Jump to content


Photo

Truck Payload Exceedance


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#11 PackRat

PackRat

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 680 posts
  • LocationNovato, CA

Posted 29 October 2018 - 05:44 PM

Forget the 4x4 part....

 

There are TWO basic concerns at play here.

1) GVWR which means truck, contents, fuel, passengers...the whole enchilada...are you OVER that limit?

 

2) More to the point here, what is maximum the REAR axle is rated for and when you weighed everything in #1 above and got the GVWR and the front and rear axle weights separately....what was the REAR axle weight?

 

Now....the $64,000 Question is: Are you running with excess weight on the REAR axle and how much?

 

If not then everything is cool...if you are, then by how much is the gamble you take in being able to STOP in an emergency and if the truck will survive a fish-tailing experience from a semi-truck going the other way or you blowing a tire on the rear at freeway speed. Beefing up a suspension is a false sense of security in my book...others will defend the practice when simply buying MORE truck ( a 3/4 ton or 1 ton) would take them OUT of the "red zone" and into the green zone unless you are carrying boulders or something in your camper!

 

Hey, its up to you though to decide if you have "enough truck" for your fully loaded camper/truck no matter what camper or truck combination you want to put together.


  • 0

1988 Ford F-250 HD Lariat 4x4 8 Ft. bed

1976 Alaskan 8 Ft. CO camper


#12 Lunch

Lunch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 29 October 2018 - 07:05 PM

Hey Everyone,

 

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I know there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of over-weighted trucks that have 1xx,xxx miles with little or no incident. That is great and I hope you continue to have safe, incident-free travels. I'm just a little more risk averse. I am in a good position of not having truck or camper, so I can be cautious. It's like I wouldn't knowingly get on an over-loaded elevator b/c it's not a big deal to just wait until the next one.

 

I know I over-simplified the weight issue on my original post. There are many other factors that have been pointed out (like tire load rating, necessary HP/torque, the GVWR weak link, stopping distance, load distribution, etc.). I'm taking all this into consideration. Other issues haven't been discussed like legality and liability (e.g., if in an accident with an overloaded truck), insurance procurement and settlements (if needed), etc. 

 

Fortunately, there are a few strong prospects in the smaller pickup sizes. The Ranger, if the payload rating is accurate, would be great but the time-frame and cost are just a bit off. There is a Chevy Colorado 4x4 long-bed work truck that seems to fit the bill. The payload is more than adequate even for my most extreme loading scenarios and it gets good gas mileage (BTW, thanks to the "Senior Member" poster that confirmed my findings). No whistle or bells - but not needed. I have a Subie for my daily driver. 

 

Would appreciate any insights others may have about this particular vehicle.

 

Thanks again. And keep posting. I think this is an important subject.


  • 0

#13 Optimistic Paranoid

Optimistic Paranoid

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 29 October 2018 - 07:21 PM

Forget the 4x4 part....

 

There are TWO basic concerns at play here.

1) GVWR which means truck, contents, fuel, passengers...the whole enchilada...are you OVER that limit?

 

2) More to the point here, what is maximum the REAR axle is rated for and when you weighed everything in #1 above and got the GVWR and the front and rear axle weights separately....what was the REAR axle weight?

 

 

Interestingly enough, on another forum I'm on, someone just reported the results of weighing his fully loaded truck and camper on a CAT scale.

 

FAWR = 4550, actual FAW = 4320

RAWR = 6780, actual RAW =  6380

GVWR = 10600, actual GVW = 10700

 

So he was 100 lbs. OVER his GVWR, but still 200 pounds UNDER his FAWR and 400 lbs. UNDER his RAWR.


  • 0

Regards

John

Rule #1 For Wandering The West: DON'T FEED THE VULTURES!

I Don't Like To Make Plans.  They Cause The Word "Premeditated" To Get Used In Court.

My Body Is A Temple!  Ancient, Falling Apart, Probably Cursed . . .


#14 ntsqd

ntsqd

    Custom User Title

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

Posted 30 October 2018 - 01:38 PM

One note about those Fords and their aluminum bodies. A good friend works heavy line at a body shop. We were over at his work a month ago or so aligning a project vehicle of mine and there was a brand new Ford F-150 short bed sitting on stands. He pointed out the small tear in the skin near the tail light. Less than an inch long and the Ins. Co. had to buy a whole new bed! It was not structural and fixable by his shop, but the Ins. Co. wouldn't consider it.

 

I expect that the Ins. for these trucks will soon cost more than a steel bodied comparable truck if it doesn't already.


  • 0
Thom

Where does that road go?

#15 kmcintyre

kmcintyre

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,379 posts
  • LocationBoise, ID

Posted 30 October 2018 - 02:29 PM

I think in many ways, the bed is the weakest link.  With that in mind, I put 4"x4" plates on top and bottom of my bed when I mounted my FWC.  It has to help distribute the stress more, but by how much I have no idea.  It's certainly better than a nut/washer combo. though.


  • 0

Boise, ID

2022 Chevy 3500 HD

2023 FWC Flatbed Hawk


#16 Lunch

Lunch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 30 October 2018 - 05:36 PM

First of all, my apologies smlobx for referring to him as "senior member". I can't believe I didn't even see people's monikers. I was looking below the pics and completely missed them. 

 

Anyway, more weight talk...

 

I am now trying to negotiate a tire swap in the purchase. The stock tires have ample load rating but the load index is SL -- 4 ply equivalent. I want more tire integrity. This is more a tire durability/reliability issue for off-road travel than a weight issue.However, a bigger footprint = decreased pressure, which may improve handling (at the expense of noise and fuel economy - no doubt).

 

I'll probably also add Firestone or Air Lift (which is better?) air bags. Again, strictly a performance issue, not weight. Since I don't plan on changing the bag pressure much, I was thinking of foregoing the remote. I have to have a compressor onboard for tire adjustments

anyway. Or, can you tap into the air bag compressor and use it for tires too? This is probably addressed elsewhere in another forum, if so, please point me in the right direction.

 

Thanks. 


  • 0

#17 smlobx

smlobx

    Lost again

  • Members
  • 1,529 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 30 October 2018 - 07:45 PM

First of all, my apologies smlobx for referring to him as "senior member". I can't believe I didn't even see people's monikers.....
Thanks.


Around here being a "Senior Member" could be considered a badge of honor!
No problem from me....
  • 0

Eddie
KO4CPL

 

Travel light. Travel far. Travel safe.


#18 jimjxsn

jimjxsn

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 598 posts
  • LocationRoxborough Park or Buena Vista CO

Posted 31 October 2018 - 12:22 AM

Lunch,
I have Firestone air bags on my tundra and add air to them with a small bicycle pump, it takes that little. With the tundra, I need very little pressure.

You definitely want load range E tires. And with my light camper, I don't really need to air them up at all.

My 2 cents...
  • 0

~Jim
2000 Tundra AC- 2000 FWC Ranger

2017 Tundra DC - 2017 ATC Panther


#19 rruff

rruff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationRuidoso, NM

Posted 03 November 2018 - 05:09 PM


Now....the $64,000 Question is: Are you running with excess weight on the REAR axle and how much?

 

If not then everything is cool...if you are, then by how much is the gamble you take in being able to STOP in an emergency and if the truck will survive a fish-tailing experience from a semi-truck going the other way or you blowing a tire on the rear at freeway speed. Beefing up a suspension is a false sense of security in my book.

 

I agree that the axle rating is a good thing to look at... but your theory that poor braking and fish-tailing will be the result if its exceeded, doesn't follow from physics or common sense. Those are primarily controlled by the brakes, suspension, and tires. And most of your braking force comes from the front, not the rear. And you'd have to go >2x GVWR before your braking got as bad as a lot of bug trucks and RVs on the road.

 

A few other things to note...

 

GVWR is a warranty rating not a safety rating. If your truck with the 10 year bumper to bumper warranty needs new axle bearings, then you may be denied if they suspect you overloaded your truck.

 

GVWR is based on the soft tires and suspension that come stock on 1/2 ton trucks.

 

My '86 Toyota truck has the same payload rating as my Tundra. I can guarantee that the Tundra is infinitely better at braking and handling with that load. It isn't close.

 

Vehicles are designed for worst case scenarios. There is a world of difference in the stress your truck experiences in different situations. They are designed to give a reasonable lifespan while loaded and bombing down crappy washboard, rocky, rutted roads, and occasionally slamming into a ditch or big rock... because enough people who buy trucks drive that way. If you don't drive that way, no reason to expect your truck will break if it's 50lbs over GVWR.

 

Bottom line is: just use some common sense. Don't exceed GVWR by a stupid amount. Upgrade suspension and tires. Drive like you are in a heavy, high-CG vehicle. Get to know what your limitations are regarding braking and handling, and behave accordingly.


  • 1

#20 PackRat

PackRat

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 680 posts
  • LocationNovato, CA

Posted 09 November 2018 - 06:58 PM

I don't know what pick up truck VIN tags you are looking at, but I looked at my 85 F-150 VIN tag for all kinds of information on weight ratings and lo and behold, it also told me I needed P235/75R XL tires inflated for 35 front/41 rear.

 

However, my 88 F-25 vin tag calls for LT235/85R 16E tires...so I have to disagree with you when you say the GVWR is based on soft tires and stock suspension on a 1/2 ton truck. The VIN tag is telling you explicitly that you need tires CAPABLE of carrying the weight the truck is designed to handle...and that is all a part of the equation.

 

I do agree that a being a little over the weight rating of the rear axle isn't a deal killer...as long as you are still under the GVWR.

 

The problem for those smaller trucks and/or those with a short bed on them is you REALLY put the center of gravity and the heavier part of a non-C/O camper BACK if its hanging off the tailgate.

 

We can all decide what truck, what size truck, what camper, what size/style camper...but staying CLOSE to the mfgers VIN tag weight restrictions is SMART and SAFER than just jacking up the bed of the truck with the camper on it off the frame.

 

Reminds me of the phrase...."Never send a boy to do a man's job"....and not enough truck is just that.

 

Just sayin'....


  • 0

1988 Ford F-250 HD Lariat 4x4 8 Ft. bed

1976 Alaskan 8 Ft. CO camper





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users