Jump to content


Photo

Truck Payload Exceedance


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Lunch

Lunch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 28 October 2018 - 11:20 PM

Hi,

 

I appreciate all the great insights I gained from WTW forums. This is my foray into the world of pickups and camper shells and I am struggling. I am selecting/matching a pickup and a slide-in, pop-up camper shell. My preference is a small 4x4 pickup (Frontier, Tacoma, Colorado, etc.). I am looking at the All-Terrain Bobcat shell which I’m told by the manufacturer is 530 lb. dry wt. (this seems low so I’m guessing it does not include tie-downs, jack brackets, etc.). My comfort needs are best described as “Spartan”. I am comfortable sleeping in a tent at temps well below freezing. Consequently, I will have very few amenities and a very light build out.

I have been looking very closely at truck payloads, curb wt., GVWR, and GAWR. I simply can’t make even the lightest camper work with the biggest payload 4x4 small truck. I am treating manufacturer payload limits as absolute, not recommendations. I’m sure there is a healthy F.S. but I’m sticking to the spec (BTW, I’m going by the payload capacity on the inside door sticker, not the spec sheet, which is not always accurate).

 

From this process, I’ve drawn 2 conclusions:

(Please note, I am NOT talking about WTW forum readers. This is a much more sophisticated, informed crowd than the average camper owner.)

 

1)      People (again, not WTW forum readers) seem very cavalier about keeping payloads within spec (and I’m just talking about camper shells, not winches, bumpers, awnings, etc., beefed up suspension, etc).

 

2)      I will never by a used pickup that had a camper on it b/c of #1 above.

 

My thinking is that overloaded trucks present 2 safety issues – poor drivability and excessive wear & tear on components. It seems popular to mitigate drivability issues by beefing up the suspension but that won’t help and will probably exacerbate the wear and tear issue (e.g., adding spring leafs adds weight). The wear and tear problem is not just a maintenance cost issue, it’s also a matter of safety b/c I don’t want to breakdown in a hostile environment with no help readily available.

 

There are a lot on unknowns but I’ve been adding up my payload ounces (my friend always says to “watch the ounces and the pounds take care of themselves”). I’m estimating for short weekend trips with gear, I will be around 1350 lb. This is doable with certain small 4x4 trucks, in fact, my friends safely and successfully hit this mark. However, I’d like to have at least a 200 lb. buffer b/c my prospective passengers have a 125 wt. variance, I’d like to occasionally throw on some bikes or kayaks, I don’t always meet my dietary goals, etc.  ;-)

 

So, should I just resign to driving a bigger pick-up or is there hope?

 

Thanks.

 

 


  • 0

#2 oldhotrod

oldhotrod

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 152 posts
  • LocationSo Cal

Posted 29 October 2018 - 12:29 AM

This is just going to start a bunch of back and forth, for every overthinker there will be those that don't sweat the details without issue. Plus there are a lot of variables that affect the posted gvw such as cab design. For example, manufacturers of crew cab light trucks factor in possible payload of people (potentially over 1000lbs) when engineering suspension and drive train. As overbuilt as trucks are, all are affected when saddled with over 1000lbs of payload whether it is sand, people or campers. Be smart and use a ton of common sense and you will never have an issue. If you want to play it safe, cheap insurance is using a truck bigger than you need....This applies to campers, pulling trailers or any other uses you can imagine.
While you are processing all of the info and opinions you are likely to get, I'm going camping...
  • 1

#3 Wandering Sagebrush

Wandering Sagebrush

    Free Range Human

  • Site Team
  • 10,534 posts
  • LocationNortheast Oregon

Posted 29 October 2018 - 01:22 AM

Lunch,

Please don’t take offense, but I think you’re being overly strict with your concern about weight. The ATC Bobcat shell weight is pretty accurate. I have a shell that is pretty built out, and I probably come in at about 1100#, on a Ford Ranger 4wd. I don’t detect accelerated wear of any parts, and I am obsessive about preventive maintenance. Another member has a similar camper on a Ranger, and they are over 200,000 (as I recall) miles. Based on what you’ve said, I believe a Bobcat shell on a Tacoma/Colorado/Frontier would be great setup for you.

Regardless, it’s your decision and I hope you find what you want. I’m going to give a shout out for ATC, they build great campers, and they are wonderful to work with. What ever size truck you choose, ATC will build you a superb camper.

Steve
  • 1

I am haunted by waters


#4 smlobx

smlobx

    Lost again

  • Members
  • 1,529 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 29 October 2018 - 11:08 AM

Lunch I commend you for taking the weight restrictions seriously.

In looking at the Colorado specs here
https://www.caranddr.../colorado/specs
it looks like you should be able to achieve your goals. Of course it will depend on how you spec your vehicle but in general the more base your truck is and the smaller the cab is the more weight you'll be able to carry.

Good luck!
  • 0

Eddie
KO4CPL

 

Travel light. Travel far. Travel safe.


#5 MidAtlantic

MidAtlantic

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs & York, UK

Posted 29 October 2018 - 11:18 AM

Lunch,

 

Like you I have some concerns about overloading, but unlike you I acquired them after buying the rig, and so far have probably come down on the 'cavalier' side.  I have a 2014 Tacoma TRD Off Road with access cab and an ATC Bobcat with factory-installed solar panel, one house battery, 2-way fridge, water tank, sink, 2-burner cooker, and furnace.  The total dry weight (no water, food or humans and not fully gassed) is 5,180, and the GVWR (from the web not sticker) is 5,500. So, fully loaded I am undoubtedly exceeding the GVWR.

 

Having read many discussions a few years ago, and asking Marty at ATC, I added Firestone air bags and Bilstein 5100 shocks  in the rear, and kept the original tires. I plan to replace the stock tires soon with E-rated LT versions soon, but am still agonizing about a rear spring upgrade (probably from All-Pro).  I think the tires are necessary, and the springs would move me out of the cavalier category.

 

The air bags are a must to prevent bottoming out, but I find the ride a bit bouncy, which is one reason for considering heavier springs.  My most extreme experience so far was the White Rim in Canyonlands done over five nights.  I go very slowly on rough roads and had no difficulties, and only felt a wheel slip once, which I attribute more to the Tacoma's capabilities than my off-road expertise.  I can't really comment on the wear-and-tear question, because I only use the rig a few weeks per year and it sits in storage the rest of the time.

 

I am sure you get further valid, but varied opinions, which will include getting a bigger truck.  But I really like my Tacoma/Bobcat combo and really don't want a big truck.  You should definitely have a look at past discussions about this topic here and elsewhere.  For example:  http://www.wanderthe...ade-for-bobcat/

 

Good luck with the decision and welcome to the club!

 

Jerry


  • 0

#6 ntsqd

ntsqd

    Custom User Title

  • Members
  • 2,879 posts
  • LocationNorth So.CA

Posted 29 October 2018 - 01:09 PM

I think knowing how close you are to the GVWR is a good way to temper your driving habits.  Knowing that you're near the GVWR makes a conscientious driver less likely to go bombing down some twisty-curvy road.

 

From past surveys of a ref book ("Std. Catalog of 4X4's, 1945-1993"; ISBN 0-87341-203-6 [U.S production only]) it appears that the Section Modulus of the frame changes in response to GVWR and wheelbase. Which makes sense. Higher GVWR and/or longer WB needs a stronger frame.

 

Reading between the lines in the above book I suspect that the two biggest factors in the OEM's determination of GVWR is braking capacity and spring rate. The engine's power does not appear to ever be a factor. It's weight obviously subtracts from the payload, but it's power is of no concern to the rating. Can usually, or at least in the past, could buy a one ton pick-up with the same base engine that the 1/2 ton has. Few did, but it was usually possible.


  • 0
Thom

Where does that road go?

#7 DesertDave

DesertDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 289 posts
  • LocationDayton NV

Posted 29 October 2018 - 02:25 PM

Sorting through these issues back in the first decade of this century, I was lucky to be getting a Ford F350 where I was able to research and discover the engineered capacity of most of the actual components in the vehicle.  I learned the capacity of the frame, transmission, steel wheels, axles, springs, etc.  I learned that the GVWR was based upon the weakest link in the chain of components, which in my case, was the parking pawl on the transmission.  This is the part that engages the flywheel to hold the vehicle in place with the transmission in park.  One could supplement the transmission's holding power by engaging the parking brake.

 

I was therefore OK mentally when I weighed the complete and loaded rig, and found it to be 800 pounds (7%) over the factory GVWR.  This was with my former full size hardside camper.  Now, of course, with a 4WC, I have at least 1000 lbs of excess capacity available, based on weighing the current rig fully loaded up.

 

Under the assumption the original poster is a bit like me (we put the 'anal' into analysis), I'd suggest getting as much data as possible on your potential vehicles, and then, if you are finding that you must be a little bit overloaded, try and stay less than 10% over.


  • 0

2014 Grandby FD on a 2007 F350


#8 smlobx

smlobx

    Lost again

  • Members
  • 1,529 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 29 October 2018 - 03:52 PM

Just to add a little bit more to the discussion and possibly further complicate your decision ( 😉) have you considered the new Ford Ranger that is coming out in a few months?
I will be testing one at the upcoming Expo East but in the mean time on the ranger5g.com website one of the guys has created the chart below to help in comparing the specs as we know them. Keep in mind that not all the new Ranger specs are out yet but I thought you might find this interesting... As I said above the specs will depend on your cab configuration etc...

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_0949.JPG

Edited by smlobx, 29 October 2018 - 03:56 PM.

  • 0

Eddie
KO4CPL

 

Travel light. Travel far. Travel safe.


#9 BillTheHiker

BillTheHiker

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 307 posts
  • LocationBoise, ID

Posted 29 October 2018 - 04:07 PM

Thanks for the Ranger info, smlobx. Payload is impressive, but makes me wonder how accurate are numbers like payload, GVWR, etc. Is there a standard, published algorithm vs. something the marketing folks make up.


  • 0

#10 klahanie

klahanie

    Senior Member

  • Validating
  • 932 posts
  • LocationSW BC

Posted 29 October 2018 - 04:24 PM

If I was Colorado I'd be ticked with that comparison chart. Every competitor shows a Payload Capacity higher than a mathematical calculation would support using the values shown (GWVR - Curb Weight = Payload Capacity). Colorado is the only one shown as less Payload Capacity and by 1,000lbs at that !

 

FWIW, there is talk of a Ranger chassis cab


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users