Gross Vehicle Weight?

[michaelgroves]

While we're at it, we could ask why a Defender 110 has a higher GVM than both aa Discovery and a D90. I'd still put it down to the springs and possibly gearing as the primary criteria, and they vary between all 3 vehicles, as one would expect.

The brakes wouldn't seem to be a major issue, because there was no change to GVM when they switched from drum brakes to discs.

 

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Hey Ron,

Where do you find that 6725 pound GVWR spec?

I'm not being a smarty pants, but the sticker on our '97 D90 says 6001!?...yes the Disco says 6019 just like yours.

I just like the >6000 myself....much better tax effect :drool:

KAA

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Have you driven both? Have you driven both and slammed on the brakes to lock up?...I have

I have done the brakes a couple times now on a neighbors D90station wagon with the factory rack. That thing damn near roles over its nose under heavy braking and the brakes are the same diameter as the disco it just has the vented rotors and bigger front pots. The rears are the same as the disco but I dont think better rear brakes would even help as those are damn near off the ground under a panic stop.

The 90's get so on their nose under hard braking that the weight transfer is without a doubt playing some roll in the reduced braking.

yes tires will play apart in it as they are the only thing that touches the ground. But to deny wheelbase and weight distribution is just silly.

I'm not denying that wheelbase and weight distribution is a factor, but it's a relatively minor factor compared to tires. Also note that your perception of brake dive, and it's relation to the amount of weight transfer is not direct. Suspension geometry plays a substantial role in how much a vehicle pitches when accelerating or braking. The Defenders you're driving may not be transfering as much weight as you would think. I'd have to analyze the geometry to figure it out, but I don't care enough to bother. Just pointing it out for consideration.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make, is that any vehicle built which does not have the capability of locking up all 4 tires under braking would be considered very poorly engineered. I would be very surprised if the Defender went out the door like that. In fact, I think that would be a failure of FMVSS. Once you accept that all trucks *should* be able to lock up the brakes, you realize our friend Mr. Mu is all that matters at that point. Wheelbase and weight distribution plays a relatively small role compared to rubber characteristics.

 

[RonL]

KAA,

The weight spec is from the UK website for current D90. I did not know of a good way to find 1997 GVW numbers, until I found the edmunds site. They list it the same as your door sticker, 6001 lbs.

I guess my GVW don't matter, my kids are getting bigger and I am not going to take less gear, so I have to live with being over-weighted.....

 

[R_Lefebvre]

The main thrust of my arguement is that the 0-60 braking numbers of the two trucks probably has a lot more to do with the fact that the Discovery probably was tested on highway P-car tires, and the Defender probably on LT A/T's. The differences between those tires would have a much bigger effect on a single 0-60 stop than any other factor.

 

[discotdi]

as a clarification. The NAS D90 has a GVW of 6001 pounds. the towing capacity in low range is 5000 pounds.
The NAS D1 has a GVW of 6019 and a towing capacity of 7700 in low.
The NAS 110 GVW is 6504 and towing is 7700 in low.
These figures are LR's quoted figures.

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[discotdi]

All NAS Disco's also have ABS the NAS D90 and 110 did not.

 

[Hank]

Musky,
Why do you even bother with this guy? He knows more than you and always will. It does not matter what the subject is; rocket science, brain surgery, government health care, every car ever known to be, etc..... You're not going to win with this guy. You'd be better off talking to a brick wall.....and you'd certainty get a more educated reply from the brick wall

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Musky, you continue show your character by CHOOSING to ignore the most fundamental point of the discussion, in order to create some fictional argument using parameters which are meaningless to the topic actually being discussed. You must be doing this because of poor reading comprehension, or to guarantee a "win" because it somehow makes you feel good.

I will repeat, very clearly to make sure you understand: NOTHING has a greater influence on stopping distances (of a properly functioning vehicle) than the tires that vehicle is equiped with. NOTHING.

If you choose to argue the point, you will show yourself to be a fool.

 

[Mike_rupp]

It is good to see that you can argue about a topic without resorting to name calling.

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[UnfrozenCaveman]

I have always been under the impression that GVW is a product of springs, spindle strength and bearing size. .

Agreed....with the possible (recent) exceptions related to the 6,000 threshold for tax / emission treatments.