cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

What does this mean???

SoonerWing03
Explorer
Explorer
One of the TT's that I am considering has the following weight ratings (taken from the stickers on the unit).

UVW: 5020 lbs
GVWR: 6500 lbs

Max Cargo: 1440 lbs

2 axel's each rated at 3500 lbs

My question is this, if the axel's can support 7,000 lbs, why would the GVWR be 6500 lbs? Does this mean that the frame is not strong enough to support more? Or does it mean that the tires cannot support that much weight? Or neither?
23 REPLIES 23

myredracer
Explorer II
Explorer II
Be aware that if your frame ever fails for any reason during the warranty period, Lippert will automatically blame the owner for overloading the frame. And you can be assured if you did something to try and increase the GVWR, that'd be another reason to invalidate the warranty.

Some frames are barely able to support the UVW when they leave the factory. Looking at frames when shopping is a very good idea. I'd avoid the type of frame that is 3 pieces of sheet steel welded together to make an I-beam. Brochures won't tell you a TT has one of them. Some manufacturers even call these weak frames "heavy duty".

We had a previous TT and the day after we owned it, we discovered a major defect in the frame. Lippert stated "it's within spec.". Took it to a gov't certified inspection facility and they produced a report which led to the entire TT being replaced. The frame & axle shop said it was the worst frame they'd ever seen. Def. not overloaded as we hadn't even put a single thing in it yet!

You can upgrade axles with higher rated ones and install a higher load range tire, but the GVWR assigned by the factory won't change. Frames unfortunately are not required to meet any gov't regulations or industry standards and Lippert can build them however they want. Most frames (Lippert) have cold-rolled once-piece I-beams but can vary in height and some have additional reinforcement at the spring hangers. Different TT manufacturers can use stronger or weaker frame designs for similar length and wt. of TTs yet have varying GVWRs assigned to them. Getting a TT with a higher CCC *should* mean a stronger frame, but not always. I suggest crawling under frames when shopping and take notes and photos. I think you'll be surprised at how different they can be. Take 12-13% off a GVWR when shopping to get an estimate of weight on axles & tires. Never use the UVW or dry tongue wt. numbers.

Frames that flex a lot can even damage the superstructure that sits on it. This photo is a failed weld in the aluminum superstructure from excessive frame flex on a TT less than a year old. Bouncy & rough roads and/or many miles on weak frames can increase the chances of significant issues like this. Some frames even develop fatigue cracks above the spring hangers from excessive flex.

A few TTs have BAL frames and Outdoors RV/Nash/Artic Fox use their own in-house built HD off-road certified frames. If we ever bought another TT I'd be looking at one of these.

I highly recommend taking a brand new TT straight to a scale on the way home from the dealer and keeping the scale ticket somewhere safe.

Shop wisely!

SoonerWing03
Explorer
Explorer
jfkmk wrote:
SoonerWing03 wrote:
Also, how do you explain this one?

GVWR: 6600
UVW: 5160

Cargo Capacity: 1400

2 axel's each rated at 3000

3000 x 2 = 6000 < 6600 GVWR :h

Tongue takes some of the weight.


That makes sense. Thank you.

SoonerWing03
Explorer
Explorer
jfkmk wrote:
SoonerWing03 wrote:
So with that said, if I upgraded the tires could I effectively increase the cargo capacity?

Absolutely not. As stated, no one on this forum knows exactly why rt he capacity is what it is, they're just telling you what it might be. Ludicrous to think anyone can make that kind of engineering judgement based on the limited info you provided. Why don't you believe the folks who made the trailer?


Wow, sorry to have offended you.

It's not that I don't believe them, I am just trying to figure out why their numbers don't seem to add up. I have had some suggest upgrading tires and I am trying to determine what all effect that would have and on what aspects. As with most things, they are trying to control costs to maximize profit margins so maybe the skimped on tires??? IDK I'm just trying to figure out, if possible, why the GVWR would be less than the axel rating. I have read so many different numbers about the same units that I am just trying to build my understanding so that I have to rely on others as little as possible.

I wasn't trying to ask a ludicrous question, my apologies.

jfkmk
Explorer
Explorer
SoonerWing03 wrote:
Also, how do you explain this one?

GVWR: 6600
UVW: 5160

Cargo Capacity: 1400

2 axel's each rated at 3000

3000 x 2 = 6000 < 6600 GVWR :h

Tongue takes some of the weight.

jfkmk
Explorer
Explorer
SoonerWing03 wrote:
So with that said, if I upgraded the tires could I effectively increase the cargo capacity?

Absolutely not. As stated, no one on this forum knows exactly why rt he capacity is what it is, they're just telling you what it might be. Ludicrous to think anyone can make that kind of engineering judgement based on the limited info you provided. Why don't you believe the folks who made the trailer?

SoonerWing03
Explorer
Explorer
Also, how do you explain this one?

GVWR: 6600
UVW: 5160

Cargo Capacity: 1400

2 axel's each rated at 3000

3000 x 2 = 6000 < 6600 GVWR :h

SoonerWing03
Explorer
Explorer
So with that said, if I upgraded the tires could I effectively increase the cargo capacity?

dodge_guy
Explorer II
Explorer II
Without seeing it I’m guessing the limit is in the tires.
Wife Kim
Son Brandon 17yrs
Daughter Marissa 16yrs
Dog Bailey

12 Forest River Georgetown 350TS Hellwig sway bars, BlueOx TrueCenter stabilizer

13 Ford Explorer Roadmaster Stowmaster 5000, VIP Tow>
A bad day camping is
better than a good day at work!

donn0128
Explorer II
Explorer II
All of the above. GVWR is the sum of the weakest component. Could be tires, wheels, axles, or springs.