Build Weight Master Thread

[jaymar]

How about one thread where anyone can look up significant + / - weight changes? Sure, you could use corner scales--but that doesn't give you individual component weights. And what if you're in the planning stage and have nothing to weigh? This can help with (for example) choosing a new suspension. Get the weight from the mfr, or weigh it yourself. Guesstimates don't count, and round up to the nearest pound. For example...

ALL WEIGHTS FOR 80 SERIES LAND CRUISER :

ARB Deluxe Bull Bar (non-winch) - 104 lbs / 47 kg
ARB Deluxe Bull Bar (winch) - 113 lbs / 51 kg

Odyssey PC2150 (Group 31) Battery - 78 lbs (x2 = 156 lbs)

I do not know what the oem stock battery was or weighed; would have to know that to calculate weight added to front end / front left. Anyone...?

Snomaster EX67D 66L Fridge/Freezer - 71 lbs / 32 kg
Goose Gear Solo Fridge Slide (XL) - 36 lbs
MaxTrax set (2 boards) with recovery straps and mounting pins - 16 lbs

Goose Gear Base Plate, 2-Drawer Box, 100% 2nd Row Delete - ~225 lbs*

*Okay, I said guesstimates don't count, but this one comes from GG. Has anyone weighed their 80 Series GG system components?

And what about deletions and swaps? What does the third row weigh, with hardware? The second row? Front row power, manual? What do Scheel-Manns and Planted brackets weigh in at? And so on...

Remember that "shipping weights" can be wildly inaccurate because of "dimensional" considerations. And then there are the packing materials (including pallets in some cases).

Feel to weigh in--and don't forget to specify your LC's year range...

 

[wreckdiver1321]

This is a great exercise and keeps the weight problem on your mind. I overbuilt my Nissan by quite a bit, and my last big trip to Colorado in it really cemented the consequences of that for me. Bad braking performance, accelerated parts wear, struggling engine, and several other issues made themselves apparent after a few years of driving. I see so many builds of vehicles that are massively overweight, have tires that are too big for the platform, etc. Seeing that I am planning on using my 100 Series for overland and 4x4 trips, I am building it light to keep it within the confines of GVWR. Starting with a truck that has a significant payload was a good place to start, and I am trying to stay conscious of all of the weight that will be added or removed. The truck will drive better and last longer if I approach it from this angle.

I think another side of this conversation is being real with yourself. Do you need a 125lb set of rock sliders? Do you need 35s? Do you need a complete set of steel armor underneath? When switching to the Land Cruiser, a big part of the thinking for me was recalling what I did or didn't need with my Nissan Frontier - a vehicle much lower to the ground and with a significantly longer wheelbase. I know that I was never really lacking for ground clearance in the Nissan, so I didn't need a huge lift or massive tires on the Land Cruiser to be just as capable. I don't need as much heavy-duty armor. I can have a much lighter truck that is still just as, if not more, capable compared to my Frontier.

With that in mind, here is the napkin math I've done so far:

2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 Series

Stock vehicle curb weight - 5390 lbs
GVWR - 6860 lbs
Stock payload - 1470 lbs

That's a pretty hefty payload to start with. Now, I am pretty convinced that the 100 Series has an underrated GVWR from the factory. A little light reading shows that a GVM upgrade of 400-500 kg (881-1102 lbs) is possible in Australia with nothing more than a suspension upgrade, which I am also doing. In the spirit of being conservative, I'll say I am comfortable with a 10% increase in payload from the factory rating.

Stock vehicle curb weight - 5390 lbs
10% increased payload capacity - 1617 lbs
New GVWR - 7007 lbs

3rd row removal - 86 lbs
Running board removal ~ 20 lbs
Spare tire lift removal ~ 10 lbs
Transmission cross member removal - 21 lbs
Factory skid plate removal - 21 lbs
Factory roof rack removal - 25 lbs
Vibration damper removal - 50 lbs
Crash beam removal - 15 lbs
Rear bumper cover removal - 10 lbs
Front bumper cover removal - 10 lbs
Total removed - 268 lbs
New payload - 1885 lbs

ARB Deluxe front bumper - 130 lbs
Smittybilt X20 winch (synthetic) - 67 lbs
Xprite LED lights - 14 lbs
Asfir 4x4 aluminum front skid plate - 22 lbs
Ironman 4x4 LCA braces - 2 lbs
Custom trans/transfer skid - 42 lbs
Pinch weld rock rails - 25 lbs
OBA tank - 15 lbs
OBA compressor/fittings - 10 lbs
Dobinsons rear tire carrier - 210 lbs
Snorkel w/Sy-klone head - 3 lbs
Rear storage system ~ 105 lbs
Indel B TB51A fridge - 41 lbs
Rhino Rack roof bars - 8 lbs
Rhino Rack Batwing compact awning - 40 lbs
Yakima Skybox 18 - 52 lbs
Misc electrical ~ 10 lbs
OBW tank/fittings - 15 lbs
Raingler cargo net - 2 lbs
Escape Gear seat covers - 10 lbs
Child seats - 14 lbs
Added accessory weight - 837 lbs (let's call it 850 to be conservative)

Stock vehicle curb weight - 5390 lbs
Subtractions - 268 lbs
Additions - 850 lbs
Unladen vehicle weight - 5972 lbs

Starting payload - 1470 lbs
10% allowance - 147 lbs
Subtractions - 268 lbs
Additions - 850 lbs
Total payload - 1035 lbs (let's call it 1000 lbs to be conservative)

Me - 205 lbs
Wife - 155 lbs
Kid 1 - 40 lbs
Kid 2 - 25 lbs
Dog - 50 lbs
Food, tools, gear, etc ~ 400 lbs
Total trip weight added - 875 lbs

Total vehicle weight fully loaded - 6847 lbs
Updated GVWR - 7007 lbs
Margin - 160 lbs

That ain't too shabby in my opinion. I'd like to weigh the truck once the build is done to see how close I am to accurate. A guy with a similar setup to my plans recently weighed in at 6220, or 440 lbs shy of factory GVWR, which is about 248 lbs more than my plan. He has bigger tires than I plan on running (which I have not accounted for yet), a heavier storage system, heavy-duty sliders, and a few other differences from my truck's plan. I'm currently unable to account for the larger fuel tank I plan to run because of the lack of weight information, though I can safely assume it will add about 100 lbs to the overall weight when installed and full. I'm assuming I can stick fairly close to my estimates here. Even if I go over a bit, it's still a damn sight closer to proper weight management than my Frontier ever was.

 

[jaymar]

Cool. See if you can weigh on corner scales for maximum utility. As to armor: I drive around L.A. My last SUV was totaled in a head-on hit-and-run with me and the mutts on board. Bought a Land Cruiser with the insurance payout and armored up. (Hit this and run, baby.) Have already had three cars bounce off the armor in smallish accidents. Good to know the armor's there if anything more serious comes my way. Sure, that's another 450 lbs or so. Screw it. Mileage sucked before the armor. Screw that, too. Gotta have priorities.

 

[nickw]

Cool. See if you can weigh on corner scales for maximum utility. As to armor: I drive around L.A. My last SUV was totaled in a head-on hit-and-run with me and the mutts on board. Bought a Land Cruiser with the insurance payout and armored up. (Hit this and run, baby.) Have already had three cars bounce off the armor in smallish accidents. Good to know the armor's there if anything more serious comes my way. Sure, that's another 450 lbs or so. Screw it. Mileage sucked before the armor. Screw that, too. Gotta have priorities.

I highly doubt armor is going to be safer....probably the other way around. May save you hassle of dings here and there but in a big accident, you want that sucker to crumble and fall to pieces, like an F1 car...not take an impact and hold together...for your benefit.

 

[jaymar]

I highly doubt armor is going to be safer....probably the other way around. May save you hassle of dings here and there but in a big accident, you want that sucker to crumble and fall to pieces, like an F1 car...not take an impact and hold together...for your benefit.

Been down that road with my now-deceased SUV. So, here's my thinking: yeah, crumple zone will absorb a lot of the impact--up to a point. If a front-end hit is severe enough, the engine is going to crumple right through the front seat. Short of hitting a Mack truck, that's not likely with an armored LC because...physics. I do have a late model with airbag. The hit that took out my last SUV wouldn't make it past my current rig's front bumper. Realistically, as someone in another forum pointed out--the other driver brings my crumple zone with him.

Here's what I'm talkin' 'bout: two cars, same accident...




Now, you get hit hard enough, the LC will crumple. Here's a guy who drove into a parked crane at 70mph; hit the counterweight and moved the crane 4 feet. You can see what's left of the ARB pretzeled over the engine--but it held the frame together long enough to make a diff. Broken leg, that's it. You get hit like this (or hit something else like this) in a more modern, more crumply vehicle, I'm gonna say the outcome might be a little different...



Annnd 55mph into a parked van; driver walked away. Cruisers will crumple; it just takes a much harder hit to do it. So most of the crumple winds up with the other guy...

 

[nickw]

Been down that road with my now-deceased SUV. So, here's my thinking: yeah, crumple zone will absorb a lot of the impact--up to a point. If a front-end hit is severe enough, the engine is going to crumple right through the front seat. Short of hitting a Mack truck, that's not likely with an armored LC because...physics. I do have a late model with airbag. The hit that took out my last SUV wouldn't make it past my current rig's front bumper. Realistically, as someone in another forum pointed out--the other driver brings my crumple zone with him.

Here's what I'm talkin' 'bout: two cars, same accident...




Now, you get hit hard enough, the LC will crumple. Here's a guy who drove into a parked crane at 70mph. You can see what's left of the ARB pretzeled over the engine--but it held the frame together long enough to make a diff. IIRC, this guy walked away. (Okay, maybe he limped...) You get hit like this (or hit something else like this) in a more modern, more crumply vehicle, I'm gonna say the outcome might be a little different...

Lots of good practical reasons to use armor, some of which you bring up, but it's a tough sell that it's safer....the math is pretty simple, the less a vehicle gets crumpled = the more G's you experience.

I've been in a couple rear end accidents, one in my 2001 Tacoma where somebody hit the rear hitch (direct to frame), less than 10 mph it was still really sharp and jarring. Similarly I got rear ended in a modern Audi at a similar speed and it was much more of a soft 'bump' with the rear bumper slightly crumpled. Now to your point, one of those was $0 the other was $1500....in that situation I'd take more protection but high speed I'd rather have OEM.

Another consideration is the arms race of bigger and stronger and what it does to the other persons car.....and them. If a big bumper was potentially safer for you.....it's not going to be for the person on the other side.

 

[jaymar]

Lots of good practical reasons to use armor, some of which you bring up, but it's a tough sell that it's safer....the math is pretty simple, the less a vehicle gets crumpled = the more G's you experience.

I've been in a couple rear end accidents, one in my 2001 Tacoma where somebody hit the rear hitch (direct to frame), less than 10 mph it was still really sharp and jarring. Similarly I got rear ended in a modern Audi at a similar speed and it was much more of a soft 'bump' with the rear bumper slightly crumpled. Now to your point, one of those was $0 the other was $1500....in that situation I'd take more protection but high speed I'd rather have OEM.

Another consideration is the arms race of bigger and stronger and what it does to the other persons car.....and them. If a big bumper was potentially safer for you.....it's not going to be for the person on the other side.

Good points, but also take into account that when there's a severe weight difference--as there is with an armored Cruiser (even an unarmored Cruiser) and most modern cars--there are other factors in play. The more the other vehicle crumples, the fewer G's you're hit with. It's not hard to imagine the other car actually moving backward, or going under. Either of which is safer for you, worse for them. High speed? Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman. Arms race? You wanna be the U.S., or Eritrea? But, seriously--what the other guy drives is a result of his priorities, and beyond my control. Same goes for the way he drives. My priority is keeping family safe on- and off-road. If the whole world switches to rickshaws (or "smart cars;" same thing, really), doesn't mean I have to follow suit...

 

[nickw]

Good points, but also take into account that when there's a severe weight difference--as there is with an armored Cruiser (even an unarmored Cruiser) and most modern cars--there are other factors in play. The more the other vehicle crumples, the fewer G's you're hit with. It's not hard to imagine the other car actually moving backward, or going under. Either of which is safer you you, worse for them. High speed? Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman. Arms race? You wanna be the U.S., or Eritrea? But, seriously--what the other guy drives is a result of his priorities, and beyond my control. Same goes for the way he drives. My priority is keeping family safe on- and off-road. If the whole world switches to rickshaws (or "smart cars;" same thing, really), doesn't mean I have to follow suit...

View attachment 673466

Mr Feynman - lol, thanks?

I get a kick out of all the big huge lifted 1-ton trucks with enormous bumpers - if they got into a head on collisions (even at fault) they'd decapitate the poor folks in a Smartcar and probably most folks in LC's, it's an interesting social conundrum to a certain extent, but as you point out, we have free reign to do as we please and my comment related to your situation regarding that was a bit tongue in cheek.

 

[wreckdiver1321]

I think largely it comes down to statistics.

Statistically speaking, I'm far more likely to hit a deer with my 100 Series than I am to hit another car, especially considering the locales I'm using the Cruiser for. Hence the front bumper. I wanted that because I have smacked a few deer with an ARB before and had zero damage aside from a busted fog light. I'm also choosing the ARB because it's airbag compatible, so if something freak does occur I can count on the safety features still working.

Beyond that, statistics say I'm far more likely to have a slow-speed collision if I do hit another car. A slow speed rear-end collision is unlikely to damage the rear bumper I chose. Same consideration with a front-end crash. Damage will be minimal. If I get t-boned, well I'm screwed regardless. But that's not statistically likely.

Frankly, I've been unfortunate enough in my youth to have been involved in multiple slow-to-mid-speed collisions. I've rear-ended someone, I've been rear-ended, I've been t-boned, and I've done my share of other stupid things. I've never been injured or even sore afterwards. In that case, I'd much prefer my vehicle not sustain damage to the body panels. If I'm going to get hit and it doesn't cause me any injury, I'd like to not spend any money or time fixing my truck.

In the case of higher speed accidents, the point is moot. The ARB is airbag-compatible, so if I hit something hard enough, that's that. It crumples, the airbag goes off, I shove my face into the world's least comfortable pillow.

The rear bumper, while more robust than the factory setup, is a similar situation. If I have a hard enough impact, that bumper is unlikely to make much of a difference. In the case of the 100 Series, the rear frame crossmember is actually aft of the rear hatch. The rear bumper is of similar strength, so I really doubt there's much of a difference. Besides, rear-end collisions are going to just suck me into my seat and possible throw my head into the headrest. That's why the "headrest" is there.

 

[carlpb]

I think that armor/modifications/safety are largely dependent on the year of the Landcruiser. I can certainly tell you there is no crumple zone built into the back of an 80 series. The rear is simply a cover on the corners over the ladder frame cross member that is a double wall beam ( for lack of better description). The front is not much better compared to modern bumpers with only a thin skin bumper mounted directly to the reinforced boxed frame rails inches behind. So I think as far as 80 series and older cruisers go, energy dissipation through crumple zones is of little to no concern when adding armor since it never existed on them in the first place. As mentioned above side impacts are a different animal. Now when I look at my late model Lexus GS 350 and the $3,700 bill to repair a curb hit while parking, it is nothing but a crumple energy absorbing pile of clips, brackets, foam, cushions, plastic, and thin cross mounts etc. multiplying the body damage to achieve dissipation. However I do not intend or need to add a winch or protection for crawling in remote places with rocks, stumps, branches, ledges, debris, animals, etc. on a street only car and value the air bags and cushion provided. In a crash I would much rather be in the Lexus than the 80 series, but I do not trailer the 80 to trails and drive it to its destination as its intended use. Therefore, I live with driving the (in theory) less safe 80 series with added armor.

 

[wreckdiver1321]

I was recently having this discussion over on ih8mud regarding the 100 Series. An owner from Australia chimed in when talking about weight, and it led to some interesting discussion.

The basic gist of it is, the 100 Series has a different rating in the US vs Australia for exactly comparable vehicles. The US version only ever received one trim level, with one engine and standardized options (for the most part - there are some minor exceptions). In Australia, there are multiple options and trim levels, but that should not impact the GVWR/GVM at all, only the curb weight and thus the payload. The important thing is that the frame, axles, and suspension are the same, which they are. The US spec Land Cruiser has a listed curb weight of 5360# and a GVWR of 6830#, for a payload of 1470#. An exactly spec'd Land Cruiser in Australia has a curb weight of 5360# as well, but a GVM of 7187#, or 357 pounds more than that same vehicle in the United States. Comparing apples to apples, the vehicles are basically identical other than driving position. Interesting to note that Toyota themselves (conservatively) recommend a maximum axle rating of 7893# combined, which is over 1000# more than the US GVWR.

They drive similar speeds, as posted above. The Northern Territories have a speed limit of about 80mph, while the remainder of the country has limits at 100-110 km/h, or 62-68 mph. They're more strict about enforcing GVM - meaning they actually enforce it for non-commercial passenger cars. I wonder what the difference is? Perhaps it's a way for the manufacturer to shift liability? If it's a company-level decision, it could be about directing attention toward certain models, i.e. "buy the more expensive F150 rather than the Ranger because of the superior payload" (totally pulling that out of the wild blue, it's based on nothing).

Another interesting note, I've been searching sporadically the last few days about the legality of an overweight passenger car. I cannot find anything that strictly requires a non-commercial passenger vehicle to operate within the GVWR parameters. There may be a more or less strict law depending on the state, but there's nothing in federal code from what I can see.

I did query my insurance agent, as well as a few friends in the insurance business, and the consensus seems to be that it's almost never a factor in insurance claims. Providers don't generally have that listed in their contracts, and they generally don't ask about it in the case of an accident. The only times I've heard of it occurring involved cases of obvious disregard for weight limits, like a half-ton pickup with a full 350-gallon water tank in the bed. Otherwise it's not a factor where I or my friends live (mostly the NW United States).

 

[nickw]

I was recently having this discussion over on ih8mud regarding the 100 Series. An owner from Australia chimed in when talking about weight, and it led to some interesting discussion.

The basic gist of it is, the 100 Series has a different rating in the US vs Australia for exactly comparable vehicles. The US version only ever received one trim level, with one engine and standardized options (for the most part - there are some minor exceptions). In Australia, there are multiple options and trim levels, but that should not impact the GVWR/GVM at all, only the curb weight and thus the payload. The important thing is that the frame, axles, and suspension are the same, which they are. The US spec Land Cruiser has a listed curb weight of 5360# and a GVWR of 6830#, for a payload of 1470#. An exactly spec'd Land Cruiser in Australia has a curb weight of 5360# as well, but a GVM of 7187#, or 357 pounds more than that same vehicle in the United States. Comparing apples to apples, the vehicles are basically identical other than driving position. Interesting to note that Toyota themselves (conservatively) recommend a maximum axle rating of 7893# combined, which is over 1000# more than the US GVWR.

They drive similar speeds, as posted above. The Northern Territories have a speed limit of about 80mph, while the remainder of the country has limits at 100-110 km/h, or 62-68 mph. They're more strict about enforcing GVM - meaning they actually enforce it for non-commercial passenger cars. I wonder what the difference is? Perhaps it's a way for the manufacturer to shift liability? If it's a company-level decision, it could be about directing attention toward certain models, i.e. "buy the more expensive F150 rather than the Ranger because of the superior payload" (totally pulling that out of the wild blue, it's based on nothing).

Another interesting note, I've been searching sporadically the last few days about the legality of an overweight passenger car. I cannot find anything that strictly requires a non-commercial passenger vehicle to operate within the GVWR parameters. There may be a more or less strict law depending on the state, but there's nothing in federal code from what I can see.

I did query my insurance agent, as well as a few friends in the insurance business, and the consensus seems to be that it's almost never a factor in insurance claims. Providers don't generally have that listed in their contracts, and they generally don't ask about it in the case of an accident. The only times I've heard of it occurring involved cases of obvious disregard for weight limits, like a half-ton pickup with a full 350-gallon water tank in the bed. Otherwise it's not a factor where I or my friends live (mostly the NW United States).

Australia also has some very strict rules on tire size and amount of lift that may play into this. Do you know what the towing rating is in Aus vs US?

I've never heard of combined axle rating - seems fairly meaningless since they were never intended to be added together like that. I'm sure the legal'ese used is something along the lines of "operated within manuf. intended parameters...", or something to that effect.

 

[nickw]

I think largely it comes down to statistics.

Statistically speaking, I'm far more likely to hit a deer with my 100 Series than I am to hit another car, especially considering the locales I'm using the Cruiser for. Hence the front bumper. I wanted that because I have smacked a few deer with an ARB before and had zero damage aside from a busted fog light. I'm also choosing the ARB because it's airbag compatible, so if something freak does occur I can count on the safety features still working.

Beyond that, statistics say I'm far more likely to have a slow-speed collision if I do hit another car. A slow speed rear-end collision is unlikely to damage the rear bumper I chose. Same consideration with a front-end crash. Damage will be minimal. If I get t-boned, well I'm screwed regardless. But that's not statistically likely.

Frankly, I've been unfortunate enough in my youth to have been involved in multiple slow-to-mid-speed collisions. I've rear-ended someone, I've been rear-ended, I've been t-boned, and I've done my share of other stupid things. I've never been injured or even sore afterwards. In that case, I'd much prefer my vehicle not sustain damage to the body panels. If I'm going to get hit and it doesn't cause me any injury, I'd like to not spend any money or time fixing my truck.

In the case of higher speed accidents, the point is moot. The ARB is airbag-compatible, so if I hit something hard enough, that's that. It crumples, the airbag goes off, I shove my face into the world's least comfortable pillow.

The rear bumper, while more robust than the factory setup, is a similar situation. If I have a hard enough impact, that bumper is unlikely to make much of a difference. In the case of the 100 Series, the rear frame crossmember is actually aft of the rear hatch. The rear bumper is of similar strength, so I really doubt there's much of a difference. Besides, rear-end collisions are going to just suck me into my seat and possible throw my head into the headrest. That's why the "headrest" is there.

I trust ARB's a lot more than most....but you'll have to trade damage to your car for more G's through you, airbag or not

 

[wreckdiver1321]

Australia also has some very strict rules on tire size and amount of lift that may play into this. Do you know what the towing rating is in Aus vs US?

I've never heard of combined axle rating - seems fairly meaningless since they were never intended to be added together like that. I'm sure the legal'ese used is something along the lines of "operated within manuf. intended parameters...", or something to that effect.

Can't say that I know the difference in tow rating, I'd have to look that up. Our discussion was about payload specifically. I'd be surprised if OZ took lift height/tire size into consideration when thinking about GVM, but it could be. I suspect something else is at play.

Combined axle rating isn't a specific technical term, but an addition by me of what Toyota said the load capacity was for each axle. Front axle max recommended load is 3594#, rear axle is 4299#, giving you a maximum recommended load on those two axles of 7893#, with a front to rear split of 46%/54%. It was more a tidbit that Toyota is convinced the running gear, at least, is capable of holding up to far more weight than the US GVWR or Aus GVM ratings.

I trust ARB's a lot more than most....but you'll have to trade damage to your car for more G's through you, airbag or not

Absolutely. Again, if I am in a crash that regardless wouldn't cause me injury, I'd rather not have to fix my vehicle, so the bumpers are of a bit of help there. I do know that I will have more forces going through my body in the event of any impact. That is a risk I've decided is acceptable considering how well the ARB design tests in crashes and the overall risk of being in an accident that would cause that kind of damage. Impossible? Definitely not. Likely? Probably not.

But, people's risk tolerance varies greatly. Some people are extremely tolerant, others extremely averse. What suits one may not suit the other. It's up to each individual to make that call for themselves.

 

[nickw]

Can't say that I know the difference in tow rating, I'd have to look that up. Our discussion was about payload specifically. I'd be surprised if OZ took lift height/tire size into consideration when thinking about GVM, but it could be. I suspect something else is at play.

Combined axle rating isn't a specific technical term, but an addition by me of what Toyota said the load capacity was for each axle. Front axle max recommended load is 3594#, rear axle is 4299#, giving you a maximum recommended load on those two axles of 7893#, with a front to rear split of 46%/54%. It was more a tidbit that Toyota is convinced the running gear, at least, is capable of holding up to far more weight than the US GVWR or Aus GVM ratings.



Absolutely. Again, if I am in a crash that regardless wouldn't cause me injury, I'd rather not have to fix my vehicle, so the bumpers are of a bit of help there. I do know that I will have more forces going through my body in the event of any impact. That is a risk I've decided is acceptable considering how well the ARB design tests in crashes and the overall risk of being in an accident that would cause that kind of damage. Impossible? Definitely not. Likely? Probably not.

But, people's risk tolerance varies greatly. Some people are extremely tolerant, others extremely averse. What suits one may not suit the other. It's up to each individual to make that call for themselves.

GAWR is intended for vertical loads the axle can bear, be it IFS components, solid axle shafts, suspension components or the vehicles ability to maintain control. The R&P gears (for instance) are likely still sized for GVWR & power supplied, as is the transmission, tcase, brakes and things like axle shafts.

If they didn't have GAWR ratings, you could in theory, put the entire payload capacity over the front axle and shrug and say the manual says I can haul it while the a-arms, spindles, hubs etc. get ready to self destruct. Even for rear loads, a camper for instance that is at or near payload capacity puts a fair amount of weight over the front axle if it's not cantilevered too far off the back.

I agree though, based on axle sizes, the Cruisers are likely overbuilt. They run a 9.5" rear ring gear and 8" in front....the F150 HDPP uses a 9.75" rear ring gear and 8.8" in front... but it also has 1.5x the HP and payload capacity of 2,300+ lbs and GVWR of ~7850.