ID: nht74-5.25

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our disposition of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires "no action" by vehicle occupants.

The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt for restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.

The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a "passive" restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):

The concept of an occupant protection system that requires "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

Entry and exit action "that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present

2 in the vehicle" means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a human occupant enter the vehicle without taking any "additional actions" to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exists, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.

This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive belt system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

March 8, 1974

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: The Volkswagen Passive Belt

This will refer to our telephone conversation of March 6, 1974, concerning Volkwagen's passive restraint system.

On October 1, 1973, Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add a new crash protection option to Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard 208 in order to permit use of Volkswagen's passive belt in 1975 as well as subsequent model year passenger cars and to make available other changes in Standard 208. A copy of Volkswagen's petition is enclosed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Notice 1, Docket 74-4 published in 39 Federal Register 3834 dated January 30, 1974, denied that part of the petition that requested the additional option. The petition was rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that Paragraph S4.5.3 of Standard 208 already permitted the use of a passive belt system "to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." The Notice further concludes that "thus, this language permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of Option 2 and to replace the required seat belt assemblies. Option 2 exists, in fact, to accommodate date the introduction of passive restraint systems like Volkswagens, which cannot yet meet all requirements of Option 1."

2

While we have recognized that Notice 1 is essentially a proposal for rule making without binding effect as a rule or regulation, it also disposes unconditionally of that part of Volkswagen's petition which sought the inclusion of an additional option. Nowhere does the Notice call upon interested persons to submit their comments with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's denial of Volkswagen's petition for rule making. Comments are invited only in regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal for amending Paragraphs S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3.3

Because questions have been raised regarding the qualification of Volkswagen's new restraint concept as a system that requires no action on the part of the occupant, I would appreciate your confirmation that the system described in our petition of October 1, 1973, constitutes a passive belt within the meaning of Paragraph S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of the second option set forth in Paragraph S4.1.2.2.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

Enclosure

cc: Philip Hutchinson

ID: nht74-5.26

ID: nht74-5.27

DATE: 03/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; RICHARD B. DYSON; NHTSA

TO: MARUKA MACHINERY CORP. OF AMAERICA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1974, requesting information concerning three-wheel and light duty four-wheel vehicles.

As of January 1, 1974, motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, other than trailers and motorcycles, became subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Currently, motorcycles are motor vehicles with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. Any three-wheel vehicles that conform to this definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles. Those three-wheel vehicles that differ in some respect from the definition, must satisfy the requirements of either passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards, depending upon which are appropriate.

On November 27, 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended 49 CFR 571.3(b), Definitions, of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, by revising the definition of "motorcycle" (Notice enclosed). Petitions have been received in response to the final rule and are receiving careful consideration as the agency contemplates a possible further revision of the definition.

With regard to lightweight four-wheel vehicles, as of January 1, 1974, they must comply with all standards applicable to their vehicle type. There is no special category for lightweight four-wheel vehicles.

YOURS TRULY,

February 22, 1974

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In reference to your letter of Oct. 16, 1973 your reference number N40-30(ZTY) I wish a little more information if possible.

I am not clear on the reference to the (three wheel) vehicles at this time. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of (38 FR 12818) in reference to a redefinition of "motorcycles" and what is now required of vehicles of three wheels.

I was under the opinion that your department was to define the three wheel vehicles and light four wheel vehicles (1100 to 1200 curb weight) to a separate classification. Am I correct or not in this matter?

Any information in reference to three wheel and light duty four wheel vehicles you may have as to safety requirements required for 1974 will be appreciated very much. I am very interested in this field of vehicles.

Thank you for your efforts. Please send the information to my office in South Carolina.

Grayson Conway

ID: nht74-5.28

DATE: 03/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Girling Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Girling's February 22, 1974, petition for abbreviated labeling on short(Illegible Word) hose in cases where the 6-inch interval required by S5.2.2 of Standard 106, Brake hoses, makes complete labeling impossible.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has modified the labeling requirement of February 26, 1974 (39 FR 7425) by specifying an interval of "not more than 6 inches" to permit the manufacture and labeling of short hose length without waste. Lettering may be any width so long as it is at least one-eighth of an inch high. Your petition, therefore, is denied as unnecessary.

Sincerely,

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

February 22, 1974

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Standard No. 106 - BRAKE HOSES (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8)

Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8) published in the Federal Register Vol.38, No.218 of November 13, 1974, requires Vacuum Brake Hoses to be labelled at 6 inch intervals with the following information, using letters at least 1/8 inch high -:

1) Symbol DOT

2) Manufacturers identification (for example, GY)

3) Month & year of manufacture (for example, 10/74)

4) Inside diameter of the hose (for example, 13/32)

5) VL or VH

It has become apparent that some brake system installations use vacuum hoses which are less than 6 inches long, sometimes only 1 1/2 inches long - and it appears physically impossible to print all of the above labelling requirements on some of these short vacuum brake hoses.

The various US State legislatures (for example, Pennsylvania) have always accepted this situation in relation to their brake hose labelling requirements and permitted vacuum brake hoses with only items 1) and 3) labelled, adding item 2) if possible.

We would therefore propose that very short vacuum brake hose lengths may be labelled: DOT - 10/74 and if possible: DOT - GY - 10/74.

We would very much appreciate your early, favourable ruling on this proposal.

P. Oppenheimer, Technical Legislation Manager

ID: nht74-5.29

DATE: 03/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: L and R Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether your installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.

Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on the driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.

Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed a copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.

Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if you qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a "non-readily attachable" alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the @ 567.7 requirement only if you mount it "before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale."

2 ENCLS.

CC: HONORABLE JOHN TOWER HONORABLE LLOYD BENTSEN

ID: nht74-5.3

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CIMS COS.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, requesting information on the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117. The agency has recently amended Standard No. 117 in accordance with the Court of Appeals decision in National Tire Dealers' and Retreaders' Association v. Brinegar. The standard as amended requires only that retreaded tires be permanently labeled with maximum load. All the other information required -- size, tubeless or tube-type, maximum inflation pressure, and radial and bias/belted designations -- may appear on affixed labels. The amendment does allow the use of one permanent label to apply all of the required information

JANUARY 15, 1974

Mr. L. R. Schneider, Chief Counsel NHTSA

Subject: - FMVSS # 117 & RECENT ACTION OF U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

We are aware of the recent United States Court of Appeals action concerning the permanent labeling requirements of Retread Std. 117, and assume that NHTSA will promptly issue a notice to help clarify the requirements.

It is our understanding that; -- Effective February 1st, 1974, each retread tire must have the following information permanently molded into or on one sidewall of the tire:

---Maximum Load Pressure*

---Actual Number of Plies*

* (Required information can be retained from the casing, or added in the retreading process if missing or buffed off.)

Further, -- that the following labeling information is required and must appear on the finished retreaded tire, either- or by use of a permanent or temporary type labeling method:-

-- The Tire SIZE

-- TUBELESS or TUBE-TYPE

-- RADIAL or BIAS/BELTED designation

-- MAXIMUM INFLATION PRESSURE

Our concern in this matter is a sincere interest to help eliminate confusion. We are a major supplier to the Industry of retread tire identification systems and have had considerable contact with Retreaders concerning the labeling requirements of #117.

Evaluating the recent action, we conclude that the Retreader can use one permanent labeling method to comply with both the required permanent and temporary labeling requirements. Many Retreaders have indicated to us their interest in using one permanent labeling method to eliminate the additional burden and cost of using both a permanent and temporary labeling method.

Assuming the use of a permanent labeling method is acceptable for both requirements, a clear statement of this in your notice would be of considerable help to all Retreaders and the Industry.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Paul J. Kruder, President

cc: Mr. M. Kushnick

ID: nht74-5.30

DATE: 04/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: MAZDA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1974, which requests a review of your new accelerator system to determine compliance with Standard No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems."

The NHTSA does not provide a technical review of a manufacturer's product nor certify that a particular design meets the requirements of a standard. That is the manufacturer's responsibility. We will interpret or clarify the meaning of the standard in response to specific questions.

We understand your question to be whether two springs surrounding a spring guide and separated by a washer meet the stipulation in S5.1 of Standard No. 124 for ". . . at least two sources of energy . . ." This arrangement of springs would be considered "two sources of energy" within the meaning of the standard.

As you requested, the technical description has been held confidential as a "trade secret" and we are returning it to you herewith.

ENC.

ID: nht74-5.31

DATE: 04/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Harley-Davidson Motor Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification campaigns NHTSA No. 73-0094, concerning fork lower brackets, and NHTSA No. 73-0215, concerning frame reinforcement and tail lamp wiring.

It has been brought to our attention that some dealers have not been able to obtain all the parts required for campaign 73-0094, and to a lesser degree, campaign 73-0215. Although it appears that Harley Davidson is attempting to provide parts as rapidly as production permits, this parts shortage has the unfortunate effect of tending to discourage owners from having their vehicles corrected. It is reasonable to assume that some owners may have abandoned their attempts to get their vehicles corrected after having been repeatedly told for several months that parts are not available.

Part 577.4 (49 CFR) of the Defect Reports Regulation requires that whom the manufacturer offers to repair the defect through his dealers without charge to the purchaser, the notification letter shall include the manufacturer's estimate of the day by which his dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. The letters which you have sent(Illegible Words) first purchasers did not contain a firm date for parts availability as required by Part 577, although they did imply that the necessary parts were available when ordered by a dealer. Since, in actuality, parts were not always available, it becomes necessary to inform owners of the date by which the necessary parts will be available.

It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification letters for both campaigns and include in each letter your estimate of the day by which dealers will be supplied with the necessary parts, as required by Part 577. Copies of both letters must be sent to this office and a copy of the applicable letter shall be sent to each owner who has not yet had his vehicle corrected.

If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. J. Reinhart or James Murray at this office (202) 426-2840.

ID: nht74-5.32

DATE: 04/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 13, 1974, request for confirmation that the intake manifold connector and the brake booster check valve used in connecting the engine intake manifold and the vacuum power brake booster are not subject to Standard 106, Brake hoses.

A brake hose end fitting is defined in Standard 106 as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." As pictured in your schematic, the couplers are the clamps, and the intake manifold connection and brake booster check valve are engine components to which the brake hose has been attached by the clamp couplers. Therefore your interpretation is correct that neither component is subject to Standard 106.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1977

Elwood T. Driver Director, Office of Operating Systems National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Docket 1-5; Notice 10 Amendment to MVSS 106 Brake Hoses

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of the informal interpretation provided to us by a member of your staff concerning the recently amended requirements of MVSS 106 (39 F.R. 7435) as they apply to the hook-up between the engine intake manifold and the vacuum power brake booster. To make this hook-up one end of a section of vacuum brake hose is slipped onto the intake manifold connector and the other end is slipped onto the brake booster check valve as shown in the attached schematic of this system. The hose is held secure at each end by a spring type hose clamp.

In accordance with that conversation it is our understanding that the vacuum hose used to connect the intake manifold to brake booster is a brake hose within the meaning of the standard. However, since this hose is secured by clamps, it is not a brake hose assembly under the standard and, therefore, the intake manifold connector and the brake booster check valve are not subject to the requirements of MVSS 106. This is in keeping with the amendment to the definition of brake hose assembly deleting the reference to "clamps."

In view of the short time period allowed for compliance with the new requirements, prompt confirmation of our interpretation is requested.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental and Safety Relations (Graphics omitted)

BRAKE BOOSTER CHECK VALVE

VAC BRAKE HOSE

VAC HOSE CLAMP

INTAKE MANIFOLD CONNECTOR

ENGINE MANIFOLD

ID: nht74-5.33

DATE: 04/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bruce J. Motyka

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 11, 1974, asking for suggestions regarding problems you have experienced with your pickup truck-camper unit.

It appears from your letter that no violations of Federal requirements have occurred. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 and its companion Consumer Information requirement (49 CFR @ 575.103) about which we wrote to you through Senator Percy's office did not become effective until January 1, 1973, well after the time you bought your vehicle. Moreover, it is not correct to characterize the dealer who sold you the unit as a "final-stage manufacturer." Under NHTSA requirements a pickup truck is a completed vehicle, and a person who installs a slide-in camper into the cargo area of a truck does not become a manufacturer. While this is not the case with chassis-mount campers, it is with respect to slide-in campers.

I suggest that if you wish to proceed further you consult an attorney, who would be able to best assess your chances of success in civil litigation. The dealer's employee who told you that the "GVW plate meant nothing" was mistaken. The weight ratings provided on the plate represent the manufacturer's representation of the maximum safe weight of a fully loaded vehicle.

You might wish to examine the labels attached, pursuant to Standard No. 126 and 49 CFR @ 575.103, to later models of both the pickup truck and camper you purchased. It is possible that those models and the ones you purchased are not substantially different. If that is the case the information on the labels can provide an indication of the extent that the weight ratings were exceeded by installation of the camper unit in question.

While I regret we cannot be of further assistance I wish you success in your efforts to solve this problem.

YOURS TRULY,

March 11, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Re: January 22, 1974 N40-30 (MPP)

Dear Mr. Schneider;

I would like to thank you for the information which you sent in response to my inquiry to Senator Charles H. Percy.

The information was quite informative, and answered many questions that I have had for some time. I was very happy to learn that the Federal Government has instituted various standards to protect the consumer from unscrupulous automobile and truck dealers.

There are still several points which are not clear to me, and in order for you to understand my problem I must start at the beginning.

During January 1972 I decided that the time had come to invest in a camper unit of some type. For a period of one month I shopped around quite diligently comparing various units and prices.

On January 26, 1972 I finally decided that a neighborhood Dodge Dealer had a camper unit that was ideal for my needs and was in the price range that I could afford.

For simplification, attached to this letter is a supplemental sheet giving truck and camper information.

After taking delivery of the unit on January 31, 1972 I noticed that the truck appeared to be under great strain from the weight of the camper.

One month later the engine was idling roughly, the transmission was not shifting properly, the engine was burning oil. I took the unit on a short weekend trip to a nearby lake and could hardly believe the lack of control I had on the highway due to high winds. On several occasions I honestly thought that at 50 M.P.H. the unit would tip right over and kill someone.

I returned to the selling dealer and asked if they improperly matched the camper to the truck. I was assured that everything was OK and that it would take a little getting used to.

As time went on the mechanical problems increased and the overall truck handling performance decreased.

During the first six month's of ownership, I made an estimated 70 trips to the dealership to correct various mechanical problems.

I also began reading various books on truck weights and truck capacities, since I was convinced that the mechanical problems were directly attributed to an overweight camper unit. It was determined at this time that the camper unit exceeded the G V W maximums for this truck. Armed with this information I paid a vist to Mr. Warren Johnson, General Manager of the Northwest Dodge Dealership. Mr. Johnson told me that the G V W plate meant nothing and that there was nothing at all wrong with the truck.

Since I did not believe Mr. Johnson, I then paid a vist to the Dodge Motor Car Division Zone Office located in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. The Dodge zone office people understood my problem but told me there was nothing that they could do. They explained that the Dodge Corporation sold a 1972 Dodge D100 Pick-Up to Northwest Dodge, their dealer. Northwest Dodge purchased a Rover Camper from Coachmen Industries. I was told that Northwest Dodge was the final stage manufacturers and that they would be responsible.

Still having severe mechanical problems with the unit, I went to another Dodge dealer and asked their service department to check the unit over and tell me what was wrong. This Dodge dealer told me and also put in writing that the unit was overweight. The D100 1/2 ton pick-up could not safely handle the weight of the camper.

I might interject at this point that I received a recall notice from Dodge during the early part of 1972, asking me to return the unit to the selling dealer to have the bolts tightened on the truck bed. This I did, but the selling dealer charged me $ 20.00 to fullfill the obligation of the recall notice.

Other problems which I have had with the unit which might be of interest to you:

1. Broken right front coil spring.

2. Transmission does not shift properly.

3. Engine overheats.

4. Chipped exhaust valve (1 cylinder).

5. Four leaking shock absorbers.

6. Uneven tire wear.

7. Engine burns oil.

8. Two tires developed "bubbles" on sides due to excess weight.

10. Cracked exhaust valve (another cylinder) and two bent pushrods.

11. Two rear leaf springs out of shape. The two rear leaf springs instead of retaining a "U" shape, point completely downward. This is completely opposite their normal shape.

12. Splits in the metal on the bed of the truck.

In addition to all of these problems so far I now have a new problem. I recently took the unit to a State of Illinois safety test lane. This is a requirement in the State of Illinois before license plates are issued. Well naturally the unit was declared unsafe.

It is quite obvious now that Northwest Dodge purchased a one half ton Dodge D100 Pick-Up from the Dodge people. They also purchased a Rover Slide On camper unit from Coachmen Industries and put the two units together, qualifying Northwest Dodge as a Final Stage Manufacturer. It seems that Northwest Dodge violated Federal standards. What can be done about it now?

Can the Department of Transportation force Northwest Dodge to correct what they did? Can you force the dealership to reimburse me for the hundreds of dollars that I have been required to pay? Shouldn't Northwest Dodge be forced to beef up the truck to Federal specifications? Would it be wise or profitable to institute a civil action against Northwest Dodge for fraud? How can a consumer be treated this way by a dealership? It seems that there is no concern for the consumers safety at all!

I hope that I have given you enough information to properly evaluate the situation. Any information, assistance, or help that you can provide will be sincerely appreciated. You people are the experts and I would be gratefull for any solutions that you can provide.

Sincerely,

Bruce J. Motyka

Enclosure

Bruce J. Motyka

General Information

Date of purchase: January 26, 1972

Date of delivery: January 31, 1972

Description of unit: 1972 Dodge-D100 1/2 ton Pick-Up 318-V8 Engine Power Disc Brakes Automatic Transmission Power Steering G78 X 15(Illegible Word) car tires Rover Slide on Camper Model #708-3M

Purchased from: Northwest Dodge, Incorporated 1439 S. Lee Street Des Plaines Illinois 60018

G V W Weight Plate attached to truck: Make Dodge Model D10 V.I.N. D14AE23503564 T.O.N. R0912043 G V W as M F G D 05200 MAX FRONT CAP 2800 MAX G V W 05200 MAX REAR CAP 2945

Equipment I D: 1972 Dodge D100 Wheel Base 131 Rear Springs 1350 Front Springs 1300

Camper Unit: 1972 Rover Slide on Camper Model #: SM708 Serial #: 708721251 Unloaded Shipping Weight: 990

Vehicle Weighed: Front 2,800 LBS Rear 3,985 LBS

Total 6,785

Truck camper weighed by licensed certified weigmaster.

Truck camper loaded with gas, water, food, camping supplies, clothes and two adult males.