8'6" beam cruiser
Richard Peace
I am going to trade up this winter or spring. I wish to find a 28 to 32 ft
twin I/O express cruiser. I find many boats that have the length, amenities,
and performance I desire, but they all are too wide. I am a traveler. Being
in the military for 17 years has ensured that what ever I get will need to
trailer legally from State to State.
What models out there fit the order. I like several styles like the
sundancer. No command bridge and a stand up head that's no wider than 8'6".
Thanks,
R. Peace
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group
cruiser (high performance boats, which aren't "cruisers," can be an
exception) is always gonna be *at least* 1/3 of the length. So it's
highly unlikely that you'll find any boat over 26' that has a beam
narrower than 9-10'. In fact, most cruisers are even wider because beam
adds more to cabin "liveability"--which is what most people are looking
for--than length. 28' is about where they ALL start having 10'
beams...and nothing 30' and up is gonna have a beam narrower than
10--most are pushing 12'...and I don't know of any 32' boats narrower
than 11'--my own is 13'.
That doesn't mean you can't legally trailer a boat bigger than about
26'...many people do. It just means you'll have to have permits to do
it.
Peggie
hkr...@capu.net
Going much beyond the 3-1 ratio typically produces a boat with a lousy
ride in rough water.
K
SUGILBERT
ft
> twin I/O express cruiser. I find many boats that have the length, amenities,
> and performance I desire, but they all are too wide. I am a traveler. Being
> in the military for 17 years has ensured that what ever I get will need to
> trailer legally from State to State.
>
> What models out there fit the order. I like several styles like the
> sundancer. No command bridge and a stand up head that's no wider than 8'6".
> >>
Last July, I purchased a Regal 2660 Commodore (mis-nomer in name--actually 27.5
feet!) that has 8.5' beam; twin Merc 6's (although Volvo's are offered). Lots
of interior room, sleeps 6, stand-up head, and does, I'm told, 49mph. Seems to
fit your "wish list". Quality is better than what I've seen in Searays, and
prices are $10+K less than Searays also. I bought a Trailmaster trailer ($4k)
with it. Tops out at about 8K lbs, so be prepared to have a suitable
vehicle--My Expedition with 5.4 V8 has no trouble, even getting up the ramp.
SUGi...@aol.com (South Bend,IN)
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group
> Last July, I purchased a Regal 2660 Commodore (mis-nomer in name--actually 27.5
> feet!)
I think you'll find that your boat's 8.5' beam is still right at 1/3 its
length if you measure it from the transom forward to the point of the
bow, omitting the swim platform and any bow pulpit from the calculation.
Peggie
Russ Glindmeier
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group wrote in message
<3A14265B...@bellsouth.net>...
>SUGILBERT wrote:
>> Last July, I purchased a Regal 2660 Commodore (mis-nomer in
name--actually 27.5
>> feet!)
>
>I think you'll find that your boat's 8.5' beam is still right at 1/3 its
>length if you measure it from the transom forward to the point of the
>bow, omitting the swim platform and any bow pulpit from the calculation.
>
Centerline length on that boat is 26'2". 29'10" when you count all the
thingys that don't touch the water.
Russ
SUGILBERT
thingys that don't touch the water.
>>
Never measured the thingys--just trusted the book! I do know that I had to pay
on 33.5' for storage for the winter---tip to tip!
SUGi...@aol.com (South Bend,IN)
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group
> Centerline length on that boat is 26'2".
And your beam is 8'6", which is just about exactly 1/3 the length.
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group
the one that builders have to use in determining what size they can call
the boat)...harbormasters have another (which can even include a dinghy
on davits that extend beyond the boat)...and owners have a third that
expands and contracts, depending upon whether they're bragging to their
friends or arguing with a harbormaster. :-)
Peggie
Gary Martin
ft
> twin I/O express cruiser. I find many boats that have the length,
amenities,
> and performance I desire, but they all are too wide. I am a traveler.
Being
> in the military for 17 years has ensured that what ever I get will need to
> trailer legally from State to State.
>
> What models out there fit the order. I like several styles like the
> sundancer. No command bridge and a stand up head that's no wider than
8'6".
Older SeaRay Sundancers have the narrower beam you're looking for. Our 290
Sundancer ('92) is right at 9' on the beam. We specifically looked for the
same thing you're looking for, a 28 to 30 cruiser that we could still
trailer without hassle or permits required.
--
Gary Martin
SeaRay 290 Sundancer
Russ Glindmeier
SUGILBERT wrote in message <20001116111430...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
><< Centerline length on that boat is 26'2". 29'10" when you count all the
>thingys that don't touch the water.
> >>
>
>
>Never measured the thingys--just trusted the book! I do know that I had to
pay
>on 33.5' for storage for the winter---tip to tip!
>SUGi...@aol.com (South Bend,IN)
I pulled those numbers off Regal's web site this morning, to support Peggy's
assertion.
Russ
Russ Glindmeier
Gary Martin wrote in message ...
>
>Older SeaRay Sundancers have the narrower beam you're looking for. Our
290
>Sundancer ('92) is right at 9' on the beam. We specifically looked for
the
>same thing you're looking for, a 28 to 30 cruiser that we could still
>trailer without hassle or permits required.
>
>--
>Gary Martin
>SeaRay 290 Sundancer
>
>
Legally, a trailered boat with a 9' beam is required to be permitted in
every state. Most states draw the line at 8'6", with a very few still
holding to an 8'0" limit. Point being, for widths under 12', acquiring a
permit is inexpensive and painless and one shouldn't convince themselves
that an oversize width boat is overly problematic to tow.
Russ
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group
these days, when people don't really want boats, they want floating
condos--'cuz beam adds more "living" room than length....look at Carver,
for instance. Even my 20 yr old 32' Trojan has 13' beam--one of the
reasons why the F32 was the best selling cruiser in history, and why
Trojan made it for 13 years without ever making a single change in hull
design or layout. In every way except the LOA measurement, it's a much
bigger boat than my previous 34' Sea Ray which had a 12' beam.
Peggie
SUGILBERT
>thingys that don't touch the water.
> >>
>
>
>Never measured the thingys--just trusted the book! I do know that I had to
pay
>on 33.5' for storage for the winter---tip to tip!
>SUGi...@aol.com (South Bend,IN)
I pulled those numbers off Regal's web site this morning, to support Peggy's
assertion.
Russ >>
This is getting quite out of hand---my original point was that the boat fits
the original post with sufficient room on board at a quite respectable price.
Period. End of conversation.
SUGi...@aol.com (South Bend,IN)
Lloyd Sumpter
Far Cove being "beamy"...I had to explain that that essentially meant "fat". And
when I added that "she carries her beam well aft"...well...that brought the
house down!
Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36 - "big-boned"
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group wrote:
>
> If anything, boat builders make 'em wider than 1/3 LOA--especially
> these days, when people don't really want boats, they want floating
> condos--'cuz beam adds more "living" room than length....look at Carver,
> for instance. Even my 20 yr old 32' Trojan has 13' beam--one of the
> reasons why the F32 was the best selling cruiser in history, and why
> Trojan made it for 13 years without ever making a single change in hull
> design or layout. In every way except the LOA measurement, it's a much
> bigger boat than my previous 34' Sea Ray which had a 12' beam.
>
> Peggie
>
> Russ Glindmeier wrote:
> >
> > SUGILBERT wrote in message <20001116111430...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
Russ Glindmeier
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group wrote in message
<3A147D78...@bellsouth.net>...
>If anything, boat builders make 'em wider than 1/3 LOA--especially
>these days, when people don't really want boats, they want floating
>condos--'cuz beam adds more "living" room than length....look at Carver,
>for instance. Even my 20 yr old 32' Trojan has 13' beam--one of the
>reasons why the F32 was the best selling cruiser in history, and why
>Trojan made it for 13 years without ever making a single change in hull
>design or layout. In every way except the LOA measurement, it's a much
>bigger boat than my previous 34' Sea Ray which had a 12' beam.
>
Absolutely. If you spend any considerable amount of time on the boat, once
you've gone wide, you'll never go back to narrow.
Russ
Russ Glindmeier
>
>This is getting quite out of hand---my original point was that the boat
fits
>the original post with sufficient room on board at a quite respectable
price.
>Period. End of conversation.
>
Whatever you say, Sparky. Your world, we're just cruisin' through and will
be out of your way in no time.
Russ
Lloyd Sumpter
Lloyd Sumpter
Campion 18 - looking at that walk-through windshield...
Peggie Hall/The Hall Group
>
> question: generally, would a 30' boat with a beam of 11' be more stable
> and have a better ride than a 30' boat with a 9' beam?
Yes. It would be much less inclined to roll. But there's also another
"small" matter when boats get above about 26-28': that's about where
boats start to have twin engines...and twin engines won't fit in
anything smaller than a 10' beam.
Peggie
Russ Glindmeier
Lloyd Sumpter wrote in message <3A145FF4...@home.com>...
>>
>> Absolutely. If you spend any considerable amount of time on the boat,
once
>> you've gone wide, you'll never go back to narrow.
>>
> Yes, I've found that out: I try to diet, work out... ;)
>
Ain't it the truth. Not a pretty one, but the truth nonetheless.
Russ
Ted G
Head, small galley, twin big blocks(usually) and an 8'6" beam. It's sort of
half cruiser, half performance boat. Very Nice.
Ted
"Richard Peace" <Ram...@kornet.net> wrote in message
news:8v0dhn$24j$3...@news2.kornet.net...
> Hi All,
>
> I am going to trade up this winter or spring. I wish to find a 28 to 32
ft
> twin I/O express cruiser. I find many boats that have the length,
amenities,
> and performance I desire, but they all are too wide. I am a traveler.
Being
> in the military for 17 years has ensured that what ever I get will need to
> trailer legally from State to State.
>
> What models out there fit the order. I like several styles like the
> sundancer. No command bridge and a stand up head that's no wider than
8'6".
>
> Thanks,
> R. Peace
>
>
hkr...@capu.net
>
> If anything, boat builders make 'em wider than 1/3 LOA--especially
> these days, when people don't really want boats, they want floating
> condos--'cuz beam adds more "living" room than length....look at Carver,
> for instance. Even my 20 yr old 32' Trojan has 13' beam--one of the
> reasons why the F32 was the best selling cruiser in history, and why
> Trojan made it for 13 years without ever making a single change in hull
> design or layout. In every way except the LOA measurement, it's a much
> bigger boat than my previous 34' Sea Ray which had a 12' beam.
>
The beam of our new boat is precisely one third of its length...12'
beam, 36' length. Deliberately done that way by the designer, and for
good reasons.
hkr...@capu.net
>
1. It depends on the design of the boat. Some boats with 9' beam might
be more stable than other boats with an 11' beam. Our new boat has a 12'
beam and I guarantee it will roll less than many other boats its size
with more beam.
2. There is no shortage of boats with a beam narrower than 10' that have
twin engine installation. As an example, consider the Hustler 344
Cheetah, a 34' boat with an 8'6" beam and twin 470 hp Merc engines.
Obviously, the engines fit in the boat.
The *real* answer is that it may be a good idea to avoid rigid thinking
on these issues.
Digger
> Going much beyond the 3-1 ratio typically produces a boat with a lousy
> ride in rough water.
What do you mean by going much beyond, do you mean larger or smalled than
3:1.
question: generally, would a 30' boat with a beam of 11' be more stable
and have a better ride than a 30' boat with a 9' beam?
Thanks
Digger
K. Smith
G'day Digger,
Most "modern" motor cruisers are very beamy which gives them lots of
room inside to house "stuff" so even a smallish one can be a bit of a gin
palace. By having lots of beam they can get them up on the plane with less
power (more effective planing hull area for a given length, like the easily
planing table top)
Stability related to beam???? so long as you aren't talking really
narrow boats no it doesn't really, very few real boats in the sizes being
talked of will be "unstable" because the waterline beam is a bit a less than
1/3 the length.
The truth is most wide cruisers rarely if ever go to sea & if they do
mostly only in smooth conditions, because they are terrible in a seaway,
their wide beam, flatish bottoms with hard chines, make them very very rolly
when off the plane or at rest (fishing?), they might be able to plane in
smooth water but will not be able to do so at sea, it's possible with the
power available etc but to travel any distance will be intolerable & they
will use bulk fuel at sea, as they do in smooth water.
So to swan around the ponds a beamy gin palace is just the ticket to
make sure you get noticed at the marinas, but for a serious fisherman or
even a coastal cruiser who doesn't want to grow too old waiting for the the
weather to be just right, they choose a proper boat with a reasonable
beam/length ratio.
Have a look a any of the pro outside fishing boats, fast or slow in
general you won't find any overly beamy boats in general & especially if
they want to travel at a reasonable speed, planing or mostly "semi planing".
Regards,
K
JFG
with an 8 1/2' beam, it would definitely rock and roll in heavy chop
(especially at anchor or when not crossing the waves at 90 degrees) It is
amazing how much extra room 1 or 2 ft of beam gives a boat. It is fairly
easy to get permits to allow you to tow a boat that is wider than 81/2'.
--
Jim
---
<hkr...@capu.net> wrote in message news:3A13EA17...@capu.net...
> Peggie Hall/The Hall Group wrote:
> >
> > Richard, beam (width) is a function of stability...so the beam of any
> > cruiser (high performance boats, which aren't "cruisers," can be an
> > exception) is always gonna be *at least* 1/3 of the length. So it's
> > highly unlikely that you'll find any boat over 26' that has a beam
> > narrower than 9-10'. In fact, most cruisers are even wider because beam
> > adds more to cabin "liveability"--which is what most people are looking
> > for--than length. 28' is about where they ALL start having 10'
> > beams...and nothing 30' and up is gonna have a beam narrower than
> > 10--most are pushing 12'...and I don't know of any 32' boats narrower
> > than 11'--my own is 13'.
> >
> > That doesn't mean you can't legally trailer a boat bigger than about
> > 26'...many people do. It just means you'll have to have permits to do
> > it.
> >
> > Peggie
> >
> > Richard Peace wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I am going to trade up this winter or spring. I wish to find a 28 to
32 ft
> > > twin I/O express cruiser. I find many boats that have the length,
amenities,
> > > and performance I desire, but they all are too wide. I am a traveler.
Being
> > > in the military for 17 years has ensured that what ever I get will
need to
> > > trailer legally from State to State.
> > >
> > > What models out there fit the order. I like several styles like the
> > > sundancer. No command bridge and a stand up head that's no wider than
8'6".
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > R. Peace
>
>
> Going much beyond the 3-1 ratio typically produces a boat with a lousy
> ride in rough water.
> K
Richard Peace
pitch also. That's OK too. I have found a few models that need to be
explored more.
In regards to the towing issue, tow laws stink. With the help of this group
last year, I found a site and downloaded all the towing regulations for the
50 states. They are difficult to read and some of them were down right
incomprehensible. They vary wildly from state to state also. In Colorado you
need a pass for each trip-- 30 bucks a shot. Kentucky is free. Because I
travel between these two states and vacation in others, this would be a
total nightmare to coordinate. Writing each state that I would travel
through, and trying to schedule the required pass for my specific width
would be extremely difficult. If I was ahead or behind schedule the pass
would be void.
Once I decide to settle down in one state, like Oregon, I can buy a yearly
pass for around a 100 bucks, stick on the sign, and go about my pleasures.
Until then I am going to be forced to travel with an 8'6" boat and avoid the
8' states.
Again, thanks for the input.
R. Peace
Richard Peace
they bounced. Robert, I am interested in your boat. The letter I set you
bounced also. Please send the pictures and details.
Thanks
R. Peace
Steven Griswold
towing on weekends.
Steve
Richard Bonnett
be over 8 and half foot wide....
Your email address gave me a clue that you are a proud owner of a Dodge RAM 2500
or a 3/4 ton truck ; presumably for hauling this new/old big boat over
mountainous terrain from Colorado to whereever you want USA.
Well, I recently got a new 3/4 ton chevy truck [details are unimportant] which I
specifically got to haul a 25 foot Robalo walkaround cuddy cabin boat with
hardtop
and marine head with 250 horse merc outboard...
The point is that when you reach that my size boat , you are near the limit of
your trucks towing capacity when you consider relevant issues of weights of
trailer, weights of all liquids and cargo everywhere in the picture.
So, you would best to consider if you will be pushing the truck to a repair shop
for overloading it, or driving it to the truck dealer to step up to a one ton
truck with
dual wheels and a bigger price tag. The truck you have will limit your choice
of boats due to the safe tow limits of your truck. So, work the problem from
both ends and determine what is best and safe.
I proceeded by buying a boat oversized for my 1/2 ton truck and I new that
under
optimal conditions like flat roads, short trips to the boat ramp with a half
full gas tank
would be OK for the light duty truck. However, I too wanted to be a traveler
and haul the boat up mountains and fully load the boat whenever I chose to do so
and not stress the tow vehicle.... Hence the master plan to get the proper tow
vehicle
for the worst-case loading condition and providing for the nebulous safety
factor.
My choice for an 8000 pound package behind the truck was a year 2000 Silverado
three-quarter ton with 4 wheel drive/ 3.73 rear axle . The truck had a special
tow/haul mode transmission selector for those cases where one would want to
adjust the shift points of the gear shifts automatically for heavy tow
conditions.
This feature is quite valuable and will save a transmission.
So, consider the marriage of the truck and the rest of the stuff and ask
yourself if
if fits together of not. The decision will cost you now or later ; more or
less.
Good luck !
Russ Glindmeier
Steven Griswold wrote in message <3A186A8E...@cybertours.com>...
>Yes, but there may be other restrictions, like no towing after dark, and
no
>towing on weekends.
>
It's a state-by-state thing. In my state, any width up to 10 feet can be
permitted annually for $45, with no restrictions on travel time. Any width
over 10 feet can only be permitted by trip ($15) and travel is restricted to
daytime and weekdays. Other states will have variations of this.
Russ
Steve
package and 4 corner load balance SAYS that it will tow 13,000 lbs. Is
someone fibbing to me?? My boat is 6,800 lbs including the trailer, but
that's with NO gas... I have no idea how much 100 gallons of fuel will
weight but I imagine that it won't be light (or cheap). I got that from the
Owners Manual that came with my vehicle.
I live in Sun Valley, Idaho and the valley elevation is 5,700 feet... you
have to go over mountains to get to ANY lake.... are you saying that my
Expedition won't be able to handle that??
Steve
"Richard Bonnett" <tal...@toad.net> wrote in message
news:3A1768A9...@toad.net...
Russ Glindmeier
Steve wrote in message
<2BB79BE441806D3B.E2589BAA...@lp.airnews.net>...
>This is very interesting... My '99 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer with the tow
>package and 4 corner load balance SAYS that it will tow 13,000 lbs. Is
>someone fibbing to me?? My boat is 6,800 lbs including the trailer, but
>that's with NO gas... I have no idea how much 100 gallons of fuel will
>weight but I imagine that it won't be light (or cheap). I got that from
the
>Owners Manual that came with my vehicle.
>
>I live in Sun Valley, Idaho and the valley elevation is 5,700 feet... you
>have to go over mountains to get to ANY lake.... are you saying that my
>Expedition won't be able to handle that??
>
It is unfathomable that an Expedition would be rated for 13,000 pounds.
Suggest you re-read that owners manual. The Expedition's big brother, the
Excursion, is only rated for 10,000 pounds. 100 gallons of gas will weigh
approximately 600 pounds. Your 6800+ pound load is right at about the
practical limit of your Expedition for mountain towing.
Russ
dey...@my-deja.com
Weight Rating (GCWR), which is the weight of the towed load plus the
weight of the Expedition itself (about 4000lbs?). The maximum trailer
weight for all Expy's is 8000 lbs or so. Even though the boat with
trailer, fuel, water, and gear might be just under 8000lbs, the GCWR
can be exceeded pretty easily if all the Expedition's seats are filled
and there is a lot of cargo.
- Mike
In article <3NzS5.1256$FT.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Russ Glindmeier" <ru...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote in message
> <2BB79BE441806D3B.E2589BAA...@lp.airnews.net>...
> >This is very interesting... My '99 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer
> >with the tow package and 4 corner load balance SAYS that it
> >will tow 13,000 lbs. Is someone fibbing to me?? My boat is
> >6,800 lbs including the trailer, but that's with NO gas... I
> >have no idea how much 100 gallons of fuel will weight but I
> >imagine that it won't be light (or cheap). I got that from
> >the Owners Manual that came with my vehicle.
>...>
> >
>
> It is unfathomable that an Expedition would be rated for
> 13,000 pounds. Suggest you re-read that owners manual. The
> Expedition's big brother, the Excursion, is only rated for
> 10,000 pounds. 100 gallons of gas will weigh approximately
> 600 pounds. Your 6800+ pound load is right at about the
> practical limit of your Expedition for mountain towing.
>
> Russ
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve
that is the total weight including the Expedition plus the wife and I and
everything else that we tote along plus the actual trailer and boat. I
found this out by calling the dealer and asking them this afternoon. They
said the same basic thing that you're saying... Try to keep the load down to
about 8,300 lbs. They also said to take it out of overdrive, which is a
no-brainer BUT what I thought was interesting was that they suggested that I
put it into 4x4 even on a dry highway.... something about better power
distribution.
Thanks for your help.... sounds like I have all the boat that I can handle
:)
Steve
Briar Patch- Bayliner Sunbridge 2655
<dey...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vevpk$dag$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
bmc...@ti.com
few 4500' roads to lakes in the Sierras. I take it out of OD if hills /
mountains. Freeway seems to be fine with OD, does not shift outof / into
OD. I only use the 4x4 on certain ramps, and a gravel dam face I launch off
of.
Bill
Steve <sadair...@sunvalley.net> wrote in message
news:6C78508E2B2EAFF2.5C0D8E81...@lp.airnews.net...
Russ Glindmeier
dey...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8vevpk$dag$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I bet the Expedition manual specifies 13,000 as the Gross *Combined*
>Weight Rating (GCWR), which is the weight of the towed load plus the
>weight of the Expedition itself (about 4000lbs?). The maximum trailer
>weight for all Expy's is 8000 lbs or so. Even though the boat with
>trailer, fuel, water, and gear might be just under 8000lbs, the GCWR
>can be exceeded pretty easily if all the Expedition's seats are filled
>and there is a lot of cargo.
>
>- Mike
>
No doubt GCWR is what the 13,000 pound number is referencing for the
Expedition. My F250 Super Duty has a GCWR of 20,000 pounds, so 13k for the
Expedition sounds about right.
Russ
Russ Glindmeier
Steve wrote in message
<6C78508E2B2EAFF2.5C0D8E81...@lp.airnews.net>...
>Yes, you are absolutely right... The Expedition is rated at 13,000 lbs BUT
>that is the total weight including the Expedition plus the wife and I and
>everything else that we tote along plus the actual trailer and boat. I
>found this out by calling the dealer and asking them this afternoon. They
>said the same basic thing that you're saying... Try to keep the load down
to
>about 8,300 lbs. They also said to take it out of overdrive, which is a
>no-brainer BUT what I thought was interesting was that they suggested that
I
>put it into 4x4 even on a dry highway.... something about better power
>distribution.
>
I believe the 4X4 system in your Expedition is essentially the same as the
one in my Super Duty. Since it is not an AWD or full-time 4WD system, it
should never be engaged on dry pavement. The system depends on a certain
amount of tire slippage to keep the front end from tearing itself up when
the hubs are locked. Turning causes the front wheels to spin at different
rpm, and the only way for things to equalize is wheel slip. The rear
differential can compensate for the same effect, but not the front. Feel
free to use 4WD on a slippery ramp or other conditions when wheel slip is
possible. Shame on your dealer for giving you such damaging advice. As for
the overdrive, there is not an absolute answer. It depends on the weight
being towed, the amount of grade involved, and the towing speed. If the
auto trans is not hunting between 3rd and 4th gear, using overdrive is
perfectly acceptable. If the trans is shifting between 3rd and 4th fairly
frequently, then it is better to manually shift into 3rd until conditions
change that would allow the trans to remain in 4th gear.
Russ
Richard Bonnett
see..
Your boat plus cargo and gas, etc need to completely accounted for.
Used 7 pounds per gallon for both water and gas. So, your 100 gallons would be
what?...about 700 pounds? ...
-------------------------------
The following web site is for ford truck owners and the selected data is
just for
your eddie baur 4 by 4 with the 5.4 liter engine.
It appears that you are near or over limit if you load up the vehicle and the
boat
with gas and cargo. So, when possible, gas up when you get near the launch
site
and travel with nearly empty tank . Remember it costs gas to haul stuff and
it adds wear and tear to your eddie baur. The following data says the GCWR is
13000.
The curb weight is about 5500... hence 13000-5500= 7500 for tow load.
The max trailer weight is about 7300 pounds including gas, boat, trailer and any
cargo in boat. The data follows..
___________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GO TO : www.fordtrucks.com/specs/2001_expedition_1.html
TO SEE THE FOLLOWING DATA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GVW RATING: EDDIE BAUR 4 BY 4 ... 7200 POUNDS
____________________________________________________________________
FORD EXCURSION 2001 TOWING SPECIFICATIONS:
[NOT FOR THE SMALLER ENGINE!]
5.4 lITER
4-Speed Automatic Overdrive
*** 260 HORSYS @ 4500 REVS.
HWY CITY
13/18 12/16
Base Curb Weight 5480 pounds...say 5500.
___________________
Model
Front (lbs.)
Rear (lbs.)
Total
(lbs.)
Exped. 4x2 w/5.4L 2V V-8
2643
2402
>>>5045<<<
Exped. 4x4 w/5.4L 2V V-8
2902
2566
***
>>>5468<<===
-----------------------
-----------------------
****************
EMPHASIS IS ON THE WEIGHT OF TRUCK WITHOUT POEPLE IS 5000 OR 5500 IF YOU HAVE 4
BY 4.
SO, SUBTRACT 5500 FROM 13000 , YOU GET ONLT 7500 POUNDS FOR TRAILER AND IT'S
CONTENTS!
THE 7500 IS REDUCED BY CARGO ADDED TO THE FORD!
GET IT? OTHER SPECS APPLY ALSO WHICH INDICATES 7300 POUNDS MAX FOR TOWING.
SEE BELOW.
-----------------------
-----------------------
Trailer Towing
Engine
Axle Ratios
GCWR Max. (lbs.)
Maximum Trailer Weight
(lbs.)
Expedition
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
4x2
4x4
5.4L (330)
SEFI V-8 2V
3.31
12,000
6600
6300
3.55
13,000(1)
7600
7300
12,500(2)
-
6800
3.73
13,500(1)
8100
7800(3)
13,000(2)
-
*** 7300(3)
NOTE: Maximum trailer weights shown. The combined weight of the towing
vehicle (including
hitch, passengers and cargo) and the loaded trailer must not exceed the
Gross Combination Weight
Rating (GCWR).
(1) With 16" tires or 4x2 P275 17" tires.
(2) With 4x4 P265 17" tires.
(3) High Altitude only.
Frontal Area Considerations
Not to exceed base vehicle frontal area without Class IV Trailer
Towing Group
Not to exceed 60 square feet with Class IV Trailer Towing Group
Required Equipment
Class IV Trailer Towing Group for trailers over 4000 lbs.
Trailer Towing Package Content:
7-pin Trailer Wiring Harness and Connector
Hitch Receiver, Frame Mounted (Max. Capacities: 5000 lbs Weight
Carrying, 8,100 lbs.
Weight Distributing)
Auxiliary Automatic Transmission Oil Cooler
Super Engine Cooling
Rear Load Leveling Suspension (4x2 Only)
Series
Maximum GVWR
(lbs.)
Maximum GCWR
(lbs.)
Maximum Trailer
Tow (lbs.)
4x2
7000
13,500
8100(1)
4x4
7200
13,000
**** 7300(2)
(1) Properly equipped and with optional 5.4L V-8 engine, 3.73 Limited Slip
axle and Trailer
Towing Group.
(2) Properly equipped and with optional 5.4L V-8 engine, 3.55 axle and
Trailer Towing Group.
NOTE: Refer to the Owner Guide and the Truck Towing Appendix in the 2001
Truck Source
Book for additional towing information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve wrote:
> This is very interesting... My '99 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer with the tow
> package and 4 corner load balance SAYS that it will tow 13,000 lbs. Is
> someone fibbing to me?? My boat is 6,800 lbs including the trailer, but
> that's with NO gas... I have no idea how much 100 gallons of fuel will
> weight but I imagine that it won't be light (or cheap). I got that from the
> Owners Manual that came with my vehicle.
>
> I live in Sun Valley, Idaho and the valley elevation is 5,700 feet... you
> have to go over mountains to get to ANY lake.... are you saying that my
> Expedition won't be able to handle that??
>
Bill Andersen
Overdrive just provides fuel economy, like a higher gear. If it's an
automatic transmission, it'll drop out of overdrive by itself, when
necessary. So, why not let the automatic transmission do it's thing, and
save fuel when it can, by running in overdrive when possible?
MacAddict, Bayliner and Shopsmith Owner
> From: steve@ChromeEdge_eek_.com (Steve Holzworth)
> Organization: Road Runner - NC
> Newsgroups: rec.boats
> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:37:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: 8'6" beam cruiser
>
> In article <E%ES5.1366$eU.8...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Russ
> Glindmeier" <ru...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote in message
>> <6C78508E2B2EAFF2.5C0D8E81...@lp.airnews.net>...
>
> (deleted)
>
>>> about 8,300 lbs. They also said to take it out of overdrive, which is a
>>> no-brainer BUT what I thought was interesting was that they suggested that
>> I
>>> put it into 4x4 even on a dry highway.... something about better power
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I believe the 4X4 system in your Expedition is essentially the same as the
>> one in my Super Duty. Since it is not an AWD or full-time 4WD system, it
>> should never be engaged on dry pavement. The system depends on a certain
>> amount of tire slippage to keep the front end from tearing itself up when
>> the hubs are locked. Turning causes the front wheels to spin at different
>> rpm, and the only way for things to equalize is wheel slip. The rear
>> differential can compensate for the same effect, but not the front. Feel
>
> (deleted)
>
>> Russ
>
> Hmmm, my understanding is that the concern is with speed differences
> between the front and rear drivelines, not the difference between the two
> front hubs. I imagine Ford may have cheaped out and built the front end
> as a spool, but that's not how they used to do it. My 98 F150 4WD appears
> to have a front differential.
>
> AWD/full-time 4WD vehicles add a third differential or some other
> form of mechanical/hydraulic separation between the front and rear drivelines
> so that all wheels can turn at independent speeds. There is a differential
> between the front hubs already. Nothing technically keeps you from having
> the front hubs always locked without problems, as long as the front and
> rear drivelines are not connected. My 78 Ford was set up that way. It had
> manual Warn hubs on the front, and the transfer case was modified from AWD
> to part-time engagement for strength. In potential four-wheeler situations,
> you'd leave the hubs locked, but shift the transfer case to rear-only for
> hard surfaces so that the front and rear ends didn't bind. The main reason
> to disconnect hubs is so that you reduce unnecessary wear on the front
> driveline components (from spinning idly, not from bind).
>
> Hardcore four-wheelers also usually have a mechanism to lock the sides
> of each differential together (known as a spool) so that the wheels have
> to all turn together at the same speed. Standard differentials tend to
> send power to the wheel with the least traction, but a spooled axle
> divides the power equally between the wheels, regardless of wheel traction.
>
> Modern electronic shift-on-the-fly 4WD systems are designed to lock the hubs
> and engage the front driveline as a single function. The additional actuators
> et al make it more convenient, but also add additional points of failure
> to the 4WD system.
>
> --
> (remove "_eek_" from return address)
>
> Steve Holzworth "Do not attribute to poor spelling,
> steve@ChromeEdge_eek_.com "That which is actually poor typing..."
> RTP, NC - me
Karl Denninger
input shaft.
Less pumping volume = less fluid through the cooler = transmission runs hotter.
Not a good thing.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting Solutions
http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY!
GO HOME SORE LOSERMAN! DISBAR LIAR BOIS!
In article <B6467E87.3883%wga...@pacbell.net>,
Bill Andersen <wga...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Why is it a "no brainer" to take it out of overdrive?
>Overdrive just provides fuel economy, like a higher gear. If it's an
>automatic transmission, it'll drop out of overdrive by itself, when
>necessary. So, why not let the automatic transmission do it's thing, and
>save fuel when it can, by running in overdrive when possible?
>
>MacAddict, Bayliner and Shopsmith Owner
>
>> From: steve@ChromeEdge_eek_.com (Steve Holzworth)
>> Organization: Road Runner - NC
>> Newsgroups: rec.boats
>> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:37:34 GMT
>> Subject: Re: 8'6" beam cruiser
>>
>> In article <E%ES5.1366$eU.8...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Russ
>> Glindmeier" <ru...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote in message
>>> <6C78508E2B2EAFF2.5C0D8E81...@lp.airnews.net>...
>>
>> (deleted)
>>
>>>> about 8,300 lbs. They also said to take it out of overdrive, which is a
>>>> no-brainer BUT what I thought was interesting was that they suggested that
>>> I
>>>> put it into 4x4 even on a dry highway.... something about better power
>>>> distribution.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the 4X4 system in your Expedition is essentially the same as the
>>> one in my Super Duty. Since it is not an AWD or full-time 4WD system, it
>>> should never be engaged on dry pavement. The system depends on a certain
>>> amount of tire slippage to keep the front end from tearing itself up when
>>> the hubs are locked. Turning causes the front wheels to spin at different
>>> rpm, and the only way for things to equalize is wheel slip. The rear
>>> differential can compensate for the same effect, but not the front. Feel
>>
Steve
the Internet checking different web sites for those items that you
absolutely have to have!!! I got my wife an American Express card and
yesterday she smiled at me and said "I just can't believe how easy it is to
shop on the net". What have I done??? !!!
Anyway, I took the Expedition to the shop to have it's 30k service and had
the transmission serviced and the cooler on the transmission completely
checked, oils changed and so forth. Cost at fortune, but I like to take
care of things before they become a problem.
I think we're all ready for April 1st when we'll have to go to Boise just to
get to water that isn't solid to put our new baby in the water.... hehehe
Oh well, my wife just scored another shopping victory on the net... have to
run :)
Steve
"Steve" <sadair...@sunvalley.net> wrote in message
news:2BB79BE441806D3B.E2589BAA...@lp.airnews.net...