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.
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.
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
Cheers - Jonathan
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.
On 25 Oct 2006 12:56:02 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.