2018 GMC DRW and heavy 5th wheels

[MTK46]

I just bought a used 2014 F-350 2WD DRW with 14k GVWD. Has a 5680 lbs payload.
Weighs 3360 on the rear axle ready to tow. We are also looking at used Mobile Suites one of the 36' models. This truck will tow & carry the weight just fine.

[tuffr2]

Impressive payload. And in a 2014 model as I thought those high payloads would be in the newer models starting in 2017.

[tuffr2]

I just watched a video Chevy, Ram and Ford SRW trucks where tested. As I figured the Duramax engine is powerful and out performed the Ram by a bunch and even the Ford by a little bit. It got the best fuel milage as well as towing acceleration.

[HDrider]

We are buying a 40' New Horizon 5th wheel and wish I could make myself be live that Ram built in a cushion on weights. More importantly I could only hope I could convince a lawyer of that if anything happened and I was over weight in any area.
But with a dry weight of just north of 21,000 lbs and a loaded weight that will be closer to 25 or 26k I don't think I a big enough gambler.

[tuffr2]

HDrider - a New Horizon is a different animal than even a DRV. When I looked at New Horizon 5th wheels I also looked at MDT's. I would think you would be better off with a Freightliner Sport Chassis.

Or just maybe the 2020 Chevy, Ram, Ford duallies depending on what the redesigned duallies will bring in increased capacity.

[gmacecsko]

I have a 2018 GMC Sierra Denali dually. The payload is slightly more than 4800 lbs

[redhooker]

I just want to add a couple things. As I mentioned before I personally draw the line on towing with a pickup at about 25k. The higher tow ratings on Ram and F350 (not 450- that really is a class 4 truck with a class 3 sticker) are based on the J2807 tests. These tests are primarily just pulling for speed at grades with standardized trailer loads. Good tests mind you, but failures are only for lack of speed or overheat/error code conditions. (Some minor braking tests as well).

GM has no deficiencies in either the power, braking, or carrying capacity ability but the lower rating actually comes from the final drive ratio. Ram and Ford both offer fuel-guzzling 4:10 rear ends while GM only offers the obviously more versatile and economical 3:73. The lower gears used by Ram and Ford allow them to meet the speed times of the J2807 with higher weights, which is why you see those weights on the specs with an asterisk denoting only with the lower gears (also why the Ram 3500 “rates” to pull more than a Ram 4500 or 5500) This is why I feel the GM weights are the most realistic of all three mfgs- before anyone misinterprets that I AM NOT saying GM is better. I just feel they have the most realistic tow ratings for an E-range tired pickup.

[raineman]

Originally Posted by redhooker

....

GM has no deficiencies in either the power, braking, or carrying capacity ability but the lower rating actually comes from the final drive ratio. Ram and Ford both offer fuel-guzzling 4:10 rear ends while GM only offers the obviously more versatile and economical 3:73. The lower gears used by Ram and Ford allow them to meet the speed times of the J2807 with higher weights, which is why you see those weights on the specs with an asterisk denoting only with the lower gears (also why the Ram 3500 “rates” to pull more than a Ram 4500 or 5500) This is why I feel the GM weights are the most realistic of all three mfgs- before anyone misinterprets that I AM NOT saying GM is better. I just feel they have the most realistic tow ratings for an E-range tired pickup.

No regrets on having 4.10 in my Ram. Wouldn't want anything else. Like many, I didn't buy a 1 ton dually diesel truck for fuel efficiency. I bought it to tow a large 5th wheel. I'll take the power over the fuel savings all day long.

[Elisavaet]

Originally Posted by tophog

So who's got a newer chevy/gmc 3500 DRW crew cab towing big/heavy 5th wheels such as DRV?
Curious on trailer size/weight and pin weight.
I know most use 20% of trailer GVWR to estimate pin weight. Mostly curious of how close you are to trucks max payload.
Just realized a trailer with GVWR of 21500 has estimated pin weight of 4300 lbs and my trucks payload is only 4480 lbs.
Looks like I need to look at a lighter trailers or a different truck.

A few points for you to consider:

1. Actual pin weight - What I've seen reported is that the actual pin weight on 5th wheels tends to be closer to 23%, and it is often estimated at 20 to 25%. At 23% you have a pin weight for that trailer of 4,945, six hundred pounds over the payload capacity of the GM truck. At 25% you have 5,375 pounds of pin weight, nine hundred pounds over payload capacity. Most of the full timers I've seen report that they have started out with the same thought, to "stay light", but end up fighting the trailer gvwr. This trailer will put you over gvwr on that truck eight to sixteen percent at gross, and that's with an empty truck bed, no spare fuel, no air compressor, etc.
   
   
2. Safety factor - I've seen the argument on here dozens of times that, since there is assumed to be a "safety factor" built in, it is acceptable to go over manufacturers recommendations, assuming that you are well below the "failure rate".
   a) You don't know what that safety factor is. You are guessing. The only facts you have are what are on the load sticker.
   b) It is called a "safety" factor, not a "gee, what the heck, go ahead if you want" factor.
   c) I can imagine no scenario in which marketing blithely accepts their competitors gaining market share because the engineers are "too cautious". Based on my experience I expect there have been some harsh words at GM about the lower ratings relative to Ford and Ram. That they are STILL lower would indicate that engineering proved their point, that the trucks are NOT safe to be run at the higher ratings.
   d) The GM trucks do not have a 14,000 pound gvwr option as do Ford and Ram. If their truck could handle the additional 750 pounds safely (I recall from memory that the GVWR on 2018 GM duallies is 13,250) I feel very certain that the vehicles would be RATED at 14K. I can see an argument, perhaps, that the F450 is capable of more payload than rated as it is limited by the 14K ceiling and they don't want to rate it as a class 4 truck (16K gvwr) due to insurance or taxes and such in some localities, but GM has a "free" additional 750 pounds they COULD be using with NO tax or licensing implications. Assuming that they have voluntarily decided not to do this because the ratings are perhaps more "realistic", but THEY KNOW their truck is REALLY JUST as capable as Ram and Ford, is analogous to believing in the tooth fairy.
   
   Let's just say you do believe in the tooth fairy and GM is voluntarily losing market share and rating their trucks 750 pounds lower than the competition because they believe this to be a realistic and safe rating. By voluntarily running eight to sixteen percent over payload capacity you are going against the advice of a billion dollar corporation that has made a multi-million dollar decision based on thousands (or tens of thousands) of hours of engineering and testing that confirmed that their equipment was NOT safe at over those ratings in all scenario.
   
   Let's say that you don't believe in the tooth fairy and you believe as I do that there have probably been spittle flying screaming matches internal to the truck division at GM where marketing wanted to uprate the trucks and engineering, QA, and finally, legal, refused to do so. By voluntarily running eight to sixteen percent over payload capacity you are going against the advice of a billion dollar corporation that has made a multi-million dollar decision based on thousands (or tens of thousands) of hours of engineering and testing that confirmed that their equipment was NOT safe at over those ratings in all scenario.
   
   In both cases you are deciding that you and a handful of keyboard commandos can make better engineering decisions than a staff of engineers that designed the product.
   
   
3. It's about payload, not towing capacity - The thread turned to people talking about towing and stopping. The trailer weight up for consideration is a DRV at 21,500 pounds, well within the apx 23,000 pound towing capacity of the GM. The conversation is about payload. Getting into a fritz about the Duramax/Allison vs Cummins/Aisin, etc., is not the point. The point is whether the axles, bearings, frame, and other load bearing components can take the payload, not whether the Duramax/Allison can pull it or even if the brakes can stop it. The conversation was never about towing capacity.
   
   
4. You aren't going to carry extra fuel? Towing that kind of weight, even with the "fuel efficient" 3.73's, you're probably looking at around 8 mpg. You're going to be looking for a diesel fuel stop around every three hours, and at four hours you're hoping it's all downhill till you find one cause you're running on fumes. A sixty gallon aux fuel tank is going to add around 420 pounds of fuel weight plus hardware for around 500 pounds of additional payload. Now you're running at fourteen to twenty three percent over payload capacity. Again, this is with just the two of you in the cab and MAYBE a hundred pounds of incidentals depending on whether GM included anything at all, which they might not have. Remember, SAE J2807 is about towing capacity, not about payload capacity. There's no guarantee that the 4,500 pounds of "payload capacity" rated is with anything other than three hundred pounds of driver and passenger and a full tank of fuel.
   
   Want to bring along the grandkids or friends in that crew cab? Now you're running at twenty five to thirty percent over capacity.

Getting back to that issue of "safety" factor. Since you're probably within the 23,000 pounds of towing capacity that the dually with the Duramax/Allison is rated at you're probably fine for towing and stopping given safe and responsible driving. But if you're running over payload capacity you may not be "fine" regarding the frame, bearings, axles, etc. Ever think about what a snapped axle or seized wheel bearing would do to your mood if you were towing up or down a grade in the mountains or in heavy traffic going around a city like Atlanta?

Finally, consider the formula F=Ma, force equals mass times acceleration. Any "safety" factor will certainly have taken this into account as the engineers know that you will be loaded in a dynamic environment. You're not going to load up 4,500 pounds and just sit there, you're going to haul something somewhere. They have decided that, for a light duty truck (yes, class 1, 2, and 3 trucks are "light duty" trucks), it is safe to haul that weight.

Now consider hauling twenty five percent over that, up around 5,800 pounds with extra fuel, friends or family in the back, an air compression, chock blocks, an extra LP tank, etc., and you're running on a rough stretch of pavement where you're beating the dickens out of both the front and rear suspension. Perhaps someone on here wants to go through the calculations of figuring out what additional force you're putting on the frame, bearings, axles, etc. when you hit those bumps at sixty plus mph. Surely NOW we're getting close to that mythical REAL point of failure that everyone seems to think is somewhere out there ABOVE the "safety" factor right?

When I was designing products and machines back in the eighties and nineties (all I do now is design software), I NEVER EVER got to add "fluff" to my designs. Management, not just marketing, but engineering management was always on me to justify why I needed this vs that, to justify this cost and this material or product vs a lower cost option.

To assume that the ENTIRE GM engineering staff for the past decade has just thrown in something along the lines of an eighty percent safety factor and STILL are HAPPY to rate their trucks significantly lower than the competition is ridiculous.

Sorry for the rant. I've been fighting Corporate America, and now Corporate Global for almost four decades as an engineer and I have never ever under any circumstances been able to get away with including more than minute safety factors in my designs and then only under severe criticism. To see people dismiss these as is done on here routinely is disturbing.

No, I did not say that there are going to be swat teams waiting at weigh stations that are going to cart you off to Guantanamo bay if you're overweight and no I don't think that if you have an accident the rabid attorneys are going to go after your children to put them in sweat shops to make them pay off your debt because you were overweight.

What I DID say and AM saying is that it is unrealistic to believe that you can run one of these trucks over rated capacity without consequences and that the RAM and Ford ARE built heavier IN FACT than the GM or the GM would be rated as high as they are. To assume they are equivalent in the face of specifications to the contrary is perhaps valid as a religious belief, but it has no place in science.


But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Kate

[tophog]

Kate what year Duramax did you end up buying? Lol j/k I can see you are passionate about weight/payload specs based on your original truck thread.

GM definitely has some catching up to do in the payload dept. I'm using an Andersen Hitch to save 150 lbs for payload. Should I trust Andersen's specs? (warning loaded question)

I don't disagree with anything you said other than not all full timers travel loaded to the gills, but realize any TV should be able to accommodate the advertised GVWR of the trailer and whatever truck cargo. As they say scales don't lie.

Being an early retired software engineer myself (ADP) for over 25 years, as well as ex Navy Submariner I also respect most advertised specs and thresholds. If a sub is rated to a crush depth of 1200' I would be very nervous about taking her to 1500' just because I don't hear any leaks.

Surely I can pull 21500... Hold my beer.

[Elisavaet]

Originally Posted by tophog

Kate what year Duramax did you end up buying? Lol j/k I can see you are passionate about weight/payload specs based on your original truck thread.

GM definitely has some catching up to do in the payload dept. I'm using an Andersen Hitch to save 150 lbs for payload. Should I trust Andersen's specs? (warning loaded question)

I don't disagree with anything you said other than not all full timers travel loaded to the gills, but realize any TV should be able to accommodate the advertised GVWR of the trailer and whatever truck cargo. As they say scales don't lie.

Being an early retired software engineer myself (ADP) for over 25 years, as well as ex Navy Submariner I also respect most advertised specs and thresholds. If a sub is rated to a crush depth of 1200' I would be very nervous about taking her to 1500' just because I don't hear any leaks.

Surely I can pull 21500... Hold my beer.

Thanks for keeping it light and taking me with a grain of salt TopHog

I really loved the 2018 GMC dually I drove, it handled like a sports car compared to the big old farm truck that I drive now and the new Ford and Ram, but I have yet to convince myself that losing almost nine hundred pounds of payload is a good idea for what I want. I'm targeting Nov for a purchase, and while Ram looks good, I'm like someone else on this thread, thinking the adaptive cruise control and lane assist is a good idea for me.

I tend to do eight to ten hour days when I travel. Not because I'm in a hurry so much as I just enjoy driving. But I am getting older and it'll flat wear me out. So more payload for fuel and the technology assists for safety make sense to me. But, we'll see.

As the temperatures begin to drop below a hundred degrees here in Vegas I'm going to get out and do some final RV shopping before I make a decision on a truck. It's still possible I'll decide on something like a 14,000 pound Reflection rather than a 20,000 pound Momentum toy hauler.

Who knows? You make your choices, you take your chances!

Kate

[tophog]

We'll likely stick with our 2016 Arctic Fox 35-5Z (39' 16K GVWR) for awhile. We love it and haven't had a single problem with it full timing almost 2 years in it now. Wife does like bling of the DRV but in looking at a few 18s we just can't justify 2x the price tag.

I had a new 2017 F350 DRW with the 14K GVWR package. In having owned both new F350 and GMC I certainly have pet peas with each. Gmc is Denali and F350 was XLT so can't really compare amenities although gmc is lacking a few imo since XLT includes some by default.

GMC positives:

-Like ride better but knew I would having owned 3 previous Duramaxs

-Like interior layout better. Gmc feels smaller inside more cockpit-ish

-Lane assist is nice as is collision avoid

-Feels like it pulls better but just seat of pants feel, same 16K 5er though

-seats more comfortable for me

-avg 22-23 mph empty since new (3K miles). Best in f350 ever was 19.

Cons:

-No blindspot monitor
-No underseat storage compartment rear seat
-Off throttle feels more sluggish than F350
-No oem TPMS (not available)
-crappy short hard to reach valve stems
-Def fill under hood (silly)


F350 (XLT) positives

-14K GVWR package (over 1K more payload than gmc Denali)
-Felt peppier off throttle than GMC
-Blindspot monitor
-OEM TPMS
-underseat storage
-Alcoa wheels with steel valve stems that were easy to get to

Cons:
-none really, probably should have kept it.

That said I paid $58K OTD for the 2017 F350 XLT and $61K OTD for the 2018 GMC Denali so I feel I did better on the GMC.

And a 2018 loaded Lariat payload is only about 500 lbs more than GMC Denali so not a huge difference. If you want the fancy toys the price is paid via payload.

Nothing against Dodge but I've never owned one.

[tophog]

Forgot one.

Gmc only has 36gal fuel tank. F350 had 48 gal. I've since installed 55 gal RDS tank in GMC so so-long 450 lbs payload

[Jshopes81]

Kate,
They also deal with the bean counters as well who are trying to find ways to deny warranty claims for towing overweight that will want the gvwr lower. There are alot of things that go into it, engineering only being a part of it. There is no yelling and screaming involved, marketing just sells what the engineers are allowed to make by the bean counters. I doubt anyone in their marketing even knows what gvwr is. They would probably try and sell 2 with every truck if they could.

In all honesty, the load over the rear axle is going to depend alot on the hitch mount as well. The further forward the more its spread out.