Differences between a CTD 2500 Auto SRW and a CTD 3500 Auto? SRW
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Well I thought I lived in America, but its looking more like france every day.
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the time I think you will be ok towing a little more than what your truck is rated for, no doubt these trucks can do it!, but the problem would be if your in an accident and the weight issue comes into play, I would rather just stay right at or under what its rated for.
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for this quote. Only thing is I don't think legally the GVWR means anything. I think in an accident you'd have to be found guilty of gross negligence for this to have an effect. Speed would be the first poblem in an accident. Towing a trailer 80 mph in a 65 zone might be an example of gross negligence. Being on a cell phone in an accident would not qualify. DUI or drugs would qualify for example.
I see the Manufacturers rating as guidance. Tires are my number 1 concern.
I think I can use the ratings for a 3500 SRW MegaCab CTD; add air bags, timbrens or the like and be well within the saftey factor of my truck.
Anyone disagree with this?
I see the Manufacturers rating as guidance. Tires are my number 1 concern.
I think I can use the ratings for a 3500 SRW MegaCab CTD; add air bags, timbrens or the like and be well within the saftey factor of my truck.
Anyone disagree with this?
If we're talking about civil liability for causing a collision, "gross" negligence is not the standard. The standard is simply "negligence" meaning how would a reasonably prudent person have acted under the circumstances. Certainly a plaintiff's lawyer could argue that a decision to operate the vehicle over the manufacturer's rated limits falls below the reasonable person standard. Furthermore, if there exists within that jurisdiction a statute, ordinance, etc. which prohibits operating a vehicle over it's GVWR ,violation of that statute or ordinance could constitute negligence per se thereby relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proving that the action (operating overweight) was below the reasonable person standard. If the trier of fact (judge or jury) buys that argument then the overweight operator could certainly be held civilly liable for damages resulting from the collision.
Obviously this is a simplified analysis and doesn't take into consideration other potentially relevant factors such as alternative causation theories, comparative fault, etc.
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Central MA
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can add my 170 lbs. to that ton in the bed when I'm unloading it, too, and I could still add some lbs to it. If I could have found a 3500 srw, I might have tried 3K at a time, after first trying it with 2500.
Now to get ride of these C rated tires. Just kidding.
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ft. Carson, CO
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you all got me, I'm wrong and I admit it. I used to think that all cummins dodges had a 11.5 untill i tried to buy new u-bolts, there's 3 listed diameters for a 03 and up 2500 and 3500. So, with that said, and the Dodge website not clarifying that, why is there 3 sizes and only two axles?
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#68
Well, I guess I'd have to disagree.
If we're talking about civil liability for causing a collision, "gross" negligence is not the standard. The standard is simply "negligence" meaning how would a reasonably prudent person have acted under the circumstances. Certainly a plaintiff's lawyer could argue that a decision to operate the vehicle over the manufacturer's rated limits falls below the reasonable person standard. Furthermore, if there exists within that jurisdiction a statute, ordinance, etc. which prohibits operating a vehicle over it's GVWR ,violation of that statute or ordinance could constitute negligence per se thereby relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proving that the action (operating overweight) was below the reasonable person standard. If the trier of fact (judge or jury) buys that argument then the overweight operator could certainly be held civilly liable for damages resulting from the collision.
Obviously this is a simplified analysis and doesn't take into consideration other potentially relevant factors such as alternative causation theories, comparative fault, etc.
If we're talking about civil liability for causing a collision, "gross" negligence is not the standard. The standard is simply "negligence" meaning how would a reasonably prudent person have acted under the circumstances. Certainly a plaintiff's lawyer could argue that a decision to operate the vehicle over the manufacturer's rated limits falls below the reasonable person standard. Furthermore, if there exists within that jurisdiction a statute, ordinance, etc. which prohibits operating a vehicle over it's GVWR ,violation of that statute or ordinance could constitute negligence per se thereby relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proving that the action (operating overweight) was below the reasonable person standard. If the trier of fact (judge or jury) buys that argument then the overweight operator could certainly be held civilly liable for damages resulting from the collision.
Obviously this is a simplified analysis and doesn't take into consideration other potentially relevant factors such as alternative causation theories, comparative fault, etc.
However, I guess its magnitude. Say I'm 1000 lbs over a 2500 but under the 3500 limits. I have an argument that the trucks are essentially the same. Now, if I'm 4000 over and the vehicle is obviously unstable its another matter.
In any case are you a lawyer? - I'm not. I just deal with them everyday. I'll get some ideas from one tomorrow.
Mike
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Well I thought I lived in America, but its looking more like france every day.
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for this quote. Only thing is I don't think legally the GVWR means anything. I think in an accident you'd have to be found guilty of gross negligence for this to have an effect. Speed would be the first poblem in an accident. Towing a trailer 80 mph in a 65 zone might be an example of gross negligence. Being on a cell phone in an accident would not qualify. DUI or drugs would qualify for example.
I see the Manufacturers rating as guidance. Tires are my number 1 concern.
I think I can use the ratings for a 3500 SRW MegaCab CTD; add air bags, timbrens or the like and be well within the saftey factor of my truck.
Anyone disagree with this?
I see the Manufacturers rating as guidance. Tires are my number 1 concern.
I think I can use the ratings for a 3500 SRW MegaCab CTD; add air bags, timbrens or the like and be well within the saftey factor of my truck.
Anyone disagree with this?
#71
Evil Genius:
Well: If I get sued you'll be the first to get a call! However, I'm not sure I would have admitted on this forum that you is a lawyer.
These folks are just common people and they drives Dodge's. I thought lawyers all drove BMWs or Bentleys or something like that - You must be a SPECIAL lawyer drivin a Dodge.
Now, back to the facts, as they say, is it your opinion that the GVWR of a Truck is an absolute limit?
How much is this going to cost me?
I used to payin lawyers BTW. None of em are cheap.
Mike
Well: If I get sued you'll be the first to get a call! However, I'm not sure I would have admitted on this forum that you is a lawyer.
These folks are just common people and they drives Dodge's. I thought lawyers all drove BMWs or Bentleys or something like that - You must be a SPECIAL lawyer drivin a Dodge.
Now, back to the facts, as they say, is it your opinion that the GVWR of a Truck is an absolute limit?
How much is this going to cost me?
I used to payin lawyers BTW. None of em are cheap.
Mike
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evil Genius:
Well: If I get sued you'll be the first to get a call! However, I'm not sure I would have admitted on this forum that you is a lawyer.
These folks are just common people and they drives Dodge's. I thought lawyers all drove BMWs or Bentleys or something like that - You must be a SPECIAL lawyer drivin a Dodge.
Now, back to the facts, as they say, is it your opinion that the GVWR of a Truck is an absolute limit?
How much is this going to cost me?
I used to payin lawyers BTW. None of em are cheap.
Mike
Well: If I get sued you'll be the first to get a call! However, I'm not sure I would have admitted on this forum that you is a lawyer.
These folks are just common people and they drives Dodge's. I thought lawyers all drove BMWs or Bentleys or something like that - You must be a SPECIAL lawyer drivin a Dodge.
Now, back to the facts, as they say, is it your opinion that the GVWR of a Truck is an absolute limit?
How much is this going to cost me?
I used to payin lawyers BTW. None of em are cheap.
Mike
Anyway, I don't see GVWR as an absolute limit. I certainly would not take a case where my only theory of liability was exceeding GVWR. As a practical matter I don't see it being a big deal as far as liability for a collision only because there will probably be some other, more significant factor (i.e. speeding, failure to yield, etc.) but if an expert testified that overloading was a factor it could be cause trouble.
It's always a good idea to check your insurance policy and make sure there is not an exclusion for coverage if you exceed GVWR ratings, etc.
Personally, I pay more attention to axle and tire ratings than GVWR. In fact, even though my truck has a 10,100 GVWR from Dodge the DMV lets me register it up to 14,000 GVWR.
Manufacturer's warranty is a whole different deal...
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Missouri City, TX
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A slightly funny story about ordering a 3500 vs a 2500. This is the first Dodge truck I have owned since back in the 70s. I went the weekend after Thanksgiving to order it and told them I wanted a 3500 Megacab SRW. The gal at the dealership who was handling setting up the order came back to me and asked "What do you tow or haul in a 3500 that you can't with a 2500?" My response was "Why?" She said, "I can save you quite a bit of money on ordering the truck by ordering you a 2500 instead of a 3500. What do you tow or haul?". Almost floored her with my answer. "Well, actually nothing. But, in the 3500, I am not required to wear seat belts." She stood there for a minute and said "You have to be kidding." "No mam, I'm not. Just order the 3500 and I will be happy." The actual salesman almost fell on the floor laughing.
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I took my badges off I'll have to remember that incase I get pulled over around town without a seatbelt on..
But dang, you really are a bad influence on me .
But dang, you really are a bad influence on me .