Is J2807 worthless?

[Huntindog]

A recent thread was locked due to brand bickering. Before I got a chance to respond to the latest turn of the conversation.

It was stated that J2807 a worthless standard by a few people... Primarily because it did not address a specific need that the poster felt was important,,,or did not have a high enough standard in a specific area...

This is nit picking. A standard is just that... A standard. If all meet the same standard in determining ratings, then the playing field is level.
The alternative is leaving it up to the smoke and mirrors of the marketing gurus, to come up with a number (and assorted fine print) that will sell to the public.

There will never be any standard that will totally satisfy everyone.

So it is better to have a minimum standard than not.
Those that for whatever reason think that the standard is not good enough for them... Are free to do their individual analyisis of the vehicles using the standard as a baseline to decide what TV meets their specicfic needs... They have been doing this now without any standard at all for years... So this standard would even help them.

[blt2ski]

SHiner,

Issue is, MANY of us still use these truck in commercial settings. Out of the 500,000+ miles I have towing trailers, less than 100K of that is an rv. The rest is what I would call local delivery commercial.

Hence why I would choose for this part of the test, the typical min speed on interstates.

Then another for folks. Back in 92 when I bought an rv, there was a ford poster on the wall. Max trailer spec at the time was 10K for a 8 lug 250/350. That was with a trailer that had no more than 80 sw ft of frontal area. it ws reduced 2500 lbs if you were between 81 and 100, another 2500 for 101-120 to 5000 lbs. and trailers over 120 sqft was NOT recomended you tow with your F series trucks. Some similar deducts were there for the Ranger and Aerostar vans with the 4.0 V6.

Marty

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

🙂 Hi, I don't think that the J2807 tests are bad, but how much difference has it made to what the manufacturers have already rated these trucks? A few hundred pounds, plus or minus???????? How many people on this forum changed brands of trucks because of the difference caused by the J2807 tests/ratings?

Would I like to see the difference in numbers? Yes.

Would it have made a difference in which truck I bought? No.

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:
Question. Why do RV'rs think they should be able to tow anything up any hill within 5 mph of the speed limit? If so, all the 18 wheelers I pass going over the Siskiyous on my way home shouldn't be on the road

Recreational RVer's using personal vehicles is a completely different thing than a professional truck driver using a commercial vehicle. Which is why the J2807 does not apply to anything over the 14,000 GVWR trucks that gets into medium duty commercial truck territory. Commercial trucks should have a separate SAE rating (or the current one) since they are usually driven by professional drivers with experience handling such weights.

Although I would have to ask why is it bad to expect your truck to perform well within its ratings? I know that not everyone's expectations are the same therefore "performing well" would be different between each person. Some are okay with lower standards and expectations while others have higher expectations and standards. Still, what is wrong with wanting or expecting that a truck should maintain within a reasonable speed limit?

To ask a question back, I would have to ask why would you want the tow ratings so high? What is the point? If the speed limit requirement is raised then all it is doing is lowering the tow rating to a more reasonable number... nothing more.

Here is how it currently works. Take a Ram 3500 (or Ford F450) rated to tow 30k per current J2807. Say it passed all the other J2807 tests(since they are fairly easy) and the only thing that limited the tow rating was the gradeability test of towing up Davis Dam at a minimum of 35 mph. Of course the manufacturer is going to stack as much weight on this test for marketing reasons just so they can say their truck tows some ludicrous amount so their commercials can label it "best in class". So they stack as much as they can (30,000+ lbs) to the back of this truck even though no one without a commercial driver's licence has any business pulling this amount of weight all because the truck will still pass the test since the speed limit is a low 35 mph.

Now, the very same truck, but with a speed limit of 55 mph. Since the speed limit is raised, then they will not be able to stack so much weight to the back of the truck to get it to pass therefore the tow ratings will decrease to a more reasonable number. Say that truck is only able to tow 23k up that Davis Dam test while maintaining a minimum speed of 55 mph therefore the J2807 tow rating with the increased 55 mph speed would be 23k instead of 30k with a lower 35 mph speed. It is the exact same truck, but the only difference is the tow rating dropped to being closer to a weight most that buy these trucks would tow because the test standards were raised.

If one was against raising the speed limit standard for non commercial vehicles, then I would have to ask why when the only thing having a lower speed limit does is allow manufacturers tout higher tow ratings that these trucks shouldn't be towing without a professional driver behind the wheel. Why are lower tow ratings for non-commercial vehicles so bad especially when they are still reasonable to what most people tow if the standard was rasied?

[wilber1]

Question. Why do RV'rs think they should be able to tow anything up any hill within 5 mph of the speed limit? If so, all the 18 wheelers I pass going over the Siskiyous on my way home shouldn't be on the road

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

Bedlam wrote:
It is a DNS issue. If you have problems posting through RV.net go to forums.woodalls.com with your same login.

Thanks, that fixed it.


Now to post what I wanted to earlier.


Marty, the reason why I believe that the J2807 should have a minimum of 55 mph is for two reasons.

For one, the J2807 is only done on an average 5% road with a max 7% grade for a small portion at a max of 3,500 ft above sea level. That is not that high of an elevation or that steep of a grade as you pointed out. If a truck can only go 40 mph on an average 5% grade road at a max of 3,500 ft towing 15,000 lbs, then you can imagine how much slower that same truck would be going up a 15% grade at 6,500 ft towing the same weight especially an N/A gaser. If the J2807 was going up the same route they use for the Ike Gauntlet at a max of 12,000 ft then I would think the 40 mph minimum would be more acceptable because if it can do that speed at those extreme altitudes towing its max then you know it can do it at lower altitudes.

Secondly, trucks today have gotten more powerful with more capable components because the bar keeps getting raised year after year along with tow ratings in this proverbial pissing match the truck makes are in to top each other. Yes, competition is good, but when is enough...enough when it comes to tow ratings? I say raise the standards to be able to tow a lower number better instead of lowering the standards just so their marketing department can say their truck can tow some ungodly amount that a bigger truck would be better suited for and that 99.9% of that kind of trucks buyers will never even tow. Instead of a manufacturer boasting that their truck can 30k lbs up a 6% grade at 3,500 ft at a dismal 35 mph, I would much rather them say that their truck can tow 23k lbs up a 6% at 3,500 ft at 55 mph. Afterall, what RVer's wouldn't love to go up roads like the Ike in their 15k RV while being able to keep within 5 mph of the speed limit the whole way.


These are the two main reasons why I say raise the speed requirement which in turn would lower the tow ratings to a more reasonable number most pickup truck owners would tow with these trucks. Plus since the J2807 doesn't have a long distance down hill braking test I wouldn't mind seeing some lower towing numbers on these vehicles.

I agree and here's a new '16 RAM 3500 pulling at the Ike Gauntlet.

Link

[blt2ski]

Shiner,

Glad you got posted, I just sent you a pm back with a "I've been using trailerlife.com to post" when I have been having some issues the last few days. For all, I have reported my issues to the upper folks I report to in a forum we talk to ea other on about issues etc. It may very well be a server issues, along with what will hopefully be an improvement on the way......wait until you "I'll see it, to believe it" if it shows up....

Back to shiners thoughts.

I understand your thoughts. Issues with your grade options. An interstate per federal law, for the most part has a max of 6% with short bursts to 8%. So from the towing up a grade standpoint at a minimum speed of X mph....5% is adequate in my book. Not real sure a 45 at 6% or 55 at 5% is going to make that big of a deal. One could end up with too much cooling on lessor roads and environments in such a manner that rigs will not due as well from an mpg etc standpoint.

You do not get into the 15+% range until on city or at best typically county roads. Sometimes a state road, or for sure forest service, driveways etc. So can a person go 45+ mph on these types of roads? maybe, do I need to, not! in reality, a max 35 on a 15% grade is plenty in my book based on the types of roads I have seen, most of not all I have driven up, the max speed limit has been 25-35 mph. With this in mind, the HP/ability to go faster than this is not needed. From my bases, its being able to stay going! having burned up an auto trans or three do to lack of gearing in trans, not axels!

Grade braking would be good, say 25 mph max on a 10+% grade in low gear or maybe 2nd......max 35-40 on a typical 5% freeway grade I just went up meeting the uphill performance spec in min 2nd, maybe 3rd or max gear below direct!

Adding a few more thoughts on what should be included.
3 frontal area figures, for a full size 60, 90, and 120 sq ft. With these broken down to 3 other figures, aerodynamic setup, say an airostream/boat. moderate, typical boxy trailer, and a very unaerodynamic setup. Some of you have probably seen contractors with pipe rack etc on trailers, along with some kinds of construction equipment that are not aerodynamic in nature. As an example, some figures I've worked out in the past. A 15K rig with 70# of FA, takes about 105hp to go down the road at 60 mph. Same weight at 90#, 135HP! same hp as a 26K/70# setup!

Another reality is, no matter what minimum spec is chosen, SOMEONE is not going to like the specs. For some of the same reasons I do not. I go up way steeper grades locally than the specs call for. With no deduct in specs for wt reduction of i am going up these grades. I'm not in a mode to buy $3K trannies like 30K mile clock work as I have done in the past with trucks.

There are a lot of factors that go into how well or will not your rig work. Even tire types, 60 vs 85 series, radial vs bias, traction vs hwy will effect who well, fast etc you rig will do towing. Most of these things are also somewhat predictable with formulas that engineers have worked out throught the years. so literal testing is not needed per say, but yet still testing needs to be done.

Marty

ps, I had to copy and past into TL to get this to work......grrrrrrrr!

[ShinerBock]

Bedlam wrote:
It is a DNS issue. If you have problems posting through RV.net go to forums.woodalls.com with your same login.

Thanks, that fixed it.


Now to post what I wanted to earlier.


Marty, the reason why I believe that the J2807 should have a minimum of 55 mph is for two reasons.

For one, the J2807 is only done on an average 5% road with a max 7% grade for a small portion at a max of 3,500 ft above sea level. That is not that high of an elevation or that steep of a grade as you pointed out. If a truck can only go 40 mph on an average 5% grade road at a max of 3,500 ft towing 15,000 lbs, then you can imagine how much slower that same truck would be going up a 15% grade at 6,500 ft towing the same weight especially an N/A gaser. If the J2807 was going up the same route they use for the Ike Gauntlet at a max of 12,000 ft then I would think the 40 mph minimum would be more acceptable because if it can do that speed at those extreme altitudes towing its max then you know it can do it at lower altitudes.

Secondly, trucks today have gotten more powerful with more capable components because the bar keeps getting raised year after year along with tow ratings in this proverbial pissing match the truck makes are in to top each other. Yes, competition is good, but when is enough...enough when it comes to tow ratings? I say raise the standards to be able to tow a lower number better instead of lowering the standards just so their marketing department can say their truck can tow some ungodly amount that a bigger truck would be better suited for and that 99.9% of that kind of trucks buyers will never even tow. Instead of a manufacturer boasting that their truck can 30k lbs up a 6% grade at 3,500 ft at a dismal 35 mph, I would much rather them say that their truck can tow 23k lbs up a 6% at 3,500 ft at 55 mph. Afterall, what RVer's wouldn't love to go up roads like the Ike in their 15k RV while being able to keep within 5 mph of the speed limit the whole way.


These are the two main reasons why I say raise the speed requirement which in turn would lower the tow ratings to a more reasonable number most pickup truck owners would tow with these trucks. Plus since the J2807 doesn't have a long distance down hill braking test I wouldn't mind seeing some lower towing numbers on these vehicles.

[Bedlam]

It is a DNS issue. If you have problems posting through RV.net go to forums.woodalls.com with your same login.

[rhagfo]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
test.

Okay, this is odd. I can post this , but when I want to post what I had typed up to say it keeps giving me a "web page not available" error.

You have been tagged. 😉

What does that mean?

Nothing, the "wink" indicates I am messing with ya!

I think they are still fighting server issues!

I seem to have issues with posting with a picture or a link from time to time.

Had a link and a picture just yesterday, got the error, removed the picture, posted, went to edit and added the picture, no go.

[wilber1]

Flashman wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
To me, that chart says the truck will meet J2807 performance criteria towing those weights. Of course you will have to weigh your particular truck and adjust them for your actual base weight but how is that not useful?

Sure its useful.

Where are the other manufacture's J2807 complaint charts?

I'm not interested in getting into the usual, "my truck is better than your truck" which goes on here. The thread title was "Is J2807 worthless?" I say no, it is not worthless because it is a baseline for performance, not intended to give anyone bragging rights other than to say their weights comply.

[Flashman]

spud1957 wrote:

Flashman wrote:

spud1957 wrote:

Where are the other manufacture's J2807 complaint charts?

Not sure what this has to do with the topic but Ford's "complaint" chart is in the back of the user's manual under Customer Assistance.

Post it up if you can

:S

Sorry Flashman but you failed to notice your spelling error in your post. I think you meant "compliant" not complaint.

Oh well - post it up if you can - I mean the Ford J2807 chart.

[spud1957]

Flashman wrote:

spud1957 wrote:

Where are the other manufacture's J2807 complaint charts?

Not sure what this has to do with the topic but Ford's "complaint" chart is in the back of the user's manual under Customer Assistance.

Post it up if you can

:S

Sorry Flashman but you failed to notice your spelling error in your post. I think you meant "compliant" not complaint.

[Cummins12V98]

ShinerBock wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
test.

Okay, this is odd. I can post this , but when I want to post what I had typed up to say it keeps giving me a "web page not available" error.

You have been tagged. 😉

What does that mean?

Nothing, the "wink" indicates I am messing with ya!

[Flashman]

spud1957 wrote:

Where are the other manufacture's J2807 complaint charts?

Not sure what this has to do with the topic but Ford's "complaint" chart is in the back of the user's manual under Customer Assistance.

Post it up if you can

[Bedlam]

brulaz wrote:
Like ShinerB, I would like to see more testing of the rigs ability to safely go DOWN a long steep grade.

IOW how much un-braked towed weight can the truck safely handle going down a standard grade? And while you're at it, make it a twisty one with 20mph hairpin turns separated by 35-45mph straights, not just an Interstate.

But I imagine there are many issues in designing such a standardized test.

As Marty wrote bellow, the tests are already out there but not applied to pickups. They just need to put these little guys through the same vetting as the bigger trucks.

blt2ski wrote:
To a degree, the current specs are better than nothing. I do not see them as being realistic from what many of us would can reasonable. Even an 18wheelers setup for OTR work have stiffer specs than pikcumups with this rating! We will not discuss rigs setup to potentially go off road like dump trucks, local deliver garbage trucks etc. Top end is not as good, but 60-80% grades to be pulled....40degrees for those not understanding % grades. 100% is a 45 degree angle, ie 1 unit of rise, per 1 unit of run.