YES dropping into 4lo will help. EXCEPT when one is on a twisty dry concret/asphalt mess of a road! THEN one will more than likely bind up the drivetrain, which would not be really good! Hence wanting to know who steep a grade I could go up in 1st gear 2wd or equal. I've had an 88 454/th400/3.73and 4.10 setup in an 89. BOTH stalled out soooooo many times, it was not funny any more when it happened. I have stalled the dmax on a hill, but it was wet, and rear lost traction. Fortunetly, I could reasonably safely go into 4hi, and up I went. That is more typical when pulling up hills, too much wt from the trailer pulling downward, then loss of traction.....not good! I do not think I would have lost traction had the rig been full in the bed. THen again.....I might still have!
Marty
Yes, this is why I will only ever own 4wd trucks that have manual locking hubs and manual shift transfer case. I use my transfer case in 4-Low with the hubs unlocked very regularly. I get the full power of 4-Low, without any driveline bind on hard surfaces, since the hubs are un-locked. Hooray for manual locking hubs! I hate those stupid vacuum auto hubs...
SoCalDesertRider wrote: De-rating GCWR for altitude, temperature or axle ratio are towing power issues, not a towing safety issue.
De-rating GCWR due to insufficient truck GVWR, payload capacity, RGAWR, or rear tire load capacity to carry the pin/hitch weight can be a safety issue. This is where trucks with a high GCWR or stated tow rating but not enough payload capacity get into trouble trying to tow trailers that fit the max tow rating limit but are too heavy for the truck to carry the hitch weight. The main culprits here are crew cab 1/2-tons, diesel 3/4-tons towing fifth wheels, SUV's and mini vans, since the trucks are typically heavy and have small payload capacities.
Axle capacity and tire load capacity are safety issues. GVWR, not so much. Just my opinion of course.
The manufacturers certify the braking performance according to the GVWR, not the sum of the front and rear GAWR's.
I know that in my trucks, when I load the trucks under the GVWR, braking performance is fine and acceptable. When I load over the GVWR but under the sum of the combined front and rear GAWR's, braking performance is greatly reduced and sometimes rather scary.
Also, in order to load my truck as heavy as the sum of the f/r GAWR's, I had to do quite a bit of suspension and wheel/tire mods. My truck in stock form did not handle being loaded to the sum of GAWR's well at all, but did handle being loaded to the GVWR just fine.
This indicates that GVWR is a safety issue, in my opinion, as well as the opinion of the Fed gov't and the vehicle manufacturers. That said, I do in fact modify the truck, load it over the GVWR, and drive carefully. It is not a good ideal situation. I would rather have a higher GVWR truck, not have to modify it, and have better fully loaded performance in stock form.
Federal government agrees with you? Perhaps, and in the same instance I can cite instances where government agencies are okay with licensing trucks for loads above GVWR. Sorry, but I disagree with you Socal, GVWR is not as crucial as axle and tire ratings. Again my opinion and take it for what it's worth. Just be aware I have real world experience of being over GVWR, and how those trucks behaved when loaded heavy.
A vehicle is a WHOLE SYSTEM, not any one component more important that the rest
Why any one 'RATING' is just a component of the whole system and to take any
one of the as absolute is out of context
There are weak links in that food chain and that they are not all
serial in that food chain...or better to state 'limiting links'
of that food chain.
About the only one RATING that is a whole system is GCWR
All of the OEMs had their own 'ratings' vs regulatory agency mandated 'minimums'
and now with this SAE, something that they all will toe the line against.
Again, if you don't believe in their ratings, then do whatever you wish and know
that you have let the OEMs off the hook both on warranty and liability
If you do believe in the ratings, then follow them along with learning how they
work and are modified by the fine print/legends
Finally, yes an imperfect world where we have legislators legislating technically
based laws into place with no technical background. Nor do they 'listen' to their
technical advisers often enough, or well enough, but that is our system and I
abide by them....while complaining about them if I think they are not well done....factored
by lobbyists who then prove this to be true: "the best politicians money can buy"...
Then I am very active in working in correcting them or overturning them
-Ben Picture of my rig
1996 GMC SLT Suburban 3/4 ton K3500/7.4L/4:1/+150Kmiles orig owner...
1980 Chevy Silverado C10/long bed/"BUILT" 5.7L/3:73/1 ton helper springs/+329Kmiles, bought it from dad...
1998 Mazda B2500 (1/2 ton) pickup, 2nd owner...
Praise Dyno Brake equiped and all have "nose bleed" braking!
Previous trucks/offroaders: 40's Jeep restored in mid 60's / 69 DuneBuggy (approx +1K lb: VW pan/200hpCorvair: eng, cam, dual carb'w velocity stacks'n 18" runners, 4spd transaxle) made myself from ground up / 1970 Toyota FJ40 / 1973 K5 Blazer (2dr Tahoe, 1 ton axles front/rear, +255K miles when sold it)...
Sold the boat (looking for another): Trophy with twin 150's...
51 cylinders in household, what's yours?...
I think it is a good idea. I am a little disappointed that Nissan is the least cooperative in getting on board. I don't want this to be government-controlled, but this plan does benefit the consumer when window shopping. I know I would quit doing 80% calculations etc. based on this test.
surveyorjp wrote: Federal government agrees with you? Perhaps, and in the same instance I can cite instances where government agencies are okay with licensing trucks for loads above GVWR. Sorry, but I disagree with you Socal, GVWR is not as crucial as axle and tire ratings. Again my opinion and take it for what it's worth. Just be aware I have real world experience of being over GVWR, and how those trucks behaved when loaded heavy.
NHTSA "minimum" brake testing is done per the FMVSS's ....
S6.3.1.1. For the tests at GVWR, the
vehicle is loaded to its GVWR such
that the weight on each axle as measured
at the tire-ground interface is in
proportion to its GAWR,....... .
These are a "minimum" braking test (not max) which the truck will easilly pass as truck manufacture have alredy done their "max" brake sizing and testing at the trucks FAWR/RAWR, according to chassis engineers anyway. Example is a '11 3500 DRW GM with a 9375 RAWR. GM simply sized the DRW trucks brakes to safely stop 9375 lbs. Same with trucks FAWR.
When I was on the road hauling for a living I had no issues with the brakes on any of my trucks up to those GAWRs. Above that and brake performance started to degrade.
This from FMCSA home page a couple years back pertaining to annual safety inspection check list criteria haulers have to do on their equipment (trucks and trailers):
NHTSA says this about components of the GAWR:
"Gross Axle Weight Rating is the rated load-carrying capacity of an individual axle and wheel assembly. (It represents the load that may be steadily sustained by the components in the system; i.e., tires, rims, hubs, bearing, axles, brakes, suspension, sub frame, etc. with the GAWR limited by the components with the lowest working rating."
Trucks brakes just like our trailers brakes are sized to the vehicles individule axle ratings. And pass the minimum FMVSS tests
IMO the new towing standards won't change anything in the commercial/private haulers world. The operator will still have to figure what his trucks tow/haul numbers are or which ones are of concern. Truck manufactures will still give us GVWR/FAWR/RAWR/GCWR/CCC/tow ratings from several sourses/payload numbers/tire placards load capacity numbers/etc ... Im sure I left some numbers out. The numbers may change but how there used won't.
"good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment" ............ Will Rogers
'03 2500 QC Dodge/Cummins HO 3.73 6 speed manual Jacobs Westach
'97 Park Avanue 28' 5er 11200 gvwr two slides
SoCalDesertRider wrote: Yes, this is why I will only ever own 4wd trucks that have manual locking hubs and manual shift transfer case. I use my transfer case in 4-Low with the hubs unlocked very regularly. I get the full power of 4-Low, without any driveline bind on hard surfaces, since the hubs are un-locked. Hooray for manual locking hubs! I hate those stupid vacuum auto hubs...
Be careful. Using low range in two wheel drive can break driveline parts very easily due to torque multiplication.
Huntindog
2010 Palomino Sabre 30BHDS TWO bathrooms...No waiting!
MICHELIN XPS RIBS LRE
2011 Silverado Big Dually 3500 4x4 CC D/A
EQUALIZER Hitch 100% BOONDOCKING
Check out Rusty and her pups at www.bluecollarbrittanys.com
SoCalDesertRider wrote: Yes, this is why I will only ever own 4wd trucks that have manual locking hubs and manual shift transfer case. I use my transfer case in 4-Low with the hubs unlocked very regularly. I get the full power of 4-Low, without any driveline bind on hard surfaces, since the hubs are un-locked. Hooray for manual locking hubs! I hate those stupid vacuum auto hubs...
Be careful. Using low range in two wheel drive can break driveline parts very easily due to torque multiplication.
True, however, not any more easily than when running 4-Low with the hubs locked. The rear driveshaft and axle still receive the same torque multiplication stress whether the front axle and driveline are engaged to the transfer case or not. The transfer case doesn't halve the torque output when in 4wd, it sends out the same amount of torque either way (2wd or 4wd), just sends it out in both directions when the front driveline is engaged.
Offline
