[GWBourne]

So am I correct in saying that the only benefit of a MC dually is the added stability of the extra tires on the ground?

and the fact that your hitch could weigh 300lbs... i guess then you dont have to add that weight in... .



something tells me they are rated low just like the others... but are still able to handle the weight.

Grant

 

[PatrickCampbell]

Not so sure about the reasoning in all of this.



I have a friend who just bought an 06 SRW 3500. The sticker says 9900 GVW, but the OEM tires were LT265/70 R17's (I believe) rated at 3195 lbms each. The sticker for rear axle weight (at 75 psi rear tire pressure) gives the truck a rear axle weight limit of about 5990 lbms. At 80 psi in the tires the truck could do 6390 on the rear axles.



My 02 2500 came with LT265/75 R16's rated at 3415 lbms each at 80 psi. That means the rear axle could do 6830 lbms with the OEM tires. Makes no sense at all to me.



The sticker on my truck is 8800 lbms GVW, and the 06 3500 SRW is 9900 lbms GVW. But they put on a less capable tires for some reason.



He wants to haul a slide in camper. His jaw just dropped when I explained the difference between what the sales brochure says and the reality of the capability of the tires on his truck. I did not tell him he has less effective payload capacity than my 2500 just based on tires alone. Thats because he is replacing his brand new tires with some better traction (sexy) and weight rated tires very soon anyways.



Go figure.



Jim

The rear GAWR on all of these SRW trucks is set by the lowest tire rating that Dodge offers. So on 03+'s it's 6000 because 245/70/17s are 3000# each. On 02- it's 6084 because 235/85/16s are 3042# each. Since the larger tires are a factory or dealer option, they probably did the "easiest" thing and put 1 sticker for all trucks. You could definitely have a rear GAWR of 6830# with 265/75/16s @ 80 PSI... but to make it legal you'd have to get the truck re-certified.

 

[RonCar]

So in a sense you could say I raised my rear axle weight capacity by changing from the 3195@65 stockers to my 3640@65 toyos I have now? My question is what is the rear axle (itself) weight capacity? It can't be rated on the tires alone can it?

 

[nps]

So in a sense you could say I raised my rear axle weight capacity by changing from the 3195@65 stockers to my 3640@65 toyos I have now? My question is what is the rear axle (itself) weight capacity? It can't be rated on the tires alone can it?

No, but it's alot higher than any 2 16/17" tires can handle. Almost as much as the GVWR itself IIRC. The tires are the weakest link.

 

[RustyJC]

On my 2nd generation dually, rear axle GAWR is 7500 lbs (Dana 80), which is much less than the load rating of 4 each LT235/85R-16E tires, even factoring in the dually service derating. In fact, the 7500 lb GAWR is listed at a rear tire inflation of 55 PSIG (the tires are rated for 80 PSIG).



Rusty

 

[PatrickCampbell]

Here goes:



On your truck, an 04. 5, it has either an AAM 10. 5 or 11. 5. These are rated to 10,000 lbs # or 11,000 lbs # respectively, but that is the axle itself taking nothing else into consideration.



A GAWR is determined by axle, spring brake and tire capacity.



A 3rd gen 2500 and 3rd gen 3500 have the same brakes (close enough) so whatever the rear GAWR on a 3rd gen 3500 dually is, that is what your axle is rated for in terms of brakes. This might be artificially lowered for whatever reason Chrysler has.



Leaf springs is whatever will hold the weight up. Not much more to it than that.



So on your axle it is the tires that are limiting the GAWR.



Personally, I wouldn't consider LR D's an upgrade at all even if the load capacity is higher. I'd rather be running 3195 # @ 80 PSI on stock tires only rated to 3195# than 3195# @ 65 PSI on tires rated to 3640#.



What were we talking about again

 

[RonCar]

Here goes:

Personally, I wouldn't consider LR D's an upgrade at all even if the load capacity is higher. I'd rather be running 3195 # @ 80 PSI on stock tires only rated to 3195# than 3195# @ 65 PSI on tires rated to 3640#.



What were we talking about again

Are you reffering to me??

 

[Grizzly]

Very interesting all these carrying capacity numbers, also as noted confusing to make sense of. When I ordered my 03 I distinctly remember that my reg cab long box has a greater payload than a quad long box. Because of the longer wheel base of the quad I suppose.

Ponder this, my 2500 is a 3/4 ton truck. Supposed to safely carry 1500 Ibs. Therefore a 3500 being a 1 ton truck should safely handle 2000 Ibs.

My slide in camper is the smallest they make and weighs in at 2450 Ibs. Now by the time I get all my gear, water and fuel on board and me, that is easy another 550 Ibs. So I'am now carrying at least twice the weight that supposidly I'am rated for. But the truck has hauled that camper all over hells half acre without a problem. Two trips west, 9 weeks last summer on the last one alone. I know from being over the municipal dump weigh scales the truck alone weighs about 6400 Ibs. I think without running outside to check that the GVW is about 9500 Ibs. So if you do the math from that perspective I'am running at the max.

Bottom line, I don't hold to much credability in the numbers. My present rig works for me, and works well. And that is all that matters. Pete

My daddy always said, "If it works, don't fix it". Pete you know what your rig can do and I'm sure you also know it's limitations. Dodge tends to always use a high factor of safety, where others, like Ford, don't. Go with your years of experience and a little common sense.

 

[CUMMINZ]

I'll be in Macon again next week and I'll take my camera and get some pictures of this goat dually.



CUMMINZ

 

[Tee]

One mans trash is another mans treasure See sig



I bought one, so far I love it. Can't wait to load my camper on it and try out this Dually vs Single comparison. I needed a bigger cab. And I always wanted a Dually, I also didn't want to have to change campers! As I love my camper also! And I also didn't want to go away from the Cummins family. Wow, Dodge made just the truck for me



I spent 2 hours with a parts manager going over part number for things like Axels, and Brakes, and Springs, and U-joints, and Tires, and Transmissions. ETC. ETC Guess what. Not one part number for these type of things was different between the QC 3500 Dually and the MegaCab 3500 Dually. Hmmmmm, so maybe this truck isn't garbage afterall



After many years of being a family that OTR's for a living I can tell you this much. The manufacturers GVWR don't mean squat to the DOT (within reason). All they care about is the rating on your tires!!!! And in a OTR trucks case the distance between axles etc. The tax people care about what its REGISTERED for, not what that little sticker says in the door jamb.....



Forgot where I was going with this

 

[NoSeeUm]

The rear GAWR on all of these SRW trucks is set by the lowest tire rating that Dodge offers. So on 03+'s it's 6000 because 245/70/17s are 3000# each. On 02- it's 6084 because 235/85/16s are 3042# each. Since the larger tires are a factory or dealer option, they probably did the "easiest" thing and put 1 sticker for all trucks. You could definitely have a rear GAWR of 6830# with 265/75/16s @ 80 PSI... but to make it legal you'd have to get the truck re-certified.

Bingo!



At least that is what I thought when the "sticker" concept hit home. Tires are almost always the weakest link and completely what the door sticker for GAW is based upon. There is no way in hell that I am sticker legit when I have my camper loaded. I certainly am not trying to say that.



But, in the real world, I stay under my mechanical axle weight limit of 7500 lbms (conservative) by staying under my tire capacity of 6830 lbms. This is just something that I live with hauling my camper. If I get the new Toyos rated at 3720 lbms that just gives me a greater safety margin for the tires of 7440 lbms.

On my 2nd generation dually, rear axle GAWR is 7500 lbs (Dana 80), which is much less than the load rating of 4 each LT235/85R-16E tires, even factoring in the dually service derating. In fact, the 7500 lb GAWR is listed at a rear tire inflation of 55 PSIG (the tires are rated for 80 PSIG).

I would calculate my "real world" weight just like you do. Find the most limiting component. In your case you have decided that it is the rear axle and or suspension. I found many claims to the weight ratings on my Dana 70/80 axle. I went with the most conservative one of 7500 lbms. My gut tells me a full Dana 80 would do more, but I am not sure.



The weight sticker Nazi's will always disagree, but thats how I do it for my truck. It does not really matter, SRW DRW QC DRW or MC DRW you will hit a weight limit of some component if you go heavy and have to decide for yourself what safety margin that you can live with.



Other than sheer weight hauling ability, probably the single most important factor IMO is braking ability. The 02 2500 and 3500 have the same brakes, so I am OK with my set up. Does the MC 3500 SRW and the MC DRW share identical brakes?



Jim