Caravans do not have to be small in Australia

[RobertRyan]

You get many companies building customised rigs

[avoidcrowds]

BeenThereBrokeThat, I think your assertion that US trucks are capable of hauling/towing more than the ratings is incorrect. It is easy to change components on vehicles used in different countries. Different axles, different brackets/bolts, etc. Just look at big-box equipment vs what the brand sells. John Deere, for example, has different components in the big-box store, than in the Deere dealer.

Certainly not the same components with a different sticker.

[RobertRyan]

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

73guna wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

A really good way to judge this is the commercial truck lines. Your average class 8 tractor (the ones hauling 53 foot trailers or semi's) weighs in at only about 14k to 16k lbs. Yet it hauls a GCVW of 80,000lbs or about a 40k payload depending on the type of trailer and how much it weighs.

Big trucks can gross a lot more than 80k.
That 80k limit was put in place for various reasons, one of which is to protect roads and bridges from deteriorating from heavyweight vehicles.

Yes you are right and I realize that but 80k is the limit for MOST of the states and so I used it as an easily understood example to highlight my statement about why our trucks are way under rated. Any higher number only makes my argument stronger.

Not underated but built for their specified use.You have European, Japanese and Australianbuilt Trucks that haul 100 tons but they have very little in common with something that tows 80,000lbs

Well actually Australia for years imported Mack trucks with 18 speed transmissions for hauling your "trains". I believe you now make some Macks there. But that same Mack was used here to haul 80K with very few minor changes including a 10 or 15 speed transmission.

As far as our pickups go. They are definitely and purposely underrated. They could, as I demonstrated, easily and safely haul about twice what they are currently rated for. But then they wouldnt sell so many duallys and medium sized trucks.

The Mack Trucks were/ are built designed in Australia from 1967, they developed the Metroliner that did Mining work, but not anymore.. They have different specifications even an engine to the US Macks, all now part of the Volvo Group. No US Pickups are not underrated, they are built for the purpose,they would be dangerous trying to exceed those restrictions. Only way you can change their payload,is change the specifications and build of the vehicle.
An example of built for a purpose is this Mining specific Truck that Hauls 500 Tons

[Beentherefixedt]

RobertRyan wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

73guna wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

A really good way to judge this is the commercial truck lines. Your average class 8 tractor (the ones hauling 53 foot trailers or semi's) weighs in at only about 14k to 16k lbs. Yet it hauls a GCVW of 80,000lbs or about a 40k payload depending on the type of trailer and how much it weighs.

Big trucks can gross a lot more than 80k.
That 80k limit was put in place for various reasons, one of which is to protect roads and bridges from deteriorating from heavyweight vehicles.

Yes you are right and I realize that but 80k is the limit for MOST of the states and so I used it as an easily understood example to highlight my statement about why our trucks are way under rated. Any higher number only makes my argument stronger.

Not underated but built for their specified use.You have European, Japanese and Australianbuilt Trucks that haul 100 tons but they have very little in common with something that tows 80,000lbs

Well actually Australia for years imported Mack trucks with 18 speed transmissions for hauling your "trains". I believe you now make some Macks there. But that same Mack was used here to haul 80K with very few minor changes including a 10 or 15 speed transmission.

As far as our pickups go. They are definitely and purposely underrated. They could, as I demonstrated, easily and safely haul about twice what they are currently rated for. But then they wouldnt sell so many duallys and medium sized trucks.

[rbpru]

In the end it all comes back to cost. The high end market will always be there.

Like Rolls Royce and Lamborghini, great machines but not likely to be seen very often.

[RobertRyan]

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

73guna wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

A really good way to judge this is the commercial truck lines. Your average class 8 tractor (the ones hauling 53 foot trailers or semi's) weighs in at only about 14k to 16k lbs. Yet it hauls a GCVW of 80,000lbs or about a 40k payload depending on the type of trailer and how much it weighs.

Big trucks can gross a lot more than 80k.
That 80k limit was put in place for various reasons, one of which is to protect roads and bridges from deteriorating from heavyweight vehicles.

Yes you are right and I realize that but 80k is the limit for MOST of the states and so I used it as an easily understood example to highlight my statement about why our trucks are way under rated. Any higher number only makes my argument stronger.

Not underated but built for their specified use.You have European, Japanese and Australianbuilt Trucks that haul 100 tons but they have very little in common with something that tows 80,000lbs

[Beentherefixedt]

73guna wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

A really good way to judge this is the commercial truck lines. Your average class 8 tractor (the ones hauling 53 foot trailers or semi's) weighs in at only about 14k to 16k lbs. Yet it hauls a GCVW of 80,000lbs or about a 40k payload depending on the type of trailer and how much it weighs.

Big trucks can gross a lot more than 80k.
That 80k limit was put in place for various reasons, one of which is to protect roads and bridges from deteriorating from heavyweight vehicles.

Yes you are right and I realize that but 80k is the limit for MOST of the states and so I used it as an easily understood example to highlight my statement about why our trucks are way under rated. Any higher number only makes my argument stronger.

[73guna]

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

A really good way to judge this is the commercial truck lines. Your average class 8 tractor (the ones hauling 53 foot trailers or semi's) weighs in at only about 14k to 16k lbs. Yet it hauls a GCVW of 80,000lbs or about a 40k payload depending on the type of trailer and how much it weighs.

Big trucks can gross a lot more than 80k.
That 80k limit was put in place for various reasons, one of which is to protect roads and bridges from deteriorating from heavyweight vehicles.

[RobertRyan]

Boomerweps wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

Boomerweps wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
A medium sized Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger
Medium Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger

Wow, a Ranger described as a one ton class vehicle!
With a choice of a 5 cylinder diesel or a 2.0L turbo with more power than the US 2.4L versions.

Explanation. It is the payload.that is referred too here. It is now 1 tonne or 2,200lbs. Australian and Rangers sold outside NA have increased frame thicknesses and beefed up suspensions to cope with the increase. HD Ranger in Australia has a Payload of 3000lbs
All Rangers including the US version were designed and developed at Broadneadows , Victoria Australia

Thanks for the info. US sold mini pickups usually don't even get a full half US ton, 1000#, cargo capacity. You have to go full size to get that.

They have the extra payload and are comfortable as well

[Boomerweps]

RobertRyan wrote:

Boomerweps wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
A medium sized Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger
Medium Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger

Wow, a Ranger described as a one ton class vehicle!
With a choice of a 5 cylinder diesel or a 2.0L turbo with more power than the US 2.4L versions.

Explanation. It is the payload.that is referred too here. It is now 1 tonne or 2,200lbs. Australian and Rangers sold outside NA have increased frame thicknesses and beefed up suspensions to cope with the increase. HD Ranger in Australia has a Payload of 3000lbs
All Rangers including the US version were designed and developed at Broadneadows , Victoria Australia

Thanks for the info. US sold mini pickups usually don't even get a full half US ton, 1000#, cargo capacity. You have to go full size to get that.

[RobertRyan]

Boomerweps wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
A medium sized Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger
Medium Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger

Wow, a Ranger described as a one ton class vehicle!
With a choice of a 5 cylinder diesel or a 2.0L turbo with more power than the US 2.4L versions.

Explanation. It is the payload.that is referred too here. It is now 1 tonne or 2,200lbs. Australian and Rangers sold outside NA have increased frame thicknesses and beefed up suspensions to cope with the increase. HD Ranger in Australia has a Payload of 3000lbs
All Rangers including the US version were designed and developed at Broadneadows , Victoria Australia

[RobertRyan]

SidecarFlip wrote:

jerem0621 wrote:
Do my eyes deceive me or are ther two Americans trucks I found in this picture deck?

No. Lots of American trucks in Australia and Europe. I just sold a Ford F250 and truck camper to a German citizen. He's shipping the truck and camper back home via a container.

Happens all the time.

Lots is probably an expansive word.. More like some US Pickups in Europe. In Australia they sell 500 US Pickups virtually all HD types. " Lots" of Cricket is played in the US, as people can find Cricket leagues scattered in the US

[RobertRyan]

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:

jerem0621 wrote:
Do my eyes deceive me or are ther two Americans trucks I found in this picture deck?

No. Lots of American trucks in Australia and Europe. I just sold a Ford F250 and truck camper to a German citizen. He's shipping the truck and camper back home via a container.

Happens all the time.

Dodge/Ram/Jeep being part of Fiat, Europe's largest carmaker, sells new Dodge Rams and jeeps in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

Jeeps and new Mustangs are seen all over Europe. And Jeeps in China and Asia as well. In fact in 2012 Ford opened an assembly plant in Cambodia.

The world and trade are very different from what many Americans think it is.

There are not many Pickups in Europe, they only sell roughly 80,000 s year for a overall population of 650million.
You see some Jeeps SUV's but handfuls of US Pickups

[Beentherefixedt]

SidecarFlip wrote:

jerem0621 wrote:
Do my eyes deceive me or are ther two Americans trucks I found in this picture deck?

No. Lots of American trucks in Australia and Europe. I just sold a Ford F250 and truck camper to a German citizen. He's shipping the truck and camper back home via a container.

Happens all the time.

Dodge/Ram/Jeep being part of Fiat, Europe's largest carmaker, sells new Dodge Rams and jeeps in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

Jeeps and new Mustangs are seen all over Europe. And Jeeps in China and Asia as well. In fact in 2012 Ford opened an assembly plant in Cambodia.

The world and trade are very different from what many Americans think it is.

[Beentherefixedt]

Boomerweps wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
A medium sized Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger
Medium Caravan being pulled by a Ford Ranger

Wow, a Ranger described as a one ton class vehicle!
With a choice of a 5 cylinder diesel or a 2.0L turbo with more power than the US 2.4L versions.

This really should not be too much of a surprise. Our US weight ratings are way out of whack and designed more to push buyers into a bigger, more expensive vehicle that could easily do two times what is rated.

A really good way to judge this is the commercial truck lines. Your average class 8 tractor (the ones hauling 53 foot trailers or semi's) weighs in at only about 14k to 16k lbs. Yet it hauls a GCVW of 80,000lbs or about a 40k payload depending on the type of trailer and how much it weighs.

They have torque ratings of on average 1200 to 1600 or so. with horsepower between 375 to 500 depending on engine and settings.

So My Dodge Ram has 385HP and can be set for 800ft/lbs of torque. And I can only haul 12K? 15K?

Sorry the math doesnt work.

All else being equal I should be able to haul about a GCVW of at least 40k.

This is why you see the ranger rated at a 1 ton rating.

So the class 8 truck has a tractor to GCVW weight percentage of 20% (16000/80000=.20)

My Ram weight is 8350 as standing in my driveway. Based on my trailer rating GCVW of 10720 my rig would weigh 19,070.

That means that my truck to GCVW percentage is 43% a more than double factor.

There is a HUGE amount of marketing and misunderstanding involved in these ratings aimed at appealing to wannabe Peterbuilt drivers with lots of cash to spend on a giant 1 ton dually.

As for the Ranger they need to get the diesel in it here sooner rather than later.