Maxing out your truck’s payload

[IdaSHO]

Here is


Provide a PDF of the manufacturer's instructions so we can all review their installation procedure and compare that with the installation being discussed.

Her you go big guy.

https://www.airliftcompany.com/shop/88396/

Hope you like the taste of crow

 

[nickw]

Experts in what exactly?

Tacoma that's 1600 lbs over GVWR... recertifying and wheeling

Thought this was an interesting article, in light of many GVWR discussions. Apparently in PA you can get a mechanic to sign off on upping your GVWR so you'll be "legal". I don't know if this is possible in any other state...

forum.expeditionportal.com

Per my post in the other thread - mechanic that signed off = knucklehead, big risk and is clueless.

 

[nickw]

I had the same system (designed and engineered by the mfg) on my truck. The brackets "B" bent in the way you see in the IDACAMPER photos.

After sending pictures to the mfg they gave me a new kit that was upgraded with part "C" to prevent bracket "B" from bending.

Your last posts take things off topic (running at max GVWR on the highway heavily taxes the truck). The post reference exceeding GVWR and a CDL which is out of the realm of this forum.

Did I miss the information regarding wear and tear at/near the GVWR?



View attachment 797362

The OP was not just talking on a flat paved hwy per his first post, I think some folks tried shifting the conversation to that, regardless the ethos of this website is offroad expedition use so that's the lens the majority of us viewing this through.

 

[AbleGuy]

This is a very interesting, informative and entertaining thread…

 

[Todd780]

 

[ramblinChet]

Her you go big guy.

https://www.airliftcompany.com/shop/88396/

Hope you like the taste of crow

Thank you - after reviewing the instruction per my request I noticed a part of the vehicle that I did not see previously - the jounce bumper strike plate. I now see how the lower bracket cup rests on that part and supports the air bag above.



I still disagree with your design of your axle spacer block. Your design appears to be flawed since it is missing vertical surfaces on the front and rear to support the loads being transferred while the axle rotates under acceleration and braking. These vertical surfaces should be aligned with the vertical surfaces above and below. You design also fails to rotate the axle and properly align the rear drive shaft, more specifically, the rotational planes of the two u-joints. Here is an example of a proper axle spacer block - it is cast, has all four vertical surfaces for load transfer, and even has a slight angle built into it for addressing potential driveline issues.



One more note from the instruction manual your provided that may be of interest to you and others:

 

[IdaSHO]

Rotation was not a requirement for this application and such a short block. Larger blocks and shorter wheelbase (single piece driveshaft) necessitates it, but this does not. Pinion angle is still within spec to factory. The change is so slight that the carrier bearing didint need shimming.

But thanks once again for a false assumption that you state as factual. 👍

 

[nickw]

Thank you - after reviewing the instruction per my request I noticed a part of the vehicle that I did not see previously - the jounce bumper strike plate. I now see how the lower bracket cup rests on that part and supports the air bag above.

View attachment 797695

I still disagree with your design of your axle spacer block. Your design appears to be flawed since it is missing vertical surfaces on the front and rear to support the loads being transferred while the axle rotates under acceleration and braking. These vertical surfaces should be aligned with the vertical surfaces above and below. You design also fails to rotate the axle and properly align the rear drive shaft, more specifically, the rotational planes of the two u-joints. Here is an example of a proper axle spacer block - it is cast, has all four vertical surfaces for load transfer, and even has a slight angle built into it for addressing potential driveline issues.

View attachment 797696

One more note from the instruction manual your provided that may be of interest to you and others:

View attachment 797698

LOL at GVWR caution sticker.....

 

[tacollie]

With all due respect - we agree on a lot, but the folks defending full GVWR seem to be justifying their decisions.

The further below GVWR you are the larger your factor of safety is, the longer rigs will last and the more they are going to be able to handle offroad or in sketchy situations.

Camper, dog, bikes, water, food, and tools are roughly 2700lbs on top of the two of us. Even with the weight and 110k miles our truck doesn't sit on the top overload. A SRW F350 doesn't get us any actual added capacity.The only way for us to get below 75% gvwr is to go to drw. That doesn't make sense for how we use the truck. A DRW truck is going to limit where we go off-road and be less capable. It'll also be worse in snow. We ran Medano pass today. It's relatively easy with a couple tight spots. There was a RAM 5500 on 40s that said he turned around because of it's width.

There is nothing unsafe, reckless, or irresponsible about us being so close to GVWR. I follow scheduled maintenance for severe duty. The manual has clear recommendations for running heavy and for off road use. I accept that I'll spend more on maintenance to use our truck the way we do. That's part of spending time off-road.

 

[stevo_pct]

You shouldn't drive your trucks at all. That causes wear and tear and you're at increased risk of an accident.

 

[IdaSHO]

You shouldn't drive your trucks at all. That causes wear and tear and you're at increased risk of an accident.

Indeed

 

[dstefan]

You shouldn't drive your trucks at all. That causes wear and tear and you're at increased risk of an accident.

The Perfect Response to this thread . . .

 

[nickw]

Camper, dog, bikes, water, food, and tools are roughly 2700lbs on top of the two of us. Even with the weight and 110k miles our truck doesn't sit on the top overload. A SRW F350 doesn't get us any actual added capacity.The only way for us to get below 75% gvwr is to go to drw. That doesn't make sense for how we use the truck. A DRW truck is going to limit where we go off-road and be less capable. It'll also be worse in snow. We ran Medano pass today. It's relatively easy with a couple tight spots. There was a RAM 5500 on 40s that said he turned around because of it's width.

There is nothing unsafe, reckless, or irresponsible about us being so close to GVWR. I follow scheduled maintenance for severe duty. The manual has clear recommendations for running heavy and for off road use. I accept that I'll spend more on maintenance to use our truck the way we do. That's part of spending time off-road.

My personal opinion is keep a larger factor of safety (as many believe) but much of the chatter about unsafe and reckless was obviously not directed at you, more to the ones saying a trucks can handle much more than their stated capacity and in particular the situation the OP is in and the ones telling him he's a-ok and to send it.

The guys I trust and looked up to as a kid were the old loggers and construction guys, several are long retired and the advice I always got was buy more truck than you need and never max them out...but that's the advice I got for better or worse. When we started dabbling towing proper trailers it was always the rule of 50%, get a truck that can tow double what your trailer weighs...so i did. I've driven at ~70% max and I wouldn't do it again if I could help it.

 

[IdaSHO]

I've driven at ~70% max and I wouldn't do it again if I could help it.

For combined weight rating that is understandable. Especially with todays wacky tow ratings for 3/4 and 1-tons. But for strictly GVWR, most trucks are beyond 70% without a load, just passengers.

 

[nickw]

Here is the OEM's response to GVWR...get a bigger rear axle...randomly came across this on the Ford site.