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

[ShinerBock]

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.

[ShinerBock]

mich800 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

mich800 wrote:


The short answer is because they want to. You are going down a rabbit hole that will only lead to more questions than answers.

Then why do people here abide by GVWR and payloads so much if they are just made up?

Maybe for warranty purposes or for those that don't care or incapable of doing their own research.

It is generally the easiest and safest to stay with the manufacturer's number. But as evidenced by states that allow you to pick your weight category the OEM's take a back seat to the state and federal load laws.

You will always run into the by the book and you must never deviate from that individuals. But the simple exercise you are trying to accomplish highlights the fact things are not always that simple.

What I am trying to highlight is the fallacy of assuming what a truck can handle based on whether it has a two or three on its badge and how "made up" the factory GVWR numbers are in regards some trucks just to stay within regulation.

Many people would not even question putting the 3,500 in the back of that F350(which is its payload rating) in my original post, but would question it with my 2500. Why? Simply due to the 3 on the F350 and the 2 on my 2500. Yet 3,100 would put that F350 over its rear GAWR while my truck could take the whole 3,500 and still be under its rear GAWR.

[demiles]

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.”

[blofgren]

Interesting thread. I don't know the answer as to the differences in the stickers.

I do have a question as well; if GVWR "doesn't matter", then why do manufacturers bother to assign one to vehicles?

Here in BC, GVWR is certainly a number that is enforced. There are random roadside weight checks and if your vehicle is over the GVWR, they have you unhook your RV and you can pick it up from the towing compound with a vehicle that has an adequate GVWR to handle it. Hence one of the major reasons I have a tow vehicle with a 14,000 lb. GVWR and I am well under that number.

I would suspect as time continues with so many people pulling too big of rigs with not enough truck, GVWR will be enforced in other jurisdictions as well.

[NRALIFR]

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.

:):)

[Groover]

There are a whole lot of components that go into a truck and total capacity is determined by the one that might break first. You have to look at the the entire drive train, frame, handling, and cooling in addition to the axles. Also, you are comparing two different brands, they may have a different take on ratings and their respective legal departments may have different opinions.

[Me_Again]

IdaD wrote:
I doubt all F350s are rated that low. Maybe the tires on that model are the limiting feature?

LT275/65R20E are rated to 3750 at 80 pounds inflation. So that is not the limiting factor.

Now for GM on SRW 3500 they use 265/70R18E tires where RAM uses 275/70R18E tires. That is most likely why RAM puts 11,700 on SB and 12,200 on LB trucks, along with their 6K FGAWR and 7K RGAWR.

Now FORD is not easy to explain. Maybe aluminum body trucks and lighter, so they have equal or more CC.

Chris

[mich800]

ShinerBock wrote:

mich800 wrote:


The short answer is because they want to. You are going down a rabbit hole that will only lead to more questions than answers.

Then why do people here abide by GVWR and payloads so much if they are just made up?

Maybe for warranty purposes or for those that don't care or incapable of doing their own research.

It is generally the easiest and safest to stay with the manufacturer's number. But as evidenced by states that allow you to pick your weight category the OEM's take a back seat to the state and federal load laws.

You will always run into the by the book and you must never deviate from that individuals. But the simple exercise you are trying to accomplish highlights the fact things are not always that simple.

[Old-Biscuit]

ShinerBock wrote:

mich800 wrote:


The short answer is because they want to. You are going down a rabbit hole that will only lead to more questions than answers.

Then why do people here abide by GVWR and payloads so much if they are just made up?

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

RAWR/Rear Tire MAX Load ratings are what I use
First off...GVWR is NOT a legal issue except for registration.
Pay for higher registration and good to go
Secondly...axle/tire ratings ARE legal issues.

Stay out or under those and good to go.

[ShinerBock]

nickthehunter wrote:
If you want to ignore the manufacturer ratings go ahead. I don’t think anyone here gives a _____ what you do with your own truck.

No need to get hostile mate! Just having conversation on different facts and different points of view. Just because I reply with a rebuttal or fact does not mean I am trying to get in a pi$$ing match.

[nickthehunter]

If you want to ignore the manufacturer ratings go ahead. I don’t think anyone here gives a _____ what you do with your own truck.

[ShinerBock]

mich800 wrote:


The short answer is because they want to. You are going down a rabbit hole that will only lead to more questions than answers.

Then why do people here abide by GVWR and payloads so much if they are just made up?

[mich800]

ShinerBock wrote:

mich800 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Old-Biscuit wrote:
Simply a matter of 'Classification' ----No mystery involved

I was looking for an explanation from those people on how a truck with less GAWR can have a higher GVWR.

I am confused by this statement. Does this have to do with your post on another thread. Because you gave no examples like this here. All combined axle limits were higher than GVWR. Unless I miss read something.

Or are you making comparisons between different trucks. Because if you are, if you are not bald now you will be trying to rationalize this variance.

No, my point is why does a truck that has less front GAWR, less rear GAWR, and less combined GAWR have a higher GVWR. Basically I am asking why does a truck with a 12,500 combined GAWR have a 10k GVWR while a truck that only has an 11,940 combined GAWR have an 11.5k GVWR?

The short answer is because they want to. You are going down a rabbit hole that will only lead to more questions than answers.

[ShinerBock]

mich800 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Old-Biscuit wrote:
Simply a matter of 'Classification' ----No mystery involved

I was looking for an explanation from those people on how a truck with less GAWR can have a higher GVWR.

I am confused by this statement. Does this have to do with your post on another thread. Because you gave no examples like this here. All combined axle limits were higher than GVWR. Unless I miss read something.

Or are you making comparisons between different trucks. Because if you are, if you are not bald now you will be trying to rationalize this variance.

No, my point is why does a truck that has less front GAWR, less rear GAWR, and less combined GAWR have a higher GVWR. Basically I am asking why does a truck with a 12,500 combined GAWR have a 10k GVWR while a truck that only has an 11,940 combined GAWR have an 11.5k GVWR?

[ShinerBock]

nickthehunter wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
..... I was looking for an explanation from those people on how a truck with less GAWR can have a higher GVWR.

i provided one possible explanation. In short, there is no direct correlation between GAWR and GVWR. You can have 10 ton axles on a 5 ton frame.

And I rebutted that explanation with more information just like any other convo between two people.

In regards to the frame, my 2500 is formed from the same steel and has the same strength as the 3500 which has a higher GVWR. Everything else on the truck is the same as a 3500 too. So the truck itself can handle more than the 6,500 GAWR of the rear axle to know that it is not the weak link here which makes the "10 ton axle on a 5 ton frame" a moot point.