maximumbob
New member
I was hoping the ZR2 would be a good platform for something like a Four-Wheel camper. But now that we know the specs, I think it's not viable. 1,100 lbs payload just seems pretty tight.
2017 Chevy Colorado ZR2
- Thread starter balexander87
- Start date
calicamper
Expedition Leader
Just go Canyon or Colorado 1400lbs. Then toss a Icon kit on. Keep your payload get the rest etc. Two fwc types are running diesel colorados. Looking like 25mpg with the fwc is pretty typical. No fwc 30mpg is fairly typical.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Springs are one aspect of GVWR rating. Obviously the frame, axle, brakes are rated up to 1400 on some models so there's maybe 300 lbs of payload left on the table due to the ZR2 suspension that you might recover. Still, I wouldn't assume you can perform miracles with just an add-a-leaf.
I'm disappointed in the ratings that manufacturers need to put on trucks. I look at my old 1991 Toyota, which had a GVWR of 5420 lbs and curb weight of 3425 lbs stock. So cargo was 1995 lbs. Mine was roughly 4400 lbs with driver (me), full tank, 'Nest, tube rear bumper, normal tools & recovery gear and ARB w/ winch. So I had quite a bit of headroom (and more so since I ran OME heavy rear springs, GVWR + 400 lbs was the rating) for a passenger, camping gear, water, fridge. The limiting factor was fully laden the engine was just suffering, but it was safe.
Contrast that with my 2008 has almost the same GVWR (5350 lbs) but has added a lot of bulk since the curb weight is 3990 and given cargo is 1360 lbs. I haven't weighed mine but I've added a basic shell, sliders, an ARB is going on soon (no winch yet), extra battery. I'll certainly be right at the GVWR when the truck is closer to done, if not over. It's part of the reason I haven't put on the WilderNest yet. That's 200 lbs heavier than the shell I have now.
Something I'm not sure many think about is GVWR is more than just how much the truck squats. Anti lock brake performance, traction control (if you have it), air bag timing are based on design parameters and testing. If you leave that envelope I start to wonder what are the ramifications. I got GVWR rated OME springs because I'm still mulling over exceeding the GVWR and if that's safe. I went with an ARB bumper because it's crash tested and is said to not affect the air bags (IOW, their timing remains the same). So it doesn't make sense to then just ignore other aspects of vehicle capacity because it's inconvenient.
It's also something to mention that even being safely within the GVWR of the truck the weight took a toll, body seams starting to open and stuff. But it took 280K miles for it to start happening. Even staying within the ratings on newer trucks I doubt will prevent them from wearing out faster. I look at how my body twists and just wonder.
But OTOH, I think the brakes and axles on this Tacoma have some margin so adding some heft (boxing in the rear section, adding reinforcement through the midsection) to the frame might mean the safe GVW is actually somewhat higher than the one Toyota put on it. I'm pretty certain the reason for the GVWR is that they use a 'compliant' frame for people who buy trucks but don't really want a truck. The Hilux overseas still have around 1800 payload ratings, so I think if Toyota was to put a similar frame as the Hilux and 79-95 trucks (e.g. fully boxed) that a Tacoma GVWR would be more like 5800 lbs. Problem is I'm not going to stamp a letter with that statement so I'm stuck with a 5350 door jamb sticker regardless.
Last edited:
calicamper
Expedition Leader
The wider stance of the Z2 probably is a major part of the reduced payload also.
maximumbob
New member
Interesting, but I'm curious why that would be the case?
maximumbob
New member
Interesting, but I'm curious why that would be the case? (wider stance reducing payload)
My money says it's the suspension & off road goodies that lower the payload, just like my Power Wagon. Off-road suspension is designed to flex to keep maximum tire contact with the ground, improving traction. Off-road tires are bigger, heavier, + skid plates, + winch, etc., etc. . All this takes away from the GVWR. Plus there is liability, that everyone seems afraid of these days. The winch on my PW is a perfect example. It is a Warn M15000. All the specs are identical to that winch, yet Dodge says it is a 12,000 lb winch. I am really looking forward to this "mini Power Wagon", I just hope the price is not gonna kill it before it even takes off.
calicamper
Expedition Leader
Just ask other truck guys who put larger tires on stock rigs with spacers ie wider stance. The lever science applies to suspension too.
I guess that depends how you get wider. Spacers obviously add leverage. But longer control arms/axles move the fulcrum out and don't add leverage.
calicamper
Expedition Leader
Is wider really a positive for the overlander trail/bush whacker types? A big bonus for a midsized is the narrower footprint.
Why not go SLT add a Icon kit. Order the skid plate, rock guards etc. Thats what I would probably do. Towing and load capacity is why I would get a new Canyon 2.8. The z2 is cool. But its like a pickup version of a 2dr wrangler. Its basically a big toy with really specific use target.
Why not go SLT add a Icon kit. Order the skid plate, rock guards etc. Thats what I would probably do. Towing and load capacity is why I would get a new Canyon 2.8. The z2 is cool. But its like a pickup version of a 2dr wrangler. Its basically a big toy with really specific use target.
2025 deleted member
Well-known member
I don't think the width is a issue. Its such a small amount that if you'd have trouble with it than you likely would with a stock one also.