AEV Brute: The Ultimate Overlander?

AlaricD

Observer
I found the standard.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title49-vol5/xml/CFR-2004-title49-vol5-sec571-108.xml

I am not a FMV standards guru. Sorry to disappoint.
Indeed, you're not. The listings in the Title 49 CFR Part 571 make reference to the standards, but don't have the entire standards in them.

I'm not disappointed, though-- I can't expect everyone to know these things, unless they're actually designing vehicle lighting systems-- such as AEV when they designed their light-shaped toy.

So you come back to the payload thing because you realize your lighting arguement has no validity. Good call.
Now I'm disappointed, because you think my lighting argument has no validity, simply because you don't understand it.

Oh, no-- the argument is perfectly valid. AES specs as "upgrades" headlamps that are not upgrades because they do not meet the photometric requirements for headlamps. Essentially, they are charging to remove the headlamps and replace them with light-shaped toys.

As far as the CHMSL, it immediately fails at the EPPLA. It does not pass go, it does not collect $49.00.
 

Recommended books for Overlanding

docwatson

Adventurer
Indeed, you're not. The listings in the Title 49 CFR Part 571 make reference to the standards, but don't have the entire standards in them.
I'm not disappointed, though-- I can't expect everyone to know these things, unless they're actually designing vehicle lighting systems-- such as AEV when they designed their light-shaped toy.

Now I'm disappointed, because you think my lighting argument has no validity, simply because you don't understand it.
Oh, no-- the argument is perfectly valid. AES specs as "upgrades" headlamps that are not upgrades because they do not meet the photometric requirements for headlamps. Essentially, they are charging to remove the headlamps and replace them with light-shaped toys.

As far as the CHMSL, it immediately fails at the EPPLA. It does not pass go, it does not collect $49.00.
I don't need to understand it. This discussion is about the Brute as the Ultimate North American Overland Vehicle. The Brute has the stock headlights and doesn't use the CMHSL you reference. So why does it matter? Because AEV is making money dishonestly? Maybe validity was a poor word choice. Your light argument is irrelevant.
 

AlaricD

Observer
I don't need to understand it. This discussion is about the Brute as the Ultimate North American Overland Vehicle. The Brute has the stock headlights and doesn't use the CMHSL you reference. So why does it matter? Because AEV is making money dishonestly? Maybe validity was a poor word choice. Your light argument is irrelevant.
You just don't get it.

Suppose [your favorite brand of food] started selling "Li'l Krunchies Arsenic-Coated Mercury Puffs", and you knew with certainty that a) that's certainly not "food" because the FDA would obviously never allow such a product on the market-- yet there it is, and b) medical doctors warn that the product contains unsafe levels of arsenic and mercury. Would you buy ANY product from [your favorite brand]? Would you think twice about eating at a restaurant that offered that "food" on their menu?

The Brute has the stock headlamps, but they offer unsafe and illegal "headlamp-shaped toys" as an "upgrade", and charge for it. If they take the same shortcuts when it comes to lighting, what other shortcuts do they take? Are YOU qualified to inspect such a vehicle and their blueprints for the design and say that "Yes, this is safe"?

They make and sell a CHMSL that is clearly unsafe. A compliant CHMSL is not that hard to source, yet they took it upon themselves to build one using guesses, conjecture, and going "OH WAO LOOKIT RED LIGHT PRETTY" and thinking it looks good. It's not a good sign.
 

docwatson

Adventurer
You're right they probably extended the frame with recycled aluminum cans because they picked an illegal headlight as upgrade.

I've understood what you are trying to say from the start. I am not that smart, but believe me, neither are you.

There is normally more to story then what's presented. Based on the reviews on this site and many others AEV has a pretty good reputation. Maybe they took a shortcut on their headlight supplier, shame on them, but it doesn't seem to speak for the majority of their work. So throwing out the company because of a shortcut would be like never buying a GM because they sold cars with faulty ignition switches. Or never buying a Tacoma because the leaf springs could rust, break, puncture your gas tank and kill you. Or never buying another Jeep because you could get rearend and explode. I think if we took a look at every company on this globe we find a shortcut they've taken, which means unless you make everything yourself, you are taking some risk, which I am willing to do. Are YOU qualified to design and produce everything you use on a day to day basis?
 

PKayser

New member
I'll stick with my two door. I hate extra space. Next thing you know people expect rides and then they start asking you to move things for them.

Brute as the ultimate? I guess it depends on the list and if AEV plans to make no more.
 

AlaricD

Observer
You're right they probably extended the frame with recycled aluminum cans because they picked an illegal headlight as upgrade.
Don't troll. It's unbecoming. What it means is "they messed up an important road safety detail big time". If they mess up something so simple (yes, it's actually quite simple to determine if a headlamp is decent or not, and a company that charges $80K+ to bolt stuff on an existing car almost certainly has the money to do a little research).

Based on the reviews on this site and many others AEV has a pretty good reputation.
The same is true for IPF, depending on the qualifications of the reviewers.

Maybe they took a shortcut on their headlight supplier, shame on them, but it doesn't seem to speak for the majority of their work.
We sincerely hope.

So throwing out the company because of a shortcut would be like never buying a GM because they sold cars with faulty ignition switches. Or never buying a Tacoma because the leaf springs could rust, break, puncture your gas tank and kill you. Or never buying another Jeep because you could get rearend and explode. I think if we took a look at every company on this globe we find a shortcut they've taken, which means unless you make everything yourself, you are taking some risk, which I am willing to do.
It's how those respective companies handle such things that will speak more for it than having never made the mistake in the first place.

Are YOU qualified to design and produce everything you use on a day to day basis?
If I went into the car making/car upfitting business, you can bet I'd hire qualified people to do the work. And if I were going to make regulated motor vehicle safety equipment (such as CHMSLs), I'd be sure to make it conform to FMVSS 108 and the apposite SAE standards. Building a CHMSL whose lens itself isn't physically large enough to warrant testing anything else about it demonstrates that they were building this equipment without actual knowledge of what it takes to do it correctly.
 

Recommended books for Overlanding

National Geographic Road Atlas 2021: Adventure Edition [U...
by tional Geographic Maps
From $19.29
Vehicle-dependent Expedition Guide
by Tom Sheppard
From $137.62
Jupiters Travels: Four Years Around the World on a Triumph
by Ted Simon
From $22.49
Drive Nacho Drive: A Journey from the American Dream to t...
by Brad Van Orden, Sheena Van Orden
From $15.95

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
All right we get it. You don't like it. Move along.
Don't troll. It's unbecoming. What it means is "they messed up an important road safety detail big time". If they mess up something so simple (yes, it's actually quite simple to determine if a headlamp is decent or not, and a company that charges $80K+ to bolt stuff on an existing car almost certainly has the money to do a little research).


The same is true for IPF, depending on the qualifications of the reviewers.


We sincerely hope.



It's how those respective companies handle such things that will speak more for it than having never made the mistake in the first place.


If I went into the car making/car upfitting business, you can bet I'd hire qualified people to do the work. And if I were going to make regulated motor vehicle safety equipment (such as CHMSLs), I'd be sure to make it conform to FMVSS 108 and the apposite SAE standards. Building a CHMSL whose lens itself isn't physically large enough to warrant testing anything else about it demonstrates that they were building this equipment without actual knowledge of what it takes to do it correctly.
 

aluke0510

Adventurer
Very interesting. Full tank of fuel? What's the tank size, still 22.5gal or do they put some kind of long ranger on it?

Very interesting the sticker on it is 5,700lbs. Why on earth does the Jeep website list it as 5,400lbs? Do they put special stickers on them knowing AEV is going to upgrade the suspension?

I am convinced if money was no object that a JKUR turned into a single cab brute (adding an additional 300lbs payload to the numbers you list below even for the conservative number). With soft doors adding an even additional 50-100lbs payload. And a custom aluminium tonnaeu cover that I can stand or sleep on and offer secure bed storage taking up 50lbs payload. I would consider it a top contender. Never give up my CJ8 though. And I have got 1000lbs payload if I take your conservative approach; although, I am not sure anybody really knows or remembers what the GVWR on an 81 Jeep with only 15,000 ever made... Not a fan of all the plastic interior stuff, that front end wackiness going on (what happened to the straight vertical narrow slatted grill, and them weird fenders/plastic stiffness), and window angle just isn't right being slanted back so far.

I just looked up the specs again. The 3.6L peaks at 285hp and 260ftlb torque. And people still complain about not enough power? Shesh, that is more than Defenders and old Land Cruisers; as well as the 160hp in my Jeep. It does just fine. What is the need to go with the Hemi upgrade? Small pecker syndrome? Glad you didn't fall into that trap.

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.
 
Top