Can someone explain this?

[ShinerBock]

Well I guess that everyone checked out of the thread where I posted this because no one seemed to answer it and the thread died shortly there after(unless no one had an answer). So here is to hoping that a new thread will get new looks and maybe an explanation.

Can someone explain this? This F350 has a lower front GAWR, lower rear GAWR, and lower combined GAWR yet has a higher GVWR than my 2500. Kind of goes along with what I have been saying about some(not all) class 2B(250/2500) diesel trucks are de-rated due EPA and federal max GVWR numbers of their class rather than their actual carrying ability, but I would love to hear anyone else's explanation or guess.


2017 F350
Front GAWR: 5,600
Rear GAWR: 6,340
Combined GAWR: 11,940
GVWR: 11,500





My 2014 Ram 2500
Front GAWR: 6,000
Rear GAWR: 6,500
Combined GAWR: 12,500
GVWR: 10,000





I can see how this GM 3500 got its 11,500 GVWR rating even though it has a lower front GAWR then mine. The Ram 3500 SRW has just about the same rating, but with a 6,000 front GAWR and a 7,000 rear GAWR.

2018 GM 3500
Front GAWR: 5,600
Rear GAWR: 7,050
Combined GAWR: 12,650
GVWR: 11,500

[CapriRacer]

demiles wrote:
…… I’m not going to continue to play the “tell me what I want to hear” game.

Turns out you were right!

[Me_Again]

MFL wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
Shiner, your preaching to the choir, this horse is beat down dead. (But you were looking for the debate when you started the thread anyway)

Yup, Grit has nailed it again!

I can remember someone, I think a Mod, maybe Barney, posting a pick of a dead horse, upside down on it's back.

I,m just going to add my .02, that I have posted before. If only the folks towing an RV, staying within all/every rating of the TV, were allowed on the public roadways, I'd not need a camping reservation, even on Holidays. 🙂

Jerry

Yep, throw LT265/75R16E on those 6" wide early Duramax 2500 GM's and you are ready to tow just about anything to Arizona for the winter. Saw a lot of it over our 10 winters there.

[MFL]

Grit dog wrote:
Shiner, your preaching to the choir, this horse is beat down dead. (But you were looking for the debate when you started the thread anyway)

Yup, Grit has nailed it again!

I can remember someone, I think a Mod, maybe Barney, posting a pick of a dead horse, upside down on it's back.

I,m just going to add my .02, that I have posted before. If only the folks towing an RV, staying within all/every rating of the TV, were allowed on the public roadways, I'd not need a camping reservation, even on Holidays. 🙂

Jerry

[Grit_dog]

Shiner, your preaching to the choir, this horse is beat down dead. (But you were looking for the debate when you started the thread anyway)

[ShinerBock]

nickthehunter wrote:
I’ll tell him (hopefully once he hears it he’ll be done).
Shiner - you are indeed smarter than the manufacturers. The manufacturer’s engineers are stupid and know nothing about the products they are designing. You indeed have figured it out and everyone here should ignore the manufacturer’s ratings and go by the “Sihiner Ratings” instead.

Actually I used to work for said manufactures and on the dealership level for over 20 years now. One of my jobs throughout those years was to spec out trucks for our medium and heavy duty customers to ensure they were well within their axle ratings and legal for what they were using their truck for.

It was not uncommon to take a class 7 or 8 truck and de-rate it for a customer to class 6 so they did not have to pay higher registration costs. Many of these customers only needed the class 7 or 8 capabilities off road and were generally empty on road. So yeah, I know how common it is to de-rate a trucks GVWR even though the truck itself can handle more just for registration purposes.

[ShinerBock]

demiles wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

demiles wrote:
A single axle weight rating alone doesn’t necessarily dictate vehicle performance as a whole. Here is some information about GVWR vs AWR from Bob Raybuck Director of Technical Services NTEA.

“There’s a common misconception that a truck’s GVWR is determined by adding gross axle weight ratings (GAWRs) together for all axles. Although this was a common way of calculating GVWR many years ago, it’s no longer an accurate method. The chassis manufacturer task of establishing a vehicle GVWR is much more difficult today due to advancement of safety system standards and how vehicles meet these requirements. This is why many trucks have a GVWR much lower than the combined axle ratings. It is not uncommon for a truck with a GVWR of 19,500 pounds to have a front axle rated at 7,500 pounds and a rear axle rated at 14,700 pounds. Safety standards that apply to braking, vehicle stability, and chassis manufacturer internal standards for durability, dynamic stability and handling can restrict GVWR even though the sum of the axle ratings exceeds 22,000 pounds. In this instance, the OEM set the GVWR at 19,500 pounds based on test results and vehicle dynamic performance to ensure a safe, reliable truck.”

My truck has the same front axle, front suspension, rear axle, transmission, engine, and frame rating as a 3500 which is rated to handle more GVWR than 10k. The only major difference in ratings is the 500 less rear GAWR due to its coil suspension. So the truck itself can handle more GVWR than it my 2550 is rated and its weakest link is the rear suspension which has a greater GAWR than the F350 that ha a greater GVWR.

There are different requirements in the testing for class 2 and class 3 trucks for these safety standards. If you need a class 3 truck get one, I’m not going to continue to play the “tell me what I want to hear” game.

Two different test requirements for safety standards? I believe that is false.

[nickthehunter]

demiles wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

demiles wrote:
A single axle weight rating alone doesn’t necessarily dictate vehicle performance as a whole. Here is some information about GVWR vs AWR from Bob Raybuck Director of Technical Services NTEA.

“There’s a common misconception that a truck’s GVWR is determined by adding gross axle weight ratings (GAWRs) together for all axles. Although this was a common way of calculating GVWR many years ago, it’s no longer an accurate method. The chassis manufacturer task of establishing a vehicle GVWR is much more difficult today due to advancement of safety system standards and how vehicles meet these requirements. This is why many trucks have a GVWR much lower than the combined axle ratings. It is not uncommon for a truck with a GVWR of 19,500 pounds to have a front axle rated at 7,500 pounds and a rear axle rated at 14,700 pounds. Safety standards that apply to braking, vehicle stability, and chassis manufacturer internal standards for durability, dynamic stability and handling can restrict GVWR even though the sum of the axle ratings exceeds 22,000 pounds. In this instance, the OEM set the GVWR at 19,500 pounds based on test results and vehicle dynamic performance to ensure a safe, reliable truck.”

My truck has the same front axle, front suspension, rear axle, transmission, engine, and frame rating as a 3500 which is rated to handle more GVWR than 10k. The only major difference in ratings is the 500 less rear GAWR due to its coil suspension. So the truck itself can handle more GVWR than it my 2550 is rated and its weakest link is the rear suspension which has a greater GAWR than the F350 that ha a greater GVWR.

There are different requirements in the testing for class 2 and class 3 trucks for these safety standards. If you need a class 3 truck get one, I’m not going to continue to play the “tell me what I want to hear” game.

I’ll tell him (hopefully once he hears it he’ll be done).
Shiner - you are indeed smarter than the manufacturers. The manufacturer’s engineers are stupid and know nothing about the products they are designing. You indeed have figured it out and everyone here should ignore the manufacturer’s ratings and go by the “Sihiner Ratings” instead.

[Groover]

NRALIFR wrote:

Old-Biscuit wrote:
And that is why I personally do NOT give a hoot about a mfgs GVWR or payload number which is based off of that mfgs GVWR

Me too neither.

My old 2010 F450 had a GVWR of 14,500, making it technically a class 4.

My new 2016 F450 has the same axles, brakes, wheels, tires, suspension, etc. Basically the same truck as the 2010, except for the engine and Diesel after-treatment requirements. It’s GVWR is 14,000, which makes it a class 3.

They both haul(ed) my TC equally well, requiring the least amount of suspension mods (upper Stableloads) of any truck I’ve owned.

Lowering the GVWR of the 2016 was clearly for some reason other than what the truck can actually haul safely.

:):)

There is something that has changed since 2010. I feel that highway speeds have been steadily increasing. On newer trucks manufacturers may simply be facing the reality that the vehicles may be driven faster than before and cannot safely handle as much weight at the higher speeds.

[demiles]

ShinerBock wrote:

demiles wrote:
A single axle weight rating alone doesn’t necessarily dictate vehicle performance as a whole. Here is some information about GVWR vs AWR from Bob Raybuck Director of Technical Services NTEA.

“There’s a common misconception that a truck’s GVWR is determined by adding gross axle weight ratings (GAWRs) together for all axles. Although this was a common way of calculating GVWR many years ago, it’s no longer an accurate method. The chassis manufacturer task of establishing a vehicle GVWR is much more difficult today due to advancement of safety system standards and how vehicles meet these requirements. This is why many trucks have a GVWR much lower than the combined axle ratings. It is not uncommon for a truck with a GVWR of 19,500 pounds to have a front axle rated at 7,500 pounds and a rear axle rated at 14,700 pounds. Safety standards that apply to braking, vehicle stability, and chassis manufacturer internal standards for durability, dynamic stability and handling can restrict GVWR even though the sum of the axle ratings exceeds 22,000 pounds. In this instance, the OEM set the GVWR at 19,500 pounds based on test results and vehicle dynamic performance to ensure a safe, reliable truck.”

My truck has the same front axle, front suspension, rear axle, transmission, engine, and frame rating as a 3500 which is rated to handle more GVWR than 10k. The only major difference in ratings is the 500 less rear GAWR due to its coil suspension. So the truck itself can handle more GVWR than it my 2550 is rated and its weakest link is the rear suspension which has a greater GAWR than the F350 that ha a greater GVWR.

There are different requirements in the testing for class 2 and class 3 trucks for these safety standards. If you need a class 3 truck get one, I’m not going to continue to play the “tell me what I want to hear” game.

[ShinerBock]

blofgren wrote:


You couldn't talk your dad out of buying a truck with a CP4?? :?:B

I have talked to him about the issues that my brother was having and so did his cousin with his 2013, but just as conversation and not trying to get him to buy anything else. He only buys Fords so it would be like taking to a brick wall even if I wanted to try and pursued him, which I don't.

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:


Never said your statement was "a dig".

BTW... I've seen a few Shiner's on the 4th and will see a few more after our fishing trip tomorrow. :B

You didn't say anything, your post said it all. Why else would you post about an F350 with a 7200 GAWR even though it is irrelevant to the topic unless you felt that you had to defend the honor of the brand and ensure others that there are F350s with a higher than 6300 GAWR and then a picture of a Ram sticker at a purposeful spot? C'mon, I was born at night but not last night man. You didn't have to say a word to know why it was posted.

[blofgren]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


I'm going to throw you a curve ball...

F350 SRW
Rear GAWR: 7,230


BTW... It's hard to believe you were looking at a new truck recently that has a build date of 7/16.

Never said it was from a new truck.

What I said in an earlier post was, most (not all) of the F350 that we looked at had this same rating which was why he ended up ordering one because he could not find an F350 with a 7,200 rear GAWR with the options and color he wanted. I can take a picture of me standing next his new F350 the next time I see him if you don't believe me. Can even hold up a sign saying "Yes Fish, this is Shiner".

Also, as I stated earlier too, this is not a dig on Ford but rather pointing out a truck that has less GAWR can have a higher GVWR and this was the only example I had.

You couldn't talk your dad out of buying a truck with a CP4?? :?:B

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


I'm going to throw you a curve ball...

F350 SRW
Rear GAWR: 7,230


BTW... It's hard to believe you were looking at a new truck recently that has a build date of 7/16.

Never said it was from a new truck.

What I said in an earlier post was, most (not all) of the F350 that we looked at had this same rating which was why he ended up ordering one because he could not find an F350 with a 7,200 rear GAWR with the options and color he wanted. I can take a picture of me standing next his new F350 the next time I see him if you don't believe me. Can even hold up a sign saying "Yes Fish, this is Shiner".

Also, as I stated earlier too, this is not a dig on Ford but rather pointing out a truck that has less GAWR can have a higher GVWR and this was the only example I had.

Never said your statement was "a dig".

BTW... I've seen a few Shiner's on the 4th and will see a few more after our fishing trip tomorrow. :B

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:


I'm going to throw you a curve ball...

F350 SRW
Rear GAWR: 7,230


BTW... It's hard to believe you were looking at a new truck recently that has a build date of 7/16.

Never said it was from a new truck.

What I said in an earlier post was, most (not all) of the F350 that we looked at had this same rating which was why he ended up ordering one because he could not find an F350 with a 7,200 rear GAWR with the options and color he wanted. I can take a picture of me standing next his new F350 the next time I see him if you don't believe me. Can even hold up a sign saying "Yes Fish, this is Shiner".

Also, as I stated earlier too, this is not a dig on Ford but rather pointing out a truck that has less GAWR can have a higher GVWR and this was the only example I had.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:
Well I guess that everyone checked out of the thread where I posted this because no one seemed to answer it and the thread died shortly there after(unless no one had an answer). So here is to hoping that a new thread will get new looks and maybe an explanation.

Can someone explain this? This F350 has a lower front GAWR, lower rear GAWR, and lower combined GAWR yet has a higher GVWR than my 2500. Kind of goes along with what I have been saying about some(not all) class 2B(250/2500) diesel trucks are de-rated due EPA and federal max GVWR numbers of their class rather than their actual carrying ability, but I would love to hear anyone else's explanation or guess.


2017 F350
Front GAWR: 5,600
Rear GAWR: 6,340
Combined GAWR: 11,940
GVWR: 11,500





My 2014 Ram 2500
Front GAWR: 6,000
Rear GAWR: 6,500
Combined GAWR: 12,500
GVWR: 10,000





I can see how this GM 3500 got its 11,500 GVWR rating even though it has a lower front GAWR then mine. The Ram 3500 SRW has just about the same rating, but with a 6,000 front GAWR and a 7,000 rear GAWR.

2018 GM 3500
Front GAWR: 5,600
Rear GAWR: 7,050
Combined GAWR: 12,650
GVWR: 11,500

I'm going to throw you a curve ball...

F350 SRW
Rear GAWR: 7,230






BTW... It's hard to believe you were looking at a new truck recently that has a build date of 7/16.