Dodge Promaster

[Chance]

Originally Posted by dhally

If you read some of the other posts on this forum it appears that many SMB's are operated at or above the GVWR. Seems to be pretty common with RV's in general.

You are right that it's more common than it should be, but it's not something I'd want to do myself. I certainly wouldn't go out and buy a new RV knowing that the weight rating is so marginal that it would likely lead to overloading. My family's safety is too important to me to take unnecessary risks.

I read Motorhome magazine on a regular basis a long time ago and a lot of problems reported came about because of overloaded vehicles. Overheated tires leading to blowouts was one that came up frequently.

[86Scotty]

Wow, just checked out some of the specs on Winnie's website. 6'7" interior height, all beds well over 6' long, 15' awning, and it looks like you could sleep and seat 6 depending on floorplan. Not bad for a class B/C, but not an offroader either. No way you will go very far with that rear overhang.

I'm curious about fuel economy and torque with that gas engine.

[daveb]

Originally Posted by dhally

If you read some of the other posts on this forum it appears that many SMB's are operated at or above the GVWR. Seems to be pretty common with RV's in general.

I feel the issue are those companies that aren't upgrading what is necessary to run the vehicle safely. You would think that by building big and/or heavy RV's, the industry would require some kind of regulations to go by (including SMB). I know when I bought my van they told me that my selection of rims/wheels was limited due to weight. Obviously some of the frame and drivetrain were built above standard. I was told that D rated tires were OK if I didn't go too far when loading the vehicle and it wasn't long before I surpassed the load limit requiring me to install E's. IMO some parts were (and still are) under rated such as the brakes.
So is it a free for all when it comes to RV's? Take any kind of utility vehicle. Are they under a different set of rules? If you take a 3/4 ton pickup and install what's needed to make it a 1 ton can you carry what a 1 ton can even though the GRVW is shown as a 3/4 ton?

Maybe the Winnebago Trend has been upgraded a bit???

[Chance]

Originally Posted by daveb

I feel the issue are those companies that aren't upgrading what is necessary to run the vehicle safely. You would think that by building big and/or heavy RV's, the industry would require some kind of regulations to go by (including SMB). I know when I bought my van they told me that my selection of rims/wheels was limited due to weight. Obviously some of the frame and drivetrain were built above standard. I was told that D rated tires were OK if I didn't go too far when loading the vehicle and it wasn't long before I surpassed the load limit requiring me to install E's. IMO some parts were (and still are) under rated such as the brakes.
So is it a free for all when it comes to RV's? Take any kind of utility vehicle. Are they under a different set of rules? If you take a 3/4 ton pickup and install what's needed to make it a 1 ton can you carry what a 1 ton can even though the GRVW is shown as a 3/4 ton?

Maybe the Winnebago Trend has been upgraded a bit???

I seriously doubt RV manufacturers can just build whatever they want. There are governmental regulations that restrict vehicles in many ways, including the max load the chassis is rated for. Upgrading it with higher load rated tires, or whatever, doesn't increase its Gross Vehicle Weight Rating unless the chassis is rerated and approved for the new higher standard.

A common major modification to increase weight rating was/is adding a tag axle. This was more common decades ago when the industry was not as restricted as it is today. Also today it's not as common because chassis with higher GVWR are avaialble from the factory.

In my opinion modifying a 3/4 with upgrades common on a 1 ton doesn't change its GVWR. If nothing else, from a liability standpoint it would make little sense for an RV manufacturer to overload a chassis. What they often do is put out an RV that has very little usable cargo carrying capacity.

[dhally]

We bought a brand new Class C motorhome (Itasco) a few years ago. It had an E350 chassis with V10. There were lots of things about it that made me "wonder" what were they thinking. But it was cheap to buy.

- One Group 27 aux battery - WAY too small
- Had a nice 2 -place battery box BUT the cables were too short to get the batteries in and out easily
- Fresh water tank was bigger than grey water tank
- The coach extended a LONG ways past the rear axle. The frame extension was so lightweight it would have needed a major steel addition to support a class III hitch.
- No rear anti-sway bar. If ever a vehicle needed one, that was it.
- brakes wore out in 12,000 miles

The mass RV mfgs tend to go cheap at least on the less expensive models.

[daveb]

Not only do I not know what the total weight of the Trend is, I also don't know what the chassis is rated at. I don't plan to purchase one.

My point is that you would think if you designed and built something, you would rate it for a specific load it was intended to haul.

That's a problem with the E-350 SMB. The frame may be well able to handle the weight but the rest of the equipment comes into play and they're easy to overload. At least most of the stuff on my van is not stock even though it really means nothing cause of what the sticker says. Not gonna let it bug me though. I just want to upgrade the damn brakes a bit more

Too bad the manufactures don't go a little further but I guess it's to fool you a bit...

[BajaSportsmobile]

What makes anyone think that the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is based on the safe total weight of a vehicle. It has more to do with taxes, DOT, EPA, Insurance and other regulations than actual capacity of the platform. GVWR's are so understated.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by BajaSportsmobile

What makes anyone think that the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is based on the safe total weight of a vehicle. It has more to do with taxes, DOT, EPA, Insurance and other regulations than actual capacity of the platform. GVWR's are so understated.

In my opinion you have cause and effect backwards. GVWR is meant to represent some measure of reasonable safety based on design's weakest link. My E-350 factory brakes are marginal at 7000 pounds, and no doubt would be near-inadequate at 9500 pounds. I may be able to load the van to 11000 pounds without breaking anything at first, but braking would be dangerous. GVWR just draws the line where engineers and government think a safe load is reasonable.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by daveb

.......cut.......

Too bad the manufactures don't go a little further but I guess it's to fool you a bit...

They do over time as vehicles improve overall, but it has to be done gradually or they would place themselves at a cost disadvantage against competitors. As buyers we have to demand a higher standard from all manufacturers before it becomes common. Short term if they added lots of upgrades they'd have to increase the GVWR to get a higher price. IMO it's just part of free markets driven by competition.

[BajaSportsmobile]

Originally Posted by Chance

In my opinion you have cause and effect backwards. GVWR is meant to represent some measure of reasonable safety based on design's weakest link. My E-350 factory brakes are marginal at 7000 pounds, and no doubt would be near-inadequate at 9500 pounds. I may be able to load the van to 11000 pounds without breaking anything at first, but braking would be dangerous. GVWR just draws the line where engineers and government think a safe load is reasonable.

And yet, those exact same brakes on your E-350 are on an E250 as well as E350 box van, ambulance or Class C Motor Home with a much higher GVWR, as is the same frame, drive shaft, wheel bearings, shock absorbers... GVWR's are way understated. It is proven every day in third world countries like right here in southern California.

When I bought my F250, I first considered a F350, until I learned that there were only three differences in the two trucks: 1) the badges on the body. 2) the height of the lift blocks under the rear springs. 3) licensing fees.

You don't have to throw out the milk on the date on the bottle either.