[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
My 9-5 has had parts get permanently damaged from loads under the payload limits. As you state the C900 and F250 were fine after the load.
The 9-5 cannot be driven for extended distances under load. Even moderately heavy loads such as luggage and 3-4 passengers will cause unacceptable problems. Search tire wear, camber, suspension, dampers, alignment, etc. on the 9-5 BB and you will find endless posts describing varying degrees of symptoms all caused by the same design problems. I am far from alone, but I seem to have more severe problems.
GVWR is designed to protect overloading. I think all vehicles should be able to be continuously operated at the GVWR with no permanent damage and only minimal premature wear on components. Mine and others 9-5s certainly do not comply.
Some general info (I didn't cross check applicability to cars versus trailers)
Definitions: (49 CFR 571.3)
“Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) means the value specified by the vehicle manufacturers as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.”
“Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.”
GVWR and GAWR Should Be Reasonable for the Expected Loads
(Letter of July 1, 1977 and letter of August 18, 1977):
“It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer’s assessment of the vehicle’s cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck, which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle’s weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.”
“The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has a reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.”
posted by 69.112.185...
, Thu, 7 Aug 2008 06:42:17
, Thu, 7 Aug 2008 04:12:19, Fri, 8 Aug 2008 06:28:58
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
