| |
Subject |
Author |
Date Posted |
Forum
|
 |
RE: Popular w/ Neighbors w/ TH in driveway!
I love living in the desert.
|
pupeperson
|
09/20/08 09:32pm |
Toy Haulers
|
|
RE: Is a dually a must have for towing large 5er?
Since no one so far has mentioned it, in my opinion you need either a dually or a "dually equivalent." Thats a SRW long box with upgraded wheels and tires. I think your choice then comes down to do you want a truck that will do double duty as a daily driver, fit through fast food drive ups, bank drive ups, car washes, be relatively easy to park somewhere other than the back forty, etc. or are you looking for an essentially single purpose unit?
If its a single purpose unit you're looking for, a dually is probably cheaper and would work well for you. If a dual purpose rig is more your style, you might consider a SRW truck and then put Rickson 19.5 wheels on it and some G rated tires that will do essentially the same job (carry virtually equivalent weights, more than you'll need -- up to 10,000 lbs on the rear axle) as the dually in a smaller package. It also might depend on if you ever want to go off road or drive in snow. If so the SRW is far superior, if more expensive with the upgraded parts. You would, however, have the option of keeping your oem tires / wheels and just using the heavy duty stuff when you want to tow and the lighter duty stuff at the the other times.
The point of this post is that you have options. You can have both the truck you want AND the trailer. This option requires not being overly concerned about the weight sticker on the door jamb, as you will routinely exceed it but you will have the hard parts on the truck to do the job. The sticker doesn't actually do much of the work and it has no force or effect other than perhaps for warranty purposes when you're running the upgraded parts. If you read it carefully it will say, in effect, that "these are the ratings when equipped with the oem tires and wheels," which you will no longer be running when towing.
You might also want to read the sticky started by JMRamiller at the beginning of this section re: the real skinny on weights and such. It might answer any questions you have.
|
pupeperson
|
09/20/08 09:22pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Holiday Rambler Next Level- tire problems ?
I have a Next Level 38 cks with ST 225/70R15 Goodyear Marathons. To date, I have had no problems with them, over maybe 5,000 miles or so. I run them at their maximum recommended pressure of 65 psi. I might also have gotten lucky, as mine were made in Canada -- not China or Bangladesh or East Timor or wherever.
Also, the trailer tows like a dream, with no abnormal tire wear or heat being generated in the tires or bearings (I check them with a laser heat gun) so apparently the tridem axles are aligned fairly well.
|
pupeperson
|
09/14/08 09:20pm |
Toy Haulers
|
|
RE: costly mistake. 5 wheelers please read.
Hotrod4x5 said: "I see some people put 6-10 inches of blocks under the landing gear. This is just asking for an accident! lower the legs to the ground, that is what they are designed to do!"
I guess I'm one of those folks that use the blocks. I do it because w/o the blocks, the legs won't extend far enough to reach the ground! Yes, the trailer axles have been flipped, as it was necessary to get a level pull with my 4x4 truck (no, truck is not lifted).
I suppose longer legs are available, but the blocks seem to work fine so I've never checked. I do make certain that I use my chocks between the axles (I have the BAL's) (no pun intended) before hitching or un-hitching. So far so good.
|
pupeperson
|
09/13/08 06:23pm |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: 3-axle trailers
I have a triple axle unit. So far there is nothing to dislike about it, and I appreciate the extra set of brakes. I try to take extra care not to turn it too tight to keep the scuffing to a minimum. Rides and tracks beautifully.
|
pupeperson
|
09/11/08 11:42pm |
Fifth-Wheels
|
 |
RE: UPDATE Oil at $60 a barrel?
Hannibal said: "The Democrats favor a living wage, health care and safe labor practices as well as corporate profits."
Everyone wants those things, Republican and Democrat alike.
The difference is in how we propose to achieve those goals. NOT drilling or NOT digging or NOT inventing or NOT building or NOT deploying isn't gonna reduce our dependency on foreign oil or lower the price of energy. Actually doing those things can and will. A Democrat controlled Congress stands in the way of that. These are facts.
Domestic businesses went overseas not because they wanted to, but because it was the only way for them to stay afloat -- to be competitive. They were losing money manufacturing their products here. That's why you can still buy new Singer sewing machines and Maytag appliances -- they just aren't made in Massachusetts or Iowa anymore.
Some companies couldn't go overseas and entire industries just essentially disappeared -- like American steel and our great shipyards which are now shadows of their former selves. The domestic auto industry is on the verge of following them down.
The lumber industry found it had to ship whole logs to foreign factory ships offshore where they were transformed to dimension lumber and then shipped back to the mainland in order to compete with Canadian mills.
Our auto manufactures now pay more in health and retirement bennys than they do for steel to make their vehicles (at least they did until the recent run-up in commodity prices.) Now congress mandates that even incandescent light bulbs can no longer be sold in America and the fact that there are no domestic manufacturers of the new florescent bulbs deters them not a whit.
I know executive pay seems very high, and it may indeed be, BUT you could add all of it together, confiscate it and use it to fund raises for the average worker and not be able to raise the average wage enough to matter. That's because there are so few of "them" compared to all of "us."
And, what's gonna bail us out of this mess IS business. Remember that Government actually produces nothing. It's entrepeneurialism and fresh ideas that have a profit motive that actually accomplish things. Strip business of its' profit and executives of their reasons to properly execute and manage business, large and small, and you deprive us all of our best opportunity for a better circumstance.
I mean, Joe Biden? Surely you jest. Given 20 minutes to ask a simple question in a Senate hearing and after his ramblings all the person under oath could say was: "Huh?" "Was there a question in there Senator?"
Sounds to me like a side show: "Blathering Joe and the Obamaloons." That's what we'll get if those folks actually manage to convince enough of the uninformed to vote for them, and $80.00 oil will never happen if they're elected. It can happen with McCain and Palin. It's never gonna be as cheap as it once was, and that's another fact, but it can be better than before and at least the money paid for it can stay here, rather than be sent to people that don't like us at all.
Drill Here. Drill Now. Save Money.
|
pupeperson
|
09/07/08 10:01pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: UPDATE Oil at $60 a barrel?
Hannibal questioned, among other things, about our jobs going to Communist China. Realistically, it's a world market for everything now. Developing countries are competing to manufacture goods that our populace uses, and there simply is no way for us, the US, to compete head to head on manufacturing when our labor costs are so different than those of other countries ... unless ... transportation costs go high enough to offset a good part of those differences and ... unless ... the dollar depreciates to the point that again, in the world market, our goods become enough cheaper that their higher quality (?) makes them a better buy.
When it becomes cheaper or even as cheap overall (including distribution to the final customer) for companies to build things here than overseas, here is where they will be built, not only for domestic consumption but for exports as well.
These are just facts. Blaming any particular administration, including the current one, for this situation is foolishness. These are market forces at work. Those same market forces will ultimately determine the price of oil / fuel. I predict the price to drop if McCain / Palin wins. Will it stay down? Not unless they follow through and drill-dig-drill-dig as the other poster said and also go forward on the nuclear and other alternatives necessary for energy production. We simply must become energy independent and that will help to keep the price down by reducing demand for foreign oil. If the Obama faction can stymie this increase in energy production (Yes, they will try) then prices will escalate again rapidly.
Having Obama and company take us closer to socialism / communism isn't a solution, it's just another problem.
|
pupeperson
|
09/07/08 05:49pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: UPDATE Oil at $60 a barrel?
Golden_HVAC said: "...come November 15th, the price will slowly and surely rise again."
I think that depends a lot on who wins the election. If Obama and the Pelosi/Reid faction in Congress win convincingly, then I predict that oil prices and fuel prices along with them will certainly begin to climb immediately. But if McCain/Palin win and have some coat tails to help them with their "Drill Baby Drill" position, then I think prices will fall quickly.
Nobody will want to have a long position in oil knowing that not only are new supplies going to become available but that alternatives that will drop demand are also coming sooner rather than later.
I predict that along about Nov. 1st, there will be an announcement that Sarah has convinced McCain that the northernmost reaches of ANWAR are really OK for drilling and that they ultimately win the election. When and if that happens, prices will plummet.
As an aside, how are your new duals working out for you JM? Do you like them?
|
pupeperson
|
09/07/08 04:12pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Reese Hitch - Movement / Play
I have a Reese Signature hitch with the 4 "pucks" that have rotating cams to lock the base into position. This hitch too had some "slop" in it just as the OP describes. It was like a 4 legged table with one leg that was just a fraction of an inch too short.
The fix on mine was a piece of thin plastic I cut from an automotive mud-flap. I cut the piece to fit the dimension of the puck and cut a hole in it for the locking cam to go through. I then siliconed that piece to the bottom of the base and reinstalled the hitch in the truck. No more slop...solid as a rock.
|
pupeperson
|
09/01/08 01:08am |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: HOW HARD IS IT TO TOW A 40ft 5TH WHEEL?
I pull a 40' (39'10") 3 axle toyhauler behind a Dodge Cummins QC LB. It's 102" wide. No problems at all. I like the third axle for the extra set of brakes. I also have driven semi's for years, which probably helps with my comfort level. My hauler is also nearly 13'6" high, which I actually worry more about than the length in some instances. Low branches are a real PITA.
|
pupeperson
|
08/27/08 02:39pm |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: One for the Enviromentalists
I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that in 2002, when egr was mandated on heavy heavy duty engines (the ones in big trucks) that fuel mileage suffered. At that time, the mandates called for 20% egr in the intake air. In 2007, mileage took another hit, as egr rates were increased to 40%. In 2010, when the next round hits and egr rates are spiked even higher, efficiency will drop again. The smaller engines have just followed the path of their larger siblings.
Why? It's simple physics. EGR is another word for "oxygen free." Exhaust gases contain no oxygen, hence they do not support combustion. What they do is absorb heat and exhaust it with no benefit. There still has to be enough oxygen for the fuel to combust completely, so more and more total air volume has to be crammed into the cylinders. That surplus air is then compressed, which takes energy which has to come from the combustion event since there's no free lunch. This causes a drop in BSFC. The fact that the timing is also retarded from the optimum also means a big drop in efficiency and an increase in retained heat, which necessitates larger cooling systems and more robust systems that are more temperature tolerant.
The addition of SCR means that the timing can again be optimized and the egr rate can be reduced or even eliminated, both of which will cause efficiency gains.
Detroit Diesel, in 1997 or thereabouts, produced a diesel engine that had a BSFC of less than .30 lbs of diesel per brake horsepower hour. Today's engines are nowhere close to that. Personally, I look forward to the SCR engines, as we should see improvements of at least 5% in the first year and as the systems mature, perhaps even more as the mechanical functions revert closer and closer to the ideal combustion events of the past generations while still keeping emissions in check. I also predict that the needed urea w/ soon be widely available at reasonable cost.
Combining this new (to the US) technology with the more robust mechanical systems of todays engines spell increased longevity and better value to consumers through increased durability and fuel economy when compared to the engines of today.
|
pupeperson
|
08/21/08 12:40am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: '08 Dodge Turck Deals
Saw an ad on TV for Reno (NV) Dodge that said 50% off MSRP on everything. I dind't check any further as I already have '06 5.9 CTD that's paid for and that I plan on keeping for a long, long time.
|
pupeperson
|
08/20/08 04:48pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: First trip to Outdoor World gettysburg,not much fun.
what the hey is a "dillhole"?
The planting spot for a dill pickle?
|
pupeperson
|
08/19/08 07:57pm |
Fifth-Wheels
|
|
RE: One for the Enviromentalists
Powerdude said: "There is no such thing as global warming, because 60% of global weather is governed by the sun's output."
Just as a guess, I'd say it's a lot closer to 99.99996% of global weather that's governed by the suns output. If it weren't for the heat from the sun, earth would have NO weather except for that caused by volcanoes occasionally bursting through the surface ice sheet of snowball earth.
|
pupeperson
|
08/19/08 11:52am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: GCVWR??
Caddywhompus said: " ... Clearly this is because the OEMs have pushed this segment well into skeptical areas by continually increasing ratings with little or no technical merit."
And the reverse is also true. There are vehicles that are markedly under-rated just so the marketing arms of the manufacturers can have a technically differentiated product line to sell. Bodies the same, frames the same, drivetrain the same, everything the same save a couple of overload leaves that the aftermarket can address for a couple of hundred dollars or even less. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to make one vehicle and sell it in two supposedly different segments than it is to engineer two completely different trucks.
Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree with Caddywhompus when he says: "The NHTSA cannot, will not and should not recognize a rating that has no known origin." A DOT rated item is different inasmuch as there are defined standards that must be met in order to achieve the rating, and those standards are identical for every manufacturer.
|
pupeperson
|
08/08/08 03:36pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: GCVWR??
Well, here's a little more grist for the mill. The following was copied off a post TODAY in the DTR entitled "max towing":
Originally Posted by cincydiesel
"Alot of stuff goes into pulling heavy trailors.. Alot depends on the driver. Just dont forget that anything being pulled thats over the manufactures GCVW is a posiblity for getting sued by a possible accident victim. I've pulled things in upwards to 33,000 gross with the truck below for several hundred miles. Was it legal, NOPE!!! Would I do it again, YEP.. If the trailer has good brakes and the truck is well maintained with the correct equipment I say pull till broke.."
This is the reply to the above from a poster named ddestruel:
This is not legally correct. I would like to point out i have my own personal experience with this. the manufacturers GCVWR is not a legal benchmark. The insurance company and the families of the deceased all three sued and claimed that since i was pulling a 20k lbs gooseneck loaded at 18950k lbs i was over the the GCVWR of the pickup truck the court and jury ruled that i was niether negligent nor in violation of any transportation laws with the weight that i was pulling my total GCW at the time of the accident was 28050 my max licensed GVW was 9900 for the pickup and 20k for the trailer no single axle was over weight and no tires were over loaded all safety equiptment was functioning including brakes were in perfect condition. My lawyer was able to find numerous cases where the courts have ruled that manufacturer GCVWR is a recommendation not a legal benchmark since they set the towing capacity without knowing anything about the engineering of the trailer being pulled. either way it was determined that the moron and his friend who pulled out in front of me on the highway were negligent for not looking before entering a highway where trucks and trailers are legally going 65 mph and cars are moving at 75. shoot i was doing 60 and only had about 40' worth of skid marks before flatting his chevy 1500. the court ruled they were responsible for covering my court costs so that ended that.
This is the first post I've seen by anyone claiming to be a "First Party" to the circumstance thrown in the face of everyone on this forum not running at least a dually or MDT by the weight police. I realize it's heresay at this point, but it makes sense to me and it would seem to support the positions expressed by Wadcutter and Blt2ski, both of whom I regard as being very knowlegeable on this subject. Based on the above, I'm very tempted to take ddestruel's post at face value.
|
pupeperson
|
08/08/08 11:54am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: GCVWR??
Outdoorsman2007 said: "Why are so many of you so bent on convincing others to spend way more than they need to buy more truck than they need?"
Thats always been my question. I think it's great if a person can afford a single purpose unit, then a MDT or even a HDT can work fine in certain circumstances -- like pulling the 5er down the freeway. But when you want to boondock or get off the beaten path, some of those setups just aren't going to get it done. Sometimes even a dually has too large a "footprint" to do double duty as a daily driver. Those that have them and are happy with their setup, great -- I'm happy for them. It's just when they start believing what's right for them is also right for me (and nothing less or different could possibly work) that I begin to get iritated with the situation. There's always more than one way to skin a cat.
|
pupeperson
|
08/08/08 09:09am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: WW Pin Box Bolts Issue - WOW!!!
My question regards the number of the bolts. The OP said "Four of the six bolts..." broke or bent. The pin box was held on with only 6 bolts? That would be 3 on each side. Mine has twelve 1/2" fine threaded bolts that are grade 8, six on each side. I would think that ten or twelve bolts total would be far more common than six.
|
pupeperson
|
08/07/08 10:18am |
Toy Haulers
|
|
RE: GCVWR??
The quote regarding Question 4 makes no mention of certified anything. It says "structurally modified," it does not say by whom. Most of what you have cited above pertains to a vehicle that has been modified to make it more accessible to a disabled person, such as by the addition of ramps or lifts which could detract from the vehicles otherwise stated load capacity, rather than having been modified to handle weights in excess of its oem sticker, which is what is addressed in the following quote:
"Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load, may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the FMCSRs?
Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher GVWR, §390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle."
Again, it specifically applies to motor carriers, rather than RVers. My only claim is that if the reg. "...allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle" which it obviously does, it might possibly be construed to apply to any vehicle that has been so modified and be an affirmative defense in the event one was called for.
|
pupeperson
|
08/06/08 11:48pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: GCVWR??
JIMNLIN said: "Question 4 is for certified vehichle modifiers/upfitters that "structurally" modify a vehicle under 10000 lbs. Which isn't a RVer adding bigger tires/wheels. A vehicle that is structurally modified is required to be relabeled..."
Where does it say that Jim? None of the imbedded links take you to any part that discusses "certified upfitters" and question 4 certainly makes no mention of "certified upfitters." If that was the intent, it certainly could have said so, but it doesn't! It says what it says:
"Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load, may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the FMCSRs?
Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher GVWR, §390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle."
Note that it specifically refers to a motor carrier, who is in fact the end user, just as I said. Additionally, as you yourself have said, the immediately preceding Question 3 was about vehicles where no sticker existed at all, yet alone "relabeled."
Further, you appear to take the position that the tires and wheels don't matter. This would mean that one could modify the frame, modify the suspension, and modify the axle but leave the wimpy oem tires and wheels on the vehicle and call it upfitted to a higher GCVW. I don't think so, inasmuch as if an enforcement officer bothered to look at an RVer at all for weight issues, the FIRST thing he'd look at would be the DOT ratings on the tires and wheels.
Further, if the tires and wheels don't matter, if they are not a part of the vehicles supporting structure, in your opinion which parts do matter?
|
pupeperson
|
08/06/08 03:30pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
