nickw
Adventurer
Which ones? I'm sure the minivans do, if they can haul 7+ people, they gotta be more than a Taco...
Increasing Tacoma's GVWR
- Thread starter Plannerman
- Start date
calicamper
Expedition Leader
Camry and Sienna are the same platform. I recall the Camry has a 1000lb load rating. My 2010 Outback was like 930lbs the new 2020 Outback is over 1000 I think. The Sienna has something like 1200lb rating.
The surprising one is the MB Metris that thing has a huge payload rating
shade
Well-known member
Those cars probably aren't designed to the same standard & rating as a 4WD pickup, much like a 4WD pickup isn't designed to the same standard as a heavy commercial truck rated for offroad use.
phsycle
Adventurer
? I thought GVWR/payload was based on on-road thresholds, cars and trucks alike. Braking distance, emergency maneuvers, etc.
But a pound is a pound, whether you’re talking cargo or human flesh.
shade
Well-known member
A pound is a pound, but a road isn't a 4WD trail.
Maybe, maybe not on the ratings. I believe there are differences in the ratings for commercial trucks when it comes to terrain. Whether that would apply to light duty pickups, I'm not certain, but I can see a manufacturer adding strength to a 4WD truck that wouldn't necessarily be required in the design of a road going, hybrid car.
To that end, the Honda Ridgeline has a higher cargo capacity than a Tacoma. Compare the undercarriage of both pickups and I don't have any doubt about which one is better suited to offroad travel.
luthj
Engineer In Residence
GVWR is an interesting number.
For light duty passenger vehicles (which includes F250s and small cars alike). The primary driver for GVWR is safety. At what weight cant he vehicle stop, corner, etc, without having an undue impact on safety. This is why the GVWR is often much less than the sum of the GAWR Front+rear.
Since GVWR is the combination of payload and curb weight, the vehicles unladen weight plays an important role in overall payload. Also note how high this weight is located is also important.
Which brings us to the unibody vehicles. The following contribute to a higher payload for a given vehicle weight.
Finally, durability plays a role. The OEM chooses a value which will hopefully guarantee reasonable service life for the intended purpose. The higher the payload, the higher the curb weight needs to be (heavier components). Though combining a frame+body together saves weight on unibody vehicles.
For example, my sprinter 2500 van weighs about 4,900lb empty. GVWR is 8,550lb for a 3,650lb payload.
A 2nd gen tacoma is about 3650lb empty, GVWR is about 5400lb. For a payload of ~1750lb
Van payload to curb ratio 3650/4900 = 0.74
05 Tacoma 1750/3650 = 0.48
For light duty passenger vehicles (which includes F250s and small cars alike). The primary driver for GVWR is safety. At what weight cant he vehicle stop, corner, etc, without having an undue impact on safety. This is why the GVWR is often much less than the sum of the GAWR Front+rear.
Since GVWR is the combination of payload and curb weight, the vehicles unladen weight plays an important role in overall payload. Also note how high this weight is located is also important.
Which brings us to the unibody vehicles. The following contribute to a higher payload for a given vehicle weight.
- Lower center of gravity
- Stiffer chassis
- payload CG is typically lower than a pickup truck
- shorter tire sidewalls
- independent rear suspension
Finally, durability plays a role. The OEM chooses a value which will hopefully guarantee reasonable service life for the intended purpose. The higher the payload, the higher the curb weight needs to be (heavier components). Though combining a frame+body together saves weight on unibody vehicles.
For example, my sprinter 2500 van weighs about 4,900lb empty. GVWR is 8,550lb for a 3,650lb payload.
A 2nd gen tacoma is about 3650lb empty, GVWR is about 5400lb. For a payload of ~1750lb
Van payload to curb ratio 3650/4900 = 0.74
05 Tacoma 1750/3650 = 0.48
Last edited:
phsycle
Adventurer
I thought the Ridgeline has a higher payload due to the fact that it didn’t need the off-road prowess of the Tacoma. No need for flex. It’s got a firmer ride, meaning it can handle the loads better (on road).
I’m just not sure how a manufacturer would quantify off-road usage into the GVWR. Look at the Powerwagon. It’s got a lower payload rating compared to a regular 2500, only because of the flexy (but not weak) suspension components.
bkg
Explorer
IIRC, the Power Wagon is significantly heavier than a regular 2500, by about #300... but the rating is still about 1/2 of the same configuration Ram BigHorn.
99.9% of tacoma owners will never take their truck off-road or overload it, so Toyota likely spends much more time tuning for "comfort" than load rating. Add liability and costs into the mix, and intra-brand competition, it makes sense that the mid-sized vehicles would be rated lower. I personally do not by into the idea that the Tacoma, or any large-production model, has any off-road use considered in payload ratings or design.
phsycle
Adventurer
Yes, slightly heavier (gas vs gas), probably due to the winch and other add-ons. GVWR is ~8,500lbs (PW) vs 10,000lbs (2500), resulting in a 1,500lb payload. Which, going back to my point, off-road use cannot be factored into payload, as the chassis, suspension components, braking of the PW is just as robust as the 2500. Makes no sense to me in that aspect, never mind the vagueness of what they would consider "off-road" use - is it washboard, high-speed desert, rock crawling, forest logging roads?
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
I think that must be for a very basic 2WD. My 2008 4WD Access Cab TRD OR tipped the scale at about 4,350 lbs as delivered with a full tank and my 175 lbs in the operator position (meaning curb weight was around 4,100 lbs). It carries a 5,350 lbs GVWR on the door sill.
billiebob
Well-known member
Exactly. Which is why the Ram 2500 carries double the payload of a Ram 2500 Power Wagon. Add the ability to articulate off road and the payload rating drops dramatically.
billiebob
Well-known member
You just defined every 1/2 ton pickup out there. They are all built for comfort and economy empty which they are 99.9% of the time. Which is why I'd never buy one for an overlander where it will likely be overloaded every day. And why I always recommend a 3/4 ton with tougher components and often double the payload capacity. I also found out a loaded 1/2 ton does no better on fuel economy that a loaded 3/4 ton.
Last edited:
shade
Well-known member
As was mentioned, when an OEM mounts a flexy suspension to a truck to improve offroad performance, it usually results in an adjustment to payload rating.
I can see payload rating being a consideration beyond safety & performance concerns when it comes to the intersection of warranty claims & marketing. Keeping it low would make it easier to deny claims, but raising it would be a bigger number, and marketing is driven by the biggest numbers they can publish.
Past a basic level, all of the OEMs seem to play this game, otherwise performance results would be nearly identical. Past the puny Tacoma, look at the ever growing capacities of larger pickups for examples. If Truck A can out accelerate & brake Truck B while carrying the same load, OEM A may be able to increase Truck A's payload, leave it alone so the performance difference can be touted, or degrade Truck A's performance a little to save money.
I'm not wed to any of this, but I find it interesting, given the topic.
bkg
Explorer
IMHO, the highlighted is a very misleading. Outside of the Rubicon, TRD Pro (maybe), Raptor and Powerwagon, off-road performance is not a consideration in design for mass-produced vehicles that rarely see anything but pavement.