Tacoma is a dog, should I think twice before adding FWC?

[DaveInDenver]

The specific GVWR was given on that truck for a reason. I would personally, never go above it, much less near it. Same thing on towing capacities as well.

I believe the consensus is that GVWR is nothing more than a guideline by the manufacturer, at least below 26,000 and any commercial use. The only possible legal reason to follow GVWR is in the event of a serious accident where lawyers will go over your truck with a fine tooth comb looking for fault.

To that end I guess it depends on how much you believe the number. There's plenty of anecdotal data to suggest that Toyota is consistent with their conservative philosophy and there's margin and maybe actual designed headroom in the number.

That is IMO all but a certainty with older trucks, the 79-95 trucks were way under their true GVW at ~5,300 lbs. You could easily exceed that by 10% without the truck blinking from a safety or longevity standpoint (which translated to a payload of more like +25%). It just got slower and slower.

I don't think the current Tacomas have the same margin but I also think 5,350 that mine has is still conservative. Same I would say about the Tundra.

On the flip side I could suggest that despite a higher GVWR some domestic trucks don't last any longer historically. So are their higher GVWRs valid?

My feeling comes down to what the companies variously expect of their vehicles. Toyota way back pushed the envelope with trucks that lasted 200K while the Big 3 expected you to replace them every 100K. So perhaps the GVWRs they put on them were reflections of that?

 

[Clutch]

That 5.7L is a great engine. It's a bit thirsty, but with a FWC, the MPG is probably the same as any other gas engine. Even the ecoboost.

Betcha if you gave them all the same diff gear ratios, mpg would be nearly identical. The Big 3 are getting those numbers because they are geared tall. As you said...load them down, pretty much splitting hairs.

I would personally, never go above it, much less near it. Same thing on towing capacities as well.

Think is all what you are comfortable....back in the construction days...hauled well over the limits. Scary at times.

Personal life, like to be about half of what the manufacture suggests.

There are threads upon threads about 1/2 Ton vs 3/4-1 Ton hauling FWC's on here, Wander the West and other forums. Like the Tacoma, in a 1/2 Ton yeah you can make it work. 3/4-1 Ton you won't even know it is back there.

Though there is the HD Payload package on the F150's...as far as I can tell it is springs, wheels, and a tranny cooler. Depending on cab configuration payload is around 3000 lbs. Seems a lot for a half ton...maybe that is all the Tundra needs, some springs and or airbags...some say parts of that truck are built like a 3/4 ton. Who knows...

 

[phsycle]

I believe the consensus is that GVWR is nothing more than a guideline by the manufacturer, at least below 26,000 and any commercial use. The only possible legal reason to follow GVWR is in the event of a serious accident where lawyers will go over your truck with a fine tooth comb looking for fault.

To that end I guess it depends on how much you believe the number. There's plenty of anecdotal data to suggest that Toyota is consistent with their conservative philosophy and there's margin and maybe actual designed headroom in the number.

That is IMO all but a certainty with older trucks, the 79-95 trucks were way under their true GVW at ~5,300 lbs. You could easily exceed that by 10% without the truck blinking from a safety or longevity standpoint (which translated to a payload of more like +25%). It just got slower and slower.

I don't think the current Tacomas have the same margin but I also think 5,350 that mine has is still conservative. Same I would say about the Tundra.

On the flip side I could suggest that despite a higher GVWR some domestic trucks don't last any longer historically. So are their higher GVWRs valid?

My feeling comes down to what the companies variously expect of their vehicles. Toyota way back pushed the envelope with trucks that lasted 200K while the Big 3 expected you to replace them every 100K. So perhaps the GVWRs they put on them were reflections of that?

I have a hard time believing that. For several reasons but one of the main ones being, Toyota is a competitor. When they took the top spot from GM a several years ago, they were proud and touted that fact every chance they got.

I find it hard to believe they would take the conservative approach to specs like payload when they know companies like Ford are highlighting the fact that they’ve got the best in class payload. What does it benefit them to underrate their trucks?

 

[phsycle]

Betcha if you gave them all the same diff gear ratios, mpg would be nearly identical. The Big 3 are getting those numbers because they are geared tall. As you said...load them down, pretty much splitting hairs.



Think is all what you are comfortable....back in the construction days...hauled well over the limits. Scary at times.

Personal life, like to be about half of what the manufacture suggests.

There are threads upon threads about 1/2 Ton vs 3/4-1 Ton hauling FWC's on here, Wander the West and other forums. Like the Tacoma, in a 1/2 Ton yeah you can make it work. 3/4-1 Ton you won't even know it is back there.

Though there is the HD Payload package on the F150's...as far as I can tell it is springs, wheels, and a tranny cooler. Depending on cab configuration payload is around 3000 lbs. Seems a lot for a half ton...maybe that is all the Tundra needs, some springs and or airbags...some say parts of that truck are built like a 3/4 ton. Who knows...

Yes, I agree. I don’t like to go near capacity in the trucks.
People speculate a lot. I see those that saying they’re built tougher than rated.....are usually owners.

 

[rruff]

Though there is the HD Payload package on the F150's...as far as I can tell it is springs, wheels, and a tranny cooler.

Exactly. The payload is the manufacturer spec as delivered stock. Which means street tires and soft rear springs. The US market has devolved to trucks that drive like cars, that's why all the standard 1/2 tons have weak payloads. The little trucks sold overseas all have 2000+lb payloads. My puny '86 Toyota has a 1500 lb payload; same as my Tundra that has 2x the weight and 3x the power. There is no question that the Tundra hauls a load much easier and safer.

I have no qualms about upgrading up the suspension and tires, and exceeding GVWR. Lots of people have been doing it on the same truck for 11 years now.

 

[Clutch]

Yes, I agree. I don’t like to go near capacity in the trucks.

I have had several "oh ********" moments in the past, damn lucky that I am still here...(maybe not for the rest of you that read my dribble ) but for me.

People speculate a lot. I see those that saying they’re built tougher than rated.....are usually owners.

I was going to add to "All what you're comfortable with..." people tend not care about the law...as this forum and others show. So many trucks out there that are waaay overloaded.

Only real way to tell, is to push to its' breaking point...then you'll know for sure at what load poundage parts will start to fail. Not something I am keen on doing.

 

[rruff]

I don’t think the tow Hall mode for the transmission has my impact on low end torque.. slight throttle response, maybe. Moving shifts up, definitely. But not sure about the torque idea

Yep, just does what you said, throttle response and shift points. It *feels* like it has more torque as far as your foot is concerned.

 

[rruff]

I was going to add to "All what you're comfortable with..." people tend not care about the law...as this forum and others show. So many trucks out there that are waaay overloaded.

I don't think it's the law. More like manufacturer liability and warranty disclaimer. If it was the law then why wouldn't pickups be required to pull over at those weigh stations? Wouldn't be hard to enforce.

 

[bkg]

It is indeed law. I’d say for the most part, it’s not closely monitored as a matter of precticality. But in an accident, the responding officer has the ability to call out items like that which could result in negligence charges.

 

[Clutch]

Exactly. The payload is the manufacturer spec as delivered stock. Which means street tires and soft rear springs. The US market has devolved to trucks that drive like cars, that's why all the standard 1/2 tons have weak payloads. The little trucks sold overseas all have 2000+lb payloads. My puny '86 Toyota has a 1500 lb payload; same as my Tundra that has 2x the weight and 3x the power. There is no question that the Tundra hauls a load much easier and safer.

I have no qualms about upgrading up the suspension and tires, and exceeding GVWR. Lots of people have been doing it on the same truck for 11 years now.

Believe originally a half ton meant exactly that...now the lines are bit blurred. Sure they ride like cars now, but today's half tons blows 3/4 tons from the 60's, 70's, 80's away. Find it impressive that the power has increased significantly, mpg has slightly more than doubled, and able to haul 10,000 lbs. All the while riding in car-like comfort.

Think the market is getting a bit demanding, they want it all! (and all in a half ton truck) It seems like the manufactures are listening.

Check the specs of this pretty standard '76 F250 (will have to scroll down)

http://www.fourwheeler.com/features/1404-1976-ford-f-250-highboy-backward-glances/

Then go jump on Ford's site and spec out a 4WD RCLB F150 with a 5.0 V8.

https://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/17RV&TT_Ford_F150_Sep7.pdf


You should be fine going over little max, but me being me, I like to be reserved. Would worry about it eating rear axle bearings without a full floating rear end.

 

[Dalko43]

I believe the consensus is that GVWR is nothing more than a guideline by the manufacturer, at least below 26,000 and any commercial use.

Uhmmm...consensus according to whom? A bunch of internet gossipers?

GVWR is there for a reason. OEM's have tested a whole bunch of the vehicle's systems (suspension, brakes, frame, axles, body, handling) to determine that number.

Do I think your vehicle will suddenly self-implode if you go 1 lb over it? No.
Do I think it's a good idea to exceed that GVWR based on blind luck or because some internet fellow told you it would be okay? Also, no.

Back to the Tacoma and power: again, I don't care so much about peak horsepower. It's how that horsepower is delivered that is more relevant to truck and 4x4 use. I think Toyota's, old and new, are very reliable. But their engines require constant downshifting to stay in the optimal RPM band which also contributes to the poor fuel efficiency. Toyota had a chance to introduce some of their fuel-sipping diesels into their North American trucks prior to the 2007 regulations, but never did so (in great numbers) for some odd reason. Their "newest" truck engine, basically a 3.5l derivative of what's used in Lexus sedans, is perhaps a tad more efficient but its power delivery is no better than the 4.0lv6 which preceded it. Inline 4 and v6 naturally aspirated gassers just aren't ideal for towing/hauling duties. OP should look at another truck IMO.

 

[Trikebubble]

That 5.7L is a great engine. It's a bit thirsty, but with a FWC, the MPG is probably the same as any other gas engine. Even the ecoboost.

But there is one big hangup for me. It's the same as what I mentioned earlier. Payload. Tundra's just don't have it. You're at what? 1,200 or at most, 1,600lbs? That just doesn't seem enough unless you are packing ultra-light (which would be funny, since you ARE in a FWC). Dry weight of those things are over 1k lbs. Too close for me, even if I were going minimalist. Now, I do understand that you may not have issues, nor anyone else, pulling that. Just look at all the overloaded trucks on this site. But weight does take a toll on the trucks. There are components that will wear prematurely. Andrew St. P White talks about this extensively. The specific GVWR was given on that truck for a reason. I would personally, never go above it, much less near it. Same thing on towing capacities as well.

I figure that I'm at 1800ish. I honestly have no concerns whatsoever. I've upgraded all the suspension components, added airbags and a rear sway bar. These Tundra's are seriously overbuilt Imo. Big rear ends, big brakes, drivetrain is more than capable. I'll keep an eye on brakes and other components for undue wear and tear, but I really am not expecting any issues.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Clutch]

I figure that I'm at 1800ish. I honestly have no concerns whatsoever. I've upgraded all the suspension components, added airbags and a rear sway bar. These Tundra's are seriously overbuilt Imo. Big rear ends, big brakes, drivetrain is more than capable. I'll keep an eye on brakes and other components for undue wear and tear, but I really am not expecting any issues.

You should be fine. The RCLB's are rated at 2000 lbs. with the same components. Couple hundred pounds over shouldn't be much of an issue on that truck. A Tacoma sure will feel it though.

Some comparisons of a Tundra vs F350 in here: http://www.tundratalk.net/forums/tundra-towing-hauling/67718-would-i-able-tow-w-my-tundra-2.html

 

[phsycle]

I figure that I'm at 1800ish. I honestly have no concerns whatsoever. I've upgraded all the suspension components, added airbags and a rear sway bar. These Tundra's are seriously overbuilt Imo. Big rear ends, big brakes, drivetrain is more than capable. I'll keep an eye on brakes and other components for undue wear and tear, but I really am not expecting any issues.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

You actually have a sticker in your drivers side door jamb that tells you exactly what the payload is. I don’t know what cab configuration you have, but unless you have a reg cab, I’d highly doubt you are even close to 1,800 lbs. I looked at a double cab at a dealership recently. Opened the door, looked at the tag—1,200lbs.

My Tacoma is a measly 1,000lbs.

 

[phsycle]

You should be fine. The RCLB's are rated at 2000 lbs. with the same components.

Are you sure? Perhaps with a 2wd?