I need to upgrade my truck to a 250/2500

[jbaucom]

I’m not recommending that anyone do anything. But RV salesmen do exactly that all day long with zero liability or repercussions whatsoever.

I would have no problems having a wet weight 500-600 lb over my GVWR. I would make some suspension upgrades to my truck to handle the load rather than getting a new truck. And no, the chassis is not going to fail…there are WAY TOO MANY trucks loaded up like this and higher on the road every day…Tacomas, Tundras, Gladiators, and Raptors in Colorado alone make up a substantial data pool. Don’t forget the first two million-mile Tundras. Those trucks were rated for 1300lb of payload driving 77k miles per year bone stock, often carrying 2700lb in the bed. For a million miles each. Imagine the danger everyone was in that whole time! If only they had read Internet forums…but I kid…

I’m sometimes over GVWR with a load of gravel or quikcrete in the bed. One time on a camping trip with my family, I stopped at a CAT scale out of curiosity. My scale ticket said we were 200lb over GVWR. We went all over SW Colorado and did Imogene Pass. My truck handled great and didn’t brake poorly at all. That’s because this number on my door jamb that says “occupants and cargo should not exceed” is a conservatively rated, non-legally-binding CYA for the manufacturer, and I’m fine being a bit over that, especially if I’m not exceeding either GAWR.

Are you a politician?

 

[RAM5500 CAMPERTHING]

Are you a politician?

My first guess was lawyer, but politician sounds more accurate ??‍♂️

 

[rruff]

DISCLAIMER: Maybe the all new 2022 Tundra brakes are better, but from 2012 to 2021 they SUCKED

Just looked up some C&D tests of the half tons, and the Tundra (pre 2022) does come in last. Doesn't seem like a lot though, and it's going to vary depending on the tires and weight. HD pickups are worse. 2nd gen Tundra brakes aren't small; there are only a couple 17" rims that will clear the calipers. 70-0 distances:

GM 177 ft
Ram 180 ft
F150 188 ft
Tundra 190 ft

F250 diesel 202 ft
Ram 2500 diesel 203 ft
GM 2500 diesel 208 ft

 

[RAM5500 CAMPERTHING]

Just looked up some C&D tests of the half tons, and the Tundra (pre 2022) does come in last. Doesn't seem like a lot though, and it's going to vary depending on the tires and weight. HD pickups are worse. 2nd gen Tundra brakes aren't small; there are only a couple 17" rims that will clear the calipers. 70-0 distances:

GM 177 ft
Ram 180 ft
F150 188 ft
Tundra 190 ft

F250 diesel 202 ft
Ram 2500 diesel 203 ft
GM 2500 diesel 208 ft

I don’t really care about paper specs

I’ve owned a 2012 and a 2014 Tundra.

BOTH ate rotors and pads MUCH faster than any vehicle I’ve ever owned

 

[jbaucom]

Comparing 70-0 distances doesn't address the possibility of fade or pedal feel/modulation that contributes to braking confidence. Normally that info is buried somewhere in the article.

 

[rruff]

Comparing 70-0 distances doesn't address the possibility of fade or pedal feel/modulation that contributes to braking confidence. Normally that info is buried somewhere in the article.

I haven't seen that they talk about braking on any of them, it's just part of the test suite. I guess a firm pedal would feel more secure driving around, but if the vehicle brakes adequately when you push the pedal to the floor, then wouldn't that mean modulation is better?... at least at modest brake input. Maybe it's like Toyota's abysmal throttle computer that "decides" a highly exponential curve is best. At least I found a cheap fix for that one. The brakes haven't even been noticeable to me so far.

 

[Over The Silent Planet]

GM 177 ft
Ram 180 ft
F150 188 ft
Tundra 190 ft

F250 diesel 202 ft
Ram 2500 diesel 203 ft
GM 2500 diesel 208 ft

Wow, a whole 13 ft behind the best braking half-ton. Not bad for a such a heavy, old design. My brakes are great. Maybe they’ll take a sudden turn for the worse. I’m only at 35k miles on the truck. They have always performed well. You guys are making me wonder if they’ll take a turn for the worse at some point.

Are you a politician?

Shifting your focus to the person making the argument rather than the argument itself seems more like a politician thing to do to me.

I actually started a thread about long term Ram 2500 reliability. The responses weren’t exactly confidence inspiring, so if I’m only going to be 500lb over GVWR on occasion, I’ll stick with my completely problem-free Tundra.

 

[TexasSixSeven]

Wow, a whole 13 ft behind the best braking half-ton. Not bad for a such a heavy, old design. My brakes are great. Maybe they’ll take a sudden turn for the worse. I’m only at 35k miles on the truck. They have always performed well. You guys are making me wonder if they’ll take a turn for the worse at some point.

Shifting your focus to the person making the argument rather than the argument itself seems more like a politician thing to do to me.

I actually started a thread about long term Ram 2500 reliability. The responses weren’t exactly confidence inspiring, so if I’m only going to be 500lb over GVWR on occasion, I’ll stick with my completely problem-free Tundra.

I just sold a 4500 lb equipment trailer and 11K lb skid steer that the bucket weighed another 900 lbs. At one point I had trailer brake issues with it due to wiring, and my 350 would stop that damn near 17K lb load better without brakes than my Tundra will my 12’ trailer with a 2K lb side by side without brakes. The Tundra isn’t terribly worse daily driving unloaded, but it’s still noticeable compared to the other half tons I’ve had. Driving 80K + miles a year I go through half tons fast.

 

[tacollie]

Part of the problem with the Tundra is Toyota left then unchanged for so long. We were shopping for 2012-14 F150s and they were underwhelming to me compared to the Tundra. The 15' F150 was significantly better then the Tundra imo as far as driving performance. My 08'tundra was great for the year. Best thing we did was sell it and get the F250 for carrying our camper. I was content with the Tundra until I found something better. Funny how that works?

 

[rruff]

Curious how your Tundra was set up and the differences you noted.

 

[tacollie]

Curious how your Tundra was set up and the differences you noted.

Me? 285/70r17 Falkins. Toytec Radflow 2.5 coilovers with spc control arms. Fox 2.0s in the rear with beefed up leaf springs. I added a rear sway bar because the traction control would kick on in sweeping corners. It handled good but always felt heavy. The Tundra was always hunting for gears. The F250 with the stock shocks and 86k miles felt better with the camper with the exception on washboard. It's more planted and relaxing to drive. Even with 35s and 3.73 gears the F250 isn't hunting for gears. The stiffer frame helps. Anytime on rough roads and the FWC turnbuckles would come loose on the Tundra. They are always tight on the F250.

My buddy has 2.5" Radflow front and rear with Alcans on his Tundra FWC combo. His Tundra feels better than mine did but still feels like a heavy truck. Neither of us has/had brake issues. We did a bunch of trails this summer and the F250 is way more stable. His truck is more tippy. He still smokes me on washboard but I'm content to slow down a little bit. I don't need to go fast on rough roads with a 9500 lb truck camper.

We were happy enough with the Tundra but we wanted a utility style bed which meant more weight. I was concerned about being over the rear axle rating so we decided to get a beefier truck. Sure you can beef up the suspension on a Tundra and make it ok for carrying camper. I would rather have a truck that can carry it from the factory.

 

[RAM5500 CAMPERTHING]

Me? 285/70r17 Falkins. Toytec Radflow 2.5 coilovers with spc control arms. Fox 2.0s in the rear with beefed up leaf springs. I added a rear sway bar because the traction control would kick on in sweeping corners. It handled good but always felt heavy. The Tundra was always hunting for gears. The F250 with the stock shocks and 86k miles felt better with the camper with the exception on washboard. It's more planted and relaxing to drive. Even with 35s and 3.73 gears the F250 isn't hunting for gears. The stiffer frame helps. Anytime on rough roads and the FWC turnbuckles would come loose on the Tundra. They are always tight on the F250.

My buddy has 2.5" Radflow front and rear with Alcans on his Tundra FWC combo. His Tundra feels better than mine did but still feels like a heavy truck. Neither of us has/had brake issues. We did a bunch of trails this summer and the F250 is way more stable. His truck is more tippy. He still smokes me on washboard but I'm content to slow down a little bit. I don't need to go fast on rough roads with a 9500 lb truck camper.

We were happy enough with the Tundra but we wanted a utility style bed which meant more weight. I was concerned about being over the rear axle rating so we decided to get a beefier truck. Sure you can beef up the suspension on a Tundra and make it ok for carrying camper. I would rather have a truck that can carry it from the factory.

The ONE major improvement with my Tundra (2014 with 35s) was regearing it to 5.29

I had the same issue as you with the constant searching for gears, etc…

After regearing, it never hunted for gears, shifted perfectly. and felt 1000lbs lighter when driving, and got back about 1.5mpg, only regret was not doing it sooner.

my .02

 

[tacollie]

The ONE major improvement with my Tundra (2014 with 35s) was regearing it to 5.29

I had the same issue as you with the constant searching for gears, etc…

After regearing, it never hunted for gears, shifted perfectly. and felt 1000lbs lighter when driving, and got back about 1.5mpg, only regret was not doing it sooner.

my .02

Didn't you run 35s? Even with 32s it was bad. I feel like every Toyota I owned needed a regear?

 

[rruff]

The F250 6spd with 3.73 is actually geared slightly lower than the Tundra with 4.3, and engine specs are pretty close... the 6.2 has 7% more torque at 3800 vs 3600 rpm. I'll have to see what happens when I get the camper on, but so far I haven't experienced gear hunting. Lots of long grades, and I don't think the truck would know the difference between going up hill and any other load. Average >17 mpg on the freeway, with 35s and a 2.5" front lift. I see a lot of complaints about gear hunting though, and I don't understand why that should happen with powerful engines that have gobs of torque. If it was hunting on the freeway I think I'd just put it in 5th, which is the same as 6th with 5.29s. A regear mostly effects 1st gear (otherwise the transmission can just downshift)... unless the computer is getting confused for some reason and slipping the transmission all the time? There is also tow-haul mode which changes shift behavior.

 

[tacollie]

The F250 6spd with 3.73 is actually geared slightly lower than the Tundra with 4.3, and engine specs are pretty close... the 6.2 has 7% more torque at 3800 vs 3600 rpm. I'll have to see what happens when I get the camper on, but so far I haven't experienced gear hunting. Lots of long grades, and I don't think the truck would know the difference between going up hill and any other load. Average >17 mpg on the freeway, with 35s and a 2.5" front lift. I see a lot of complaints about gear hunting though, and I don't understand why that should happen with powerful engines that have gobs of torque. If it was hunting on the freeway I think I'd just put it in 5th, which is the same as 6th with 5.29s. A regear mostly effects 1st gear (otherwise the transmission can just downshift)... unless the computer is getting confused for some reason and slipping the transmission all the time? There is also tow-haul mode which changes shift behavior.

I didn't have issues until I added the FWC. I spent a lot of time in 4th. Any wind or incline I would down shift to 4th. It was one of those things that didn't bug me until we got the F250.?