Skip to main content
Topic: GM Specification link (Read 980 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: GM Specification link

Reply #1
Yahoo Message Number: 123
Attachments :
    I see what you are pointing to BUT I don't think it means what one might think it means. I think this might indicate how the load added by the house manufacturer and then the weight added by the owner can be distributed. The 6% up front would account for the fact that when that chassis leaves the factory the bulk of the weight is up front - the complete cab and engine and they sure aren't going to come in at 1100 lbs.

    When I look at the weights that Rich got it indicates that just cannot be the case - can 11 inches in wheelbase make that much difference? I don't doubt the short wheelbase is causing you problems but lets remember that the front axle is rated to 7,000 lbs and the rear to 13,500. If you were loaded to your GVWR of 19,500 lbs and only had 1100 lbs on the front, then you would be way way way beyond the GAWR for the rear and I'd think it would be almost impossible to drive it. Also, I doubt that the weight capacity of your four rear tires would be over 18,000 lbs. My rears only clear the 13,500 lbs GAWR by a couple of hundred pounds.

    Here is what Rich Panganiban posted on RV.net when he had his 32SS weighted (8.1 Vortec).



    Re: GM Specification link

    Reply #3
    Yahoo Message Number: 125
    Hi,

    FWIW, I just put my 07 Jayco 33DS on the scale yesterday w/ full
    Gas, propane and fresh water. Weights are very similar to what is
    referenced below.

    Front: 5120 lbs
    Rear: 11480 lbs
    Total: 16600 lbs

    , "Donald A. Leslie"
    wrote:
    Quote
    I see what you are pointing to BUT I don't think it means what one
    might think it means. I think this might indicate how the load added by
    the house manufacturer and then the weight added by the owner can be
    distributed. The 6% up front would account for the fact that when
    that chassis leaves the factory the bulk of the weight is up front -
    the complete cab and engine and they sure aren't going to come in at
    1100 lbs.

    When I look at the weights that Rich got it indicates that just
    cannot be the case - can 11 inches in wheelbase make that much
    difference? I

    Quote
    don't doubt the short wheelbase is causing you problems but lets
    remember that the front axle is rated to 7,000 lbs and the rear to
    13,500. If you were loaded to your GVWR of 19,500 lbs and only
    had 1100 lbs on the front, then you would be way way way beyond the
    GAWR for

    Quote
    the rear and I'd think it would be almost impossible to drive
    it.

    Quote
    Also, I doubt that the weight capacity of your four rear tires
    would be

    Quote
    over 18,000 lbs. My rears only clear the 13,500 lbs GAWR by a
    couple of

    Quote
    hundred pounds.

    Here is what Rich Panganiban posted on RV.net when he had his 32SS
    weighted (8.1 Vortec).

    I had my Jayco Greyhawk - Kodiak weighed today with full tank of
    fuel,

    Quote
    full propane, full fresh water, and empty gray
    and black tanks. Unfortunately, they did not have a "4 corners"
    scale,

    Quote
    only the front axle and rear axle. Here's the
    numbers:
    Front: 5,160 lbs.
    Rear: 11,100 lbs.
    Total: 16,260 lbs.
    Gross Axle Weight Rating
    Front: 8,000 lbs.
    Rear: 13,500 lbs.
    GVWR: 19,500 lbs.
    GCWR: 26,000 lbs.
    The numbers look pretty good, looks like there's a substantial
    CCC remaining for passengers and gear.

    I think Rich missed on the front axle - it should be 7,000 lbs
    unless he

    Quote
    just happened to get a rare unit shipped with the wrong axle.

    Denny, my understanding is that the diesel engine weights more
    than the

    Quote
    gas (and I could easily be wrong on that - anyone know?) and if
    that is

    Quote
    the case one would think your front end would be even heavier. Of
    course you have a slightly longer unit so I'm not sure what both
    differences mean. I have to say that I've been using Rich's weights and
    adding in

    Quote
    my 2nd TV and going from there to estimate GAWR and GVWT (for
    tire pressures). I've just been trying to make sure I'd be well clear
    of the

    Quote
    maximum for each axle and the total. If I think I'm getting
    anywhere close I'll take it to a scale (which is a PITA around here).

    This matter bears some investigation to determine exactly what GM
    means with the weight distribution numbers (it relates to payload and
    that is

    Quote
    what makes me suspicisous).

    Might almost be useful to talk to GM.

    Don

    ps. I've attached the two GM docs that I refer to for my 2007
    chassis.
    Quote
    Dmyhre943@... wrote:

    Open the Specifications/dimensions tab to find the weight
    distribution info....

    Denny


    -------

    Quote
    See what's new at AOL.com
    http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL Your
    Homepage http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?
    NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>.


    Re: GM Specification link

    Reply #4
    Yahoo Message Number: 126
    Great. Nice to see 2900 lbs to spare with good distribution as Rich found. 2000 lbs to use on rear axle and the front axle in our case gets my weight + DW + our son.

    Thanks for providing the numbers.

    Don

    rkafka wrote:


    Re: GM Specification link

    Reply #5
    Yahoo Message Number: 127
    When I looked at these numbers it brought to mind our first MH - a 2000 Triple E Commander Class A on the Ford 20,500 chassis (7000 front axle and 13,500 rear). We filled the gas tank, propane tank and put 1/4 tank full of fresh water in it. Then off to the scales. The GVW was fine with about 1800 lbs to spare with DW and me in our seats. The problem was the front axle was within 60 lbs of the GAWR. Our son is alway with us and he would have put the front axle weight over the 7000 lbs. I was very annoyed - to say the least.

    My No. 2 son who is an MEng and works in the auto biz in Detroit took a look, asked where the water tank was located (I said under the bed right at the back) and then paced off the distance from the rear axle to the back of the MH and the to the front. He then said FILL THE FRESH WATER TANK. That added about 500 lbs of water and took 250 lbs off of the front axle. I called Triple E and they said exactly the same thing and added that for weight balance all weights assume a FULL fresh water tank.

    This was annoying since we did not want to drive around with a full tank of water - but we had to. We were planning to go to Florida in early January of 2004. We had never towed before and were going to have to get a dolly for one of our cars, and we were going to have to leave Canada and drive to FLA with a full tank of water and maybe even n snow and ice. I got cold feet and suggested to DW that we go to New Zealand and Australia for 2 months instead (we'd been there for two months in Jan to Mar 2003). So we did. While driving around NZ and AU I got this great idea (? ? ? ? ?) to get a pusher. Ended up that May with a new 2004 Winnie Journey 39W with 2 slides towing a 2004 Colorado. A mistake. After 15 months we still didn't have it debugged. It had good CCC though and drove well. Then went on to a 2006 HR Ambassador 40PLQ that had 4 slides and a den - great great floorplan, good CCC and we really enjoyed it. Then last year we bought the year old park model on the lot next to ours in FLA and really didn't need a monster any longer but by then had to get something that could tow our 2007 Tahoe - that meant Kodiak or larger. Also, since we seem to carry a lot we figured we'd better have decent storage area and weight capacity - thus the 32SS. We liked some aspects of the 33DS floorplan more but really wanted something smaller than even the 32SS, but there was really nothing smaller that could meet our towing requirements.

    So, weight distribution is pretty significant.

    Don

    Donald A. Leslie wrote:



    Specification Link

    Reply #7
    Yahoo Message Number: 155

    Interesting ..... if you try to open the link I sent a few days ago showing the specs on the C5500, you will receive an error message showing that the web page has been "moved," or there may be technical issues.

    To the GM/Chevrolet forum participant..... perhaps you can provide us with more insight when we need it, rather than remaining in the shadows... we will appreciate your involvement and feedback in this forum.

    Denny


    See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.