Forum Discussion
BenK wrote:
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
Thought I read, though not sure, that Dodge/Ram HADN'T been removing bumpers, spare tires, etc to up the payload numbers.....LarryJM wrote:
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
Brake certification testing is neither expensive nor time consuming really. It's as simple as loading a vehicle to the metrics outlined in FMVSS 105 and verifying that the vehicle adheres to the standards outlined in the regulation. The manufacturer does everything themselves on their own proving grounds. There's no approval process from the NHTSA, no inspector that shows up to verify testing protocols, or even any paperwork or forms that need to be submitted showing that the component complies. A manufacturer could certify a brake package for a GVWR in a few minutes if they wanted to. It seems that almost every component in the HD pickups is purposely overbuilt. This is how they can magically raise the GVWR without changing any of the components. If a manufacturer wants to up the GVWR to 11,000 and they know that the truck already has 14,000 GVWR brakes on it, then it's as easy as printing new stickers. They don't even have to "recertify" the truck.- I think Ford and GM missed out on a real opportunity to show some really impressive numbers. If they removed the bed, seats and engine, they could market base 1500 series trucks with 3000 pound payloads! ;)
8iron wrote:
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?
It's dishonest and intentionally misleads consumers. When I'm comparing sales brochures and comparing models and manufacturers, should I really have to read the fine print to know when I need to add back the weight of a rear bumper or center console? For that matter, did Ford or GM ever even include such disclaimers in their brochures and/or advertisements?- RAM=SAE J2807 compliant.
That even includes the bumper and spare.;) 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.- 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?
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- 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? 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
