Jon "Sheer" Pullen wrote: >> But one can safely assume that if a automaker were to mass >> produce a car, they would use components rated for much >> higher weight stress and thusly the vehicle would not be over >> its GVWR.
Roger Stockton replied: > Ummm... I'm not sure I'm following you here; are you saying that an > automaker would build the car with a higher GVWR in the first place, > or that surely the automaker overbuilt the car you choose for > conversion such that actually loading it to or beyond the GVWR really > isn't over taxing it? I think the difficult here is that GVWR is not an absolute limit, like the breaking strength of a rope. The car isn't completely safe at 1 pound below the GVWR, and suddenly break in half if you exceed it 1 pound. The manufacturer is going to set the GVWR at a value so that the car will survive for a 'reasonable' length of time (100,000 miles) on 'reasonable' roads (not race tracks), with 'reasonable' amounts of wear and tear (minor accidents, rust, etc.). If you exceed the GVWR by a small amount, nothing will actually break; but everything just gets a little worse. Braking and handling degrade. Brakes, tires, shocks, and suspension parts wear out quicker. Cars are designed on the assumption that they rarely carry their full GVWR. They would wear out early if you drove it fully loaded all the time. Before SUVs, trucks were designed to a higher standard; they had to carry their full GVWR for their full life (which could easily be several hundred thousand miles.). But nowdays, I wouldn't be surprised if the bean counters in the auto companies have downsized the standards for light trucks to match those of cars. So, if you pack a car or light truck full of batteries up to the GVWR, you are mainly shortening its life. -- Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
