Forum Discussion
- I feel sorry for the honest GM employees.
- They all have been doing that for decades...
'Curb' is the 'stripper'...been saying that for years and years and years...
Another thread on this topic:
Door sticker says never exceed 1263 lbs of cargo/passengers - Of course...they don't run these corporations...the Bean Counter types
do (AKA Wall Street Types)coolbreeze01 wrote:
I feel sorry for the honest GM employees. - Ford and GM both seem guilty as charged. As BenK says , the stripper model truck has been used for years to maximize cargo capacity/trailer towing capacity.
But removing bumpers, etc....hmmmnn.
I guess that's why it's always wise to not tow and /or load, at maximum rated capacity. coolbreeze01 wrote:
I feel sorry for the honest GM employees.
You need to amend that to include both GM and Ford.BurbMan wrote:
GM Admits Fudging Payload Ratings
:E:E:E
Burb, thanks for bringing this up. But note the text in the story indicates that both Ford and GM are doing this kind of thing. Your thread headline need to reflect that.
Les- The more interesting part is why they did it? They could have very easily just raised the GVWR on the vehicles, right?
We argue, excuse me, discuss weights on this forum all the time with some saying GVWR is king and others saying GAWR and tires are king. I have to admit that this lends a little validation to the GVWR argument, as it would have been much easier to simply raise that rating and get a higher payload than to remove items. Of course they could be trying to lower the weight for other reasons, but the article only talked about raising payload. Thoughts? azwildcat99 wrote:
The more interesting part is why they did it? They could have very easily just raised the GVWR on the vehicles, right?
We argue, excuse me, discuss weights on this forum all the time with some saying GVWR is king and others saying GAWR and tires are king. I have to admit that this lends a little validation to the GVWR argument, as it would have been much easier to simply raise that rating and get a higher payload than to remove items. Of course they could be trying to lower the weight for other reasons, but the article only talked about raising payload. Thoughts?
You can't just raise the GVWR w/o VERY EXPENSIVE and time consuming Brake certification testing so that a different FMVSS door sticker is allowed.
Larry- At the end of the day, I fail to see how any of this actually affects the trucks that you and I drive? It's all a marketing game of one-upsmanship (with fine print) isn't it?
LarryJM wrote:
azwildcat99 wrote:
The more interesting part is why they did it? They could have very easily just raised the GVWR on the vehicles, right?
We argue, excuse me, discuss weights on this forum all the time with some saying GVWR is king and others saying GAWR and tires are king. I have to admit that this lends a little validation to the GVWR argument, as it would have been much easier to simply raise that rating and get a higher payload than to remove items. Of course they could be trying to lower the weight for other reasons, but the article only talked about raising payload. Thoughts?
You can't just raise the GVWR w/o VERY EXPENSIVE and time consuming Brake certification testing so that a different FMVSS door sticker is allowed.
Larry
You mean there is actually some certifications and testing attached to the GVW figures? I thought the numbers were just made up.
AZWildcat raise a good point, somewhere in all of the misinformation there is actual some real testing and data.
