How do they arrive at towing and payload numbers?
#11
Grumpy Old Man
Read that again. They test with 10% tongue weight. But most trailers have 13% tongue weight. Mine has almost 15%. So, without being overloaded, you can tow the trailer weight the standard allows only if the trailer has not more than 10% tongue weight.
I doubt that the standard was written for vehicle consumers. It was written for vehicle manufacturers.
The CAT scale is still the proof in the pudding. If the weight on the two axles of the tow vehicle exceeds the GVWR of the tow vehicle, you're overloaded, regardless of the GCWR.
Last edited by smokeywren; 11-11-2016 at 08:08 PM.
The following users liked this post:
acdii (11-20-2016)
#12
Motor 10
#13
Senior Member
Read that again. They test with 10% tongue weight. But most trailers have 13% tongue weight. Mine has almost 15%. So, without being overloaded, you can tow the trailer weight the standard allows only if the trailer has not more than 10% tongue weight.
Agreed. So Ford reads the standard then sets the GCWR of Ford vehicles to comply with the standard. But for most consumers, if you think the GCWR is the limiter, and you load your rig up to the GCWR, you're going to be overloaded.
The CAT scale is still the proof in the pudding. If the weight on the two axles of the tow vehicle exceeds the GVWR of the tow vehicle, you're overloaded, regardless of the GCWR.
Agreed. So Ford reads the standard then sets the GCWR of Ford vehicles to comply with the standard. But for most consumers, if you think the GCWR is the limiter, and you load your rig up to the GCWR, you're going to be overloaded.
The CAT scale is still the proof in the pudding. If the weight on the two axles of the tow vehicle exceeds the GVWR of the tow vehicle, you're overloaded, regardless of the GCWR.
J2807 has nothing to do with setting the GVWR. They just require that the GVWR not be exceeded during the test. I still can't quite understand your criticism of the test standard. How could they possibly require testing of tens of thousands of combinations of vehicles and trailers? Would you have been able to convince the standard committee comprised of experienced volunteer automotive engineers to require a 15% tongue weight for the test? They picked 20% for the fifth wheel trailer test. Should they have use 25% or 30%? You are absolutely correct that the vehicle owner is responsible for being aware of the weight of his own vehicle and trailer by taking it to the scale. I can't see how this is the responsibility of the volunteer engineers who wrote the standard. This test was established to determine the weight that the vehicle power transmission, cooling and braking systems could handle. It was not established to teach vehicle owners how to determine if their GVWR or GAWR was being exceeded.
That's your job, Mr. smokeywren, and you are very good at it.
#14
Senior Member
The average trailer doesn't matter...only your trailer on your truck. As Smokeywren points out, for the vast majority of people, towing will first be limited by payload before the towing capacity. The figures for maximum towing capacity and GCWR causes far too many overloaded trucks on the roads.
In a farm setting, when towing double grain wagons, anhydrous ammonia tank trailers, hay racks, etc., the weight of the trailer is on all four wheels of the wagon running gear, and almost none is on the hitch of the truck; perhaps only 45 to 50 pounds of tongue weight. For those situations, the maximum towing capacity or GCVW is the limiting factor.
Last edited by Velosprout; 11-11-2016 at 11:58 PM.
#15
Note that they always say "up to" when they specify towing capacity. They take the lightest, strongest truck and do the test as Smokey pointed out, and now base it on the SAE standards. So for example they take a standard cab long bed XL with the 3.5 EB or what ever engine they have in that model. I say XL as it has the fewest options, but they may base it on a different model that can be equipped with HDPP and 3.5 EB, then run their tests. The 3.5 EB is their strongest engine for towing.
Based on that they then subtract for different gear ratios, options, cab size, bed length, engine options, etc.
Based on that they then subtract for different gear ratios, options, cab size, bed length, engine options, etc.
#16
I have a 2017 Screw 4x2, 3.5L EcoBoost w/max tow package, HD Payload package and 3.73 differential. Ford's specs say this combo has a max towing capacity of 11,700 lbs, but if I subtract the GVWR (7,850) from the GCWR (17,100) it shows I only have 9,250 excess (towing?) capacity. I'm inclined to go with the lower number in determining my max towing capacity. How did Ford come up with an additional 2,450 lbs of towing capacity?
#17
Senior Member
Bill - make sure you understand PAYLOAD. It's on the sticker on your doorframe, and often is (although with your HDPP may not be) the limiting factor.
#18
Ricktwuhk... I don't physically have my new truck yet, it's been on order for over 5 weeks, so I'll definitely be checking the door sticker for my weights as soon as it arrives. Thanks for your response; and I will be watching that Payload number closely.
#19
Senior Member
I have a 2017 Screw 4x2, 3.5L EcoBoost w/max tow package, HD Payload package and 3.73 differential. Ford's specs say this combo has a max towing capacity of 11,700 lbs, but if I subtract the GVWR (7,850) from the GCWR (17,100) it shows I only have 9,250 excess (towing?) capacity. I'm inclined to go with the lower number in determining my max towing capacity. How did Ford come up with an additional 2,450 lbs of towing capacity?
Because GCWR is not GCWR+Trailer. It is empty truck + 150lb driver + trailer. Some people think this means a wagon style trailer but it doesn't necessarily since tongue weight does not matter with GCWR, it gets counted on the truck or on the trailer but not both.
And I think they use a base truck in the calculation because (for example) with my truck, base truck weight with the options I have should be GVWR - available payload (so 7,000-1818) or 5182lb. GCWR is 14,400lb, tow rating is 9100lb. Well, 14,400-9100=5300lb leaving a whopping 118lb for the driver.
If I look at my truck (only because I know the numbers), it's probably a typical 4x4 XLT SCrew (302a, FX4, Sport). I can easily hook up a 9,100lb trailer at 13% tongue weight and have enough payload left for WDH, me, wife and all the crap normally in/on my truck...but I'd be over GCWR.
To stay under GVWR and GCWR, I'd be looking at an 8600lb trailer (at 13% tongue weight). 5200lb (truck) + 525lb (people and misc) + 75lb (wdh) + 8600lb (trailer) = 14400lb. 5200lb (truck) + 525lb (people and misc) + 75lb (wdh) + 8600lb*0.13 (tongue weight)=6918lb.
If I had fewer options, weighed a little less and had nothing in my truck, I'd be able to tow a 9100lb trailer at 13% tongue weight and be under GVWR and GCWR so long as I was alone.
Payload becomes a factor because of how many people and how much stuff we tend to have in/on our trucks when we tow but it is far less of an issue with the current gen trucks than it was with previous gen trucks. Looking at the available payload spreadsheet, not a single 5.0 or 3.5EB SCrew has lower payload than my old 2011 4x4 301a XLT did...Lariat, Platinum, King Ranch, they all have at least 50lb more payload than I had...and probably at least 400lb more than a similarly equipped 2011-2014 would have had (I know I gained over 400lb and my truck has a lot more options than my old one did).
The exception to my statement about current gen payload is the NA-V6 and 2.7EB trucks because they have a lower GVWR unless you get the HDPP.
#20
There is a standard but the manufacturers have not and do not have to comply with it. Note that the manufactures are quick to point out that tow ratings are based more on marketing and customer opinion than testing. See F150 with 5.0 and 3.55 gears vs 3.73 gears. The disparity is totally absurd and is not justified.
Reference;
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...w-ratings.html
http://www.trucktrend.com/news/163-0...wing-capacity/
Reference;
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...w-ratings.html
http://www.trucktrend.com/news/163-0...wing-capacity/