07 sprinters

[geo]

had time to kill today and stopped at local sprinter deal in norfolk and look at a new sprinter

the room is unreal

in 3500 dualie some what dispointed in wheel well set up
36" between them, could make it work
but after thinking about it a while decide the extra work wouldn't worth it

as in 06's and below you could take out 4" on each side and it would work

but not on 07's as it has 16 " wheel's and takes up alot of room
battery is under driver side floor broad's
and not recommend to jump start etc as it will cause problems with the engine computer

but room in 2500 will be unreal
side door is 70" wide
170"

so when i'm read will get long wheel base in 10

 

[Turtle]

Before you jump into an 07, even a 2500, check the GVW. Many of them are greater than 10,001 pounds, which means logs and scales.

 

[PinballWizard]

The GVWR on the 2007 Sprinter cargo vans are as follows:

2500 - GVWR 8500
3500 - GVWR 11,030

Two Available Wheelbases
144" and 170"

" Biggest " news... Now available with a 185" cargo bed length on the extended version.

-Brandon

 

[OntarioVanMan]

With the 185 in. you could have a bulkhead with a small bunk for a single driver and STILL keep your 3 skid capacity.

My GVW on an 05, 158" wheelbase is 8550...they must have trimmed weight somewhere...Longer and taller and yet shaved off 50 lbs????

 

[Turtle]

Standard base GVW of the 2500 is 8550. But the high roof and extended cargo area, they come in differing weights (according to my dealer). So far, I've seen nothing definitive online, including at the official sites. For Curb, Payload and GVW I see things like NA or I see numbers that don't add up. In one case (repeated at several sites) the high roof with extended cargo area has the same 8550 GVW, and Payload capacity, but the curb weight of the larger van is lighter than the short versions, which doesn't add up. In other cases you see the GVW and Curb Weight stay the same, and the cargo weight drop as the van gets bigger. Yet, in each class (2500 and 3500 cargo), there are supposed to be three new GVW ratings for each. There are also new, different ratings for passenger and cab chassis vans. 8550 is clearly one of them, but so far, the other two haven't been listed in any of the vehicle spec tables. All they have done is plop in the standard weights for all models, and this includes the Dodge site.

In any case, my dealer, said that the 2500 models come in three different GVW ratings, depending on roof height and cargo body length, and that 8550 is just the base standard.

 

[MDB1]

Well, Turtle, apparently your dealer doesn't read the material that DC furnishes to inform the customers. I have a copy of the "07 Dodge Commercial Guide" in my hands and this is what is says in black and white:

ALL 2500 cargo vans have a "standard" GVWR of 8550 lbs. That's ALL combinations of wheelbases and roof heights.

All wheelbases and lengths of the 3500 cargo vans with a "high roof" have a "standard" GVWR of 9990 lbs and an "optional" GVWR of 11,030 lbs. I don't know how you get the "optional" GVWR; they don't explain it.

The 3500 cargo van with the 170" extended wheelbase and the "mega" roof has a "standard" GVWR of 11,030 lbs.

All 3500 chassis cab models have a "standard" GVWR of 11,030 lbs.

ALL 2500 models have a maximum tow rating of 5000 lbs.

ALL 3500 models have a maximum tow rating of 7500 lbs.

 

[Turtle]

Well, that's the thing. They don't explain how you get to the optional GVW. In previous models years they had tables laid out that showed the relationships between empty weight, payload capacity and GVW, for each length and height, so you could see exactly what you are getting, and it showed exactly how to get to those "optional" weights. With the 2007's, they don't have that, and the few tables they have put out either show NA for some of that stuff (for the taller and longer versions) or the curb, payload and GVW don't add up.

For example, at the Dodge site, they had a table showing the specs for the tallest and longest 2500 that showed a GVW of 8550. Yet, when you added the curb weight to the payload weight, the GVW actually added up to 10,400. I asked them about it, never got a response, but that table has been changed to show NA in a few spots.

It's very frustrating.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Confusing ain't it!

The 07 2500 170" wheelbase and being wider and taller. I believe can not still be GVW 8550 especially with the V6 diesel or gas engine and the upgraded braking system and suspension. It must be getting between 9,000 to 9500?
These are monster vans anyone buying one could be a target of the scalemasters and with no clear standards or specs it could be a pain.

 

[LDB]

I wouldn't want any taller but wider and longer would be good. Wider might let you lay down crossways and sleep without having to bend your knees. Longer might let you have the sleeper some of them build and still have 3 skid spots. If both those are true it would be far more appealing as an expediter. Now if only it also addressed the glut of vans....

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[Jack_Berry]

i found info here at msn.com



http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/s...=2007&make=Dodge&model=Sprinter Van&trimid=-1



Jack Berry

 

[Turtle]

Good example. Notice that table has no Curb Weights at all listed. If you look at the standard and maximum weights of the 2500 170-in and EXT versions, they kind of don't make sense, but when you compare those to the curb weights listed in other published tables, they simply don't even add up.

 

[Moot]

> Now if only it also addressed the glut of
>vans....
>
>Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
>Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
>Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
>EO Forum Moderator
>----------

Leo:

Moderating 6 forums, being a fleet owner and driver and all the other programs you are involved in must keep you very busy. I thank you for your concern regarding van O/O's and what you perceive to be a glut of vans. I believe that becoming an advocate for van O/O's may take away time from your other endeavors. If you do however feel compelled to help us little people, you could start by refusing all B loads. This would certainly help alleviate the glut of vans. Of course then we would have a glut of trucks. But I guess that would be a truck owners problem. So it goes! One man's glut.......

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The only way to get rid of the glut of vans is to separate the part-timers from the career vaners...and in part starve them out cause the P/T's won't know how to survive...It's a dog eat dog world out there.
To expect Leo to refuse b loads is to ask nightcreature to refuse c or d loads...not going to happen.
Vans like it or not are at the bottom of the food chain. We're a dime a dozen.

 

[Moot]

Last year I posted a question regarding trucks hauling A and B loads. Nobody responded. These people aren't going to admitt to hauling B loads. But some of them sure seem interested in the perceived glut of vans. When a truck is sitting it is due to slow freight. When a van sits, especially in the auto parking area located in the front of most truck stops (visible from the truck entrance) it is considered to be a glut of vans.

Who are these part timers and how would you starve them out?

 

[LDB]

Moot,

I believe I am an advocate for everyone in this business regardless of unit size. As far as turning down van loads, I am not offered a van load unless there isn't a van available to run it or any available van has turned it down. The only things my refusing a van load would accomplish is potentially keeping a customer from getting their freight or losing the customer to another carrier.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[Packmule]

This is a very interesting topic to me after going from a C/D truck to a Van. With my former company I got a lot of "B" load offers. and they paid as well as most C/D loads. I assumed that the reason I had gotten these offers was as Leo stated, I was the only truck in the area to cover the load. Then I started noticeing that sometimes I would get a "B" load offer at a good rate, and as we were pulling out of the lot I would see 3 or 4 Vans from my company sitting in the front parklng areas of the truckstop. The load description was a true "B" load not over weight or oversized and within the milage for a single van driver. The rate I was being paid for the load was certainly not what most Van drivers would turn down. So out of curiousity I called my CC and asked why the load had come to me? After much stamering she said they were instructed to keep the stright trucks running as much as possible due to freight being slow during this time, and they were covering the bigger trucks because of their larger investment and ability to carry all sizes of freight ABCD. I then questioned the rate for the load, was this a "B" rate? Oh no she said, We have to up the rate for the larger size truck?!? My question is Who pays the higher rate, The customer or the carrier?

After I had gotten my health problems under control we decided to get back into Expediting in a Van because it better fit the lifestyle that I had to maintain. I called my former company, which I had left in good standings, and was told it would be a mistake for me to get into a van because there was not very much Van freight available. They strongly advocated that I go back to a stright truck and not a Van. It was amazing that in many conversations with freinds of ours, contractors of this carrier, stated that 50% of their loads were "B" loads, and that there was certainly not a shortage of "VAN" freight.

What is my point? My point is that some of the major carriers are not interested in a Van fleet and the Vans are becoming a dying breed. I have heard it stated many times here, that the Vans are the bottom of the barrel in expediting.
Is this the eveloution of expediting, to have a "one stop shop truck" that can do it all?

Well until I am driven out of this industry by that type mentality I will continue to run a van and pick up the leftovers.

But I will say the Company I am leased to now does not have that mentality and I am enjoying the benefits of being in a Van.

Big trucks...Just say NO to Van loads!!! HAHAHAHAHA
Awwww come on ...help a brother out!!

It's Just business, nothing personal,

Danny

 

[RLENT]

My question is Who pays the higher rate, The customer or the carrier?

Well the carrier of course ! ....... syeah, right.

Here's the problem as I see it - in trying to cover all potential loads and areas (all things to all people), some carriers have too large of a fleet to support - given their rate structure, number of trucks contracted, volume of business, etc. - in order for it to be profitable for all their contractors. But they know the big truck owners have the most exposure (payments, etc.) - so they feed them small stuff that should be going to vans to the C and D units.

Now, put yourself the shoes of the person that's paying for the freight - the customer. How would you feel if you found out that you paid a D unit rate ...... when you could have paid for a B-unit instead ? Possibly you might not feel very good ...... particularly if it's resulted in a 50% increase in the cost of the service. You think that you'd be quite as keen to use that carrier again ?

Was the carrier looking out for your best interests as a customer ?

For some companies (customers) they may not even care - they just pass the cost on ...... others might. Generally most companies are looking to minimize expense and increase revenue - it's just the nature of economics.

Personally I see it as the carriers playing a very dangerous game ....... watch for someone to start "We don't run your freight on larger vehicles than needed if a smaller unit is available" as a marketing action. I might even know of one or two.

Generally, in free market economics, efficiency tends to rule the day. Running B loads on a D-unit ain't efficient.

I think I've seen the comment made here a number of times about there being just a few expedite companies in the early days and now there are X number. My guess is that trend will continue ...... build a better mousetrap ......

 

[LDB]

All I can say is the times I've had loads that could have been on a van it was hazmat and had to be separated from the driver or would only have fit a Sprinter van due to height and the only vans I saw were Ford and Chevy. I had one load that had to swap. It was 3 tubs of parts. One was the plastic milk crate on steroids type and 2 were the stacking type so they had the posts sticking up above them. They sent to standard vans to Marion, IL to swap. One took the milk crate fine. The other two tubs wouldn't go through the door due to height. I wound up driving on to Sikeston, MO, after running out of hours, to meet a straight truck to take the two too tall tubs. I believe that a fair amount of times it's either height or hazmat that causes the situation.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA Life Member 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[Packmule]

Leo,

I feel that those were very reasonable circumstances for a C/D unit to carry a small load. Due to size of freight it was not really a true Van load to began with. Seems in that case only the weight fit the criteria of a "B" load. There are also times when a small load in size can be more than a van can handle weight wise, this too is not a "B" load and a C/D truck should be called.
But when a TRUE van load goes out to a C/D unit without offering it to elgible B units first, then there is a problem somewhere in the system. OR is the hand writing on the wall what the carriers long term direction and plans are?
As I said in a previous post, I carried many B loads while driving a stright truck and I don't blame the drivers for taking them, after all we are all out there to make a living and if the load is offered and meets the requirements of being profitable, by all means you should take it!!
My point is that a Carrier who bypasses a Van with a "B" load, and offers it to a stright truck first does not need to have a Van fleet if they are not going to support them as well as the other trucks in their fleet. When I hear carriers talking about "TEAM WORK" and "we care about every one of our contractors" and then to see things like that happening, makes me dought anything they say.
OK I've said enough, maybe too much, but I do feel better now!! Ha!!

Danny

 

[Turtle]

Most carriers, Panther included, will flat out dispatch around a van to keep their straight truck moving, and not think twice about it. Vans are a dime a dozen, but they will protect their straight trucks. And it happens even more frequently when freight is slow. Van drivers who don't understand that are in for a difficult expediting career.

You can have 10 vans sitting in the Flying J parking lot in Laredo, sitting there for a week, and a straight truck will come in and get a load out the next day, regardless of what kind of freight it is. Happens routinely. Board position in a van is only as good as how many straight trucks are in front of you.

I recently had a load offer that I got over the phone while eating lunch. Picking up 4 hours later, Laredo to KC. I accepted it then finished eating. About 20 minutes later, the cell phone of the straight truck driver I was eating with rang with a load offer for the same load, same pro. He took it. 2 minutes later I got a call that told me my load went dry run. When I asked why, I was told the customer changed canceled the load. When I mentioned the straight truck diver sitting at the same table who got that same load, dispatch backtracked and said, whoops, sorry, it wasn't canceled, but it's straight truck load instead of a van load. Too heavy, she said.

The straight truck driver went and picked up the load, then came back to the Flying J and showed me what it was. One standard shrinkwrapped skid, 130 pounds, about 30 inches high.

I would have much preferred that dispatch just be honest and tell me that they are pulling the load from me to keep their straight trucks moving. Honesty, even when I don't like it, I can handle much better than being lied to in order to placate me.