Overweight

[Tractorganic]

I took my 10K trailer to the public scale loaded up with TC40D, BH, chains & binders, and with the bucket & forks in the dump bed of my Fuso FG140 (GVWR: 14050; GCVWR: 17040). Weighed in @ 18930, almost 1 ton over. I can trim down by removing components e.g. bucket & forks, side board and tail gate, maybe even go w./ lighter chains & binders (grade 120 is half the weight) and as last resort drop the BH (1000 lbs.) but; I'd have a real hard time loading this stuff for a second trip after dropping off the tractor 'cuz I have no hoist or gantry. Any Ideas?
I really worry that even if I get the GCVW down below 17040, CT. D.O.T.d still find me over even when empty, since the trailer plate is rated 10K.

 

[JB4310]

I don't get it it, your truck's gvw is 14,050 but you GCWR is only 17,040? My 3500 Ram's GVW is only 12,500 but my GCWR is 23,000!
I'm not that familiar with the Fuso's but something doesn't add up.
One issue for sure is the 18,000 lb threshold that you are over, making it required that you get a CDOT number, with $750,000 min liability, med card and log journal kept when operating over the 18K. If your using it for business at any time.
JB,

 

[Builder]

My state doesn't require a DOT # unless I'm in interstate commerce. Since I'm intrastate commerce, I'm not required to have one.

You GCWR does seem out of whack. Should be higher.

 

[dgl24087]

Those are the numbers from Mitsubishi's website: http://www.mitfuso.com/pdf/07_FG140.pdf

 

[john_bud]

Those are the numbers from Mitsubishi's website: http://www.mitfuso.com/pdf/07_FG140.pdf

Yeah, but what's on the plate in the vehicle? Odd as it may seem, companies do put out more than one version of the same vehicle....

jb

 

[dgl24087]

Yeah, but what's on the plate in the vehicle? Odd as it may seem, companies do put out more than one version of the same vehicle....

jb

True, but the FG140, as per the Mitsubishi web site, is available in only one configuration. The OP has an FG140.

 

[john_bud]

True, but the FG140, as per the Mitsubishi web site, is available in only one configuration. The OP has an FG140.

Well, then it looks like he has his work cut out getting the total weight down!

It is wierd that they only have a combined total of 3000ish over the truck alone. I would still like to have a peek at the tag in the truck as the mitsu site also lists "specs subject to change" in the fine print. And who trusts the marketing types that put those slick glossies together?

It is a neat looking rig that's for sure, but it would about scream "commercial". Don't know how the CT boys in blue are about that, but most east coast cops are pretty hard butt about stuff with all the "guff" they take daily.

jb

 

[em14]

As I thought about the GCVWR as compared to GVWR it looked to me as though the MFG ( Mitsubishi ) doesn't want trailers pulled by this truck!
Leo

 

[JB4310]

As I thought about the GCVWR as compared to GVWR it looked to me as though the MFG ( Mitsubishi ) doesn't want trailers pulled by this truck!
Leo

Yup, that's what it looks like and after looking at the specs I think I may know why.
Like most Japanese vehicles these things are known for being extremely efficient and reliable, and have a pretty high GVW compared to it's curb weight and engine output.
But that may be the limiting factor, it's engine's power output. It's only a 4.9 liter 4 cylinder 147 HP and 347 TQ.

It would probably blow away all our domestic trucks in efficiency up to it's 14,050 lbs GVW but leaves very little in reserve for anything else (heavy trailer towing).
When these trucks first came on the scene they were all small box delivery vehicles, which they're perfect for, only fairly recently have they become popular with contractors, they'll just have to start putting bigger engines in some as an option.
JB,

 

[FredH]

Geez , What a toy . Need something more along the lines of this .







Fred H.