Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dkocol
Ray-
I have read your posts and all I can say is you definatly know more about this stuff than I do!!! I find your post well grounded in fact and generally lacking bias and pointed toward the “face the ugly truth” point of view. But after I read your post, I have to admit you scared the S&*$ out of me. I found my self-asking “what kind of wimpy truck” did I purchase. Anyhow, the questions I had were around your reference to a 2003 EXCAB vs a 2005 DC. Based on other posts, I understood that the DC was redesigned with a new frame and other components. Is it fair to compare 2003 ext cab to a DC? I understand your point on the axel, but I was also under the impression that the DC was 4” wider with an “All new Frame”, so wasn’t a new axle and frame required? I read somewhere in the forum that the DC had an all new frame, is this not the case? If not where did the 4” come from? I compared many of the ½ ton trucks against each other and found that the Tundra DC compared to similar DC or ext cab models actually had a higher Payload Cap than many of the competitors (Toyota= 1630lbs, Ford F150=1530lbs, Nissan Titan=1530lbs, Chevy Silverado 1500 = 1392lbs); admittedly it did have a significantly less towing capacity (Still more thsan the Ford). What is the biggest restriction in payload capacity? I think I have seen in your other posts where you address the towing capacity issue by stating brakes, engine, and transmission are the limiting factors. Is Payload limited initially by the frame and suspension only? What goes into this rating. I have read post stating it had to do with the belt driven OHC engine design, where the competitors have stuck with a old style push rod design, any facts on that?
My thought is that you could probably find a truck that never hauled much of anything with a broken frame, if abused you could break a Sherman tank if you set your mind to it.
I recognize that the best option for most all TCs is a ¾ ton truck. In my case, I will be lucky to get 3 months out of the year using the camper on weekends. With this in mind I found the Tundra the best truck to meet the needs of the other 9 months.
My apologies on all of the questions, and appreciate all of the info and feed back.
DK
|
So many questions.
Not sure I can answer all of them but I'll try. First, "Payload Capacity" is simply the difference between "empty" or "curb" weight and the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)...on a DC the GVWR is 6600 lbs (400 more than an Access Cab) and the curb weight is 4970 lbs (200 more than an Access Cab). A lower "payload capacity" sometimes means the empty truck is heavier (greater empty or curb weight), sometimes it means the truck isn't as strong (lower GVWR). Furthermore, since payload capacity is the difference between GVWR and empty weight, it also includes all load you put in the cab (particularly passengers) and not just the load you put in the bed (like a camper).
I'm not sure where you got payload capacities for some of the vehicles you listed...I found that a standard Silverado 1500 (not the HD model) has payload capacities that range from a low of 1200 lbs to a high of 2040 lbs...and GVWRs that range from 6100 to 7000 lbs...depending on what combination of cab, box, and drivetrain was chosen. So, while it's true that the Tundra has a better payload than some versions of the half-ton domestic competition, there are other versions of the competition that have much better payload.
As for the "all new frame" on the DC (compared to the AC)...yes, it's a larger frame but not necessarily a much stronger frame. It's still a C-section frame (not boxed) for one thing. The indicator I watch is how much difference is there in the GVWR versus the curb or empty weight of the two trucks. The DC has a 400 lb higher GVWR but also at least a 200 lb higher official curb weight. Perhaps Toyota did increase the frame strength on the DC but the increase was mighty small if they did. And the additional wheelbase definitely puts more demand on the frame. I'm not particularly impressed and would suggest that you not assume the growth to a "full size" truck was matched by a big growth in frame strength. Same thing with the axle...sure it's wider but does that mean it's heavier duty. I kinda think not since the differential (at least on the '04 DC) is the same 4.10 unit they used on the Tacomas.
Payload capacity is the composite of many factors, chiefly frame, suspension,
and axle. But drivetrain and torque figure in as well...manufacturers often increase the GVWR when they increase the engine power and or axle ratios. Futhermore, the smart manufacturers (particularly Toyota) carefully match the strength (read cost) of these components...it's not cost effective to spend the money to design/build a heavy duty frame and then use a light duty axle.
Towing capacity is a function of frame, suspension, axle, differentials, rear axle, rear suspension, engine, transmission, brakes...basically everything. And towing capacity, in a similar manner to payload capacity, is nothing more than the difference between the GCWR (gross combined weight rating) and curb weight. Sure, rear wheel torque is a big factor (a function of engine/transmission/differential) but like payload, the GCWR is really the sum of all the parts...and frame/rear axle/suspension strength are also very important parts.
IMHO, it's extremely important to note that
the Double Cab and Access Cab Tundras have exactly the same GCWR....11,800 lbs. If the DC were substantially stronger (frame/axle/suspension) than the AC, I would have expected to have seen the same 400 lb increase in GCWR between the two models that exists for the GVWR. But since the GCWR of the DC is
not higher than the AC...even though the truck is larger and heavier...I have a strong suspicion that the increase in the DC's GVWR was driven more by marketing needs ("we
can't have a lower published payload on the bigger truck!") than by a true increase in truck strength.
As for differences in towing related to engine design, I don't think that the torque component of towing capacity is a function of engine type
per se...it's really a matter of the shape of the engine's torque curve and Toyota has tuned the 4.7 to produce a torque curve that works well for towing.
Is the Tundra DC "wimpy"? No, but the GVWR, GCWR, and GAWR (Gross Axle Weight Rating)-rear numbers ....and facts like the common differential...strongly suggest to me that the DC is nothing more than a
slightly upsized AC and not a true full-sized truck with an "all new" frame and axle. Hopefully the forthcoming redesigned Tundras ('06? '07?) will be truly "full sized" with a genuinely heavy duty frame, suspension, and axle.
In the meantime, I would suggest that DC owners pay pretty close attention to the GVWR and GAWR numbers and not try to overload their trucks beyond the relatively low weight ratings that the Toyota engineers have specified. Because I feel strongly that the DC is one vehicle where Toyota was
not being overly conservative.
And if you are going to regularly stress with the truck with a camper, then you'd be very, very wise to load the truck with camper, cargo, and people just as you would for a camping trip and then make your first stop a set of truck scales. If the truck's total weight is less than the GVWR (6600 lbs)
and the weight on the rear axle is less than the GAWR (3970 lbs), then you are within the specs and should not have any problems. But if your weights exceed either of these ratings by more than a couple of hundred pounds, then you are definitely overloaded and do have much to worry about. Bottom line: get the truck weighed ASAP when it's loaded with a realistic load.