Re: Published Scout GVWR's

["Tom Harais" <tjhemh@domain.elided>]

Guys:

Emissions considerations as well as liability had something to do with GVWR
rating.

In California, the first state with the cat-con requirement, the Scout's
GVWR was raised just enough to be above the limit for cat cons which were
required of most cars - but not trucks, in 1975. By 1979, even "light
trucks" (less than 8500 GVWR) like the Scout were caught in the web of
emissions regulations, but they were allowed higher amounts. In fact, the
State Air Resources Board just voted to bring them in line with auto
emissions yesterday by the year 2004. Another great controversial decision
from the "Left Coast". Your SUV must now meet the same emmissions standards
as a Honda Prelude of that year. The automakers have warned that this is
the "death nell" for full size vehicles as we know them. They said that
SUVs were pretty much what passes for "full sized vehicles" in this day and
age without station wagons, Buick Roadmasters or even full size Lincoln
Town Cars anymore.

Also, pickup or "house car" rating means something emission wise &
licensing wise in California. For instance, registered as a Terra, my Scout
was considered a P/U and I was paying not only reg fees, but $80/year in
"weight" fees. Now that I have a Traveler top on it, I had to send my title
in with my registration and a signed document stating that it no longer had
an open bed. They'll reclass it as a "house car" (They derived that for
P/Us with camper shells on them) and drop the weight fees. To carry
anything in an open bed vehicle in California requires commercial
registration and weight fees - even private Pickups. CLARIFICATION: That is
the law and the DMV applies it as such. But, my cop freinds tell me they
make no distinction between commercial and "private" plates on pickups and
they would never cite anyone for hauling stuff in an open bed pickup
because they didn't have commercial plates. i.e. If I take the top off and
haul anything, I'm not going to get a ticket. It's a stupid law that
several of our legislators have tried to get changed.

As to the liaiblity issue and GVWR, I think Howard spoke to that a week or
so ago. There is a benefit to a manufacturer using the "lowest common
denominator" for GVWR to avoid liabilities when people throw some monster,
cab-ovr camper up on a 1/2 or 3/4 ton P/U and then end up loosing control,
loosing and axle, etc. The manufacturer can always say they exceeded the
GVWR so they aren't liable. They protect themselves by "underating" their
vehicles a little. So, even with HD springs, bigger axles, etc. they might
rate all of thier line of the same model with a single, lower GVWR.

Tom H.