3400's GVWR low? options=liability risk?

[Dean A Van Peursem]

David:

First of all I want to warn you that I am not an experienced 5th wheel RV'er. We have only three trips under our belt. Most on this list are much more experienced than we are by a significant amount. However, I have hauled heavy trailers behind pickups for quite some time and have made several cross country trips hauling heavy trailers.

I do not want to encourage you to overload your vehicles in any way. However, IMHO, we can get our underwear all tied up in knots if we get too involved in all the details. No matter how over designed the towing vehicle is or how overdesigned the RV is, the ratings will not prevent accidents and/or careless driving leading to accidents. To over simplify this, any time we are running a 20,000 plus lb vehicle down the road at 55 mph or more we are an accident looking for a place to happen. Common sense has to prevail. Defensive driving is a full time occupation when doing so. So with that in mind please understand that all I'm communicating here is what our experience has been to date. Not in any way recommending that you do the same.

I would reluctantly hazard a guess that more than half of the current RV'ers are overloading their vehicles in one way or the other and I would also hazard a guess that whatever the accident rate is for RV owners that that rate is probably more influenced by poor driving or lack of attention than the other factors. That statement may get me into big trouble as I have no facts to back that up. Just a guess at this time. Yes, if the rig is overloaded the chances of an accident go up. No question. But what I am questioning is that the primary cause of accidents or are there other overiding factors?

When I get behind the wheel, especially pulling a heavy load, my whole driving technique changes. I don't trust my driving skills nearly as much as I used to so I drive very defensively. I try to avoid potential hazards. What is frustrating is that there are so many drivers on the road who don't recognize how much weight we are hauling and slip right in front of us with no recognition of how long it takes us to slow down or even stop, even if we are under all towing capacities. It's those kinds of things I worry about more than whether I'm a few lbs over here or there. Now here is where the rub is that others are warning about. If one can stop faster with a Towing Vehicle/RV combination that has more capability than the load, you are inherently safer. Not here to argue that at all. Safety margin is needed.

But I have elected to view pin weight as not the primary factor in safety. Tires, brakes, springs, and other mechanical features all play a part. The brakes on the 3400RL are only going to slow me down so much, independent of how much the towing vehicle capabilities are. So maybe I add a couple more car lengths space between vehicles when driving on busy roads.

I don't fully understand the concern about overloading the 3400RL axles. At this moment in time I don't remember what the 3400RL axles are rated for but lets assume they are 7500 lb axles. A 15000 lb load capacity. Starting with dry weight of 11,900 lb and 1900 lbs dry pin weight there is only 10,000 lb on the two rear axles. That leaves alot of room for load inside the 3400RL even if assuming part of that load doesn't end up on the pin. At this time I'm not worrying about how much one can load in the 3400RL and thereby overloading the springs as I am concerned about Gross Combined Vehicle Weight. That is what keeps us from stopping as fast as we would like to at times. How one loads the 3400RL can have a signficant effect on realized pin weight.

Now having been an engineer in my distant past I also know that engineers design for more than the published ratings for safety, reliability and longevity. They also set the specs so that there isn't a high warranty liability. Bottom line if used at less than maximum spec the unit will typically last longer and probably will be safer. But I can assure you that the units are lifetime tested to destruction and then the specs are backed off to find a reasonable compromise. So I'm not going to lose a bunch of sleep if I'm over by a few % here or there. Why, because there probably is quite a bit more design tolerance built in to begin with. If 7500 lb axles wore out twice as fast at 7600 lbs I can guarantee you they wouldn't be speced at 7500 lbs.

Think about 5th wheel hitches. I would hope that 16K hitches really can haul 18K to 20K reliably but due to manufacturing tolerances and safety margin they are speced at 16K. I would also guess that no 5th wheel hitch will withstand a head on collision into an unmovable wall. When I think about those kinds of things I add another car space or two between vehicles! :-)

So yes it's important to learn from those experienced RV'ers here on the forum, just don't get your underwear all tied up in knots about safety issues. We nuts behind the steering wheels are the major contributor to accidents, not the equipment. Hope this is taken as intended. I can relate to what you are dealing with as I went through these very issues myself before purchasing. Life always has some risks and compromises involved. The bottom line, it is your decision to make. We can only share our experiences.

[dsprik]

Dean, I had a very long post and I JUST deleted it... Being under your GVWRs does not equate to safe driving. I would rather be on the road with a 3/4 ton TV that is aware of his/her capabilties AND the rig's capabilities, than someone who has OVERESTIMATED their capabilties with a TV that is way under all GVWRs. Doesn't happen you say??? I beg to differ. Ever see someone (maybe even MORE than one person) overestimate what their 4x4 can do?

Last year - first snow on the roads here in N Mich - 7 vehicles in the ditch (some upside down) in a 15 mile stretch of State hwy. ALL 7 were SUVs. There were plenty of 2 wheel drive cars on the road - none in the ditch. Don't think I have to explain why this phenomenom happened...

Several years ago, while traveling through the S. Colorado mtn passes, I was stunned at the speed many of the 18 wheelers were running - some even passing me on what I considered moderately dangerous stretches. When I stopped at a local gas station, I happened to bring this up to the clerk, who told me matter of factly, "Oh yeah... we lose a few of those guys every year." When I inquired if any cars went over the edge, too, he remarked, "Naw... Just the truckers." Probably all over their GVWR, no doubt... or maybe it's slightly possible that GVWRs had nothing to do with this statistic...

To relate total "worry free towing" if one is under their GVWR and "Armageddon" if one is under one of their GVWRs by 300#-500#, is incorrect reasoning in my opinion. I would much rather be on the road with someone who is 500# over their pin weight and aware of it, driving accordingly, than with some overconfident hauler, who drives accordingly... Maybe I'm the only one that would feel that way.

I fully advocate doing everything you can (other than robbing a bank) to make sure that you are not over weight in any category. I just feel that some are pressing that it may be a total solution to safety on the road. It is not.

If I find that I am over anywhere on my GVWRs I will do all I can to alleviate this. I believe - and I know that this is not shared by everyone - that I can be comfortable with a 3400 behind my TV. I will not be able to coming flying up on intersections, then slamming on my brakes with my rig. I won't be able to take corners like some feel they can. I will have to be careful and I will weigh and carry scale sheets in my glove box. I will not be a danger to anyone else around me. Some don't need to worry about weights to cause a disaster.

[Dean A Van Peursem]

Don:

I unfortunately have to disagree about the definition of GCVW rating. When I was doing the research to buy my 2003 F250 I compared the GCVW rating between the F250 and the F350. They were speced identically w/o mention of hitch type. GCVW is the combined weight of the towing vehicle and the towed vehical independent of hitch type. In fact if my memory serves the F350 dually version had slightly less towing capacity due to the fact that the truck was heavier and the GCVW rating was the same as the F250 or F350 with single wheels. That may be different today but that is the way it was in 2003. The difference is "PayLoad" or in 5th wheel parlance "pin weight" capability. My understanding of Payload is strictly how much weight one can put in the bed of the truck. A heavier payload doesn't necessarily translate into a higher GCVW rating for both the towing vehicle and towed vehicle combined. Engine, transmission, springs, rear end and axle capabilites also play a big part in the GCVW spec.

[dsprik]

Dean, you are correct in your assumption that just because you have a dualie, you do not necessarily have a higher NET capacity in the truck than a single rear wheel TV would have - Trailer Life's 2006 Towing Guide specifically addresses this issue, stating that more wheel/tire weight, heavier brakes, more axle, more overall metal/material in a dualie sometimes translated to LESS net capacity. With that said, however, Ford did jump it GVWRs in the past two(?) model years to over what GM and Dodge stayed with. I believe that Don had those figures posted a while back...

[Dean A Van Peursem]

David:

I got all involved in the safety issue and forgot to answer your real question. Our Late 2006 3400RL is configured with almost all of the options except: Washer and Dryer, Double pane windows, Generator, slide awnings and second A/C unit. We do have the extra gel coat, fireplace, artic package, all that comes with the standard additional major options. The washer and dryer were left out for two reasons: weight and cost. Double pane windows were left off because of weight, cost and marginal performance enhancements, Generator we didn't think we would need and have a 5000 Watt already if needed and didn't wnat the extra pin weight, Slide awnings were left off due to the weight issue and questioned wether they were really needed and the second AC was left off because we didn't think we needed it here in the NW. We have camped in 93 degree weather and the single A/C did the job we needed. In hotter and higher humidity environements we might have made a different decision. We very seldom get high temps and high humidity here at the same time in the NW. The sticker on the cabinet states a dry weight of 11,900 lbs but I wouldn't trust that any further than I could throw it. But I would suspect we are within 300 lbs or so of that. I knew we were pushing GCVW and pin weight of the F250 when we purchased the 3400RL. We finally came to the conclusion that the 3400RL was the unit we wanted and if the 2003 F250 couldn't handle it safely we would change trucks. However, we haven't seen a need to do so, so far. The only change we have made to the truck is add rear axle airbags which we probably could have lived w/o but it was a little lower in the tail than I liked. Hope this answers your original question about configuration.

[Wrenchtraveller]

In the same model of pickup, the rear end ratio and the engine choice gives the GCWR.
The 05 Ford F250 and F350 PSDs gives you 23000 combined weight. They will tow the same amount.

The Pin weight of a Fifth wheel is payload, no ifs ,buts , or wherefors.

The F350's bigger payload allows it to haul a larger Fifth wheel so we are always trying to balance combined weight and the TV's GVWR. The F250 will be over it's TV's GVWR long before the trailer is overweight.
On an F350, you might go over the combined weight before you reach your TV's GVWR.

On the hazards of driving 21000 pounds down the road I completely agree and if I am ever in an accident at least I know my TV was designed and engineered for my model of RV.

I know many of you have decided to go with a lighter tow vehicle and that is your choice but I don't believe that people shopping for a TV for a big Fiver should be influenced by the kind of posts we see here. The Ford towing guide has specific weight ratings for Fivers and Tow behinds.

[David and Jo-Anna]

Fellows:

Wow, those are great posts. And some of your were up late and/or up early to do so. Much appreciated. Let me clarify where I'm coming from and toss in my two cents on a couple of points while I'm at it.

I couldn't agree more about the importance of driver behavior and awareness in safety and accident avoidance. Its an area I expect to focus on and try to turn a weakness into a strength--since I don't have any experience towing a sizable rig, I know I'm not going to be overconfident in handling my rig when I get it. I expect to do lots of practice, and probably some formal training, before heading out on my first significant excursion once I get my rig.

As for my heavy focus on GVWR and pin weight limits in my posts, its a hangup I have--I would like to avoid being deemed to be "illegally" overweight in case I get into an accident or get pulled over by the weight police sometime. I agree that, with the safety margins the manufacturers have factored into the RVs and tow vehicles, any small overload isn't going to present a safety hazard or significantly increase the likelihood of an accident. However, I suspect that even a small, technical overload could be used against me, to my detriment, by the police and/or a plaintiff's attorney in the event of an accident. What angers me is that I think this whole risk factor is the result of Montana's marketing people deliberately understating pin weight, and thus GVWR, for marketing reasons, leaving us with an artificially diminished carrying capacity that is almost impossible not to exceed if one is full timing and carrying a full load of fresh water in order to do some dry camping. If there is any chance in getting Montana to eliminate this stupid legal risk by bumping up its GVWR number (which even for marketing reasons it would make sense for them to do), then I'd like to make that effort for my own peace of mind.

As for the tow vehicle issue, I still have some more research I want to do before I feel confortable launching into a discussion on it. But what has troubled me to date is the emphasis in many other posts on what the tow vehicle is capable of towing rather than on what it is capable of stopping in emergency situations. This is particularly true where tow capacities are increased because of higher rear axle ratios--while the 4.3 axle may let me tow more, I don't figure it's going to help me stop my rig any faster. Finally, I'm also disturbed by how little discussion I see about "safety margins" when it comes to tow vehicles--how much and what kind of a safety margin should we adopt in trying to select a tow vehicle for a specific rig and/or how much do specific features in a particular tow vehicle add to safety margins. For example, how much, if anything, does a dually add to the safety margin (not just the payload capacity) in accident avoidance because of heavier brakes or more rubber on the road?

Color me confused, but determined to persist in my quest to get the info I need to make the choices I need to make.

[richfaa]

Wow..what a thread..Hope Keystone looks at it..Great post by Dean on defensive driving.We have been pulling campers for years.. Our family had a small trucking company.I learned to drive on a big truck. I have been driving big busses since my retirement.We are ever vigilant when pulling the camper.We added the backup cam and use it as a rear view mirror..I like to know what is going on behind me and it is a super aid in changing lanes. We did buy the biggest truck we could afford regardless of the negatives and there are many with a LB/ Dually and I will say that if we would not have been able to afford the truck we would not have the 3400. I have great respect for engineers and design folks from working with them in my previous life in the aviation field and do understand that there are safety margins..However..this is the Rv industry and the design and engineering folks can be greatly influenced by marketing and budget.It is my guess that the Marketing folks and budget have more influence over the degree of safety that the design and Engineering folks. You guys got me going here so I will be making phone calls..

[Cat320]

As usual, we have several good folks who don't read, don't pay attention, or just do not understand. Any diesel pick up will tow any Montana...that is a given and not debatable. The dually is all about cargo capability and pw,...all duallys have more cargo capacity than all srw trucks. Can't speak for Dodge and Ford, but when you get a Chevy dually you not only add a great deal of cargo capacity, but you add 1500 to the GCWR over the one ton srw or the 3/4.

My philosphy in tv shopping was identical to Richfaa's, if I did not want the inconvenience/expense of a dually, I would not have gotten it, which meant no order for a 3400. I would have gotten a smaller tv and smaller 5er.

I'm not convinced that the manufacturers include a margin of safety in their ratings as some others have suggested. Seems to me all three want their ratings as absolutely as high as they can make them to keep up with each other. Chevy does not want to be one pound less than Dodge and Ford, and they don't want to be any less than Chevy. It's the competition.

Also, I agree with Wrenchtraveller in that people shopping for a tv should not be influenced by others encouraging them to get a tv that, from the start, will be over GVWR.

[steves]

Cat320 - please correct me if I have misread/interpreted your post where you say "My philosophy in tv shopping was identical to Richfaa's, if I did not want the inconvenience/expense of a dually, I would not have gotten it, which meant no order for a 3400". My interpretation is you are saying a SRW cannot within tow rating tow a 3400? I have had my 3400 professionally weighed and I am within all load, tow ratings and GCWR limits of my 06 F350 SRW. I agree that a dually will give you more pin or load weigh capabilities thus allowing you tow the higher pin weight models within rating guidelines whereas a SRW would be out of it's limits.

[richfaa]

You guys got me going so I made some phone calls today.Finally spoke to a person named Mark (not krol) in "engineering"
Learned some things but nothing that makes me feel better. The difference between the 11,650 posted in the spec's and the 11,900 on the kitchen sticker of the 3400 is a fudge factor to account for any factory installed options that may or may not be installed in your camper. They weigh several 3400's (or whatever) during the year and the weight posted in the spec's is a "average weight)Which means of course that it is not real..like the average wage..Those weights and those spec's could change depending on factory changes.I inquired as to how the 06 3400 was listed as 37.3 in length, the 07 3400 listed as 38.4 in length and mine is 39.1 in length..Is that an average length and do they change sizes during the year. I did not expect a answer to that and got none. I also thought that the stated pin weight was a bit low at 1975 with a GVWR of 13,975 for 14% of GVWR but Mark says no it is actually 17% of GVWR ..something about weight distribution..out of my field. So what I think I learned is that the posted spec's are average and have nothing to do with reality. We agreed that it was of concern but had no solution..No reflection On Keystone or Montana this is industry wide. The point I stressed was this could be a safety issues for the person who took the posted spec's as gospel and loaded or ordered accordingly. I had little to do today anyhow.

[Cat320]

Steves,

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to GM products, where the srw only gives you about 350 lbs more cargo capacity. The 3/4 GVWR is 9200, the 1 ton srw GVWR is 9900. GM does not offer a sb, so when you add the extra weight of the 1 ton and no sb option you lose half of that 700 lb advantage. After crunching the numbers, it was obvious that the GM 1 ton srw would still be over weight, just less over weight than the 3/4, thus my decision to get a dually.

The reason I'm hung up on GM is two fold...the D/A is one fine combination, and my BIL works for a branch of GM and I get an employee price.

[Dean A Van Peursem]

richfaa:

Thanks for supplying the info you gleaned from the Montanna employee today. I guess the only conclusion I could draw from this is that the factory is being deliberately vague about certain issues. I suspect a Lawyer may be influencing that posture. I agree that Montanna could be more forthcoming about actuals vs averages but that may be inconvenient or too costly for the factory. However, i think that providing only max GVWR is doing a disservive to the customers. It would be quite helpful to know what the factory guidelines/recomendations are relative to how the load should be distributed. Knowing Max pin weight would be helpful and knowing max axle weights would be helpful. Surely there are some design specifications for both. Is the 17% guideline the best we are going to get from Montana do you think? That seems low compared to what most of us are experiencing. 2006 Dry weight specifications of 11,650 X 0.17 = is probably close enough for the 1960 lb dry pin weight. So by implication, using the 2006 carrying capacity specification one should not exceed 13975 GVWR and also not exceed 2375 lbs on the pin. That doesn't seem reasonable or achievable to me when so much of the additional carrying capacity weight is added in the bedroom and garages. I'm still a bit confused but that is somewhat normal! :-)

[rickfox]

Good Evening Folks,

I guess I will throw in my 2 cents worth also!

1) Dually's do not have better traction and stopping power. Just ask those who drive them on snow. More rubber on the ground is worse, not better for traction (funny cars and dragsters use wider tires to reduce rubber burn off, not for better traction). Stopping force is a function of the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road surface times the weight per sq. in. Clearly, wider or more tires reduce the weight per sq. in, thus can reduce traction and stopping power!

2) Montana Sky has a 3/4 ton TV and travels within specs. I have the same set up and travel within spec! I know! I've weighed many times. It's just NOT TRUE that you need a 1 ton to be in spec! You just have to pay attention to what you're doing.

3) There is no way that I could reasonably load my 3400 to end up with a 3500# pin weight. The most I could possibly achieve is approx. 2800#. Yes I did this to see if I could, but I never travel that way.

4) My 06 3400 weighed empty at 11860# total, with a pin weight of 1960# - pretty darn close to the brochure numbers. I was quite happy! That amounts to a 16.5% pin weight - another very good number. Since most of the cargo storage is ahead of the axles, every pound of load added will add some to the pin (unless loaded behind the axles). When I decided to load the trailer to the gills to see what would happen, I made it to 14000#. The pin weighed 2800#, or 20%. Some trailers are pin heavy to start with and can be loaded to 25%. That's very very difficult to do with the 3400. That's one of the reasons I purchased it.

5) There are significant safety margins built into the auto industry, but I won't delve into that. Let me address the Montana. Per their specs, Montana assumes that all cargo will show up as weight added to the axles. As a result, their max. cargo spec is based upon not overloading the 12,000 axles! This is a very conservation assumption because it is a well know fact that when you add cargo the pin weigh "almost" always increases!. Perhaps its possible, but very unlikely, that one could load as much cargo behind the axles as was loaded ahead of the axles. The result is that you will reach the stated cargo capacity, and thus the stated GVWR "before" there is any possibility of exceeding the axle ratings.

This "conservative" approach is common in the industry. Check out the Carriage or Forest River websites. They do the same thing. The difference is, as I stated in another post, Carriage utilizes 7,000# axles (14,000 total) and as a result are building larger and heavier 5ver's - ones that are for the most part beyond the reach of most 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.

[David and Jo-Anna]

Rich--given that we are all subject to a risk of legal liability based on the decisions Montana makes as to GVWR determinations, I think they owe us a better explanation as to what they are doing and why they come up with the figures they are using. I think I will follow in your footsteps and call Montana and push them to come up with better answers. Maybe if enough of us start hammering on them, they will face the issue and make some reasoned decisions about weight ratings.

[Wrenchtraveller]

David and Jo Anna, If you were wondering why 4.30 gears give you a higher tow rating than 4.10s or 3.73s this is the TV manufacturer looking after warranty costs. The 4.30s allow the engine to work less moving a big load. This would be most noticable starting out on a very steep grade with a large RV in tow. You see it is not only insurance companies and law enforcement agencies concerned about overloading, yes the very people that make your TV have the right to void your warranty if you are overweight. I have never heard of this happening because very few of us get our TVs hauled in for warranty work with a 3400 in tow and I would suggest if you tow a 3400 with a 3/4 ton, you definately don't want to go there.

This is my last post on this thread but I have to comment on a suggestion that people that are so concerned about being within the TV's capacity might be inclined to drive a little bit more careless than the educated person who has decided to go light on a TV because a heavier model is too long or too wide or too much money.

I will suggest that a person so inclined as to ignore the TV maker's specs, the RV makers specs, the laws of his State or Province of residence....yes, I will suggest that is the kind of person who will take chances on the road. After all, he hasn't even started on his trip and he is willing to take chances. Take care, and be safe, and no my underwear is not in knots......Don.

[Dean A Van Peursem]

Rick:

Thanks for the informative response. I don't know what the specs are for the 2003 3/4 ton Chevy/GMC so I am unable to see how you acheive staying within specs all the way around with the 3400RL but I'm sure you are. I haven't figured out how to do that yet with a 2003 F250 SD 7.3L, SC, LB 4WD. Maybe I'm missing something and sure would like to learn the tricks. I suspect the 2003 Chevy 3/4 ton has a higher GCVWR than the 3/4 ton Ford. I'm under on axle weights but over on GCVWR. Not sure that GCVWR on the 2003 Ford F250 is that indicative of actual capability but it is there for a reason. I suspect maybe the transmission and rear end ratio (3.73 I think) are coming into significant play on my truck. I do know that I have yet to have my transmission show any indication of an increase in temperature under any grade condition so far. None, Nada. That I have watched religiously. I would think heat would be the biggest enemy.

[richfaa]

Well I think that if we keep asking the question we will get the answer.I don't think the Rv industry wants the Rv buying public to be to educated in these things. Rickfox is well informed in these things and it is noted that his 3400 empty weight was just about identical to my 3400 empty weight and as he points out we are not worried about overweight or overloading my TV or camper. The 1 ton 3/4 ton debate is endless but it is true that you can tow within specs with a 3/4 ton IF you watch your numbers, Most folks don't. We did not want to be bothered with that so went the 1 ton dually route. I personally would not have pulled the 3400 with a 3/4 ton TV and have to watch every pound. The point is most folks are not as well informed or as well educated on these issues as most folks on this forum and if they look at the spec's provided by the manufacturers they could and do get into big trouble. Like the guy who ordered a 3670 and built a shed based on the stated length only to find it was 2 feet longer than stated and barely fit.He was not a forum member just a ordinary guy who believed the spec's. I don't know how Montana could measure a 06 3400 that is using any tape measure over 39 feet long and come up with 37.3 feet??? And as far as the averages go they do tend to average out..but..I do not have the average camper..I have my camper..as I mentioned to the gentleman from Montana if it is stated that the average guy weighs 180 lbs does that mean that the average pair of pants will fit you????? oh well..we ask questions..we learn..

[Dean A Van Peursem]

The length measurement needs to include where the measurement is being taken to have any real validity.

[rickfox]

Dean,

The number I have to watch is the GVWR for the truck which is 9200# (I do admit that a 9900# limit or greater would make it easier). The GCVWR is 22,000# and I'm nicely under that at about 19,900.

To keep the TV weight down, and thus leave the most room for added pin weight, I do not put anything in the truck that does not need to be there - no tool box, minimal stuff in the back of the crewcab, no extra fuel tank, etc.

Like Montana Sky, I carry some fresh water to offset the pin weight (this tank is at the rear of the 3400), and I take care to load cargo as much toward the trailer axles as possible. I also have a rear hitch on the trailer and carry about 110# of bikes and carrier on this 2" receiver.

In the future, I will be towing a motorcyle trailer from this 2" receiver at the rear of the 3400. Anticipated hitch weight will be approximately 160#. This is within the guess-a-mate number of under 200# that has been mentioned about added weight on the back of the Montana. The trailer with MC and bikes will weight about 1250#. I will still be under my GCVWR, under on GAWR of the 3400 axles, under on the GAWR's on the truck, and actually a little lighter on the GVWR for the truck - more weight behind the 3400 axles yeilds less weigh on the pin.

It's there. I know. I've weighed. I'm legal! And I'm doing it with a 2003 Chevy 2500HD Duramax/Allison.

Relatively speaking, I'm a happy camper! Now if I could just win the lottery.