AEV Brute: The Ultimate Overlander?

[Justincredible]

...if I had a blank check I would buy an Audi RS6 Avant cause they are so sexy I couldn't resist.

You and me, we're friends now.

 

[AlaricD]

The rear light you mentioned I don't see on the Brute and it retains the stock headlights unless "upgraded." So both of your lighting complaints remain invalid.

This company is willing to sell illegal and underperforming equipment. They call the headlamps, which are in every respect a downgrade, an "upgrade", meaning they don't know what they're talking about. They make or have made for them a CHMSL that isn't safe or effective and is illegal, meaning they don't know how to properly spec lighting products. If they can't do that, or don't find someone who can, then how can we tell with certainty that they get OTHER things right?

 

[docwatson]

This company is willing to sell illegal and underperforming equipment. What's invalid about that?

You are right this can't be the ultimate overland vehicle if the company sells some illegal headlights. I am still trying to find the standard on CHMSL that makes this one illegal. So far the only thing I can find is that there is a requirement for one (center line of the vehicle, above the normal braking lights) that is steadily lit. If you have something else please inform me.

 

[SSF556]

I *guess* we could weigh it AGAIN, but:

Good idea...

 

[GFA]

Sounds like the weight of the brute after modifying the frame and adding the bed but before anything else is roughly the same weight as a JKUR and not 5400 like they're website says??? 5400 is for the fully outfitted 250 or 350? If so, then I'd put the payload only slightly less comparable with a Tacoma or other similar sized truck. If you add bumpers, suspension, winch, 35" tires to a Tacoma your making its curb weight close to the GVWR also I'd guess.

There's too many number being thrown around and nearly all are different...

 

[AlaricD]

You are right this can't be the ultimate overland vehicle if the company sells some illegal headlights. I am still trying to find the standard on CHMSL that makes this one illegal. So far the only thing I can find is that there is a requirement for one (center line of the vehicle, above the normal braking lights) that is steadily lit. If you have something else please inform me.

You have an inkling that there is some requirement that exists that you don't know about, so at least there's that-- you know that there IS something you don't know.

The positional requirement is but one of many requirements. Just like they're obviously guessing at how to build a compliant (and safe, and effective) CHMSL, it does raise the question about what other guesses and assumptions they might be making.

Then there's the payload thing. Maybe if they coughed up the money and got it certified for a new GVWR, then I could get beyond that-- but they haven't done it.

 

[docwatson]

I found the standard.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title49-vol5/xml/CFR-2004-title49-vol5-sec571-108.xml

I am not a FMV standards guru. Sorry to disappoint.

So you come back to the payload thing because you realize your lighting arguement has no validity. Good call.

 

[toxicity_27]

You have an inkling that there is some requirement that exists that you don't know about, so at least there's that-- you know that there IS something you don't know.

The positional requirement is but one of many requirements. Just like they're obviously guessing at how to build a compliant (and safe, and effective) CHMSL, it does raise the question about what other guesses and assumptions they might be making.

Then there's the payload thing. Maybe if they coughed up the money and got it certified for a new GVWR, then I could get beyond that-- but they haven't done it.

So instead of telling him what it is that's wrong with the CHMSL you just decide to tell him that there's something he doesn't know? Very helpful.

 

[Scott Brady]

Payload

How about we take numbers from an actual Brute?
Be careful with the "assumptions"


This is the actual payload sticker from the Brute outside my office. GVWR is 5,700 pounds.
However, it is important to note the GAWR too.
The front GAWR is 2,775 lbs.
The rear GAWR is 3,200 lbs.
2,775+3,200= 5,975 combined OEM GAWRs

Another interesting detail is the axle manufacturers GAWRs
Dana 44 Dana/Spicer rating= 3,500 lbs.
3,500x2= 7,000 lbs.


This is a photo taken of the actual weight of the Brute, with a few things in the back (recovery kit, small tool kit, tarp and ratchet straps). The critical thing to note is that this vehicle is essentially "built", which means that it has front and rear bumpers, winch, aux. lights., sliders, suspension, water tank and 37-inch tires!
This Brute actually weighs 5,160 lbs. The 260 lbs. on the slip is me getting out of the vehicle from the initial weigh in, and taking my backpack and firearm out with me.

So, there are multiple results to consider here:
Most conservative (GVWR): 5,700-5,160= 540
Conservative (Combined GAWRs): 5,975-5,160= 815
GAWR limit (Combined Dana 44 rating): 7,000-5,160= 1,840

What does AEV say about payload, based on their research and engineering review? ANSWER LINK HERE

Since there is no standardized test for determining payload capacity, we recommend following Chrysler’s suggested payload capacity of 892-1,000lbs (weight varies depending on trim level).

I went through all of this (painstakingly) with EarthRoamer and the Chrysler engineers when I purchased the EarthRoamer XV-JP. We had transportation lawyers involved and everything, just to make sure I wasn't going to be liable driving down the road with a 6,200-pound, $140,000 Wrangler. The conclusion was definitive, which was not to exceed the combined OEM GAWRs, plus 10%. I felt comfortable with that. So the upper defensible limit of a Wrangler running down the road is 6,572.5-pounds. AEV will never endorse that and neither will EarthRoamer. I certainly do not endorse it, but that is what our research resulted in.

The XV-JP I took over the Rubicon

Our XV-JP, in the jungles of Guatemala. Just over 6,200-pounds for that trip! Flawless.

Summary of Payload:
The range is 540-pounds being most conservative based upon the actual placard and 1,840-pounds being the hairy upper limit of defensibility. The best number is right from AEVs FAQs, which is 892-1,000 pounds. That is more than enough payload when you factor the vehicle already has most of the heavy bits installed and four 37" tires as unsprung weight. The Brute is not AT GVWR, that is fact. If people want to split hairs on the 892-1000 pounds from AEV, have at it. There is more than enough supporting documentation and precedence to justify those numbers.

 

[WrenchMonkey]

Cool! All I asked for were real numbers, and no one could find any...
.
But I wasn't going off "assumptions," Jeep and AEV should be pretty reliable sources.
.
Any thoughts on the discrepancies?

 

[toxicity_27]

How about we take numbers from an actual Brute?
Be careful with the "assumptions"

View attachment 249660
This is the actual payload sticker from the Brute outside my office. GVWR is 5,700 pounds.
However, it is important to note the GAWR too.
The front GAWR is 2,775 lbs.
The rear GAWR is 3,200 lbs.
2,775+3,200= 5,975 combined OEM GAWRs

Another interesting detail is the axle manufacturers GAWRs
Dana 44 Dana/Spicer rating= 3,500 lbs.
3,500x2= 7,000 lbs.

View attachment 249659
This is a photo taken of the actual weight of the Brute, with a few things in the back (recovery kit, small tool kit, tarp and ratchet straps). The critical thing to note is that this vehicle is essentially "built", which means that it has front and rear bumpers, winch, aux. lights., sliders, suspension, water tank and 37-inch tires!
This Brute actually weighs 5,160 lbs. The 260 lbs. on the slip is me getting out of the vehicle from the initial weigh in, and taking my backpack and firearm out with me.

So, there are multiple results to consider here:
Most conservative (GVWR): 5,700-5,160= 540
Conservative (Combined GAWRs): 5,975-5,160= 815
GAWR limit (Combined Dana 44 rating): 7,000-5,160= 1,840

What does AEV say about payload, based on their research and engineering review? ANSWER LINK HERE

View attachment 249651

I went through all of this (painstakingly) with EarthRoamer and the Chrysler engineers when I purchased the EarthRoamer XV-JP. We had transportation lawyers involved and everything, just to make sure I wasn't going to be liable driving down the road with a 6,200-pound, $140,000 Wrangler. The conclusion was definitive, which was not to exceed the combined OEM GAWRs, plus 10%. I felt comfortable with that. So the upper defensible limit of a Wrangler running down the road is 6,572.5-pounds. AEV will never endorse that and neither will EarthRoamer. I certainly do not endorse it, but that is what our research resulted in.

The XV-JP I took over the Rubicon

Our XV-JP, in the jungles of Guatemala. Just over 6,200-pounds for that trip! Flawless.

Summary of Payload:
The range is 540-pounds being most conservative based upon the actual placard and 1,840-pounds being the hairy upper limit of defensibility. The best number is right from AEVs FAQs, which is 892-1,000 pounds. That is more than enough payload when you factor the vehicle already has most of the heavy bits installed and four 37" tires as unsprung weight. The Brute is not AT GVWR, that is fact. If people want to split hairs on the 892-1000 pounds from AEV, have at it. There is more than enough supporting documentation and precedence to justify those numbers.

Could you flip those pictures around for us Scott?

Since I don't have access to a Brute I searched for an answer. It took maybe ten minutes to come up with a very similar answer; http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...The-Ultimate-Overlander?p=1677128#post1677128

 

[SSF556]

Thanks Scott......

 

[Scott Brady]

Cool! All I asked for were real numbers, and no one could find any...
.
Now, how is AEV's listing so far off, and how is your GVWR greater than Jeep lists? Genuinely curious...

AEV's listing is probably super conservative and probably includes the weight of a HEMI conversion. Just speculation, but I know how much the one outside weighs

Regarding the GVWR numbers you are finding somewhere else, I have no idea. We have another Rubicon in the parking lot, a 2014 (built 2-14) and it also shows 5,700 for the GVWR.

 

[Scott Brady]

These attachments are killing me!

Maybe my laptop is still set for the Southern Hemisphere

 

[WrenchMonkey]

Regarding the GVWR numbers you are finding somewhere else...

In my defense, "somewhere else" was Jeep.com.