|
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
North Star wrote:
On Nov 27, 9:18 pm, wrote: On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:11:25 -0800 (PST), North Star wrote: Duh! What part of 100%employee funded pension didn't you understand? The Corp used to contribute slightly more than half.. but didn't do so for years. I could have bought a Ford F150 basic truck or a Chev/GMC equivalent for about 7 grand less than my RAV4 cost. That is a regular cab and 8 foot box with 2WD, 6 cyl engine, auto transmission + air conditioning. ======== Do you really need air conditioning in Halifax? I'd just roll the windows down on those few warm days you get. I Did just that for my first 30 years of driving. Got to the point where I'd get sleepy on long highway trips with the windows closed and the sun streaming in.. now I feel that I do need air conditioning those half to a full dozen days a year. The booze makes you sleepy, Don. -HB |
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:22:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:45:03 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:03:07 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:54:23 -0500, John H wrote: Dualies are fuel hogs, and don't add that much to towing capacity. === Perhaps, but it seems intuitive that they would add to stability, braking and tongue weight capability. Why else would people buy them? You made me get out the book. The K3500 regular cab with single rear wheels can pull a max trailer weight of 15,400 lbs. With dual rear wheels the max weight is 16,500 lbs. Personally, I don't think the extra 1100 lbs is worth it, but if you've got a trailer weighing that much, then the dually becomes necessary. For 9000 lbs, I wouldn't even think about it. I think he's talking about a 9,000 lb boat plus fuel, water, supplies and trailer weight. I'd guess something more like 13,000 or 14,000 lbs going down the road. The issue is tongue weight, a dually will certainly be able to handle more tongue weight. === You'd think, and all of that extra rubber on the road has got to make a contribution to stabilty and braking. You've also got the safety issue with redundant rear tires. If it was me, I'd get a crew cab dualie. 6400 dry maybe 9000 or a bit more with 100 gal fuel and 40 water, plus a few heavy items like the generator and air conditioner. It has trailer lights built into the back of the boat and is only 8 1/2 feet wide. Casady |
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:58:05 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:36:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:55:42 -0500, wrote: Others have provided the correct answer with respect to hardware. The real issue may be that the boat and trailer combination are over width and/or over height. Depending on the intended towing area, that could be a deal breaker. ==== Over height is probably not an issue unless it has a flybridge or tower. Over width is quite likely but not by a huge amount, easily remedied with the right signs and permits. Over height was a stretch, but since I lacked information on the trailer and complete information on the boat, it seemed necessary to mention. Over width is almost assured, since the boat, alone, is at the legal limit. Any guide-ons will exceed the legal limit. Over "size" is not trivial. It requires (based on location) combinations of lights, signs, permits, flags, banners, pilot cars and limitations on travel after dark, before dawn, on holidays and days preceding and succeeding. To me, a deal breaker. Only the OP knows the particulars and, now, armed with the right questions, can tell US what the right tow vehicle is. The boat was designed with a narrow beam in order to be trailerable. The picture of it on the ramp shows a trailer a good two feet narrower than the boat. It has a foot deep keel to keep it from shifting from side to side. With bow and stern thrusters to help it might not be too hard to load. The mast folds for a hight, floating of just a bit over niine feet. As for launching it light, in Iowa there is no such thing as a marina with diesel or sanitary pump out. The lake where I have done my boating for the last fifty years, has just one gas pump, not even one resort, all private homes. |
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
On 11/29/2011 8:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article76GdnQg99KclrEnTnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 11/28/11 7:36 PM, Califbill wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 11/28/11 2:02 PM, Califbill wrote: You mean the Crown Corp did not contribute? And if it is not government funded, you may need to cut back on you living standards. http://www.fin.gc.ca/n11/data/11-032_2-eng.asp Appears as if a lot of those Canadian pensions are underfunded. Perhaps, California Swill, you could get a consulting appointment with the Canadian government and show it how to skirt the laws on hiring illegals at shape-ups to perform home repair tasks. That way, you have no employer social security payments, no tax records, no unemployment comp payments, no workers' comp payments. That is how you did it, right? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maybe you did it that way. But I had licensed drivers. I owned a construction equipment leasing company. I do not think we ever had a Hispanic employee. They would have probably worked harder and more reliably than some we had. I had city permits, state permits, paid FUTA, sales tax, and all those others fees. Only time I hired illegals is because the ones I requested from the Calif EDD did not show up to clean up the In-laws house for sale. Same people who probably claim they can not get a job. Now you, most likely would hire a cheap illegal to build that deck as you are incapable of doing the job yourself. Uh, that's not how you ran your retirement business, according to your own words here. Oh...the deck guy? Local carpenter's apprentice, by now a journeyman. Born right here in the county. Whoopsy........ you said YOU built the deck with a helper. At least that was your story until it was pointed out that the contractor's trailer was in the picture! I don't know how hamstrung these unions keep their apprentices but I'm thinking apprentices aren't allowed to take on unauthorized side work. -- 1-20-13 The end of an error |
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:22:14 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:45:03 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:03:07 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:54:23 -0500, John H wrote: Dualies are fuel hogs, and don't add that much to towing capacity. === Perhaps, but it seems intuitive that they would add to stability, braking and tongue weight capability. Why else would people buy them? You made me get out the book. The K3500 regular cab with single rear wheels can pull a max trailer weight of 15,400 lbs. With dual rear wheels the max weight is 16,500 lbs. Personally, I don't think the extra 1100 lbs is worth it, but if you've got a trailer weighing that much, then the dually becomes necessary. For 9000 lbs, I wouldn't even think about it. I think he's talking about a 9,000 lb boat plus fuel, water, supplies and trailer weight. I'd guess something more like 13,000 or 14,000 lbs going down the road. The issue is tongue weight, a dually will certainly be able to handle more tongue weight. === You'd think, and all of that extra rubber on the road has got to make a contribution to stabilty and braking. You've also got the safety issue with redundant rear tires. If it was me, I'd get a crew cab dualie. I'm thinking the extra rubber adds to the breaking, but that it's included in the calculations of max towing capacity. The frame of the truck remains the same. The tongue weight should be 10-15% of the trailer weight up to a max, for the 2500HD or 3500HD, of 750 lbs. With a weight distributing hitch, that goes up 1500 lbs. The book makes no distinction for hitch weight changes with regard to duallys. For fifth wheel trailers, the kingpin weight should be 15-25% of the trailer weight, up to the max trailer weight as I mentioned earlier (15,400 or 16,500). All of this is for a 2009 model Silverado. |
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
On Nov 29, 9:18*am, Richard Casady
wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:58:05 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:36:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:55:42 -0500, wrote: Others have provided the correct answer with respect to hardware. The real issue may be that the boat and trailer combination are over width and/or over height. Depending on the intended towing area, that could be a deal breaker. ==== Over height is probably not an issue unless it has a flybridge or tower. *Over width is quite likely but not by a huge amount, easily remedied with the right signs and permits. Over height was a stretch, but since I lacked information on the trailer and complete information on the boat, it seemed necessary to mention. Over width is almost assured, since the boat, alone, is at the legal limit. Any guide-ons will exceed the legal limit. Over "size" is not trivial. It requires (based on location) combinations of lights, signs, permits, flags, banners, pilot cars and limitations on travel after dark, before dawn, on holidays and days preceding and succeeding. To me, a deal breaker. Only the OP knows the particulars and, now, armed with the right questions, can tell US what the right tow vehicle is. The boat was designed with a narrow beam in order to be trailerable. The picture of it on the ramp shows a trailer a good two feet narrower than the boat. It has a foot deep keel to keep it from shifting from side to side. With bow and stern thrusters to help it might not be too hard to load. The mast folds for a hight, floating of just a bit over niine feet. As for launching it light, in Iowa there is no such thing as a marina with diesel or sanitary pump out. The lake where I have done my boating for the last fifty years, has just one gas pump, not even one resort, all private homes. I don't recall a picture, and couldn't find it when reviewing the posts. Could you repost it, or a link, please? |
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:39:57 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:03:07 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:54:23 -0500, John H wrote: Dualies are fuel hogs, and don't add that much to towing capacity. === Perhaps, but it seems intuitive that they would add to stability, braking and tongue weight capability. Why else would people buy them? You made me get out the book. The K3500 regular cab with single rear wheels can pull a max trailer weight of 15,400 lbs. With dual rear wheels the max weight is 16,500 lbs. Personally, I don't think the extra 1100 lbs is worth it, but if you've got a trailer weighing that much, then the dually becomes necessary. For 9000 lbs, I wouldn't even think about it. The issue is tongue weight, a dually will certainly be able to handle more tongue weight. ------------------------------------------- Probably not much difference in tongue weight. But more stability as they have a wider footprint. Probably not much difference in fuel mileage, but for that size boat, if not in berth, I would find storage near the ramp and only tow it a short distance. Sort of like they do in Hawaii. As I said earlier, max tongue weight is dependant on max trailer weight and type hitch used. There is no distinction for tire configuration except for the max trailer weight difference of about 1100 lbs. |
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
|
RAV4 - a girly 'truck'?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com