Increasing Tacoma's GVWR

[grogie]

I just bought an access cab Tacoma, for not needing a rear seat, having a six-foot bed, and more payload over a double-cab. According to the sticker, it's a huge 1150#s. Funny, there is also a small yellow sticker inside the door that says "additional options have decreased payload by 10#s." So make that 1140#s!

I'm use to traveling light with a two-door Jeep, so not much has changed with a Tacoma. ?

 

[Crooked Beat]

Questions:

1 . Are they HiLux's that the rest of the world gets, with it's much higher payload, that much rougher/tougher a ride?

2. I have often wondered why we can't just get a "high payload" option when we order a Tacoma. Similar to the one that Ford offers with the F150.

 

[DaveInDenver]

1 . Are they HiLux's that the rest of the world gets, with it's much higher payload, that much rougher/tougher a ride?

My understanding is that the Hilux still rides like a truck and glancing at brochures there are configuration such as 2WD Workmate with 1,200 kg payload. That's 2,645 lbs. Even a fancy 4WD Double Cab SR5 has a 1,000 kg payload. That would never fly in the U.S., a 1 ton Tacoma.

2. I have often wondered why we can't just get a "high payload" option when we order a Tacoma. Similar to the one that Ford offers with the F150.

Could see that with a Tundra but not a Tacoma. That's not the intended market. I think Ford has a realistic payload in the Ranger. The problem comes down to a hard limit of 6,000 lbs GVWR to remain a class 1 light duty truck and as the trucks have grown in size and become burdened with more options and features the curb weight has grow, which squeezes the payload. They lighten up what they can, thinnest sheet metal, just enough frame, so they aren't nearly as over built as the 1995 and older trucks were. They were smaller and more simple and weighed a lot less.

 

[phsycle]

Remember when they split the hilux and the Tacoma in 95, the whole reason was because the NA market demanded softer riding lifestyle trucks. Toyota saw no need to continue to offer mini 1 ton work trucks with fully boxed frames. Trucks for weekend getaways, fishing, camping, skiing, and the weekend home projects is what the truck was aimed at. T100/Tundra was the same deal.

 

[Dalko43]

Great suggestion. You'd go from 1,000lb payload in the Taco to a whopping 1,200lb.

I was waiting for the Ford fan club to show up...

By the way..Tundra payload starts at around 1500lbs for the Crew cab, short bed...goes up from there if switch to the extended cab.

 

[Dalko43]

My understanding is that the Hilux still rides like a truck and glancing at brochures there are configuration such as 2WD Workmate with 1,200 kg payload. That's 2,645 lbs. Even a fancy 4WD Double Cab SR5 has a 1,000 kg payload. That would never fly in the U.S., a 1 ton Tacoma.

Could see that with a Tundra but not a Tacoma. That's not the intended market. I think Ford has a realistic payload in the Ranger. The problem comes down to a hard limit of 6,000 lbs GVWR to remain a class 1 light duty truck and as the trucks have grown in size and become burdened with more options and features the curb weight has grow, which squeezes the payload. They lighten up what they can, thinnest sheet metal, just enough frame, so they aren't nearly as over built as the 1995 and older trucks were. They were smaller and more simple and weighed a lot less.

I've driven around extensively in a hilux...it didn't ride rough at all...granted it had some weight in the back.

I dont buy the "North America needs a softer-riding truck" argument. You can easily offer different payload options/trims with a simple suspension adjustment.

I'd also point out that the global trucks (hilux, 4runner/Prado) may have 1.5k lbs or 2k lbs payloads...I'll state, from my own experiences, that those trucks aren't all that capable when you load them up to the max. The 4runner w/ its 4.0l v6 gasser is rated to haul 1.5k lbs of payload...it's not that great at doing so (at least from a powerplant perspective). Same issue for even the 2.8l diesel hilux. Just because an OEM puts a rating on a truck, doesn't mean it will be optimal for such duties.

 

[phsycle]

I was waiting for the Ford fan club to show up...

By the way..Tundra payload starts at around 1500lbs for the Crew cab, short bed...goes up from there if switch to the extended cab.

Look at the door jamb sticker. Crewmax 4wd’s are all around 1,200lbs. You can’t just go by the brochures.
Then again, from someone that touts a lot of regurgitated info on diesels, frame strength, towing advice without real life experience....guess this is to be expected.

 

[rruff]

I'd also point out that the global trucks (hilux, 4runner/Prado) may have 1.5k lbs or 2k lbs payloads...I'll state, from my own experiences, that those trucks aren't all that capable when you load them up to the max.

The payload on my 1/2 ton '86 Toyota was the same as the Tundra... but there is no comparison in how easily they could handle that load.

 

[calicamper]

Questions:

1 . Are they HiLux's that the rest of the world gets, with it's much higher payload, that much rougher/tougher a ride?

2. I have often wondered why we can't just get a "high payload" option when we order a Tacoma. Similar to the one that Ford offers with the F150.

Im pretty sure the US crash standards are some how playing into frame strength on the new trucks as in where they bend when hit from behind, this has been an interesting topic in the bent Colorado/Canyons “V”. So difference in Hilux vs Taco is likely far more than just leaf springs and ratings. I’d rather be in a Taco than a Hilux when the texting 16yr old teen driving the family mini van plows into the back of me while stopped at a red light.

 

[Crooked Beat]

Comments:

I would be quite happy with a one ton Tacoma. But I guess I am a member of a very small group. I am not looking to load it to the max one ton, just around 1400 pounds for a slide in camper, without doing all the suspension upgrades. I would tolerate a rougher ride.

I guess reasons behind the change/split to the Tacoma in 95 still remain today. Maybe more so: the regular cab has gone away, the 2.7L 4 cylinder has gone away for 2020 in Canada, and no more 2wd either.

The "crumble" zones of the Tacoma frames would be better for US crash standards, but there must be a way to increase payload. The new Ford Ranger has a 1600 pound payload and meets US standards and is also a Ford global platform. I believe the Frontier, despite how old it is, is also a global platform for Nissan. A DC 4WD LB Tacoma has a payload of 950 pounds in Canada. That could be 4 passengers with no gear. Crazy!

 

[calicamper]

Comments:

I would be quite happy with a one ton Tacoma. But I guess I am a member of a very small group. I am not looking to load it to the max one ton, just around 1400 pounds for a slide in camper, without doing all the suspension upgrades. I would tolerate a rougher ride.

I guess reasons behind the change/split to the Tacoma in 95 still remain today. Maybe more so: the regular cab has gone away, the 2.7L 4 cylinder has gone away for 2020 in Canada, and no more 2wd either.

The "crumble" zones of the Tacoma frames would be better for US crash standards, but there must be a way to increase payload. The new Ford Ranger has a 1600 pound payload and meets US standards and is also a Ford global platform. I believe the Frontier, despite how old it is, is also a global platform for Nissan. A DC 4WD LB Tacoma has a payload of 950 pounds in Canada. That could be 4 passengers with no gear. Crazy!

I just caved on my midsized SUV search. Bought a 2019 Expedition. So far it has a tighter turning radius than my 06 Sequoia, yeah its wide but side by side they are surprisingly close in size. Would I take the Expedition where I’ve taken my Sequoia yes except for one trip where we did trails with Gwagen group. The Expedition would get trashed but make it just too wide.

I like the mid sized stuff, but when it comes to payload and ability its no contest full sized trucks just crush the midsized trucks in every way except narrow trail bashing.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I just caved on my midsized SUV search. Bought a 2019 Expedition. So far it has a tighter turning radius than my 06 Sequoia, yeah its wide but side by side they are surprisingly close in size. Would I take the Expedition where I’ve taken my Sequoia yes except for one trip where we did trails with Gwagen group. The Expedition would get trashed but make it just too wide.

I like the mid sized stuff, but when it comes to payload and ability its no contest full sized trucks just crush the midsized trucks in every way except narrow trail bashing.

But if small is what you need then no amount of GVWR shopping matters. I'm sure I could shoehorn a full size a fair number of places I take my truck but it's got plenty of pinstripes that indicate it doesn't have much elbow as it is. I'd prefer an even smaller truck personally, for the size and fuel economy. For all the hand wringing I honestly haven't exceeded the so-called meager GVWR of my truck anyway. But then again I don't expect all the comforts of home either. I figure the point of not being at home is to enjoy the simplicity, get some peace and quiet and dark night sky.

 

[shade]

I don't understand why people try to re-engineer their vehicles to become more capable.

If you want more payload capability, just get a truck that offers that from the factory...Tundra might be a good place to start looking.

I don't want a larger truck. With a little work, I've re-engineered my Tacoma to do everything I want it to do, it does it better than when it left the dealership, and it isn't overweight. I'd have preferred buying it with a better suspension, but Toyota has children to feed, too.

 

[Todd780]

Look at the door jamb sticker. Crewmax 4wd’s are all around 1,200lbs. You can’t just go by the brochures.
Then again, from someone that touts a lot of regurgitated info on diesels, frame strength, towing advice without real life experience....guess this is to be expected.

Huh. I just did some poking around a saw a a few Crewmax's that the owners are saying the door sticker is around 1,300. That's nuts! My door sticker I believe says 1,800. I would have thought a Tundra would have been similar. They were a contender to replace my current truck. But, not at that payload. See what the redesigned truck offers when it comes out I guess.

 

[calicamper]

But if small is what you need then no amount of GVWR shopping matters. I'm sure I could shoehorn a full size a fair number of places I take my truck but it's got plenty of pinstripes that indicate it doesn't have much elbow as it is. I'd prefer an even smaller truck personally, for the size and fuel economy. For all the hand wringing I honestly haven't exceeded the so-called meager GVWR of my truck anyway. But then again I don't expect all the comforts of home either. I figure the point of not being at home is to enjoy the simplicity, get some peace and quiet and dark night sky.

My Expedition in lousy short kid hauling around town does 18mpg tank averages. Our two day ski trip was 21mpg average. Its impressive what full sized rigs do now. None of my Toyotas 25yrs worth got good mileage the worst was my J80. Probably my biggest issue with my J80 was the horrendous mileage and mehhh power. The Sequoia was much better in that regard.