Chevy 2500HD tailgate capacity

Page 1 of 3  
How much load am I allowed to put on the tailgate of said Chevy pickup (lowered tailgate), does anyone have an idea, thanks. I understand thast placement of the load, etc has a role, but let's say
that it is placed in the middle of the tailgate.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:57:02 +0000 (UTC), Ignoramus11590

This is a real good question and I have seen no hard data on this. It capacity would be lower in the center than by the support cables. The limit is going to be at what point is starts to buckle. How much weight also depends on how much area it is spread over (surface loading) I would tend to think that 300 to 400lbs or so in very center of tail gate on edge when down is a good safe limit. When spread across edge of gate evenly 600 to 800 lbs or so should be safely possible. (it would become a bit stronger the closer you are to bed hinge) Some may use more weight but this is flirting with trouble. The danger is that because of the design of most tailgates it could suddenly buckle when capacity is reached rather than just bend. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Some years have been recalled due to rust problems with the cables that support the tailgate. My '01 Chevy 3500 had a recall on the cables and before I got around to taking it in to get the new ones the weight of the tailgate broke both cables. Unless you bought the 2500 new, check to see if it is listed in the tailgate cable recall and if so replace the cables before putting weight on the tailgate.
Ron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I bought the truck new. I can check if the cables can be smeared with marine grease, just in case.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MikeG wrote:

Better get used to it!
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--

"shiden_kai" < snipped-for-privacy@hotma1l.com> wrote in message
news:_4A%g.192720$R63.90614@pd7urf1no...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
Under normal circumstances I would agree with this, but I will add that it all depends also on whether or not your are going to drive with the load on the tailgate. For a static load I could see where Snoman's suggestions would be correct, but if you were going to drive around with a load on your tailgate I would suggest a much lower limit because the moment you hit even a small bump the weight of the load could be magnified several times (shock load) easily causing damage to the tailgate or cables that a static non-moving load would not.
Frankly it would be very difficult to estimate just how much a static load would be increased by the shock of a bump - maybe as much as 3 - 5 times(?) and that could easily damage your tailgate or the cables even under a light load.
Cheers - Jonathan
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:50:02 GMT, "Jonathan"

A very valid point. I was assuming a static load, not in motion for reasons you suggest. I would cut those figures about in half for a load in transit. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Half wit will be comming up with a rith-ma-tic formula to prove this. (I still think your aka is Dean Darwin or his cousin)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I remembered Dean being mostly anti K&N and it seems Snoman is very pro 89+ octane and thinks that solves everything. They both tend to agree stock vehicles are best so maybe you are right. I agree it's a good thing to point out bad info, but damn, this is getting ridiculous. Luckily there are still some very knowledgeable/helpful people here.
my .02
MikeG wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Oct 2006 12:56:02 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@socal.rr.com wrote:

No there are narrow minded people such as yourself that believe in "magic" airfilter that actually filter air less and also beleive that 87 octane is the best thing in the world for a 9 to 1 plus engine because they lack the grey mater to understand how and why a engine works and why there is a knock control system on vehical (to keep know it alls happy running 87 octane while stealing power and MPG) YOu can believe what you want but it does not change reality or the math and science of it. Knock yourself out. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then we have you. A fool that can't stop himself from posting BS. You have been wrong more than you have been right. Hell your never right. You continue to post false, wrong, misleading info. Why do you continue? Do you think that your wrong answer's are actually correct?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
While I don't always agree with what (or how) Snoman posts, I guess I'm going to have to stand up and say nothing he says here is BS - it's all pretty much factual if you understand basic mechanical and automotive principles.
Yes, it is true that many - if not all - of the so-called "high flow" air filters flow more air because they filter less effectively and allow larger or more particles through the medium. Additionally, while factory stock air filters are generally more effective at filtering, they also flow more than enough volume of air for the entire range of RPM and load an engine will operate at.
Also, in a motor with a 9:1 or higher compression ratio, using low octane (87) fuel forces the engine to retard the timing to keep it from pinging, all at a cost of both power and efficiency, namely MPG. There's no BS in that - it's a common principle of automotive mechanics.
And lastly, he stood up and said that he didn't consider shock load when suggesting the weight limits for a tailgate, and I give him full props for admitting so. I've not followed - or even remotely cared about - any dispute you may have with him in the past, but I've got to say that nothing he mentions here is BS.
Cheers - Jonathan
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jonathan, do you know anything about tailgate capacity though? You sound as though you are actually educated in automotive subjects.
i

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Jonathan, Claiming that Delco Moraine design anti rattle clips are what is installed on Bendix design brake pads is BS. Deriding someone who -did- show the correct installation of above mentioned anti-rattle clips is BS. Not knowing that both GM and Ford use and install Bendix design brake pads is BS. Not knowing how a fuel pump circuit on a GM truck works is BS. Publishing wrong (excessively high) torque values is BS. Absurd claims about how and where the fuel pressure can be measured on a GM TBI is BS. Claiming that 30 weight motor oil isn't 30 weight motor oil is BS. Citing a TSB from 1983 to support the above claim is BS. Claiming that a Dodge Ram V-10 engine has a knock sensor is BS. Insisting that all one should/does need is the RPO label in the glove box to discern vehicle build options is BS. Telling others to grow up but not being man enough to admit your mistakes is BS.

Yes BS. Higher octane fuels require more barrels of crude to produce. Higher octane fuels require additional additives which sometimes prove to create toxicity problems. I also seriously doubt that Snoman has run his modified tune-up contraption thru the federal emissions test procedure to see what effects his advanced timing has on tailpipe emissions. Any idiot can pull more power from an engine by bumping the timing just like any idiot (same idiot) can blow snowflakes from his AC vents by filling the AC system with a flammable (illegal in 19 states) hydrocarbon gas. Neither is clever, both are foolish and indicate an inability to effect a proper repair within the rules and guidelines that some of us (the professionals) have to operate under.

IOWs, he posted before he bothered to think a bit. No props.

How can you say that "nothing he posts here is BS" if you haven't been following?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Roy, do you realize that this question could be posed just as equally to Charles Manson?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All I can say is; I test drive dozens of vehicles a week with a scan tool connected monitoring, recording and graphing engine parameters. It's quite rare to see an engine in knock retard that isn't caused by an underlying problem totally unrelated to gasoline octane.
Your whole stance here reminds me of the guy who swallows bottle after bottle of antacids right up to the time he cacks it from a massive MCI.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MikeG wrote:

I can only wish it was Dean Dardwin....I miss those days, but I will give Snoman credit....he's not particularly abusive the way that Dardwin was. Perhaps he's learned his lesson.
Plus, I don't think he's in the snow removal business. He "might" be, but if you go to Dardwin's web site www.dxd.com I think he's more into computers and such. Of course that might be his wife's business.
Snoman is a great substitute tho. Lots of fun to read his posts, and watch him stumble all over himself. Guys like him are what makes the automotive trade appear to be a bunch of hacks and scammers. I'd give anything to have someone like him come and work alongside of me for a month...see how they actually do in the real world of fixing vehicles everyday.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Abuse comes in many forms, one need not necessarily resort to profanity to be an abusive poster.

Pretty sure it is his wife's business, the letters submitted from satisfied customers repeatedly reference a "Michelle" as the person in charge.

Especially for those who have our respective backgrounds.

Indeed! Do we dare trust that the public at large be able to discern betwixt and between?

Could be more fun that having a tech school instructor in on an "In service day."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.