Toyota Tundra Forums banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
Payload is determined by subtracting your trucks weight from the GVWR. Our trucks have a GVWR of (I had to look these numbers up for you):

GVWR: 7100
Curb: -5520
Payload:1520

Hopefully that will help you out a bit.

Basically, 1/2 tons will have like a 5/6 lug pattern and 3/4-1tons will have about 7/8 lugs plus bigger everything else, like control arms, wider track, bigger frame, bigger ring and pinion, etc. etc.

The thing that's really holding our trucks back from being a 3/4 ton are the puny (no offense guys, it does flex quite a bit and while it's good for returning back to it's original shape a 3/4 ton or a 1 ton is EASILY a lot beefier:dry:), and of course the GVWR. It's simply not high enough.

-rockstate
puny what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
Someone mentioned eariler about the Dodge 2500 and 3500 being identical except the springs. If that's true, adn you apply the same logic, can you imagine heavier springs on the Tundra? Toyota may be able to make a progressive leaf stack work, but (and don't flame me here - I haven't kept up on the topic lately) don't the Tundra's have a bed bounce issue bad enough already? If the frame indeed requires an update to be a 3/4 ton, then hopefully the added weight would help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
about the Dodge 2500 and 3500 being identical except the springs....If that's true, adn you apply the same logic,
That's basically true when comparing 3/4 tons with 1 tons (2500 and 3500), but the Tundra's a 1/2 ton and there's a world of difference between any 1/2 ton and any 3/4 ton from bumper to bumper when it comes to frame and suspension. The 1/2 ton frame is WAY thinner iron and a 3/4, besides thicker is generally the same from end to end, heavy C channel. A 3/4 has full floating rear axles with inner and outer rear wheel brgs lubed by the differential oil, whereas all 1/2 tons have one (comparatively speaking) puny sealed rear wheel bearing on each side. 1/2 ton front suspension is almost "automotive" in design, only a bit beefier whereas a many 3/4 tons have heavy solid front axles, independent I-beam, etc.

With that said, the Tundra is a heavily built truck for a half ton. For example, the Tundra ring and pinion is 10.5" and the Ford 3/4 ton is 10.25".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
That's basically true when comparing 3/4 tons with 1 tons (2500 and 3500), but the Tundra's a 1/2 ton and there's a world of difference between any 1/2 ton and any 3/4 ton from bumper to bumper when it comes to frame and suspension. The 1/2 ton frame is WAY thinner iron and a 3/4, besides thicker is generally the same from end to end, heavy C channel. A 3/4 has full floating rear axles with inner and outer rear wheel brgs lubed by the differential oil, whereas all 1/2 tons have one (comparatively speaking) puny sealed rear wheel bearing on each side. 1/2 ton front suspension is almost "automotive" in design, only a bit beefier whereas a many 3/4 tons have heavy solid front axles, independent I-beam, etc.

With that said, the Tundra is a heavily built truck for a half ton. For example, the Tundra ring and pinion is 10.5" and the Ford 3/4 ton is 10.25".
Very true. Nice catch on the wheel bearings :)
 

·
Don't argue with an insomniac.
Joined
·
5,568 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
That's basically true when comparing 3/4 tons with 1 tons (2500 and 3500), but the Tundra's a 1/2 ton and there's a world of difference between any 1/2 ton and any 3/4 ton from bumper to bumper when it comes to frame and suspension. The 1/2 ton frame is WAY thinner iron and a 3/4, besides thicker is generally the same from end to end, heavy C channel. A 3/4 has full floating rear axles with inner and outer rear wheel brgs lubed by the differential oil, whereas all 1/2 tons have one (comparatively speaking) puny sealed rear wheel bearing on each side. 1/2 ton front suspension is almost "automotive" in design, only a bit beefier whereas a many 3/4 tons have heavy solid front axles, independent I-beam, etc.

With that said, the Tundra is a heavily built truck for a half ton. For example, the Tundra ring and pinion is 10.5" and the Ford 3/4 ton is 10.25".
Of course this is true. . . So how come today's 1/2 ton carries more than a 3/4 ton of 20 years ago with wimpy springs, puny frames, unlubricated single wheel bearings, and P - rated passenger tires? Are we safer now or less safe?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,716 Posts
Of course this is true. . . So how come today's 1/2 ton carries more than a 3/4 ton of 20 years ago with wimpy springs, puny frames, unlubricated single wheel bearings, and P - rated passenger tires? Are we safer now or less safe?
My dad's old Sears garden tractor was only a single cylinder 18hp model. Yet, they had no problem selling a disc harrow for it. Sears would not sell me a garden tractor less than 22hp V-twin with pressure lubrication for "ground engaging implements". What's up with that? How is something all of the sudden not good enough anymore?

Seems like trucks are the same way, old specs just keep getting inflated. A old one ton is nothing compared to a current 1/2 ton.

BTW: GVWR and GCWR are not the same thing and are not interchangable. GVWR refers only to the vehicle; passengers, payload, etc
GCWR is "combined" which includes a trailer; passengers, payload, trailer weight, etc I think it is something like 16,000lbs for the Tundra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
One thing for everyone to consider is that a 1/2 ton truck, with a load capacity of 1500lbs, also has to deal with the weight of passengers and gear. Lets say you have a couple of good sized guys and some tools or whatever, which total approx. 500lbs. This leaves you with 1000lbs or 1/2 ton left in payload capacity.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
One thing for everyone to consider is that a 1/2 ton truck, with a load capacity of 1500lbs, also has to deal with the weight of passengers and gear. Lets say you have a couple of good sized guys and some tools or whatever, which total approx. 500lbs. This leaves you with 1000lbs or 1/2 ton left in payload capacity.
This is exactly why I ditched my old 2000 Tundra for the 03 Ram 2500 Hemi which I later traded in for the 05 Ram. When I had 4 BIG guys (total = 1,100lbs) in my 2000 Tundra, 500lbs of gear and 500lbs of tongue weight I would be bouncing on my bump stops all day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
One thing for everyone to consider is that a 1/2 ton truck, with a load capacity of 1500lbs, also has to deal with the weight of passengers and gear. Lets say you have a couple of good sized guys and some tools or whatever, which total approx. 500lbs. This leaves you with 1000lbs or 1/2 ton left in payload capacity.
the sad thing is that all car companies consider the average person to weigh only 150 lbs . that is what our truck curb weight is messured at .With a full tank of full and a driver weighing 150 lbs .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Frame. My bad. When I add the (...) I sometimes forget where I'm at.

The frame simply isn't big enough to be a 3/4 or a 1 ton.

Watch this video. Tell me if you can honestly see our Tundras doing this without braking something or a whole lot of bed flex. Mind you, these Super Duties have an open C in the rear too.

YouTube - Video NEW 2008 Ford SuperDuty Pickups - Mud Hole

-rockstate

I can:

YouTube - Toyota Tundra Jump And ...


I can also honestly say that my '01 F-250 flexes quite a bit more than my current Tundra.


Parked on off camber slopes, you cannot open the tailgate on the Ford.


I can see the bed twisting in relationship to the cab on the F-250 off road.


As far as the 1/2 ton 3/4 ton debate.

Like stated, the payload is simply a product of GVW - curb weight.

My Tundra has a 7200 pound GVW, the fact that it has a curb weight higher than all others except the Ford dictates the 'lower" payload.

BTW, a lot of you get caught up in MAX payload figures.

For instance, the 3,000 MAX Ford rating is for ONE particular configuration; a long bed reg. cab with 4,10's. Don't see too mant of those around.

A Ford Crew with a 7200# GVW will have a LOWER payload than teh Tundra.

GM's on average are a few hundred pounds lighter.....with the same GVW, the payload is obviously higher.


Same goes for those wonderful ratings on the T-100's etc....the GVW wasn't very high (around 6,000#'???) it's that the truck weighed next to nothing.


I also know there is gubment cutoff of 8600# concerning safety, economy etc....so that number is actually the "official" cutoff between "1/2" ton and the rest of the "ratings".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
The rating of the truck has nothing to do the the payload.... it has to do with the weight of the frame of the truck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
The ratings are from the old days when the model number, F-150, C-2500, 1500, denoted the safe bed weight capacity for a specific model. 150 & 1500 specified the 1/2 ton trucks. 250 and 2500 were for the 3/4 ton trucks. 350 and 3500 for 1 ton trucks.

Today we have larger more capable vehicles that make the old numbering system obsolete. The fact that it still exists may be due to the Big 3 wanting to maintain a product line for several decades.

The heavier a truck is rated the more likely it is to be classified commercial and taxes, road use fees, and other financial burdens will be added to the operational costs of the vehicle.

The Tundra is a 1/2 ton rated truck. We know it will do way more than that. Be happy with the lower payload rating. It keeps the costs down.
both my tundras 2008, 2018 were taxed as 3/4 ton trucks in Texas.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top