Why doesn't the math work?

This just tells how to determine the actual gross weight of a vehicle, it says nothing about how a GVWR is determined by a manufacturer.

Correct.
It also tells us the gross weight is the sum of the axle ratings and not the vehicle mfg GVWR number.

How the heck could you give a 10K GVWR to a vehicle that only had a 9K sum of front and rear GAWR's?

??
I have no idea where you came up with that one.

I've made my point about what a GVWR does or doesn't do. Were just repeating ourselves to the point the OP has given up and gone camping.

JIMNLIN wrote:
Now your mis quoting what Ford says
The quote from Ford says;
"Front and rear GAWRs will, in all cases, sum to a number equal to or greater than the GVWR for the particular vehicle."

You quoted it, not me. Of course the "front and rear GAWR's will, in all cases, sum to a number equal or greater than the GVWR for the particular vehicle" How the heck could you give a 10K GVWR to a vehicle that only had a 9K sum of front and rear GAWR's? That doesn't make the sum of the GAWR's a substitute for the GVWR. That is why they are given as two separate numbers.

(3) In determining the gross weight of a vehicle or the gross weight of any two (2) or more consecutive axles under subsection (1) or (2) or (9) of this section, the total gross weight of the vehicle or combination of vehicles or the gross weight of any two (2) or more consecutive axles shall be the sum of the axle weights.
For the purposes of this chapter the gross weight of a vehicle or the gross weight of any two (2) or more consecutive axles may be determined by accumulatively adding the separate weights of individual axles and tandem axles or groups of axles to determine gross weight."**

This just tells how to determine the actual gross weight of a vehicle, it says nothing about how a GVWR is determined by a manufacturer.

wilbur wrote:
Manufacturers will always choose axles that are rated higher than the trucks GVWR. If you read your own quote from Ford it says exactly that, it does not say that combined axle ratings are a substitute for the truck's GVWR

Now your mis quoting what Ford says
The quote from Ford says;
"Front and rear GAWRs will, in all cases, sum to a number equal to or greater than the GVWR for the particular vehicle."

Its NHTSA and state/province regs such as the BC "weighing a vehicle" I posted above that tell us the sum of the GAWRs may be the trucks GVWR. I'm simply showing what the truck maker and NHTSA tells us.

This statute from another state;
Allowable gross loads.

(3) In determining the gross weight of a vehicle or the gross weight of any two (2) or more consecutive axles under subsection (1) or (2) or (9) of this section, the total gross weight of the vehicle or combination of vehicles or the gross weight of any two (2) or more consecutive axles shall be the sum of the axle weights.
For the purposes of this chapter the gross weight of a vehicle or the gross weight of any two (2) or more consecutive axles may be determined by accumulatively adding the separate weights of individual axles and tandem axles or groups of axles to determine gross weight."**

This and the BC "weight scales" should tell you its not just my or others opinion that the sum of the axle ratings may be the trucks GVWR or GVW which ever is used.

IMO the op should stay under his truck RAWR in particular as its carrying the hitch load or he may stay under a GVWR number....both are safe.

Manufacturers will always choose axles that are rated higher than the trucks GVWR. If you read your own quote from Ford it says exactly that, it does not say that combined axle ratings are a substitute for the truck's GVWR.



As already mentioned, it is not economical to design and build a different axle to match every different GVWR. Also, they have to add axle capacity to account for differences in loading. As 5th wheel owners we are primarily concerned with rear axle limits because we know our pin weight puts little or no extra weight on the front axle, but that same truck has to have enough front axle capacity for the guy in the North who runs around with a snow plow hanging from the front of his truck for most of the year. That does not mean the truck manufacturer is saying it is OK for us to drive down the highway with our rear axle maxed out by a 5th wheel, plus a snow plow hanging from the front of our truck, even if we are within our axle ratings. Also, who hasn't seen one of these trucks with a dirt bike or rack full of fuel cans hanging off the front?

I'm not making assumptions about what the truck manufacturer or NTSA means when they set weight limits, or whether it is OK to exceed them, you guys are. The only assumption I am making is that because GVWR is a limit that is required by law to be placarded alongside AWR's, it must have weight and meaning.

Personally, I don't have a big problem with running two or three hundred pounds over my GVWR. I know that the manufacturer will have built in safety margins because he knows his trucks will be operated overloaded. However, I don't know what those margins are and I don't kid myself into believing that I'm not in unknown territory when it comes to performance, structure and legality. I think it is irresponsible to tell people that they aren't.

So the truck breaks in half but that's OK because the axle ratings haven't been exceeded. That makes perfect sense to you?

Never made that statement nor have I implied a truck may break in half for being over any kind of weight.
I nor you have ever seen a truck broke in half because of your scenario.

Yes, the truck maker could choose any GVWR up to the combined axle ratings but they don't. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the rest of the truck isn't up to supporting the combined axle ratings? Because he can't tailor make axles for each truck, he has to choose axles that are rated higher than the capacity of the rest of the truck. That's simple logic.

Now your asking questions that only the truck maker knows. One thing we do know is the truck makers aren't about to certify a trucks GAWRs and use a lessor frame.
Ford makes it quite clear the sum of the axle rating can be the trucks GVWR when they say ;
** Front and rear GAWRs will, in all cases, sum to a number equal to or greater than the GVWR for the particular vehicle.**
If your really interested in why then I would do a 1-800 to Fords tech folks for their reasons

Why do you think manufacturers do and are required to placard GVWR alongside AWR? What does GVWR mean to you exactly, or is it just useless information?

Another question that only the truck maker and NHTSA can answer.
IMO your arguing with the way the system works now. I don't make the rules but just passing along how it all works out here on the road.
However my take on the truck makers GVWR number it is used for other purposes such as the truck makers EPA requirements ...or other FMVSS 571 testing requirements.....or finding the trucks declared gross combined operating weight...or for a state or province to place a tax or price of registration ....or other.

GVWR isn't a drop dead number as many folks seem to think. Hell just look at Fords LDT series with dozens of different GVWRs for the same truck.
Example is a F350 SRW auto 6.7 4x4 crew cab 172" wheel base with a 6290 RAWR/6000 FAWR.......this truck comes or a 11200 gvwr or a 10000 gvwr.

Except Ram has drawn a bit of a wider line between their 2500 and 3500's. Different rear suspensions, additional transmissions options and HP/torque ratings for the 3500.

Ford and GM have not done similar separations.

Well actually the GOVERNMENT mandates the 10,000#GVWR on the 250/2500/ 3/4 Ton group of trucks, in many states this allows a lower registration and avoids have to register as commercial.
The exceptions are the 20013 to 2014 Rams.

So, load it up like a one ton then. You're golden. :R

wilber1 wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

jimnlin wrote:
Actually it makes perfect sense.
A truck mfg isn't about to use a lightweight 1/2 ton frame and then give the truck a 6k fawr and a 7000 RAWR.

The truck maker may choose any GVWR he wants up to and including the sum of the vehicles GAWRs.

So the truck breaks in half but that's OK because the axle ratings haven't been exceeded. That makes perfect sense to you?

Yes, the truck maker could choose any GVWR up to the combined axle ratings but they don't. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the rest of the truck isn't up to supporting the combined axle ratings? Because he can't tailor make axles for each truck, he has to choose axles that are rated higher than the capacity of the rest of the truck. That's simple logic.

Why do you think manufacturers do and are required to placard GVWR alongside AWR? What does GVWR mean to you exactly, or is it just useless information?

Well once again with few exceptions a 250/2500 is simply a 350/3500 SRW with possibly softer springs, and a GVWR LIMITED by its Class 2 designation. They (250/2500's) with a few exceptions share the same frame and drive train (350/3500's).

So, what's your point? They have different GVWR's for a reason. You don't get to make up the reason. Only the manufacturer does, just like you don't get to make up an axle or tire rating because of how you think it is built.

Well actually the GOVERNMENT mandates the 10,000#GVWR on the 250/2500/ 3/4 Ton group of trucks, in many states this allows a lower registration and avoids have to register as commercial.
The exceptions are the 20013 to 2014 Rams.

rhagfo wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

jimnlin wrote:
Actually it makes perfect sense.
A truck mfg isn't about to use a lightweight 1/2 ton frame and then give the truck a 6k fawr and a 7000 RAWR.

The truck maker may choose any GVWR he wants up to and including the sum of the vehicles GAWRs.

So the truck breaks in half but that's OK because the axle ratings haven't been exceeded. That makes perfect sense to you?

Yes, the truck maker could choose any GVWR up to the combined axle ratings but they don't. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the rest of the truck isn't up to supporting the combined axle ratings? Because he can't tailor make axles for each truck, he has to choose axles that are rated higher than the capacity of the rest of the truck. That's simple logic.

Why do you think manufacturers do and are required to placard GVWR alongside AWR? What does GVWR mean to you exactly, or is it just useless information?

Well once again with few exceptions a 250/2500 is simply a 350/3500 SRW with possibly softer springs, and a GVWR LIMITED by its Class 2 designation. They (250/2500's) with a few exceptions share the same frame and drive train (350/3500's).

So, what's your point? They have different GVWR's for a reason. You don't get to make up the reason. Only the manufacturer does, just like you don't get to make up an axle or tire rating because of how you think it is built.

wilber1 wrote:

jimnlin wrote:
Actually it makes perfect sense.
A truck mfg isn't about to use a lightweight 1/2 ton frame and then give the truck a 6k fawr and a 7000 RAWR.

The truck maker may choose any GVWR he wants up to and including the sum of the vehicles GAWRs.

So the truck breaks in half but that's OK because the axle ratings haven't been exceeded. That makes perfect sense to you?

Yes, the truck maker could choose any GVWR up to the combined axle ratings but they don't. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the rest of the truck isn't up to supporting the combined axle ratings? Because he can't tailor make axles for each truck, he has to choose axles that are rated higher than the capacity of the rest of the truck. That's simple logic.

Why do you think manufacturers do and are required to placard GVWR alongside AWR? What does GVWR mean to you exactly, or is it just useless information?

Well once again with few exceptions a 250/2500 is simply a 350/3500 SRW with possibly softer springs, and a GVWR LIMITED by its Class 2 designation. They (250/2500's) with a few exceptions share the same frame and drive train (350/3500's).