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?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.
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.This company is willing to sell illegal and underperforming equipment. What's invalid about that?
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.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.
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.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.
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).
Could you flip those pictures around for us Scott?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.
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 weighsCool! 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...